21M.

735

Dan Ports

Tech Note 3
2004/02/29

A Unied Case Formula For Platform Loading

A natural concern for the technical designer faced with a platform design problem is
how much load the platform will be able to support. This note presents a unied case
formula for identifying the maximum permissible load for a simple platform under normal
loading conditions. It considers the most common sources of platform failure. Though the
nal result is a large and intimidating formula, it is nonetheless expressed in a form suitable
for rapid numerical evaluation through a spreadsheet, programmable calculator, or other
mathematical tool.
A few notes:
For maximum exibility, no design factor is applied. The designer will want to make
an appropriate choice based on the situation and reduce the rating accordingly.
An evenly distributed load is assumed. If the load is especially uneven, approaching
a point load, this result may not apply.
These calculations do not take into account o-axis or other complex loading conditions. In particular, it does not take into account any cross-bracing
The surface of the platform is not taken into account.
The weight of beams and surface materials should be subtracted from the allowable
load.
A standard

l
240

deection criteria is used.

Standard indoor theatrical conditions are used. When necessary, the most conservative assumptions (e.g. load duration of 10 years) are employed. For less conservative
conditions, the load rating can be improved by applying the appropriate adjustment
factors to the allowable stress constants.
Denitions. Let a platform P =< l, w, h > be a simple platform1 with length l and width
w. It is supported by four columns of height h at the four corners.
1
This rather odd bit of notation expresses the fact that we are dening a simple platform in terms of
its length, width, and height. A pure mathematician might point out that by doing so we have dened a
3
platform space that is a subset of R+ . This is an excellent reason to keep pure mathematicians far away
from the theater.

3-1

We require the following data about the materials used to construct the platform:
For the beam in the x direction, the modulus of elasticity Ex , moment of inertia Ix ,
allowable bending stress Fb,x , and section modulus Sx .
For the beam in the y direction, the analogous quantities Ey , Iy , Fb,y , and Sy .
For the columns (in the z direction), the cross-sectional column area A, the modulus
of elasticity Ez , the allowable compressive stress F
c , and the minimum dimension d
of the column.

Result. For a platform P dened as above, we want to nd the maximum allowable load
per square foot, which we call P (P). We can compute this by taking the smallest of ve
values:

P (P) = min

Ex I x

0.64 1200l
3w

E
I

0.64 y y3 l

8F 1200w
S
b,x

wl2

8F
b,y S

lw2



r

Ez2 d4
Ez d2
Ez d2
4

lw AFc 0.625 0.1875 h2 F

0.03516 h4 F
2 0.1406 h2 F
+ 0.3906
c

Derivation. We rst consider the beams running along the long axis of the platform. These
beams can fail due to bending or shear, or they can provide an unsatisfactory level of
deection (the

l
240

criteria previously mentioned). In practice, under theatrical loading

conditions, beam failure due to shear is very rare, and minimizing deection generally is
the limiting factor.
The deection is given by

5pl4

384EI

where p is the weight per linear foot of beam length. Since we are interested in maximum
weight per square foot, we adjust it by half the width, the area supported by each beam:
the maximum allowable weight in square feet, P =

2p
w.

Applying the

l
240

deection criteria,

l
5P l4 w

240
768EI
768EI
EI
P
= 0.64
3
1200l w
1200l3 w
This gives us the maximum allowable weight due to deection in the length axis. By
interchanging length and width, we come to the corresponding limit due to deection in the

3-2

other beam:

P 0.64

EI
1200w3 l

Failure due to bending is also a concern. This imposes the following constraint:

Mmax Fb S
pl2
Fb S
8
P wl2
Fb S
8
8Fb S
P
wl2
and in the other beam,
P

8Fb S
lw2

Next, we consider the columns supporting the platform. We assume the load is distributed evenly among the four columns, i.e. that each column supports a weight of

P lw
4 .

We rst identify the critical buckling design value

FcE = 0.3

Ed2
h2

and then compute the column stability factor

v
#2 FcE
u"
u 1 + FcE
1+
Fc

t
c

Cp =

1.6
1.6
0.8
s
F2
FcE
FcE
+ 0.3906
= 0.625 0.625 0.3906 cE
2 0.469
Fc
Fc
F
c

s
Ed2
Ed2
E 2 d4
= 0.625 0.1875 2 0.03516 4
2 0.1406 2 + 0.3906
h Fc
h Fc
h Fc
FcE
Fc

which leads to the maximum allowable compressive load

4
P
AFc
lw

Ed2
0.625 0.1875 2
h Fc

Ed2
E 2 d4
0.03516 4
2 0.1406 2 + 0.3906
h Fc
h Fc

We take the minimum of these maximum loads, i.e. the most restrictive, and it is our
nal result for the maximum allowable load.

3-3

References
Holden and Sammler, Structural Design for the Stage, Focal Press 1999

Lots and lots of math

3-4