Steel connections to beam bottom rather than centreline

[Forgot2Yield]

I'm what peoples opinion is about running your bracing connections to the bottom of the beams. We typically do this in my area of work because of the way a lot of the industrial steel platforms and operating floors are built (beams sit on top of columns instead of framing into them for ease of construction, columns get erected and then whole floor sections get dropped on top). So the connections are easier for the bracing when they only have to attach to the columns and not the beams. Even though there is no advantage doing it this way for chevron connections in the centre of the beam, it still gets carried over to these as well. So for the top floor steel all bracing points to the bottom of beams.

I'm not sure if any other industries do it this way, but I'm wondering if there are any reasons why it shouldn't be done this way.

 

[jayrod12]

I would say that is usually more typical than not. I'm not sure of another method. If you look at the centrelines of the beams, columns and braces, they likely all intersect at a central node meaning they're perform as per the analysis.

 

[Lomarandil]

I'm all for it, with the caveat that there is a load path from the brace connection point to the compression flange (e.g. a stiffener or sufficiently beefy web, etc).

 

[ads0221]

This is pretty typical for industrial vertical bracing. Example: On our drawings we show the work points typically to the center of the member but the chevron gusset brace is always on the lower flange. If you follow the path they still go to the center “node” of your member or depending on where you want it.