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 2009-09-07, 03:26 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 bending coefficient, cb, for allowable stress design

bending coefficient, cb, for allowable stress design
the use of the two approaches compared with the closed form formulation of the check should confirm or deny the validity.
i don't believe that you can simply adjust your unbraced length or your moment capacity with cb and enter the charts. if you look at the equations f1-6, f1-7, and f1-8 you will see the following:
the break points for the charts depend upon the square root of cb.
the allowable stress in f1-6 depends upon cb used in a denominator added to 2/3 and therefore is not a direct linear relationship.
the applicable allowable stress in some cases is the larger of f1-7 and f1-8, therefore a direct adjustment linearly by cb is not appropriate.
what you must do is use the equations and skip the charts. they were developed only for cb = 1.0.
just as the triple lux may not win you the gold, this method will not necessarily provide you with the correct section.
this method is a good approximation, however the shape should still be checked per the applicable formulas from aisc chapter f.
n-gin-ear (visitor)20 jan 02 10:48
the beam charts you speak of are not limited to use with cb=1.0. you can enter using lb/cb (in place of cb) for hyperbolic curve portions or lb/(cb^(1/2)) for parabolic portions of the curve. obviously, once your size is selected (preliminarily from the charts), do your final check based on the equations f1-6 through f1-8.
granted, cb=1.0 is conservative and 99.9 percent of the time is what is used for expediency in design, but using real cb is certainly not a prohibitive approach. using the charts with the "adjusted cb's" mentioned above is a lot quicker than trial and error checks of beams from the sx tables with lb>lu and real cb. the charts are the best starting point when lb>lu, whether cb=1.0 or cb>1.0.
steel structures: design and behavior", 4th edition, by salmon and johnson clearly addresses this topic. (page 527 for those of you playing along at home.)
__________________
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
beam design huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 02:52 PM
allowable bending stress in plate huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 10:52 AM
aisc 9th edition vs. 13th edition huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 10:33 AM
【转帖】decimal dimensioningfractional equivalents yang686526 American standards 0 2009-04-29 07:28 PM
【转帖】asme美国机械工程师标准目录2 huangyhg American standards 5 2009-04-26 02:38 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 08:25 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