Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

Economical Use of

Cambered Steel
Beams
Author
Jay W. Larson received a bachelor
of science degree in 1980 in civil
engineering and a master of
science degree In civil engineering
in 1985, from Lehigh University.
He is currently employed by
Bethlehem Steel Corporation as
structural consultant. His duties in-
clude conducting preliminary steel
framing studies for material
deciders on building projects,
maintaining and updating in-house
structural analysis computer
programs, preparing promotional
and technical literature, and provid-
ing technical assistance to
fabricator and structural steel
designers.
Mr. Larson is a member of the
American Society of Civil En-
gineers, Lehigh Valley Section
Board of Directors. He is a
registered professional engineer in
the state of Pennsylvania.
Author
Robert K. Huzzard received a
bachelor of science in civil engineer-
ing from the University of Pennsyl-
vania, in 1963 and a master of
science in civil engineering from Vil-
lanova University, in 1973. He is a
registered professional engineer in
the state of Pennsylvania.
Currently employed by Beth-
lehem Steel as a sales engineer,
his duties involve influencing en-
gineers, architects, construction
managers and developers in
material selection for buildings and
parking garages. Prior to his
employment with Bethlehem Steel,
Mr. Huzzard was construction
bridge engineer and project en-
gineer with the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation.
13-1
Summary
The overall economy and quality of
a steel-framed building depends
partially on the method used to com-
pensate for deflections of the beams
during the placement of the concrete
slab. Current practice ranges from
cambering or shoring beams to plac-
ing extra concrete above the
deflected beam. For many buildings,
cambering is the most cost effective
solution. It could also result in the
most level floor. Nevertheless, mis-
conceptions and concerns regard-
ing cambering persist.
The new AISC-LRFD proce-
dures for composite construction
encourage the use of lighter, high-
strength steel beams spanning
greater distances. This produces
more economical steel frames, but
also results in larger deflections to
be accommodated. Therefore, a
more complete understanding of
cambering is required.
Guidelines are suggested to as-
sist in evaluating the cost effec-
tiveness of cambering, correctly
determining expected beam deflec-
tons, understanding mill camber
tolerances and limits, specifying
camber properly, and maintaining
quality during construction.
To illustrate, several recent
steel-framed office building
projects are discussed. In addition,
field measured data is presented to
support the suggested guidelines.
Jay W. Larson
Robert K. Huzzard
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
ECONOMICAL USE OF CAMBERED STEEL BEAMS
by
Jay W. Larson, P.E. and Robert K. Huzzard, P.E,
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
INTRODUCTION
The overall economy and quality of a steel-framed building
depends partially on the method used to compensate for
deflections of the beams during the placement of the
concrete slab. Current practice ranges from cambering or
shoring beams to letting beams sag and pouring a varying
thickness slab. For many buildings, cambering is the most
cost effective solution. It could also result in the most
level floor. Nevertheless, misconceptions and concerns
regarding cambering persist.
The new AISC-LRFD procedures for composite construction
encourage the use of lighter, high-strength steel beams
spanning greater distances. This produces more economical
steel frames, but also results in larger deflections to be
accommodated. Therefore, a more complete understanding of
cambering is required.
This paper discusses the major issues related to the
economical use of cambering and concentrates on typical
office construction; i.e., simple span, interior, composite
beams and girders.
ACCOMMODATING DEAD LOAD DEFLECTIONS
There are four methods of accommodating beam dead load
deflections during concrete placement and creating an
acceptably level floor slab:
1) let beams sag and pour a varying thickness slab,
2) overdesign beams to minimize deflections,
3) shore beams prior to concrete placement,
4) camber beams to compensate for anticipated
deflections.
An economic analysis is necessary to select the best
approach for accommodating beam dead load deflections. Each
of the methods mentioned above could be cost effective
depending on material and labor costs in the location where
the project will be built.
