Preferential bending loading direction of a beam

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the optimal loading direction for symmetric beams, specifically U channels and triangular extrusions. It suggests that loading a U channel in tension may enhance its moment capacity and reduce buckling risk, while the loading direction for triangular extrusions remains less clear. Concerns about buckling in open sections like U channels are highlighted, emphasizing the importance of material distribution around bending axes. The conversation also points out that structural analysis is crucial for efficient design, as improper beam orientation can lead to additional reinforcement needs. Ultimately, the goal is to maximize the efficiency of steel use while ensuring structural integrity.
sfensphan
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Hi All,
I'm trying to think through a problem and was hoping to ping the community for guidance. Suppose you have a beam that's symmetric about 2 axes (like a u channel or a triangular extrusion). Is it better to load the beam in compression on the side with material furthest away or should you load that side in tension? In the case of a U channel, I think that the top of the U should be loaded in tension as it would allow the member to carry more moment before buckling occurs. In the case of a equilateral triangle extrusion, I can't think of a good reason either way. Loading the tip of the triangle in compression would make it more likely to buckle, but it's farther away from the neutral axis. I'm assuming that the Young's modulus is the same in compression and tension. I think that matters but not 100% sure
Any thoughts would be very helpful!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
It all comes down to the efficient use of steel and ultimately the cost of the project .

Efficiency here means using the least weight of steel to carry the required loads .

Whilst you can in principle use any type of beam in any orientation to carry a specified load pattern there is usually only a very limited range of types of beam and orientation that will do the job efficiently .

Also when someone uses completely the wrong type and orientation of beam all sorts of secondary problems often arise such as the need to provide stabilising gussets and to provide reinforcement at the anchorages and load points - all of which adds more weight and reduces efficiency further .

Designing steelwork requires structural analysis skills in the designer but just as importantly a good measure of horse sense about what works and what doesn't .
 
Last edited:
sfensphan said:
Hi All,
I'm trying to think through a problem and was hoping to ping the community for guidance. Suppose you have a beam that's symmetric about 2 axes (like a u channel or a triangular extrusion). Is it better to load the beam in compression on the side with material furthest away or should you load that side in tension? In the case of a U channel, I think that the top of the U should be loaded in tension as it would allow the member to carry more moment before buckling occurs. In the case of a equilateral triangle extrusion, I can't think of a good reason either way. Loading the tip of the triangle in compression would make it more likely to buckle, but it's farther away from the neutral axis. I'm assuming that the Young's modulus is the same in compression and tension. I think that matters but not 100% sure
Any thoughts would be very helpful!
I think a U channel has only one axis of symmetry, and that's the one which splits the U down the middle.

If you are concerned about buckling, then using open sections like a U-channel, where the radii of gyration differ greatly depending on the axis of bending, is problematic. IMO, it's much better to use either a closed section or an open section where the material has a better distribution about all of the possible axes on bending. In any event, it's hard to discuss this in a general way; it's much better to analyze an actual structure.
 
SteamKing said:
I think a U channel has only one axis of symmetry, and that's the one which splits the U down the middle.

If you are concerned about buckling, then using open sections like a U-channel, where the radii of gyration differ greatly depending on the axis of bending, is problematic. IMO, it's much better to use either a closed section or an open section where the material has a better distribution about all of the possible axes on bending. In any event, it's hard to discuss this in a general way; it's much better to analyze an actual structure.

Hi All,
Greatly appreciate the replies. I can see that there are a multitude of variables I hadn't consider in my hypothetical.
I had a chance to look at a steel hook on a crane over the weekend and I noticed that the inner part of the was beefier than the outer (cross section of a "T"). By analogy, it would seem that you would want to load the U channel and the triangular extrusion such that the tension passed through the flat. I have to think through the math a little bit more before I post something more rigorous. Thanks again for your thoughts.
 
Had my central air system checked when it sortta wasn't working. I guess I hadn't replaced the filter. Guy suggested I might want to get a UV filter accessory. He said it would "kill bugs and particulates". I know UV can kill the former, not sure how he thinks it's gonna murder the latter. Now I'm finding out there's more than one type of UV filter: one for the air flow and one for the coil. He was suggesting we might get one for the air flow, but now we'll have to change the bulb...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
7K