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

Connections Designing, General Standards? POLL

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
For simple shear connections, I specify the design reaction on my
framing plan for these cases:

1.  Composite beams
2.  Very short beams
3.  Beams which pick up other beams, posts, or concentrated loads near
one end
4.  Very lightly loaded beams

If I don't have a reaction shown for a beam, notes instruct the detailer
to design for half the uniform load (or 60 percent, if I'm feeling
nervous that day).  As ranmoo (Randall, you need a new address) notes,
the detailers usually just put as many bolts in as the beam depth will
allow, even with the lightly loaded beams.

Most engineers I know around here do the same thing; but we are in a
low-seismic area.

On a related topic, I follow the same sort of logic with studs for
composite beams:  I have a table with required numbers of studs for each
beam size I use, which works fine except for really short beams, where I
have to tell them how many to use for each beam.

Mike Hemstad, P.E.
St. Paul, Minnesota

From: "ranmoo" <ranmoo(--nospam--at)>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Subject: Re: Connections Designing, General Standards? POLL

Indeed this is the typical method of choice utilized with our work in
the heavy industrial realm ...... specifying the the fabricator /
detailer to design the for one-half the uniform load capacity of the
beam at the given span of the beam .... with our attention paid
particularly to short spans that may require a larger end shear capacity
...... yet likewise finding typically the detailer provides the maximum
number of bolts allowed for the depth of the member.

Randall Moore
Wilmington NC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: Connections Designing, General Standards? POLL

In the past, I've typically used the method to design for one-half the
uniform load capacity of the beam at the given span.  For shorter spans
where this can create excessive shears, I prefer to design for the
actual reactions.  But lately I've been thinking that showing a fixed
number of bolts based on the member depth makes more sense, i.e.
determine the maximum number of rows of a given size bolt that the beam
depth can accommodate and use that capacity for design.

William C. Sherman, PE
(Bill Sherman)
CDM, Denver, CO
Phone: 303-298-1311
Fax: 303-293-8236
email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)

-----Original Message-----
From: refugio rochin [mailto:fugeeo(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:48 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
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?


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********