Scribd
Upload
173 views

Modern Steel Construction's Monthly

The document provides guidance on designing cantilever beams according to the AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification. It recommends modifying the specification equations by using an effective length factor (Kc) to account for varying restraint and loading conditions. Kc values ranging from less than one to greater than one are presented based on research by Nethercot. Bracing the tension flange close to the cantilever tip is found to be most effective at increasing stability. Cb should be taken as 1 when using Kc. The approach aims to provide a straightforward yet conservative method for analyzing many common cantilever conditions.

Uploaded by

apirakq
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
173 views

Modern Steel Construction's Monthly

The document provides guidance on designing cantilever beams according to the AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification. It recommends modifying the specification equations by using an effective length factor (Kc) to account for varying restraint and loading conditions. Kc values ranging from less than one to greater than one are presented based on research by Nethercot. Bracing the tension flange close to the cantilever tip is found to be most effective at increasing stability. Cb should be taken as 1 when using Kc. The approach aims to provide a straightforward yet conservative method for analyzing many common cantilever conditions.

Uploaded by

apirakq
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

If you've ever asked yourself "why" about something related to structural steel design or construction,

Modern Steel Construction's monthly Steel Interchange column is for you!


Tightening Tension Control Bolts
On one of our projects, the EOR specified snug-tightened
bolts for the majority of the connections. The erector chose
to use twist-off bolts for the entire job. He snapped off all
the splines without telling the EOR. As the inspector, should
I approve them?
Question sent to AISC's Steel Solutions Center
There is no concern for the level of pretension that may be
present in a snug-tightened joint. Said another way, snug-tight
is a minimum condition with no maximum necessary. Accordingly, the RCSC Specification allows the use of tension control
bolts in a snug-tight joint. To do so does not affect the structural integrity of the connection. It is just as easy for the erector to break the splines as to leave them in place, and it gives
both the installer and inspector a way of tracking the completion.
Bill Liddy
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

ness is specifically addressed in Section 7.2.7 of AWS


D1.1:2004. "When welding directly to base metal, the base
metal shall be no thinner than 1 h the stud diameter." There are
different requirements when welding through metal deck.
Refer to AWS D1.1 or contact AWS technical support for further information pertaining to AWS code parameters (web site
at www.aws.org). Additional information on stud welding is
available on the Nelson web site at the following link:
www.nelsonstudwelding.com.
Sergio Zoruba, Ph.D.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

Design of Cantilever Beams


The following is a brief paper presenting one engineer's
opinion on design parameters for use with cantilever beams.
The author has included a list of pertinent reference sources
on the subject.
Cantilever Flexural Member Design
By Sam Eskildsen, P.. , Structural Design Group, Birmingham, AL

Expansion Joints Required for Temperature


I am designing a steel structure with 960' x 450' plan dimensions. Where can I find the design guideline for setting and
designing expansion joints? Is it possible to design the
structure without expansion joints if the architect does not
want the joints?
Question sent to AISC's Steel Solutions Center
The subject of expansion joints for structures is briefly discussed in the AISC LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, 3rd Edition, starting on page two through 48. If you require
additional subject information, the referenced basis of this discussion is a 1974 publication titled Expansion Joints in
Buildings. This document was prepared by the Standing Committee on Structural Engineering of the Federal Construction
Council, Building Research Advisory Board, Division of Engineering, National Research Council as Technical Report No. 65.
This document is available for purchase from the following
web link: www.nap.edulcatalogl9801.html.
Kurt Gustafson, S.E., P.E.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.

Introduction
The AISC 1999 Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification
for Steel Buildings l has no specific flexural design requirements
for cantilever beams beyond requiring Cb = 1 when the free
end is unbraced. A review of the literature on cantilever analysis reveals this minimal requirement may not be enough to
steer the engineer from creating cantilever designs that, while
meeting the letter of the specification, at times may be unconservative.
Nethercot 2,3 has done extensive research on cantilever
analysiS and design. His relevant findings are summarized in
the Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures. 4
Nethercot's approach is to use an effective length factor, designated Kc' to account for a variety of restraint and loading
arrangements. Kc values can range from less than one to
greater than one.
Based on Nethercot's work, one can modify the 1999 LRFD
Specification equations as follows for use with cantilevered
wide-flange beams:
Equation Fl-6:
Equation Fl-13:

Minimum Flange Thickness for Welding Studs


I am looking for information on what the minimum flange
thickness requirements are for welding shear studs for composite action. Because I do not know what the actual weld
size is, I cannot determine what the minimum flange thickness should be. We do specify 114" minimum.
Question sent to AISC's Steel Solutions Center
The AISC Specification does not address shear stud weldment requirements. However, the required base metal thick-

where Kc is given by
Figure 1 (right, adapted
from Nethercot); and
Cb = 1 for any cantilever
section, regardless of
bracing conditions.

Figure 1

KcValues for Cantilevers


Restraint Continuous
Cantilever Support
TIp

~
!

1"'"'
::l

r'"

r"'
:c::l

Ko
Top FongeLoadmg

I.'
I.'
0.6
2.5
2.5
1.5
7.5
7.5
' .5

All Other Cases


0.8
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
3.0
2.7
2.'

March 2005 Modern Steel Construction 11

Bracing Type and Location


Traditionally, engineers expect that bracing should be of
the compression flange. However, in the case of the cantilever,
it is the tension flange that deforms most during bucking.
Bracing a cantilever beam's compression flange alone has
almost no impact on the beam's stability.
Kitipornchais studied efficiency of bracing types and location along the span. He found that for discrete lateral bracing
the most effective location is the top (tension) flange and as
close to the cantilever tip as practical. He also found that for
cantilevers fully restrained at the support, lateral restraints
placed within the first 40% of the span are practically useless.
Until more research is done on multiple or continuous
restraints along the cantilever length, it seems prudent to consider only the restraint provided at the support and the tip.
Kc and Cb
Figure 1, a modified form of tables given by Nethercot,
identifies Kc values that were derived assuming Cb = 1.
Nethercot has published work in which Kc = 1 and the Cb factor is used to adjust for restraint and loading conditions at the
cantilever, but using an effective length factor seems more
intuitive and Cb = 1 should be used when using the Kc values
from Figure p ,3,6

Conclusion
Let's consider one case where this approach is relevant. An
under-slung crane beam is projecting out from the side of a
building. Inside the building, the beam is over a mechanical
space and is supported by roof beams. The tip of the crane
beam extends outside the building such that deliveries can be
hoisted up and brought into the building. The hoisting device
has wheels that run on the bottom flange of the beam, so no
stiffeners or bracing can be provided to the bottom flange of
the cantilever beam without interfering with the operation of
the crane device. Further, the architect is adamant that you are
not to provide braces to the flanges of the cantilever beam tip
at the exterior of the building. Not only does he feel this will
not look good, but he's also driven around and seen this condition without them. You don't want him going to another
engineer because he might not come back.
In this case, you have loading that is not top flange loading, the tip is unbraced at the top and bottom, and the "root"
of the cantilever beam is only braced at the top flange. A Kc
value of 3.0 is selected, and the beam is designed using the
formulas above.
There are several other methods out there.8,9 Some of them
are more exact. However, in each case the methods are situation specific, are a bit too complex to be used in an office setting, or just do not cover enough cases. The nice thing about
Nethercot's work is that in a straightforward way it covers
most possible restraint conditions and loading conditions, and
it is conservative. (Note that built into the Kc values are the
effects of skip loading, uniform loading, point loading, varying ratios of back span length to cantilever length, varying
support conditions for the "far" end of the supported portion
of the beam, etc. He just used the worst case).
As a final comment, the proposed method lends itself to
expansion to cover other problematic areas. Tables similar to
Figure 1 could be developed to aid in the design of continuous
beams and laterally unsupported beams with varying end
restraints.

12. Modern Steel Construction March 2005

Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge with thanks the
advice of Theodore Galambos, Ph.D. and Sergio Zoruba, Ph.D.
r also express gratitude to my employer, Structural Design
Group, Inc., for supporting me in my professional adventures.
Cited References
1AISC (1999), Load and Resistance Factor Design for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago.
2Nethercot, D.A. (1973). "The Effective Length of Cantilevers as Governed by
Lateral Buckling," The Structural Engineer, Vol. 51 , NO.5.
3Nethercot, D.A. (1983), "Elastic Lateral Buckling of Beams ," Beams and
Beam-Columns: Stability and Strength (ed. R. Narayanan), Applied Science
Publishers, Barking, Essex, England.
4Galambos, T.V (ed.) (1998) , Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, Structural Stability Research Council, 5th Edition, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
5Kitipornchai , Dux, Richter (1984). "Buckling and Bracing of Canti levers,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 110, NO.9
6Salmon and Johnson (1996) Steel Structures-Design and Behavior, 3rd Edition , p. 511, HarperCollins, New York.
7AISC (1999) , Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor
Design, Third Edition, AISC, Chicago.
8Essa and Kennedy (1995) , "Design of Steel Beams in Cantilever-SuspendedSpan Construction," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 121, No.11
9Bo Dowswell (2004) "Lateral-Torsional Buckling of Wide Flange Canti lever
Beams," Engineering Journal, Vol. 41 , NO.2.
Additional References
Hemstad, Michael (1999) , "Cantilever Beam Framing Systems," Engineering
Journal, Third Quarter.
Nethercot, D.A. and Kirby, P.A. (1979). Design for Structural Stability, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Timoshenko and Gere (1961) , Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hili, New
York.
Yura, Joseph (1995) , "Bracing for Stability State-of-the-Art," Proceedings,
Structural Congress XIII, ASCE, Boston.
Yura, Joseph (2001) , "Fundamentals of Beam Bracing ," Engineering Journal,
First Quarter.

Steel Interchange is a forum for Modern Steel Construction


readers to exchange useful and practical professional
ideas and information on all phases of steel building and
bridge construction. Opinions and suggestions are welcome on any subject covered in this magazine.
The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not
necessarily represent an official position of the American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. and have not been
reviewed. It is recognized that the design of structures is
within the scope and expertise of a competent licensed
structural engineer, architect or other licensed professional
for the application of principles to a particular structure.
If you have a question or problem that your fellow readers might help you to solve, please forward it to us. At the
same time, feel free to respond to any of the questions
that you have read here. Contact Steel Interchange via
AISC's Steel Solutions Center:

soj~etionsceni\r
Your connection to
ideas + answers
One East Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
Chicago , IL 60601
tel : 866.ASK.AISC
fax : 312.670.9032
[email protected]

You might also like