Fixed base on tube steel colum
Fixed base on tube steel colum
(OP)
I am designing a portal frame with tube steel columns that has a fixed base. Right now I have the base connection detailed with a 12"x12"x.75" base plate with 3/8" gussets going up 6" on the tube column and welded to the base plate and four anchor bolts. The numbers show that this should work I am trying to resist a 10ft-k moment. I am just not sure if this connection provides enough rigidity to be considered fixed. I would like to switch to w flange columns but unfortunately this all I have to work with.Comments welcome.






RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
http
http://heron.tudelft.nl/53-12/1.pdf
http://pe
h
http://heron.tudelft.nl/53-12/4.pdf
h
http://heron.tudelft.nl/53-12/2.pdf
htt
http://w
http
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
And I think you can come up with a simpler detail--try a thicker base plate without the gusset plates.
DaveAtkins
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
I will do the same as you said if it is for concrete structures. However, I reserve my doubt on most of steel connections, it only needs a little slippage to cause huge loss in capacity. Old school thinking, maybe.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
Anytime I see one of my co-workers designing frames, I recommend assuming the supports pinned. When they don't do it, they invariably come back and say, "I wish I would of listened."
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
I too avoid moment bases on buildings when ever I can. It complicates the steel desing as well as the foundations. On portal frames I try to use pinned bases with moment conn.'s on the beams.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
I have many times had to fix the bases of moment frames just to get drift under control. That's a lot less expensive than throwing more steel weight at the columns/beams.
Another thing I've done is grab as many frames as you can with wind moment connections. They are cheap moment connections that do help laterally, especially with drift. These are tougher to do with HSS columns.
Your detail (with the stiffeners) should provide plenty of rigidity, but I would make the plate thicker and lose the stiffeners - that's an expensive detail. A baseplate is cheap, stiffeners and all the extra welding isn't.
Jed,
I don't disagree in principle, but I would say that you always have the ability to lap the anchor rods with pier/footing reinforcement to get away from the tension breakout requirements of App. D. This is typically only a problem with a pier. I rarely have a problem with anchorage into a footing with fixed base moment frames.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that they like it
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
You can knit pick designs as much as you want, but ultimately we are basing much of our design on assummed loading conditions that I cannot believe are any more accurate than, say, assumming a fixed base....or pinned, for that matter.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
I have designed all of the strength requirements for the frame assuming a pinned base and fixed moment connections at the top. I also checked deflection under this assumption taking into account second order effects. The deflections were high and would require the columns to be mush larger to control deflections with this assumption.
My second analysis assumed a spring constant at the base of the column. I double checked to make sure all strength requirements were met and check deflections taking into account second order effects. The defections were within acceptable range for this application. This is what I used to size the columns for deflection.
I then checked the same frame with a fixed base. I made sure all of my strength requirements were met and checked deflections taking into account second order effects. The deflections were much less from a pinned base and probably over designed with this assumption.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
You are on both sides of the fence :) While I align with you more on the previous one, I do not disagree totally on the second, as long as one has looked a problem thoroughly, thus the outcomes would live up/come close to one's expectations, that were based on sound engineering judgement.
I am still wary on assuming full regidity on steel connections, unless a rigorous analysis was done. Avoidance is a good advice.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
Wary why, can I ask? Do you use your own entirely scientific design approaches? I am not trying to be coy here, but bear with me.
We (I, anyway) do code-based design. We are not designing space ships or even pianos. We make very wide-based assumptions in our designs.
To me, it is very analogous to significant digits inasmuch as you cannot miraculously come up with a perfect design given a starting point of wide-based assumptions. I am not a scientist, I simply practice an applied science...structural engineering. Since there are so many things we don't know and probably can never know, we use judgment.
You can't make chicken salad from chicken...you know the saying.
Does anyone really expect that the EOR do an analysis of base fixity on every structure he might design when the texts and codes he is using to design the structure make assumptions in their theory ? Any engineer doing this is fooling himself.
Finally, i will say, full rigidity is something that can be assumed given due regard to relative stiffness.
For an extreme example consider a very slender column full pen welded to an infinitely large plate, infinitely thick.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
"For an extreme example consider a very slender column full pen welded to an infinitely large plate, infinitely thick", my query would be what about the footing, soil conditions?
Now let's get serious, how many time have you been called out to site because an element of a design (by others would hope) has moved beyond the service requirements of the client. Now how many times have you been called out because the element has failed, for me it is about 99% service problems (sometimes by engineers making assumptions that cannot be backup). Thus I put forward, "strength is essential but otherwise doesn't matter" (one of my favourite quotes).
Given all the calculations you have to do for the ultimate limit state there are only a few more that would be required to design as a semi-rigid connection, Why not take the extra step?
