Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    Thermal cutting is permitted by the AISC specification in both the shop and field. While some project specifications prohibit field cutting, the key concerns are uncontrolled cutting quality and metallurgical effects. For the situation described of needing to cut beams already erected to install groove welds, enforcing a prohibition would not be reasonable as no practical alternative exists. The cut surface will be incorporated into the welds, so any quality issues could be addressed through welding repairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    30 views2 pages
    Thermal cutting is permitted by the AISC specification in both the shop and field. While some project specifications prohibit field cutting, the key concerns are uncontrolled cutting quality and metallurgical effects. For the situation described of needing to cut beams already erected to install groove welds, enforcing a prohibition would not be reasonable as no practical alternative exists. The cut surface will be incorporated into the welds, so any quality issues could be addressed through welding repairs.

    Original Description:

    SI-02-2017

    Original Title

    SI-02-2017

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Thermal cutting is permitted by the AISC specification in both the shop and field. While some project specifications prohibit field cutting, the key concerns are uncontrolled cutting quality and metallurgical effects. For the situation described of needing to cut beams already erected to install groove welds, enforcing a prohibition would not be reasonable as no practical alternative exists. The cut surface will be incorporated into the welds, so any quality issues could be addressed through welding repairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    Thermal cutting is permitted by the AISC specification in both the shop and field. While some project specifications prohibit field cutting, the key concerns are uncontrolled cutting quality and metallurgical effects. For the situation described of needing to cut beams already erected to install groove welds, enforcing a prohibition would not be reasonable as no practical alternative exists. The cut surface will be incorporated into the welds, so any quality issues could be addressed through welding repairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?

    ” about something
    related to structural steel design or construction,
    Modern Steel’s monthly Steel Interchange is for you!
    steel
    Send your questions or comments to solutions@aisc.org. interchange

    Thermal Cutting in the Field In areas of low demand, it may be acceptable, based on
    Our company’s standard specification prohibits thermal the judgment of the engineer, to leave a rough cut unre-
    cutting in the field. From what we have seen, this appears paired. Leaving the cut unrepaired may reduce the cost
    to be a common prohibition for many projects. We are involved in repairing the error that lead to the thermal cut-
    now facing a situation where the flanges of a beam that ting in the first place. It is best to discuss and agree to the
    has been erected must be prepared to receive a complete requirements for the cutting before the work is performed;
    joint penetration (CJP) groove weld. Should we enforce see item 1 above.
    this prohibition? What are our other options? 3. A third concern sometimes voiced by engineers is metal-
    lurgical effects from uncontrolled cutting. Thermal cutting
    No. You should not enforce this prohibition for the case will cause some local metallurgical changes, whether it is
    described. There is likely no practical alternative. done in the shop or in the field. The controls in the AISC
    Thermal cutting is permitted under Section M2.2 of the Specification make those effects negligible, so the point is to
    AISC Specification. This section references AWS D1.1 for adhere to them in both the shop and the field. Additionally,
    further requirements. Though Section M2 is titled “Fabrica- in your case, the surface will be welded, so the affected area
    tion,” keep in mind that this section applies to fabrication will be incorporated into the weld.
    whether it occurs in the shop or the field. The situation that Larry S. Muir, PE
    you describe would be classified as field fabrication. It is not
    uncommon for thermal cutting to take place in the field due Unusual End-Plate Moment
    to design changes or for the remediation of the late-discov- Connection Geometry
    ery of fabrication and detailing errors. I am working on a field fix where the existing bolt gage
    Though AISC does not prohibit thermal cutting in the in the column at an end-plate moment connection is
    field, it is not unusual for project specifications to prohibit greater than the flange width of the beam. The articles
    field cutting. In my experience, the prohibition typically and design guides that I have seen all assume that the
    involves one or more of three concerns: bolt gage is less than the beam flange width and that the
    1. Engineers and owners sometimes prohibit field cutting so end-plate width does not exceed the beam flange width
    that any field cutting that is unavoidable must be approved by more than 1 in. My condition will violate both criteria.
    by the engineer of record. In such instances, the intent is I want to make sure I understand the basis of these
    not really to prohibit all field cutting but rather to prevent checks and what modifications would be necessary to
    uncontrolled thermal cutting. accurately reflect my condition.
    2. Concerns about the quality of the cut. Unguided thermal
    cutting in the field (or in the shop) can sometimes pro- If the bolt gage is wider than the beam flange width, the
    duce a rough cut—sometimes described as “beaver-chew.” assumed yield line pattern may not form and an alternative
    This is not an unavoidable result of field cutting, but it can pattern may need to be used. I’m not aware of any publications
    be more difficult to perform quality cuts in the field. As that provide guidelines for this case, so engineering judgment
    stated in Section M2.2: “Gouges deeper than 3⁄16 in. (5 mm) must be applied. One option would be to use extension plates
    and notches shall be removed by grinding or repaired by welded to the flange to simulate a wider flange.
    welding.” In the field, the erector will typically be respon- When the bolt is close to a boundary (in this case,
    sible for making the cut and addressing any quality issues the beam flange), the yield line pattern is defined by the
    through grinding or welding. The erector therefore has an boundary. At the critical distance, defined by s in AISC
    incentive to make the best cut possible. In your case, the Design Guides 4: Extended End-Plate Moment Connections
    cut will ultimately be incorporated into the CJP groove Seismic and Wind Applications and 16: Flush and Extended
    weld, so any repair will essentially be by welding. Multiple-Row Moment End-Plate Connections (free downloads
    It is possible (but not inevitable) that the quality of the for members at www.aisc.org/dg) the yield line no longer
    cut may result in a geometry that violates the prescribed forms at the boundary. This is because the internal energy
    geometry for prequalified welds. For instance, the root is lower for the pattern defined by s rather than the
    opening may be uneven and/or exceed that permitted. If pattern defined by the boundary. Dranger (1977) derived
    this is the case, the repair would involve buttering passes to an equation for the critical distance by minimizing the
    close the opening. Again, this would be additional work for load. The equation in Design Guides 4 and 16 for s is a
    the erector, which they have an incentive to try to avoid by simplified version of Dranger’s equation, based on a beam
    making the best cut possible. web thickness of zero.