13-3
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Let Beams Sag
For beams without induced camber, the standard practice is
to erect the beam with natural camber upward. The AISC
[2,3] tolerance for this camber is 1/8" per 10'-0 of length.
This helps offset the deflection of the steel beam due to
its own weight plus the weight of the steel deck and
concrete floor slab. However, a negative camber usually
results in the steel beam and additional concrete is needed
to achieve a level floor.
The cost of this additional concrete can be substantial. In
addition, the appearance of a sagging beam in the finished
structure might be objectionable.
Overdesign Beams
The size of the steel beam can be increased to reduce its
deflection and the excess concrete requirement. This will
also generally reduce the number of shear studs required.
However, this is rarely an economical solution. Almost
invariably the increase in cost for the heavier steel beam
exceeds the cost of the concrete and shear studs saved.
Shoring
The true cost of shoring is difficult to quantify. The
labor and material costs for installing shoring can probably
be accurately estimated. However, it is impossible to
determine the added expense caused by the shoring's
interference with subsequent operations such as
fire protection and mechanical systems installation.
The use of shoring has another drawback. When the shores
are removed the floor system will deflect under its own
weight. This will cause a sag in a slab that was initially
level and probably a crack to form over the girders
supporting the filler beams. For this reason crack control
slab reinforcement should be used over girders [1].
Cambering
Cambering provides an initial curvature about a member's
strong axis so that a desired profile results. Beams can be
cambered to accommodate part of the dead load deflection,
the full dead load deflection, or the dead load deflection
plus part of the live load deflection.
13-4
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Cambering saves money by reducing or eliminating excess
concrete that may be required in a building due to the
deflection of the steel beam. The cost of cambering can be
accurately determined with no additional hidden costs.
STEEL BEAM COST COMPARISONS
In order to demonstrate the potential cost savings using
cambering, four cases were investigated: three different
length filler beams, 30'-0, 38'-0, and 45'-0, spaced at
10'-0, and one 30'-0 girder supporting the 30'-0 span filler
beams. The results are listed in Tables 1 - 4 .
For each of the cases, four solutions were evaluated:
cambered with A572 Grade 50 high-strength steel (50/C),
uncambered with A572 Grade 50 high-strength steel (50/U),
cambered with A36 steel (36/C) and uncambered with A36 steel
(36/U). Direct comparisons were then made to identify cost
savings attributable to both camber and high-strength steel.
Assumptions
Design Method: AISC Allowable Strength Design (1978)
Loads: Live: floor load (reduced per BOCA): 80 psf
Dead: 3" 20 ga. composite steel deck
w/3-1/4" lightweight concrete: 46 psf
steel: 5 psf
partitions: 20 psf
ceiling/mechanical/etc: 10 psf
Note: The analysis did not include any additional
load due to ponding concrete.
Deflections: Actual deflections (due to weight of steel
member, deck and wet concrete) were
assumed to equal 3/4 of the theoretical
for a simple span to account for
connection rigidity.
Costs: Steel: "Cost-per-foot Guide" [4] (material only)
Shear studs: $1.50 ea. (installed)
Camber: 0.03 $/# for sections thru 50 #/ft
0.02 $/# for sections over 50 #/ft
Concrete: 60.00 $/cy (in-place material, does
not include finishing)
13-5
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Results
The savings due to cambering alone is the difference between
the least cost cambered scheme and the least cost scheme
with no camber. The savings due to high-strength steel
alone is the difference between the uncambered A572 Grade 50
and A36 schemes.
The most economical scheme for each case utilized camber and
high-strength steel. Further, high-strength steel usually
reduced member sizes permitting a savings in depth of 3".
The results of the steel beam cost comparisons are
summarized in the following table.
STEEL BEAM COST COMPARISONS
Shoring vs Cambering
Shoring can only be competitive with cambering if its cost
is lower. Combining the results for Cases 1 and 4 of the
previously discussed analysis would indicate the total
camber cost for a typical 30' x 30' bay.
