×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Bending Coefficient, Cb, for Allowable Stress Design

Bending Coefficient, Cb, for Allowable Stress Design

Bending Coefficient, Cb, for Allowable Stress Design

(OP)
Say I want to really get nit-picky and use true Cb for a beam instead of using the standard conservative Cb=1.0.  

When entering the beam curve charts, is it correct to enter using the value M/Cb instead of "Allowable Moment", or should I instead enter using (unbraced length)/Cb for hyperbolic portions of a curve (or Lb/(square root of Cb) for parabolic portions) instead of "Unbraced Length"?

I have always entered with M/Cb (similar to LRFD's Mu/Cb) and the unbraced length.  It is only recently where I have seen the Cb applied to the unbraced length itself.

Obviously, this question applies to ASD cases where Lb>Lu.

Thanks for any insight you can offer.

RE: Bending Coefficient, Cb, for Allowable Stress Design

The use of the two approaches compared with the closed form formulation of the check should confirm or deny the validity.

RE: Bending Coefficient, Cb, for Allowable Stress Design

I don't believe that you can simply adjust your unbraced length or your moment capacity with Cb and enter the charts.  If you look at the equations F1-6, F1-7, and F1-8 you will see the following:

The break points for the charts depend upon the square root of Cb.

The allowable stress in F1-6 depends upon Cb used in a denominator added to 2/3 and therefore is not a direct linear relationship.

The applicable allowable stress in some cases is the larger of F1-7 and F1-8, therefore a direct adjustment linearly by Cb is not appropriate.

What you must do is use the equations and skip the charts.  They were developed only for Cb = 1.0.

RE: Bending Coefficient, Cb, for Allowable Stress Design

Just as the triple lux may not win you the gold, this method will not necessarily provide you with the correct section.

This method is a good approximation, however the shape should still be checked per the applicable formulas from AISC chapter F.

RE: Bending Coefficient, Cb, for Allowable Stress Design

The beam charts you speak of ARE NOT limited to use with Cb=1.0.  You CAN enter using Lb/Cb (in place of Cb) for hyperbolic curve portions or Lb/(Cb^(1/2)) for parabolic portions of the curve.  Obviously, once your size is selected (preliminarily from the charts), do your final check based on the equations F1-6 through F1-8.

Granted, Cb=1.0 is conservative and 99.9 percent of the time is what is used for expediency in design, but using real Cb is certainly not a prohibitive approach.  Using the charts with the "adjusted Cb's" mentioned above is a lot quicker than trial and error checks of beams from the Sx tables with Lb>Lu and real Cb.  The charts are the best starting point when Lb>Lu, whether Cb=1.0 or Cb>1.0.

Steel Structures: Design and Behavior", 4th edition, by Salmon and Johnson clearly addresses this topic. (Page 527 for those of you playing along at home.)

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources