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

Re: Minimum steel connections

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Your bolted connection example is reasonable as are most connections
governed by this rule.  Imagine, for the sake of argument, though, that part
of a connection consists of a plate in weak axis flexure.  If, as in the
original example, the design load is increased by a factor of ten, the plate
thickness would increase by a factor of three.  If this were a repetitive
condition, the "reasonableness" of the connection is not so clear.

In reinforced concrete beams, minimum flexural steel requirements are waived
if reinforcement is provided that is one-third greater than that required by
analysis.  Philosophically, there should be an equivalent for steel
connections that would provide a consistent factor of safety while
considering practical and economic factors.

Jason Emoto, P.E.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluor.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Minimum steel connections




Per the ASD Specification, the 6 kip unfactored load can be resisted by one
5/8"
A307 bolt in tension or two 5/8" A307 bolts in shear.  (You get the same
answer
using the 10 kip factored load in the LRFD Specification.)  These do not
seem
like unreasonable minimum connectors.

Rick Drake, SE
Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo, CA

*******************************





"Jason Emoto" <jasone(--nospam--at)kpff.com> on 07/06/2000 09:15:49 AM

Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org

To:   <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
cc:

Subject:  Minimum steel connections


AISC ASD specification section J1.6 calls for steel connections to be
designed to support a minimum load of 6 kips (LRFD section J1.7 specifies 10
kips).  Lacing, sag bars and girts are excepted from this requirement.  Are
there any other exceptions explicity given?

Suppose a canopy connection (within the scope of sructural steel as defined
by specification section A2.1 and Code of Standard Practice section 2.1)
supports a load of 600 lb.  It seems like overkill to design the connection
for ten times this force.

Jason Emoto, P.E.





******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to 
*   admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********