Hence, camber cost =
(3)(camber cost per beam) + (1)(camber cost per girder)
floor area
= [(3)(0.78 $/ft)(30')+(l)(1.50 $/ft)(30')] / [(30')(30')]
= 0.078 $/sf + 0.050 $/sf = 0.128 $/sf
13-6
Case
# Description
1 30'-0 beam
@10'-0 o.c.
2 38'-0 beam
@10'-0 o.c.
3 45'-0 beam
@10'-0 o.c.
4 30'-0 girder
@30'-0 o.c.
Savings due
to Camber
$/ft ($/sf)
0.22 (0.022)
0.49 (0.049)
0.45 (0.045)
1.05 (0.035)
Savings due
to H.S.Steel
$/ft ($/sf)
1.43 (0.143)
1.21 (0.121)
1.76 (0.176)
1.86 (0.062)
Overall
Savings
$/ft ($/sf)
1.65 (0.165)
1.70 (0.170)
2.21 (0.221)
2.91 (0.097)
Therefore, for this case, the total cost of shoring
including crack control slab reinforcement over girders
would have to cost less than 0.13 $/sf to be more economical
than cambering. In addition there is the added expense
caused by shoring's interference with subsequent operations.
CAMBERING OF STEEL BEAMS
Gag, or cold cambering of beams is generally more economical
than heat cambering and is more widely used. It is
generally done at the steel mill or fabricator shop and is
accomplished with the use of applied force [5,6]. The
tolerances, limitations and costs are described below.
Tolerances
The AISC [2,3] tolerance for mill camber of members 50 ft or
less is minus 0" and plus 1/2". Over 50 ft, the plus
tolerance increases 1/8" for each 10 ft in excess of 50 ft.
The AISC also states that "Camber is measured at the mill
and will not necessarily be present in the same amount in
the section of beam as received due to release of stress
induced during the cambering operation. In general, 75% of
the specified camber is likely to remain."
Limitations
Gag camber requires the development of large inelastic
strains. Beyond a certain point, local buckling of the
member can occur. Therefore, the maximum amount of camber
that can be put into a member is limited and is dependent on
the particular cross section, length and material grade.
There may also be equipment limitations by the producer.
The minimum amount of camber is generally a practical
consideration and is mainly dependent on economics.
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM INDUCED CAMBER
Sections Nominal Depth
In.
W shapes, 24 and over
W shapes, 14 to 21, incl. and
S shapes, 12 in. and over
Specified Length of Beam, Ft
Over 30
to 42, incl.
Over 42
to 52, incl.
Over 52
to 65, incl.
Over 65
to 85, incl.
Over 85
to 100, incl.
Max. and Min. Camber Acceptable, In.
1 to 2,
incl.
to 2,
incl.
1 to 3,
incl.
1 to 3,
incl.
2 to 4,
incl.
2 to 4,
incl.
3 to 5,
incl.
2 to 5,
incl.
3 to 6,
incl.
Inquire
13-7
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
The preceding table, from the AISC [2,3], provides
reasonable guidelines for minimum and maximum induced
cambers. However, obtaining the larger cambers on lighter
weight beams with shorter lengths within a range,
particularly for grades other than A36, is more difficult.
For example, a 2-1/2" camber in an A572 Grade 50 W16x26#
that is only 30'-0 long would be difficult to achieve.
Therefore, it is prudent to consult the producer prior to
specifying cambers near these extremes.
Costs
Cambering is definitely economical. For example, Bethlehem
Steel's published price book offers cambering for $60/ton on
beams up to 50 lbs/lf, and $40/ton for beams over 50 lbs/lf.
Many fabricators with the proper equipment can do their own
cambering at prices that are competitive with this.
When deciding whether to camber or not, the above prices
should permit a reasonable cost comparison.
