Can regular maintenance prevent all failures in bridges and machines?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the design and functionality of expansion joints that can accommodate shear forces in structural applications, particularly in the context of bridges and machinery. Participants explore various joint designs, the implications of thermal expansion, and the maintenance considerations necessary to prevent failures.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the feasibility of expansion joints that can carry shear forces, seeking specific designs applicable to their situations.
  • One suggestion involves using rollers between beams and flat plates to allow for horizontal expansion while supporting loads.
  • Another participant proposes over-sizing bolt holes to accommodate thermal expansion, suggesting that a small allowance could suffice for significant temperature changes.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of loose bolts and friction in joints, questioning whether this would allow for adequate expansion without compromising structural integrity.
  • There is a discussion about the appropriateness of using bolts in shear, with some arguing that bolts are primarily tension elements and should not be relied upon for shear support.
  • Participants express differing views on the necessity of detailed design specifications, with some emphasizing the importance of understanding the problem before attempting a design.
  • One participant highlights potential wear issues with horizontal bolts due to cyclic thermal loading, suggesting that this could lead to significant maintenance challenges.
  • Another participant reflects on the simplicity of certain designs, noting that practical experience can sometimes outweigh formal design processes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to designing expansion joints that can handle shear loads. Multiple competing views and concerns about the implications of various design choices remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion is limited by the lack of specific design parameters and assumptions about the loads and conditions the joints will experience. The implications of wear and maintenance are also noted as potentially significant but depend on the specific application.

Who May Find This Useful

Engineers, designers, and students interested in structural design, particularly those focused on thermal expansion and joint mechanics in bridges and machinery.

theOrange
Messages
50
Reaction score
2
Are there any expansion joints (for example between two beams) which can carry a shear force?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The short answer is "yes," but it would help to know what your geometry is. How about a picture?
 
OldEngr63 said:
The short answer is "yes," but it would help to know what your geometry is. How about a picture?

I hope the image attached is clear. I am looking for an expansion joint which allows the top beam to expand horizontally (x-direction, see image), while also being able to carry the load on the top beam.

I've found expansion joints by just searching on google, however they are all for pipes or bridges. In either case they are not applicable to my situation.
 

Attachments

  • Cage 2D.jpg
    Cage 2D.jpg
    14.8 KB · Views: 497
How about if you simply top one of the columns with a flat plate and then put one or more rollers between the beam and the plate?
 
Calculate the expansion first. You may find over sizing bolt holes by a few mm may allow enough room for expansion.
a 500 degree delta T is only 8mm expansion for a metre length of steel (0.000016 (m/m OC)) so over-sizing bolts holes by just 2mm is all that's needed.

Otherwise, pin joins at the top two corners, pin and (horizontal) slots at bottom two.
 
billy_joule said, "Calculate the expansion first. You may find over sizing bolt holes by a few mm may allow enough room for expansion. a 500 degree delta T is only 8mm expansion for a metre length of steel (0.000016 (m/m OC)) so over-sizing bolts holes by just 2mm is all that's needed."

How does that work, Billy? Will you leave the bolts loose in the holes so that they can slip when the frame is heated? Looks to me like if you bolts are snugged up, friction will eliminate your expansion capability.
 
Yes, Don't over tighten the bolts. Just like a pin and slot join:

slot.png
 
Billy, this looks pretty loosy-goosy to me for a structure.
 
That's the first picture I found to demonstrate what a pin and slot join is, obviously the slot length will be not much more than it's width in the OP's case.
Designing poorly defined structures with unknown loads on an internet forum will net loosy-goosy results.
It's always good to start with a simple design and go from there.
A humble M10 8.8 at each corner will take over 10,000kg in pure shear with a SF of 3, in most cases the material being bolted will fail before then.
Anything that's lifting those sorts of loads shouldn't be designed on a forum..
 
  • #10
"... over 10,000kg in pure shear ..."
You obviously measure shear in different units than I do!
 
  • #11
I'll rephrase for your understanding:
The maximum static load for four M10 8.8 bolts in pure shear stress with a safety factor of three is over 10 metric tonnes in Earth gravity field.
 
  • #12
Are you implying that the carrying capacity of these bolts would be something else if removed from the Earth's gravity?
 
  • #13
Of course. The bolts could support a much larger mass on the moon where gravity is weaker.The force will be the same.
 
  • #14
I'm not trying to get a hole design out of your guys ;). I was just trying to figure out what kind of joints there are that could handle shear loads and allow expansion. Thanks for the info, I'll do some designing and calculating with pin joints.
 
  • #15
If the thermal loading is cyclic (heat the structure up, cool the structure, heat the structures, ...) then there will be working in the joint (that's why an expansion joint is required in the first place). With the horizontal bolts that billy_joule has proposed, this will wear the sides of the bolt shanks. They are not hardened to prevent this, so wear could be severe.

There is also the problem of a tear-out in the structure, pushing the bolt through the side of the slot.

If the bolted joint must slip, as per billy_joule, then the nuts cannot be snugged up. This will require a second nut as a lock nut to assure that the first does not simply work its way off completely. If the nuts are snugged up, friction in the joint will possibly lock the joint, preventing the expansion motion, which was the whole point here.

