DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

Steel Beam Design

ENGM 4675 Risk Assessment Project
Arzeena Timpa
April 18, 2017
B00729863
Contents
List of Figures & Tables ................................................................................................................. 2
1.0 Description of Scenario............................................................................................................ 3
2.0 Assessment............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Initial Trial........................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Probability of Failure........................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Evaluation of the Consequences........................................................................................... 7
3.0 Review of other possibilities .................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 8
References ................................................................................................................................... 9

1
List of Figures & Tables

Figure 1-1 Simplified Analytical Model ........................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-2 Shear and Moment Diagram.......................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-3 Wide Flange Cross Section............................................................................................. 5

Table 2.1-1 Geometric Properties of Option 1 ................................................................................ 5

Table 2.1-2 Option 1 Load and Effects ............................................................................................ 6
Table 2.3-1 Option 1 Costs ............................................................................................................ 7
Table 3-1 Summary of Various Options .......................................................................................... 8

2
1.0 Description of Scenario

This discussion will table the designing of a steel beam to act as a simply supported floor beam
spanning six metres. This beam is part of a fictional floor system. The steel beam must have the
capacity to carry a live load of 26.70kPa and a dead load of 5.33kPa. Through load combination
analysis detailed in the National Building Code, a distributed load of 46.71kPa as shown in figure 1-1
shows a simplified analytical model that would be used to analyze the floor beam.

L = 6 metre

Figure 1-1 Simplified Analytical Model

The distributed load at the given spacing is 𝑤 = 140.14kN/m by the following calculation:

𝑤 = 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑘𝑃𝑎) × 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔

𝑤 = 46.71𝑘𝑃𝑎 × 3𝑚

𝑤 = 140.14𝑘𝑁/𝑚

This distributed load will produce the following shear and moment diagram:

Vma x
Mmax
V (kN)

M (kNm)

-
Figure 1-2 Shear and Moment Diagram

3
These diagrams show where the maximum shear (V max) and the maximum moment (Mmax) will be
expected to be seen on the length of this beam. V max will be observed at the ends of the beam and
will equal as follows:

𝑤𝐿
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2
(140.14𝑘𝑁/𝑚)(6𝑚)
𝑉𝑀𝑎𝑥 = = 420.42 𝑘𝑁
2
Mmax is displayed at the centre at the length of the steel beam. The value of Mmax under the given
loading will be:

𝐿
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 × 2
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2
6𝑚
420.42𝑘𝑁 × 2
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 630.63𝑘𝑁𝑚
2

This Mmax will need to be accommodated by whichever steel beam is chosen.

An additional allowable deflection will have to be met by the chosen steel beam. This allowable
deflection, Δallow, is defined as follows:

𝐿
∆𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 =
360
6𝑚
∆𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 = ⇒ 16.67𝑚𝑚
360

The actual deflection, Δactual, must be a value smaller than the allowable deflection. The actual
deflection is found using the live load alone by the following:

5𝑤𝐿4
∆𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 =
384𝐸𝐼

𝑘𝑁
5(26.7 × 3𝑚)(6𝑚)4
𝛥𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝑚
384(2 × 103 𝑘𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 ) 𝐼

By setting actual deflection to equal allowable deflection we are able to find a minimum value of I
required.

∆𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 ≥ ∆𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙

The only unknown is I. By simplification:

𝐼 ≥ 405.5 × 106 𝑚𝑚4

4
I represent the minimum moment of inertia required. Moment of inertia is calculated from the
following cross section, wide-flange:

d
ww

b
Figure 1-3 Wide Flange Cross Section

With the found minimum moment of inertia above this value is matched to values for available steel
beams.

2.0 Assessment
2.1 Initial Trial
An initial wide flange sections will be evaluated as a trial. W610x84 will be used as option 1.

Option 1 W610x82

Area (mm2) 10500

Depth, d (mm) 599

Web thickness, w (mm) 10

Flange width, b (mm) 178

Flange thickness, t (mm) 12.8

I (x-x axis) (mm4) 560 x 106

S (x-x axis) (mm3 ) 1870 x 103

Table 2.1-1 Geometric Properties of Option 1

5
Bending moment by geometry must not exceed:

𝑀𝑦 = 𝐹𝑦 × 𝑆𝑥

Where Fy is yield strength.

After calculation, for option 1, My is 654 x 106 Nmm.

