Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: 4-bolt patterns

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I failed to note in my response that the 4 bolt anchor bolt pattern was a
proposed change to subpart R.  It is not currently the law.

Speaking as a former steel erector, 4 anchor bolts is a good idea.  Some
engineers perceived that there was a cost savings by using 2 anchor bolt
columns.  It was in general a false perception.  The problem in making it
mandatory, is that it can create some problems regarding function, and it
can create a false sense of security.

I have evaluated column failures.  I have even investigated columns that had
4 bolts that failed during erection.  Erectors and riggers need some
structural engineering input in order to safely erect buildings.  I have met
with erectors shortly after a fatal collapse.  They were angry.  And there
anger was justifiable.  They only had structural engineering after it was
too late.

The problem is that very few structural engineers have a desire to get
involved in what is termed "methods and means", until there is a failure.
Then there are scores of high dollar structural engineers with PhD's that
are willing to do the failure analysis.  Lawyers pay top dollar.  Steel
erection goes to the lowest bidder.  How often is the erectors injury rate
part of a bid evaluation?

I prefer getting involved on the construction side, and avoiding the legal
nastiness.  The handicap (and the challenge) is that there are no rules on
designing for structural stability during the construction phase.  There is
no code other than OSHA.

What is needed is a very conservative prescriptive approach, or an
engineered approach in which a structural engineer gets involved in planning
and designing the erection.

The changes to OSHA are necessary.  We need to look with compassion at the
thousands of workers that are killed and injured every year that a little
planning and engineering could have prevented.  

As a profession, we should have addressed this issue long ago.  We have done
a much better job of insulating ourselves from methods and means.

One of the strongest promulgators of the change to subpart R is C. Rockwell
(Rocky) Turner L.P.R. Construction of Loveland, Colo.
http://www.lprconst.com/Presentation/lpr_construction_co.htm.  A look at
their web site will indicate their policy on safety.
Since no one else has risen to the challenge of addressing safety on the job
site, (and being a former high iron act) I have to come down on the side of
some bureaucracy on this issue.
Regards,
Harold Sprague
The Neenan Company

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	allen(--nospam--at)xyz.net [mailto:allen(--nospam--at)xyz.net]
> Sent:	Thursday, June 10, 1999 8:34 PM
> To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject:	RE: 4-bolt patterns
> 
> This appears to me to be a prime example of bureaucratic design and not
> rational engineering design. Any comments.
> 
> James Allen, P.E.
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From:	Harold Sprague [SMTP:harold.sprague(--nospam--at)neenan.com]
> 		Sent:	Thursday, June 10, 1999 12:47 PM
> 		To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> 		Subject:	RE: 4-bolt patterns
> 
> 		OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart R.
> 
> 		Harold Sprague
> 		The Neenan Company
> 
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From: Zachary Goswick [mailto:ZachG(--nospam--at)angusyoung.com]
> 		Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 9:21 AM
> 		To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> 		Subject: 4-bolt patterns
> 
> 
> 		Does anybody know where OSHA says you have to have a 4-bolt
> pattern in
> 		column base plates?
>