Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
(OP)
In-office debate about the attached sketch.
The top section is a wide flange with a channel cap on top with welds at the WF flange tips.
The bottom section is a wide flange with the same channel - but the connection is at the WF neutral axis via two figuratively thin
plates and a small gap between WF top flange and channel web. Assume the two connector plates in the second option are very small/thin.
It appears that both would have the same value of Q for determining horizontal shear for the weld attachment calculation.
However it doesn't seem intuitively correct that the welds would carry the same shear as the flexural behavior of the two sections seem very different.
Any thoughts?
The top section is a wide flange with a channel cap on top with welds at the WF flange tips.
The bottom section is a wide flange with the same channel - but the connection is at the WF neutral axis via two figuratively thin
plates and a small gap between WF top flange and channel web. Assume the two connector plates in the second option are very small/thin.
It appears that both would have the same value of Q for determining horizontal shear for the weld attachment calculation.
However it doesn't seem intuitively correct that the welds would carry the same shear as the flexural behavior of the two sections seem very different.
Any thoughts?






RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
Interesting thought experiment!
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
the first section is obviously a "proper" beam, all the elements are connected together well enough.
the 2nd section the upper channel is quite separated from the I beam. if down load is applied to the I-beam, i see it separating from the channel, so that the I-beam would be bending, but the channel wouldn't (or not as much).
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
Both cases shown have identical Q values from what we understand how Q is calculated.
(Q - area above the connection plane times the distance from channel centroid to total section neutral axis).
But it seems very obvious intuitively that the horizontal shear on the welds would be quite different.
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
the top Channel could be lying on top of the I-beam. down loads would have them reasonably working together. up loads applied to the channel would cause the Channel to separate from the I-beam ... no? similarly down loads applied to the I-beam would have less effect on teh Channel.
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
My thoughts are that the welds will have the same longitudinal shear stress. The forces in the channel should be the same for both, hence the same transfer of forces is required.
http://www.nceng.com.au/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
Even though some of the welds in that alternative sketch can't be physically done, the theory is what we are after.
The Q value for both appear to be identical so it seems that the welds for both would have similar horizontal shear values.
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
In the second sketch, the two shapes will tend to perform almost independently, taking load more or less in proportion to their separate EI values.
BA
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
The "d" is getting smaller the more of the channel is extending below the compound N.A. As "d" goes to zero the shear flow required to be resisted is zero. I don't know if that invalidates the shear flow the top weld is required to resist or not per that equation, I have to think about that.
In the second sketch that was posted, the bottom case would seem to me to go through the same deflection as a compound section as in the top case and I don't see the WF and channel theoretically performing independently just because of the weld location.
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
That is incorrect! Q = ACH(d) is the correct expression. The fact that the channel flange tips are below the centroid is irrelevant.
That is also incorrect! The channel and WF will act as a combined section if the thin plates can (a) carry the shear without excessive shear deformation and (b) are stiff enough to prevent the channel and WF from separating vertically.
If the channel flanges extend down and are welded to an enlarged bottom flange of the WF, Q = ACH(d). Alternatively, Q = AWF(dW) where dW is the distance from the cg of the WF to the cg of the combined section.
My earlier post was wrong and should be disregarded.
BA
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
By the way, you have a post on the Civil Board directed to you...not sure if you saw it.
PE, SE
Eastern United States
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
looking at chris's sketches, I'd assume the cross-sections are fully effective and calc bending stress dist'n. from this i'd calc the change in load in the channel (per inch length). in both versions i'd expect this load to be off-set from the welds so either ...
1) the welds are transferring moment (yech) or
2) the wlds transfer axial (shear) load into the channel. now i have a different load distribution ...
a) the I-beam reacts the applied moment by bending and by transferring load into the channel, and
b) the channel reacts the load transferred from the I-beam.
to find out the proportions (how much bending, how much axial load) derive displacements and match the channel and I-beam at the weld location.
i think chris's sketches are quite different to JAE's
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
'Q' still needs to be calculated as the first moment of inertia of the cross sectional area above (or below I suppose) the combined N.A.
I think that this is analogous to shear flow, or complete lack thereof, for two beams side by side (as is say (2)2x10s) or shear flow for plates welded across the flange tips of a wideflange beam (boxing it in). There is no shear flow. The beams take load according to their EI.
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
I meant this for the second modified sketch where the plates were thickened. That extra material will bring the N.A.'s of the two individual parts closer together and reduce the shear flow.
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
If shear flow is induced in order to restrain this displacement, it would make sense to me that it would be independant of the weld location along the cross section. Therefore the calculation as presented by JAE seems correct.
RE: Question of calculating Q for Horiz. Shear
1) It appears that when two sections are connected in such a fashion they have a tendency to want to either separate or come together vertically. This tendency must be resisted by both the welds and the affected parts of the connected members (thin plates in JAE's example). This is not something that I've considered in the design of welds or bolts for composite members in the past.
2) It seems to me that the magnitude of the force mentioned in point number one IS affected by the vertical location of the connecting welds. This also implies that the portion of the vertical shear carried by each member would also depend on the vertical location of the connecting welds. This last bit certainly causes me grief. It's contrary to the notion that the vertical shear in each member would be static and could be found by integrating VQ/It over each member.
I look forward to hearing others engineers' critiques of these arguments.
KootK