I am taking the first shot.
> To be conservative for added safety. I would also recommend that =
> it should be bolted as well including ultrasonic weld testing.
In one of my pevious projects, a four storey steel framed building in
Iloilo City, the structural details for a column to beam connection. Has a
bolted corbel supporting a A36 WF Steel beam. The beam was also fillet
welded to the WF steel column. The designer's engineers still required
ultrasonsic weld testing.
I am a copycat sometimes. Thats one of my weakness.
Sincerely Yours,
Alex(Billy the Kid) :)
Bolted for ... fit-up/erection purposes?
Ulrasonic testing ... would you require this if it were spliced in the shop?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Ransom" <ad026@hwcn.org>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: Splicing of steel beam.
>I am sometimes surprised by the response of engineers to some types of
> situations. We have material standards, design standards and safety
> factors
> that are sometimes acknowledged to be outrageous but make design easier to
> accomplish in many conditions (okay, the opposite can also be true).
>
> Frequently, it is easier and less expensive of engineering time to simply
> specify the maximum requirement (e.g. full strength and over-the-shoulder
> inspection) but it is not necessarily efficient of owner's resources (e.g.
> total time, materials, money).
>
> The design standards do not distinguish between shop or field welding. The
> work should be done to the required quality. In this case, the work is an
> interior retrofit and one assumes that there will be a controlled
> environment, so that is removed as a variable.
>
> So, my following comments/questions are simplistic but intended to elicit
> those experiences that have caused what I perceive as overly cautious
> attitudes.
>
> I have given my suggestion at the end - feel free to take a shot at it.
>
>> From: "Mike Hokama" <m_hokama@sbcglobal.net>
>
>> wide flange beam approximately 55' long inside of an existing restaurant
>> =
>
>> and the contractor is asking about whether it is possible to bring the =
>> beam inside the building in sections and then welding it together. Is =
>
>> there any problem with doing that provided the welds are full =
>> penetration?
>
>> Mike H
>
> The work is inside and the contractor is asking a question. Mike has
> determined that the beam should be welded and that the welds must be full
> strength. We are starting from a point of limited terms of reference. We
> do
> not know what the beam supports.
>
>
>> From: Daryl Richardson <h.d.richardson@shaw.ca>
>>
>> I don't like this but I have done it in the past.
>
> Surely this is not driven by anything other than mistrust of the welder's
> ability and expectations of the contractor's greed. There are limited
> conditions where it is inappropriate to use full section welds.
>
>> I would locate the weld at a point of low moment
>
> Why limit locations? Of course, such a condition would be automatic where
> the beam selection is controlled by service conditions or unbraced length
> (hmmmm, there's a thesis topic in that point). Otherwise, I assume this is
> simply to provide additional safety.
>
>> or have someone specializing in welding inspection do a full inspection
>> of the
>> weld.
>
> Inspection is practical. What level of inspection would you specify? The
> weld standards provide very limited guidance on this point.
>
>> By low moment I mean low relative to the full moment capacity of the
>> beam.
>
> Why? Do you not trust that a properly executed weld will actually be
> stronger than the parent material, especially with the added level of
> safety
> inherent in the connection strength design requirements?
>
> I note that you did not restate that the welds had to be full strength.
>
>> H. Daryl Richardson
>
>
>
>> From: "Micayas, Julius" <jmicayas@riverconsulting.com>
>
>> and a full penetration of weld will work.
>
> Why not a well done weld that is adequate+? Is this the short answer or
> the
> essential answer?
>
>> Engr. Julius Micayas
>
>
>> From: "Thor Tandy" <vicpeng@telus.net>
>>
>> FWIW I try to avoid site welding wherever possible. Unless you can get =
>> a competent site inspector who will take responsibility for the =
>> workmanship, quality usually nowhere near shop fabrication quality.
>>
>> I suggest designing bolted splices that can be prepared in the shop.
>
> On the surface, this is the best answer and the worst answer. It's not
> clear
> if the shop preparation would include any welding or other fittings or
> just
> holes.
>
> I disagree on the quality point. You can get adequate quality in the field
> and inadequate quality in a shop. The objective is not perfection.
>
> Best because there are cost efficiencies to avoiding site welding (e.g. no
> need to bring a welder/inspector to site if you don't otherwise need one).
>
> Worst because it implies that (field) welding is not an appropriate option
> and that bolting has no trade-off conditions.
>
> Of course shop preparation tends to be less expensive than field work and
> should be maximized for either case. Also, I recognize that Thor is in a
> shaky part of the world where welds are viewed with a suspicious eye.
>
>> Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MIStructE, Struct Eng=20
>
>
>> From: "Steve Gordin" <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com>
>>
>> At 1/3 of the span the "low" moment will be at about 90% of the maximum,
>> not
>> too much of relief. Even if the the beam does not carry any noteworthy
>> load, the flanges will be about 3/4" thick . Imagine welding in the open
>> air...
>
> I'm imagining ... I wonder what Harold's previous life experiences might
> add
> to this point.
>
>> I would agree with Thor (unless the beam is exposed). If it is, I would
>> specify the best firms available for welding, inspection, and TESTING.
>
> Are we retro-fitting Fort Knox? Can we knock the expectations down to the
> top of the first standard deviation?
>
>> Steve Gordin SE
>
>
>> From: "Alex C. Nacionales" <anacionales@insightts.net>
>
>> To be conservative for added safety. I would also recommend that =
>> it should be bolted as well including ultrasonic weld testing.
>
> Bolted for ... fit-up/erection purposes?
> Ulrasonic testing ... would you require this if it were spliced in the
> shop?
>
>> Alex C. Nacionales
>
>
>> From: "y.hamida" <y.hamida@scs-net.org>
>
>> on site welding for long beam not prefer
>> try to weld end plates at the boints
>> where the moments are minimum at shop ,
>> and join the parts together by bolts at site .
>
> You took the words from my mouth. Additionally. this would probably use
> simple fillet welds instead of full strength - possibly more welds but
> probably smaller sizes. The volume of consumables may still be less - less
> electricity, less heat, less rod/wire, less time.
>
> As Steve noted, intermediate points of a segmented simple span beam do not
> provide much reduction from maximum moment. So, location is not really an
> issue from a strength perspective.
>
>> Dr.hamida - syria
>
> Regards
> Paul
> --
> Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
> ph 905 639-9628
> cell 905 802-3707
> fax 905 639-3866
> ad026@hwcn.org
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008
> 7:32 PM
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********