×
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

A frame question

A frame question

A frame question

(OP)
See the attached diagram.  A larger beam is supported by two smaller columns, which in turn are pinned at the bases.  When the larger beam is loaded, you get a certain amount of end rotation which in turn induces moments in the columns.  The problems I'm running into are that when the height H is reduced, it actually increases the moment in the columns due to their increased stiffness.  And trying to upsize the columns to the required strength just increases the moment.

The pinned connections are actually anchor points to a foundation.  If one of those anchor points can slide about 1/16 of an inch, it eliminates the moment in the columns.  Is it an acceptable design solution to assume that this happens?  For that matter, if the the columns yield in bending, it shouldn't hurt anything.  Any comments or suggestions here?

RE: A frame question

Are you checking the moment in the column at the bottom of the beam or at the beam center? It should be at the bottom.

RE: A frame question

As you are connecting the beam to the column flanges, design the column for the vertical load combined with the moment from the connection.  This will not change with the deflection of the beam, but the eccentricity will increase slightly with column deflection.

RE: A frame question

Model the ends of the beam as simple,(pinned), connections.  Use shear tabs to the web of the beam sufficient for the shear.  Takes the column out of the flexure region on the column interaction diagram.

RE: A frame question

(OP)
csd72- I was checking moment at the beam center; that will help some to check at the bottom of the beam.

hokie66- I think what you're saying is what I was already doing.

civilperson- I was trying to avoid having to brace for lateral loads which is why the connections weren't already pinned.
 

RE: A frame question

(OP)
Looking at it some more, I think checking the moment at the bottom of the beam instead of the center will be enough to make things work out.  Thanks for the input.

RE: A frame question

Your columns must have an interaction diagram with greater strength than the bending and axial loading imposed.  The location vertically in the beam means nothing.  Extreme fiber at the top and the bottom are where yield will occur.

RE: A frame question

civilperson
For a moment connection the actual maximum moment in the column is located at the beam bottom flange, which is less than that by modelling at the member centrelines.

RE: A frame question

Just as a matter of interest why is the design moment at the bottom of the beam rather than at centreline of the beam?

RE: A frame question

I have the same question as civeng.

I have always done it to centerline.

RE: A frame question

For a rigid connection the column is stiffened by the beam above the level of the bottom flange and therefore will not fail in flexure there. Critical flexure will then occur at bottom flange level, if it is a typical frame with maximum moment at the column-beam connection.

RE: A frame question

Makes sense, thanks apsix !

RE: A frame question

This also actually works for a bolted connection as well.

The reasonining is a little different though.

When you design the connection you treat the beam as if there is a horizontal force at each flange giving a moment couple. The coonection formulii used in portal knee connection design are based roughly on this truss analogy.

now if you apply these two forces to the column with a support at the base you get a triangular moment distribution that is largest at the bottom of the beam and tapers off to zero at the top and bottom of the column.

RE: A frame question

And another way to look at it:  Hooke's Law.  

Basically, the length of column across the depth of the beam is most likely connected with angles or plate such that the column will not bend along the depth of the beam.  

If a member doesn't bend, there is no stress and thus no corresponding moment.

 

RE: A frame question

If your attached sketch is to scale, it looks to be a very strong beam and weak column, despite the fact the columns are short, not much moment should be transferred from beam to column in frame action. Despite this, the columns are small, so they won't have much capacity in flexure.

I have always modelled and designed to centreline, however, as csd and others have indicated, the push-pull of the beam flanges will result in the greatest bending moment of the column at the level of the bottom beam flange.

However, you mentioned that you are relying on frame action to resist lateral forces, may I asked how the frame performed with respect to drift?

RE: A frame question

JStephen said in the OP,  "when the height H is reduced, it actually increases the moment in the columns due to their increased stiffness."  With that in mind, I would think that checking the moment at the bottom of the beam would increase the moment. as "H" is now to the bottom of the beam, rather than to the middle.  

RE: A frame question

miecz, no H remains the same in the analysis.

Well actually if you want to be really specific you can provide rigid offsets to the face of column and bottom of beam. But it wont make much difference.

RE: A frame question

miecz does raise an interesting point; how accurate is the analysis when the beam depth is significant compared to the column length?
Perhaps the use of rigid offsets will make a difference and will result in better accuracy.

RE: A frame question

csd72-

The difference may not be much, but I would expect the column moment to increase.  Perhaps my intuition is wrong (again).  I'll have to run some numbers.

RE: A frame question

miecz,

In this case you are probably right.

RE: A frame question

If I'm right, calculating the moment at the bottom of the beam has not solved the problem, but made it worse.  I would try to turn the columns 90° to bend on their weak axis.

RE: A frame question

Also, a stiffer beam should help reduce bending in the columns, by limiting the rotatiion at the end of the beam.

RE: A frame question

miecz,

even with the increased stiffness from the rigid offset I would still be very surprised if the increase in the moment from the rigid offsets is greater than the reduction by taking it at the bottom of the beam.

RE: A frame question

Why would taking the moment at the bottom of the beam result in a higher moment.  You aren't using a smaller h, you are just taking the moment at a different location along the height, right?  Or am I thinking about it incorrectly?

RE: A frame question

I'm thinking of the length of column from the bottom of the beam to the center of the beam as being stiffened by the beam, so, while H is the same, the length of column free to flex is shorter by half the beam depth.  This effectively stiffens the column, drawing more moment when the end of the beam rotates.

RE: A frame question

See the attached sketch.  If you model this with H=14', L=30' and x=1.5ft, Ic=Ix=999 in4, Ib=9040 in4, w1=1.8 klf, you'll get a bending moment of 34.5 k' at points A and C, the theoretical intersection of the beam and column.

Now, if you change Ix where the column is attached to the beam, to 9040 in4, the moment at points E and F, representing the column at the bottom of the beam, is 39.0 k', a 13% increase.  My analysis ignores shear flexibility.

RE: A frame question

If this is my design, I will tempted to do two things:

1. Place plate elements in between the columns (beam elements), and perform analysis.
1. Change the support mechanism, let the columns end (fixed/pinned) at bottom of the beam, perform the analysis and compare results of the models.  

RE: A frame question

(OP)
Just an update- by changing where I evaluated bending stress in the columns and making a couple of minor corrections in the loading, I was able to make things work out okay.

This is actually a simplified version of a more involved assembly.  Beam length is 162", height to beam centerline is about 39".  Columns are pipe so rotating them doesn't help.  Wind forces were pretty insignificant compared to gravity forces on the beam, so drift wasn't a problem.

Thanks for the help and the input on it.

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