Best way to attach framing to steel beam
Bruce
I am finishing off a basement, and will be framing a wall under a steel
beam. I am reluctant to drill holes in the bottom of the beam. What is the
best way to attach the top plate of the framing to the beam? Thanks.
Bruce.
RicodJour
> Bruce.
A few small holes spaced every few feet won't affect the strength of
the beam, so you can drill and bolt or shoot pins into the steel. It
might be easier all around to have the wall on one side of the beam and
box out a soffit on the other side. That way your stud framing and
drywall can run right up to the underside of the joists. You'll have
to box the beam anyway unless the wall is as thick as the beam is wide
or the other side is unfinished.
R
Phil Scott
"Bruce" <m...@email.net> wrote in message
news:CuKdnT0KQdh...@adelphia.com...
First wedge the new wall under the beam by cutting the studs
1/8" long then pounding them in so they wedge the top plate up
against the bottom of the beam... use an overdose of
resiliant construction adhesive under the top plate.. that
alone would probably come close to holding the wall in place.
then you can shoot pins in every 2 or 3' like Rico
suggested..that will not weaken the beam enough to be
measured, With the wall wedged under the beam the finished
project will probably have 5x the stenght of the original beam
by itself anyway. If you were really worried or wanted to
beef up the job to world class standards, substitute some of
the wall studs for 4x4's.
Phil Scott
>
>
Nichevo
engineer to have some sort of expansion/contraction mechanism. With
steel we make a slip track(which also aids in beam itchulation), that
way when the dead and live loads are finally added and temperature
changes, the beam deflects its 300 or whatever, the wall does not bow,
twist or crack. Keep in mind that this is in the commercial world,
which is surely quite a bit different...
I don't see any reason why Bruce couldn't hilti(or some other method of
powder actuated fastening) some 20 guage track(C-Channel) to the beam
and continue normal framing from there... The other method mentioned by
RicodJour is also fine if you don't mind the additional cost/sight of a
bulkhead.
Bobk207
With the new wall jammed up under the beam it won't be doing much any
more.
If the floor above has a bounce to it it won't after you're done. :)
Make sure you use treated timber for the bottom plate.
Don't want moisture or termites to ruin your job.
cheers
Bob
Bruce
have actually already framed it, but haven't attached it yet. I just am a
little leary about shooting nails or drilling holes into the bottom chord of
the beam, although like Ricor says, probably won't hurt. Bruce
"Bobk207" <rkaz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109528809.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bobk207
Shot pins are ~.2" dia, you're talking about a hole < 5% of the flange
width every couple feet . Sounds like fly s...t to me.
cheers
Bob
JerryD(upstateNY)
>>>>>>>>>into the bottom chord of the beam<<<<<<<<<
A few nails in the bottom of the beam mean nothing.
The only reason you are worried is that you know nothing about it.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Ralph Hertle
Bruce:
The original message didn't get through for some reason, and I've reposted it.
Bruce wrote:
The general structural principle is to not reduce the cross sectional area
of the beam flanges in any way whatsoever.
That means no drilled holes, no notching, and no coping. In the non-
beam/column areas there may be qualified exceptions that are based upon the
engineers calculations and designs.
A hole drilled in either the tension or the compression flange may reduce
the cross sectional area of that flange by a significant amount, say by 10
percent. Do the arithmetic.
That increases the beam deflection and stress in the local area, and it
reduces the ultimate strength by similar amount based upon the section
profile and the calculations.
If you have a large enough beam and the calculations show that you still
have an excess strength of safety factor, then why not buy a narrower beam.
Save your money.
Steel beams are expensive. Why waste your money or product value by
drilling a hole in it?
There are three accepted ways to attach members to a beam.
One is to clamp to the beam, and many steel clamp products are commercially
available. Clamps provide a way to attach other components.
Two is to bolt "L" clips onto the web of the beam, and under specific
conditions, and enabled by specific designs, drilled holes in the web will
not reduce the strength of a beam by nearly as much as that would occur by
drilling the flanges. Holes must be drilled only near the neutral axis of
the beam, that is, as near the center longitudinal axis of the beam as
possible. Beam clips at the end of the beam at the web are not in the area
of the beam where there is maximum strain, and the beam does not suffer as
much of a reduction of strength or deflection due to holes at that location.
Again, calculations will govern. That is important.
Two is to weld "L" clips onto the web of the beam. That does not reduce the
amount of force-resisting material in the section of the beam. Tiny
differences of metallurgy occur, but given correct welding practices and
beam metallurgy, the welding method is the stronger when compared to bolts.
Bolts are use for speed of assembly. Structural engineers should always be
consulted.
You have not provided enough information about your intended design.
For your application I would say that you would be safe by leaving the beam
in place as undrilled. Use wood blocking around the beam and enclose it
with blocking attached to the joists above. Use plywood and GWB according
to your plan. Steel clamps are possible, however, your added partition is
not a primary load bearing element. Simply ignore the beam and encase it
with wood and GWB as is required by your design.
