Dannnnnny
Structural
- Jun 9, 2020
- 9
I previously designed IMF for 3-story house.
The lateral resisting system of the two top floors were wood shearwall and the lowest floor was IMF.
So, based on "standard quality assurance plan for steel moment frames" provided by the city,
it is given that the steel column must extend at least 3" more than top level of the steel beam then the cap plate sits on top of the column.
So, the recent RFI i received was if is it fine to ignore that 3" extension for easier construction.
As a solution, I was considering to use 1" cap plate instead of the current 3/8" (I believe, that is because the cap plate will now work like the top continuity plate)
Do you think this should resolve?
Also, I don't really understand what's the purpose of that min. 3" requirement.
Is there any theory of it?
The lateral resisting system of the two top floors were wood shearwall and the lowest floor was IMF.
So, based on "standard quality assurance plan for steel moment frames" provided by the city,
it is given that the steel column must extend at least 3" more than top level of the steel beam then the cap plate sits on top of the column.
So, the recent RFI i received was if is it fine to ignore that 3" extension for easier construction.
As a solution, I was considering to use 1" cap plate instead of the current 3/8" (I believe, that is because the cap plate will now work like the top continuity plate)
Do you think this should resolve?
Also, I don't really understand what's the purpose of that min. 3" requirement.
Is there any theory of it?