×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Loading on Studs

Loading on Studs

Loading on Studs

(OP)
Folks,
Please see attached sketch. It is a situation where a steel beam is hung from underneath a slab to pick up a cantilever load.

Will the first row of studs see all the loads or will there be a different distribution? I would have analyzed this as a propped cantilever and got the resulting reactions and designed the studs for T/C loads. But would there be a different behavior in the stud group?

Your thoughts are welcome.

RE: Loading on Studs

Depending on the member slope at the stud group in tension, I think you're pretty safe designing it with all 6 anchors taking equal load.  If you want to be a little conservative, apply a nominal eccentricity to it (say 2"-3") and see what that does to the capacity of the stud group.

What kind of loads are you dealing with?  How thick is the slab?  If you can't get studs to work with App. D calcs, I often weld rebar to embed plates and get away from the App. D calcs.  I typically only do this if studs won't work or for really high loads.

One other note, this probably qualifies as a hanger connection that needs to have the capacity increased by (something like) 1/3 per IBC.

RE: Loading on Studs

(OP)
The reason for this question is this:
As the load travels from the tip of the cantilever to the support points, the group of studs it hits (2 studs) will see the load first. What kind of redistribution (stud elongation/micro concrete cracks or some other) will have to occur before the loads get picked up by the next row of studs and so on.

RE: Loading on Studs

IMHO, the (approximate) answer is based on the proportions of the beam / stud spacing:

1. If the stud spacing is "small" compared to the length of the beam, then the studs would act as a group.
As a "first order approximation" I would say that if beam length is at least 20 times the stud spacing, the studs act as a group.

2. Also, if the stud spacing is "relative small" compared to the DEPTH of the beam, the beam will be essentially rigid and the stud will act as a group.
For this case, if beam depth is at least twice the stud spacing, the studs act as a group.

For proportion of this order of magnitude, I'm sure that the answer can be calculated more PRECISELY, but I doubt if the results will be any more ACCURATE.


 

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: Loading on Studs

Have you considered using hanger rods that are embedded into the concrete above and run thru to the bottom flange and are connected there?

That would pretty much guarantee that the tension connection is tension and does not try to form a couple.

Some horizontal bracing would be necessary to prevent swaying, but I dont have a good feeling about the way it is currently shown.

If that first connection wants to take the whole load, it went from a cantilever with a backspan to a straight cantilever. And I think that first plate will have trouble taking all the tension and the moment as well.

RE: Loading on Studs

(OP)
This is not on a real project. It was a in-house discussion we were having regarding load paths when you have a connection such as this one. Some were saying all studs will see the load, some were saying the first row of studs will try to pick up the load.

The horizontal sway would be picked up by the couple developed between the two welded plates on the flange. Obviously flange bending (and use of stiffeners) would need to be checked.

I wanted to get a feel for how other engineers would approach the problem. Don't ever use such a connection is also probably a valid answer. :)

RE: Loading on Studs

That is good to hear.

I have never been comfortable with an embedded concrete connection "living" in tension.  I am not saying it wouldn't work, but it does give me goosebumps.

RE: Loading on Studs

Personally I would just analyse it as all six studs taking the load evenly but make sure that there is at least 10 to 20% extra capacity to allow for the effects of partial fixity, beam rotation e.t.c.

RE: Loading on Studs

I thought appendix D took this into account with group factors. I like the idea of DBA's welded on to take the load.  

RE: Loading on Studs

If the beam is very stiff relative to the tributary width of slab, stud #3 takes more load than either #1 or #2, in fact you could make a case for #1 being in compression.

BA

RE: Loading on Studs

(OP)
You mean stud 3 being in compression and stud 1 taking more load than 2 and 3 ?

RE: Loading on Studs

(OP)
Correct me if I am mistaken, but stiffer the more equally the studs will take the load.

The more flexible the beam, the more local effects in a stud group, right? Meaning one of the studs in the group could go into compression.

RE: Loading on Studs

(OP)
"stiffer the beam"

RE: Loading on Studs

If the beam is a rigid body, it rotates an angle theta when loaded.  The slab has to bend in an 'S' shape between support points because it is continuous beyond the left support.  It requires a counterclockwise moment at the right support to align it with the beam.  This reduces the tension in Stud #1 and increases the tension in Stud #3.

BA

RE: Loading on Studs

I don't see that, BA, not as a practical matter.  If the steel beam is not loaded, it just goes along for the ride.

