×
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

W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

(OP)
A few questions in my base plate analysis. I know that you can design a structure with a pinned reaction in a structural modeling software. However, does an engineer test to see how much moment COULD be transferred to the base plate, or does he just assume if fully braced, use an inside four bolt plate reaction? I originally started my design with a large moment resisting baseplate, then found out that my 16 inch grade isn't large enough to support a large moment baseplate. So do they not typically design small metal buildings with a large moment baseplate on a W-section column?

RE: W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

Standard practice for columns not part of lateral frames is to just call them pinned. In a properly braced building, you don't usually get enough drift at the column tops to generate problem moments at the bases. I'm not a fan on the inside anchor bolt / fake pin thing. I think that results in nearly identical base moments but a greatly reduced ability to handle those moments without brittle anchor failure. In Europe, they've been developing a "component" design method allowing designers to give some account of base plate partial fixity.

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.

RE: W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

(OP)
I am kind of cautious to use the inside fake pinned connection configuration myself, however, I do believe that If the anchor bolts can resist the Max factored moment that staad gives me for my reactions in that configuration... the only thing holding me back from using that design, is fear =P

RE: W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

The example of component method... Stumbled on this today when I was looking for article to help on another thread here.

The article itself smells a bit fishy to me (wondering what you opinion is Kootk?) but you get the gist of the method which I think is good.

I myself dont use it yet, for now its just nice to know it exists, as an ace up the sleeve, if I find myself cornered-in...

RE: W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

(OP)
I assume that the baseplate will not bend even though it has to bend slightly. Interesting enough though, seems as an engineer could perhaps design counter moments using base plate thickness, or counter moments using a anchor/concrete strength.

RE: W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

Another problem with using inside-aligned anchor rods (narrow-pattern) is sometimes meeting the OSHA safety requirement for erection stability (300lbs at 18" out from column face) before completing the overhead, stabilizing connections. For many small to moderate-sized PEMBs, this becomes a problem issue, even when the minimum required four anchor rods are used.

Thaidavid

RE: W-section base plates for a small Metal Building

Quote (kiltor)

The article itself smells a bit fishy to me (wondering what you opinion is Kootk?)

Just got around to reading this article. Thanks for sharing it. Two interesting takeaways:

1) Base plate stiffenening seems to not greatly affect base connection flexibilty.

2) Apparently a two bolt pattern does reduce base connection stiffness to the point that a pinned assumption makes sense. That's contrary to a long held view of mine.

At least, these are the analytical conclusions of the author. I'm not really in a position to comment on any potential "fishy-ness".

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