×
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

Lateral torsional buckling
2

Lateral torsional buckling

Lateral torsional buckling

(OP)
Hello Engineers,

I have a question. For a composite slab I used to design the main girder's bottom flange to be unbraced for its whole length, but one engineer told me that this is extremely conservative and secondary joists with depths around >= 1/3 depth of Girder would provide bracing for LTB even with a shear conncection, I had another debate with a Doctor in engineering, he mentioned that I have to assume the bottom flange totally unbraced for the whole length as there is no such refernce in the codes that assumes a shear connection can prevent LTB, So I am really confused now, I know this would not affect simply supported beam but it does have a remarkable effect on girder with fixed ends or if it's a part of a moment frame where there is an iflection point between positive/negative moment.
Can anyone guide me to a respected reference that gives a solid answer regarding that or if there is a proportion between Girder/ joist profile depths that assure no LTB would occur.

Thanks.

RE: Lateral torsional buckling

Quote (Yazan)

and secondary joists with depths around >= 1/3 depth of Girder would provide bracing for LTB even with a shear conncection

By "joists", you mean secondary beams right? Not open webbed steel joists? The rule of thumb that I was taught was that, with a suitable connection morphology (shear tab, clip angles, etc), the secondary beams could be considered to provide rotational restraint to the entire cross section so long as the depth of the connection was at least 60% of the depth of the girder.

Quote (Yazan)

I had another debate with a Doctor in engineering, he mentioned that I have to assume the bottom flange totally unbraced for the whole length as there is no such refernce in the codes that assumes a shear connection can prevent LTB

I don't agree with the good doctor. Firstly, structural engineering is more -- a good deal more -- than what is written in the codes. It's judgment, experience, research, and actual understanding. Unless codes specifically prohibit something, we're at liberty to employ these other tools as required to solve engineering problems. Secondly, there's a section in the AISC steel specification (appendix 6) that deals specifically with the strength and stiffness requirements for bracing. Granted, it doesn't specially state that a shear connection can provide rotational restraint. However, the stiffness requirements make it pretty clear that it doesn't take a whole lot of rotational stiffness to get the job done in most instances.

Here's an excellent reference on beam bracing: Link. It probably doesn't answer your question as simply as you might like however.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Lateral torsional buckling

(OP)
TheRick109, I wouldn't be a structural engineer if I haven't known these basics, please reread my question carefully, I am talking about the ability of secondary beam with a shear connection to provide full LTB resistance to the main girder at the inflection point of the negative moment, where the bottom flange would be in compression.


KootK, thank you so much for your reply, but don't you think that the depth of the section what matters more than the depth of the connection, as it might not be stiff enough to resist the lateral movement of the compression flange.

RE: Lateral torsional buckling

Not always Rick, cantilevers have the tension flange as the critical flange.

RE: Lateral torsional buckling

Quote (OP)

KootK, thank you so much for your reply, but don't you think that the depth of the section what matters more than the depth of the connection, as it might not be stiff enough to resist the lateral movement of the compression flange.

You're welcome. Both the depth of the connection and the stiffness of the connected member are important. The latter, at least. Is relatively easy to evaluate numerically. It's also pretty easy to accomplish with most practical member sizes.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt 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