Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Continuous Monorail

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This may not be much help, but ANSI MH27.1-1996, for Patented Track
Underhung Cranes and Monorail Systems, states that track "shall be
considered as a simple beam in determining capacity".  Thus they appear to
neglect continuity - but for patented track bottom flanges are typically
much smaller than top flanges and thus have little buckling capacity.  They
also state that for unbraced length "Cantilever lengths require special
considerations" but no additional guidance is given.  (An older version of
this document recommended "twice the length of a cantilever not fully stayed
at its outer end" for effective undraced length.)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RajSTC(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:RajSTC(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 2:21 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Continuous Monorail
> 
> 
> Does anyone in this post has information about determining 
> allowable flexural 
> compressive stress for continuous monorail with trolley 
> running on the bottom 
> flange?  Also, has there been any new research (theoretical 
> or experimental) 
> for determining allowable flexural compressive stress for 
> monorail beams with 
> an overhang? I have a copy of the paper "Allowable bending 
> stresses for 
> overhanging monorails" by Stephen Tanner, that appeared in 
> Engineering 
> Journal, AISC, Third Quarter 1985.  However, the methodology 
> described in 
> this paper is not applicable for many situations.  For 
> example, the interior 
> support shown in the paper may not exist.
> 
> Raj.