×
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

Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

(OP)
I am designing a support structure that will be attached to a modified concrete slab. I have raised concerns with the existing slab conditions (I am not the EOR and it is specifically exempted from my review), but wanted to get other opinions as well.
1. Do you think this is an effective detail for anchoring into the side of concrete encased beams? If not, what is the failure mechanism that should be checked.
2. Would you have a problem putting another 2,000 lbs of load through this connection? What numbers would you check?
2. What detail have you utilized to support into concrete encased beams?

The modified decking is upside down B-deck with lightweight concrete that is reinforced with WWR. No rebar is developed between the two slabs. The existing flat slab is 4" deep with a 2" topping conventionally reinforced with #4 at 6". The observed concrete encasement, with notable exceptions, is in decent shape.

RE: Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

I would be requiring removal of the encasement to make a real connection between the steel members. I don't like that detail one bit.

RE: Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

I don't love it but, for smallish loads, I'd be inclined to try to justify it as is so as to keep costs in check. I imagine that the concrete encasement currently is, among other things, the fire proofing for the steel beam. Possible concept below.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

(OP)
@KootK - I'm with you on the smallish loads, I just can't put my finger on why properly substantiated large loads wouldn't also be acceptable.

The bolted connection to the W8 is slotted, so no axial load should be expected from the beam. However, the lateral restraint could come from the supported slab?

The anchors are expansion anchors.

RE: Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

I may be wrong in how I see it but wouldn't there have to be an ability to have axial loads through the new connection. Otherwise the loading scenario would have to be so low that the stress in any tension ties must be lower than the tensile capacity of the concrete encasement.

RE: Existing Attachment to Concrete Encased Beam

Quote (Teguci)

The anchors are expansion anchors.

I didn't realize that the stuff between the two beams was existing too. My bad.

Quote (Teguci)

I just can't put my finger on why properly substantiated large loads wouldn't also be acceptable.

I was actually thinking that 2kip was a comfortably smallish load.

Quote (Teguci)

The bolted connection to the W8 is slotted, so no axial load should be expected from the beam. However, the lateral restraint could come from the supported slab?

Quote (jayrod)

I may be wrong in how I see it but wouldn't there have to be an ability to have axial loads through the new connection. Otherwise the loading scenario would have to be so low that the stress in any tension ties must be lower than the tensile capacity of the concrete encasement.

There are a few possible path available and none is particularly wonderful or easy to asses.

1) Weld the connection so that axial can be transmitted.

2) Use the slab above in compression as Teguci suggested.

3) Take the lateral "kick" back into the beams/slabs via some version of anchorage / concrete in tension (sort of jayrod's concept I think).

4) Deal with things as straight torsion in the steel and/or concrete beam. Much depends on the torsional capacity of beam end connections of course.

5) Deal with things as torsion in the beam that quickly becomes moment in the slab. The suggested detailing isn't great for that unfortunately.

If any of that appeals to you, let me know and I'll help work it through.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

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