几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


回复
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-15, 10:55 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 single equal angle bending with tip in tension - asd

single equal angle bending with tip in tension - asd
hi,
i need help understanding the specification for single angle bending in the asd.
the asd section 5.2.2 says that for an unbraced equal angle with the tip of the leg in tension, that "fb is determined only by section 5.1.2".
5.1.2 indicates fb=0.66fy.
does this mean that we do not need to check for lateral torsional buckling whenever the tip is in tension??
is the reason for this the fact that the tip of the angle in tension will allways reach 0.66fy before buckling of the compression leg will occur??
tweedledee,
from my interpretation of the code, and from my experience i would say that you can't have lateral torsional buckling when the tip is in tension if you are braced to resist lateral torsional buckling of the section itself. note that the member must have lateral torsional restraint to use the geometric axis procedure. if you do not have restraint to resist lateral torsional buckling then you should design the member using the principle axis procedure. this accounts for the tendacy of the
i guess i don't totally agree with you aggman...
here's my logic:
1. i agree that 5.2.1 sets the conditions for two situations:
paragraph a) is where the angle has ltb restraint along its length. if it does, then it permits you to use geometric axis method and you can then follow 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 to get the allowable stress.
paragraph b) is where equal leg angles have a ltb restraint at the point of maximum moment. if this is true, then it also allows geometric axis design and requires you to use 5.2.2b.
2. now if you have equal or unequal legs - and you do not meet 5.2.1 a or b, then you still can use 5.2.2 - this is seen by the phrase "equal leg angle
jae,
i think after reading the section again you are right although i have never designed an angle this way. i agree with what you are saying, but i have always felt that if the angle did not at least have resistance to lateral buckling at the maximum moment point that you are better off to design it using the principle axis method. while this is more involved, it is more accurate. i must say though, that 90% of the single angles i design are braced so it generally isn't as much of a problem for me. i do have to say that the code seems to be a little fuzzy in this section about when to do what, etc. note that 5.2.3 states that unequal leg angles without lateral restraint must be designed using the principle axis procedure.
yep - i totally agree on the concern...or better, caution, over non-braced angles.
jae & aggman, thanks for your responses. but i am still confused.
the end sentance in 5.2.2b states that "when the leg tips are in tension, fb is determined only by sect. 5.1.2" i.e. fb=0.66fy. this suggests that without lt restraint, and for the tip in tension, the allowable stress is 0.66fy with no regard to ltb???
5.2.2 states that you can consider only geometric bending provided that part a and part b are followed. so it would appear that you can use 5.1.2 if the angle legs are in tension if you increase the applied bending stress by 25%. the commentary seems to back this up. personally i would still design the angle using the principle axes if you don't have lateral torsional restraint.
agree with aggman -
and i'd add that yes, it says that fb is only determined by 5.1.2. that is correct - but - that is dealing only with the allowable stress fb....not fb which is the actual stress.
the paragraph above in 5.2.2.a tells you what to do with the actual stress fb. keep them separate in your mind.
tweedledee
read the whole 5.2 section. if you meet all the requirements then yes you use 0.66fy as it states. it's not a matter of reading the one sentence that statement is in. you have to meet all the previously stated conditions in that paragraph as well.
aggman,jae, and ucfse,..thanks for all your help. i think i have a good understanding of it now
tweedledee
i understand how to calculate fb for the major axis (x and y) but how do go about finding your actual bending stress about the z axis,i.e. the fbz as mention in section 5.3.1. also, the property tables only provide s for the x and y axis. where can i find any info on how to calculate this?
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
回复


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
single angle joist sea huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-15 10:54 PM
multi span cable huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-10 03:25 PM
beam seat angle huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 03:00 PM
angle design for flexure per aisc asd 9 huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:10 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 10:50 AM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多