Bent Plate pour stop bolted to spandrel beam

[VA-Struct-Engr]

Hello all.
I have typically welded bent plate pour stop to spandrel beam. On one of my projects, fabricator is asking if they can bolt the bent plate to the spandrel beam using TC bolts in order to minimize risk of misalignment in the field. Is there any literature out there on this? Has anyone done this before? I could not find anything on this on AISC design guide 22. I would think the bent plate with bolted connection would deflect more than an equivalent welded connection.

Thank you for your help in advance.

 

[phamENG]

Depends on how long the bent plate is. Check prying on it and that'll help you visualize the FBD for the plate and connection. I don't think there'd be much of a problem. If you have a really thin slab the bolt head might interrupt it too much, but TC bolts have relatively flat and rounded heads which will help there.

 

[bones206]

It may violate OSHA by creating a tripping hazard. See here:

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-01-23-0

I would think OSHA might be ok with the bolted detail if it's just the shallow rounded heads on the walking surface. Might be tricky for the ironworker to install the bolt in that orientation depending on the situation.

 

[MotorCity]

As long as they don't go crazy with the bolts and place them at 2" oc, I'd be ok with the bolted connection. If you have any forces on the top flange of the spandrel beam that create localized effects (flange warping, twisting, bending, etc), you may want to avoid punching holes in the flange and stick with the welded connection. We typically use light gage pour stops instead of bent plates and deflection is not an issue. With regard to the OSHA violation, I think it has to do more with when its installed and creates a tripping hazard as opposed to how its installed (field bolted vs field welded).

 

[phamENG]

bones - thanks for posting that. While I firmly believe we need to keep OSHA in mind during our designs, I wonder how much of a concern it needs to be here. On a relatively short building, it seems reasonable to put it back on the contractor. They are asking for this detail, so as long as they understand it will require them to provide an alternative work surface/platform I don't think I'd worry about the detail itself violating OSHA. Even on a taller building, they could provide temporary scaffolding along the exterior wall. I agree it's probably an unnecessary expense, but misalignment of that angle can be expensive. Happened at my old firm. Somebody approved an RFI with a bad dimension without sending it back to the architect, and they didn't catch it until a couple thousand linear feet of edge angle were welded in place. Oops.