×
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 discussion which might related to recent roof collapse

A discussion which might related to recent roof collapse

A discussion which might related to recent roof collapse

(OP)
I have recently done some research and analysis on metal building rigid frame under snow load. I found there are 2 issues which I would like to bring here to discuss with you guys:

1. I understand that AISC-13th does not explicitely require to check the I-Beam web buckling or crippling strength under compression at suspended beam portion. It only request to check web buckling or crippling strength under compression at bearing location. However, to me, I think it is an item which needs to be checked, because to guarantee the flexural strength of the whole beam under applied load, the web  of the I-Beam at every cross section has to be able to resist applied local vertical load without local buckling or crippling.

2. I understand that it is a common practice (at least in U.S.) that for most built-up I-Beam, only single sided weld is requested as is shown in Figure 1.a. in attached document. To me, with single sided weld, the web can only considered as pinned at both ends when checking its compression buckling capacity, only when double sided weld, then the web can be considered as fixed at both ends when checking its compression buckling capacity under local vertical load (Figure 1.b.).

If above 2 issues are true, then I'll bet that there are many metal buildings which can not pass that local I-Beam web buckling check.

I am not sure how much it related to the the recent roof collaps case, that is why I would like to bring this topic here to discuss.

Thanks.

RE: A discussion which might related to recent roof collapse

Regarding #2, I can understand why that is done in the shops with automated welding machines with the beam laying inclined.  However, I believe in staggered welds of equal length on both sides to minimize differential stresses due to the welds.   

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

RE: A discussion which might related to recent roof collapse

A collapse of falsework at Loddon bridge, UK (date 1970's)was put down to incorrect assessment of the effective height of a rolled I-beam web under a concentrated load. The designer assumed that the filleted ends of the web meant that it had encastre conditions at both ends, but failed to recognise that the top flange could drift relative to the bottom flange, and rotate a bit too, as I recall. That incident lead to a change in the UK code of practice at that time.

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