mmarlow
Structural
- Aug 17, 2018
- 77
Excuse the poor title, I wasn't sure how to phrase it..
Im doing some work at a local college where facility workers noticed concrete haunches were cracking and spauling. Assuming that rusting steel on the inside of the haunch was causing this, I asked them to remove some of the hunch to expose the steel. They got a little carried away and exposed the entire beam. I intend on replacing this beam for obvious reasons. I have a good understanding of the loads on the member, and selected a W6 member for dimensional constraints.
What confuses me is the top flange of the existing beam. It looks as the it has been intentionally damaged to cause it to grab the concrete? The attached image represents what the entire beam looks like. The top flanges are like this the entire length of the beam. My only guess is this was someones attempt at increasing composite action in the 1930's? It would makes sense that this was a composite beam, because its 2" shallower than the beam I sized, and presumably 36ksi steel, while mine is 50. Mine was sized as a single member, I did not design for composite action. Im going to have them shore, add a new beam, and hard pack grout the top of the new beam.
For future reference, has anyone ever seen anything like this before?
Thank you,
Morgan
-MMARLOW EIT
Im doing some work at a local college where facility workers noticed concrete haunches were cracking and spauling. Assuming that rusting steel on the inside of the haunch was causing this, I asked them to remove some of the hunch to expose the steel. They got a little carried away and exposed the entire beam. I intend on replacing this beam for obvious reasons. I have a good understanding of the loads on the member, and selected a W6 member for dimensional constraints.
What confuses me is the top flange of the existing beam. It looks as the it has been intentionally damaged to cause it to grab the concrete? The attached image represents what the entire beam looks like. The top flanges are like this the entire length of the beam. My only guess is this was someones attempt at increasing composite action in the 1930's? It would makes sense that this was a composite beam, because its 2" shallower than the beam I sized, and presumably 36ksi steel, while mine is 50. Mine was sized as a single member, I did not design for composite action. Im going to have them shore, add a new beam, and hard pack grout the top of the new beam.
For future reference, has anyone ever seen anything like this before?
Thank you,
Morgan
-MMARLOW EIT