×
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

Designing with channels

Designing with channels

Designing with channels

(OP)
I am designing a cantilevered channel and I am looking for a methodology to determine the allowable bending stress in the channel.  

ASD chapter F (page 5-45) says this chapter deals with "singly or doubly symmetric beams loaded in the plane of symmetry.  It also applies to channels loaded in a plane passing through the shear center.."  My situation does not have the load passing through the shear center, so I will have some torsion.  I have check the torsional stresses in the channel (which are ok).    

I am not sure what to compare the bending stress to because I have an unbraced length equal to 6' and I am not sure how to calculate Lc to compare my unbrace length to.  Is it as simple as 0.6Fy?

RE: Designing with channels

haynewp is right.

Bottom of Page 5-46:
For channels bent about their major axis, the allowble compressive stress is determined from Equation (F1-8).

Also, +1 on the 2005 Spec., LOL.  Deal with it for a while and the green book seems devoid of logic.

RE: Designing with channels

(OP)
Thanks, i must of read right past it.  I guess you look for something too long, its best to put it away and pick it up at another time.

RE: Designing with channels

CPBIV,
The unbraced length for lateral torsional buckling may not be 6' for cantilever case. It all depends on support condition at root and tip of cantilever.


RE: Designing with channels

Also, please note that for the cantilever case it is more important to brace the top (tension) flange.

RE: Designing with channels

271828: I disagree that the green book is devoid of logic.  Look at Steel Structures by Salmon and Johnson.  The green book is what you get when conservative and simplifying assumptions are made to the theoreticaly "precise" equations.

RE: Designing with channels

bjb, I've gone through all the derivations in S&J, etc., and understand where the simplifications come from, etc.

Here's the easiest example showing why I think the newer formulation is more logical.  This is just one engineer's opinion.

Say you're trying to check a compact, unbraced, W-shape for strong-axis flexure.

With the 2005 Spec., you would:

1. See how your Lb compares to Lp and Lr.
2. If Lb<=Lp, then phiMn=phi*Fy*Zx
3. If Lb is between Lp & Lr, you have the inelastic buckling straight line equation for phiMn.
4. If Lb > Lr, then you have the elastic buckling equation for phiMn.

An engineer immediately knows what type of failure he's investigating, whether it's yielding, inelastic buckling, or elastic buckling.  He can tell from looking at those equations exactly where they came from, where FS are applied, etc.  Anybody can immediately understand what Fcr, Lp, and Lr represent.

With the 1989 Spec., you would:
1. See how your Lb compares to Lc.
2. If Lb<=Lc then Fb=0.66Fy
3. If Lb exceeds Lc, then we completely change slenderness parameters to L/rt.  Compare it to the two limits at the top of Page 5-47.
4. If L/rt is less than sqrt(102...), then 0.6Fy applies, but one has to work at it to see exactly why.
5. If L/rt is between the limits, then use F1-6 (inelastic buckling)
6. If L/rt exceeds the higher limit, then use F1-7 (elastic buckling)
7. BUT WAIT, F1-8 can apply whether or not we have inelastic or elastic buckling!  Calc that and compare to Fb obtained so far.  Use the larger.

It's impossible to see where the FS are applied in most of the equations.  It is TOTALLY impossible to look at those equations see where they came from--pure torsion, warping torsion, etc.  Going from .6 to .66 is a covert way to go from S to Z.  The ASD formulation completely masks the underlying mechanics, decreasing physical understanding.  

Just try drawing a flowchart of the two methods.  The 2005 one is a straight line.  The 89 one looks like spaghetti!

The ASD formulation looks the least bad when we consider an easy example like this.  One has to really start mis-applying equations to handle more complicated cases.  The 2005 Spec. has special sections for many of these.

Anyway...that's just how I see it.  I've designed bldgs both ways and I've never understood why anybody would prefer the 89 stuff.

RE: Designing with channels

271828

To each his own I guess.  I too have used both in design, but still find the 89 ASD easier to use, probably because I'm more familiar with it. The 89 ASD is a design manual to be used by qualified engineers, it is not a text book.  Therefore, the fact that the safety factors and underlying mechanics are hidden is not an issue, in my opinion.  

It's not my intent to debate the merrits of one spec versus another, nor am I saying that I don't like the new black book.  I just disagree that the green book is devoid of logic.  To compare the two isn't really fair, the green book is basically the 60's spec with a few tweaks, written for engineers whose primary calculating tool was a slide rule.  I've never used a slide rule, but I imagine trying to calculate equation F2-6 of the black book would not be pleasant.

RE: Designing with channels

bjb, ok "devoid of logic" is a bit too harsh, LOL.  

I'd argue for "less logical," but I suppose that's all I could really do.

Have a good evening!

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