Clip Angle Connection 2

[Veer007]

Hey Guys, so far I have my w-beam profile as W310X283(W12X190 imperial equivalent), Which has 26.9mm as web thickness seems little high, Can I go with 16mm thick clip angle since I have to provide header angle (double angle) connection, so I have framing angle thickness 16+16=32mm which is higher than beam web thickness, and I am using 1"Ø A325N connection bolts.

or Can I have to increase more than this? One more thing i have to consider the yield stress of w-section is 350 N/mm2 but framing angle has 300 N/mm2

Also as far as i have seen in AISC which doesn't refer more thickness of header angles while beam profile is heavy, please provide your valuable comments for this one.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[phamENG]

Not sure what your question is? Seems like you're asking us to design a shear tab for you. That would be bad enough, but you don't even provide loading information. Or am I missing your intent entirely?

 

[Veer007]

Yeah, i want to check this shear tab thickness for Vf=840kN, but i don't see any framing angle thickness which more than 12mm thick, the table shown in AISC 10-1 which concludes 134 kips for 3-1"Ø bolts=596kN only.. So i need to go more thicknesses angle.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[Veer007]

Thanks in advance!!

 

[r13]

You need to come up an angle that is thick enough to resist bearing and block shear. I recall the manual has design example though.

 

[Veer007]

Is there no relation between beam web thickness and framing angle thickness? usually I just match the beam web thickness which satisfy whatever the loading condition, Am i wrong?


Thanks in advance!!

 

[r13]

Are the wide flange and the angle the same grade? Did you check block shear? Follow through the design examples on the manual to verify your assumption, then you will be more confident the next time.

 

[KootK]

Is there no relation between beam web thickness and framing angle thickness? usually I just match the beam web thickness which satisfy whatever the loading condition, Am i wrong?

1) You're wrong in the sense that there is no mandatory relation between the thickness of the web and the angles so long as all of the relevant checks work out for the actual load imposed on the connection.

2) You're right in the sense that I think that it it's generally considered good practice to have angle thicknesses of a similar scale to the web thickness.

 

[phamENG]

You'll have to run through the full design calculation if the tables don't cover it. AISC publishes this companion to the SCM. Look at part 2 - it has several shear connection examples to help guide you.

 

[Veer007]

Are the wide flange and the angle the same grade? Did you check block shear?

No, they are different grade 350W and 300W(angle), Yes framing angle passes block shear capacity.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[Veer007]

I agree all your points, i know it's not calculated design, but what I want to know this, in general practice, if I match beam web thickness, can I use 16 thick angle as we have to use double angle 16+16=32 which is higher than beam web or I have to increase more than this?

What I conclude this if we matched beam web thickness, the connection would not fail (loading will not more than beam capacity), coz beam will fail prior to angle, so the angle profile would not be an issue?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[Veer007]

Guys, if we have 100 of beams, we can't design framing angle thickness each end everyone, so is there any good practice to calculate framing angle thickness depend on beam profile?

I know it's not proper way.
(Above statement is not depending on loading condition/block shear/grade, only depend on beam profile)

Thanks in advance!!

 

[phamENG]

Absolutely not. If you have a 100 beams, and you were hired to design connections for 100 beams, you design connections for 100 beams based on the design criteria supplied to you by the EOR. There may be rules of thumb to assist in initial selection, or standards for reasonable and efficient detailing, but if you're supposed to to design the connections then you need to design the connections.

If you don't have room in the budget, charge more money. Do one by hand. Then program a MathCAD/SMATH/Excel sheet that can take batch inputs. Get a project, write the batch input file, run your script. Your 100 beams could be designed in less than 2 hours, with detailed calculations for each one. Pick a percentage that your company is comfortable with, and validate them by hand (variety of loads, beam depths, angle sizes, etc.).

 

[Veer007]

I am completely agreeing with your points, But Just assume if this is the case, loading will not more than beam capacity, right? So why don't we decide angle profile depend on beam?

FYI: In some case, I know that EOR referring heavy beams only because of the larger span, not for high shear loads.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[jayrod12]

Why not request the actual shear loads on the beams and design for those instead of designing for wl/2?

If those are the shear loads, then you'll need to go outside of the charts and design it accordingly.

You aren't going to find a cookie cutter solution or rule of thumb for all circumstances.

 

[jayrod12]

And if there were 100 of these connections, all with slightly different parameters, i.e. web thickness, flange thickness, Shear load (I mean slightly different for this parameter not 50 kips difference). But had the same beam depth, i.e. all W12s. I would likely take the thinnest web, thinnest flange, and highest shear load and see what that connection looked like. If it appears reasonable from a fabrication and material standpoint, then it goes everywhere. Saving steel is important, but so is repeatability in manufacturing.

If you can get one shop guy to bang off 200 of the same angles for double angle connections, you're likely not going to get any surprise errors when everything gets all fit up.

 

[r13]

jayrod12 is on the correct path. For 100 of connections, you may end up with only a few standard connections, as well as the unification/standardization of beams and columns.

 

[Veer007]

Yes, agree with you.

Thanks in advance!!