FACTORS AFFECTING CAMBER
The amount of camber that is specified is crucial to
obtaining a level floor with the proper slab thickness
There are several factors which must be considered:
1) calculated dead load deflection,
2) camber tolerances,
3) camber losses,
4) effect of connection end restraint.
Calculated Dead Load Deflection
In order to select the proper amount of camber for a beam
the desired finished floor profile must be considered. It
is most reasonable to attempt to construct a level slab at
the time the concrete is placed. Ideally, the slab would
also be of constant thickness. Therefore, the beam should
be level after the concrete is placed.
For this situation only the weight of the beam itself, the
metal deck, and the wet concrete should be used in the
calculation of the dead load deflection. Additional items,
such as partitions, mechanicals, ceiling and any live load
should be excluded.
13-8
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Tolerances
There most likely will be additional camber induced at the
mill to assure that it is within tolerance. This could be
as much as 1/2" !
Losses
Although the AISC states that "75% is likely to remain",
there is no guarantee that some mill camber will be "lost"
during shipment, fabrication, and erection. Anticipating
this loss could be a mistake since excess camber may result.
End Restraint
Connections on the beams provide some degree of end
restraint. Therefore, the full calculated dead load
deflection will probably not occur.
Determining the exact dead load deflection is probably not
possible or practical for each member and end condition
within a project. Many engineers reportedly specify camber
amounts in the range of 2/3 to 3/4 of the calculated, simple
span dead load deflection to account for end restraint.
The "More is Better" Syndrome
In much of structural engineering and construction more is
deemed better. That is, using a heavier design load,
exceeding the minimum tolerances, anticipating larger losses
and ignoring the end restraint provided by connections is
usually thought to be conservative.
However, when it comes to the cambering of steel beams to be
used in typical building construction, this can result in
excessive camber in the steel beams and extreme difficulties
in achieving level floors and required slab thickness. All
participants of the design/construction team need to realize
that it is usually easier and more economical in the field
to accommodate under-cambered beams rather than
over-cambered beams.
FIELD MEASURED DATA
In an attempt to verify the factors influencing amount of
camber that should be specified, 9 girders and 9 filler
beams were monitored.
13-9
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
The girders were 30'-0 simple span W24x55#, A572 Grade 50,
members supporting 30'-0 simple span filler beams spaced at
10'-0. The filler beams were 30'-0 span W16x31#, A572
Grade, members spaced at 10'-0. The floor slab consisted of
18 gage 2" composite steel deck with 3-1/2" 115 pcf concrete
topping.
Measurements of actual camber were taken:
1) immediately after cambering at the mill,
2) after shipment and unloading at the fabrication
shop, but prior to fabrication,
3) after shipment, unloading and erection at the job
site with composite steel deck and shear studs
erected, but prior to placement of the concrete
slab,
4) after the placement of the concrete slab but prior
to any additional dead or live loading.
At the mill and fabrication shop measurements were made with
a string line and foot rule, and were taken to the nearest
1/16". In the field, measurements on the erected members
were made using a surveying level and rod, and were taken to
the nearest 0.005'. Table 5 shows the complete set of data.
It must be remembered that data was collected for only one
span length; 30'-0. Further investigation of other spans is
probably warranted.
Tolerances
A comparison of the desired camber and the actual camber is
made in Table 6. This shows that girders were cambered 1/4"
to 1/2" beyond the specified amount (typically 1/4").
Similarly, beams were cambered 1/8" to 5/16" beyond the
specified amount (typically 1/4").
All members were cambered within AISC tolerances.
Losses
A comparison of the expected erected camber and the actual
erected camber is made in Table 7. The expected erected
camber was determined by subtracting the calculated
deflection due to the weight of the steel members and deck
from the actual mill camber. The effect of connection end
restraint, probably less than 1/32" at this stage, was
ignored for this table.
The results indicated that girders lost from 0" to 1/4" of
camber during shipment, fabrication and erection.
Similarly, beams lost from 1/8" to 5/16".
