From: Scott E Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
I agree with Harold. What he described is typically how I am used to
doing it. We will show the "actual" reactions for the beams with a
general note that calls for the use of the "uniform load" method if a
reaction is not shown (which it typically is). Note that I put the word
"actual" in quotes...we actually increase the actual reaction by about
10%. This allows for easier future flexibility such as when the floor
needs to support a higher load in the future...the extra reaction
requirement might eliminate or minimize the need for costly connection
Similar to Harold, we have our "typical" connection details with allowable
reactions for the various connection types. For example, we have double
angle connection detail with a specified angle thickness and minimum web
thickness for the beam that has an associated table of allowable reactions
for 2 bolts, 3 bolts, etc. The allowable reactions have already been
calculated based upon the minimum criteria established in the detail. If
the actual connection does not fit with in the criteria then a "special"
detail needs to be designed (typically by the fabricator/detailer - i.e.
East coast methodology) and checked (by EOR). We have similar details for
single angle, shear tabs, etc.
Hope this helps.
Scott Maxwell, PE, SE
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Sprague, Harold O. wrote:
> 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
> bolted connections.
> Harold Sprague
> > -----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
> > practical.
> > 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?
> > James
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com