×
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

Compound Sections

Compound Sections

Compound Sections

(OP)
I am looking for information on analyzing compound sections that are not connected; simply stacked. Examples are stacked plates for load distribution or vertically stacked wide flange sections in bending. It is in the area of construction and these items are frequently used based on availability.

RE: Compound Sections

If the sections are not connected, they are not compound sections.  Just sections one above the other.  The properties would be for one section, multiplied by the number of sections.  

RE: Compound Sections

I thought hokie66 was wrong but I ran a quick FE analysis with 2 cantilever beams in contact, but not connected, with a load applied to the end of the top beam, and indeed the beams act separately for frictionless surfaces, though both bend under the load. I presume that the reason for this is that the beams cannot transmit the shear loads as one slides over the other. If on the other hand friction is present then the beams are effectively connected. For 'rough' friction they will act as one, whereas for some intermediate value you'll get an answer inbetween the two. For your worst case I'd assume you have frictionless surfaces and apply half the load to one beam.

corus

RE: Compound Sections

Of course they will act as individual member if there is no connection between the two.
You are better off having them side by side to save some headroom (in the case of W shapes anyway).  You will get the same result as long as the load is evenly distributed to both (they deflect together).

RE: Compound Sections

I'd have to agree with hokie66 that unless they are connected you cannot assume compound action.

If you are stacking wide flange sections, why not use a single deep section with a similar flange width?

RE: Compound Sections

The load is distributed by stiffness. You can add the moments of inertia together but you can't just add the section moduli.

RE: Compound Sections

This is a fundamental concept.  Why would someone run a finite element analysis to confirm this?  The only reason I can figure is that he didn't have an understanding of these fundamental concepts, in which case the FE software is in dangerous hands.

RE: Compound Sections

nutte,

it scares me too, but corus is a mech eng, so you cant expect too much from him :)

RE: Compound Sections

If the sections are different, but stacked. One can determine the force in each member by solving for deflection. If the members are stacked, they will have the same deflection. So I set up an excel file and use the solver function to determine the load applied to each, in which the deflections come out to be the same.

RE: Compound Sections

JLNJ,

There is no reason you cannot add the section moduli.  For a given bending moment, the stress with 2 sections resisting will be half the stress with 1 section.  And I agree, corus has no business using a FE program until he understands something of how beams work.  The OP was a silly question, but I guess they all deserve an answer.  

RE: Compound Sections

"There is no reason you cannot add the section moduli."
True, but only if the sections are identical.

RE: Compound Sections

I know that.  My post and the one by DWHA crossed in the mail.  I just assumed the sections were identical, which I now agree is an assumption too far.

RE: Compound Sections

(OP)
I am asking because unfortunately I have seen the calculations run a number of different ways from different engineers in the past few months. If I understand here basically generate the load to each beam from the stiffness of the two beams. If both sections are the same each would take 1/2 of the load. If sections have a different moment of inertia it would be based on this ratio. Still consider the neutral axis in bending about each invidual section. How would you consider shear?

RE: Compound Sections

The shear is generated by the loading, so must be taken in the same ratio as the moments of inertia also.

RE: Compound Sections

Each beam is essentially independent, so each beam will cary its own vertical shear. upper beam may spread the load for the lower beam, so it may be more unifomly loaded. Also, I would think the lower beam would carry slightly more load than the upper beam. The lower beam is fre to deflect, but would inhibit the deflection of the upper beam, as both can not deflect to the same shape, thus slightly more load would be carried by the lower beam. I think it is a minor difference and the only practical use is to win a beer bet at a stuructures conference.

RE: Compound Sections

So far the discussion has followed ASD design.  I'm new to LRFD and a little foggy on the concepts, so please help me out with this.  If, at the strength limit, two different size beams would have a combined strength Zx1+Zx2, then, at the limit, assuming LTB does not come into play, does each beam carry a load proportional to the Zs, instead of the Is?

RE: Compound Sections

Possibly (depending on the sections chosen), but just distribute according to Ix.  You can't go wrong there.
This has nothing to do with ASD vs. LRFD, this is a fundamental engineering mechanics concept.  The method by which we design for it has nothing to do with it.

RE: Compound Sections

But, at the limit, things no longer behave elastically.  Why distribute the load according to the elastic stiffness?

RE: Compound Sections

DWHA's deflection distribution will dictate how the beams distribute the load. The same way we determine a internal reaction of a 3 bearing point indeterminite beam. That's why you base it on the sections stiffness and not platic or section modulus.

