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


KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

The longitudinal loads applied to bridge crane girders from ASCE 7 means that the girder will experience some axial forces. In this case, how important is the KL/r < 200 recommendation?

RE: KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

I've always thought of the KL/r < 200 as a practical limit on slenderness. If it's more slender than that you m might get it to work on paper, but it's going to be so slender that it's going to look kinda crazy. It's going to be hard to construct. It's going to be easy to damage.

Sure, it can be done. But, I'm not sure it's worth the headache.

RE: KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

Kl/r < 200 is the slenderness limit for tension members (in AASHTO, anyway). The limit for the slenderness of members subjected to compression is far more restrictive (Kl/r > 120 requires special buckling analysis). It's hard for me to imagine a configuration where the girder will not be subject to axial compression as well as tension.

Granted, it's hard for me to imagine a girder (a primary bending member) that would be slender enough for any Kl/r limit to control the size. I would expect lateral torsional buckling to be far more critical than the slenderness limits.

RE: KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

I still use the AISC 9th edition. It has the compression limit of 200 but says it "should not exceed 200". It further states if you do exceed it, you are limited to the Fa equation where your kl/r exceeds Cc.
Tension members are 300 and as I recall that was mostly for the ability to erect them without them acting like cooked spaghetti.

I have never exceeded it except some minor amount like 203. I am not sure about the wording in newer AISC codes.

RE: KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

I'd never recommend exceeding KL/r of 200 for any member in compression, even a member only lightly loaded in compression. It's a user note in the code rather than an outright requirement, but still, that's getting pretty slender. Your bridge girder may take more than just crane side thrust. It may inadvertently act as a strut between the two rails when the building sways.

For tension members AISC recommends L/r <= 300.

RE: KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

I've definitely exceeded it for lightly loaded monorails - S sections are set up so you almost always fail slenderness in normal applications. For a crane girder you should be using a W section, so I imagine it probably does look a little slender in practice. I'd be more hesitant with top flange loading on a bridge crane girder to be honest, but that's just a judgement call.

RE: KL/r < 200 for Bridge Crane Girders?

When we put glass bearing walls into compression to hold the roof up, the slenderness ratio is approx 240-320 depending on how you count (2" thick glass one ply broken, 16ft tall). My TKTS booth in Times Square was built this way in 2008, and a lot of the Apple stuff including the Jobs Auditorium in Cupertino. Also glass fins are about the same, albeit in bending (40ft span, 1.5" thick).

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! Already a Member? Login


White Paper - The Evolving Landscape of Commercial Battery-Powered Trucks
What’s driving the evolving landscape of truck electrification? What are the barriers, motivators and strategies for accelerating the electric transition? What insights and resources are available for today’s design engineers working to achieve industry disruption and evolution? For answers to these and other pertinent questions, read this white paper. Download Now
eBook - Rethink Your PLM
A lot has changed since the 90s. You don't surf the Web using dial-up anymore, so why are you still using a legacy PLM solution that's blocking your ability to innovate? To develop and launch products today, you need a flexible, cloud-based PLM, not a solution that's stuck in the past. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close