Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    The Steel Interchange column discusses differences between CJP and PJP groove welds, preinstallation verification of bolted joints, and calculating L'p for shapes with noncompact flanges. A CJP weld extends through the full thickness while a PJP does not, creating a notch. PJP welds have reduced strength to account for this. Preinstallation verification of bolted joints should be done in the field where pretensioning occurs. Table 3-2 allows a simplified approach to calculate L'p, limiting strength to local buckling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    32 views2 pages
    The Steel Interchange column discusses differences between CJP and PJP groove welds, preinstallation verification of bolted joints, and calculating L'p for shapes with noncompact flanges. A CJP weld extends through the full thickness while a PJP does not, creating a notch. PJP welds have reduced strength to account for this. Preinstallation verification of bolted joints should be done in the field where pretensioning occurs. Table 3-2 allows a simplified approach to calculate L'p, limiting strength to local buckling.

    Original Description:

    SI-12-2015

    Original Title

    SI-12-2015

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Steel Interchange column discusses differences between CJP and PJP groove welds, preinstallation verification of bolted joints, and calculating L'p for shapes with noncompact flanges. A CJP weld extends through the full thickness while a PJP does not, creating a notch. PJP welds have reduced strength to account for this. Preinstallation verification of bolted joints should be done in the field where pretensioning occurs. Table 3-2 allows a simplified approach to calculate L'p, limiting strength to local buckling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    The Steel Interchange column discusses differences between CJP and PJP groove welds, preinstallation verification of bolted joints, and calculating L'p for shapes with noncompact flanges. A CJP weld extends through the full thickness while a PJP does not, creating a notch. PJP welds have reduced strength to account for this. Preinstallation verification of bolted joints should be done in the field where pretensioning occurs. Table 3-2 allows a simplified approach to calculate L'p, limiting strength to local buckling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?

    ” about something
    related to structural steel design or construction,
    Modern Steel’s monthly Steel Interchange is for you!
    steel
    Send your questions or comments to [email protected]. interchange

    Tensile Strength of PJP Groove Welds vs. The preinstallation verification needs to be performed in the
    CJP Groove Welds field at the job site with the crews that will be pretensioning
    The AISC Specification allows the strength of a CJP the bolts and using a “representative sample” of bolts.
    groove weld to be taken as the strength of the base The Commentary to Section 7.2 of the RCSC Specifica-
    metal. However, the tensile strength of a PJP groove tion states: “Preinstallation verification testing clarifies for
    weld is limited to 0.6 times the tensile strength of the the bolting crew and the inspector the proper implementa-
    filler metal. As a result, the design strength of the PJP tion of the selected pretensioning method and the adequacy
    groove weld is significantly reduced even when the vol- of the installation equipment.” In order to satisfy this intent,
    ume of weld is nearly the same as a CJP groove weld. the preinstallation verification must be done in the field by
    What are the differences between CJP and PJP groove the crew responsible for pretensioning the joints.
    welds that explain this strength reduction? The Commentary also states: “The preinstallation veri-
    fication requirements in this Section presume that fastener
    This is addressed in Section J2.4 in the Commentary to the assemblies so verified will be pretensioned before the condi-
    AISC Specification, which states: tion of the fastener assemblies, the equipment and the steel-
    “The factor of 0.6 on FEXX for the tensile strength of PJP work have changed significantly… When time of exposure
    groove welds is an arbitrary reduction that has been used between the placement of fastener assemblies in the field
    since the early 1960s to compensate for the notch effect of work and the subsequent pretensioning of those fastener
    the unfused area of the joint, uncertain quality in the root assemblies is of concern, preinstallation verification can be
    of the weld due to the inability to perform nondestructive performed on fastener assemblies removed from the work or
    evaluation and the lack of a specific notch toughness require- on extra fastener assemblies that, at the time of placement,
    ment for filler metal.” were set aside to experience the same degree of exposure.”
    A CJP groove weld is defined in the AISC Specification Since the assemblies may be exposed to the environment
    as a “groove weld in which weld metal extends through the for some time before being erected, in addition to sampling
    joint thickness, except as permitted for HSS connections.” from each combination of diameter, length, grade and lot,
    A PJP groove weld is defined as a “groove weld in which the you might also perform the preinstallation verification using
    penetration is intentionally less than the complete thickness bolts taken from the assemblies.
    of the connected element.” The notch that is referred to in Larry S. Muir, P.E.
    the Commentary is due to a PJP stopping short, not fusing
    the entire thickness—i.e., the part that is not welded in PJP L’p for Shapes with Noncompact Flanges
    is viewed as a notch or crack. Section F3.1 of the AISC Specification refers to Section
    Also, the root of a CJP groove weld can be readily UT F2.2 for lateral-torsional buckling of doubly symmetric
    inspected, and such inspection is addressed in Chapter N of I-shaped members bent about their major axis having
    the Specification. Inspecting the root of a PJP weld is not as compact webs and non-compact or slender flanges. Sec-
    straightforward since it has a natural flaw that will always be tion F2.2 includes Equation F2-5:
    evident in the inspection.
    Carlo Lini Lp =1.76ry E
    √ Fy
    Preinstallation Verification of Items Bolted However, this equation does not always produce the
    to Ship same value given for Lp in Manual Table 3-2. For example,
    If pieces are bolted to ship during shop assembly, but Table 3-2 lists Lp = 15.1 for a W14×90 but Equation F2-5
    the joints are not pretensioned until the assembly is results in a value of 13.1.
    erected, should preinstallation verification be performed What is the difference between these two values and
    at the shop, where the bolts were first installed, or in the which should be used in the calculation of Mn?
    field, where the bolts will be pretensioned?

