Simplified analysis for connections
Simplified analysis for connections
(OP)
In my work, I am frequently faced with the problem of transferring loads from larger structures to connections. It is not always easy to determine how a loaded element will transfer its load to an adjacent connection.Also, the standard "stick modelling" approach taught in most universities (based on Euler Bernoulli bbeam theory and the general stiffness method) really doesnt apply to connections. Does there exist any literature on the subject of load transfer and distribution to connections? I am specifically looking for simplified procedures that structural engineers can use in a non-academic context to quickly determine loading on bolts, screws, welds etc, without resorting to finite elements. Something one can do by hand or spreadsheet...






RE: Simplified analysis for connections
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
Salmon & Jonhson: Link
AISC Design Guide 17: Link
Kulak (free): Link
RCSC (free): Link
AISC Design Guide 29: Link
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: Simplified analysis for connections
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
Me no understando. For typical connections and loads, the design and analysis processes are essentially inseparable.
Agnostic... I like that. Unfortunately, there's no such thing. Connection load distribution is very dependent on the parent material (steel, concrete, wood, chewing gum).
For the love of all that that is agnostically holy man, follow Badger's advice and give us a sketch/example to work to.
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: Simplified analysis for connections
1. Equilibrium
2. Compatibility
3. Constitutive relation
"It is imperative Cunth doesn't get his hands on those codes."
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
Generally? No. Not that I've heard of at least.
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
1) It's steel very much material specific and;
2) Personally, I'm not yet sold on it.
The best statements of connection design philosophy that I've encountered come from the Tamboli book that I mentioned above. I've posted those below. Even this stuff only really applies to ductile materials however. It works for steel, aluminum, and concrete (usually). It would not necessarily work for wood, cast iron, or glass.
Looking at MacGruber's list:
For routine connection design, I would change that to:
1) Equilibrium fo' sure.
2) Some rough accounting of the relative stiffness of things.
3) Some provision for ductility if there's any to be had.
Compatibility and constitutive relations get a pretty rough treatment, if any, in the design of most connections.
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: Simplified analysis for connections
Thanks guys
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
Here's the link:
http://www.steelchecks.com/connections/home.asp#.V...
RE: Simplified analysis for connections
Link below to software developed on the back of that theory/method. I believe it's the same guys who came up with the method in the first place.
Link