BTW, a house in NYC may be a ten to twenty storey heavy steel framed
building. Do you have a parking garage in the basement of your building? A
house in Kentucky could be a double wide with a some 28 to 20 ga. light
steel framing elements here and there. What indeed are you talking about?
On second thought, since the existing conditions were not of interest to
you, and since the the specific designs and sizes of the elements involved
were not of interest to you, I wish to recant on all of my above
statements. You should discuss the matter with a professional civil or
structural engineer.
Ralph Hertle
PS:
A 5% reduction of the cross sectional area of the top or bottom two flanges
is 1/20 of the area. That, when the calculations are made, will allow a
measurable increase in the deflection of the beam given a certain context
of forces etc.
The 5% reduction of material in the critical flange area is borrowed from
the deflection resistance of the beam or from the safety factor regarding
the resistance to beam failure.
There are plenty of non-invasive ways to connect to the beam, two of which
are the use of clamps and simple plywood encasing.
RH
RicodJour
> Bruce wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I am finishing off a basement, and will be framing a wall under a
steel
> > beam. I am reluctant to drill holes in the bottom of the beam.
What is the
> > best way to attach the top plate of the framing to the beam?
Thanks.
> > Bruce.
Ralph, your reply to Bruce's post is misleading in so many ways I can
scarcely believe you wrote this.
> The general structural principle is to not reduce the cross sectional
area
> of the beam flanges in any way whatsoever.
If it is a general structural principle, than there should be no
problem in citing a reference. Please do.
> That means no drilled holes, no notching, and no coping. In the non-
> beam/column areas there may be qualified exceptions that are based
upon the
> engineers calculations and designs.
>
> A hole drilled in either the tension or the compression flange may
reduce
> the cross sectional area of that flange by a significant amount, say
by 10
> percent. Do the arithmetic.
He's attaching a plate, not bolting up an engine hoist. The holes from
pins are what?, a little over an eighth of an inch. How small of a
beam are you assuming he has up there?
> That increases the beam deflection and stress in the local area, and
it
> reduces the ultimate strength by similar amount based upon the
section
> profile and the calculations.
You're obviously not worried about shear, as the web is not affected,
so it's Fbmax you're worried about. Would there be a problem in
shooting pins 4' OC and keeping them away from the highest stress at
midspan?
> If you have a large enough beam and the calculations show that you
still
> have an excess strength of safety factor, then why not buy a narrower
beam.
Because the beam is already up there..?
> Save your money.
?!
> Steel beams are expensive. Why waste your money or product value by
> drilling a hole in it?
Actually, you're wrong. They're not expensive, they're economical.
That's why they're there in the first place.
> There are three accepted ways to attach members to a beam.
>
> One is to clamp to the beam, and many steel clamp products are
commercially
> available. Clamps provide a way to attach other components.
True.
> Two is to bolt "L" clips onto the web of the beam, and under specific
> conditions, and enabled by specific designs, drilled holes in the web
will
> not reduce the strength of a beam by nearly as much as that would
occur by
> drilling the flanges. Holes must be drilled only near the neutral
axis of
> the beam, that is, as near the center longitudinal axis of the beam
as
> possible. Beam clips at the end of the beam at the web are not in the
area
> of the beam where there is maximum strain, and the beam does not
suffer as
> much of a reduction of strength or deflection due to holes at that
location.
Now you're assuming that shear wasn't the governing factor in the beam
design. You're probably right, but it's still an assumption.
> Again, calculations will govern. That is important.
>
> Two is to weld "L" clips onto the web of the beam. That does not
reduce the
> amount of force-resisting material in the section of the beam. Tiny
> differences of metallurgy occur, but given correct welding practices
and
> beam metallurgy, the welding method is the stronger when compared to
bolts.
And how does he get the connection from the welded bracket to the
underside of the beam? If you want him to put the wall on the side of
the beam, and not mess with the beam, just say that. That was my
initial advice to him.
> Bolts are use for speed of assembly. Structural engineers should
always be
> consulted.
Shot pins are used for speed of assembly, bolts are used primarily for
ease of assembly when the memmbers are fabricated off site.
> You have not provided enough information about your intended design.
>
> For your application I would say that you would be safe by leaving
the beam
> in place as undrilled. Use wood blocking around the beam and enclose
it
> with blocking attached to the joists above. Use plywood and GWB
according
> to your plan. Steel clamps are possible, however, your added
partition is
> not a primary load bearing element. Simply ignore the beam and encase
it
> with wood and GWB as is required by your design.
Can't argue with that.
> BTW, a house in NYC may be a ten to twenty storey heavy steel framed
> building. Do you have a parking garage in the basement of your
building? A
> house in Kentucky could be a double wide with a some 28 to 20 ga.
light
> steel framing elements here and there. What indeed are you talking
about?
No one, in NYC, or anywhere else, would call a ten story building a
house. If the guy had a ten floor apartment/condo/building I tend to
doubt he'd be doing the work himself.
> On second thought, since the existing conditions were not of interest
to
> you, and since the the specific designs and sizes of the elements
involved
> were not of interest to you, I wish to recant on all of my above
> statements. You should discuss the matter with a professional civil
or
> structural engineer.