     Modern STEEL CONSTRUCTION


    steel interchange
    Table 3-2 allows a simplified approach to the design. Though Section A3.1c in the AISC Specification addresses this issue,
    the two values will provide different results, either can be used stating that rolled heavy shapes used as members subject to
    if applied appropriately. primary (computed) tensile forces due to tension or flexure
    A W14×90 has non-compact flanges. Since the flanges are and spliced or connected using CJP groove welds that fuse
    non-compact, the section is not capable of reaching its plastic through the thickness of the flange or the web would require
    strength and the flanges will buckle locally before a plastic hinge that shapes be supplied with Charpy V-notch toughness in
    can be formed. Table 3-2 reports a value that is referred to as L’p accordance with supplementary requirement S30. The key
    in the Manual discussion. Using this value to calculate Mn, rather statement in this section relative to your second question is
    than Lp, will limit the value to the local buckling strength of the “The structural design documents shall require that such
    member, M’p. This can be viewed as a shortcut to the Specification shapes be supplied with Charpy…”
    approach, which requires separate checks for lateral-torsional Section A4 addresses structural design drawings and speci-
    buckling and compression flange local buckling. fications and states that the structural design drawings and
    The difference between the two approaches can be seen specifications shall meet the requirements in the Code of Stan-
    most clearly by looking at Manual Figure 3-1 reproduced dard Practice. The user note in this section states: “Provisions
    below. Using Lp from Equation F2-5 in Equation F2-2 will in this Specification contain information that is to be shown
    produce a result somewhere along the line (Lp, Mp), (Lr, Mr). on design drawings. These include: Section A3.1c Rolled
    Values that exceed M’p are not possible, since Equation F3-1 heavy shapes where alternate core Charpy V-notch toughness
    will govern. This is the approach in the AISC Specification. The (CVN) is required.”
    shortcut limits results to those along the line (L’p, M’p), (Lr, The AISC Seismic Provisions contain similar requirements
    Mr), rendering the explicit check for compression flange local in Section A3.3 and also require that locations of connection
    buckling redundant. plates requiring CVN, in accordance with Section A3.3(b), be
    indicated in the structural design drawings and specification.
    This all falls under Code of Standard Practice Section 3.1,
    which requires that the structural design drawings clearly
    indicate the work to be performed. The commentary for this
    section states that “…critical requirements that are necessary
    to protect the owner’s interest, that affect the integrity of the
    structure or that are necessary for the fabricator and the erec-
    tor to proceed with their work must be included in the con-
    tract documents. Some examples of critical information may
    include, when applicable, special material requirements to be
    reported on the material test reports.”
    There is a cost associated with providing specified tough-
    Carlo Lini ness, and therefore it should not be specified indiscriminately.
    Carlo Lini
    Toughness Testing
    Are all rolled jumbo sections subject to toughness
    requirements? Does Charpy V-notch impact testing have
    to be specified in the contract documents, or is this auto- The complete collection of Steel Interchange questions and answers is available online.
    matically done for all jumbo sections? Find questions and answers related to just about any topic by using our full-text search
    capability. Visit Steel Interchange online at www.modernsteel.com.

    First, a clarification: The AISC Specification does not refer to


    Larry Muir is director of technical assistance and Carlo Lini is a staff engineer—technical
    jumbo shapes. Instead, it refers to rolled and built-up heavy assistance, both with AISC.
    shapes. ASTM A6/A6M hot-rolled shapes with a flange thick-
    ness exceeding 2 in. are considered to be rolled heavy shapes.
    Steel Interchange is a forum to exchange useful and practical professional ideas and
    Built-up cross sections consisting of plates with a thickness information on all phases of steel building and bridge construction. Opinions and
    exceeding 2 in. are considered built-up heavy shapes. suggestions are welcome on any subject covered in this magazine.

    Not all heavy shapes are subject to toughness requirements, The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not necessarily represent an official position of
    the American Institute of Steel Construction and have not been reviewed. It is recognized that the
    and Charpy V-notch impact testing is typically only performed design of structures is within the scope and expertise of a competent licensed structural engineer,
    when required in the contract documents. architect or other licensed professional for the application of principles to a particular structure.

    Generally, ASTM standards contain supplemental require- If you have a question or problem that your fellow readers might help you solve, please
    forward it to us. At the same time, feel free to respond to any of the questions that you
    ments related to Charpy testing. Testing to other toughness have read here. Contact Steel Interchange via AISC’s Steel Solutions Center:
    requirements is also possible. Some materials, like A913, have
    toughness requirements in the standard and supplemental 866.ASK.AISC • [email protected]
    requirements that can apply as well.
    DECEMBER 2015

    You might also like