Why is the second cross section preferred for designing a beam?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the preference for a specific cross section in beam design, particularly comparing two cross sections of laminated timber. Participants explore the implications of the area moment of inertia, structural connections, and material properties in the context of beam performance under load.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the area moment of inertia is equal for both cross sections but questions why the second cross section is preferred.
  • Another participant challenges the moment of inertia calculation for the second section, suggesting that structural connections between the laminae are necessary.
  • A participant proposes that assuming laminae are constrained at the ends could help in analyzing the problem.
  • Concerns are raised about the adequacy of friction between planks to transfer shear forces, indicating a need for a more robust connection.
  • There is a suggestion that a thin layer of adhesive could be used to bond the laminae and transfer shear forces effectively.
  • One participant emphasizes the anisotropic nature of timber, noting that glulam construction can enhance dimensional stability by orienting grain directions differently.
  • A question is posed about the advantages of the second cross section in resisting transverse shear.
  • Another participant queries the applicability of the second cross section preference to metallic beams, seeking clarification on shear resistance and potential issues with the second setup.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculations and assumptions regarding the moment of inertia and structural integrity of the laminated timber. There is no consensus on the reasons for preferring the second cross section, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding its advantages in different materials.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made about structural connections and material behavior, particularly regarding the treatment of shear forces and the properties of laminated timber versus solid materials.

pukb
Messages
94
Reaction score
1
Consider the cross section of two beams of same material as shown in the file attached.

The area moment of inertia I about the central axis is equal for both the c/s. I have calculated it.

Can somebody explain why the second c/s (2 in the figure ) is preferred for the design?
 

Attachments

  • DSC01155.jpg
    DSC01155.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 574
Engineering news on Phys.org
Is this laminated timber?

Unless there is some structural connection between the leaves you have calculated the moment of inertia incorrectly for the second section.
 
It is laminated timber.
To solve the problem, let's assume the laminaes are constrained at the ends to avoid their separation in bending.
 
You have to do more than constrain them at the ends.

At every vertical section along the beam there has to be a way to transfer the horizontal (shear) forces through the vertical section. Friction between the planks is not enough and indeterminate.
 
We can probably assume a thin layer of adhesive between laminae to hold them together and transfer shear forces and no failure in the adhesive layers.
But still can't figure out why the second setup is preferred over the first.
 
So we have discussed the difference between a stack of planks and solid block.

I pointed out in post#2 that your calculation of moment of inertia was wrong.

If you glue the planks together to perform composite structural action then they will indeed have the same moment of inertia as a block of the same dimensions.

But so what?

They will have other properties that are very very different.

In particular timber is a significantly anisotropic material, so that it is particularly subject to twisting and warping under torques.

One advantage of glulam construction is that adjacent lpies have their grains running in different directions. The result of this is much greater dimensional stability and the resultant material is much closer to isotropy.

Is this what you are asking?
 
The 2nd cross section is preferable in that it would resist transverse shear the best?
 
Studiot: post 6

The explanation seems to be sensible for a wooden beam. But why would somebody prefer the second cross section for say a metallic beam of aluminium or mild steel.

Jupiter :
Could you please explain how does it resist shear better?

Please highlight any problems that would occur if the second setup is used.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
861
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K