Jim - lost previous thread.
You used that formulation for beam deflection in relation to beam
*stress*...

For a "simple beam" (like a plank bridging two points)

deflection = sigma.L^2 / 6.E.H

sigma = stress
L = beam length between the two supports
E = elastic modulus; Young's modulus
H = the height of a *symmetrical* section (this only works for
symmetrical sections)

How did you know of this formulation?
Did you derive it yourself?
Or is it known in engineering?

Broader explanation for a general audience:

The deflection vs. *stress* formulation enables you to estimate if a
beam you find is bearing an acceptable load.

With the deflection vs *force* formation you need much more
information

deflection = F.L^3 / 48.E.I
I is the second moment of area and you need every linear dimension of
beam's cross-sectional shape to calculate it.
Then how would you know what the force is?

With the *stress* formulation you can take a reasonable guess at what
the beam's yield stress is - any I-beam not otherwise marked a
reasonable guess is 275MPa, and for any Rectangular Hollow Section
(including Square Hollow Section) you can reasonably guess at 355MPa.

You can rearrange
deflection = sigma.L^2 / 6.E.H
to isolate "sigma" the stress, and given you know can easily measure
with a tape-measure and rule the beam's length, height and deflection,
and E is always around 210GPa for steel, you can get the stress.
Then evaluate - is that acceptable?

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lya5te4usi.fsf@void.com...

Jim - lost previous thread.
You used that formulation for beam deflection in relation to beam
*stress*...

For a "simple beam" (like a plank bridging two points)

deflection = sigma.L^2 / 6.E.H

sigma = stress
L = beam length between the two supports
E = elastic modulus; Young's modulus
H = the height of a *symmetrical* section (this only works for
symmetrical sections)

How did you know of this formulation?
Did you derive it yourself?
Or is it known in engineering?

Broader explanation for a general audience:

The deflection vs. *stress* formulation enables you to estimate if a
beam you find is bearing an acceptable load.

With the deflection vs *force* formation you need much more
information

deflection = F.L^3 / 48.E.I
I is the second moment of area and you need every linear dimension of
beam's cross-sectional shape to calculate it.
Then how would you know what the force is?

With the *stress* formulation you can take a reasonable guess at what
the beam's yield stress is - any I-beam not otherwise marked a
reasonable guess is 275MPa, and for any Rectangular Hollow Section
(including Square Hollow Section) you can reasonably guess at 355MPa.

You can rearrange
deflection = sigma.L^2 / 6.E.H
to isolate "sigma" the stress, and given you know can easily measure
with a tape-measure and rule the beam's length, height and deflection,
and E is always around 210GPa for steel, you can get the stress.
Then evaluate - is that acceptable?

---------------------------------
I took extreme fiber stress for my guesstimate of the surplus steel or wood
beam's properties and found the maximum deflection for a center load from
several on-line calculators. Likewise for columns I entered measured
dimensions into on-line calculators and ensured the ends were pinned or
could swivel to avoid cantilever stresses. The only load-induced damage to
retired tripod columns has been slight egg-shaping of the pin holes, and
it's about equal on both sides which supports my assumption that the
asymmetrical hangers do self adjust to evenly distribute the load. The other
damage was from accidents such as falling trees.
https://amesweb.info/
https://jonochshorn.com/scholarship/calculators-st/index.html

For the gantry beam's center splice I made the sum of its components moments
of inertia greater than that of the C channels, and supported the channel
flanges at the splice ends to compensate for the area lost to bolt holes. I
tried calculating from basic principles for practice but didn't trust my
result enough to stand under it.

Then I proof-tested the completed assembly. As far as possible the
pinned-joint geometry allowed simple calculations, no Vierendeel trusses or
dependence on torque and friction, only bolt shank shear and bearing
pressure of a closely sized (match-drilled) hole.
jsw

Hi there

I've done a typeset presentation of the derivation as a PDF at
http://weldsmith.co.uk/temp/231001_defln_simplebeam_re_sigma_derivn.pdf

All the formulae should be nice and easy to read and follow (?!).

Rich S

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyzg122btz.fsf@void.com...

Hi there

I've done a typeset presentation of the derivation as a PDF at
http://weldsmith.co.uk/temp/231001_defln_simplebeam_re_sigma_derivn.pdf

All the formulae should be nice and easy to read and follow (?!).

Rich S

------------------------------

How I knew was by taking the deflection from on-line beam calculators at
working and assumed yield point (36KSI) stress levels, then comparing to the
observed deflection at a measured loading. It was also a test for hidden
damage in the former pallet rack shelf support beams, many of which needed
straightening.

https://www.vevor.com/crane-scale-c_10459/hanging-scale-crane-scale-1000-kg-2000-lb-digital-industrial-heavy-duty-auto-off-p_010231654597?adp=gmc&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=18849210433&utm_term=

They are good and cheap enough for hobby use to avoid accidents. I bought
that type after an industrial grade load cell like this from an auction
cracked.
https://www.scalesgalore.com/M1/Dillon-AWT05500431-XC-Compression-Force-Gauge-with-Maximum-Hand-and-Klaxon-Alarm-5000-x-50-kg-px45938.cfm

My background taught me that you don't know when to stop what you're doing
unless you can measure it, even if it's only digging a hole or splitting
firewood.

Done a webpage
http://weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma.html
"Beam deflection vs. stress"

You get a mention you will recognise.
Have I got you correctly?

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyv8blijyg.fsf@void.com...

Done a webpage
http://weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma.html
"Beam deflection vs. stress"

You get a mention you will recognise.
Have I got you correctly?
-------------------------------------
It's fine, I don't need to be identified, but I don't have any engineering
degree, live in New Hampshire near the Atlantic and sighted a fixed height
limit gauge from beyond the end instead of getting close enough to the
center of the highly stressed and possibly unstable beam to compare string
to a scale. Since the steel was painted scrap with unknown properties and
history including possible cracks I went with direct measurement instead of
calculation, though I did practice it with the averaged dimensions of my CAD
model as a cross-check that I was running the calculators correctly. I used
Ix to compare and nearly match the relative stiffnesses of components of the
spliced beam, to distribute the stresses evenly among the bolts.

If a project at work justified it the structural design would be given to a
real mechanical engineer so I didn't need to know more than the basics, to
catch bad assumptions from electrical engineers. I chose to become a
factotum who filled the gaps between the specialists and knew how to build
and test their concepts, a position with little competition, what Arnold
Wilkins did for Robert Watson-Watt. I had learned the graphical construction
and algebraic model of wave interference that he used to demonstrate radar.
As another tech rather rudely displayed on a bumper sticker, "Techs do what
engineers can only dream of".

I had struggled with higher math at university once it ceased to be
intuitive, beyond Differential Equations. Much later in night school it was
easier when taught as a practical tool instead of an art form, but I
couldn't handle the long late night commuting I'd need to complete an EE
degree. Waking up when the wheels hit the roadside gravel was convincing.

In a few words you present a lot.
Caused me some thinking.

I will leave that web-page as-is, if that's alright.
It's a topic I want to leave well alone now.

Best wishes,
Rich S

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyv8bl
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

> ijyg.fsf@void.com...
>
> Done a webpage
> http://weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma.html
> "Beam deflection vs. stress"
>
> You get a mention you will recognise.
> Have I got you correctly?
> -------------------------------------
> It's fine, I don't need to be identified, but I don't have any
> engineering degree, live in New Hampshire near the Atlantic and
> sighted a fixed height limit gauge from beyond the end instead of
> getting close enough to the center of the highly stressed and possibly
> unstable beam to compare string to a scale. Since the steel was
> painted scrap with unknown properties and history including possible
> cracks I went with direct measurement instead of calculation, though I
> did practice it with the averaged dimensions of my CAD model as a
> cross-check that I was running the calculators correctly. I used Ix to
> compare and nearly match the relative stiffnesses of components of the
> spliced beam, to distribute the stresses evenly among the bolts.
>
> If a project at work justified it the structural design would be given
> to a real mechanical engineer so I didn't need to know more than the
> basics, to catch bad assumptions from electrical engineers. I chose to
> become a factotum who filled the gaps between the specialists and knew
> how to build and test their concepts, a position with little
> competition, what Arnold Wilkins did for Robert Watson-Watt. I had
> learned the graphical construction and algebraic model of wave
> interference that he used to demonstrate radar. As another tech rather
> rudely displayed on a bumper sticker, "Techs do what engineers can
> only dream of".
>
> I had struggled with higher math at university once it ceased to be
> intuitive, beyond Differential Equations. Much later in night school
> it was easier when taught as a practical tool instead of an art form,
> but I couldn't handle the long late night commuting I'd need to
> complete an EE degree. Waking up when the wheels hit the roadside
> gravel was convincing.

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ly1qe8jjmr.fsf@void.com...

In a few words you present a lot.
Caused me some thinking.

I will leave that web-page as-is, if that's alright.
It's a topic I want to leave well alone now.

Best wishes,
Rich S

-------------------------

It's fine as-is.

