Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
(OP)
I was looking for opinions regarding the support conditions for an underhung crane beam. Simply supported single span vs. continuous 2 span. (20 ft vs. 40 ft)
This would be with respect to alignment issues and unbraced length.
Thanks
This would be with respect to alignment issues and unbraced length.
Thanks






RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
Alten
RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
There was an AISC article that recommended the simply supported condition without discussion regarding the recommendation.
Alignment is also a concern; although in either case I believe the CMAA guidelines are more strict.
RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
This may more than offset any savings.
RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
For those of us not living in the US could you post the salient points of the discussion?
Thanks
RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
a. Easier to design.
b. Unaffected by differential settlements.
c. More easily replaced if damaged.
d. More easily reinforced.
Here's the advantages of continuous beams:
a. Reduced deflections.
b. Reduced end rotations and movements
c. Lighter shapes.
But it also includes the provision that fatigue may be much more significant with continuous steel runway beams in that they have more "parts" that are in tension.
RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam
From what I've seen simple spans are certainly a lot more common.
RE: Simply Supported vs. 2 Span Continuous Beam for Crane Beam