×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!
  • Students Click Here

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

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

AISC 360-10 B3.6 - Restraint Against Rotation Clause

AISC 360-10 B3.6 - Restraint Against Rotation Clause

AISC 360-10 B3.6 - Restraint Against Rotation Clause

(OP)
I was recently asked to review the design of a new 10'x12' rollup door addition in response to some questions from the owner's reviewer. The building is an existing 1970s PEMB in the middle of Indiana. The new frame for the door was designed with 8" deep MC vertical channels and a matching sized door header similar to other roll up door frames in the building. The top of the vertical channel was connected to a C4 wind girt spanning 15 ft between main building columns. The connection is a L4x4 2" long welded to the vertical channel and 2 bolts in standard holes on the girt. The owners reviewer has question the connection, specifically citing 360-10 B3.6 "At points of support, beams, girders and trusses shall be restrained against rotation about their longitudinal axis unless it can be shown by analysis that the restraint is not required".

But when reviewing the clause, the only quantitative way I could think to prove the connection is to use 1/2 the T-dimension of the MC8 from the 14th Ed. 10-49 as the recommendation for stability of shear end plate connections. Is there another section to consider? Any constructive comments would be appreciated.

RE: AISC 360-10 B3.6 - Restraint Against Rotation Clause

There's an AISC manual section on bracing strength and stiffness. One could work out the demand using those procedures and then do some rather messy calcs to demonstrate compliance.

I think that your reviewer is probably right about the connection. It will be rather poor torsionally. I suspect that the argument to make is that the vertical C8 is braced by the horizontal C8 tying into it a bit lower. Using this strategy, you would treat uppermost portion of the vertical C8 as a short cantilever.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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!


Resources