timothyd / Mike
In order to pour this he is going to have to shore the beam anyway, so the load to the beam can be relieved to at least some degree.
Having done many forming/shoring projects with concrete encased steel, I would say it could be done in one of 2 ways:
1. Build a deck to support the concrete and the side forms for the concrete beam. This would not directly contact the existing steel beam and would not help to unload it in any way.
2. Suspend the entire formwork from the existing beam. This would be totally contrary to the end goal, as it will add additional load to the existing steel beam.
Assuming this is a simple-span condition, one could at least consider the concrete thickness on each side of the top flange as the concrete beam's compression flange. Essentially construct a concrete beam on each side, then tie them together with 2-piece "U" stirrups. Each beam could utilize ladder stirrups (common in wide-module one-way ribbed slabs).
None of this serves to reduce the current over-stressed condition however. To accomplish that, one has to somehow shore the beam to unload it to some degree, then construct the concrete beams. Perhaps 2-3 "holes" penetrating the bottom concrete encasement to permit the use of an appropriate shore to unload the steel beam. The shores would have to contact the steel beam's bottom flange. Depending on the required upward force to unload the steel beam, these "holes" could be substantial in size.
Using shear studs welded to the underside of the top flange/web fillet (at a 45 degree angle) will certainly help achieve composite action, would better engage the concrete side "beams", and would negate the need for substantial cover over the top of the steel beam's top flange.
Concrete placement could be difficult depending on the side cover and achieving good consolidation below the steel beam's bottom flange and below the top flange will be difficult. Perhaps a good application for SCC.
Just my humble thoughts on the situation.
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA