unbraced length (seemingly very fundamental) question 6

[Lion06]

I want to explain a situation that recently happened in my office and I would appreciate some feedback.
I am working on a project for which I am the main contact for our firm. I am doing the design and coordination with the architect. I check in periodically with a senior engineer to go over what I am doing.
I had an exchange this week that troubled me a bit.
There is one situation where we have a four sided, self supporting "closet" (so to speak) to house some sliding doors. There are some very small members that span wall to wall and bear on top of the wall. They are supporting little load. I decided to make them small HSS so that I could attach a light gauge clip angle to both sides of the tube where it bears on the wall so that these two clips would prevent twist of the member at this location to provide a brace point. I told him the reason I did this was that if I couldn't brace the end, I wouldn't be able to calculate an unbraced length because it wasn't restrained anywhere. Even if I provided one clip for a channel, it could still twist at the ends and just flop over.
He proceeded to tell me that if you have a beam, set it on a wall (without restraining the top flange at a single location and without restraining the ends against torsion) that the unbraced length would be the actual length of the beam. I expressed some concerns about this, and even stated that AISC would not allow this (pointed to the example of a seat angle having the requirement for the top angle to brace the ends). He proceeded to just tell me I was wrong and that the unbraced length is never larger than the actual length (which I agree with as long as it is actually braced at its ends).
He also talked about how he was talking about strength and not overall stability of the member. Isn't lateral-torsional buckling a stability failure and NOT a strength failure. As far as I am concerned that is a stability issue.
Anyway, I think he came away from that meeting with the impression that I am lacking some fundamental understanding of behavior, but I am not seeing it that way.
Can anyone here comment on my thought process?
This person has been with the company for about 10 years and has about 20 years of experience. He only recently came to our office and this was one of the first interactions I've had with him. He is well-respected in the office and I hate the idea of him thinking that I am lacking fundamental knowledge.
It ended up being a very akward situation for me, because I felt like he was missing the fundamental idea I was trying to get across (which I thought I did pretty clearly), but how does a guy with 1.5 years experience say that to a 20 year guy?
Any thoughts?

 

[JAE]

If you set a beam on a wall and have no connection other than direct bearing and the load applied to the beam is perfectly concentric, then the beam will simply span from wall to wall and the unbraced length would theoretically be the span length because: [blue]the compressive bearing stress at the end would inhibit one side of the tube lifting off the wall.[/blue]

However, there is no such thing as a purely concentric loading or perfectly straight beam so there will always be some level of lateral torsion or twist in the member.

So with some level of torsion (due to beam sweep or load eccentricity) the beam would have to have some sort of load path to resist this torsion. Again - lifting of one flange tip or beam edge off the wall would be resisted to some extent by the compression bearing stress. When the beam tips sideways, the bearing reaction moves to the other side and you have an effective resistance to the torsional moment in the other direction.

Example: take it to a crazy extreme....you have a 20" x 20" tube sitting on the wall. With a l lb load how would it ever twist off the wall? It just intuitively wouldn't.

But your main question was unbraced length.

The question then is: Does the bearing compressive stress in the end of the beam serve to inhibit section rotation at that point?

I don't think, in normal terms, that it does so in such a manner that can be checked, quantified or relied upon.

Even with my crazy extreme example above, as a structural engineer (with 29 years experience) would I count on it except for very small loads or members...and even then, what about wind uplift, diaphragm transfer to the wall, etc.?

AISC 13th edition spec - in Appendix 6, section 6.3 states:
[red]"At points of support for beams, girders and trusses, restraint against rotation about their longitudinal axis shall be provided."[/red]

That's pretty clear to me.

 

[Lion06]

JAE-
I believe even if you bolted the flanges down or welded them that this would still not constitute a brace point. It is certainly more braced than not welding or bolting, but AISC require stiffeners along with the bolts where beams continue over columns (or other beams) in addition to the bolts, correct?
For a seat angle where the beam is welded to the seat, you still are required to put an angle at the top flange (or near the top of the web), correct.
I can see the theory of a perfectly concentric load as you noted above, but that situation doesn't occur in real life so why go into discussion about it during a meeting?
As for a 20"x20" tube, that is inherently stable because it is a section with equivalent MOI in both directions, correct? If you have weak axis bending there are no lateral-torsional buckling considerations, correct?
I agree with the example you gave about the 20" x 20" tube with a 1 lb load, but as you point out that just isn't realistic.
Thanks for the input.

