×
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

Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

(OP)
I would like to get some opinions on the preferred method of detailing a concrete block wall supported on a steel edge beam with open web steel joists framing perpendicular to the beam. In this scenario the block wall is just intended to be an infill non-load bearing wall one storey tall.

I have attached two options:

Option 1: the concrete block wall is constructed on top of the composite steel deck with a bond beam at the first course to span between the open web steel joists

Option 2: the concrete block wall is constructed directly on top of the steel beam and notched around the open web steel joists

RE: Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

To me - Option 2 sucks.

1. No direct shear connection between diaphragm and beam.
2. Masons have to cut block over the joists.
3. Rebar must be field welded onto beam without knowing exactly where the CMU cells are located (can be figured out but more work).
4. Lateral forces on the parapet are resisted by the beam flange, web, and to some extent flex in the joist top chord seat.
5. No lateral angle brace at the top of the wall to take lateral forces into the joist/deck system (beam will be torqued)

RE: Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

One, no question. Two is labour intensive (expensive) and structurally weaker with an obviously stronger detail readily available.

RE: Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

(OP)
Thanks for your responses.

In Option 1:
a) Would you specify the bond beam to be allowed to cure for 7 days before constructing the rest of the wall?
b) Would you provide the vertical dead load reaction on the open web steel joist shoe for the owsj designer?
c) Is it a good idea to let the weight of the wall bear on the owsj shoe or would you add a HSS between the joists (similar to a drag strut) even if it is not needed for diaphragm capacity?

RE: Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

a) I don't think the wall is that load bearing to require a cure period.
b) You could and probably should if the parapet is significantly high....or see c)
c) we add 2 1/2" steel tubes between joists to drag diaphragm shear in to the steel beam below.

d) we also provide the joist manufacturer any wind/seismic reaction loads from angle braces off the bottom of the steel beam.

RE: Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

Just a quick drafting note on Option 1: consider making the lines for the vertical rebar and dowels much heavier; I looked right past them on the first glance. True, the contractor will eventually see them but will his estimator? Probably. But it's still better shown with heavier lines, in my opinion.

RE: Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

(OP)
If I use HSS struts between the joists I guess I don't need to use the bond beam to transfer the wall load between the joists.

RE: Infill Concrete Block Wall Supported on a Steel Beam - What is the perferred detail?

I, too, would have to go with option 1, but I see problems with that too, specifically the eccentric loading to the CMU wall below. The beam should be able to be shifted out to reduce this eccentricity. I would also prefer to see a more positive shear connection at the base, like a #4 @24 welded to the edge angle of the steel deck, extending up three courses of block (24").

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

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