Wouldn't this have been a good point to _delete_ all that crap above
before you posted it?!
> Ralph Hertle
>
>
> PS:
>
> A 5% reduction of the cross sectional area of the top or bottom two
flanges
> is 1/20 of the area. That, when the calculations are made, will allow
a
> measurable increase in the deflection of the beam given a certain
context
> of forces etc.
>
> The 5% reduction of material in the critical flange area is borrowed
from
> the deflection resistance of the beam or from the safety factor
regarding
> the resistance to beam failure.
>
> There are plenty of non-invasive ways to connect to the beam, two of
which
> are the use of clamps and simple plywood encasing.
>
> RH
Thought you recanted all of that?
You have mastered the art of obfuscation. I stand in awe.
Sheesh.
R
3D Peruna
>
>
> Thought you recanted all of that?
>
> You have mastered the art of obfuscation. I stand in awe.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> R
Especially since he apparently didn't read any of the posts from the
engineers. Let's see...I would trust Ralph? Or an engineer? Ralph?
Engineer? Hmmmmm....I dunno.
JerryD(upstateNY)
holes drilled/shot into it, would cause the whole house to collapse. LOL !!!
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Ralph Hertle
[CLIP]
>
> Ralph, your reply to Bruce's post is misleading in so many ways I can
> scarcely believe you wrote this.
>
>
Misleading to you, perhaps. I was simply stating proper design principles
and not the exceptions to them.
>>The general structural principle is to not reduce the cross sectional
>>area of the beam flanges in any way whatsoever.
>
>
> If it is a general structural principle, than there should be no
> problem in citing a reference. Please do.
>
Every college text ever written that deals with the subjects of Statics and
Strength of Materials.
>
>>That means no drilled holes, no notching, and no coping. In the non-
>>beam/column areas there may be qualified exceptions that are based
>>upon the engineers calculations and designs.
>>
>>A hole drilled in either the tension or the compression flange may
>
>
>
>>reduce the cross sectional area of that flange by a significant
>>amount, say by 10 percent. Do the arithmetic.
>
>
> He's attaching a plate, not bolting up an engine hoist. The holes from
> pins are what?, a little over an eighth of an inch. How small of a
> beam are you assuming he has up there?
>
I understand you from the conceptual and design idea standpoint, but in
engineering that's only half the matter. Mathematical calculations
determine whether there is sufficient deformation resisting material in the
right places to do the job. Math is important.
The most general principle concerning beams is that the cross sectional
area should never be reduced. The original calculations were done to
correctly size the beam, and that should not be interfered with. If the
engineer can say that the beam was sufficiently larger than necessary to
begin with he will specify how many holes may be made and where they may be
located.
>
>>That increases the beam deflection and stress in the local area, and
>>it reduces the ultimate strength by similar amount based upon the
>>section profile and the calculations.
>
>
> You're obviously not worried about shear, as the web is not affected,
> so it's Fbmax you're worried about. Would there be a problem in
> shooting pins 4' OC and keeping them away from the highest stress at
> midspan?
>
An I-beam generally has two types of shear, and regarding shear
calculations the weakest place in a beam are in the web near the end
supports. Regarding longitudinal shear holes any where weaken the beam in
terms of shear forces.
Deflection in bending is the main problem. For every 1/8" hole that is
drilled in an 8" steel beam and if the center of a 2 story building is the
loading there will be a measurable amount of deflection.
If you are talking shear forces the highest stress longitudinally may be
any where in the beam web. Add to that the vertical shear forces at the end
or middle supports and web stiffeners may be needed. The maximum sheer
stress would more likely be in the web near the supports.
Or are you speaking of stress due to the bending moment in the beam? That
usually occurs between the beams for point uniform loading, however, if
there is a point loading near a support where the maximum shear stresses
are located the failure point may be near the support. It all depends on
the loaded design and calculations.
>
>>If you have a large enough beam and the calculations show that you
>>still have an excess strength of safety factor, then why not buy
> a narrower beam.
>
> Because the beam is already up there..?
>
Of course.
>
>>Save your money.
>
>
> ?!
Of course, again.
>
>
>>Steel beams are expensive. Why waste your money or product value by
>>drilling a hole in it?
>
>
> Actually, you're wrong. They're not expensive, they're economical.
> That's why they're there in the first place.
>
In terms of overall economy for a certain purpose, yes.
Its context.
Wood or masonry are cheaper supports. However, the convenience of having an
open space beneath the floor above was probably deemed worth the extra
money for the price of the steel.
>
>>There are three accepted ways to attach members to a beam.
>>One is to clamp to the beam, and many steel clamp products are
>>commercially available. Clamps provide a way to attach other
>>components.
>
>
> True.
>
>
>>Two is to bolt "L" clips onto the web of the beam, and under specific
>>conditions, and enabled by specific designs, drilled holes in the web
>>will not reduce the strength of a beam by nearly as much as that would
>>occur by drilling the flanges. Holes must be drilled only near the
>>neutral axis of the beam, that is, as near the center longitudinal
>>axis of the beam as possible. Beam clips at the end of the beam at
>>the web are not in the area of the beam where there is maximum strain,
>>and the beam does not suffer as much of a reduction of strength or
>>deflection due to holes at that location.
>
> Now you're assuming that shear wasn't the governing factor in the beam
> design. You're probably right, but it's still an assumption.
>
>
True. Bruce didn't provide enough information.
>>Again, calculations will govern. That is important.
>>Two is to weld "L" clips onto the web of the beam. That does not
>>reduce the amount of force-resisting material in the section of the
>>beam. Tiny differences of metallurgy occur, but given correct
>>welding practices and beam metallurgy, the welding method is the
>>stronger when compared to bolts.
>
> And how does he get the connection from the welded bracket to the
> underside of the beam? If you want him to put the wall on the side of
> the beam, and not mess with the beam, just say that. That was my
> initial advice to him.
>
You are stroking. The clip is bent.
You are prevaricating, guessing what Bruce's intentions are.
Why don't you ask him to produce a little text sketch for us and find the
facts of the matter.
>>Bolts are use for speed of assembly. Structural engineers should
>>always be consulted.
>
>
> Shot pins are used for speed of assembly, bolts are used primarily for
> ease of assembly when the memmbers are fabricated off site.
>
>
>>You have not provided enough information about your intended design.
>>For your application I would say that you would be safe by leaving
>>the beam in place as undrilled. Use wood blocking around the beam
>>and enclose it with blocking attached to the joists above. Use
>>plywood and GWB according to your plan. Steel clamps are possible,
>>however, your added partition is not a primary load bearing element.
>
>
>
>>Simply ignore the beam and encase it with wood and GWB as is
>>required by your design.
>
>
> Can't argue with that.
>
Cheaper too.
>
>>BTW, a house in NYC may be a ten to twenty storey heavy steel framed
>>building. Do you have a parking garage in the basement of your
>>building? A house in Kentucky could be a double wide with a some
>>28 to 20 ga light steel framing elements here and there. What
>>indeed are you talking about?
>
> No one, in NYC, or anywhere else, would call a ten story building a
> house. If the guy had a ten floor apartment/condo/building I tend to
> doubt he'd be doing the work himself.
>
Go to New York City. I've lived there for many years. They do call
apartment buildings of all sizes apartment houses.
Bruce remained silent.
clip to end]
JTMcC
JTMcC.
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:422B99...@verizon.net...
RicodJour
>
> Go to New York City. I've lived there for many years. They do call
> apartment buildings of all sizes apartment houses.
You mean you want me to get in the car and drive twenty-five minutes?
Why? No one, not even you, would call an apartment house a house.
The point that you're either ignoring or ignorant of, is that the
person that specified the beam in the basement of a house, didn't spec
out the EXACT size (the beam wasn't fabricated to anything other than
length). They either pulled the size from a chart, or did the
calculations, then picked the closest _larger_ size beam.
Such drivel as "economical in that context" is, well, drivel. What's
the absolute economy for you? Not building the house in the first
place?
You oviously have no experience in design, or construction. I know
you're the man when it comes to Microstation. Can we just leave it at
that?
R
JTMcC
>
> BTW, a house in NYC may be a ten to twenty storey heavy steel framed
> building. Do you have a parking garage in the basement of your building? A
> house in Kentucky could be a double wide with a some 28 to 20 ga. light
> steel framing elements here and there. What indeed are you talking about?
> Ralph Hertle
Wow, they're building houses with twenty floors in New York City!? And heavy
steel frames!? Then let me ask you this Ralph, if the "house is twenty
floors, and framed with heavy steel, and the beams are spec'd so tight and
light that a series of 1/8" holes on 2' centers of the bottom flange will
cause a failure, then what happens when the 220 lbs. Ironworker w/30 lbs of
tools bebops out to the center of those beams to pull the chocker?? We would
have multiple beam failures during erection.
As for the Kentucky comment, I've been to Kentucky and they have a lot of
beautiful countryside, a lot of beautiful women, and an abundance of very
nice homes, your comment reeks of the old east coast arisocrat snobbery. One
of those rednecks living in a double wide would most likely kick your butt
within a week by the way.
JTMcC.
JTMcC
"Phil Scott" <philsc...@sf.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:u%eUd.1121$C47...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
You are assuming no beam deflection, or, that your wedged wall will assure
no beam deflection. You couldn't get away with either assumption in
commercial/industrial construction, as someone already said.
In a house that might hold true (I don't know), but I'd be concerned with
wall damage the first time their teenage daughter has a large group of her
crazy dancing friends over, or the first time they move a gun safe into the
house, or the first time their increadibly fat aunt comes to visit. In
commercial construction you commonly see clips or slip track with 3/4" or so
designed in.
JTMcC.
>>
>>
>
>
Bobk207
JTMcC Mar 6, 6:16 pm
>>>but I'd be concerned with wall damage the first time their teenage
daughter has a large group of her crazy dancing friends over, or the
first time they move a gun safe into the house, or the first time their
increadibly fat aunt comes to visit. <<<<<
Surely you're joking? The OP said it was a basement in a house not
industrial / commercial space. The 2x4 framed wall is much stiffer
than the exsiting steel beam when considering resisting any floor load
above it.........that's why basements (cheaper ones) tend to have
posts/columns right where you don't want them. Think of the wall as a
bunch of really light posts all in a row.
The house was probably designed for 10psf DL & 40 psf LL. Adding the
wall can only improve the floor behavior.
Run the calcs & be untroubled.
cheers
Bob
indago
>
> The most general principle concerning beams is that the cross sectional
> area should never be reduced. The original calculations were done to
> correctly size the beam, and that should not be interfered with. If the
> engineer can say that the beam was sufficiently larger than necessary to
> begin with he will specify how many holes may be made and where they may be
> located.
>
Yes, we couldn't be just drilling holes in a beam "higglety-pigglety", now
can we!
Phil Scott
Id wedge the wall under the beam, flush with the edge of the
bottom flange so the sheet rock screwed to the studs can
extend up to covah da beeeem.
Screw the engineering, none of it is going anywhere. if the
steel beam was sufficient before it will be 5x as sufficient
with a wall jammed under it... and as you said a couple of
1/8" pins wont weaken the beam, it becomes irrelevant with a
bearing wall beneath the beam anyway.
THEN I would all in a team of geologists to make sure that you
dont put too much pressure on the earth in that spot and cause
a bulge on the oposite side in China.
Phil Scott
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1109956662....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Phil Scott
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gfEWd.77110$H05....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I never knew the beam in a house was so stressed that four
or five 1/8"
> holes drilled/shot into it, would cause the whole house to
collapse. LOL !!!
Oh ya.... one pin and the entire things sinks into the earth,
all thats left is a little sheet rock dust for a minute or
so... if for some reason there is no collapse, and a city
inspector comes by and notices the pins, they arrest the owner
and send him to gitmo for interrogation
Flaunt the law at yer own risk
>
> --
> JerryD(upstateNY)
>
>
>
>
Phil Scott
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> [CLIP]
> >
> > Ralph, your reply to Bruce's post is misleading in so many
ways I can
> > scarcely believe you wrote this.
> >
> >
>
>
> Misleading to you, perhaps. I was simply stating proper
design principles
> and not the exceptions to them.
You stated all the proper design principles for steel
spans under heavy loads.
This beam with a wall under it ceases to be an open span.
The heavy load is then partially supported by the new wall
section so its all going in the direction of less stress on
the beam..a few dinky pins in it wont cause a
problem...because there is NOW a wall under the beam.. with
studs in it... and for you since you are so worried, a couple
of 4x6 posts in place of a few of the studs.
Those dont compress much.
None of it is going anywhere.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
"indago" <elin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BE53314C.5A1E%elin...@earthlink.net...
I could. I have a high speed hole shooter I could drill
the shit out of that beam before you could drink half a can of
beer,
Phil Scott...=
>
Phil Scott
"JTMcC" <firstra...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:5GOWd.534$P15...@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4227AC82...@verizon.net...
>
> >
> > BTW, a house in NYC may be a ten to twenty storey heavy
steel framed
> > building. Do you have a parking garage in the basement of
your building? A
> > house in Kentucky could be a double wide with a some 28 to
20 ga. light
> > steel framing elements here and there. What indeed are you
talking about?
> > Ralph Hertle
>
> Wow, they're building houses with twenty floors in New York
City!? And heavy
> steel frames!? Then let me ask you this Ralph, if the "house
is twenty
> floors, and framed with heavy steel, and the beams are
spec'd so tight and
> light that a series of 1/8" holes on 2' centers of the
bottom flange will
> cause a failure, then what happens when the 220 lbs.
Ironworker w/30 lbs of
> tools bebops out to the center of those beams to pull the
chocker?? We would
> have multiple beam failures during erection.
YES yes...now you are talking... all this needs to be calc'd..
how fat is the iron worker..all that. or sudden collapse could
happen any second.
Thats I send an apprentice to drill holes in a beam while I
stand out by the truck.
>
> As for the Kentucky comment, I've been to Kentucky and they
have a lot of
> beautiful countryside, a lot of beautiful women, and an
abundance of very
> nice homes, your comment reeks of the old east coast
arisocrat snobbery.
We have that in california too.
One
> of those rednecks living in a double wide
ahhhh begs yer pardon.
indago
I REALLY doubt that...
JTMcC
I've not mentioned collapse, my concern would be damage to the wall from
beam deflection. A steel beam only needs to sag a very small amount to
damage drywall, like I said, in commercial/industrial construction they
routinely leave 3/4' or more room for movement between structural steel and
partitions. Beams certainly do sag, in this small residential application
all might be well but rolling that safe across the floor couuld result in
unpleasant crumbling drywall. And no I'm not joking, I've moved a lot of
heavy things including safes and wall finishes are pretty easily dinged.
We've shored up everything from basements to bridges, I might be a bit
consevative but I've never had to use my liability policy, yet.
JTMcC
>
Ralph Hertle
You offer sound advice.
All beams bend or deflect under load. In fact they increase in strength
where the material is so designed to be efficient in resisting the forces
applied. The beam deflects and holds as greater loads are added, and then
the beam can support no more, and it gives throughout the elastic range of
the material. When the plastic range of the material is reached great
defection occurs with only the smallest additions of load, that is, until
the point of failure.
I say, based upon general principles, that the beam should be left as is.
The cover for the beam may be PLW and GWB boxing. If it is necessary to
bolt or pin cleats, ledgers, or blocking to the beam the pins or other
fasteners should be fixed to the neutral axis of the web of the beam, and
again according to proper engineering design principles.
If two holes are drilled in a flange, and 10% of the total flange material
of the beam is removed, that means that 20% of the material of one flange
is removed. If the beam was designed with a 2 times safety factor before
failure, not mentioning the deformation, deflection, and elasticity prior
to failure, then 40% of the safety factor has been removed.
A 1/8" diam. hole in the flange of a 2" x 2" sheet steel beam may not seem
like much, for example, but a row of holes will produce additional
deflection in the region of each hole. Party, deformation of the flange,
sag, and then failure.
Ralph Hertle
Duane Bozarth
>
...re: the tempest in a teapot over the beam failure from a few small
holes in a flange...
>
> You offer sound advice.
>
> All beams bend or deflect under load.
So far, so good...
> ...In fact they increase in strength
Not so good...the ultimate strength is independent of load...
...
> If two holes are drilled in a flange, and 10% of the total flange material
> of the beam is removed, that means that 20% of the material of one flange
> is removed. If the beam was designed with a 2 times safety factor before
> failure, not mentioning the deformation, deflection, and elasticity prior
> to failure, then 40% of the safety factor has been removed.
Doesn't follow...the strength isn't directly proportional to a reduction
in area by the removal of material in the form of a small hole. There
will be some stress concentration around the hole area, granted.
> A 1/8" diam. hole in the flange of a 2" x 2" sheet steel beam may not seem
> like much, for example, but a row of holes will produce additional
> deflection in the region of each hole. Party, deformation of the flange,
> sag, and then failure.
It would take >16 (16.3, actually) 1/8" D holes/running-foot of a 2"
wide beam to remove 10% of the material. One hole/foot would be
pi/2*(1/8^2)/2 per foot ~= 1%
It's a nit imo from an actual concern although from a practical
standpoint it would be wise to fasten it in a manner that would allow
for some movement as it will probably alleviate future drywall cracking,
etc., from other inevitable settling movement over the years...
Ralph Hertle
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
> ...re: the tempest in a teapot over the beam failure from a few small
> holes in a flange...
>
>>You offer sound advice.
>>
>>All beams bend or deflect under load.
>
>
> So far, so good...
>
>
>>...In fact they increase in strength
>
>
> Not so good...the ultimate strength is independent of load...
>
Load causes deflection, and deflection causes strain. Ultimate strength is
a function of stress, strain and the properties of the material. Design
makes use of the properties of materials; and heavy steel frame
construction is accordingly different from reinforced concrete frame
construction.
> ...
>
>>If two holes are drilled in a flange, and 10% of the total flange material
>>of the beam is removed, that means that 20% of the material of one flange
>>is removed. If the beam was designed with a 2 times safety factor before
>>failure, not mentioning the deformation, deflection, and elasticity prior
>>to failure, then 40% of the safety factor has been removed.
>
>
> Doesn't follow...the strength isn't directly proportional to a reduction
> in area by the removal of material in the form of a small hole. There
> will be some stress concentration around the hole area, granted.
>
I didn't intend to be that specific. I merely intended to illustrate the
principle of the safety factor using approximate relationships. I should
have been more specific about the principles and more general about the
numbers.
Stress concentration around the hole is a factor, and that is the reason
why holes, notching, and coping should only be done if the engineer creates
a design to provide for the additional strength made possible by the use of
additional material or different shapes.
The point that I was attempting to get across to the reader was that the
removal of the material from the flanges, and in terms of the ultimate
strength, causes the safety factor to first be diminished.
>
>>A 1/8" diam. hole in the flange of a 2" x 2" sheet steel beam may not seem
>>like much, for example, but a row of holes will produce additional
>>deflection in the region of each hole. Party, deformation of the flange,
>>sag, and then failure.
>
>
> It would take >16 (16.3, actually) 1/8" D holes/running-foot of a 2"
> wide beam to remove 10% of the material. One hole/foot would be
> pi/2*(1/8^2)/2 per foot ~= 1%
>
> It's a nit imo from an actual concern although from a practical
> standpoint it would be wise to fasten it in a manner that would allow
> for some movement as it will probably alleviate future drywall cracking,
> etc., from other inevitable settling movement over the years...
Holes placed in the neutral axis of the beam web affect the deflection the
least. The holes placed in the area of the four flanges affect the
deflection of the beam many times more. Depending on the beam design the
decrease in strength of the beam due to a hole in a flange could be as much
as 100 times as much as a same size hole in the neutral axis. Where should
the material be removed?
