181

LOADING CAPACITIES CURVES FOR

I-SECTION RUNWAY BEAMS
ACCORDING TO BOTTOM FLANGE
BENDING AND LATERAL BUCKLING

Nenad ZRNI
Sran BONJAK
Vlada GAI


Abstract: Growing industry puts rising necessity for
hoisting devices in production lines and systems. Thus,
designers of hoisting machines have to solve problems
related to determination of structural elements in runway
lines or single-girder cranes. Particularly fast technical
solutions are required in initial stages of design process,
interactive with possibilities of structural elements
suppliers and appropriate with demands of national
regulative for designing those systems. This paper
presents loading capacity curves of I beam runway beams
according to capacities due to strength of bottom flange
and lateral buckling of top flange. Given curves are
suitable for most industrial I beam runway beams and can
be used for selection of I beam structural elements for
different type of trolleys. Also, they can be used for fast
capacity check of I beams in runways.


Key words: I beam, runway, bottom flange bending,
lateral buckling, single-girder crane.


1. INTRODUCTION

Every runway beam need to have static calculus
corresponding to national regulative. Design problems of
I section runway beams, as in single-girder overhead and
underhung (suspension) cranes, are related with bending
moments about its strong axis which lead to bending
stresses at points in the middle of the structure.
Furthermore, there is design check for bending of steel I
beam bottom flange. Moreover, lateral buckling is
important limit state that must be considered, especially
for long-span beams. Finally, there is check of structural
deflection which is not discussed in this paper due to
simplicity of calculations. All of these facts are necessary
to be considered in design of runway beam. Design
examples of runway beams are given in [1], [8].




Fig. 1. I section runway beam (single girder crane)

As known, influence of trolley/crane wheels on I runway
beams results in local loadings producing biaxial stresses.
This area of research is presented in [7].



Fig. 2. Biaxial stresses on flange under wheel loading

Hence, overall stress field of I runway beams and lateral
buckling stability have to be checked by designers.
Nowadays, designers face requests for fast problem
solving and adoption of structural elements. In this paper
are given useful charts for capacities of I section runway
beams concerning the fact that for capacities up to 10 t,
and spans up to 8 m, usually, there are used I beams
according to JUS.C.B3.131.

2. THEORETICAL PREREQUISITIONS

2.1. Corresponding expressions for bottom flange
bending

Bottom flange bending depends of 3 parameters: bottom
flange thickness, i.e. I section, the location of the wheels
with respect to the beam end and load per wheel (P).
There are several expressions for describing such
influences. In Serbian design procedures for I runway
182
beams, it is common to use Mendel recommendations for
bottom flange bending [7], [2]. Design check is performed
for bottom flange points A,B,C, fig.3.



Fig. 3. Review of bottom flange characteristic points

Bottom flange bending stresses are presented as:
2
sr
Ax Ax
t
P
K =

2
sr
Az Az
t
P
K =

2
sr
Bz Bz
t
P
K = m

2
sr
Cx Cx
t
P
K =

2
sr
Cz Cz
t
P
K =

Coefficients (by Mendel) for bottom flange bending, in
respect to ratio c/a and denotation on fig.3, are presented
on following diagram, fig. 4.



Fig. 4. Bottom flange bending coeff. by Mendel
Polynomial fits of these functions with errors up to 2 %,
which satisfies engineering calculations, can be presented
as follows:

+ = 271 1 1245 1 . .
Ax
K

3 2
5731 0 1252 1 0249 1 2162 0 + + = . . . .
Az
K

4
3 2
3015 39
5693 63 5636 39 2454 10 9539 0

+
+ + =
.
. . . .
Bz
K

5 4 3
2
3592 75 238 189 3371 185
3245 87 8774 17 0658 2


+ +
+ =
. . .
. . .
Cx
K


5 4 3
2
0905 152 6925 388 8157 386
0472 185 7444 44 3167 3


+ +
+ + =
. . .
. . .
Cz
K


where

a
c
=

Generally, design of I runway beam starts with stresses
from global bending and finishes with design check for
bottom flange, with above mentioned procedures. With
higher level of global bending stresses design check of
bottom flange can turn calculus to the beginning. Also,
different manufacturers of trolleys have different wheels
and their mounting instruction on I beams that can
influence bottom flange bending. In this paper it is
presented diagrams for loading capacity for commonly
used I runway beams for fast determination of steel
beams. Loading capacity is determined due to beam span
(L) and wheel position on I beam (w), fig. 3.
FE analysis of runway beams is related to the finite
element contact problems [3], [4], [5], [6], and, with this
complicacy and no possibility to generalize solution, can
only be used for verification of analytical models, fig.5.



