huangyhg

beam bracing questions
if you have a interior beam framing into a perimeter beam, and the interior beam is coped to be at the same level as the perimeter beam, will this be considered a point of bracing? it seems like it wouldn't because it doesn't restrain either the top or bottom flange, like it would if it were sitting on top the perimeter beam.
also, can anyone describe or provide a link for some general methods of providing bracing for a beam when you are concerned about lateral-torsional buckling? i hear people speak of providing bracing for beams, as if it is something easy to incorporate into the framing, i just have no visual idea of how this is accomplished.
i am sure these topics have been discussed before, i just couldn't find these specific answers when i did a search... thanks.
check out our whitepaper library.
there are times when a full fitted stiffener is provided in the perimeter beam to which the interior beam frames into. this connects the top and bottom flanges together. however, this is a question for which the elders here might be able to provide better insight.
hth
what cave did you crawl out of? (joking! just giving you a hard time. lol) seriously, though, this has come up probably a half-dozen times in the last few months.
the 13th ed. aisc spec. appendix 6 and its commentary are all about this subject. for more info (and it will certainly be needed to really understand what's going on), dig up a copy of the aisc bracing seminar notes by yura and helwig. they recycled this seminar about 4000 times, so most offices have at least one copy floating around.
for your specific case, there will usually be a diaphragm there, but let's assume there's not one. assuming the spandrel beam has only the top flange in compression, the filler beams will be connected close enough to the top flange to count as _lateral_ braces, to use spec. terminology. i'm sure there are weird cases in which they won't be sufficient to be lateral braces, though, but i think they'd be rare.
greetings:
"271828" hit the nail right on the head.
best regards registeredpe in az
鈥渢he interior beam is coped to be at the same level as the perimeter beam鈥?/i> could make the beam bracing ineffective. in accordance with aisc spec. appendix 6 and its commentary. 鈥渂eam bracing must prevent twist of the section, not lateral displacement鈥? this means if the connection is through a shear plate near center of beam web and if the connection and the filler beam do not possess the stiffness as a torsional bracing, the filler beam doesn鈥檛 help the beam ltb strength mr at all.
but i feel that this kind of filler beam is still helpful because beam buckles in a lateral-torsional mode. if the lateral displacement is restrained, mr should be higher.
does anyone have the yura bracing papers in pdf format?
i think that even if the beam won't provide torsional restraint and is coped, it still provided lateral stability for the top flange even though it is not directly connected to the top flange - provided the connection from the supported beam extends for most of the supporting beam web height.
strleit, i agree as long as "most of the supporting beam web height" includes the part near the top flange.
j1d, i thought aisc said that a beam can be considered a brace if you prevent lateral translation of the flange and/or twisting of the cross section (emphasis on the or.)
clansman is absolutely right. a brace must provide either resistance to twist or resistance to lateral translation.
your beam is fine.
one caveat needs to be stated for folks new to this subject, clansman and frv: lateral braces must be attached near the compression flange, however. i can "prevent translation" of a beam by putting a threaded rod through the centroid, but this wouldn't be a lateral brace for lateral-torsional buckling.

__________________
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]