13-10
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
These unexplained losses are consistent with the AISC
statement that "in general, 75% of the specified camber is
likely to remain." However, these losses do not appear to
be very predictable or consistent. In some cases there were
no camber losses at all; therefore, anticipating losses
could be a mistake.
The net effect of mill tolerances, which generally provide
more camber than desired, and camber losses, which reduce
the amount of camber, tend to offset each other. However,
the net result is usually slightly more camber than
specified.
End Restraint
A comparison of the expected final camber and the actual
final camber is made in Table 8. The expected final camber
was determined by subtracting the calculated deflection due
to the weight of the concrete slab from the actual erected
camber. It was assumed that there were no additional losses
such as those that would occur during shipment, fabrication,
and erection.
The results indicated that the girders gained from -1/8"
(loss) to 3/16" (gain) of camber. Similarly, beams gained
from 1/16" to 3/16" of camber. The gains with respect to
the theoretical camber are probably due to the restraining
effect of the end connections which are typically ignored in
deflection calculations.
There is no apparent explanation for the loss of camber in
two of the girders. However, this was not a controlled
scientific study. More extensive research would be
necessary before specific recommendations can be made.
CONSTRUCTION METHODS
There are two basic methods used in the finishing of
concrete slabs: constant thickness and constant elevation.
In the constant thickness method, the top of the concrete
slab is established by measuring the desired thickness above
the steelwork with a stick or rod. In the constant
elevation method, either a conventional or laser level is
used to aid the finisher in setting the desired top of
concrete elevations. In either method, a small area is
smoothed off to the desired elevation and is used as a guide
for the screeding operation.
13-11
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Both methods are greatly affected by the actual elevation of
the erected steel and are more seriously affected by high
points in the steel than by low ones. The only sure way to
determine the actual elevations of the erected steel is to
conduct a field survey of the erected steel. This survey
allows the computation of the anticipated finished slab
elevation and profile. If these are not satisfactory, it is
not too late to make modifications to correct the problem.
Without the survey, problems do not become apparent until
after the slab is completed.
Constant Thickness Method
In the constant thickness method, floor levelness is the
major concern since the slab will follow the deflected
profile of the beam below. From the field survey the
deflected profile of the steel can be calculated by
subtracting the expected dead load deflections from the
measured elevations. By adding the desired slab thickness
to these elevations the expected floor profile can be
determined.
High spots are the most serious concern, especially after
the concrete has set. If portions of the floor, as
calculated, will be unacceptably high, it is probably wise
to resort to the constant elevation method; i.e., adjust the
grade for the entire floor.
If portions of the floor will be too low, the constant
elevation method can be used in those areas. For the
remaining portion of the floor the constant thickness method
can be used. Alternatively, the offending beams could be
shored to minimize their deflection and the entire floor
could be set from the steel.
Constant Elevation Method
In the constant elevation method, slab thickness is the
potential problem area. If too much camber is present in
the beams and the theoretical plan elevation is maintained
there will necessarily be a thin slab. Once again, a field
survey should be performed to determine high points in the
erected steel.
Final beam elevations, based on the expected dead load
deflections, should be calculated. Then the desired slab
thickness should be added to the highest calculated final
beam elevation. This elevation should then be compared to
the plan finish grade and the final slab elevation should be
adjusted up or down to account for any difference.
13-12
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
The constant elevation method is also greatly affected by
the placement of wet concrete. It is important that screed
elevations not be set until the entire wet concrete load is
on the member. Thus, careful thought must be given to the
sequence of the concrete placement.
CONCLUSIONS
Cambering is often the most economical method of
accommodating dead load deflections in beams. It saves
money by reducing or eliminating excess concrete that may be
required. The cost of cambering can be accurately
determined with no additional hidden costs to consider.
in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a level slab having
the correct thickness, it is imperative that camber in beams
be specified properly, which in turn requires that accurate
dead load deflections be calculated. Only the weight of the
beams, metal deck, and wet concrete should be used in these
calculations. Additional items, such as partitions,
mechanicals, ceiling and any live load should be excluded.
