1/13/14

Smart questions Smart answers Smart people

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

Go

Find A Forum

Go

Join Directory Search Tell A Friend Whitepapers Jobs

Home > Forums > Structural Engineers > Activities > Structural engineering other technical topics Forum thread507-182386
Share This

Web only steel beam?

Structure Steel
www.alibaba.com Supplies M ade to Order from World's Largest Supplier Base. Top Deals!

Read More Threads Like This One

MHSpurs (Structural) 26 Mar 07 18:27

Hi Has anyone had any experience designing flat plate as a beam? I need to design a tapered flat plate (250mm x12mm wide tapering to 150x 12mm wide) cantilever beam supporting a glass canopy. The beam is lightly loaded but has no lateral restraint. I cant seem to find any design guides or codes that cover the topic. Any ideas?

JAE (Structural)

26 Mar 07 18:56

It would be similar to the provisions for stems of WT's with the stem in compression.

nutte (Structural)

26 Mar 07 19:04

When I have this, I check AISC's equations for bending on a beam with top and bottom cope. I also check buckling on the plate per Roark's Stress and Strain book.

Boiler8019 (Geotechnical)

26 Mar 07 23:23

Hate to answer a question with a question, but since it's a cantilever, doesn't the typical analysis get thrown out the window? Cantilever wide flanges get designed differently because the normal analysis is not always give you the required reliability factor. I had to design a wideflange crane cantilever one time and did quite a bit of research on it. I would go on to assume that a cantilever plate in particular wouldnt conform to normal analysis since it has literally no lateral stiffness. At least a wide flange and a WT has a little. Maybe someone has experimental data? http://www.aisc.org/MSCTemplate.cfm?Section=Steel_Interchange2&Template=/CustomSource/Faq/SteelInterchange.cfm&
www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386 1/9

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

FaqID=2519

UcfSE (Structural)

27 Mar 07 0:22

The AISC 360-05 has a setin for rectangular plates bent abou the major axis. It's the same thing we're used to: checking yielding and LTB. You may be required to have some lateral restraint at the end or point of application of the load; you'll have to check. You could always run a FEA on it too.

Lion06 (Structural)

27 Mar 07 9:59

UcfSEAISC 360-05 gives info in F11 on 16.1-60. This is in regards to bars - I know there is a difference between plates and bars in terms of widths and thicknesses when they are fabricated. In your opinion, can you use this section for plates since the equations really have no knowledge of what the shape was made from (whether is was from bar stock or from a plate cut down to the width of a bar)?

lkjh345 (Structural)

27 Mar 07 10:33

Try Chapter F11 of new black AISC Manual.

kslee1000 (Civil/Environmental)

27 Mar 07 10:48

The challenge you are facing is stability - local buckling of slender flexural members. Check AISC Sections B & F and associated appendic B5 & F7, if applicable, (9th ed.) for more information.

Lion06 (Structural)

27 Mar 07 11:13

kslee1000I gave you a star because I thought that was a valuable reply. I do have a couple comments for you, however, that I would appreciate your input on. In the 9th edition manual, on pg 5-35, an unstiffened element is described as one which is supported on only one edge. I would think that this plate is not supported on any edge and that the width-thickness ratio limits may be unconservative as a result. In addition, Appendix B5 doesn't list plates as an option for calculating Qs. The closest would be stems of tees, but again, I don't think this situation is addressed directly. It does seem odd that this isn't discussed in greater detail since a great deal of stair stringers are plates.

zcp (Mechanical)

27 Mar 07 11:48

Double check your "lightly loaded". Your deflection requirements for glass can be tight. Hopefully it is an indoor canopy..... ZCP www.phoenix-engineer.com

desertfox (Mechanical)

27 Mar 07
2/9

www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

12:20 Hi MHSpurs I know of a technique which may help you however it depends on the length of the beam? I would design it on a strain energy method like a flat leaf spring. What length of beam have you got? regards desertfox

desertfox (Mechanical)

27 Mar 07 12:22

Forgot to ask are you using the beam with the 250mm vertical?

Lion06 (Structural)

27 Mar 07 12:27

desertfoxI believe that if the 250 mm leg was horizontal we would not be having this discussion. In that case, it would be a simple allowable bending stress of 0.75Fy for the 9th edition and a check for yielding in LRFD. There would be no need to concern yourself with LTB.