RE: Loading on Studs

hokie,

From a practical perspective, I would assume studs #1, 2 and 3 carry the same tension, but somebody suggested that #1 would carry the load until micro-cracking, etc. took place to pass the load on to the other two.

From a strictly theoretical point of view, #3 carries more load than either of the other two if the steel beam is a rigid body and the slab is flexible.

For all three studs to carry the same load, consider the slab subjected to two loads, an upward reaction at the left stud group and a downward reaction at the right stud group.  Determine deflection and slope at each reaction point, then select a steel beam having the exact stiffness to match the slope of the slab at the right reaction.  

If the steel beam is rigid, it will have a smaller slope at the right support than the slab and will exert a counterclockwise moment on the slab in order to make the slopes compatible.  This is similar to prying action on a baseplate.

If the beam stiffness is such that the slope of the beam and slab are equal at the right support, then Studs #1, 2 and 3 will carry precisely the same load.  If the beam is too flexible, #1 will carry more than the average.  If the beam is too stiff, #3 will carry more.  

BA

RE: Loading on Studs

Splitrings,

If both the concrete slab and the beam are rigid bodies, your method is correct but your sign convention is screwed up.  For all six bolts, the P term should be -10/6 = -1.666.  
For #1 the compression should be -10/6 + 85*3.5/55 = 3.74k.
For #2 it would be -10/6 + 85*3/55 = 2.97k.
For #4 it would be -10/6 - 85*2.5/55 = -5.53k.
For #6 it would be -10/6 - 85*3.5/55 = -7.08k.

If the slab and beam are permitted to flex, your approach is wrong as it does not consider potential prying action on the slab.

BA

RE: Loading on Studs

There is too much information that I don't have. I would like, ideally, to have a hinge at that point. Since that is not practical, and if the slab is thick enough, I would use long headed studs and a stiff plate, allowing the strain in the studs to help distribute the loads.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

RE: Loading on Studs

Splitrings & BA:

RE: your 11MAR 12:12 & 12:44 posts, I think your both nuts smile.  I know structural engineering has changed a lot since I started, and I'm gettin confuseder, every day, with old age, but has simple statics been disproved too, now?  Doesn't  R4-6 = 10(11.5/6) = 19.167k tension & 19.167/3 = 6.389k for each stud 4, 5 & 6.  And, R1-3 = 10(5.5/6) = 9.167k compression on the three studs 1, 2 & 3.  The only thing that's got a moment of inertia in this problem, in my world, is the stl. bm.

I don't really like the studs in tension either, as someone above mentioned, and I would make darn sure they had plenty of embedment and confining reinfg. around them and up into the slab.  I believe Slickdeals' OP questioned the flexure of the loaded canti. tending to pull more on stud 6 than it would on stud 5, etc. and might stud 6 start to fail in distributing load to stud 5.  I think this is certainly a valid question.  And, for that very reason I would put some load factor on R4-6 to intentionally oversize it.  He could also turn his weld plates to be across the length of the canti. beam, instead of on each side of the web, out on the flange tips, thus softening that detail's action on the studs.  I would make it one cross plate centered on stud 5, with a couple web stiff. pls. under the top flange and half way down the web.

We can analyze the crap out of this with FEA or today's bolt group in a base pl. approach and the structure has no idea what deep thinking we are doing, it just keeps acting the same old way it did forty years ago.  Even if we told it to comply with today's rigorous methods.

RE: Loading on Studs

BAretired is correct, my assumption was that the slab and beam are infinitely stiff. I should have mentioned that in my post.

The only way the studs in each group carry the same load is if they are beyond the elastic range (plastic range).

RE: Loading on Studs

BA & Paddington:

Can I hijack this thread for a moment?  I guess I just did.  But, I'll add that I think the above thread and this kind of question is a very good use of this forum.  Whereas the thread below boarders on dangerous, and it may even be irresponsible on our part to respond to the latter, unless the person is told to go to his teacher or boss with this type of question.  That teacher or boss should be right there, to guide that person and keep them from getting further into trouble, or to prevent them from doing something dangerous for total lack of understanding.  One would hope that the boss knows what his/her underling does not know, so as to guide the underling properly, and our participation on this forum should not inhibit that from occurring at their office.

