huangyhg

does a handrail provide additional support against defelctio
i am designing a catwalk for a customer but there is too much deflection in the beam supporting the walking surface (beam a). the client argues that the handrail provides two additional support points against deflection, but i disgree. does it help? if so, how do i calculate the amount that it helps? thanks. (see attachment)
the answer: it may or may not!
a 3 dimensional analysis would have to be done to know for sure.
it depends upon how the handrail interacts with the beam, the various stiffnesses of the componets, connection details, slip between pieces, stress levels, etc.
if the client knows better, why isn't he designing it?

unless you can prove that the beam/ handrail works as a vierendeel truss, i would not consider it. i have never tried to make this work since the increased cost of the oversized handrail and proper detailing of the handrail/beam connection would offset the cost of just using a larger size beam.

i've never seen a handrail counted on for this purpose in design. it's not thought of as a structural item, so, it could be replaced in the future (say it gets damaged) by a rail with less strength or stiffness.
assume there is no slip and that the handrail is the same type of beam as beam a. the left side of the handrail is affixed to the wall, as is the left side of beam a. the right side of both the handrail and beam a are attached via another similar beam to the back wall (i forgot to draw in the top of the handrail's attachment on the right side). they purposely specified a beam to be used for the handrail in hopes of countering deflection in beam a. all of these beams are sqaure metal tubing, so it could conceiveably be used as a handrail. does this information help?
i would not assume that the handrail contributed to the beam for strength.
is there actually a limitation on beam deflection in this case? it might make more sense to consider for checking deflection.
it could work, but if the top beam is working to carry the load, i would stop calling it a handrail. the main problem with this scheme is bracing the top beam laterally. closed sections are good for this, but you still have to make sure it won't buckle.
i say baloney. there is no way that the handrail is working to help with deflection (not in any significant and quantifiable way). i am assuming the handrail and posts are of sections significantly less flexurally stiff than the actual beam? that aside, the "vierendeel truss" has no bracing at the far end.

generally, i agree. i would not count on the handrail providing additional stiffness but you are trying to keep the client happy in this case by considering it. if you run a quick analysis to prove it doesn't work, you will have the ammunication you need to shoot the idea down. if the posts are stiff enough, it could work similar to a pony truss (thru truss) but the engineering of such a system requires more than any potential savings. you cannot bolt the handrail down with oversized or slotted holes without slip critical bolts (not practical)!
try to discourage the client from his request.
yeah, all of the
i agree with hokie66. it can work. it would significantly reduce deflection because at the very least you are doubling up your floor beam. that's before you consider anything like vierendeel action etc.
as mentioned, bracing the handrail is an issue.
if the client wants it, why not give it to him?

__________________
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]