MHSpurs (Structural)

27 Mar 07 13:06

Thanks for the reply. the 250-150 is on the vertical. I have decided to use the basic section properties of Zx but reducing the allowable steel stress due to slenderness. I have also talked the architect into a cable tie at the end of the cantilever and a partial torsional restraint at the internal support. This allows the Le of the member to be reduced to within code tolerances. Bending about x-x is not a problem. The canopy is external so it lools like lateral loading from wind is going to govern the design. I'm also getting someone to run an FE on it to be sure! Still, an interesting problem, and one that warrents addressing from the codes. It seems to be a common detail for caniopies/balconies.

Lion06 (Structural)

27 Mar 07 13:34

MHSpursI would be careful about using Zx. Zx implies that you can develop the full plastic moment of the beam before buckling occurs.

kslee1000 (Civil/Environmental)

27 Mar 07 14:41

The code does covers this matter inexplicit, see SISC commentary C-B.5.

www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386

3/9

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

strainman (Structural)

27 Mar 07 16:13

MHSpurs The only formular that I have seen for steel plates bent about their strong axis is: Fb=.6 Fy for Ld/t^2 less that 500 Fb= 10,000/(Ld/t^2) ksi for Ld/t^2 over 500 where L is the span inches d is the depth inches t is thickness inches This formular is stated to be for a simply supported beams only. You are on your own to determine the unsupported length.

desertfox (Mechanical)

28 Mar 07 3:05

Hi MHSpurs Thanks for the reply I'll get back to you with stress & deflection due to bending. desertfox

Tomfh (Structural)

28 Mar 07 4:43

Is the plate top edge laterally supported by the glass?

DaveAtkins (Structural)

28 Mar 07 6:29

If using ASD, I think the b/t ratio will control. Fb = 0.6*Fy*Q. Q is based on the b/t ratio, with b equal to 1/2 the depth of the plate, because only 1/2 the depth of the plate is in compression. DaveAtkins

Lion06 (Structural)

28 Mar 07 8:20

DaveAtkinsI think it would be unconservative to use 1/2 b just because 1/2 of the plate is in compression. On page 5-35 in the 9th Ed. ASD, the d for the stem of a Tee is the full nominal depth, and the full stem is obviously not in compression.

kslee1000 (Civil/Environmental)

28 Mar 07 10:44

I will agree with DaveAtkins on theory. The b/t ratio was developed from plate buckling under uniform compressive with one or both edges supported.
www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386 4/9

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

The edge support is accomplished through the fact that this cantilever plate is prevented/restraint from buckle above the neutral axis (tension side), therefore the use of b/2 (for cases without axial load) is applicable. One reason for AISC to designate full depth of the stems as "b" is obviously due to the consideration of beam-column elements subject to both bending and compression forces, for which, the neutral axis varies from case to case, or the entire section is under compression. Since the use of plate as beam element is rare, so most tests & AISC do not address it explicitly, rather research on the development of the code provisions, formulas in conjunction with engineering judgement is necessary. After all said, in practice, I will agree with StructuralEIT in the use of full plate depth as "b" for engineering shortcomings.

MHSpurs (Structural)

28 Mar 07 13:09

Structural EIt Re your earlier point. Zx does not imply full plastic moment, rather full elastic moment. Add this to the fact that I intend to reduce the allowable stress due to the cross section being slender, i think I am going down the correct road. i reason it this way: Lateral torsional buckling generally deals with sections where the top and bottom flange of a member are extremely strong/effiecient relative to their webs. The reduction in plastic capacity is due to the fact that the web is rather inefficient in stabilising an unrestrained flange (tension compression couple). hence the moment that can be developed is a function of the ability of the web (and general torsional rigidity) to stabilise two elements that are stresseed to multiples of its own capagity. Similar to box sections, lateral torsional buckling should not apply. Instead, modifications of the allowble stress due to slendernes are more appropriate.

