Beam gauges

[AlexDring]

In steel detailing I remember a common gage for smaller beams of being 2.5 down from top of flange to start a bolted connection. Eg. simple beam tying into a column. What I cant remember is when that gauge turns into 3", what size of W flange is that? Does anyone know of a site that offers simple steel detailing rules of thumb or data pertaining too?

 

[JedClampett]

I have a Bethlehem Steel Catalogue dated 1974 so the shapes are not current. But I suspect the gages are still pretty close. The dimension to the top bolt varies in quarter inch increments. For "W" shapes smaller than a W8 x 28 the dimension is 2 or 2 1/4 inch. It is also 2 1/4 for W10 x 29 or smaller and W12 x 22 and smaller. The gages for all W12's and smaller are less than 3" except for W10 x 100 or 112 and W12 x 99 and larger. In general, if the section weighs less than 100 lb/ft the gage is less than 3". If it weighs more, the gage is 3" or more.

 

[AlexDring]

Thanks JedClampett, I went ahead and purchased the manaul of steel construction at a local used book store that has the information. Do you have any other resources for steel detailing that you might suggest?

 

[Buzzer]

The gage down from the top of the beam does not necesarily have anything to do with how much a beam weighs, but the "k" dimension which is from the top of the beam to where the radius of the web starts. These "k" dimensions have been recently increased in the last year or so, so be careful of how dated the material is that you use. I suggest contacting AISC for up to date material. They also have a manual for steel detailers that is extremely helpful. Any literature that has Bethlehem on it should be avoided because they have not published any literature since the late 80's concerning wide flange shapes.

 

[AlexDring]

I found the manual at for steel detailing at the local book shop, but wasnt quite ready to give the 138 bucks for it. I thought I might check the mighty resourceful internet before I spent that much money on a book "pamphlet" that has less then a hundred pages.

 

[whyun]

Most of the details you may find on those "pamphlets" are not "engineered". By that, I mean those may be the standard method of connecting various pieces of steel elements but they do not indicate the capacities. It would be dangerous to detail something (i.e. specify member sizes, size of connectors, etc) from those publication without professional engineer's design.

I have a structural detail book called "Standard Handbook of Structural Details for Building Construction" by Morton Newman. It covers not only steel but also wood, masonry and concrete. Again, this book indicated "method" of attachment. None are engineered.

 

[AlexDring]

I see, I would never detail something without an engineering stamp. Not unless I want a vacation in a 8 x 8 resort with iron bars.

I just remember when I did this work for five years, that there was certain standards as to what fab shops need and require and what they do not need. To provide a clear drawings for fab, easy to read. But those days are over 3 years ago, and I am having trouble remembering these "standards" as I call them. By no means was I refering to designing connections using a table or chart, all the connections I did or would do are engineered already by a structual engineer, such as yourself.

I learned the trade by genuine detailers who grew up on the board, who usually spent time on the floor welding or grew up in a metal shop. These are the so called standards they used, practiced and taught. I would like to find a reference source of such, now days everything seems automated by advanced programs, not requiring thought or reason to the work. If a problem arose, most of the people I talked to now in the trade dont have the training or education to offer an acceptable solution in terms of cost, time, and complexity. They simply rely on what the program offers. I dont feel like I can offer a complete service as a detailer unless I learn (re-learn) these practices to give my customer every cent of dollar they are investing in me.

Anyway, I will look into the suggested book whyun, thanks for the tip.

 

[Buzzer1]

Hey AlexDring,
I have been a detailer for over 22years and an engineer for over 4 years. Any time you have questions concerning detailing and standards and want an answer that is usuable and not one of those "EOR" responses feel free to ask. I as a detailer knew exactly what you were asking. Some would be better served sticking to subjects and fields that they have an expertise in. There are certain "rules of thumb" that don't really have anything to do with the strength of the connection.

 

[AlexDring]

Buzzer1-

A detailer turned engineer eh. One of the guys I worked with was going to school to become an engineer. What a good background training detailing would give an engineer. Do you know of any books of such information? If I only had all my old drawings I did, that would answer a lot of my questions. Now when I try to think of how I did things, like stairs for example, I can remember exactly how I detailed them out. Since I changed employers I dont have that option of looking at my old drawings for reference and presedence. I reckon I will have to start where I can and try to figure out what I can.

Wouldnt the city that I did most of my work in have the structual detailed drawings on file at city hall? Dont they put those plans on record?

 

[Buzzer1]

Alex,
If your looking for old detail drawings you might try getting in touch with the fabricator,detail drawings are the property of the fabricator. At least that is the way it works with the people we do business with. Your right, I can't think of a better way for an engineer to gain background training than detailing. I think even better is when a detailer works directly for a fabricator and actually gets some shop experience as well. There is a detailing manual that AISC puts out, not sure how much it runs, but you can go to their website and look it up. It is what we use at our place for "new hires". We make them read through it. When I get back to the office on Monday, I'll look up the name and post back. Glad to help.

 

[Buzzer1]

Alex,

The detailing book that I spoke of it "Detailing for Steel Construction", product code:AISC 326-02, the cost is pricey at $120.00 for non members or $80 for members

 

[AlexDring]

Buzzer1-

I have contacted the fab shops, but I stopped doing that work over three years ago. None of them has any of the old drawings left. I will check out that book though, it must be full of information if your company makes new hires read threw it. Thanks Buzzer1

 

[AlexDring]

Buzzer-

I have a stairs leading to a landing. The landing is poured, and I cant remember what is the code for the distance from the floor to the top rail on the landing. Is 2'-10 common from the nosing line to the top rail on the stair? I think I remember that 3'-6 is the distance from the landing finished surface to the top rail but I cant find anything specific. Do you remember?

 

[Buzzer]

ALEX,

Right on the money.
2'-10 from nosings
3'-6 @ landings and floors

This can usually be found in OSHA books if it is industrial
work.

This is to top of rail, of course.

Buzz

 

[AlexDring]

Whew apperantly all the drinking I did in the military didnt wipe my memory cells out, I think. Thanks for the confirmation. Yes top rail, I used 1.5 pipe for the railing, with a overall 1.9 od. I remember though we used a lot of the 1.25 with the od of 1.66. I really dont remember using 1.5 pipe, but it seems to be what everything I found lately is suggesting.

Thanks Buzz, if there is anything I can help you with I would be more then glad to help in way or form.

alexd@caddadvantage.com

 

[GRoberts]

When I've been detailing/building, 1.9" OD pipe is most popular for guardrails, and 1.66" OD pipe is most popular for handrail.