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

RE: Connections Designing, General Standards? POLL

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
We design mostly commercial buildings. 

We specify the load that the connection should be detailed for, which is determined from the load that the actual conection will see. We will, however, group connections according to beam size. In other words, if W18's have reactions anywhere from  35 to 60 kips, all connections for W18's will be detailed the same.

I feel that industrial buildings should probably receive heavier connections, since when machinery is being moved or replaced, it is possible for connections to receive higher loads than you might normally design for. It would be a disservice to the Owner to always have to analyze and possibily reinforce connections everytime you update the process. In some industries, this is a constant process.

Jim K.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Maynard [mailto:davemaynard(--nospam--at)ceincorp.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:54 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Connections Designing, General Standards? POLL


I like to try and keep the design as economical as possible, thus keeping
the number of bolt and beam and column sizes to a minimum.  However, when it
comes to connections, I rarely design the connection for the full shear
capacity of the member.  More often than not, the shear capacity for the
beam, for example, is far greater than the induced shear load.  I will, as
often as possible to simplify design, refer to "red rubber ball" charts and
tables that are in the AISC manual to connection design.  I can see where
there is a benefit to designing to shear strength of the member, but it
would most likely yield to higher construction costs, especially when you
are looking at A LOT of bolted connections.  This could, however, be a
personal preference.

Dave Maynard, PE
Gillette, Wyoming


> -----Original Message-----
> From: refugio rochin [mailto:fugeeo(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:48 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Connections Designing, General Standards? POLL
>
>
> I am wanting to take a poll.
>
> How many engineers design to the load
> and how many engineers design to the member
> strength?
>
> For instance, if so much shear at a connection
> is much lower than shear capacity, how many
> would still design to the shear capacity of the beam,
> and how many would design only to the requirement
> of the structure?
>
> Asking, what is general opinion on this matter?
>
> Seems if there is a general design to a member,
> then many connections could be prequalified,
> and there becomes no real need to go through
> muliple calcs to find an adequate connection detail.
>
> Perhaps if the structure is a facility that may change,
> ie. have future load changes as in a hospital, then
> these pre-connections could be very valuable.  Whereas
> in a small building, it is better to save on the connection
> value.
>
> At the same time, are connections so costly that designing
> to the load, versus the member would save so much?
>
> Regards
> Refugio
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.0.0 - Release Date: 5/27/2005
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.0.0 - Release Date: 5/27/2005


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