     Modern STEEL CONSTRUCTION


    steel interchange
    Borgsmiller’s thesis has derivations for several end plate addresses column bases. D2.6 in turn references D2.5 for
    geometries. The solutions developed by Kapp (1974) and some of the loading requirements. All of these requirements
    Dranger (1977) are well-documented and easy to follow. must be met. In fact, the commentary to Section E1.2 goes on
    References: to state: “Requirements for OMF column splices and column
    ➤ Borgsmiller, J.T. (1995). “Simplified Method for Design base connections are covered in Section D2.”
    of Moment End-Plate Connections,” M.S. Thesis, Though not directly related to your question, another
    Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic fact that's sometimes overlooked is that the requirements of
    Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. the Specification must also be met. Section A1 of the Seismic
    ➤ Dranger, T.S. (1977), “Yield Line Analysis of Bolted Provisions makes this clear, stating: “These Provisions shall be
    Hanging Connections,” Engineering Journal. AISC, Vol. applied in conjunction with the AISC Specification for Struc-
    14, No. 3. tural Steel Buildings, hereafter referred to as the Specification.
    ➤ Kapp, R.H. (1974), “Yield Line Analysis of a Web All requirements of the Specification are applicable unless
    Connection in Direct Tension,” Engineering Journal, otherwise stated in these Provisions. Members and connections
    AISC, Second Quarter. of the SFRS (seismic force-resisting system) shall satisfy the
    AISC Engineering Journal papers can be downloaded from requirements of the applicable building code, the Specification
    the AISC website at www.aisc.org/ej. and these Provisions."
    Bo Dowswell, PE, PhD Larry S. Muir, PE

    Conflicting Requirements for Seismic Design


    We have found conflicting requirements in the 2nd Edi-
    tion of the AISC Seismic Design Manual. Section 4.2 of
    the Seismic Design Manual states: “The only system spe-
    cific requirements for an OMF (ordinary moment frame)
    pertain to the beam-to-column moment connections.”
    However, the commentary to Section E1.2 of the Seismic
    Provisions states: “Thus, the basic design requirement for
    an OMF is to provide a frame with strong connections.
    That is, connections should be strong enough so that, as
    noted above, connection failure is not the first significant
    inelastic event in the response of the frame to earth-
    quake loading. This applies to all connections in the frame,
    including beam-to-column connections, column splices,
    and column base connections.”
    There appears to be a conflict between these two state-
    ments. The commentary states that that splices and base
    plates should not govern, while the Seismic Manual indi-
    cates that “specific requirements for an OMF pertain to
    The complete collection of Steel Interchange questions and answers is available online.
    the beam-to-column moment connections” only. Please Find questions and answers related to just about any topic by using our full-text search
    provide clarification. capability. Visit Steel Interchange online at www.modernsteel.com.

    There is no conflict. Both documents are correct and con- Larry Muir is director of technical assistance at AISC. Bo Dowswell is a consultant to AISC.
    sistent. The fact that there are “system-specific requirements
    for an OMF” does not mean that there cannot be general Steel Interchange is a forum to exchange useful and practical professional ideas and
    requirements that also apply. information on all phases of steel building and bridge construction. Opinions and
    suggestions are welcome on any subject covered in this magazine.
    All requirements of the Seismic Provision must be met.
    The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not necessarily represent an official
    Some engineers mistakenly assume that the sections address- position of the American Institute of Steel Construction and have not been reviewed. It is
    ing each of the systems (i.e., OMFs, special moment frames, recognized that the design of structures is within the scope and expertise of a competent
    ordinary concentrically braced frames, special truss moment licensed structural engineer, architect or other licensed professional for the application of
    principles to a particular structure.
    frames, etc.) are self-contained and apply independent of the If you have a question or problem that your fellow readers might help you solve, please
    rest of the Seismic Provisions. This is not the case. There are forward it to us. At the same time, feel free to respond to any of the questions that you
    general requirements that apply to all systems provided in the have read here. Contact Steel Interchange via AISC’s Steel Solutions Center:

    chapters that precede those addressing the specific systems. 866.ASK.AISC • solutions@aisc.org
    Section D2.5 addresses column splices and Section D2.6

    FEBRUARY 2017

    You might also like