Fig. 5. CATIA presentation of bottom flange bending

2.2. Stresses combination

Design criterion for this case is that stress field in bottom
flange of I section runway beam reach values of allowable
stresses.
183
As known, global bending in I runway beams are
estimated as follows:

x
x
z
W
z M
z
) (
) ( = ,

where ) (z M
x
is bending moment round x axis, and
x
W is section modulus of runway beam about x axis.

Combined stresses on bottom flange are calculated as:

( ) ( )
Ax Az
A
z Ax Az
A
z A
+ + + =
2


Bz
B
z B
+ =

( ) ( )
Cx Cz
C
z Cx Cz
C
z C
+ + + =
2


Stress design check for I section bottom flange is

dopI A
< ,
dopI B
< ,
dopII C
<

where
dopII dopI

,
presents allowable stresses that depend
on I beam material and load cases.

2.3. Algorithm formulation

According to above mentioned expression it can be
concluded that strength of specific I beam depends of
beam span (L) and wheel position on I beam (w). It is
known for runway beams that maximum bending stresses
occurs in the middle of the span for hoist positioned there,
fig. 6. Bottom flange bending stresses occurs on spot
where hoist is positioned.
Thus, loading capacity of runway beams comes from
strength of its middle section.



Fig. 6. Maximum bending moment of runway beam

Following algorithm assumes maximum bending moment

4
1 1
L F
M
x

= .
max
,

where multiplication coefficient 1.1 includes bending
moment of beam self weight.
Also, following charts are gained for I runway beams for
4-wheel trolleys (which are mostly used). That gives load
per trolley wheel

4
F
P =
Developed algorithm in software MathCAD, include
Mendel coefficients in terms of position of wheels respect
to beam end, fig.3 , with obvious relation

c a w = ,

which is more suitable for trolley selection.

Presuming critical states when values of stresses reach
values for allowable stresses

dopI A
w L F = ) , , (

dopI B
w L F = ) , , (

dopII C
w L F = ) , , ( ,

it can be found capacities due to strength criterion for
characteristic points of bottom flange.
If we note loading capacity of bottom flange as minimum
capacity of points A, B, C we have capacity as function of
2 variables

) , , min( ) , (
C B A
F F F w L F =

and can be presented as contour plot. Generally, it can be
represented as 3D plot, fig.7, but it would be more
difficult for data collection. Presentation in contour plot
has advantage because contours present loading capacities
in terms of nominal hoists capacities, which is necessary
for runway beams.
F

Fig. 7. 3D presentation of capacity F(L,w)


3. LATERAL BUCKLING NOTES

If beam doesnt have sufficient lateral stiffness or lateral
supports it may buckle out of the loading plane. For a
straight elastic beam, there is no out-of-plane
displacement until the applied moment reaches its critical
value, when the beam buckles by deflecting laterally.
184
In Serbian design procedures it is common to check
lateral buckling of I section runway beams due to
J US.U.E7.101/1996., with comparasion of maximum
bending stresses with allowable stress

e M p D
R =

According to this, maximum loading capacity of I section
beam can be calculated with following conditions

D x

1
= , or

e x
R =

1
, if
e D
R >

According to values of critical moment gained by these
expressions, for specified I section beam (J US. C.B3.131)
loading capacity due to lateral buckling depends of beam
span (L) and can be denoted as ) (L F
lb
.


Fig. 8. CATIA presentation of lateral buckling

Further notes about lateral buckling are not given here,
since they are presented in J US.U.E7.101/1996.

4. RESULTS

Previous algorithm can be used for any I section runway
beam. Chart 2. presents results of capacities due to
strenght of bottom flange for commonly used I beams
(J US. C.B3.131). Also, allowable stresses
dopII dopI

,

are taken for material S235J RG2 (C.0361). However,
since loading capacity is proportional to allowable
stresses, following charts can give runway beam capacity
for other materials as well. For runway beams built up
from S355J R (C.0561), loading capacities can be
calculated as

) . ( , ) . ( 0361 5 1 0561 C F C F =

According to the data of world known producers of hoists
and single-girder cranes, charts are given with practical
limits of variables, i.e. with beam spans (L) up to 8 m and
wheel position dimension (w) up to 30 mm. Generally,
design selection of I section runway beams should start
with chart 2., i.e. with loading capacity F due to bottom
flange strenght and finished with verification of loading
capacity F
lb
due to lateral buckling, chart. 1.
For bigger spans, due to runway beam mass, it is common
to use section reinforcements to prevent occurrence of
mentioned states in static behavior, fig. 9.


Fig. 9. Typical I section reinforce for runway beams

Chart 1. presents loading capacity due to lateral buckling
of specified beam (J US. C.B3.131) built up from material
S235J RG2 (C.0361), and for the first load case.

[kN] F
[m] 8 2 4 6
I 16
I 34
I 40
I 30
I 24
I 20
lb


Chart 1. I runway beam capacity due to lateral buckling

5. CONCLUSION

Previous algorithms give useful curves for application in
design process of I runway beams. It is presented charts
for loading capacity due to bottom flange bending and
loading capacity due to lateral buckling of I section
beams. According to these two values it can be easily
found suitable structural element for runway beams,
concerning demands of strength and stability. Also, it can
be used for design check of built up runway beams.
Especially, it is useful in situation with unknown
producers of trolleys where position of wheel load cant
be easily determined. Thus, it provides analysis of loading
capacity changes due to different wheel load positions
according to width of trolley wheel. Finally, it can be used
for design process of monorail tracks with chain or
electric hoists.







185

[m]
[mm] w
[mm] w
[mm] w
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
[m]
[m]
2 4 6 8
2 4 6 8
2 4 6 8
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
I 16
I 20
I 24

[mm] w
[mm] w
[mm] w
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
[m]
[m]
[m] 2 4 6 8
2 4 6 8
2 4 6 8
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
I 30
I 34
I 40



Chart 2. Loading capacities of I section runway beam (JUS C.B3.131, S235JRG2 (C.0361))
due to bottom flange bending
186
REFERENCES

[1] BUEVAC, D., MARKOVI, Z., BOGAVAC, D.,
TOI, D, Metalne konstrukcije, Graevinski
fakultet u Beogradu, Beograd, 1999.
[2] BONJ AK, S., PETKOVI, Z., MATEJ I, P.,
Analiza naponskih stanja usled lokalnog savijanja
pojasa I nosaa, Transport u industriji, str. 337-342,
Mainski fakultet u Beogradu, Beograd, 1994.
[3] BONJ AK, S., PETKOVI, Z, MARJ ANOVI, B.,
Comparative presentation of analytical and
numerical method for determination of stresses due
to local effects of the rail placed in the middle of the
double-beam bridg crane band, Proc. of the 16th
International Conference on Material Handling and
Warehousing, pp. 1208-1216, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, Belgrade, 2000.
[4] BONJ AK, S., PETKOVI, Z., GAI, V.,
Comparative stress/deformation analysis of
temporary support for reconstruction of furnace
modeled with with linear, shell and solid finite
elements, Proc. of IV International Conference
Research and Development in Mechanical Industry,
pp. 729-753, RaDMI 2004.
[5] BONJ AK, S., MILOVI, P., MATEJ I, P.,
Uporedna analiza naponskog stanja lamelaste kuke
posebne namene, odreenog primenom teorije
krivog tapa i MKE, Transport u industriji, str. 274-
279, Mainski fakultet u Beogradu, Beograd, 1994.
[6] BONJ AK, S., GAI, V., ZRNI, N.,
PETKOVI, Z., Computer aided analysis of
load/stress/dynamic behaviour for special bridge-
type stacker-reclaimer, Monograph MACHINE
DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS, 2007, Novi Sad
[7] MENDEL, G., Berechnung der Tragerflansch-
beansprung mit Hilfe der Plattentheorie, Fordern und
Heben, 14/1972.
[8] PETKOVI, Z., OSTI, D., J., Metalne konstrukcije
u mainogradnji, Mainski fakultet u Beogradu,
Beograd, 1996.





CORRESPONDENCE


Nenad ZRNI, Ass. Prof. DSc.
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Kraljice Marije 16, 11000 Belgrade,
Serbia
nzrnic@mas.bg.ac.yu


Sran BONJ AK, Assoc. Prof. DSc.
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Kraljice Marije 16, 11000Belgrade,
Serbia
sbosnjak@mas.bg.ac.yu


Vlada GAI, Ass. MSc.
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Kraljice Marije 16, 11000Belgrade,
Serbia
vgasic@mas.bg.ac.yu