I am not meaning to pick on Stillerz but I would want more information from the OP before I suggested the fixed based assumption is appropriate. Even thou i am sure that Stillerz was NOT in anyway implying this.
I sure if dhengr was to post it would be twice as long as mine reminding people to get all the information before setting people off on course. What if the OP used two bolts located at the centre of the plate with two at the top and bottom, this would surely cause the problem to have to much deflection for our theories to be applicable, if the bolts and plte were design useing linear theroms. While I assume the OP has more sense than this I would like more info myself before I my approval of a fixed plate design assumption.
I would also point out that there are very few articles dealing with shear for fixed or semi-rigid baseplate with CHS columns, with less than 10 bolts.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that they like it
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
Happy new year, everyone.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
Would a steel building fail (total collapse) for no other weakness but the assumption on support? It's not likely, but some localized defects could be the result.
Be prudent while work on frames with fixity, go over the details before make claim. I think there are quite many examples on moment connections could be used as a guide.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
I prefer to use the component method for semi-rigid connections for portal frame base plates, is a bit conservative compared to moment rotation curves comparisons or FEA. However it is effective in getting a number. We had a bit of a discussion in the AS/NZS area and I posted an article I found fairly helpful thread744-260012: Base Stiffness and AS4100 you may wish to read (I would post it again but I'm at home). The article doesn't cover foundations; however there are large amounts of information on stiffness of foundations. As for the OP's problem, we need a lot more information before we can suggest the spring stiffness.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that they like it
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
BA
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
paddingtongreen, Moment Distribution, what the hell is that? We both know that went out shortly after the abacus and slide rule. But it sure gave you a better feel for how a structure reacts to loading. I'll bet you went above 50% of the moment at times, but still slept well. And, you saved the rigor of semi-rigid design and dissimilar materials, steel to conc. found. to soil. We used to do in two pages of calcs. what it now takes ten pages of hemming-an-hawwing, a forum, and two hours on the computer to accomplish, and we still slept well, and our building stood up under load.
BA, I absolutely agree. I think it's for us older fellows to keep heckling the younger guys to gain the experience, over and above just plugging it into the computer, so that they understand how real world structures work, so they develop good engineering judgement. I'll bet you didn't have many structure failures with your approach.
I suspect that if the four of us sat down, with a sketch pad, and a beer to lub. our tongues and minds, we could communicate much better than we do in writing, in this forum format. First of all I could stop you or visa-versa, and ask 'what did you say,' 'isn't this what you meant,' 'what experience leads you to believe that,' 'please explain further, I don't understand,' 'no, this is why that's wrong.' And, we could draw a sketch of what we mean, instead of 15 intervening conversation, and no sketch, or difficulty in drawing the other person out without causing hurt feelings. I have had a number of really good mentoring experiences in my career, from both sides of that relationship. And, it seems that the important thing was that we were there together looking at each other and at the same drawings, specs., calcs., etc. and there could be immediate interaction, correction, direction about where to look for the answer, etc.
This forum thing bugs me a little because we seldom have the full picture before we are asked to opine on a solution or bless an approach. And then, it seems so difficult to get the OP'er to give up that sketch or offer more, or even enough, info. so a meaningful answer can be given. We don't know who we're talking too or their experience level, although lots of times that's pretty evident by the OP. There really seems to be a bunch of experienced older fellows here, who have a wealth of knowledge that they would love to pass on to the up-and-comers, but this forum seems a difficult place to do that in a meaningful way and without hurting feelings because voice inflection or body language, etc. can't be appreciated. I wish there were a better way for us to connect with each other on some of these problems and questions. I think these forums are an interesting format for exchange of info., but they can not take the place of a real, immediately available mentor.
You young guys/gals, it's dangerous for this forum to be your first or only source for advice. It's dangerous for some of you to be doing what you claim to be doing without someone in your own office looking over your shoulder and being your primary advisor. Find a mentor in your own office or community or local engineering association who you trust and can get help and advice from, obviously they should be much more experienced than you. Don't be afraid to ask for help and advice, let them get to know your experience level, this relationship can be very rewarding, both ways. The above is particularly true if you are in a consulting, infrastructure, design environment, but also true if you're working within a large corp. on product design, if you take pride in your profession. Then, this forum is a wonderful way to get a second opinion, or an alternative approach to a difficult problem, but it should not be your only alternative. And, for goodness sakes look at your own strength of materials and structural design texts before you even ask a question, that might answer the question or at least help you ask a complete question. Our questions and discussions do not lend themselves well to a twitter mentality, at least not for me.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum
If you go to http://www.steelbiz.org/ and type in "base stiffness" to the search box it will return plenty of good documents.
Agree with dhengr and their epic spiel on the value of a sketch. We should try to use more sketches on this forum. I noticed in my travel that the better engineers have great sketching ability.
RE: Fixed base on tube steel colum