Replies

1. 
   jimatgreatwhite | Jun 22, 2002 08:26am | #1

   yes glue and the flatest straightest stock you have. Make SURE to either center your plate or fully cap the beam. You won't like the twist if you don't.

2. 
   CloudHidden | Jun 22, 2002 09:15am | #2

   We've used a number of beams roughly this size, and the engineer specified 1/2" holes in the top flange every 36" alternating sides. The 2x8 was then attached with carriage bolts.

   In another case where we didn't want to lose the headroom underneath the joists, we welded top-mount Simpson hangers to the beam, added some wood filler at the bottom flange, and used 14" TJI's.

3. 
   Redfly | Jun 22, 2002 08:03pm | #3

   I've had good luck using a Ramset and const. adhesive to attach 2x to steel.  I've also seen clips that attach to the side flanges of the beam, but don't have any idea where to get such a thing.

   Dont drop that thing on your foot.

1. 
   CloudHidden | Jun 22, 2002 11:49pm | #6

   >  I've had good luck using a Ramset

   I once tried a Ramset on a W12x35 and it barely made a dent. This guy's got a W14x52. That flange is gonna be 1/2" give or take. None of the .22 charges I had woulda touched that.

   ###

   To the question of 1/2" holes spaces as I mentioned, I can't tell you the theoretical effect on strength, other than I asked my engineer at the time be/c I had the same question and he said it had no effect on my application. At what spacing would it? I dunno, but he's had me put holes into the web at times without needing to resize the beam. I'm not suggesting you do it--just saying I've done it on advice of a structural engineer.

1. 
   Snort | Jun 23, 2002 03:03am | #7

   Cloud, I've had to pull off 2x framing that was ramset to I beams, and it was a bitch. The fasteners hardly penetrated the steel, but they stuck like crazy. Maybe there's special hot melt fasteners? I'll ask the framer next time I see him...I'd go with the flush framing, but I'm missing why the worry about lateral deflection in this case?

2. 
   Redfly | Jun 23, 2002 09:25am | #8

   I'm sure you're right that a Ramset wouldn't penetrate 1/2" steel, but we have used them many times on steel moment-frame flanges that must be 1/4"-3/8" and had good success. 

3. 
   akjim | Jun 23, 2002 10:11pm | #10

   New idea: cut 8 inch pieces of metal channel stock(top of beam is 8 inches wide). Predrill holes in the sides of the channel. Weld these pieces of channel on layout on top of the beam. Set the floor joists into the channel. Screw or thru-bolt using the predrilled holes.

   This would give me my added lateral stabilization and should not compromise the integrity of the beam.

   Thoughts? Thanks for all the input.

1. 
   Hector45 | Jun 23, 2002 10:37pm | #11

   If the flanges of your beam are 8 inches wide, it's not worth the effort to weld channels to attach to.  Half-inch holes on 36" spacing will make virtually zero difference in the strength/stiffness of the beam.  (BTW, I'm a structural engineer.  Aerospace though, not civil.)

   As far as lateral stablizing, I think you're going a bit overboard.  I doubt that you have any true buckling concerns.  But if you did, you'd need to stablize the whole beam and not just the top flange.  If you don't, the beam could twist and the bottom flange cripple.  (Just as the other poster suggested)  All of that is beside the point.  Unless you've got some tremendous loads you're not mentioning, like 100' annual snowfall, you're worrying over nothing.

   If the engineer spec'd these beams without additional lateral stablizing, trust him and move on. 

4. 
   tjcarcht | Jun 22, 2002 09:21pm | #4

   Moody - I assume that you ask this question because you would like to use the load capacity for this beam based on laterally stabilized construction.  The answer to your question is, if the floor joists sit on top of the beam you CANNOT stabilize it.  Lateral stability involves prevention of failure of the bottom flange to the side under load, which in wood frame construction means flush framing.  Lateral stability to a structural engineer under most circumstances applies more to a steel frame with intermediate members framing into the W14.  In your case, of course checking with YOUR engineer :o), you'd best use the tables for non-stabilized beams if I have correctly assumed your conditions.

