Eng-Tips is the largest forum for Engineering Professionals on the Internet.
Members share and learn making Eng-Tips Forums the best source of engineering information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations dmapguru on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
W36x925
- Thread starter dlclarkii
- Start date
BridgeEngineer21
Structural
Flanges seem surprisingly short relative to thickness. Is that tf = 6-8"? What's it supporting?
Back in 1990 I specified W36 x 720 shapes for the top chord of a 375 ft. long bowstring truss (Alamodome in San Antonion, TX). Not as big as these but the flanges, as I recall, were 4" thick.
Back then those kinds of shapes had to be shipped over from Belgium. Nice to see Nucor stepping up.
Back then those kinds of shapes had to be shipped over from Belgium. Nice to see Nucor stepping up.
Dang engineer made you put it in there even though it's not carrying any load?
Flanges are 4-1/2" thick and 18-5/8" wide, web is 3" thick. Overall depth is 43-1/8".
BridgeSmith
Structural
That size isn't even in my AISC Steel Manual. 36x848 is the largest.
BridgeSmith
Structural
Where are the reactions shown? It looks like to me the length is 45 ft ("36x925x45"). Still a very inefficient use of steel, unless the available depth has a very hard limit, which would indicate an architect with more arrogance than brains was probably involved.
It's the biggest W36 in the new 16th (gold) edition. Funny enough, there is also no W36x848 in it, there is a W36x853. From what I can see, this is the heaviest section (per foot) available currently, there is a W14 that comes close at W14x873
BridgeSmith
Structural
Yeah, I think my manual is about 30 years old (LRFD 2nd Edition - silver). I put in a $100 budget request for for a newer one (hey, they asked). Looks like I can get a 14th Edition for that, anyway. By the time it gets approved, I might be able to get a 15th Ed.
BridgeSmith
Structural
Maybe, but so would a deeper girder that weighs 1/4 as much.