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

Re: Causes of a "fatal flaw?"

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Without develing too much into the finite element "stuff" (after all, that
is when my head starts to hurt), it would appear the slots in the patented
connection by Ralph Richard would serve a similar purpose to the "notches"
(for lack of a better word) in the web where it attaches to both the top
and bottom flange as proposed in the results of the SAC/FEMA project.

I seem to recall that someone (and I don't know who) was sueing over the
configuration of the proposed notches (or threatening to sue) in the
SAC/FEMA project because of a supposed violation of a patent that they
had.  Don't know if the who issue is related or not.

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Roger Turk wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Knowing Ralph Richard personally, and having listened to his explanations on
> a number of occasions, it took me a long while to figure out what he was
> saying.  Without either endorsing or criticizing his solution, I will see if
> I can explain what I believe he is saying.
>
> When the beam is subject to moment at the connection, it is trying to curve
> and the *web* produces radial tension and compression stresses on the
> flanges, normal to the plane of the flange.  The curvature of a beam due to a
> negative moment will cause the web to have high compressive stresses on the
> top flange, and high tension flanges on the bottom flange.  The web is trying
> to prevent the top flange from crushing the web, and trying to prevent the
> bottom flange from straightening out.  This affect of the web puts a high
> shear [his prying action] in the *flange-to-column connection* in addition to
> the tension/compression force in the plane of the flange.  The resultant
> force, which is much higher than the force the weld is designed for, and is,
> he theorizes, the cause of the moment frame failures.
>
> The solution, according to Ralph Richard and his partners, is to slot the web
> at its junction with the flange so that these compression and tension forces
> normal to the plane of the flange cannot develop at the beam to column
> connection.  This way, the high shear forces in the flange due to the radial
> stresses from the flange cannot develop, and therefore the high resultant
> force is not developed.  The web to column connection will still carry the
> beam shear.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
> Tucson, Arizona
>
> Chris Wright wrote:
>
> >Two studies published at
> >http://www.muckraker.org/investigations/steelhome.html attempt to
> >explain the fundamental causes of the failure of the "pre-Northridge
> >connection.
>
> I've got some real problems with this web site. First, the site explains
> nothing and proves nothing. Consider the statement
> >  'testing and finite-element analysis led to the discovery of
> > the cause of the prying action mentioned in the paper. As
> > the beam is flexed, one side of the beam's flange contains a
> > large compressive stress component while the other side of
> > the same flange contains a large tensile stress component. The
> > result is often the separation of the beam flange from the
> > column flange in the form of a weld or flange fracture or
> > a column flange divot, which was often seen during building
> > inspections following the Jan. 1994 Northridge earthquake, said
> > Richard.'
> It's only a restatement of the obvious, pretending to be some wondrous
> discovery. The gap between '...large tensile stress component.' and  'The
> result is often the separation...' is arm-waving. Not even Indiana Jones would
> make such a leap of faith.
>
> The discussion of brittle fracture is tripe. So is the following:
> > The story of engineering drama was recently published in Structural
> > Engineering magazine. While this publication's target
> > audience is 30,000 licensed professionals, the article's essence
> > is easily understood by non-engineers.
> If it were so easily understood, the author wouldn't have gotten it so far
> wrong.
>
> Second, the phrase
> > 'Richard is co-owner and inventor of SSDA's  proprietary SlottedWeb_
> > seismic connection design, which competes with the
> > now popular reduced beam section (RBS) connection as  proposed
> > in FEMA's study.'
> shows clearly that the studies are meant to flog an invention, not provide
> useful information.
>
> I don't doubt that those connections had serious problems and I suspect I know
> what happened, but the web site is technical and professional dreck.
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


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