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.
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
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
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
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] idea](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/idea.gif)
www.VacuumTubeEra.net
RE: Loading on Studs
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
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
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
RE: Loading on Studs
RE: Loading on Studs
BA
RE: Loading on Studs
RE: Loading on Studs
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
RE: Loading on Studs
BA
RE: Loading on Studs
RE: Loading on Studs
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
I think this is the calculation you are looking for. I am having trouble getting my hands around the sign convention. I think you can convince yourself the method is correct by trying it with only two bolts and summing the moments and forces.
RE: Loading on Studs
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
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: Loading on Studs
RE: your 11MAR 12:12 & 12:44 posts, I think your both nuts
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
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
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
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
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
RE: Loading on Studs
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
Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.
RE: Loading on Studs
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
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
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
RE: Loading on Studs
That is not true. Making both slab and beam rigid ensures the stud loads are not equal.
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