The effects of mill tolerances and camber losses tend to
offset each other; although, the net effect is usually
slightly more actual camber than specified.
The effect of connection end restraint can usually be
minimized by reducing the amount of camber specified. The
reported practice by many engineers of specifying camber
amounts in the range of 2/3 to 3/4 of the calculated, simple
span dead load deflection to account for end restraint
appears reasonable.
Camber 1/2" or less should probably not be specified; at
1/2" the cost of cambering usually exceeds the potential
savings in concrete, especially since natural mill camber
will probably be present.
It should be remembered that "more is not better" ! It is
usually easier and more economical to accommodate
under-cambered beams than over-cambered beams. Much more
severe problems occur in the field with beams that are too
high than with ones that are too low.
For either the constant elevation or thickness method of
finishing, a field profile survey of the erected steel prior
to pouring the slab can be invaluable in determining whether
the desired slab thickness and grade can be obtained. If a
problem is detected, construction procedures can then be
modified prior to casting the slab.
13-13
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
SUMMARY
Cambering is often the most economical method of
accommodating dead load deflections in beams. It saves
money by reducing or eliminating excess concrete that may be
required. The cost of cambering can be accurately
determined with no additional hidden costs to consider.
Increasing the size of the steel beam in order to reduce its
deflection and the excess concrete requirement is rarely an
economical solution. Almost invariably the increase in cost
for the heavier steel beam exceeds the cost of the concrete
and shear studs saved.
Camber should be specified only after consideration of the
following:
1) calculated dead load deflection,
2) camber tolerances and limitations,
3) camber losses,
4) effect of connection end restraint,
5) The "More is Better" Syndrome.
Prior to placing concrete slabs a profile survey of beam
elevations should be performed. Then, if the expected floor
profile is not satisfactory, a modification to the finishing
approach can be made.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the
fabricator, Strait Manufacturing and Welding, Inc.,
Greencastle, PA and the general contractor, Glen
Construction Company, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD, for their
cooperation and assistance in obtaining field data during
the construction of the Dulles Corner #6 office building,
Fairfax, VA.
REFERENCES
1) Allison, Horatio, "Steel Design - Special
Considerations", in Building Structural Design Handbook,
ed. White, Richard N. and Salmon, Charles, G., John Wiley
& Sons, 1987, pp. 567-569, 572-573, 587-590.
2) American Institute of steel Construction, Manual of
Steel Construction - Allowable stress Design, 9th
Edition, 1989, pp. 1-147, 1-150.
13-14
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
3) American Institute of steel Construction, Manual of
Steel Construction - Load & Resistance Factor Design,
1st Edition, 1986, pp. 1-167, 1-170.
4) Bethlehem Steel Corporation, "Cost-per-foot Guide",
Bethlehem TB-300 A, 1989.
5) Kloiber, Lawrence A., "Cambering of steel Beams", in
Steel Structures; Proceedings of the ASCE Structures
Congress, American society of civil Engineers,1989.
6) Ricker, David T., "Cambering steel Beams", in Engineering
Journal, American Institute of steel Construction, Fourth
Quarter, 1989.
13-15
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Table 1
COST COMPARISON: CASE 1
30'-0 span filler beam, 10'-0 o.c.
Description $/ft $/sf
50/C) W16x26 grade 50 7.41
20 studs 1.00
theoretical deflection = 1.07"
camber = 75% of defl. = 13/16" 0.78
TOTAL 9.19 0.919
50/U) W16x26 grade 50 7.41
20 studs 1.00
theoretical deflection = 1.07"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl.= 13/16" 1.00
TOTAL 9.41 0.941
36/U) W16x31 grade 36 8.37
34 studs 1.70
theoretical deflection = 0.86"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl. = 5/8" 0.77
TOTAL 10.84 1.084
36/C) W16x31 grade 36 8.37
34 studs 1.70
theoretical deflection = 0.86"
camber = 75% of defl. = 5/8" 0.93
TOTAL 11.00 1.100
Savings:
camber: 0.22 0.022
high-strength steel: 1.43 0.143
TOTAL 1.65 0.165
13-16
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Table 2
COST COMPARISON; CASE 2
38'-0 span filler beam, 10'-0 o.c.