What ever happened to the thread with the simple beam with different length cantilevers at each end and the convoluted formulas, funny sketch and bad notation for calculating stresses at different locations "x" along the beam of total length "L".  Someone suggested that the moment must then be zero, for some reason, at one of the supports.  Only a mathematician like Paddington could start to unravel that mess; and BA, you said that seemed like 'a mighty difficult way to go about a simple problem.'

I saw that thread and started a response, then looked back at his sketch and formulas, and you two had already stolen half my thunder.  You two guys are too quick for me.  But, in addition, I was going to suggest that he calc. the two reactions, then draw the shear diag., and from that the area under the shear diag. would allow him to draw the moment diag.  Then he could calc. the stresses anyplace he wanted.  Rather than mix it all together with a bunch of funny notation and not have the vaguest idea what he was doing.  The next time I looked, to post my thoughts, I couldn't find that thread.   Where does this stuff come from?  And, where did it go?  That is an awful way to do engineering or teach structural engineering concepts and expect the structure to remain standing.

RE: Loading on Studs

dhengr,

I know the thread you are talking about.  Didn't realize it had disappeared.  Could be a variety of reasons for pulling it.  One could be abusive or inappropriate language on the part of one of the contributors.

BA

RE: Loading on Studs

dhengr,

Re your earlier post.  I don't think there is any difference between the two theories.  You are assuming that each stud in a 3 stud group carries equal load.  Your statics for that assumption are correct, but you get the same result using Splitrings' assumption, i.e.:

A = 6,  I = 3(3^2)2 = 54, P = 10,  M = 85;

P/A +- My/I = 10/6 +-85*3/54 = 6.388 or -3.055
Multiply these by 3 and you have 19.167 or -9.167, same result as the "non-nutty dhengr".

The assumption that bolts in a group carry equal load is not correct for rigid bodies.  For flexible slab and flexible beam, the correct answer can only be found when the relative flexibilities are considered.

BA

RE: Loading on Studs

There are a variety of reasons members redflag posts, and management makes them disappear if the reasons are sound.  I don't recall the post in question, but it sounds like student homework, which is disallowed.

RE: Loading on Studs

I remember the thread. I wasn't going to answer it, I just clarified which were the variable dimensions as they might be unclear from the diagram.

I worry that for as long as good computer programs have been available, engineers and designers don't get the chance to ask their structures all the intimate questions about their behavior that we dinosaurs used to have to do, so I only point the way and hope they will dig.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

RE: Loading on Studs

Back on subject, an additional support point in the interior span would control the slope of the beam at the support at the cantilever.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

RE: Loading on Studs

(OP)
Lower the slope/rotation of the beam at the cantilever support, the more equally distributed the loads on the studs at that location. Right?

Assuming the supporting slab was rigid, the way to ensure uniform loading of a stud group would be to make the beam as stiff as possible.

Won't there have to be a compatibility of deformations in the stud group? Meaning if the first stud deformed/elongated a little, would'nt the load now want to go to the stiffer element (which would be the adjacent studs) and so on?

RE: Loading on Studs

Q1 - Will the studs see equal loading?
A1 - Only if the concrete fails.
Q2 - Will 2 studs (1) resist all of the loading?
A2 - No

My approach - Right (not left) connection is designed to take tension and any transverse loading of the beam - Use single plate turned perpendicular to the beam length for beam to slab connection.  Design stud group for steel plate plastic hinge (weak direction)and max tension of steel plate to yielding.  Failure is now isolated to the steel plate.

RE: Loading on Studs

slickdeals,
You are correct. Two of the three studs would have to enter the plastic range and start to yield in order for all 3 studs to carry the same load.  

RE: Loading on Studs

With the strength reduction factors required for bolts and or studs you won't enter the plastic range under design loading. Therefore each bolt will carry a different load.

RE: Loading on Studs

slickdeals,

Quote:

Assuming the supporting slab was rigid, the way to ensure uniform loading of a stud group would be to make the beam as stiff as possible.
That is not true.  Making both slab and beam rigid ensures the stud loads are not equal.

Quote:

Won't there have to be a compatibility of deformations in the stud group? Meaning if the first stud deformed/elongated a little, would'nt the load now want to go to the stiffer element (which would be the adjacent studs) and so on?
Yes, I agree.  Strain compatibility will determine the various stud loads.  The concrete slab, the steel beam and the studs are all straining, so they would all have to be considered.  

In the case of the concrete slab, creep deformations would scuttle any attempt at calculating a precise answer.

BA

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources