From: "Sprague, Harold O." <SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:48:33 -0500
I have seen it and done it both ways. From the consultant's point of view,
it takes extra time, money, and increases risk to show the reactions. From
the owner's and contractor's point of view it saves money.
I kind of like a blend. Specify the tables for loads not otherwise shown,
and show the loads where you feel that it is necessary.
Actually we should design all of our connections. This is kind of an East
Coast - West Coast issue. The West Coast stand is to detail them all. The
East Coast uses performance specifications and leaves it up to the
fabricator to engage an engineer to design the connections subject to the
approval of the EOR. At one time I worked for a fabricator and designed
connections day in and day out.
I assemble a table with various beam depths and show the connections both
welded and bolted. The odd ball connections are detailed individually. I
have found that the fabricators with beam lines (most of them) like the all
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Lane, P.E. [SMTP:jamesalane(--nospam--at)hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 5:54 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Steel Connections
> Need some response to this one. Have a engineer wanting to use reactions
> based on allowable load tables in steel book. I want to show the actual
> reactions on the documents and have done so in past employment. Is the
> company being unreasonable in making me adhere to this policy.
> My argument is the following:
> 1. Short beams result in high reactions that are in excess of what is
> 2. Fabricators like the actual reaction loads on the beams.
> 3. I feel we are doing the client a disservice by making the fabricator
> follow the load tables in the steel book. Since this would mean coping and
> adding plates to alot of 8 and 10 inch short span beams.
> Am I off base on this one?
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com