Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

IJR (Structural) (OP)
30 Mar 06 1:35
Pals

Codes related to steel construction usually specify min edge distance of bolts in terms of hole size D, often as 1.5D, citing possible microfracture related events during drilling or punching.

There must be a tolerance around the code minimums and shouldnt I be allowed to use my judgement after assessing the connection(eg loads are only 10%capacity) and use a thicker plate and an edge distance of 95% x 1.5D = 1.425D?

Your discussion is requested.

respects
IJR

Helpful Member!  corus (Mechanical)
30 Mar 06 3:40
You'd have to use finite elemet methods to assess the stress concentration effect around the hole. You'd then have to consider the effect on the fatigue life of the component given that you have cracks already around the hole from the manufacture. ESDR might help with factors for edge effects but having already seen failures from bolt holes too near the edge of a plate you're better sticking to the code guidelines should anything go wrong.

corus

IJR (Structural) (OP)
30 Mar 06 3:44
Corus

Any small software or shareware you know that does the FE modelling faster.

In addition I am talking about purlins where fractures are not likely.

respects
IJR
Helpful Member!  desertfox (Mechanical)
30 Mar 06 6:39
Hi IJR

I think you should stick to the code.
A minimum value is just that if their was a tolerance either way then the 1.5D wouldn't be a minimum.

Regards

Desertfox
IJR (Structural) (OP)
30 Mar 06 6:53
Desertfox

There are cases when you are squeezed for space, and almost no alternative than to go deeper into the world around the 1.5D

In my professional experience, that and similar situations, is where you employ your engineering capabilities. I have gone through some situations like that where you leave the code and go into papers that were used to develop the code.

One thing about US and Eurocodes, is that US codes come with rich commentaries, whereas Eurocodes come supported by rich documents published by special groups of code experts. So you can around the code.

This is rarely possible in most other codes.

That is the base of my discussion

respects
IJR
Helpful Member!  WillisV (Structural)
30 Mar 06 7:54
IJR - for structural steel connections governed by AISC, Table J3.4 (p16.1-63 3rd Ed LRFD) gives Minimum Edge Distances.  Note that footnote [a] provides a caveat saying "lesser edge distances are permitted to be used provided Equations from Section J3.10, as appropriate, are satisfied."  The equations being referred to are bolt bearing and tearout equations.  Therefore using this caveat if you have a low force level you can use less and less edge distance.  Note that in the direction of load you will eventually reach the code minimum limit of a 10kip reaction.  However currently there is no absolute minimum edge distance - for instance the edge distance perpendicular to a load can theoretically be taken as 0 according to the code as there is no load in this direction.  Obviously this is not wise nor practical and an absolute minimum in the range of 1 bolt diameter from the center of the hole is likely to be added in a future code revision.  
Helpful Member!  diamondjim (Mechanical)
30 Mar 06 8:44
I think the min thickness is based on
a simulated cone models projecting to
the opposite side.  Thicker might not
be an advantage if this is true
from a clamping standpoint at the inter
faces.  I thought there were guidelines
for different values than 1.5 depending
on different thicknesses of the individual
parts.
MintJulep (Mechanical)
31 Mar 06 15:51
"Minimum" is a unilateral tolerance.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close