×
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

WF Torsion Question

WF Torsion Question

WF Torsion Question

(OP)
For the attached configuration, I am looking at 2 options to support a girder at a WF beam location. Vertical cover plates will be added between the flanges to make a more torsionally resistant box section. The question I have is, does the magnitude of the torsion vary depending on if a top mount hanger is used vs. a bearing seat bracket welded to the web? In the attached drawing, the distance from the centroid of the beam to the centroid of girder bearing is the same leading me to believe the magnitude of torsion is equal. However, I "think" there may be more torsion when the load is hung from the top flange. Can't quantify this in my head though if there is in fact a difference.

RE: WF Torsion Question

Whether or not you have real torsion on the supporting beam depends on the stiffness of the connection. So the connection which takes the force into the web is much better, provided the connection to the supported member is capable of taking the bending.

RE: WF Torsion Question

Depending on the shear load of the LVL to the W shape, I would notch the top of the beam and weld a "U" shaped bracket with an extended bearing seat and side plates to the bottom of the wide flange beam, inserting the remaining portion of the LVL into this bracket and butting the end to the flanges of the W shape. This should reduce the torsional effect on the wide flange. I would also add a additional plate connectors from the top flange of the beam to the LVL to further mitigate some of the induced torsion.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: WF Torsion Question

Assuming that the hanger is flexible, it is better to hang from the bottom flange than the top. Hanging from the top tends to increase eccentricity as the beam rotates whereas hanging from the bottom tends to decrease it.

BA

RE: WF Torsion Question

In the un-deformed state, I agree, the torsion would be equal. Like you, however, I have a visceral preference for the second option. For me, I think that's because that detail looks more convincing for turning torsion in the wide flange into bending in the girder (related to hokie's comments). I would keep two additional things in mind with this:

1) Welding side plates onto your wide flange beam to make an HSS will cost a bundle. You're much better off detailing the torsion away as other here have suggested.
2) Remember that, whatever you do to improve the torsional capacity of your wide flange, the solution will only be as good as the connections at the ends of your beam. Standard beam connections are generally not appropriate for torsion.

In the past, I've used top flange hangers as you have in combination with a strap tying the bottom flange of the steel beam to the side of the girder. Again, this just turns wide flange torsion into girder bending. Of course, if your application is exposed, that's not likely to fly and you should consider something sexier like Mike's proposal.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

RE: WF Torsion Question

If the connection is more rigid, you will only get as much torsion in the beam as the LVL rotates.

Dik

RE: WF Torsion Question

If the connection is rigid, torsion in the beam could be neglected as the rotation is negligible.

BA

RE: WF Torsion Question

THE BEST WAY TO DESIGN FOR TORSION IS TO ELIMINATE IT.

ENJOYING RETIREMENT......

RE: WF Torsion Question

Let's not get torqued here, guys.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: WF Torsion Question

yup... BA and Jike have nailed this one... you don't want to design a W Section for torsion...

Dik

RE: WF Torsion Question

If your attachment can induce torsion, be aware that normal (end) connections will likely not suffice. You have talked about (what sounds like) modifying an existing beam along the length. It is likely that simple shear connections are present at the ends, and you typically need some type of flange restrained connection (i.e. moment) to transfer a significant amount of torque.

RE: WF Torsion Question

Can you not add a kicker to the opposite side of the wide flange? This is typically how we take out torsion in spandrels due to eccentric cladding loads.

RE: WF Torsion Question

Quote (ddudley)

Can you not add a kicker to the opposite side of the wide flange? This is typically how we take out torsion in spandrels due to eccentric cladding loads.

I don't understand what you are suggesting. How does a "kicker" remove torsion from a spandrel beam?

BA

RE: WF Torsion Question

Yes slick, I see that, but that requires another beam to which the "kicker" can be attached. There is no evidence of another beam in the present case.

The simplest way to remove torsion in this case is to rotationally fix the WF to the end of the LVL girder, or effectively ensure the LVL spans to the center of the WF.

BA

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