Haunched connection
Haunched connection
(OP)
I'm analyzing a structure that holds an over-head crane and am having trouble finding the correct method to analyze the "haunched" connections that connects at the column line and supports the runway beam. My first thought is to simply analyze the 3/4" plate for buckling as it should be the limiting piece, but I know the I-beam will surely add strength in composite action. Attached is a drawing of the connection.






RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
Jim
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
Jim
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
1) Handy evaluation methods for this abound. AISC manual, textbooks,...
2) Original designer probably didn't do much more than that if she was working to a budget.
3) This provides a reasonable lower bound benchmark for whatever you do next.
4) If this works out, you can stop there and save a bunch of fee and effort.
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: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
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: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Depends. If the vertical plate fails by buckling, I think that the bottom flange of the W18 would help to restrain that buckling. The trick would be coming up with a way to evaluate that. Obviously, it's not going to be a standard AISC clause addressing that.
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: Haunched connection
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: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
https://www.amazon.ca/Crane-Supporting-Steel-Struc...
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
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: Haunched connection
RE: Haunched connection
Right. That longitudinal force will manifest itself as column torsion but bracket weak axis bending and shear. And bracket weak axis bending and shear will effectively be strong axis bending of the uppermost flange element. I'd look at that flange as being subject to an in plane tension and an in plane moment/shear. I think that's similar to your proposal. It's just important to recognize that the entire section is unlikely to participate in resisting the longitudinal force meaningfully.
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.