Why use the bolts in a horizontal position when they could be vertical and transmit no shear at all? Let the horizontal beam simply rest on the top of the upright, and then there is no need to have bolts in shear. This is where a roller is helpful, because it eliminates the resulting rubbing.

Bolts are intended fundamentally to be tension elements. They are not intended to support shear. They support shear indirectly by putting the surrounding material in compression and letting the resulting friction support the shear.
 
  • #16
theOrange said:
I'm not trying to get a hole design out of your guys ;). I was just trying to figure out what kind of joints there are that could handle shear loads and allow expansion. Thanks for the info, I'll do some designing and calculating with pin joints.
I already gave you a hole design ;)
No one could give you a whole design as it seems you have no idea on the design specs!
The first step to design is understanding the problem - It appears you are trying to solve a problem without knowing what the problem is: That will never work.

OldEngr63 said:
If the thermal loading is cyclic (heat the structure up, cool the structure, heat the structures, ...) then there will be working in the joint (that's why an expansion joint is required in the first place). With the horizontal bolts that billy_joule has proposed, this will wear the sides of the bolt shanks. They are not hardened to prevent this, so wear could be severe.

There is also the problem of a tear-out in the structure, pushing the bolt through the side of the slot.

If the bolted joint must slip, as per billy_joule, then the nuts cannot be snugged up. This will require a second nut as a lock nut to assure that the first does not simply work its way off completely. If the nuts are snugged up, friction in the joint will possibly lock the joint, preventing the expansion motion, which was the whole point here.

Why use the bolts in a horizontal position when they could be vertical and transmit no shear at all? Let the horizontal beam simply rest on the top of the upright, and then there is no need to have bolts in shear. This is where a roller is helpful, because it eliminates the resulting rubbing.

Whether these issues are even relevant depends on the design spec.
If the joins only experiences self weight during expansion/contraction then wear will be low. If it's used once a week then wear will be slow. If the bolts cost $1 each and last 10 years then the cost of wear is low. Tear out will only occur if the rated load is exceeded.

It's just a simple cage to hold bits of Al in an oven. I've seen welders whip up more complex structures in an afternoon without even drawing a sketch - all they need to know is a few dimensions, the mass of Al and the oven temp. No need for some guy with a degree to design it!
 
Last edited:
  • #17
"If the bolts cost $1 each and last 10 years then the cost of wear is low." This assumes, of course, that you change them out in time to avoid a catastrophic failure.

I sure wish I was a smart as billy_joule!
 
  • #18
billy_joule said:
I already gave you a hole design ;)
No one could give you a whole design as it seems you have no idea on the design specs!
The first step to design is understanding the problem - It appears you are trying to solve a problem without knowing what the problem is: That will never work.

You shouldn't assume so quickly about people. My question was: 1. is there an expansion joint which can carry shear; 2. If yes, what kind of expansion joint. I haven't told you anything about the exact problem or design specs, but that doesn't mean I don't know them.
 
  • #19
Dr.D said:
"If the bolts cost $1 each and last 10 years then the cost of wear is low." This assumes, of course, that you change them out in time to avoid a catastrophic failure.

I sure wish I was a smart as billy_joule!

I performed preventative maintenance as an apprentice electrician - it is a bore and I assure you requires no smarts so is often passed to labourers or apprentices.
Many machines in industry are designed so cheap easily replaceable parts wear before the expensive bits. They become part of the PM schedule (along with greasing nipples, cleaning filters, replacing seals, torquing bolts etc etc) and are checked periodically (daily/yearly, whatever is appropriate).
This is how industry works - you don't just put plant in service then use it until it breaks! You perform PM so it never breaks down.
There are often diminishing returns on buying high quality long life parts. So it's often far cheaper to replace a cheap part more often than pay a premium for long life parts.

theOrange said:
You shouldn't assume so quickly about people. My question was: 1. is there an expansion joint which can carry shear; 2. If yes, what kind of expansion joint. I haven't told you anything about the exact problem or design specs, but that doesn't mean I don't know them.

I think it was reasonable to assume this thread was about the same topic as your last as they appear remarkably similar:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/material-properties-for-annealing-cage.770210/#post-4873375

I apologise if that assumption was wrong.

It doesn't' take long to see that here at PF the best response is given to those who provide as much relevant info as possible. If you know more specs you shouldn't hold back.
 
  • #20
billy_joule said:
I think it was reasonable to assume this thread was about the same topic as your last as they appear remarkably similar:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/material-properties-for-annealing-cage.770210/#post-4873375

I apologise if that assumption was wrong.

It doesn't' take long to see that here at PF the best response is given to those who provide as much relevant info as possible. If you know more specs you shouldn't hold back.

Yep, I think it is pretty obvious they are about the same situation. However that still doesn't mean you need to know everything.

I have everything I need, but I can't wrap that up in a nice pdf and just give out it on the internet. Yes, I gave limited information. Either give me the best answer you can with that limited info or don't.
 
  • #21
<Mod note: removed snide comment.>

Since every thing is regularly maintained, why do we read from time to time about failures in bridges, aircraft, and various other machines? Doesn't regular maintenance make this impossible?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K