   T. Jeffery Clarke

   Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum

1. 
   akjim | Jun 22, 2002 10:04pm | #5

   Thanks for the info. This beam was spec'd without any lateral stabilization; however, it can only help its load carrying capacity. Would drilling half inch holes and using lag/carriage bolts significantly decrease its strength? Otherwise glue seems the only way to attach a plate.

1. 
   tjcarcht | Jun 23, 2002 10:10pm | #9

   Standard hole punching won't hurt the strength.  My point was that lateral stabilization refers to the bottom flange ONLY.   Nothing that you attach to the top can provide lateral stabilization, since on loading the (unstabilized) mode of failure is bottom flange crippling to the side.  Nothing of the sort that you are describing done on the top of the beam will make any difference.T. Jeffery Clarke

   Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum

1. 
   akjim | Jun 24, 2002 08:14am | #12

   The W14 by 53 beam was sped'c to carry 1000 lbs./LF unsupported over a span of 32'. That fulfills my needs. However, I figure anything I can do to enhance its load carrying capacity is a bonus.

   Sounds like short of putting a post in the middle (not an option), there is nothing I can do.

   Options? Agree?

   Big learning curve on this end. Thanks for the lessons.

1. 
   CloudHidden | Jun 24, 2002 05:08pm | #13

   There are at least two ways to handle a beam and joists.

   View Image

   Maybe Jeff or someone can comment on the difference in the two from a loading perspective. I've done both, usually picking the method that's most convenient for controlling (or not) the protrusion of the i-beam into the room. The engineer determines what's needed for that load and that method, so I don't know the answer--just some of the possibilities.

2. 
   akjim | Jun 25, 2002 07:41am | #14

   Great graphics.

   My plan has the joists on top of the beam. From what I understand now, mechanically attaching the joist to the top of the beam will not help with lateral stabilization. Will probably glue a 2x8 to the beam and toe nail the joists. Simple, easy, and fast.

   Question: if the joists were attached to the side of the beam as in the graphic on the left, would this be lateral stabilization? It would stabilze the lower web. But how would I attach TGIs to a steel beam? Weld some type of joist hanger onto the beam?

   Onward!

3. 
   CloudHidden | Jun 25, 2002 07:51am | #15

   I can't/won't speak towards the engineering implications, but to attach the beams to the side, weld an appropriate Simpson top-mount hanger (IT3514 or equal for us--but gotta be the weldable version, and not the galvanized). For us it worked well and kept the beam from protruding down into the living space, with the attendant need to build a soffit around it. Certainly took any wiggle out of the beam, too. Also made the i-joists easier to walk on be/c they couldn't tip, and we didn't need the 2x8 sill on the beam. Of course, we had to add web stiffeners, so every benefit had a cost.

   Edited 6/25/2002 12:57:30 AM ET by Cloud Hidden

4. 
   Snort | Jun 29, 2002 12:46am | #16

   I work for an architect/contractor that uses a lot of flush I beams, and used to get either humps or squeaks in the flooring. Seems the joists shrink and the steel doesn't. He's started raising the top of the joists 1/2" above the beam and also putting an isolation barrier (couple of sheets of tar paper) on top of the beam, just in case. Things are better...

5. 
   CloudHidden | Jun 29, 2002 03:10am | #17

   bb,

   With ours the 14 tji's came to a smidgeon above the top-mount Simpson hangers, which sat 1/8 ish above the beam. The plywood cleared the beam by nearly 1/4" if I remember right.

6. 
   Snort | Jun 29, 2002 03:33am | #18

   so you don't hear mice in the floor, or worse, humps in the night?

7. 
   CloudHidden | Jun 29, 2002 07:33am | #19

   Nah, too busy listening for the bear or whatever outside that's digging all over my mulch. Not messing with the plants or eating the blueberries, but spreading the mulch all over. Thinking bear be/c there's at least a few in the area and I saw what looked like one's paw print.

8. 
   Edgar76b | Jul 12, 2002 01:00am | #20

          I keep thinking about this problem. I'm not sure I understand the problem completely , Maybe I am overlooking the obvious. I am sure sombody will straighten me out.

