Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Intermediate Moment Frame - Extended End Plate Connections

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

My thinking is that the economy will be a slave to the details, and the details will have to mimic those used in the tested connections. Since the tested versions are SMF-qualified, those used in an IMF will be similar physically and in cost. You may be right that a lower design requirement will allow a reduction in cost, but that will depend upon the specifics.

 

Charlie

 


From: Mark Francois [mailto:marfra(--nospam--at)tstt.net.tt]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:54 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Intermediate Moment Frame - Extended End Plate Connections

 

Charlie,

Would the IMF requirements not be the same as the SMF ?The SMF moment requirement is 1.1 RyFyZ plus VuLp, if the IMF requirements were lower then the connection would be more economical.

 

Mark

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:30 PM

Subject: RE: Intermediate Moment Frame - Extended End Plate Connections

 

>In designing extended end plate connections for an Intermediate Moment Frame,

>we have been using AISC Design Guide 4 for seismic applications. These connections

>appear to cater for SMRFs. Are there guidelines for IMRFs. As the connections for an

>IMRF are required to experience much lower rotations, the applied moment of

>1.1 RyFyZ plus VuLp may be excessive.

 

There are no details that are specific to satisfying IMF criteria, but you can use any SMF detail in an IMF. For end plates, there wouldn’t much cost penalty if you did use an SMF connection as an IMF. You would not have to design it for anything more than the IMF requirements if you did.


Charlie