# Communication in safety



## just the cowboy (Sep 4, 2013)

I find the mounting of Unistrut interesting. Are you not allowed to drill and tap a beam? Unless it has changed we can drill and tap a beam since we have replaced the metal taken out, but we can't drill and nut and bolt to a beam.


----------



## CAUSA (Apr 3, 2013)

just the cowboy said:


> I find the mounting of Unistrut interesting. Are you not allowed to drill and tap a beam? Unless it has changed we can drill and tap a beam since we have replaced the metal taken out, but we can't drill and nut and bolt to a beam.


no drilling in to any webbing on structural support.

there are many different methods and that’s the cheaper of them.

I personally don’t like them catches on clothing when working close to them. To much belly I guess.😎


----------



## Jimmyltd (Apr 27, 2021)

We have a scrap carrier that runs on contactors and overloads with sensors. One of the old maintenance guys couldn't get it to work properly on Friday so he shoved a terminal driver into the contactor to get it to hold over the weekend. I wasn't here at the time but I've had multiple people tell me about it.




CAUSA said:


> no drilling in to any webbing on structural support.
> 
> there are many different methods and that’s the cheaper of them.
> 
> I personally don’t like them catches on clothing when working close to them. To much belly I guess.😎


No drilling into structural steel unless no apparent solutions are available. Even then its frowned upon. so its better off not to do it at all.


----------



## CAUSA (Apr 3, 2013)

If you have no choice but to drill in to the webbing of the structure beam.( for insurance purposes and 3rd party liabilities). Get a structured engineering clearance letter with a drilling procedure to CYA.

for contractors this is a must. 🤔


----------



## glen1971 (Oct 10, 2012)

CAUSA said:


> no drilling in to any webbing on structural support.
> 
> there are many different methods and that’s the cheaper of them.
> 
> I personally don’t like them catches on clothing when working close to them. To much belly I guess.😎


I'm glad we don't have guidelines like that up here. I can remember once getting a structural engineer approval on drilling a beam, but that was to run a 1/2" conduit through the middle of it. 
Personally, I'd be looking for an alternative mounting method than those window clamps.


----------



## paulengr (Oct 8, 2017)

CAUSA said:


> no drilling in to any webbing on structural support.
> 
> there are many different methods and that’s the cheaper of them.
> 
> I personally don’t like them catches on clothing when working close to them. To much belly I guess.[emoji41]


There are tons of guidelines on drilling beams. It would be impossible to bolt or rivet if you can’t. That’s the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard of. Do you need a structural engineer to determine whether or not a penetration for a conduit damaged the structural integrity of an electrical enclosure and pay a couple hundred dollars per conduit entry to have it engineered? Because that is exactly what you are suggesting.

In reality this is not the way I would do it. Get two cheap strut clamps and tighten down, no holes needed and it’s easy to modify/move/replace.

But even then the aNSI/AISC standard prior to 2005 allowed for up to 15% of the width of the faces (webbing is 25%) to be removed such as for bolt holes or accesses. Holes should be in line, not staggered. The 2005 and newer F13 replaces this with a strength reduction formula so you can calculate the impact of arbitrary situations but the old rule is still valid.

Now if you are cutting a 5” holes for a 4” conduit right next to a bolted joint on a 6” W, you probably better rethink it.

The biggest issue with holes and other cuts is not to create stress risers. For instance don’t just cut a slot in from the side or leave a jagged mess or cut too close to the edge.

Now if any of this is confusing talk to a mechanic/welder/millwright. And if they can’t do anything without engineering approval then they are just helpers…move on to someone else.

I have been in plants where the engineers tried to convince everyone you needed a PE for everything. This is purely protectionism. It’s sort of like telling a homeowner that only licensed electricians are qualified to change anything electrical, including light bulbs, because you need a license and proper environmental disposal procedures. Let alone the hazmat procedure to dispose of a compact fluorescent. They try to throw liability in on safety issues and attempt to contract out all engineering work. I pointed out two things. First have you ever read the contracts or attempted to sue an engineering firm? It’s impossible. The whole contract is nothing but get out of jail free clauses. They aren’t responsible for anything except billable hours. Second if something happens and somebody sues for damages if you own the property is it going to fly in court that they can’t sue you because it’s the outside engineers fault? The liability blame game is total BS.

