Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Re: Pushing Steel Design with Mill-Certs[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: addseaoc(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Re: Pushing Steel Design with Mill-Certs
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 30 Jul 1997 14:47:11 GMT
Recently Harry wrote: >Does anyone have any specific information (or opinions) regarding the >design of steel moment frames by using actual fy yield values based on mill >certs rather than using code minimum values? Yes, I have an opinion: It's wrong, wrong, wrong! The Steel Design Codes say we should design to the yield stress of the material specification, not to the tested yield strenth of a sample. You're reducing the intended safety factor if you design right to the limit. I believe the reason mill test certificates ("mill-certs") are not normally used for setting allowable stresses is that they are only SAMPLE tests. How do you know that the most highly stressed part of your bending member happens to be as strong as the tested part of the batch? After a well known structural collapse of a roof structure here in Vancouver, the investigator learned that a reviewing engineer had been talked into accepting a beam which, in his initial review he wanted reinforced. The argument for acceptance was that the mil-certs showed a higher yield stress than the nominal yield stress in the material spec. The beam would have been overstressed 20% based on the normal limit of 44 kips per square inch, but the mil-cert said the yield had reached 55 ksi iin the test. The engineer involved rationalized that the beam was strong enough, and told the client the "good news" - the beams didn't need to be reinforced after all! After the collapse, samples were taken fron the failed beam and tested. Sure enough, the sample from the web of the wide flanged beam tested out at 55 ksi. That was where the sample in the original mill test had come from. The sample from the flanges, however, proved to have a yield stress of only 47 ksi. Apparently steel in webs is likely to be be strain- hardened by the rolling process, more than the flanges, so the web will often proove to have a higher yield than the steel in the flanges. If you're designing frames for a metal building manufacturer, be careful. That seems to be a highly competitive market where saving a few pounds here and there can win a job... but how much can you shave before there's no reserve? Maybe you haven't checked every condition, and maybe the snow builds up differently from what you assumed. There have been reports of many failures of pre-engineered metal buildings when the big snowstorm hit Victoria, British Columbia on December 30th. The snow load did exceed the code value, but other building types seemed to be more tolerant. And the effect of the collapse on the businesses which occupied the buildings was, of course, catastrophic. Who are you really helping by talking yourself into more optimistic assumptions? Maybe not the building owner, and certainly not the occupants. A safety factor that lets you sleep at night probably costs under 1 percent more, for the structure, than if you used the bare safety factor that - you hope - just meets minimum requirements. It may be good for our ego to brag that we are smart enough to design a frame that weighs less than some other engineer's design. But what if some of our assumptions were wrong, and it fails? Jim Warne, Vancouver --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [126.96.36.199]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29078 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:53:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from aphex.direct.ca by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id la005133; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 21:52:01 -0800 Received: from van-52-1119.direct.ca (van-52-1119.direct.ca [188.8.131.52]) by aphex.direct.ca (8.8.3/8.8.0) with SMTP id VAA22320 for <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 21:49:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 21:49:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703020549.VAA22320(--nospam--at)aphex.direct.ca> X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org From: Jim Warne <jwarne(--nospam--at)direct.ca> Subject: Re: Pushing Steel Design with Mill-Certs Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Info: [SEAOC] Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Precedence: list X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org] __________________________________________________ Richard Lewis, P.E. Missionary TECH Team rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org The service mission like-minded Christian organizations may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Re: Project in Puerto Rico
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Quake Forecasting
- Previous by thread: Fwd: Hyatt walkway
- Next by thread: Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Quality issues in engineering practice]