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

RE: Steel Connections

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: Steel Connections

>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.

I personally applaud you for being willing to show realistic reactions on the drawings for connection design. I think there is a lot of money wasted in steel design and construction on connections that become extremely labor intensive because of unrealistic and often fictitiously high reaction requirements.

As one extreme example, Bill Thornton of Cives Engineering Company once showed me drawigs and pictures from the field of a W10 that spanned about 5 ft. The one-half uniform-load-capacity connection design spec for that beam resulted in bottom-flange web extension plates that touched at the mid-span of the beam and accomodated end connections with nine bolts at each end. I'm guessing it was safe, but it also probably cost the owner a pretty penny with all the additional labor associated with making and welding on the large plates that were required. This kind of thing happens in shear connections, moment connections, bracing connection, .... all connections! Granted, they may not all change a $40 connection into a $4000 connection, but it all adds up to needless expense.

I guess I'd be happy if common sense could be applied to horrific cases like this one above. If so, tabulated reactions or reactions as a function of member strength wouldn't be so onerous. But in the specific case above, the engineer responded to Bill's queries with "do as the spec says, dumb fabricator!". Ugh!

Charlie