Description $/ft $/sf
50/C) W18x35 grade 50 9.98
36 studs 1.42
theoretical deflection = 1.63"
camber = 75% of defl. = 1 1/4" 1.05
TOTAL 12.45 1.245
50/U) W18x35 grade 50 9.98
36 studs 1.42
theoretical deflection = 1.63"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl. = 1 1/4" 1.54
TOTAL 12.94 1.294
36/U) W21x44 grade 36 11.88
34 studs 1.34
theoretical deflection = 0.99"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl. = 3/4" 0.93
TOTAL 14.15 1.415
36/C) W21x44 grade 36 11.88
34 studs 1.34
theoretical deflection = 0.99"
camber = 75% of defl. = 3/4" 1.32
TOTAL 14.54 1.454
Savings:
camber: 0.49 0.049
high-strength steel: 1.21 0.121
TOTAL 1.70 0.170
13-17
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Table 3
COST COMPARISON; CASE 3
45'-0 span filler beam,10'-0 o.c.
Description $/ft $/sf
50/C) W21x44 grade 50 12.54
44 studs 1.47
theoretical deflection = 1.94"
camber = 75% of defl. = 1 7/16" 1.32
TOTAL 15.33 1.533
50/U) W21x44 grade 50 12.54
44 studs 1.47
theoretical deflection = 1.94"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl. = 1 7/16" 1.77
TOTAL 15.78 1.578
36/C) W24x55 grade 36 14.85
46 studs 1.53
theoretical deflection = 1.21"
camber = 75% of defl. = 15/16" 1.10
TOTAL 17.48 1.748
36/U) W24x55 grade 36 14.85
46 studs 1.53
theoretical deflection = 1.21"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl. = 15/16" 1.16
TOTAL 17.54 1.754
Savings:
camber: 0.45 0.045
high-strength steel: 1.76 0.176
TOTAL 2.21 0.221
13-18
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Table 4
COST COMPARISON; CASE 4
30'-0 span girder supp't 30'-0 beams @ 10'-0 o.c.
Description $/ft $/sf
50/C) W21x50 grade 50 14.25
52 studs 2.60
theoretical deflection = 0.89"
camber = 75% of defl. = 11/16" 1.50
TOTAL 18.35 0.612
50/U) W21X50 grade 50 14.25
52 studs 2.60
theoretical deflection = 0.89"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl. = 11/16" 2.55
TOTAL 19.40 0.647
36/C) W24x62 grade 36 16.74
58 studs 2.90
theoretical deflection = 0.56"
camber = 75% of defl. = 7/16" 1.24
TOTAL 20.88 0.696
36/U) W24x62 grade 36 16.74
58 studs 2.90
theoretical deflection = 0.56"
ponding conc.= 75% of defl. = 7/16" 1.62
TOTAL 21.26 0.709
Savings:
camber: 1.05 0.035
high-strength steel: 1.86 0.062
TOTAL 2.91 0.097
13-19
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Table 5: FIELD MEASURED DATA
ID
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Section
W24x55#
W24x55#
W24x55#
W24x55#
W24x55#
W24x55#
W24x55#
W24x55#
W24x55#
W16x31#
W16x31#
W16x31#
W16x31#
W16x31#
W16x31#
W16x31#
W16x31#
W16x31#
Span
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
30'-0
Camber
Desired
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
Measured Camber
@Mill
7/8"
1-1/8"
1"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
1-1/8"
1"
1"
1"
1-1/8"
1-1/8"
1"
1-1/8"
1-1/8"
1-3/16"
1"
@Fab
3/4"
1-1/16"
15/16"
13/16"
7/8"
13/16"
13/16"
1-1/16"
1"
7/8"
15/16"
1-1/16"
1"
15/16"
1"
1-1/8"
1-1/16"
1"
Erected
9/16"
*
3/4"
3/4"
5/8"
9/16"
11/16"
15/16"
5/8"
11/16"
11/16"
3/4"
13/16"
11/16"
13/16"
7/8"
3/4"
11/16"
Final
1/16"
*
7/16"
5/16"
1/4"
0"
1/4"
5/16"
5/16"
1/8"
0"
3/16"
3/16"
1/8"
1/4"
1/4"
3/16"
1/8"
* Girder could not be located in the field; therefore,
this data is not available.
