Steel Beam to Wood Post Connection

[SE2607]

Does anyone see any issues with this detail?

TIA

 

[phamENG]

Pretty sure you're saying a W10x15 is 8 1/8" tall, and I like steel to create torsional stability in the beam (usually an end plate).

 

[SE2607]

Pretty sure you're saying a W10x15 is 8 1/8" tall, and I like steel to create torsional stability in the beam (usually an end plate).

Oops. My bad. It's a W8x15.
I can put a pair of stiffeners near the end of the beam., but won't the nailer attached to the floor sheathing provide torsional resistance?
Thank you for your response.

 

[phamENG]

but won't the nailer attached to the floor sheathing provide torsional resistance?

I question the ability of the 2 or 3 10dx1-1/2" nails near the end of the beam to meet the requirements of AISC J10.7. But you have the whole picture - if you can conclude that it does the job, then great.

 

[Eng16080]

Normally, I bear the steel beam directly on the PSL post, but I see no issue with your detail, especially considering the relatively light load of only 4k. Rather than use a pair of stiffeners, I'd have a 1/4" plate welded to the end of the beam.

 

[hemiv]

The end plate is cheap. I would specify it regardless.

I would also prefer to connect directly to the post, but I agree for light loads it probably doesn't make much difference.

 

[XR250]

For me, I would have no attachment to the post and use studs instead of PSL for only 4K. The floor diaphragm will keep it in place.

 

[SE2607]

For me, I would have no attachment to the post and use studs instead of PSL for only 4K. The floor diaphragm will keep it in place.

No attachment?

How would you comply with the "positive connection" requirement of the code? Perhaps that's only a requirement in the IBC and not the IRC. The Northridge earthquake, not a design level EQ, generated vertical accelerations of greater than 1g.

 

[Eng16080]

The Northridge earthquake, not a design level EQ, generated vertical accelerations of greater than 1g.

To be fair, I doubt anything is surviving a 1g acceleration.

 

[phamENG]

To be fair, I doubt anything is surviving a 1g acceleration.

If the engineers designing don't do their jobs, perhaps....

Where XR practices, seismic loads will be of very minimal concern.

How would you comply with the "positive connection" requirement of the code?

Where is that, exactly? I've always done it because it makes sense to do it, but nobody has ever been able to point me to a specific place in the code where such a requirement resides, and I've never stumbled across it.

 

[SE2607]

Where XR practices, seismic loads will be of very minimal concern.

I realized that when I wrote the post, but I did it (wrote the post) anyway.

Where is that, exactly? I've always done it because it makes sense to do it, but nobody has ever been able to point me to a specific place in the code where such a requirement resides, and I've never stumbled across it.

It's there because I've had a plan check comment. While addressing the comment, I checked the code reference to verify, but I don't recall where it is.

To me, a couple of A34s is not asking for much.

 

[SE2607]

To be fair, I doubt anything is surviving a 1g acceleration.

That's why there was so much damage for an EQ much less than a design level EQ. Northridge is a thrust fault causing predominantly vertical acceleration whereas most of the faults in California are strike slip faults, which are predominantly horizontal.

 

[EngDM]

If the engineers designing don't do their jobs, perhaps....

For vertical accelerations of 1g? Lateral sure.

 

[SE2607]

For vertical accelerations of 1g? Lateral sure.

I don't design for 1g vertical. The code requires Ev = 0.2 * 0.7 * S_DS, allowable stress design.
A random spot in downtown Los Angeles has a S_DS =1.55, so the vertical force would be about .22g.