 

[JAE]

[green]but AISC require stiffeners along with the bolts where beams continue over columns (or other beams) in addition to the bolts, correct?[/green]

AISC Section K1.5 requires a check against sidesway web buckling. Theoretically, sometimes you do NOT need stiffeners at continuous beams over columns but every collapse I've ever seen has involved the lack of these stiffeners so I always use them no matter what.

[green]For a seat angle where the beam is welded to the seat, you still are required to put an angle at the top flange (or near the top of the web), correct.[/green]

Yes but I think it is simply a good practice, not necessarily implying that in every case it would fail if you didn't.

[green]As for a 20"x20" tube, that is inherently stable because it is a section with equivalent MOI in both directions, correct? If you have weak axis bending there are no lateral-torsional buckling considerations, correct?[/green]

Correct. I agree. I was just using the 20 x 20 example to help describe the force couple developed when the tube tries to overturn. It would be applicable for a 20" tall by 18" wide tube.

Keep in mind my post: I agree that a connection is required...AISC requires it as I indicated in my last paragraph.

 

[Lion06]

JAE-
I appreciate your input. The last thing I would like you to comment on is this - He talked about lateral-torsional buckling (and the associated unbraced length) and overall stability as if they were mutually exclusive.
My understanding is that lateral torsional buckling IS a stability failure. When the moment strength of the beam is limited by lateral torsional buckling, then you have stability issues that require reducing the amount of load a beam can handle compared to its full strength.

 

[271828]

I think the disconnect might be due to the type of member. I don't have my 3rd Ed. LRFD or 13th Ed. Spec. handy, but I'm pretty sure one does not ever have to check an HSS for LTB. This leaves only global stability.

You took care of global stability, IMO, with your connections.

"He proceeded to tell me that if you have a beam, set it on a wall (without restraining the top flange at a single location and without restraining the ends against torsion) that the unbraced length would be the actual length of the beam."====>This is totally wrong. Actually, one buckling mode might give the same Mcr, but there's a lower load: the rigid body one.

"He proceeded to just tell me I was wrong and that the unbraced length is never larger than the actual length (which I agree with as long as it is actually braced at its ends)."====>You are correct. He needs to review the underlying theory behind the LTB Mcr in Salmon & Johnson, for example.

"Isn't lateral-torsional buckling a stability failure and NOT a strength failure. As far as I am concerned that is a stability issue."===> It's both as far as I'm concerned. I don't see any usefulness in a distinction.

I think your thought process is fine. There's no way you're gonna convince him of anything, though.

JAE typed: "AISC Section K1.5 requires a check against sidesway web buckling. Theoretically, sometimes you do NOT need stiffeners at continuous beams over columns" ===>That's interesting. I thought SSWB was for something else entirely. I'll have to look that one up for myself.

Like you, I'd never go without the stiffeners.

 

[haynewp]

I know that the LTB equations are based on the ends of a beam beaming restrained. But I also agree that it should be restrained even when LTB is not required to be checked just based on global instability coming from tolerances, etc.. and also since it is stated to be required AISC.

 

[msquared48]

StructuralEIT:

I would entertain the idea of the required torsional restraint being provided at the ends of a W section, or HSS for that matter, if the ends were bolted to the top of the wall through bearing plates welded to the beam end, and an additional end plate welded to the beam and bearing plate to transfer the torsional forces to the bearing plate. The bolts would then take the torsional force to the wall structure.

This is essentially the scenario for a cantilever beam bolted to a concrete wall, but the torsion is resisted by the bolts in tension as opposed to shear for the cantilever.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[Lion06]

So what should I do now? It seems like he has the impression that I don't know what I'm doing (maybe thinking) and I know his opinion will be valued when it comes time for my review. I wouldn't be as concerned if this weren't my first interaction with him of any reasonable length (you know what they say about first impressions).

 

[lkjh345]

JMHO:

You might just print off this thread and show him that intelligent, experienced, structural engineers disagree about seemingly basic questions. If everything in our field was really black and white, its doubtful this board would exist.

Our office consists of several very expereinced engineers and 1 EIT. The EIT often shows the rest of us the errors of our ways. The experienced engineers are wise enough to realize that they don't know everything ( and really only dimmly grasp the outlines of what they don't know in a lot of cases), and can always learn something new.