Table 6: EFFECT OF MILL TOLERANCES
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Desired
Camber
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
5/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
Mill
Camber
7/8"
1-1/8"
1"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
1-1/8"
1"
1"
1"
1-1/8"
1-1/8"
1"
1-1/8"
1-1/8"
1-3/16"
1"
Extra
Camber
1/4"
1/2"
3/8"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/2"
3/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/4"
1/4"
1/8"
1/4"
1/4"
5/16"
1/8"
13-20
30'-0
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Table 7: EFFECT OF LOSSES
ID
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Actual
Mill
Camber
7/8"
1"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
1-1/8"
1"
1"
1"
1-1/8"
1-1/8"
1"
1-1/8"
1-1/8"
1-3/16"
1"
Calc.
Deflect.
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
1/8"
Expected
Erected
Camber
3/4"
7/8"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
1"
7/8"
7/8"
7/8"
1"
1"
7/8"
1"
1"
1-1/16"
7/8"
Actual
Erected
Camber
9/16"
3/4"
3/4"
5/8"
9/16"
11/16"
15/16"
5/8"
11/16"
11/16"
3/4"
13/16"
11/16"
13/16"
7/8"
3/4"
11/16"
Camber
Loss
3/16" (21%)
1/8" (13%)
0" (0%)
1/8" (14%)
3/16" (21%)
1/16" (7%)
1/16" (6%)
1/4" (25%)
3/16" (19%)
3/16" (19%)
1/4" (22%)
3/16" (17%)
3/16" (19%)
3/16" (17%)
1/8" (11%)
5/16" (26%)
3/16" (19%)
Table 8: EFFECT OF END RESTRAINT
ID
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Actual
Erected
Camber
9/16"
3/4"
3/4"
5/8"
9/16"
11/16"
15/16"
5/8"
11/16"
11/16"
3/4"
13/16"
11/16"
13/16"
7/8"
3/4"
11/16"
Calc.
Deflect.
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
1/2"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
Expected
Final
Camber
1/16"
1/4"
1/4"
1/8"
1/16"
3/16"
7/16"
1/8"
- 1/16"
- 1/16"
0"
1/16"
- 1/16"
1/16"
1/8"
0"
- 1/16"
Actual
Final
Camber
1/16"
7/16"
5/16"
1/4"
0"
1/4"
5/16"
5/16"
1/8"
0"
3/16"
3/16"
1/8"
1/4"
1/4"
3/16"
1/8"
Camber
Diff.
0" (0%)
+ 3/16" (+25%)
+ 1/16" (+8%)
+ 1/8" (+20%)
- 1/16" (-11%)
+ 1/16" (+9%)
- 1/8" (-13%)
+ 3/16" (+30%)
+ 3/16" (+27%)
+ 1/16"
+ 3/16" (+25%)
+ 1/8" (+15%)
+ 3/16" (+27%)
+ 3/16" (+23%)
+ 1/8" (+14%)
+ 3/16" (+25%)
+ 3/16" (+27%)
13-21
(+9%)
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.