what is the best connection for this? round timber pile to steel beam? 8

[delagina]

I can't figure out the best connection to do this.
if the timber pile was square, I could have used seat angle at the bottom of the beam.
but I prefer to use the more common round timber pile.
is there a round seat angle?

I could also install anchor bolts on top of the pile and bottom flange of the beam?

 

[Teguci]

Notch the face for seating and provide thru rods in one direction. For the other direction, offset your beam from the pile.

Or, notch 2 sides and box the pile with heavy timbers and thru bolting to form a 4-sided haunch.

 

[KootK]

Maybe an HSS post between the beams and the pile with a base plate and some lag bolts installed in end grain? That should solve most of your tolerance issues save top of pile elevation.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[delagina]

@teguci, I kinda get it. can you please sketch it if you can. thanks,

I got the notch on the seat beam side, the thru bolts will end on the other side with round surface. can nut and washer be installed on the other side?

 

[EngineeringEric]

Just make your column cap square. That's why they invented chainsaws

 

[Teguci]

I was thinking something like this -

 

[delagina]

I think I'm gonna do this

 

[mike20793]

That is a very atypical detail. I don't like the mechanism of transferring the load through the angles into the pile. I think you should go for more of a bearing type connection with a seat/angle to restrain rotation of the beam/aid in erection.

 

[delagina]

@mike, my intention is actually bearing. the top of pile is flush with bottom of beam.

 

[KootK]

I still feel as though my detail can win this with the right, persuasive sketch.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[jayrod12]

For once Koot I must admit, I don't like that detail. Seems rather unstable to me. I don't have an alternative worked up in my head but I don't really like that one at this time. I'm also generally adverse to lagging into the end grain.

 

[KootK]

For once Koot I must admit, I don't like that detail.

Eh, can't win 'em all. In all honesty, I've never encountered such a condition in the real world personally.

Seems rather unstable to me.

Wha? How? The only pin in the system is the beam to beam connection. And even that's debatable in practical terms with the double angles.

I'm also generally adverse to lagging into the end grain.

Yeah, we all are. However, it's really just a nominal tie-down for uplift. Any side face connection will suffer the adverse effects of swelling in the pile.

So far, I think that my detail comes out on top in terms of:

1) Constructabilty.
2) Tolerance provision.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[DaveAtkins]

Usually when I work with steel framing and timber piles, I use (2) channels, one on each side of the pile. The channels are connected to the side of the pile with lag screws.

However, the details being proposed here don't rely on the lag screws, which is an advantage.

DaveAtkins

 

[EngineeringEric]

KootK, also lags into the end grain of timber! And in a wet environment!

The angle detail doesn't look too bad, but use a deeper angle so you have some edge distance.

Is your pile that big at the top? can you notch the sides of the beam as opposed to the front and rear?

 

[jayrod12]

Wha? How? The only pin in the system is the beam to beam connection. And even that's debatable in practical terms with the double angles.

There's bound to be some form of lateral load in the plane of the floor beams, granted your stub columns aren't very long, but they're like short stilts. I'll admit the instability feeling comes from me not trusting the lags to have any capacity (at least any appreciable capacity).

I would do Dave's detail with the two channels on either side of the pile, but instead of lags screws, they'd be threaded rod thru-bolts with nuts on each end. You could provide blocking or flange plates at some spacing to ensure the two channels acted as one. But that to me is much more positive of a connection.

 

[KootK]

KootK, also lags into the end grain of timber! And in a wet environment!

I'm also generally adverse to lagging into the end grain.

Yeah, we all are. However, it's really just a nominal tie-down for uplift. Any side face connection will suffer the adverse effects of swelling in the pile.

I remain undeterred.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[KootK]

There's bound to be some form of lateral load in the plane of the floor beams, granted your stub columns aren't very long, but they're like short stilts. I'll admit the instability feeling comes from me not trusting the lags to have any capacity (at least any appreciable capacity).

Ba Humbug! There's stability there in spades, even if the lag connection turns out to be a pin. If you don't trust the double angles as nominal moment connections, run with a single plate shear connection with nominal moment capacity.

I would do Dave's detail with the two channels on either side of the pile, but instead of lags screws, they'd be threaded rod thru-bolts with nuts on each end.

This is appealing to me as well. I imagine that this would be taking us into beam over beam territory rather than beam into side of beam. If it could be made to work, it might be sexy to pack the double channels with timber in between as you suggested and then frame over top with timber fastened down to the packing stuff.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[delagina]

@eric, yes. I was looking at go by detail it uses lag screw for through bolt, i'll use FEMA guideline. 4d from top, 5d between bolt. I 'll use bent plate.

 

[KootK]

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[racookpe1978]

You want a detail in the connection that allows the maximum variation between the top of the pounded in round timber pilings and the (hopefully perfectly flat) steel beams on top.

Seems a better solution is a round cap enveloping the round timber post, a flat plate on that round cap that supports a short vertical steel member, then the steel beams connecting to the vertical steel as in conventional bolt+hole plates.