Lion06 (Structural)

28 Mar 07 13:46

MHSpursI am not seeing why you would use an Allowable stress with the PLASTIC section modulus and call it ELASTIC moment. This is not making sense to me. Zx is plastic section mod., Sx is Elastic section mod. The only way you can count on the plastic section modulus is if you can develop the full plastic moment of the section before the section will buckle. For a WF section the shape factor is about 1.12, hence the increase in allowable stress from 0.6Fy to 0.66Fy (ONLY IF LTB IS NOT GOING TO OCCUR). For a vertical plate like you are talking about, the shape factor is 1.5, so you would be increasing your allowable stress from 0.6Fy to 0.9Fy. I think it is a mistake to say that you don't have to worry about LTB because there is no flange. To compare a vertical plate to a box section makes no sense, in my opinion. A box section usually doesn't have a problem with LTB because Sx=Sy. In your case, Sx is much, much greater than Sy. In addition, a box section has significant torsional rigidity, whereas a vertical plate has virtually zero torsional rigidity. I seem to agree, generally speaking with your reasoning up (and EXCLUDING) the comparison of this vertical plate to a box section. Additionally, to use Zx with a reduced allowable stress you would have to use an allowable stress of 0.44Fy to get to an equal moment as 0.66Fy*Sx. Finally, if LTB didn't apply for this situation, there would be no need to discuss this at all and you would just use a traditional M/S<0.66Fy.

Lion06 (Structural)

28 Mar 07 13:51

One last thing to mention - if LTB didn't occur in a situation that you are describing why in the world would you have to check coped beams for web buckling? The answer is, you MUST check the webs of coped beams for buckling, so why wouldn't you do it for a vertical plate? Oh yeah, in a cantilever situation it is actually the tension (top) side that is more critical as far as bracing goes.

apsix (Structural)

28 Mar 07 20:34

MHSpurs I also cannot agree with your idea that the flat plate will not be subject to LTB. LTB doesn't apply to box sections only if they are square or 'under-square'. Rectangular sections being about their strong axis can be affected by lateral buckling.
www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386 5/9

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

The Australian Steel Structures standard AS4100 accounts for LTB for different section shapes with a 'slenderness reduction factor'. This is calculated using the section capacity, Iy, effective length, elastic modulii E & G, torsion constant and warping constant. StructuralEIT It may be different where you are, but in my experience in Australia and the UK; Zx is the elastic section mod. & Sx is the plastic section mod.

Tomfh (Structural)

29 Mar 07 1:16

Quote:

Lateral torsional buckling generally deals with sections where the top and bottom flange of a member are extremely strong/effiecient relative to their webs.
Quote:

lateral torsional buckling should not apply.

LTB is amongst other things a product of lateral stiffness and torsional stiffness. A plate has very little of either of these and will most certainly experience lateral torsional buckling. If you dont believe me put a ruler in a vice and load the end. If there is no lateral support along the top then LTB will govern - plates fall over pretty darn fast.

desertfox (Mechanical)

29 Mar 07 3:03

Hi MHSpurs Can you give me the length of the beam?

fryed911 (Structural)

29 Mar 07 12:50

It would seem to me that either local buckling or LTB would govern. I have not taken a class on plates, but it shouldn't be too difficult to derive the equations for each case. Since half of your section will be in compression, I would think that it would be comparable to a typical flange. I.e. The bottom half of your beam (compression half) cantilevers from the top half, analagous to the half of a flange which cantilevers from the web, if that makes any sense. So maybe your local buckling limit will be something like h/(2*tw) but don't quote me on that. As far as LTB, the derivation is pretty general - I would say just set Cw (warping torsional constant)= 0 whenever it shows up. By doing that and noting that Iy is going to be much smaller, the moment capacity should be quite small as expected. Just my two..

miecz (Structural)

29 Mar 07 13:40

As was stated earlier by Structural EIT and lkjh345, this is covered by Chapter F11 of AISC360. As you are using Zx for the elastic section modulus, I'll guess that you don't have access to AISC360. F11 was derived from article 39, page 202 of Strength of Materials by Timoshenko, Part II, Second Edition, and the derivation of F11 is covered in the SSRC Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures. Do not rely on a finite element analysis, as finite elements do not check for buckling, to my knowledge. If you do not have access to the above, post the length of the beam, and someone (or two or more) here will crank it for you.

www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386

6/9

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

UcfSE (Structural)

29 Mar 07 18:56

According to the AISC steel solutions center, plates may be designed by F11 provided the material they are made of is approved for under the AISC.

