Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Continuous Monorail[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Continuous Monorail
- From: "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:59:29 -0500
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.
- Prev by Subject: Continuous Monorail
- Next by Subject: CONTRACT WITH WHOMEVER?
- Previous by thread: Continuous Monorail
- Next by thread: Woodworks 2000