Its better to drive pins into the neutral axis of the beam, and that is in
the web. Pins don't require the removal of as much material as drilled
holes, of course.
Unsymmetrical placement of hole features in the flanges may cause uneven
deformation of the beam, and I-beams, for example, are extremely sensitive
to non-symmetrical loadings, lateral loads, and twisting.
The properties of the material are a cause of strength. Heat dramatically
alters the force resisting properties of steel frame buildings. Years ago a
warehouse-pier on the NJ side of NY Harbor burned. Everything was gone
except for the frame. The frame was so distorted that it could no longer
support even its own weight, All the frame was distorted, and half of it
looked like a heap of rubber bands.
If Bruce wants to box in the beam, he could save on fastener and driver
costs by the addition of a 5/8" GWB cover over 1/2" PLYW and continuous
blocking. That will give the beam approximately 1 hour rated protection. A
GWB 1 hour rated ceiling is also a good idea, and the NYC Code would
require that. If it is convenient to the floor plan layout the GWB could be
extended up alongside the beam box, and there would be little net
additional cost for the GWB boxing. Someone else had mentioned that I believe.
Bruce still hasn't told us the dimensions of the beam and support
locations. Until he tells us, I say that there should be no advice
concerning metal removal or alterations to the existing structure.
Ralph Hertle
Duane Bozarth
>
> Duane:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Ralph Hertle wrote:
> >
> > ...re: the tempest in a teapot over the beam failure from a few small
> > holes in a flange...
> >
> >>You offer sound advice.
> >>
> >>All beams bend or deflect under load.
> >
> >
> > So far, so good...
> >
> >
> >>...In fact they increase in strength
> >
> >
> > Not so good...the ultimate strength is independent of load...
> >
>
> Load causes deflection, and deflection causes strain. Ultimate strength is
> a function of stress, strain and the properties of the material. Design
> makes use of the properties of materials; and heavy steel frame
> construction is accordingly different from reinforced concrete frame
> construction.
It's a point of view--the stress/strain is a function of load and
geometry as well as material, but the ultimate strength is a fixed
(within uncertainties,etc.) value for a given beam design and
material...as you noted, designs run w/ differing factors of safety for
various purposes...
RicodJour
>
> The point that I was attempting to get across to the reader was that
the
> removal of the material from the flanges, and in terms of the
ultimate
> strength, causes the safety factor to first be diminished.
There is no removed material with a shot pin. The steel deforms around
the pin and is pushed up and out. Essentially that consolidates and
reinforces the surrounding steel for that miniscule hole you are
worried about, doesn't it?
> Its better to drive pins into the neutral axis of the beam, and that
is in
> the web. Pins don't require the removal of as much material as
drilled
> holes, of course.
>
> Unsymmetrical placement of hole features in the flanges may cause
uneven
> deformation of the beam, and I-beams, for example, are extremely
sensitive
> to non-symmetrical loadings, lateral loads, and twisting.
I can't remember the last time I ran into a beam in residential
construction that wasn't determined by deflection, and not ultimate
load. If several pins are shot, one will be the most critical. It
will probably change that 1/360 deflection to 1/358. Oh, the horrors!
It won't affect anything that you will ever see, experience or
encounter, Ralph. It just won't.
> The properties of the material are a cause of strength. Heat
dramatically
> alters the force resisting properties of steel frame buildings. Years
ago a
> warehouse-pier on the NJ side of NY Harbor burned. Everything was
gone
> except for the frame. The frame was so distorted that it could no
longer
> support even its own weight, All the frame was distorted, and half of
it
> looked like a heap of rubber bands.
Wow! I'll have to remember that. Conflagarations can be bad for your
edifice complex.
> If Bruce wants to box in the beam, he could save on fastener and
driver
> costs by the addition of a 5/8" GWB cover over 1/2" PLYW and
continuous
> blocking. That will give the beam approximately 1 hour rated
protection. A
> GWB 1 hour rated ceiling is also a good idea, and the NYC Code would
> require that. If it is convenient to the floor plan layout the GWB
could be
> extended up alongside the beam box, and there would be little net
> additional cost for the GWB boxing. Someone else had mentioned that I
believe.
No need for the plywood.
> Bruce still hasn't told us the dimensions of the beam and support
> locations. Until he tells us, I say that there should be no advice
> concerning metal removal or alterations to the existing structure.
By definition we're talking in generalities here. If he gives the
exact dimensions and conditions, are you going to engineer it for him?
> Ralph Hertle
Concepts in Ralph's mirror may appear larger in his mind.
R
JerryD(upstateNY)
Anyone who has ever heated a piece of steel red hot and bent it or anyone
who has seen it done, probably knows this.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Ralph Hertle
RicodJour wrote:
[CLIP]
> There is no removed material with a shot pin. The steel deforms around
> the pin and is pushed up and out. Essentially that consolidates and
> reinforces the surrounding steel for that miniscule hole you are
> worried about, doesn't it?