MHSpurs (Structural)

30 Mar 07 5:21

Hi all. I didn't anticipate that this q would generate so much interest. Firstly, Zx is the elastic section modulus in the uk (where I am based). I was not aware that it was reversed in the US. (you say tomatoes etc...) Hope that clears that one up. Secondly, I am assuming that the glass does not offer lateral restraint to the compression zone (cantilever, glass on top). The span of the cantilever is approx 1000mm. The loading is 51kg/m from the glass and potentially 100kg/m from snow. The plate is 250 high x12 thick at its tip reducing to 150x12 at its support. Partial torsional restraint can be achieved at the support. By my calculation (SLS state - I'm old school!) BM = 0.75kNm (sls); Zxx = 45000mm3; Py of material = 190N/mm2 (sls) Slenderness of cross section at main moment position = 150/12 =12.5 Ignoring LTB and working on allowable stress: M/Z = 16.7N/mm2 which is approx 9% of the allowable elastic stress. If anyone would like to have a go based on LTB I would appreciate it.

UcfSE (Structural)

30 Mar 07 8:27

If the US code addresses LTB for plates, I wuold expect the British one to do so also. I think you should check LTB instead of relying on a low percentage of the elastic moment. There comes a point when anymore simplification just isn't engineering anymore. It's already a tapered plate with no restraint.

apsix (Structural)

30 Mar 07 9:03

We have a cantilever with a length:depth ratio of 7, and a total u.d.load of about 150kg; equivalent to a grown man standing at the end; there is no way that it can fail as I see it. It will almost work bending about its weak axis. I'd be happy if it was my design.

miecz (Structural)

30 Mar 07 9:42

As UcfSE says, you really should check your own steel code for this. If it's mum on this point, try a strength of materials text as cited above. That said, according to our code, I've got you in the range for inelastic buckling, with a design moment less than 10% of the design strength.
www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386 7/9

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

desertfox (Mechanical)

1 Apr 07 11:32

Hi MHSpurs I am sorry for the delay in responding however I was researching the problem a bit further. Anyway I analysed the beam on an Excel spreadsheet and got the maximum stress to be 5.9N/mm^2 at the built in end and a deflection of 0.469mm at the free end. My calculation was based on splitting the beam up into 50mm long sections and calculating the Z and "I" values at those points.So for the stress I used M/Z where M was the moment at whatever point on the beam. For the deflection I converted the UDL to a point load at the end of the beam and used Strain Energy theory with a graphical intergration method to obtain the deflection. I also found this free calculator in an Excel spreadsheet for a tapered beam and the stress is in good agreement with the figure I obtained:-http://pergatory.mit.edu/2.007/software_tools/Excel/spri ngs/Beam_Tapered_Thickness.xls Seemingly though my deflection at the free end didn't agree with there's, nor did it agree with the Pro E simulation figure for deflection, which is run in conjunction with the spreadsheet. Finally I do have some reservations about this analysis and these are as follows:1. The beam is very short in length compared to its depth so it puts a question mark about using simple beam theory for analysis. 2. Laterally the beam as much less stiffness so I think the points raised by others are valid unless your absolutely sure its only going to be loaded vertically through its centroid otherwise you get into asymmetric bending. I assumed that the 250mm end was the built in end but looking at your last post it would appear that its the other way round is that correct? regards desertfox

desertfox (Mechanical)

1 Apr 07 14:13

Hi Again deflection should read 0.186mm not 0.469mm regards desertfox

MHSpurs (Structural)

2 Apr 07 15:58

Hi Desertfox and all others who have replied. Many thanks for your input. The design went into fabrication today so no turning back now. I'm satisfied with the design. Its not something that is covered very well in our code. I think I'll drop a note to the Institution. Thanks again MH

www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386

8/9

1/13/14

Structural engineering other technical topics - Web only steel beam?

Read More Threads Like This One

Bridge Bearings & Joints

trelleborg.com.au Trelleborg specialist engineered bridge bearings & expansion joints

Join | Indeed Jobs | Advertise | About Us | Contact Us | Site Policies

Copy right 1998-2014 Tecumseh Group, Inc. A ll rights reserv ed. Unauthorized reproduction or link ing forbidden without express written permission.

www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182386

9/9