Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    This issue discusses composite steel beam design with shear studs. It specifies a 2 inch concrete slab over 3 inch metal deck, with 3/4 inch diameter headed studs extending a minimum of 1.5 inches above the deck and 1/2 inch below the top of concrete. This satisfies AISC requirements but allows little tolerance. Two stud lengths may be needed to account for differences in stud attachment points. Maintaining the minimum 1.5 inch stud projection is more important than the 1/2 inch concrete cover. Engineering judgment is needed to address conditions at the limits of what is specified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    24 views2 pages
    This issue discusses composite steel beam design with shear studs. It specifies a 2 inch concrete slab over 3 inch metal deck, with 3/4 inch diameter headed studs extending a minimum of 1.5 inches above the deck and 1/2 inch below the top of concrete. This satisfies AISC requirements but allows little tolerance. Two stud lengths may be needed to account for differences in stud attachment points. Maintaining the minimum 1.5 inch stud projection is more important than the 1/2 inch concrete cover. Engineering judgment is needed to address conditions at the limits of what is specified.

    Original Description:

    SI-11-2016

    Original Title

    SI-11-2016

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This issue discusses composite steel beam design with shear studs. It specifies a 2 inch concrete slab over 3 inch metal deck, with 3/4 inch diameter headed studs extending a minimum of 1.5 inches above the deck and 1/2 inch below the top of concrete. This satisfies AISC requirements but allows little tolerance. Two stud lengths may be needed to account for differences in stud attachment points. Maintaining the minimum 1.5 inch stud projection is more important than the 1/2 inch concrete cover. Engineering judgment is needed to address conditions at the limits of what is specified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    24 views2 pages

    Steel Interchange: Modern Steel's Monthly Steel Interchange Is For You!

    Uploaded by

    Andres Casado
    This issue discusses composite steel beam design with shear studs. It specifies a 2 inch concrete slab over 3 inch metal deck, with 3/4 inch diameter headed studs extending a minimum of 1.5 inches above the deck and 1/2 inch below the top of concrete. This satisfies AISC requirements but allows little tolerance. Two stud lengths may be needed to account for differences in stud attachment points. Maintaining the minimum 1.5 inch stud projection is more important than the 1/2 inch concrete cover. Engineering judgment is needed to address conditions at the limits of what is specified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why?

