18" S.W.WF@63.2#. Does anyone know what this beam is? 3

[Logan82]

Hi!

I have an old drawing from 1960 in which a beam is specified: 18" S.W.WF@63.2#. I have not found that beam in any chart. Does anyone know what this beam is?

I am almost sure it is custom built, but I don't understand why someone would have put the height and linear weight if it's a custom beam. If I were the designer I would have simply put the assembly drawing # of this beam.

Here is what I know of this beam so far:
- Composed of 3 welded plates
- Bottom flange is narrower and thicker than top plate

 

[rather_be_riding]

Is this a tee cut from an off-the-shelf 18" welded wide flange beam with a plate welded to the other side (presumably the wider flange)? Canada used the WWF terminology for some time I believe but I couldn't find a WWF matching your dimensions and mass in the CISC obsolete shapes.

 

[Logan82]

Thank you for your answer rather_be_riding. Maybe it is "a tee cut from an off-the-shelf 18" welded wide flange beam with a plate welded to the other side". However, like you, I haven't found a WWF 18" x 63.2# or a W18 " x 63.2#.

 

[dhengr]

Logan82:
You certainly should be able to distinguish btwn. a welded, built-up member and a mill rolled member, whatever it is called out as on the drwgs., by looking at it. You’ll see welds rather than rolled radii at the flg. to web juncture. Measure the various pieces, flgs. and web, and calc. the section props. The one unknown is the material spec. or strength, likely A36. That’s an odd shape to have been rolled in a mill, with different sizes flgs. Although, today there are some specialty mills which will roll mill orders of special shapes for various product applications. The product manuf’er. usually owns the rolls, they are proprietary, and for their product. I’m not familiar with the S.W. WF call-out, but it might mean ‘shop welded’ WF.

 

[WARose]

I checked a reference I have (by AISC) that covers steel shapes rolled in the USA from 1873 to 1952, and i don't see any shape that has the weight 63.2 lbs/ft. I see a few 63.3 lbs/ft shapes.....but not that. I don't have the 5/6th ed (which covers 1960) but someone here might.....if not, I can bug a old friend or two to see if they could look it up for me.

But I think it's probably best to do some field work on this to find out what is going on. It doesn't look like a standard......anything.

 

[Logan82]

Thank you dhengr and WARose. It's very kind that you suggest asking your friend WARose, however I agree with you that it's better to go on site to measure this beam, since that so far no one knows a standard beam like that. It will resolve my problem to measure that beam. I will use the lowest historic steel grade at that time for the calculation.

 

[Ron247]

I looked in the 5th and 6th. They have "ST 18 WF" but the lightest is 67.5 plf in the 6th and 75 plf in the 5th. Both of them have approximately a 12" wide flange and about a 5/8" thick web. The 75 plf has about a .94" thick flange and the 67.5 has about a .794" thick flange. I do not see any "SW 18 SF"

 

[dik]

They used to have WWF in WWF-S, WWF-R and WWF-T shapes for standard, reduced and thin as I recall. I couldn't find a section that matched the weight either for full weight per foot or for half weight per foot. Struk out...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik