Hi all!
My problem is the following: I have to build a UPN100 walkway for a customer with a 30 mm male grating floor and a 40 mm square tube railing (Total mass: about 300 kilos). This footbridge being cantilevered, I have to support it with a bracon.
I would like to know if someone could guide me on the procedure to follow for the size of this bracon (section to use, type of ficxation etc...)
I would carry out this simulation on solidworks 2016
Thanks in advance
What is the offset? What are the applicable standards (public, occasional/regular use)? What is the load on the bridge? What is this footbridge fixed on (another mechanical chassis / concrete structure).
At the base there is no particular problem, to start you can keep the UPN100 and provide a bolt-on plate (it will be the number of bolts that will have to be calculated).
Ok, it's an industrial gateway. The load on the poach is therefore the weight of the structure + the weight of a person I think.
The walkway is 1100mm wide and 2600mm long. The pocon attaches to an IPE of 360. The footbridge will be fixed after another and the poach takes over the charge.
So nothing in particular.
Remember that there will be 2 or 3 poons along the length.
If you can modify the IPE, a classic fastener is a bolt-on frame.
Attached is a similar example that I found in my archives.
Be careful with your expenses: "I think" is not a valid assumption for this kind of calculation. Have your customer confirm the exact conditions and values...
Thanks for the plan.
I'm attaching a 3D image to give you an idea.
On the 120 IPEs will be fixed a 40x40 tube railing and a 30mm grating floor. The whole thing weighs 200 kilos.
I would like to know if the 88.9x5 tube will do the trick and which fastener should I take.
I tried a simulation on solidworks but I don't really master this module.
Hello
On the last footbridge I made, I used UPE140.
There was also a cantilevered part that was supported by an HEA 100 and a HEA100 bracon. The HEA100 was fixed to the concrete wall using 4 M16 spits per iron (so 16 spit in total).
OK
My client asked me to check that with these sections. I am thinking of doing a static analysis of the beams but concerning the bolts I don't know where I am going.
Hello
As stefbeno mentioned, you have to be careful about the use of this walkway, if it is used to welcome the public, or if it is an access walkway to carry out maintenance operations for an industrial equipment... You risk jail time if an accident happens! (cf. https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/il-y-dix-ans-saint-nazaire-la-passerelle-du-queen-mary-2-s-effondre-bilan-seize-morts-1384491627). Standards apply, they allow you to guide you, and this is a guarantee of quality.
The ISO 14122 standard, for example, states that the structure of a walkway must withstand a uniformly distributed load of 2kN/m². ISO 2867 uses a different calculation.
The simulation module remains accessible by digging a little, otherwise do you get paid for training by your employer;)
Good luck!
Kind regards
Voice the results of my study
I first carried out a static analysis of the beams by co-examining a global contact in solidarity with the structure.
I applied a total charge on the IPEs of 120.
MAX stress is 117.6 MPa
It seems coherent to me.
Second static analysis by isolating the pocon.
Considering all bodies in volume this time.
I apply a fixed geometry on the two lower Ø16 holes and a load of 1500N on the two upper holes.
As a result, I'm in the red only at the level of the holes.
Tell me if my gait is good or if I'm completely off.
Thank you
Hello
It seems to me that in the habits of metal structures, this kind of assembly is rather assimilated to ball joints. So the load should be considered in the axis of the bracon. On the other hand, it is also necessary to check the bracon's resistance to buckling.
In any case, it seems rather ambitious as a design. Everything is at odds. IPEs are not the most torsional resistant. The verification of the welds will also be important. And it will take a lot of anchoring to the ground to retain all this!
Good luck.
Seen like that, it sure seems ambitious but in fact the 360 IPE belongs to a big structure that I didn't represent. That's why I didn't take into account the ground anchoring. Concerning the 120 IPEs in cantilever, I have explained the problem several times to my client but constraints mean that he cannot settle elsewhere.
In any case, thank you for your advice. I would not hesitate to call on you again next time.