• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Steel Girder Lateral Restraint

It is uplift and lateral movement the to connection of the floor to a beam is suppose to resist. I am in a seismic D1 (IRC) So some are saying that a 40 ft long steel beam sitting on a few 3" round columns in the basement with the ends bearing on 3" of concrete will resit lateral movement during a 6-7 seismic event just because of the gravity load of the floor above is resting on it. Interesting
 
bent over nails are a positive connection, but for me, gluing down a building sounds too strange for me.

mtlogcabin...i didn't see your post, but i state that if it's not in a seismic situation which requires for lateral design, then it's not an issue and i give a reason as to why. the lateral movement of a building is taken care of at the perimeter and roof where the load occurs. this load reacts between the foundation and the wall/floor structure. once this is taken care of, the interior space is technically unaffected therefore uplift would not be an issue.....if the center of the building is to be designed for such a load, would we not require huricane straps at all interior walls to create a complete load path to that beam? i'd say yes.

the addition of columns and seismic forces is outside of the OP but i would say that in such a case, the design of the beam and ore importantly it's connection to those columns would be part of a greater structural analysis and design requirement, but as i understood the OP, my original feeling that an 80-100 thousand pound house designed for wind loading and properly restrained at its perimeter is going to resist uplift more than some required positive connection to a beam through bolts or glue. and i stand firm on not voiding ,so to speak, the warranty of a steel beam by drilling holes into it just to satisfy a code issue intended for sill to foundation connection. so if omitting a code requirement for sill connection is an issue, do you require the sill on the beam to be of treated lumber?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ggmarch... The OP was asking about lateral restraint So I think we are in agreement in a seismic zone the beam should be designed to resist lateral movement. This can be accomplished using any number of design options but it should not be assumed by the designer that the floor will be automatically connected to the beam, especially a steel beam for the reasons already mentioned
 
yup i hear ya. in places where i've calculated uplift in moderate and light hazard areas, the exterior walls account for all vertical loading and interiors have only a fraction if any of the vertical loading. the weight of the building is far greater than the applied force therefore gravity loads are more than enough to keep the floor right where it is and completely static. when i see the loads like this, i am sure a requirement for uplift is satisfied with zero mechanical connection. i call that situation, "not required by the code." the ends grouted in take care of all the lateral support except in those seismic areas, uplift, all that is happening is the beam becomes an added dead load to the gross house weight with no structural purpose, all the structure is in the perimeter of the building.

i do understand where everyone's coming from but i also chalk it up to vanilla requirement of the code. my thought experiment above was more directed at the importance of not allowing someone on site to weld/drill or alter the flange of a beam. the code is one thing but if someone framed a house without some glue attaching the plate to the beam and had them rip it out or worse drill holes in it, i wanted to point out the miniscule purpose that connecting the two together is, in a typical situation.
 
GGM,

I understand alteration of beams, we make them all the time, however, pocket attachment is done all the time with the wood sill plates.

We drill top holes for wood sill plates all the time when fabricating them, then once set in place and wood top plates are bolted when the floor joist are set and nailed to the top plate and a lot of the time, the sill plates around the foundation cover and tie in to the beams, thus securing in the beam.

I am not sure but I believe JAR was talking about securing the top wood sill plate to the beam, thus joist system providing lateral support. Pocket attachment is different or am I reading this wrong...

Peach, I am not sure all center bearing beams sit on walls, many sit on columns next to the foundation, we seem to be doing this more often now, not sure why, but becoming common.
 
Wow, I get to agree with Ben AND George with one post! The steel beam gets attached to any columns that support it to provide them with lateral restraint, but the sill gets bolted to the foundation around the entire perimeter of the building. Put bolts within 1' of the beam on each side of the pocket, done.
 
I don't think a sill plate on a center bearing steel girder is subject to the uplift & anchoring specs of a perimeter foundation wall supporting braced wall panels.

The "bent #16 nails method" has been used for eons and not (around here) been considered a problem. Not saying there isn't a better way, though - anybody got one?
 
peach said:
yes... and yes, it's not addressed in the code. When we see them here, they always sit in a beam pocket.
Click to expand...
I aggree with both -- ours are always in a beam pocket, and also a "beam" under the IRC is a wood beam as described under the IRC only, and not a steel beam or a engineered lumber beam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top