×
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

Composite Beam Action?

Composite Beam Action?

Composite Beam Action?

(OP)
I'm looking for feedback on the analysis/common practices for reinforcing an existing W-flange beam.  I' reviewing an existing W-flange beam supporting some mechanical equipment.  The owner wants to add equipment to the beam doubling the load on the existing beam and over stressing the beam.  I would like to reinforce the beam with a WT section welded to the bottom flange of the existing W-flange beam.  The existing load cannot be removed during the installation of the WT.  My question is this: Do I treat the design of the built-up section similar to a composite steel/concrete section (simplified: Moment_existing/Section_existing + Moment_additional/Section_built-up)?

RE: Composite Beam Action?

Thats the way I handle these situations. My thought is the existing stress is already present in the existing member, and the new stresses are additive to that existing stress.

The sum of the new stress plus the old stress must be below allowable. ( Here I go still thinking in ASD!!)

For full disclosure, this is a point of disbute in our office.

Is there anyway to shore the beam up from below to relieve the existing stress on the beam while the new WT section is added? Then the built up section would be effective (in my mind) for the whole load when the shoring is removed.

JMHO.

RE: Composite Beam Action?

I've done it that way in the past for situations like that. The problem I've always had was adding enough of a WT to help, but not more steel that would make the composite beam drop below 25% thus negating any composite effect from the concrete that I could design with.

Some other thoughts:

Is there anyway you can cut the tributary area of the beams to lessen the load instead of installing a large WT section. Also, can you add studs to this beam? Maybe do some studs with a smaller WT section.

Just some ideas.

Is it failing in bending and shear?

RC
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    Edmund Burke

 

RE: Composite Beam Action?

Can you sister the existing beam??  Or add columns

RE: Composite Beam Action?

(OP)
To follow up with some of the questions: The existing beam is part of a frame built on top of a c.i.p. concrete roof.  The 4 corners of the frame sit on stub columns centered on the existing concrete columns (the existing roof as not able to carry the mechanical unit and snow drifting).  Shoring would be difficult, in my opinion.  The beam is failing in bending only, shear and deflection are o.k.   

RE: Composite Beam Action?

Instead of WT at the bottom, can you add two channels, or angles to the web? The way the NA will not shifting too much.

RE: Composite Beam Action?

A stub column similar to the corners at midspan is my suggestion.  Simpler than welding continuously to beam.

RE: Composite Beam Action?

Analysing the strengthened section as suggested is generally acceptable. It may be conservative if designing for the full plastic moment, but that may not make much difference anyway.

There are a large number of ways to strengthen such a frame. Anything from changing fixity condtions at the ends of the beam to adding kickers to kingposting the beam may work depending on the actual geometry and loads, but if you have determined that welding a WT to the bottom flange is the best bang for your buck then good luck with it.

kslee
I don't see the benifit of adding to the sides of the web. You would need to add far more steel by weight to get the same increase in bending strength and require a much longer length of field welding.

RE: Composite Beam Action?

A tee is very hard to weld on site as it cannot be easily clamped to the existing beam and has a tendency to twist/warp.

I have used a small but heavy W shape to do the same job.

RE: Composite Beam Action?

If you have the clearance under the beam, how about a king post truss?  Less material - not too many man hours.  Look at it with only a an additional 12 or 16" of depth as a shallow truss an you can be amazed at the additional flexural strength.  Not to mention the boost in deflection capacity.  This doesn't help your shear capacity, but hey - you can't solve that with a T on the bottom anyway.

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