Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: GL beam strengthening

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The different widths would explain the difference.

My only concern with the idea is that since the new beam is only on one
side, you might need to worry some about some eccentric loading when
transfering the shear from the new beam into the "old" beam to take to the
supports.  I don't know if I really consider this a "deal breaker" but at
minimum I would likely not design the transfer mechanism to just the
minimum shear load transfer.  You might be better off sandwiching the old
beam with two new beams.

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Joseph  Grill wrote:

> The load sharing is all designed per deflection compatibility.  I don't have
> the calcs in front of me here at home, but I think the difference is that
> the new beam is a 5 1/8" thick member not 6 3/4" and that 60% figure I gave
> is only "close" as my concern is at the support if the 12" beam is the only
> one being supported.  Note, that I am not done yet (I am working through
> some iterations of different sizes for the new beam) and I also have to go
> back through to check for errors (I don't have anyone in the office to do
> that for me) so the figures I've given are not "on the nuts".  The bolting
> is designed to transfer that load across the joint (the correct percentage
> of loads were used for the bolting).  As of yet there is no dead load on the
> beam as the joists have not yet been installed so no shoring or jacking will
> be required at this time.
>
> My main concern is more of a general question in nature.  I'm asking (or
> trying to but not well) if I can bolt the new beam to "back to the existing"
> near the support with adequate bolting (or whatever) to transfer that 60% or
> 75%, or whatever it may be in the end that the new beam is carrying, with
> the 12" beam being the only beam supported.  I haven't worked out the
> connection yet, but I don't want to detail additional support for the new
> beam if the existing beam is adequate in shear.  Lets say the portion of the
> total load that the new beam carries is 8000 pounds.  I would have to
> transfer 4000 pounds back to the existing beam, at or very near the support,
> if the existing beam is the only one supported (in this case a masonry
> wall).  That 4000 pound transfer would be made with 4 or 5 bolts, whatever
> required, in a tight pattern near the support for the 12" beam.  The 12"
> beam then transfers the entire reaction for the composite section to the
> support.  Hope this all makes sense.  I'll try to explain again later, if
> not.
>
> But for now it is Friday evening and I am headed for the martini shaker.
>
> thanks for the replies,
>
> Joe
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
> To: "'seaint'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 6:00 PM
> Subject: Re: GL beam strengthening
>
>
> Joe:
>
> As someone else hinted at, you need to make sure that your load sharing
> percentages are determined by deformation/deflection compatibility.  It is
> not clear from your post if the 60% to the new beam was determined from
> relative strength or deflection compatibility, but by doing a quick
> deflection capatibility calc I get that the new beam would take roughly
> 75% of the load.  My calc assumed that both beams were of the same glulam
> grade (i.e. in theory the modulus of elasticity, E, would be the same).
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Joe Grill wrote:
>
> > A client has installed a glue-lam beam of the incorrect size (too small).
> > The beam installed is a 6 ¾" x 12" GL.  It is early enough in the project
> > to
> > do a fix, but they don't want to remove and replace.  I have sized an
> > additional GL to be installed next to and bolted to the existing bm.  The
> > new beam is 16 ½" deep.  The original beam is bearing on top of a masonry
> > wall, therefore the new beam can't bear on top of the wall due to the
> > deeper
> > section.  The original beam can take all the shear by itself, but just
> > barely.  The new beam takes about 60% of the load. Bolting along the beam
> > is
> > designed to transfer that 60% across the joint.  If I cut the new beam off
> > at the face of the wall can I provide bolting at the end of the new beam
> > to
> > transfer its 60% back into the 12" deep beam?  Or, am I missing something?
> >
> >
> >
> > This would be the easiest installation, then I don't have to design any
> > hangers at the wall.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> > Joseph R. Grill, P.E. (Structural)
> >
> > Shephard - Wesnitzer, Inc.
> >
> > Civil Engineering and Surveying
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  <http://inet/index.htm>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********