Ive also been in the same plant where the engineer asked a mechanic to take a lift and spray paint and paint around every rust hole in a beam. He did. First the engineer was mad because he thought the mechanic just painted the whole beam. Then he realized the conveyor was holding up the beam, not the other way around. Over half the beam was rusted out. So who is to blame for not paying attention to that??


----------



## CAUSA (Apr 3, 2013)

paulengr said:


> There are tons of guidelines on drilling beams. It would be impossible to bolt or rivet if you can’t. That’s the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard of. Do you need a structural engineer to determine whether or not a penetration for a conduit damaged the structural integrity of an electrical enclosure and pay a couple hundred dollars per conduit entry to have it engineered? Because that is exactly what you are suggesting.
> 
> In reality this is not the way I would do it. Get two cheap strut clamps and tighten down, no holes needed and it’s easy to modify/move/replace.
> 
> ...


Its called do your home work on your projects.

You make good points. But in a industrial environment, do you really want to just leap and start manipulating structure supports because it is in standard book that you read for a certain date? With out doing your home work. Part of our job is customer satisfaction. To keep the customer calling you back because you have a standard of play.

I should not have to get in to the weeds with every post. I thought we are all Professionals on this site.

What PE suggests verbally is one thing. When document is stamped is proof that it was reviewed and approved. it is not to assign blame to them it is to deflect blame from you.


----------



## Wardenclyffe (Jan 11, 2019)




----------



## paulengr (Oct 8, 2017)

CAUSA said:


> Its called do your home work on your projects.
> 
> You make good points. But in a industrial environment, do you really want to just leap and start manipulating structure supports because it is in standard book that you read for a certain date? With out doing your home work. Part of our job is customer satisfaction. To keep the customer calling you back because you have a standard of play.
> 
> ...


AISC is not just some book. That would be like saying NEC is just some book about electrical work. It is a consensus safety standard. That means that it is an affirmative legal defense to say you are just following the industry standard. Sure it gets updated but unlike NEC there is no declared year you must use.

Many contractors demand engineering support because they don’t know what they are doing. It’s a means of providing cover. And it’s understandable if the company is entirely wire pullers or panel builders used to just bolting things together. As I pointed out this attitude results in not being able to terminate a conduit.

Since electrical raceways need to be supported from structures it is kind of hard to avoid some kind of basic knowledge of what you can and cannot or should not do when fabricating supports. Supports need to be built. Every support cannot and should not be engineered. If this were the case then only engineers should be fabricators. There are clearly situations that call for it but not every one.

The point about different years is that currently the AISC standard gives a strength reduction method and it’s up to somebody to plug in values and determine what is acceptable and what is not. This is as opposed to the previous standard that just gave a simple “rule of thumb” standard that results in strength reduction far less than any safety margin, but it is no help if an opening larger than the rule of thumb is necessary. If you are used to NFPA where they arbitrarily update codes on a fixed schedule whether or not it needs changing many other codes do not operate in this manner and the same code might be around for years. Also NEC is adopted as law in every state by year. Outside of a few Codes like that the rest have no required editions.


----------



## CAUSA (Apr 3, 2013)

See below in red.



paulengr said:


> AISC is not just some book. That would be like saying NEC is just some book about electrical work. It is a consensus safety standard. Minimum standard to the country/state, that you reside in. Not applicable to the rest of the world and many organizations exceed the minimum standard.
> 
> 98% of the industrial sites will not allow you to manipulate their Support structures, see post #9 with out an engineered approval with plan. So, Yes to me right now. It is just a standard that is not applicable to the area that I'm in right now.
> That means that it is an affirmative legal defense to say you are just following the industry standard. Sure it gets updated but unlike NEC there is no declared year you must use. Your liability insurance will be denied, for any reason. If the site has a certain policy of structural application. Regardless of standard code book for your country or region.
> ...


This is going way off the original post of, communication in safety. so I'm going to bring it around to it again.

When at a industrial site, any one. In USA or Canada.
When going to get your work permit for a repair. Communicate that you want to punch holes in the webbing of their structured beams to facilitate your repair. To the standard that you have.

My money will be on. There will be no permit issued at that time.


----------

