Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Non-comp beams in a composite floor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I would actually suspect that the slab and beam would act in a composite fashion for deflection up to a certain point due to the friction and embossment interlock at the deck interface. Naturally it wouldn't be counted for serviceability checks per code, but I wouldn't think differential deflection between a minimal and zero stud connection would occur under normal loading. I don't remember deflection being the controlling criteria on a post-composite load check, but I'm sure there's a case out there to prove me wrong.
Jordan


Will Haynes wrote:
I have left studs out on certain beams on an otherwise composite floor before. I have not been able to find anywhere stating that there is a minimum amount of studs required to be installed when composite was being used at adjacent beams. I think you could look at the deflection difference between the non-composite and an adjacent composite beam and estimate if there may be a problem caused by a large difference in stiffness. But I am not aware of any rule about leaving out studs and I have done it before.
 
 
Will
 

 
On 8/9/06, Jordan Truesdell, PE <seaint1(--nospam--at)truesdellengineering.com> wrote:
Okay, so here's a bonus question on composite floor design:

If you have a beam which doesn't need to develop composite action for
the post-construction loads, should you put studs at the minimum spacing
(30-36" usu), puddle weld the rest of the deck (to get the 18" max
spacing), and call it a day, or should you not indicate any studs at all
and just puddle weld the deck. Cost would seem to favor the latter. Is
there a good reason to put these "dummy" studs in a project, especially
since their inclusion might end up making the failure mode more brittle
in nature?

The reason I ask is that I'm looking at a project which probably has 30%
of the beams with few enough studs that they should be considered
non-composite, and a few spot checks show the beams work non-composite.

--
Jordan


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********