Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Intermediate Moment Frame Connection

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


Look at AISC Seismic Provisions Commentary Section C9.2b where it says subject to approval of the authority having jurisdiction "Published testing, such as that conducted as part of the SAC project and reported in FEMA 350 and 355 or project-specific testing may be used to satisfy this provision."  This means that if you can get it by your local building department you can still use any of the 9 prequalified FEMA 350 connections.  I hope your project is not in Los Angeles?!

Thomas Hunt, S.E.

"Joseph Eribarne" <jeribarne(--nospam--at)>
06/02/2008 09:02 AM
Please respond to seaint
Intermediate Moment Frame Connection


We have a small 50'x80' two story rigid frame structure in Design Category
D.  The roof is metal decking and the floor is composite concrete and metal
deck (the weight of the beams and slab less than 35 psf) and is less than 35
feet in height. For this small structure, we (and the contractor of
course)would like to keep it simple. We are thinking of using an frame in
accordance with ASCE7  I have 2 questions for this structure.

1.  We were thinking of using an Intermediate Moment Frame.  I am confused
on which prequalified beam to column connections may be used.  In the AISC
Seismic Design Manual, AISC358, Prequalified Connections for Special and
Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, notes that the
RBS and both the unstiffened and stiffened end plate connections are
acceptable.  We saw no mention of any other prequalified connection.
However, in the Seismic Provisions (AISC 341-05) commentary on page 6.1-169
of the Seismic Design Manual seems to indicate that the FEMA 350 WUF-B and
WUF-W would be acceptable.  Which connections are acceptable for an IMF?

2.   ASCE7 seems to indicate that even an OMF is acceptable for
roof, floor and wall weights less than 35psf.  The building would meet the
criteria if floor partition loads were not included.  In ASCE7, partition
loads are noted as LL.  Would this frame be acceptable as an OMF?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Joseph Eribarne

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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:
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

The information transmitted is intended only for the person 
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 
proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.  
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are 
hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, 
distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon 
this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please 
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.  

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.