>
A pin deforms material radially, and some of that is longitudinal. Some is
vertical, and only the material moved vertically can act to resist tension
and compression forces. Such material for a drilled hole has been totally
removed. The internal stress around the pin hole are greater. One has to
see the engineering test results to determine under which conditions the
beam is stronger or weaker.
>
> I can't remember the last time I ran into a beam in residential
> construction that wasn't determined by deflection, and not ultimate
> load. If several pins are shot, one will be the most critical. It
> will probably change that 1/360 deflection to 1/358. Oh, the horrors!
> It won't affect anything that you will ever see, experience or
> encounter, Ralph. It just won't.
>
>
Bruce may have a sheet metal C-joist that is used as a beam. C-joists for
the same amount of material and beam depth are considerably less strong
than WF or I-beams.
Bruce may have a C-beam that is made out of 24 ga CR steel and is 2" x 2"
in section size by 4'0" long.
Or, his beam may be 14" x 12" or 1/4" x 1/8" by 10'0" long. You have no
idea at all how big or heavy that beam is.
No engineer would ever make any recommendations whatsoever with out the facts.
You can minimize the arguments that are based on factual science all you
want, but whatever you imagine to be strong or not strong is just pie in
the sky with out the facts.
You've been trolled.
>
>>Ralph Hertle
>
>
> Concepts in Ralph's mirror may appear larger in his mind.
>
> R
>
Bruce may have a substantial beam with a safety factor of 4 times, or one
with only 1 times. Or the deflection may currently be 1:1000 or only 1:10.
If it is the latter there will be one hell of a lot of flex in the beam.
I advocate facts. After the facts are known they may be considered in the
context of proper engineering design and calculations.
Before shooting your mouth off I suggest that you first get the correct facts.
Ralph Hertle
Nichevo
Some is
>vertical, and only the material moved vertically can act to resist
tension
>and compression forces. Such material for a drilled hole has been
totally
>removed. The internal stress around the pin hole are greater. One has
to
>see the engineering test results to determine under which conditions
the
>beam is stronger or weaker.
The pin is fired in at such a velocity that the steel will act as an
elastic manner, it will split out and then try to reform it's original
shape(consequently pressing against the pin and holding it) I would
postulate that any loss of total strength could be measured in ounces
for the average red-iron beam...
Perhaps we will do as you suggest and hire an international team of
metalurgist to investigate this particular beam, we could utilize some
x-ray scans of the beam to determine if their are any cracks beyond 3
microns, as a final test we could load it into a particle accelerator
to ensure that the neutrons have the right charge.
>Bruce may have a sheet metal C-joist that is used as a beam. C-joists
for
>the same amount of material and beam depth are considerably less
strong
>than WF or I-beams.
Do you think this will meet the maximum deflection standards of 240???
>Bruce may have a C-beam that is made out of 24 ga CR steel and is 2" x
2"
>in section size by 4'0" long.
He may also have three toothpick and some JBweld, however I am
reasonably confident that an inspector may have had slight concerns
about this arrangement well before he was inquiring about building a
wall...
>Or, his beam may be 14" x 12" or 1/4" x 1/8" by 10'0" long. You have
no
>idea at all how big or heavy that beam is.
We do know that it won't pass unless it's deflection is atleast 240...
>No engineer would ever make any recommendations whatsoever with out
the facts.
Really? I know plenty of engineers that make many stupid suggestions
without even a grip on reality. I also know many good engineers that
give basic advice based upon reasonable assumptions...
>You can minimize the arguments that are based on factual science all
you
>want, but whatever you imagine to be strong or not strong is just pie
in
>the sky with out the facts.
Perhaps the house is built in a lagrange point, and gravity is null...
>Bruce may have a substantial beam with a safety factor of 4 times, or
one
>with only 1 times. Or the deflection may currently be 1:1000 or only
1:10.
>If it is the latter there will be one hell of a lot of flex in the
beam.
You must have watched alot of Mr. Wizard as a kid.
>I advocate facts. After the facts are known they may be considered in
the
>context of proper engineering design and calculations.
Do you rebuild your lawnmore before every cutting to ensure that the
machine has adequate power/compression? Do you even know the tensile
strength of grass!!!
>Before shooting your mouth off I suggest that you first get the
correct facts.
I think you should relax a little. The original poster was only
wondering about how to attach a wall to a beam. He wasn't asking us if
he could move in a 2000 gallon aquarium.
Stanley Barthfarkle
> 1/8" long then pounding them in so they wedge the top plate up
> against the bottom of the beam... use an overdose of
> resiliant construction adhesive under the top plate.. that
> alone would probably come close to holding the wall in place.
Watch doing it this way- I did this in our basement and have floor squeaks
above it now as a result.
JerryD(upstateNY)
Squeaks are quite easy to fix if you can get to the underside of the floor.
Stand on a ladder and have someone step on and off the floor where the
squeak is, so you can locate it.
Where ever the floor squeaks, put a bead of liquid nails along the joint of
the flooring/joist or joist/beam.
Try to get as much mastic into the joint as you can.
Let it cure 24 hours and try to make the floor squeak again.
If it squeaks, go find the spot and do the same thing.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)