To: "INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: Erection of Double-framed beam Connection to Columns
From: Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:28:45 -0500 (EST)
There are a couple options.
One detail that has been shown/explained to me is to actually use an extra
row of bolts. This row of bolts is primarily for erection purposes.
Basically, you remove one corner of one of the clips angles for each beam.
For example, let's say that your end connection requires three rows of two
bolts for each beam. You add a fourth "row" except that you only really
add one additional bolt to each beam. It would look something like this
for each beam:
The bottom three rows would be for your connection strength and the top
single bolt would be for erection purposes. The opposite beam connection
would be configured so that its erection bolts would fall in the "empty"
location in the above diagram. Thus, each erection bolt can be placed
without interfering with the other beam.
The problem with the above suggestions is that it will not work "after the
fact" (i.e. I believe in the case in question, the steel has already been
Another way that could be done after fabrication has been completed is to
use an erection seat angle.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Mark Gilligan wrote:
> With regards to the common bolt problem :
> >>>1. Erection hazard due to common bolt
> Longitudinal beams have common connection bolts at column webs. In this
> case, we have to remove the bolts from the first beam connected for
> connecting the second beams, in which erection hazard exists.<<<
> Treat this seriously. The new OSHA steel errection standard prohibits this
> type of detail. You can get a copy of the OSHA standard from their web
> The Erector could possibly build some kind of a jig that would allow one
> beam to be safely held in place while the other beam is positioned to
> allow erection.
> Mark Gilligan