RE: Compound Sections

This is similar to distributing loads to shearwalls under seismic loads.  We don't expect a structure to behave elastically during a design earthquake, but we distribute the loading based on elastic stiffness (assuming a rigid deaphragm, or course).  
If you have 2 simply supported beams on top of each other (not connected) and apply a point load at midspan they will deflect together.  I suppose you could do an analysis to see which one will cause firt yield (then first plastic hinge) and do a sort of plastic analysis based on the redundancy, but that really seems unwarrented.
Either way, I would not recommend just distributing based on Z.

RE: Compound Sections

Well a lot of flak here!

In fact I'm a mathematician and not a mechanical engineer and so tend to think a tad mroe about problems than perhaps the simple engineer with his simple text book.
All of you are wrong of course because you forgot to consider friction between the two sections. In a perfect frictionless world then you'd be right and the two sections would slide across each other and you'd consider the two sections separately. In the real world, folks, there is friction and as such the true answer will lie between the (impossible) case of frictionless surfaces and (the more likely) case of rough surfaces when sliding will be prohibited and the two sections will act as one. A finite element model, that included contact between sliding surfaces, proved that theory for me. If anyone can do the same caluclation by hand then I'll throw awyay my pc.

As I said previously, the worst case would be to consider frictionless surfaces so that would be used in any design calculation. As engineers though you'd probably multiply the answer by two, just to be safe.

corus

RE: Compound Sections

Corus, Which type of friction does your model use?  After the initial movement between the two sections, does any residual friction exist when both have deflected?

RE: Compound Sections

Corus, from a theoretical standpoint, you're right.  There's friction, so there will be some transfer between the two members.

From a practical standpoint, an engineer would assume no friction and distribute the forces accordingly.

That is the difference between scientists and engineers.  The more exact solution in this case would likely yield negligible benefits.  And when you add your factor of safety to it, which you seem to have a problem with, the benefit is reduced even more.

RE: Compound Sections

corus-

please, don't give our code writers any ideas...

RE: Compound Sections

I am not so sure that once it begins to slide that friction isn't overcome completely (or pretty close to it).  Either way, it is certainly not anything that can be counted on with ANY reasonable degree of accuracy.  

Corus-
Mathematician or not, the idea that this surprised you gives you no room to talk about us "simple engineers".  Additionally, if you have so much mental superiority to us, why are you on this forum?
Go start your own math forum.

RE: Compound Sections

Corus-
I like how you say: "the simple engineer with his simple text book" because in my opinoin, mathematicians are a lot more text book oriented than engineers. We have to make things work in the real world. Everything that we do on paper, in the end goes out and is built in the real world.

RE: Compound Sections

corus-
Additionally, even in the case of the roughest surfaces, you would need a coefficient of friction that is completely unachievable to get full composite action.

RE: Compound Sections

Unless Im missing something here, if the sections are not connected there is no horizontal  shear transfer so that the sections cannot be designed as compound sections.  Each section would take an equal propertion of the load.

RE: Compound Sections

civeng80-
I agree, but corus insisted on trying to make a point.

RE: Compound Sections

StructuralEIT,
I never said they would act as a full composite section, nor do I say they act separately, but in the real world they would act somewhere inbetween due to the friction. If you're looking at structures and their behaviour then it's important to take into account all the forces. This is quite often not the case as the simple solution is to ignore these complications and just do a simple hand calculation. Unfortunately ignoring such factors can have implications that can lead to failure elsewhere, and that's why using even a simple FE model can help your understanding of the fundamental concepts. Don't knock it.  

corus

RE: Compound Sections

corus-
I don't have the time or energy to argue with you about this, but you will not find an engineer anywhere that would count on friction causing composite action in a case where the sections are mechanically connected except for a vibration check and possibly a couple other unique circumstances.  It would certainly not ever happen in a strength limit check.  

RE: Compound Sections

Corus-
On second thought, just for the heck of it....... please answer the following questions very specifically, please do not dance around them with vague, general answers.

1. What coefficient of (static) friction did you use?

2. Where did you arrive at this value?

3. Once the members began to slide, how much residual friction remained once the sliding stopped?

4. Did this take into account the level of acceleration of slip between the members once the members started to slide and the amount of slip due to it?

