Design To Minimize Deflection

by John F Mann, PE
source : http://www.structural101.com/Beam-Design---Basic.html
Structural elements must be designed to satisfy requirements for strength, to
prevent failure or collapse, and stiffness, to prevent excessive movement or
deflection.
This discussion is focused primarily on deflection of beam elements.
Design of many beam elements, such as floor joists, is often governed by
deflection, not strength. This means that, for the required or proposed
configuration, the limit for deflection is reached before the limit for strength.
Determination of the appropriate limit for deflection is one of the first issues
that must be addressed during the design process. See "Wood Framing For Tile
Flooring" for additional discussion of deflection limits.
Of course, there is usually a trade-off between more conservative design and
cost. Greater strength and stiffness generally costs more. However, there are
often ways to improve a design that can actually minimize deflection while
reducing cost.
Obviously, a conservative deflection limit can be specified to minimize
deflection, assuming design and construction is then performed correctly.
However, it is more useful to find ways to minimize deflection by more
efficient design.

Basic Methods
For a given design load, the following ways (if feasible) are most often used to
minimize deflection, in general order of maximum effect or practicality;
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Decrease length of beam

Move one or both supports inward from end of beam
Use moment joints at ends of beam
Increase beam moment of inertia
Increase beam modulus of elasticity
Decrease load on beam
Share load with other beams
Prestressing & camber

Deflection is highly dependent on length of beam element. For a given total

load and distribution, deflection varies with the cube (third power) of span
length. Therefore, if length of beam is doubled, deflection increases by a
factor of 8, which is 2 cubed (2^3).
Even if beam length is increased by only 10 percent, deflection increases by 33
percent.
For a simple beam with uniform load (w), deflection varies with the fourth
power of span length. However, total load (wL) is increased. If beam length is
doubled, deflection increases by factor of 16 (for the same beam).
One way to reduce effective span length is to move supports inward from each
end if feasible. Not only is maximum span length reduced, but load on the
cantilever actually causes upward deflection in the main span
that offsets deflection due to load on the main span. However, a load case
without live load on the cantilever should always be considered. See below for
further discussion of this method for a line of multiple beams.
Deflection is reduced when one or both ends of a beam resist moment, instead
of being completely free to rotate ("hinged"). This method is generally
available for steel or reinforced concrete construction, not wood.
Deflection is directly proportional to beam moment of inertia, modulus of
elasticity and, for a given load distribution, total load.
For the same amount of material, some shapes (such as I-beam) have
greater moment of inertia. However, increasing depth of a beam is the most
practical way to increase moment of inertia.
Modulus of steel is essentially the same (29,000 psi) for all the various grades
and alloys.
Modulus of wood varies significantly between species and grade. Modulus can
be increased substantially by using LVL (laminated veneer lumber).
Modulus of concrete varies with compressive strength, but is not especially
sensitive.
Standard code provisions include generous safety factors for variable ("live")
loads and material properties. Code recommendations for weight of permanent
materials ("dead load") are also conservative, but not as conservative as for live
loads.

For a specific member, rearrangement of framing members is one way to

reduce design loads. Use of lighter-weight materials (within the
building) should also be considered if feasible.
For repetitive members such as floor joists, design load can be reduced by
using reduced spacing. This may allow for reduction of joist depth. However,
net cost for all the joists remains effectively the same or greater, due to
increased labor costs.

Support Conditions
For beam elements such as floor joists, one relatively simple way to reduce
deflection is to use continuous elements that span over one or more interior
supports, in addition to the usual support at (or near) each end. However,
continuous beams result in conditions that must be carefully evaluated.

Deflection Of Simply Supported Beam

A beam with two supports (one at each end) is typically described as a singlespan or "simply supported" beam. For uniform load (w) along the entire beam,
maximum deflection (at midspan) is calculated by the standard formula;
Deflection, midspan (inches) = 5 w L^4 / 384EI
where;
w = Uniform load (lbs per inch)
L = Span length (inches)
E = Modulus of elasticity for beam (lbs per square inch; psi)
I = Moment of inertia for beam (in^4)
This deflection is taken as a baseline index value of 1.00 for comparison
purposes.
The baseline index value is applicable for uniform dead load (by itself),
uniform live load (by itself), and total uniform load.
Deflection value is most often calculated for live load to compare with code
limits for live load. However, dead load deflection should also be checked.
Load applied to each support is half of the total load on the beam, or (wL / 2).

Deflection of Two-Span Continuous Beam

Now consider a beam with three supports, forming two separate spans, with
each span having the same length L as for the simply-supported beam in the
previous example.
This beam is continuous over the center support, such that there is no joint in
the beam as there is when two separate beams are used.
For the same uniform load w (used for single-span, simply supported beam)
applied to both spans of the two-span continuous beam, maximum deflection
for each span is only 0.42 (index value), which is 42-percent of the baseline
value (1.00). Just as for the simply supported beam, this value is applicable
(separately) for uniform dead load, uniform live load, and total load.
However, we must consider a separate load case, when live load is applied to
only one of the two spans. For this case, dead load deflection remains the
same while maximum live load deflection (in the one span) increases to 0.70
(70-percent of live load deflection for simply supported beam).
Other loading conditions (such as point loads) must also be considered.
However, a continuous beam tends to reduce maximum deflections
significantly, using the same beam size as for two single-span beams.
Therefore, use of two-span continuous beam may allow for reduction in beam
moment of inertia and beam size.
The following results of using a two-span beam must be considered;
** Greater reaction force at center support (compared to two single-span
beams). For two-span beam, with equal spans, reaction force is 25-percent
greater than total (combined) reaction force for two single-span beams (of
same total length). This affects design of whatever element may be providing
the center support, such as a separate girder, as well as foundation walls and
footings.
** For greatly unequal span lengths (one span much longer than the other),
uplift reaction force may occur at outer end of shorter span for live load on the
longer span only. If such uplift can not be resisted, deflection of the longer
span would be increased greatly. Also, upward movement will usually be
unacceptable, especially for a building.

Cantilever Method for Multi-Span Beam Line

For a line of beams with multiple supports, deflection can be reduced
(compared to simply-supported beams spanning between supports) almost as
much as for continuous beams by using the cantilever method. This method

eliminates the need for moment-resisting connections which are often required
for continuous beams.
Consider the simple case of two spans on three supports, which are often
columns (C1, C2, C3). One beam (B1) can be extended (cantilevered) over the
interior support (C2). The second beam (B2) then spans from inside end of B1
to the third support (C3). Connection between B2 and B1 is a simple hinge-type
that resists shear only.
Inside end of B1, at end of the cantilever segment, is designated P1 for further
discussion. Point P1 deflects downward due to load from B2. However, P1
deflects upward due to load on B1 between supports C1 and C2. Net deflection
may therefore be upward, depending on loading conditions.
As long as the net cantilever segment of B1 is not excessive, the following
advantages result, compared to using two beams that span between supports;
(1) Moment and deflection of B2 is less since span length of B2 has been
reduced. However, deflection of any point on B2, relative to each support (C2
& C3) must include net deflection of point P1 (at end of B1). For live loads on
B2 only, live load deflection of point P1 will be downward.
(2) Deflection of B1, between supports C1 and C2, is reduced due to point load
from B2 at point P1, which causes upward movement of B1 between supports.
This basic design concept can of course be used for multiple beams with more
than three supports.