I prefer the second one also. The question that comes to my mind is if the remainder of the existg. 12" beam section in Detail 1 is adequate for the end reaction requirements. Additional reinforcement steel may be required.
Thanks guys. I liked the second also. I'm just always hesitant to hang beams from beams...not sure why.
FYI - loads are pretty light ~ 2kip end reaction.
The second connection is easier to calculated. This would be my preference for new construction.
But, provided that the cope capacity is adequate, and the flange bending capacity is adequate. The second connection eliminates the need for overhead field welding.
I've use the first on quite a few times. However, the plate you show as a seat is typically notched and extended beyond the cope into the web of the beam. The notch allows the you to keep the web of the beam whole and while being able to weld the plate to the beam. This detail is covered in "Designing with Steel Joists, Joist Girders and Steel Deck" by Fisher
The first detail bothers me because the cope is square cut instead of radiused, I always show the curved inside corner to help my thinking. The load is small, but I would slit and continue the bearing plate along the new beam web to develop its bending strength at the cope.
Michael.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." ~ Tim Minchin
For small reactions, another way to improve Detail 1 is to substitute an angle for the 4x3x3/8 Plate, say L4x4x3/8 by 4" long with the vertical leg welded to the beam web.
For detail #1, I would provide stiffener plates at both sides of connection to control bending of the flange. Would also extend the 3/8" plata into the web of W12.
