Recommendations for connection design examples 9

[HanStrulo]

Happy weekend everyone.

I am looking for examples or exercises with solutions text books about connection design according to the CISC.

I learn through trial and error and i have done most the examples they provided with the CISC manual and i would like to bury myself in problems where i could get a good grasp on connection design.


Any suggestions or personal favourites or websites, blogs, pdfs, hard cover books are welcome.

Thank you

 

[JoelTXCive]

I am not familiar with CISC, but AISC has a free design example book that can be downloaded.

They have lots of connection design examples...

https://www.aisc.org/publications/steel-construction-manual-resources/#37583

 

[Enable]

I've found Canadian textbooks and guides to be particularly lacking when it comes to connection design. As JoelTXCive mentioned, AISC has some great stuff which is similar enough to our S16.

My go-to for Canada are the connections design courses by CISC / Dowco. Both are first-rate.

CISC Connections 1/2
Dowco Connections Design Course

In terms of books (not Canadian) I use the following:

AISC LRFD Connections Design Manual (volume 2)
Handbook of Structural Steel Connection and Details by Tamboli
Design and Analysis of Connections in Steel Structures by Boracchini (compares AISC, CSA, and Eurocode approaches)

My favourite Canadian book on steel design (connection chapter is a bit sparse though)

Structural Steel For Canadian Buildings by Metten & Driver

Absolutely love that last book. We really should have more practical design books like it.

 

[KootK]

I vote for the US stuff:

1) It's much better and more cohesively presented in my opinion.

2) In a conversation with CISC long ago, they actually told me that they think it's fine for Canadian engineers to do connection design to AISC. That said, if you're doing it as delegated engineering, expect to run into EOR's that don't agree with that.

A good approach might be to use the US examples and then try to figure out how to "Canadianize" them.

 

[milkshakelake]

AISC Design Guide examples

https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/manual/v15.1-companion/v15.1_vol-1_design-examples.pdf

CISC and AISC are almost the same thing.

 

[dik]

I use the AISC methodology with the CSA S16 values...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[HanStrulo]

Thanks everyone for the recommendation.

I will use the AISC examples with Canadian numbers and sizes. I am new to this so wish me luck

Structural Steel For Canadian Buildings by Metten & Driver

I have this book somewhere, I will start with it.

 

[skeletron]

AISC is way more in depth and their methods seem to trickle down to CISC. One of the main differences, other than the phi factors, is the coefficient for shear stress.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I think everyone's given most of the best connection design examples that I can think of.

So, I will go a slightly different route.... You might take a look at the Demo version of RISAConnection.

There are good and bad aspects of RISAConnection for sure. However, what I like is that the program presents virtually all the calculations it uses internally. And, it cites all the references it uses for its equations. Usually this is pointing back to code equations, or manual equations. But, sometimes it's pointing to a more obscure reference.... Maybe a PhD thesis that was the basis for an AISC design guide, or Tamboli's "Handbook of Structural Steel Connection Design and Details".

Just my two cents. Though, you should take my comments with a grain of salt, since I used to work for RISA and was the project manager for that program for a time. Actually, I work for a competitor to RISA now. But, I still have a soft spot for the way RISAConnection presented its results. Much of my time as the project manager, I viewed the program as an excellent way to teach young engineers about steel connection design..... Not perfect. And, some of the detailers and connection specialists will certainly have some valid objections to how RISAConnection treats some aspects of connection design. But, I still think it's an excellent starting point.

 

[KootK]

With respect to Canadian codes, I feel that our latent, understandable nationalism causes us to cling to weak / outdated design recommendations longer than we should just because their based on Canadian research. One example is the welding for single angle clips as shown below. It's based on research done long ago at the University of British Columbia and does not accommodate rotational ductility anywhere near as well as the US version. I much prefer the approach taken to CFM design where Canada and the US have a more or less unified standard. One ought to go with the best information available, not the best information your own country has available. Just by virtue of the size of the US, one would expect 9/10 of the best North American research to originate there (or whatever that works out to when including MX). That's not a knock on Canadian research, it's an acknowledgement of reality.

 

[dik]

You have to be careful... a few months back an engineer in BC was pee pee whacked because he was using the latest S16 and not the one spec'd in the BCBC... The fellow I do work for sent a letter to the Manitoba Professional Association asking for clarification if we should be using the latest information... that was months ago and no response to date...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[skeletron]

Lol @dik. S16-19 really? I wonder what the issue was... I thought Clause 27 was the only major change, and much of the overhaul happened in S16-14. Weird. Connection design is the last bastion of rational design (William Thornton) and really should be treated as such.

Josh brings up a really good learning strategy. Get a software program so you can do some really basic parametric analysis on the limiting factors. There are so many calculations to *actually* do with connection design, and I fear that someone going into it on their own will be overwhelmed without some numerical basis to compare results to. I was! When I started, they put me on hand-calc probation until I could follow the basic checks. It was painful but necessary at the time. Just be sure to ask "why?" and "how?" when you are using a software program to tell you the results...that's when the learning starts.

 

[milkshakelake]

My business partner (Canadian PE) worked at a large steel fabricator in Canada and did connection design for high rises and stuff. She used AISC, not CISC. It's perfectly valid to just do that. I also know a different company in Montreal that does that.

I agree that it's valuable to use software to learn ins and outs. I haven't used RISA but used Descon. It goes into important things I never would have considered, like the Whitmore section. It also shows every calculation specifically, which is better than "black box" type calculation software when trying to check things by hand.