    ” about something
    related to structural steel design or construction,
    Modern Steel’s monthly Steel Interchange is for you!
    steel
    Send your questions or comments to [email protected]. interchange
    Composite Beams thickness of 2 in. everywhere, regardless of whether or not the
    A project on which we are installing shear studs specifies final floor is level, then I would be inclined to say two different
    a composite steel system comprised of 2 in. concrete over stud lengths are not necessary. However, if the design specifies
    3 in. metal deck. Headed anchor studs, ¾ in. in diameter, a level floor finish then it is possible that if beam cambers do
    are specified and noted to be a minimum of 1.5 in. above not come out, you could have exposed studs and that extra 3⁄16
    the deck and ½ in. below the top of the concrete. In an in. of stud length could become very important.
    ideal situation, this can theoretically be achieved with 47⁄8- Susan Burmeister, PE
    in. studs that achieve 4½ in. of finished length. However,
    this only occurs where studs are installed through metal Web Compactness for Singly
    deck and 3⁄8-in. burn-through is theoretically achieved. At Symmetric I-Sections
    girders parallel to deck direction where the stud attaches I am designing a singly symmetric I-shaped member
    directly to the girder flange, the theoretical burn-through in flexure. The plastic neutral axis for this section falls
    is 3⁄16 in. and thus the finished length is 411⁄16 in. Both con- within the compression flange resulting in a negative
    ditions run a high risk of being exposed when typical fab- value for hp/2. How can I determine whether the web is
    rication tolerances are considered (crown-up fabrication) compact, non-compact or slender? Note that if the web is
    even if there is no camber required. Section I3.2c of the not compact, then Section F4 of the Specification applies
    AISC Specification has the following requirements: 2 in. and since λp is equal to λr the denominators in Equations
    minimum slab over deck, 1.5 in. minimum length above F4-9b and F4-16b become zero—again resulting in a
    metal deck and ½ in. minimum of concrete cover to sur- result that is difficult to interpret.
    face. Are there permitted deviations to this rule? Are two
    different stud lengths required in this situation? Table B4.1b of the AISC Specification applies to compression
    elements of members subject to flexure. If hp/2 is within the
    The system you have described satisfies the requirements of the flange, then, under a plastic stress distribution, the web is in
    AISC Specification but, as you’ve noted, does not allow much tension and therefore doesn’t need to be classified. If hc /2 is not
    room for tolerance. The specific provision in Section I3.2c(1)(2) within the flange, then, under elastic stress, some portion of the
    states: “Steel headed stud anchors, after installation, shall extend web will be subjected to a linearly varying compression load.
    not less than 1½ in. above the top of the steel deck and there In such a case, the magnitude of the compression stress will be
    shall be at least ½ in. of specified concrete cover above the top relatively small when the section is elastic. As more and more of
    of the steel headed stud anchors.” There are a couple of nuances the section is strained beyond the elastic limit, the length of web
    within the wording here that are worth pointing out. in compression will decrease. Both of these trends tend to indi-
    First and foremost, the 1½ in. minimum stud projection cate that the stability of the web will not be a concern.
    above the deck is structurally more important to the perfor- There are several possible approaches. First, the limits
    mance of the system than the ½ in. clear cover over the top. could be calculated based on Case 15, the doubly symmetric
    Purely from a strength perspective, the concrete cover over the case, with the length of the web, h, assumed to be hc. I believe
    top of the stud provides no recognized additional capacity. In this would be a conservative approach. The coefficient of λr is
    the above referenced language, the phrase “specified concrete the same for the doubly symmetric and singly symmetric cases.
    cover” was carefully chosen and deliberated over within the Now consider the calculation of λp. If the equation for Case 16
    technical committee that maintains this section of the Specifica- is applied to a doubly symmetric I-shape hc /hp is 1.0. A reason-
    tion. The intent is to ensure that designers specify a minimum able value for the shape factor of a rolled wide flange is 1.12.
    of ½ in. concrete coverage to account for some of the field This value produces a coefficient of 3.77—pretty close to the
    inaccuracies, but it was recognized that the in the final, as-built coefficient for Case 15, 3.76. So Case 16 produces about the
    condition, the coverage could be less. The Commentary to this same result as Case 15 assuming the same parameters.
    section of the Specification discusses ways an engineer can miti- There are two ratios that determine the value of λr for Case
    gate the potential for exposed studs in their slab system which 16. The first is hc /hp. For a case like yours, with the larger flange
    are obviously more critical in a thin-slab system. in compression this ratio will always be greater than one. A
    So, to answer your first question, it is acceptable to negative value for hp does not make sense physically relative
    encroach into the ½ in. cover if necessary, but the 1½ in. mini- to checking the stability of the web. However, as hp approaches
    mum stud projection should be maintained. zero, it can be seen that the value for hc /hp becomes very large.
    As to whether or not two different stud lengths are This again tends to indicate that buckling of the web becomes
    required, I think that is a question that should be posed to less and less of a concern. The other factor is related to the
    the engineer of record. If the design specifies a uniform slab shape factor, Zx/Sx, which is obviously in the same proportion

