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

Bolt Entering Direction Partial Thread Engagement

According to the specification for our project, the bolt Please explain the basis of this statement in Section
head should be placed on the outside of the flange. Is this 2.11.3 of the 2nd Edition of AISC Design Guide 1: “A
an AISC requirement? conservative estimate of the resulting nut strength can be
made based on the percentage of threads engaged, as long
No, it is not an AISC requirement. There are no requirements as at least half of the threads in the nut are engaged.”
for orientation of the bolt in the AISC Code of Standard
Practice, the AISC Specification or the RCSC Specification. It’s a statement based upon judgment, but I can add some
Note, however, the scope statement in Section 1.1 in the Code science as well.
of Standard Practice, which states: At full thread engagement, we know the threads will not
This Code sets forth criteria for the trade practices involved strip before the bolt fractures through the net tensile area.
in steel buildings, bridges and other structures, where Of course there is some “factor of safety” on this, so that
other structures are defined as those structures designed, somewhat less than what is defined as full engagement is
fabricated and erected in a manner similar to buildings, required, but we define full engagement as existing when the
with building-like vertical and lateral load resisting nut is at least flush with the end of the bolt. If full engagement
elements. In the absence of specific instructions to the does not exist, then there is the possibility that the full tensile
contrary in the contract documents, the trade practices that strength of the bolt cannot be developed.
are defined in this Code shall govern the fabrication and When the nut is stronger than the bolt—the normal case—
erection of structural steel. the strength of the threads relative to stripping is usually
Thus, the specific instructions in the contract documents calculated as:
govern. Since the contract documents state that the bolt heads Fs Ats
should be placed on the outside of the flange, this is a require- where
ment per the contract documents for this particular project. Fs = shear strength of the bolt threads
Carlo Lini Ats = area of the threads at the stripping failure plane

Limiting the Number of Field Splices Ats can be calculated as: πnLeDmin [1/(2n)+ 0.577(Dmin-Emax)]
The erector on our project is insisting that conditions where
indicated as field-welded splices in the contract docu- Dmin = minimum major diameter of the bolt threads
ments should be shop welded for economy. Can we shop Le = length of thread engagement
weld these splices? Emax = maximum pitch diameter of the nut threads n is the
threads per inch
Section 6.7.4 of the AISC Code of Standard Practice states: As it turns out, fasteners are configured such that πnLeDmin
Unless otherwise specified in the contract documents, and [1/(2n)+ 0.577(Dmin-Emax)] > 1.0. So the strength relative to
subject to the approved shop and erection drawings, the stripping always increases faster than the increase in thread
fabricator shall limit the number of field splices to that engagement. So if we simply assume that the strength relative
consistent with minimum project cost. to stripping always increases at the same rate as the increase in
The key phrase here is: “Unless otherwise specified in the thread engagement, we will have a conservative estimate of the
contract documents…” The contract documents call for field strength.
splices, and those requirements govern the project and must Some caution must be exercised when applying these
be adhered to unless a change to the contract is agreed to by equations, since there are other factors—such as friction, the
the parties. relative nut-to-bolt strength, etc.—that can affect the stripping
Toward that end, you could submit a request to the strength of the bolt. Therefore, it is advisable to err on the
engineer of record (EOR) to modify the connection such that side of caution, as has been done in the guidance presented in
this would result in reduced field welding. Or, if you think the the design guide.
field weld symbol may have been a mistake, you could submit It should also be noted that though exceptions relative
an RFI to clarify this. to full thread engagement are sometimes made for anchor
Ultimately, however, you cannot change the condition shown rods, it is generally not considered appropriate to make such
in the contract documents without approval from the EOR. exceptions for bolted connections.
Carlo Lini Larry S. Muir, P.E.

