Search results for query: *

Thank you for all the help and advice gentlemen. Josh, thank you. I'm using AMP521 for all railing design but the d factor is only calculated for 2+ spans. They require 1.0 for single span.

Great news gentlemen, my supplier sent A500 GR. C pipe and the yield on the cert are 62000 psi.

structuralsteelhead; The post is side mounted now so I've got just over 42" of cantilever (this is where the problem began). Welds and base metal are good to go. Thanks for the confirmation JAE. HotRod10; the "free to deflect vertically" is just a direct quote. In this case, it would be lateral.

While I'm waiting on the mill certs, I just had a friend e-mail me results from a model in SAP. Here's what I've got: 1. Cantilever with 0 restraint at one end: 1.17 k-ft 2. Cantilever free to translate but not rotate: 0.59 k-ft 3. SAP: 0.72 k-ft

Rail is good to go with the uniform and concentrated load under conservative boundary conditions. Post is the only thing that is just under the required yield strength with a concentrated load applied at the top. Anchors have a 4x FOS of them, so no issue there.

I'm awaiting the mill certs. While I do agree that realistically the guardrail does not inhibit rotation completely, we can all agree that the reaction would be much lower than 200*(height of the post) right?

Realistically, you'd have a rotation and translation spring.

We currently have an interior stair railing that was specified by the EoR for us to fabricate that does not pass NYCBC calculations now that some dimensional changes have occurred. We're trying to avoid a major change order here as we have ordered all of the pipe. The rail has two end posts...

Yura has a lot of research available for lateral torsional buckling. Engineering judgment is key here but the existence of a concrete slab above the beam will significantly inhibit lateral translation or rotation, especially under ultimate loading.

Exactly! The commentary states, in a very general way, that the summation of the individual fasteners is the actual capacity due to ductility of the connection even if one is inadequate. Was hoping to discuss this with other engineers on here.

canwesteng, Allow me to further clarify. All bolts are equally bearing on the steel but the bolt nearest to the edge does not have enough strength individually to resist tearout. I have always designed my connections so that my individual fasteners have enough strength but according to the...

I guess after rereading 16.1-410 (14th), AISC claims that "...the connection [very general/unclear] has enough ductility to allow all of the bolts to reach their individual effective strengths." Thanks bootlegend.

Good morning folks, Typically, when I design connections I check individual bolts for bearing and tearout capacity. On occasion, I'll end up with a single bolt failing in tearout while the summation of bolt bearing strength exceeds my requirement. For years, I've been making sure each...

Update from AISC: Without being entirely explicit, they seem to be in agreement with my train of thought and it could be done provided constructability demands are met. They reference Chapter A1 of the Specifications as reference text to protect myself. As far as the 1.75" gage goes for the 5"...

Sent over an e-mail, will update this thread with their response. Thank you

No problem, your response didn't seem well thought out so I figured I'd ask. Feel free to contribute, I'm all ears.

Here's the best example I can offer to you guys: The minimum bolt spacing for standard, oversized, short-slotted and long-slotted holes is the same. Let's keep this discussion without the bounds of bearing and say I have 2 columns of 3/4" bolts with short-slots perpendicular to the load path...

humanengr, I work in a fabrication + structural engineering firm so that is the first thing I take into account. Archie264, I am trying to restrict bolt spacing perpendicular to the load path. nutte, No, I'm just using it as supporting evidence that smaller bolt spacings are ok in addition to...

This may seem like a silly question but it's something that I have been thinking about for years and I'd prefer to ask those more experienced with this subject. As we all know, AISC explicitly states that a minimum bolt spacing requirement of 2-2/3(d) is required -> 3d preferred. As far as I...

Hello everyone, I have a question about the design checks AISC has presented for the extended shear plate configuration. Design Check #5 requires you to check for buckling using the double-coped beam procedure as opposed to the bracket procedure. The calculation of lambda requires a ratio of...