Is it wise to load I beam top flange tip at pipe anchor location ?

In pipe rack, we find pipe axial stop between two piping loops made at the bottom of pipe shoe which is getting obstructed by line contact by the top flange of I beam provided by structural people.

It is at the interface between piping support and structural responsibility.

If the structural beam gets deformed due to thermal load or seismic load, who will be blamed - structural or piping supports ?

From piping supports walkdown, we consider this transfer of load location weak, because we purposefully underestimate axial load at axial stop sometimes purposefully using comfortable assumptions like expansion load getting balanced from both sides, using friction in seismic static analysis and not considering seismic acceleration amplification due to height etc.

In piping support walkdown, we find generalisation of mass errors by sweeping remark that it is a practise followed every where - is it right ?

reg,
sam

None has commented so far ? Is the situation too unique ?

Thin walled open section I beams I have often seen are loaded in torsion locally by many axial stops at the top flange tip by axial stop fitteted at the bottom of pipe shoe an anchor locations in between two piping loops in pipe rack without any local stiiening?

Are structural detailers too good elsewhere are such stiffeners are provided alongwith standard pipe shoe axial stop support details ?

Given an option, I will choose the later option, no doubt as it it piping concern to have axial stop intact - not a structural group headache about such am issue of local deformation.


reg,
sam