5. What coefficient of (sliding) friction did you use for that calculation?

6. Where did you arrive at this value?

7. After all of your convoluted assumptions (your assumptions of the coefficients are just as much of an assumption as us taking it as zero - whether you prefer to admit it to yourself or not.  After all, there is no way you can no with any certainty what they (without testing, which you can't do for every member) are and if you choose to be conservative then what the heck is the point of not using zero?), did your FE model arrive at an answer that was more than  about 2% - 3% different than neglecting friction completely?

Can you please give me an example of how ignoring friction between "partially composite" (your term, not mine) members can cause failure elsewhere?
Also, I certainly don't need an FE model to help my understanding of how friction affects the interaction of two beams that are not otherwise connected. If you do, then you have issues with the fundamental concepts, not me.

RE: Compound Sections

corus-
One more thing.... how did you account for the varying normal force (and resulting varying frictional force) along the length of the beam?  Certainly a simply supported beam (2 stacked on top of each other) with a point load at midspan would not have a uniform normal force between them.  
If you assume a uniform loading (such that you may be able to count on a uniform frictional force), then you have a varying shear flow, not the max shear flow that we assume at the end of the beam.  
There are a million and one things that CAN be taken into account.  That doesn't mean that all of them SHOULD be.  Engineering allows us to make slightly conservative assumptions in the interest of time when the "true" solution would take a ridiculous amount of time and still employ A LOT of assumptions.  If you are going to be making assumptions, why not err on the side of caution?
I doubt someone who was on a floor that collapsed would appreciate the excuse, "Well..... we counted on some friction that may not have been there to save the owner $100 in steel weight".
Come through the door that little door on the right labeled, "to the real world".

RE: Compound Sections

This debate is not so much if friction exists but rather if one should take friction into account when designing these type of compound sections.  Typically, engineers make simplifying assumptions.  Ignoring friction in this case would be one.  The fact that it is ignored in the analysis does not mean it is not present, just that it would not be cost effective to include it in the analysis.  We like to make simplifying assumptions when the result will be conservative, and in this case it would be as any friction would tend to make the structure stronger.

RE: Compound Sections

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud, after a while, one will figure out that the pig enjoys it.

With that being said. I think that we have to come to a generally agree and to include friction for the design of a compound section is not a common practice, and should not be included in 99.9% of cases. I hope that we have answered the question for jchc and this may be a good time to end this discussion.

Oh ya, Structural EIT, good quote “Mathematician or not, the idea that this surprised you gives you no room to talk about us "simple engineers".  Additionally, if you have so much mental superiority to us, why are you on this forum?
Go start your own math forum.”

RE: Compound Sections

OK, let's all calm down here a bit eh?  This is Eng-Tips, not some political blog commentary page.

corus, you said:  

Quote:

For your worst case I'd assume you have frictionless surfaces and apply half the load to one beam.

Which is what StructuralEIT is advocating.  I agree with this statement and for practical structural design, you simply don't count on the friction because StructuralEIT is correct that you cannot legitimately account for it quantatively.

From theory - yes, it is possible to consider friction.

From pragmatic practice - dumb to do so because if you did your hand would be shaking so much when you went to sign and seal it that you couldn't sign -  and you'd risk peeing your pants.



RE: Compound Sections

Calm down certain people.
Its christmas eve, and i'm sure everybody has better and more enjoyable things to do than argue in this manner.
Debate is one thing, but we all need to keep it polite and respectfull.
For my pennys worth, structuralEIT is correct. But Corus is also correct under his own assumptions, the arguing is about the validity of the assumptions.
I dont know Corus, but his answers have always been decent, and he knows his FE stuff, he has answered 383 in Abaqus and 351 posts in FE. So its an insult to him to even question his technical FE ability, especially from somebody who has never posted a reply in a FE forum :)
Were all professionals here so lets keep it that way.

RE: Compound Sections

corus

When entering a thread, perhaps an opening other than:

Quote (corus):

In fact I'm a mathematician and not a mechanical engineer and so tend to think a tad mroe about problems than perhaps the simple engineer with his simple text book.
All of you are wrong of course...
Such a post can produce friction where there otherwise isn't any.

RE: Compound Sections

One further comment for the record !

Ive got quite a few textbooks on solid mechanics and strength of materials including the work of the great Stephen Timoshenko, as I'm sure my esteemed colleagues have in their libraries.  In my opinion they are not simple textbooks, but they are practical and given the (reasonable) assumptions made do give quite resonable answers.  Mathematically more precise models of course may be built e.g. by our colleague Corus, I for one as an engineer have complete faith in these textbooks and I  still  proudly refer to them from my bookshelf.

A Merry Christmas to all !

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