The calculated values will be taken as mean values and a standard deviation of ten percent
will be assumed.

Option 1

Load Effects Mmax (Nmm) 630 x 106

Standard Deviation (10%) 63 x 106

Resistance effects My (Nmm) 654 x 106

Standard Deviation (10%) 65 x 106

Table 2.1-2 Option 1 Load and Effects

2.2 Probability of Failure

The reliability index, 𝛃, will be utilized to find the probability of failure. R, the resistance
effect and L, the load effect are both assumed to be normally distributed. Then the
probability of failure will occur when the difference of R and L is negative. Symbolically

𝑃[𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒] = 𝑃[𝑅 − 𝐿< 0]

The mean 𝜇𝑋 where 𝑋 = 𝑅 − 𝐿, is found by the following:

𝜇 𝑋 = 𝐸[𝑅 − 𝐿] = 𝜇 𝑅 − 𝜇 𝐿

For option 1:

𝜇 𝑋 = (654 × 106 ) − (630 × 106 ) = 24 × 106

The standard deviation, 𝝈X, is found by the following:

𝝈X= √𝜎𝑅 2 + 𝜎𝐿 2

6
For option 1:

𝝈X= √(65 𝑥 106 ) 2 + (63 𝑥 106 ) 2 = 90.52 x 106

Then the reliability index is found by the following:

𝜷 = 𝝁 𝑿/𝝈 X

For option 1:

24 × 106
𝛽= = 0.26
90.52 × 106

Again since all terms are assumed to have normal distribution

𝑃[𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒] = 𝑃[𝑅 − 𝐿< 0]= 𝛷(−𝛽)

𝑃[𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒] = 𝛷(−𝛽) = 1 − 𝛷(𝛽)

For option 1:

𝑃[𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒] = 1 − 0.60256 = 0.39744

2.3 Evaluation of the Consequences

The following will be taken as cost of beam, Cc:

Option 1 W610x82

Cost per metre ($/m) 328

Assumed additional initial costs ($/m) 200,000

Cost of beam Cc ($) 1,201,968

Table 2.3-1 Option 1 Costs

It will be assumed that the cost of failure to be $ 2 million, C f. Then the minimum total
expected cost, Emin will be found as follows:

𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝐶𝑐 + (𝑃[𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒] × 𝐶𝑓 )

For option 1:

𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑛 = $ 1,201,968 + (0.39744 × $2,000,000)

𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑛 = $1,996,848

7
3.0 Review of other possibilities
Below is a chart of further cross sections that may be used:

Designation 460x97 530x101 610x101 610x125

I (mm4) 445,000,000.00 617,000,000.00 794,000,000.00 985,000,000.00
3
S (mm ) 1,910,000.00 2,300,000.00 2,530,000.00 3,220,000.00

M (Nmm) 668,500,000.00 805,000,000.00 885,500,000.00 1,127,000,000.00

10% M (Nmm) 66,850,000.00 80,500,000.00 88,550,000.00 112,700,000.00

Mean of X (Nmm) 38,500,000.00 175,000,000.00 255,500,000.00 497,000,000.00

Standard 91,858,165.12 102,221,573.07 108,674,295.49 129,113,477.22

Deviation
of X (Nmm)

β 0.42 1.71 2.35 3.85

F(β) 0.66 0.96 0.99 1.00

P(Failure) 0.34 0.04 0.01 0.00

Cost per metre

($/m) 388.00 404.00 404.00 500.00

Cc ($) 1,202,328.00 1,202,424.00 1,202,424.00 1,203,000.00

Minimum Expected 1,876,828.00 1,289,704.00 1,221,198.00 1,203,118.12

Cost ($)
Table 3-1 Summary of Various Options

4.0 Conclusion

The chart in section three displays the probability of failure decreases as larger and larger
sections are observed. This is to be expected as the larger the section the more capacity it
has in resisting the load applied. Also as the probability of failure decreases the cost of
failure has a smaller and smaller effect on the total expected cost.

8
References

Comparative Study [PDF]. (2013, October 15). Halifax NS: Hanscomb Ltd.
http://atlanticwoodworks.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Hanscomb-
Cost-Comparison-Study.pdf

(n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from

http://www.webcivil.com/readshapew.aspx

(n.d.). (2017). Risk Assessment and Management. Personal Collection of

(Fenton, G.A.), Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.