Talk:Structural steel

Definition

I don't normally hear rod, plate and bar called "Structural steel". To me, structural steel means a more complex shape, like all the other items listed on this page. A plate is just a plate, even if it's made out of vacuum arc remelt stainless.--Yannick 05:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yannick - Rods, plates and bars are "structural steel" as defined by the American Institute of Steel Construction, which is the organization that produces specifications for the design of steel structures (see www.aisc.org or the AISC's manual of steel construction). While rods and bars are not commonly used in steel structures, plates are used widely for many structural applications.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichSt (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Overflowing captions

The overflowing information in the "captions" can be moved to the content of the article. —Dogears 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do that; the massive gallery at the top was worse than the images along the side, and this was just a first step towards fixing that. I'll look into it when I have more time, if nobody else does. Georgewilliamherbert 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rebar

I intend to remove the sidebar box that is mostly about rebar cages, as it has nothing at all to do with structural steelwork. Would anyone prefer to move it to the article on reinforced concrete perhaps? -- Kvetner 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you delete it, I'd advocate you moving it. I expanded the "Steel vs Concrete" section of this article to explain the linkage, and that rebar isn't considered "structural steel". Georgewilliamherbert 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've now moved it to the rebar article, as well as made a few wider edits to the structural steel page. I'll have a go at the final section on steel vs concrete (there's more to say on the practicalities of construction, for a start, and to expand it beyond buildings to address other structures such as bridges and masts), but feel I've done enough for now! -- Kvetner 22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Georgewilliamherbert 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Angle iron?

I was searching for angle iron and was redirected to this page, but there is no mention of it. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It does technically mention it in Angle_iron#Common_structural_shapes, but you are right, there needs to be more. Wizard191 (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it did at one time, but today the phrase "angle iron" does not appear anywhere in the article. Perhaps it should? --DavidCary (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Open web steel joist

The fireproofing section has a paragraph about OWSJs and an image, however, I don't think OWSJ are structural steel, therefore it should be deleted. However, I'm not an expert and don't know for sure; can others chime in? Wizard191 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Structural steel → Structural metal — Because structural shapes are also commonly made out of other materials, such as aluminum, per [1] and [2]. Wizard191 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• be that as it may be, this article is about steel and its name should not be changed. Hmains (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Also - Though there exist aluminum structural parts, they're not used for "primary structure" (columns holding the building up, beams in floors or roof, etc) in any significant way. They're used for platforms in high corrosion areas, for catwalks and balconies where weight is an issue, a few other things. Though they could be used more generally (there's no technical reason not to other than lower melting point / more susceptibility to fire damage), there's a huge price difference (aluminum is roughly 5x more expensive than steel) for the same performance. I recommend leaving the article alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Steel is by far the most common and it's unlikely to change. Aluminium is certainly used, but not in the same ways. There is no virtue to an overall article on both, where this adds a risk of confusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Aluminium structures are not the same thing as steel structures. Even the typical constitutive equation is different, which affects every aspect involved in the design of a structure. They are so distinct that these structural types are covered in distinct building codes, such as EN 1993 and EN 1999. Therefore, such a change would not make any sense. -- Mecanismo | Talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rod wording

The entry "Rod, a round or square and long piece of metal or wood" does not denote solid or hollow. My understanding in the industry is simply that a rod is solid and a tube is hollow.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2014‎

"very stiff in respect to" is ambiguous

   In the sentence

Structural steel members, such as I-beams, have high second moments of area, which allow them to be very stiff in respect to their cross-sectional area.

"very stiff in respect to" may be specific enuf to be unambiguous to structural engineers, but is insufficiently so for 'pedia users, who may need a more explicitly mathematical statement or re-statement of what ratio's value is intended to be high.
   I'm also converting "second moments of area" (which is cryptic even for many other kinds of engineer) to a link, in case that article does/will exist.
--Jerzy•t 14:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

   (Does it drive anyone else crazy, when editors suggest doing something that clearly has already been done?) Perhaps a structural engineer will find an concise way to at least make following the link more appealing, or that sentence more intuitively accessible.
--Jerzy•t 14:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)