     Modern STEEL CONSTRUCTION


    steel interchange
    as Mp/My. Up to a shape factor of about 2 the denominator will The reason for the different designations may not be
    be less than one, tending to increase the coefficient. Beyond immediately clear, since both would seem to discourage the
    this shape factor, the coefficient will begin to decrease. Why use of the coating with the fasteners listed. However, the
    should this be? The greater the shape factor, the more inelastic Annex also states:
    deformation will be required to fully yield the section. In other “Coatings listed in this Annex for 150 ksi/1040 MPa
    words, the demand becomes greater and greater. Also, at a shape bolts have been qualified and approved where indicated
    factor of about 2, the shape is likely moving from a singly sym- for use with 150 ksi/1040 MPa strength bolts. For
    metric I-shape to something approaching a tee. It is interesting use on 150 ksi/1040 MPa bolts, other coatings must
    to note that there is no case addressing the web of a tee with the be qualified in accordance with IFI 144. Hydrogen
    flange in compression. To me, this is another indication that at embrittlement testing required by IFI 144 shall be per-
    this extreme the stability of the web is not a concern. formed in accordance with F1940 for internal hydrogen
    This condition will be addressed in the Commentary to the embrittlement and F2660 for environmental hydrogen
    2016 Specification. The following statement has been added: embrittlement.”
    “In extreme cases where the plastic neutral axis is located in A footnote to the table in the Annex states:
    the compression flange, hp = 0 and the web is considered to be “Other metallic and nonmetallic coatings may be used
    compact.” This corresponds to the logic above. on 120 ksi/830 MPa minimum tensile fasteners upon
    If the web is compact, then Section F3, not Section F4, agreement between the purchaser and user. Perfor-
    applies and a zero will not appear in the denominator. mance requirements shall be specified by the purchaser
    I believe it is always appropriate (necessary!) to exercise and agreed to in writing. Coatings for 150 ksi/1040
    engineering judgment. It is especially critical to do so when MPa bolts must be qualified. See A1.1.”
    addressing conditions at the fringes of those considered in the So the requirements for F1852 and F2280 are different. The
    Specification. It seems there are two different extremes that can standard does not prohibit any coating to be used with F1852
    cause the plastic neutral axis to be located in the compression “upon agreement between the purchaser and user” with “per-
    flange. One would be where the compression flange is very formance requirements…specified by the purchaser and agreed
    clearly compact—i.e., it is very thick and relatively narrow. to in writing.” For F2280, coatings must be must be qualified.
    In such a case, it would seem the assumption that the web is The difference seems to involve hydrogen embrittlement.
    compact is uncontroversial. At the other extreme, where the Galvanizing of A490 bolts (150 ksi) has been prohibited for some
    compression flange is very thin but very wide, I would be hesi- time. This is because the process can lead to hydrogen embrittle-
    tant to treat the condition using Case 16. The distribution of ment, which can lead to failure of the bolt and is therefore a
    stress typically assumed when calculating hc and hp might not safety concern. The same concerns do not exist for 120 ksi bolts.
    be appropriate when the effective flange consists of a very thin I take “not approved” as meaning that this combination
    but very wide element. has not been explicitly considered, but there is no reason to
    Larry S. Muir, PE believe there is an inherent safety concern. Therefore, if you
    are going to do it you are on your own, relying on your own
    Not Qualified vs. Not Approved judgment and knowledge.
    in ASTM F3125 I take “not qualified” as meaning that there are known safety
    The new ASTM F3125, which consolidates the previous concerns with this combination, and it should not be used.
    ASTM A325, A490, F1852 and F2280 standards, indicates Larry S. Muir, PE
    in Table A1.1 that F1136 coatings are not approved for use
    with twist-off bolts (Grades F1852 and F2280). It is my
    The complete collection of Steel Interchange questions and answers is available online.
    understanding that this indicates that these coatings are Find questions and answers related to just about any topic by using our full-text search
    prohibited for use with twist-off tension-control bolts. Some capability. Visit Steel Interchange online at www.modernsteel.com.

    vendors state that these bolt-coating combinations are not


    prohibited. What is the intent? Larry Muir is director of technical assistance at AISC. Susan Burmeister is a consultant to AISC.

    You are referring to an ASTM standard. Therefore ASTM


    Steel Interchange is a forum to exchange useful and practical professional ideas and
    would be the appropriate source for an interpretation. I will, information on all phases of steel building and bridge construction. Opinions and
    however, provide my own opinion. suggestions are welcome on any subject covered in this magazine.

    F3125 provides two different descriptions: not approved The opinions expressed in Steel Interchange do not necessarily represent an official
    position of the American Institute of Steel Construction and have not been reviewed. It is
    and not qualified. These terms are defined in the standard: recognized that the design of structures is within the scope and expertise of a competent
    ➤ “Not qualified” in Table A1.1 means that a particular licensed structural engineer, architect or other licensed professional for the application of
    principles to a particular structure.
    coating has not been qualified and accepted by ASTM
    If you have a question or problem that your fellow readers might help you solve, please
    committee F16 for use on 150 ksi/1040 MPa bolts. forward it to us. At the same time, feel free to respond to any of the questions that you
    ➤ “Not approved” in Table A1.1 means that a particular coat- have read here. Contact Steel Interchange via AISC’s Steel Solutions Center:

    ing was not approved for a particular bolt style or grade in 866.ASK.AISC • [email protected]
    the individual standard prior to combination into F3125.
    NOVEMBER 2016

    You might also like