Select an Economical Beam Section for Moment Requirements

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on selecting an economical beam section based on moment requirements for a beam with an unbraced length of 3 m and maximum moments of 312 kN-m and 350 kN-m in unbraced and braced segments, respectively. It emphasizes the need for the beam's Lp to exceed 3 m and the resistance to the unbraced segment's moment to be greater than 312 kN-m. The calculation for the required section modulus (Zx) for the braced segment indicates it must be greater than 1,127,000 mm^3. The W310 * 97 beam is selected as it meets the necessary properties and is the lightest option. The user plans to improve future posts by including clearer diagrams and explanations.
Brendan Webb
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
If the unbraced length of a beam is 3 m and the maximum bending moment in this unbraced segment is 312 kN-m, and also the maximum moment in the braced segment of the beam is 350 kN-m, select an economical section just based on the moment requirements. Use Table A.2M included in the course materials.

I am having problems with this question I am not sure how to address the maximum moment in the braced section of the beam. I know that the beam's Lp has to be higher than the unbraced length as Lp denotes the maximum un-braced length of the compression flange for which the maximum design stress for a compact symmetrical shape may be used. So Lp > 3m. I also know that the beam's resistance to the maximum bending moment in this unbraced segment must be greater than 312kN - m. So MLp > 312 kN - m.

For the braced length I believe have to find an appropriate section modulus.
So:

0.9 Fy = M/ZxZx = (350kN - m * (1000^3))/(0.9 * 345000kpa)

Zx = 1,127000 mm^3

So the Zx of the beam must be greater than this (Zx > 1,127000mm^3).

Based upon this I would select W310 * 97 as all of its properties are larger than what's required. It is also the lightest beam that is able to do this.

Any pointers on if I did this right? Attached is the Table.

Thanks

 

Attachments

Question is difficult to interpret with certainty . Nice clear diagram would help .
 
Nidum said:
Question is difficult to interpret with certainty . Nice clear diagram would help .
Thanks for the reply, I believe I solved the problem (or at least I sent in my assignment with my interpreted answer). Next time I post I will include the diagram and make my thoughts extra clear.

Cheers
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top