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

RE: A 36 steel vs A992

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>I would like to get some opinions on the A36 and A992 issue in
>seismic zone 4 from some of the steel folks. The fabricators are
>in general are providing the A992 when notes indicate A36 steel
>for all but most channels and angles. My question is in regard to
>strength calculations for bracing. The yield for A992 vs. A36 can
>have dramatic effects in connection design. Are you day to day
>steel folks using A992 yield for strength calculations? Seems like
>one would need to be tight with the fabricators at front end to see
>what is being provided.

For a while now, ASTM A36 has existed in name only for W-shapes. If you
specify it, I'll all but guarantee you you will get a product that meets
ASTM A992 as well. How could that be? ASTM A36 has no maximum yield.

You can get further information on this topic here:

    http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/steelstuff/astmspcs.htm

I strongly recommend that you base your wide-flange calcs on ASTM A992.

Note that A36 is still a realistic material specification to use for plates,
angles, channels, M-shapes, S-shapes and HP-shapes.

Charlie




******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********