 Modern STEEL CONSTRUCTION

 steel interchange
Eccentricity on Coped Beams Splices in Bent Edge Plate
I am designing connections for a project in which the At splices in bent edge plate (pour-stop) the inspector
EOR has delegated the design of connections using is insisting that the vertical legs of pour-stop be welded
Option 3 in the AISC Code of Standard Practice. When with butt welds. Are we required to weld the splices?
checking coped beams, the definition of "e" on page 9-6
of the AISC Steel Construction Manual allows the point of There is no specific AISC provision that requires this, but what
inflection to be assumed some distance from the face of is shown in the contract documents? Are there any details or
the supporting member. I have opted to assume that the notes on the structural drawings or specifications that call for
point of inflection is located at the bolt line in the beam the vertical legs of the pour-stops to be butt welded?
end rather than at the face of the support. Is this accept- On projects in which I am the EOR, I do not typically
able? provide any requirements or details for how to splice the bent
plates and I have seen the vertical legs welded, the vertical
The information you noted in the AISC Manual explicitly legs butted together snugly with no weld and the vertical
allows the use of an eccentricity less than the distance from legs adjacent with a gap that gets covered with duct tape.
the face of the support to the end of the cope. However, in my Personally, I have no preference and will accept any of these
experience the inflection point is almost universally assumed approaches for a typical bent plate pour-stop splice.
to be at the face of the supporting member. If you were to In general, independent third-party inspectors should be
assume instead that the inflection point is at the bolt line, inspecting the structure for conformance with the contract
then you would have to ensure that the other elements in the documents and not interpreting or modifying the contract
connection could resist the moments consistent with your documents. Under this assumption, if there are no details on
chosen model. The change would also potentially add moment how to treat the bent plate splice in the structural drawings
to the supporting members, and these members would have to or specifications, the inspector should not be commenting,
be designed for the additional moment. and I would recommend the contractor submit an RFI to
It is generally safe to assume the inflection point is located the EOR asking them to confirm your proposed detail is
at the face of the supporting member because this assumption acceptable. On some projects, the inspector will be acting
is consistent with common design practices. Some structural more as an agent of the EOR—but again, if there’s no detail
analysis and design programs assume an inflection point away in the contract documents, you should still be able to seek
from the face of the support, but this assumption would have written confirmation of the EOR’s intent.
to be confirmed or the adequacy of the members otherwise Susan Burmeister, P.E.
determined before the assumed inflection point could be
moved away from the face of the support.
A further consideration is that rotational ductility per
Specification Sections B3.6a and J1.2 must be satisfied.
The complete collection of Steel Interchange questions and answers is available online.
Moving the assumed inflection point could produce Find questions and answers related to just about any topic by using our full-text search
additional demands on the connection that would increase capability. Visit Steel Interchange online at www.modernsteel.com.

the size of some of the elements and make satisfying the

rotational ductility requirements difficult. The move you Larry Muir is director of technical assistance and Carlo Lini is staff engineer – technical
assistance, both with AISC. Susan Burmeister is a consultant to AISC.
are contemplating, from the face of the support to the bolt
line, should not cause any problems in this regard, but other
locations, such as assuming an inflection point at the end of Steel Interchange is a forum to exchange useful and practical professional ideas and
information on all phases of steel building and bridge construction. Opinions and
the cope, could present issues. suggestions are welcome on any subject covered in this magazine.
The main points here are: The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not necessarily represent an official position of
1. You cannot unilaterally change the assumption about the American Institute of Steel Construction and have not been reviewed. It is recognized that the
design of structures is within the scope and expertise of a competent licensed structural engineer,
the location of the inflection point. The EOR must be architect or other licensed professional for the application of principles to a particular structure.
consulted. If you have a question or problem that your fellow readers might help you solve, please
2. Consistent assumptions must be used throughout the forward it to us. At the same time, feel free to respond to any of the questions that you
have read here. Contact Steel Interchange via AISC’s Steel Solutions Center:
design and all design considerations must be properly
1 E Wacker Dr., Ste. 700, Chicago, IL 60601
addressed. tel: 866.ASK.AISC • fax: 312.803.4709
Larry S. Muir, P.E. solutions@aisc.org

DECEMBER 2014