 

[UcfSE]

Not everyone will like you, or agree with you, or think of you as you think of yourself. Deal with it and move on with life.

 

[Lion06]

UcfSE-
I'm not sure exactly what you think my concern is.... but I am only concerned about how his view of my work will affect the projects I am given in the future as well as my review (and consequently, my raise).
I couldn't give two hoots if he likes me, agrees with me (as long as I know my thought processes are reasonable), or if he thinks of me how I think of myself (not really sure what that one even means).
When his opinions (which, IMO, are based on some flawed ideas of his own) of me will affect my work environment, then I do have a problem with that.

 

[JAE]

I wonder if your continued hard work, concientious efforts, improved skills over time, willingness to learn, quality of work, etc. wouldn't overcome any brief one-day episode such as this?

It may be possible that the engineer doesn't even remember your conversation as so earth-shattering as you do.

 

[zcp]

Doesn't anyone go to lunch with coworkers anymore???

StructuralEIT, offer to take him to lunch....bring a notepad and a pencil and you guys draw up the structure together and work through the force and stability analysis. You'll both benefit a great deal.

ZCP

http://www.phoenix-engineer.com

 

[slickdeals]

It can be a nightmare once ego becomes an issue. Senior engineers sometimes do not want to listen a "rookie" engineer. If that is the case, don't even bother trying to explain things 'cos that can only make things worse. And again, StructuralEIT......don't take it personally and I am sure you are just over-reacting the situation. I don't think your raise is going to be affected, 'cos mistakes happen all the time (not that I am saying you are wrong or he is wrong).

 

[msquared48]

I agree with ikjh345.

28 years ago when I was an EIT, there was another EIT in the office that pointed out a simple truss problem in detailing that had beewn going on for years in the office without the principles thinking about the ramifications. It had to do with the effect of providing non intended interior support points to roof trusses underlain with non-bearing walls by not allowing the trusses to deflect as designed over these same walls. The future use of Simpson DTC clips at non-bearing walls alleviated the problem and substantially minimized the liabliity of the firm. It took the new blood and lack of "experience" of an EIT to see things as they were.

Never sell anyone short.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[UcfSE]

Don't confuse curt with refusal to spoon feed. I send people where they need to go rather than spend hours retyping posts that get answered about once a year or so, in general, before you joined for instance. You probably haven't been here long enough to notice.

I question why you seem to need to go to a committee when you have a decision to make, whether it's here or in another area of the site. What you need to do is learn to deal with problems and make decisions on your own rather than seek reassurance. The root of your issue in this thread is something many of us, including me, run into or have run into at some point. So it intereferes with work. Deal with it man. You ask what you should do. What do you think you should do?

This can apply elsewhere as well. I would rather tell you to "suck it up, Nancy", rather than give you a cookie and milk and a hug, and that's basically what I posted. You'll be better off for it in the end, imo.

 

[msquared48]

StructuralEIT:

One person does not know all the answers. I firmly believe that the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. Therefore, never hesitate from asking others their opinion. But, in the end, it is true that you will have to make the decision that is right for you.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[csd72]

StructuralEIT,

As others have said, your thought process is sound, but I wouldnt worry too much about the buckling of a hss as these are torsionally very strong.

I have often found that many old school engineers have very poor awareness of buckling issues. I believe this is because when they began, the codes were conservative enough that this was not so much of an issue.

I would suggest the following approach when dealing with this type of issue:

1. When having the initial discussion, do not be confrontational. Instead us phrases such as "Could you please explain this as I would like to understand your justification for this.."

2. If you feel your approach is correct, and your approach is more conservative, then use your approach. If their approach is more conservative, then use theirs.

 

[OldPaperMaker]

StructuralEIT,
This suggestion is about the "process" of dealing with bosses, peers, clients, etc.
Pick up a copy of a book that was written in 1989 by Stephen R. Covey titled "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Pay attention to habit #5, which is: Seek first to understand, Then to be understood". If one's focus is on listening to understand (someone else) as opposed to listening to respond to that individual it sometimes effects a very different end result.
Of course, if the person that you are dealing with doesn't suscribe to the same Principle then you might have to read the rest of the book to pick up a few more "habits".

Good luck