   If you have a 2 x bolted to the top flange.  TGI's are nailed to it.  And, If the lolly poles are Bolted to the floor, and welded or Bolted  to the beam, and the beam poles are plumb and the TGI's are on top. Why not nail a 2 x 4 to the underside, perpendicular to each joist ,next to and Parallel to the beam. It will lock the flange of the beam, in It's plumb position. Like a mortise and tennon ,or a rabbit joint. The TGI's being nailed to your sill will keep them in place. Unless you hit a pole with a fork lift . Will it not remain plumb? I know essentially you are relying on the nails in the 2 x 4 to keep it secure. But what could move it?  My only Question is about nailing into the bottom of the TGI Flange. Is that Acceptable? They have issues with how you handle those TGI's don't they.

   Edited 7/12/2002 6:05:09 PM ET by Edgar76b

9. 
   tjcarcht | Jul 12, 2002 06:30am | #22

   Edgar - You have to see a failed wide-flange section to understand.  Re-read my posts above.  In an overload-to-failure condition it is the BOTTOM flange that fails by overturning to the side.  They'll find your 2 x 4 in the pool. 

   Rule #1 - Do not use laterally-braced tables unless you know how to brace a beam!

   T. Jeffery Clarke

   Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum

   Edited 7/12/2002 12:05:35 AM ET by Jeff Clarke

10. 
    Edgar76b | Jul 13, 2002 01:07am | #26

    I guess your not building a deck moody . What? Are you putting an olympic sized pool in Upstairs? Maybe you should put that on the first floor . LOL

    Don't forget your joists must be strong enough to carry that load Too.

    Edited 7/12/2002 6:10:51 PM ET by Edgar76b

2. 
   Edgar76b | Jul 12, 2002 01:14am | #21

   Don't drill it. There is a guy I know, Who can burn half inch hole through the steel. He has micrometer eyes I swear. It will take about Ten Minutes, to do them all. I have no idea about strength. I would find it hard to believe , a well placed  1/2" hole will change the strength.

   Edited 7/12/2002 6:02:10 PM ET by Edgar76b

5. 
   deabye | Jul 12, 2002 08:55am | #23

   Moody,

   I live in a seizmeic zone and the architects and engineers are having a field -day with steel,so I have dealt with quite a bit of it.

   I'm not an engineer, so consult your local boys before accepting my suggestion.

   #1    have 5/8 threaded rod welded to the top of your beam 2' O.C. staggered(1 1/2 tall)

   #2    this allows you to mechanically attach your 2x material on top(don't forget to countersink your nuts an washers)

   #3   use top flange joist hangers nailed to the top of your 2x material(if living area is above and you're worried about tico nails and hangers creating a hump in subfloor--- get the router and a straight flute and remove 3/16" where the flange will sit)

   #4    (builders choice) pack the web of your beam with scrap lumber behind an occasional joist[both sides] everyy 8' should be sufficient or not at all depending on your beam

   #5     Benefit--conserve elevation,reduce beam protrusion below ceiling line,mechanical fasteners for plate,subfloor spans and ties together

   #6    detriment-A real bitch to get mecanical routed around

   #7 good luck, hope I helped

1. 
   CloudHidden | Jul 12, 2002 07:25pm | #24

   Why not skip steps 1 and 2 and just weld the hangers?

1. 
   deabye | Jul 13, 2002 06:52pm | #30

   I'm a little ignorant when it comes to welding. Can you get adequate penetration to the beam without burning-out the hanger?

1. 
   CloudHidden | Jul 13, 2002 07:11pm | #31

   Yes. Simpson makes a version of the hanger that's thicker and not galvanized--meant exactly for welding. DO NOT use the standard galvanized ones.

2. 
   akjim | Jul 12, 2002 10:24pm | #25

   Thanks everyone for all the info/suggestions. In summary, here is the story. I am spanning 32' with a load of 900 lbs./LF, plus the weight of the beam. The carpenter spec'd out a glue lam, but that thing was about 28" deep and 14" wide and cost about $2000. This is rural Alaska and things are different.

