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 2009-09-16, 03:46 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 ributary area

tributary area
i just started working in the design of residential housing. i can't seem to get a straight answer here, so perhaps some of you can explain.
let's say i'm designing to boca and i have a roof which bears on three points. to find the reaction on the middle support, could i just take half of the first span and half of the other span to determine the reaction or do i need to perform a continuous beam calculation? same for a floor with three or more bearing points. is that a standard practice backed by any code?
check out our whitepaper library.
you should always allow for continuity....when the joist or rafter is continuous. because the lengths of solid-sawn lumber are generally limited to 20 feet or less, these are usually spliced over the internal bearing point, and function as separate beams. trusses and engineered lumber are available in longer sections, thus are usually continuous.
the difference is usually not great, i.e. 1/8 of the total load in a symmetrical continuous
drewtheengineer...
if i understand your question, you are asking if there are three supports for a roof section (beams, trusses, joists, ..whatever), how do you appropriately apply the load to determine critical load cases (i.e, what is the tributary area for critical conditions?).
i agree with trussdoc with one additional comment....
the initial loading on the roof surface, transferred to your support, is exactly as you have described it...the center support takes 1/2 the roof area, and each outside support takes 1/4 of the roof area each.
the continuous beam calculation comes into play when the reactions of your initial roof support are then transferred to whatever they might be bearing upon, such as a continuous beam.
keep in mind the sequence...load-reaction,load-reaction...all proceeding downward to the foundation.
drewtheengineer,
your inquiry is: to find the reaction on the middle support, could i just take half of the first span and half of the other span to determine the reaction or do i need to perform a continuous beam calculation?
- no, you don't have to perform a continuous beam calculation if you only need the reactions (especially for beams of equal spans).
the roof is made up of trusses that i do not need to design with three bearing points. they will span the entire house continuously. if i were to apply a uniform load on the entire roof area, the reaction at the middle support would be greater if analyzed as a continuous member as opposed to applying 1/2 the roof area to the center support (note: spans are not equal length).
trussdoc is saying that i would need to analyze this as a continuous member, producing a higher load at the center support.
100islands says i do not need to analyze this as a continuous
if the beam you are looking at is continuous, then you need to analyze it as such. you should always strive to be as precise as possible when modeling structural elements. a possible exception to this is when a load case is so minimal that minimal design requirements would control even with a greater load case.
i doubt there is any documentation in boca on how to model structural members. you should model the
one more opinion to really make your day!
the continuous truss will indeed provide a little more load to the interior support due to the continuity of the roof truss. but the magnitude is not that great. and, if the truss is wood, over the long term, it will actually begin to shed the sustained dead load back to the exterior supports, thus acting more like a pair of simple spans for dead load, but continuous for live load.
again....the difference isn't that great so what you can do is design the interior supports for the continuous action (which is conservative) and then design the outer supports for the simple span condition (which is also a bit conservative).
this way, you have properly taken into account the continuity, that you do have, and also provided a proper consideration for the potential for long term deflection effects on the wood (if it is wood).
jae,
that is exactly what i did/do. thanks
drew
__________________
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
ributary area and concentrated load question huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-16 03:45 PM
effective wind area huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 09:45 PM
concrete breakout cone area for group huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 11:46 AM
【转帖】problem about filling color for area yang686526 DirectDWG 0 2009-05-06 10:32 PM
【转帖】macro to figure open area of a face yang686526 SolidWorks二次开发 0 2009-04-12 06:55 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 09:10 PM.


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