I am designing a brace connection (CBB) with a plate welded to the column and a gussett to the upper right brace that will be bolted to the welded plate. There is no right beam. I need the gusset to be clear of the column flanges, so the bolts have to shift out away from the column web triggering this warning, "Bolt to weld distance out of conventional configuration". My question is, does this have any affect on the design of the connection that RAM does not take into account? I imagine by not meeting the requirements for the conventional configuration, I am creating an extended plate. Does RAM require me to take additional measures to support a non-conventional configuration or is this warning simply a notification for my own knowledge?
Thank you.
It's hard to say for sure. The report is fairly complete and you can see everything that we do check. Anything else not in the report clearly is not checked. When it comes to things like buckling of the Whitmore section of a gusset plate there is an affect from the beam and column placement, so a connection that does not actually have a beam would be wrong in that regard, at the least.
Another idea would be to design this "on it's side", i.e. rotated 90deg as a chevron brace configuration. That would only work for strong axis column orientation, and in Stand-Alone Ram Connection, of course.
Answer Verified By: Travis Poole
Thank you for your response, Seth. One of the dimensional limitations listed for the conventional configuration of a single-plate connection is that the distance from the bolt line to the weld line, 'a', must be equal to or less than 3.5 inches (from page 10-102 of the 14th edition Steel Manual). My connection having the gusset clear the column flange increases 'a' to 4.5 inches. The alternative to the conventional configuration is the extended configuration.
Comparing the report calculations for a=3.5" against the same for a=4.5", shows the program adjusts the design checks being done to meet the requirements for an extended configuration listed on page 10-104 (14th ed). It seems the warning is only a notification that the calculations have changed.
Thanks again.