Discussion Discussion

Simplified Design for Torsional Loading of Rolled Steel Members

Paper presented by PHILIP H. LIN (3rd Quarter, 1977) From chart,* 6 = 1.25 Neglecting warping restraint: f^T = ^Ttf/J = 1.25 X 4.5 X 12 X 0.618/1.84 = 22.67 ksi U Discussion by N i r m a l M a i t r a T h e author has done a good service by presenting tables to accelerate design work for beams subjected to torsional moment. T h e long calculation to convert torsional moment to equivalent lateral moment for obtaining torsional bending stress can very w^ell be avoided by using the author's tables. T h e author has, how^ever, neglected one very important element, i.e., torsional shear stress. T h e reason, he states: " I n most practical steel design situations, the shear stress contributions are normally not of significance; therefore, only the normal stresses from vertical and torsional bending are computed and combined in order to check the design adequacy of a beam." T h e writer does not agree with him. As a case for checking, take author's Example 1. T h e author's calculation shows that summation of bending stresses does not exceed 0.6Fy and he concludes ''use WIO X 54". But the calculation presented below shows that summation of shear stresses exceeds the allowable limit by 60% and WIO X 54 is no good. Equipment supporting structures usually have the torsional loading concentrated at points similar to what is shown in author's Examples 1, 2, and 4, and in such cases shear stresses usually govern. A check on the author's examples will prove that. A prevalent design office practice is to check torsional shear stress before taking up calculations for torsional bending stress for equipment supporting beams; the merit of this practice is obvious. Calculation: For WIO X 54: t^/tf= 0.368/0.618 = 0.6 R/tf= 0.5/0.618 = 0.8 = F/^z^ = 9 / ( 1 0 . 1 2 X 0 . 3 6 8 ) = 2.42 ksi Summation: 22.67 + 2.42 = 25.09 ksi >14.5 ksi n.g. T r y WIO X 77 and repeat checking in above manner. Found o.k. Use: WIO X 77

Yield Line Analysis of Bolted Hanging Connections

Paper presented-by THOMAS S. DRANGER (3rd Quarter, 1977)

Discussion by Henry W. Dougherty The analysis presented by M r . Dranger is very interesting. As the author states, this type of connection is not used very often for primary members. In such cases, rather than going through the outhned steps that were presented, why not use stiffener plates between flanges at the upper beam connection, thus minimizing (or eliminating) rotation of the lower flange and allowing the suspended load to be transmitted directly into the upper beam web? In the case of the lower beams, as indicated in Fig. 7, again stiffener plates, or bolts long enough to extend to holes in the lower flange, would solve the problem with no doubt as to transmittal directly into the beam web. Henry W. Dougherty is President, Dougherty Engineering, Inc., Memphis, Tenn. * Steel Designers' Manual pp. 169 and 175. U.S. Steel Corporation, May, 1974,

Nirmal Maitra is Senior Structural Engineer, American Lurgi Corporation, Hasbrouck Heights, N.J.
26

26