   My suggestion to use a steel beam required me to spec the beam, the carpenter was unfamiliar with steel specs. OK, no problem, or so I thought. Just call a steel supply place in Fairbanks or Anchorage. I figured there was a chart with span and load. All I heard was "you need an engineer for that info.

   Regardless, after some searching a welder friend had a book on steel beam specs. We used that info to size the beam. We determined that a W14x48 would carry 1000 lbs./LF over a span of 32 feet. I upped that to a W14x53 for peace of mind.

   The whole lateral stabilization issue is a bonus in my mind; however, from what I have learned through this discussion, lateral stabilization appears elusive in this application.

   Bottom line: could someone double check my sizing of a W14x53 carrying 1000lbs/LF.

   Soon time to set that beam.

1. 
   BossHog | Jul 13, 2002 03:51pm | #28

   Like RAY5111, I ran it through the program I use.

   While it looks like it works, I noticed that it also shows almost 2" of deflection. Are you really willing to live with that? I sure wouldn't recommend it.

   What you need is more depth, not a heavier beam. I would never go for anything that has more than one inch of deflection.

   One other thought - A 24" deep (Or deeper) wood webbed floor truss will span 32' easily. That would solve your beam problem, if they're available in your area.

   Driver carries no cash he's married

6. 
   getgo | Jul 13, 2002 12:55pm | #27

   "The W14 by 53 beam was spec'd to carry 1000 lbs./LF unsupported over a span of 32'""

    

   I did a fast run on you situation the 14x53 fails in my design calculations in the deflection department.

   32'...1k/ft....unsupported...and I used a l/480 def.  calls for a 14x76  a-36!!

    

   or (2) 14x53..slight overkill, but it solves you bending problem.

    

   or if head room is not an issue, in wood (2)8x24..for easy nailing and installation

    

   maybe you would want to run it by your engineer again to check things over

    

   Ray

   [email protected]
1. 
   Edgar76b | Jul 13, 2002 05:29pm | #29

   I know nothing about steel. And I am reluctant ask stupid questions.

   Wouldn't adding more posts solve the deflection problem. Did someone say this was a clearspan? I missed That.

2. 
   akjim | Jul 17, 2002 06:24am | #32

   Our calculations show the w14x53 will carry 1000lbs/LF unsupported with a shade over 1" deflection.

   Beam has arrived. Scheduled for install early next week. Guess I have little choice but to go with it and see what happens. Fatalistic but also realistic. Prepped slab for a future post under the center of this beam if our calculations prove wrong.

   Quite the learning experience.

   Onward!

1. 
   BungalowJeff | Jul 17, 2002 08:40am | #33

   1 1/2" is the deflection on a W14x53 with a 32' span and 1,000 Lb/ft (about L/250)....that's not a mistake, it's rustic

1. 
   getgo | Jul 18, 2002 08:27am | #34

   Seems like this guy won't take the hint from myself, as PE, along with several others and all the other 34 responses which have taken their time and try to steer him and his "ENGINEER" as well as several others versed in proper beam design...that the correct way is to do it right the first time!

    

   Based upon you loads previously stated, and the fact that you are not addressing the torsion of the BEAM simply by checking for deflection.   Design factors should be L/480 at a min.  L/600 would be proper for the problem as stated without question. After 34 post we still do not know the actual design loads.roof, wind, snow Etc.

    

   After It was stated in the beginning  the need was for a clear 32' span....well Billy Bob after we get it up and we don't like the end results, we"ll just cut the span in two by the addition of a mid span column.  I'm sure those new footings are properly worked out to.  And what's going to keep your exterior walls from bowing out Billy Bob ??  I hope your not in a high load region.

    

   Damn, I wonder if a w12x19 a-36 with an Lb=18"--- def fact.= l/480 (.391')   would work.

   or

   Seems like you like to pull stuff ooya w10x26  Lb = 16'   def = .353" would work.

    

   Both of which would be a lot easier on you back.

    

   Well lets put this puppy to bed, cause maybe your project will be good reading in the morning local papers.

    

    

   any direct contact , feel free,,,....    (getgo at bigfoot dot com)

    [email protected]