Was I correct to assume that matching Ix between the channel pairs and a
splice plate bolted between the webs would evenly distribute the shear and
bearing stresses on the bolts that joined them, regardless of the bolt
pattern geometry? IOW would the channels and vertical splice plate both
deflect identically where they overlapped?

The splice was more complicated, with horizontal plates joining the flanges
at the discontinuity where the channels abut, but one vertical plate and a
row of bolts is easier to describe and consider. I couldn't find an example
of a splice in such narrow channel to analyze or copy.

https://www.aisc.org/nsba/design-resources/nsba-splice/
Since the trolley wheels occupied almost all the space between flanges I
lengthened the web plate(s) enough to let the shear and bearing at the
center and outer end bolts support the moment at max load. Actually I
grabbed a likely-looking piece of scrap 3/8" plate at a helpful steel
constructor's shop and then tried to figure out its best use. It was larger
than my rough estimate of the minimum size.

I learned long ago that if I have enough of the critical material to build
something one way it's enough to build it several other ways, so I could
order (or scrounge) material before finishing a detailed design, adapt to
changing specs and deliver faster than the competition. At Mitre the
engineers did the same, they ordered the critical components and then handed
me the project to complete the design and build it.

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyv8bl
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

> ijyg.fsf@void.com...
>
> Done a webpage
> http://weldsmith.co.uk/tech/struct/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma/231005_eb_y_vs_sigma.html
> "Beam deflection vs. stress"
>
> You get a mention you will recognise.
> Have I got you correctly?
> -------------------------------------
> It's fine, I don't need to be identified, but I don't have any
> engineering degree, live in New Hampshire near the Atlantic and
> sighted a fixed height limit gauge from beyond the end instead of
> getting close enough to the center of the highly stressed and possibly
> unstable beam to compare string to a scale. Since the steel was
> painted scrap with unknown properties and history including possible
> cracks I went with direct measurement instead of calculation, though I
> did practice it with the averaged dimensions of my CAD model as a
> cross-check that I was running the calculators correctly. I used Ix to
> compare and nearly match the relative stiffnesses of components of the
> spliced beam, to distribute the stresses evenly among the bolts.
>
> If a project at work justified it the structural design would be given
> to a real mechanical engineer so I didn't need to know more than the
> basics, to catch bad assumptions from electrical engineers. I chose to
> become a factotum who filled the gaps between the specialists and knew
> how to build and test their concepts, a position with little
> competition, what Arnold Wilkins did for Robert Watson-Watt. I had
> learned the graphical construction and algebraic model of wave
> interference that he used to demonstrate radar. As another tech rather
> rudely displayed on a bumper sticker, "Techs do what engineers can
> only dream of".
>
> I had struggled with higher math at university once it ceased to be
> intuitive, beyond Differential Equations. Much later in night school
> it was easier when taught as a practical tool instead of an art form,
> but I couldn't handle the long late night commuting I'd need to
> complete an EE degree. Waking up when the wheels hit the roadside
> gravel was convincing.

Sorry haven't managed to look at your question.
(Earthing/Grounding - made a "wander-lead" from the new Main Earthing
Terminal and found visible Earth-bonding in the bathroom did not
connect to Earth/Ground - equipotentially connected everything but
somehow a connection to Earth hadn't happened - started diagnosing
what was wrong).

I have been asked if I could derive an equation like

"y=sigma.L^2/6EH" for a simply-supported-beam centrally-loaded

for a simply-supported-beam uniformly-distributed-load.

So an engineer can show to the client in a single "sparse" equation
the relationship between internal stress state and deflection.

Never done uniformly-distributed-load beam calculations.
The formulae - yes I have looke them up, but lacking experience of
their application - theory <-> practice - am a little wary of "just"
juggling mathematical symbols.

Rich S

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:lyr0m1tug9.fsf@void.com...

Sorry haven't managed to look at your question.
(Earthing/Grounding - made a "wander-lead" from the new Main Earthing
Terminal and found visible Earth-bonding in the bathroom did not
connect to Earth/Ground - equipotentially connected everything but
somehow a connection to Earth hadn't happened - started diagnosing
what was wrong).

I have been asked if I could derive an equation like

"y=sigma.L^2/6EH" for a simply-supported-beam centrally-loaded

for a simply-supported-beam uniformly-distributed-load.

So an engineer can show to the client in a single "sparse" equation
the relationship between internal stress state and deflection.

Never done uniformly-distributed-load beam calculations.
The formulae - yes I have looke them up, but lacking experience of
their application - theory <-> practice - am a little wary of "just"
juggling mathematical symbols.

Rich S

----------------------------------

In the limiting case where the uniformly loaded, fixed end beam has zero
stiffness it will hang in a "catenary".
https://www.britannica.com/science/catenary