Hey folks,
I've been scratching my head over Frank Watts' Engineering Documentation Control Handbook 4th Ed., particularly the use of a "dash" in Part Numbers. Seems a lot like just putting a Rev in there, which Watts strictly says don't do.
For instance:
PN 123456-01
(some...
Assuming the bonding doesn't fail (not trying to focus on the bonding, assume square section is one with the channels), the square section will try to bend both the flanges, do you evaluate those flanges separately or combined as per items #1 and #2 in OP? Or by some other method
“If the women...
Hiya,
Yeah, I will look at the bonding separately (different issue :P), trying to localize and focus on the flange(s) of the c-channel currently and how to show the stress in these, I'm thinking it’s either scenario 1 or 2 as I mentioned in the OP, just need some convincing.
Yeah, the large...
The rigid square section is bonded to the inside face of the flanges (as mentioned in OP). Illustration below to make that clearer.
“If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.” - Red Green
Hello, a problem I'll try to conceptualize best I can:
Let's say I have a rigid solid square section that is bonded on both sides of the flanges at both ends by a c-channel of length width W, flange thickness t, gap (and square dim) l and flange height h (see below illustration).
A moment M is...
Hi Desertfox, even with pneumatic device and lubricated bolts?
“If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.” - Red Green
Thanks , revised the calc to pivot about the furthest bolt, updated calc below with a bit of pre-load evaluation:
“If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.” - Red Green
Hello, Looking for a bit of a sanity check on a bolt calculation, biggest thing is if to take the point of rotation about the bolt group centroid or the first bolt (given the geometry the first bolt could also seem like a valid option, just unsure with this geometry), calculation below shows...
Yeah, appreciate the thought, reason why is that the geometry shown above is what it is essentially due to the shape of the equipment being carried and how it is being transported, let’s just say that there are little options other than the geometry already presented, that's why, if possible...
Agreed, bit of background information was shared in the link in my OP, but ill copy it here:
Cheers,
“If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.” - Red Green
Hi Team, thanks for the responses, much appreciated!
I used configuration #2 in original calculation as it seamed more appropriate than #3, #2 has moment applied about the length of the weld (#3 moment is about the weld leg):
However this was replaced with what I calculated based on Hobart...
Hello, I had posted this along with several other questions here, but I wanted to re-post the weld specific question here as it may get some different insight.
I have a weld and load geometry that I have not been able to find a concrete example on how to evaluate in any textbook or code. I have...
Hi desertfox, thanks again for all your comments and working thru this with me, much appreciated!
Okay I get what you mean by 3D, but the base of each weld lines on the same plane, that is the top flange of the lower beam. The welds all connect to the same object with their base on the same...
Hi,
goutam_freelance
Really appreciate the check up on the FEA, I will be adding vertical plates plates (12mm thick, both sides, 25mm away from the center of the flange) to share some of this load.
desertfox
The weld formula provided doesn't assume the weld is continuous (i.e one continuous...
Hi, yes okay the moment I think should be that original value. Was looking at it thru my load diagram I posted in my last post, 3rd photo. But I'll go with the original moment as per below:
However, i'm really after is a peer review of the section modulus I found in my last post and if its...
Hi,
Desertfox I completely understand what you mean, adding the gussets by simple superposition is not the way to go about it. Analogous to an unsymmetrical I-beam, you do infact have different section modulus to the left and to the right of the centroid.
The engineer inside of me needed to...
Hi Team, thanks for the responses, this community is amazing, much appreciated.
@desertfox, why have you used the section modulus #3 from my third photo in the OP? I'm using #2 and so did WARose [d^2/3, as opposed to d*b]
First, just focusing on the weld taking 100% load:
Lengthening the...
@desertfox: So your saying as soon as the lower beam reaches the upper one you can ignore the lower beam and just consider bending about the upper (i.e, don't combined the two section modulus, just use the upper?) If so, I'm not sure I follow that justification in not using the stacked modulus...
Hi desertfox.
The weld CoG is offset due to the gusset welds, the CoG is the centroid of the UB flange to flange and gusset welds.
The FEA is not modeled with welds, its modeled with the UB bonded to the underside of the existing beam, I figured bonded was sufficient if we went with both Welds...
Hello, working on a pair of transport beams to move a large piece of equipment on a flat deck, beams will cantilever off the ends of the trailer to pick up the loads, think Two Unequal Concentrated Loads Unsymmetrically Placed as a load profile. Working to AS/NZ 3990 standard.
Got existing...
