What type of load is applied to a beam that accepts a hung beam off of it?

[Polar24]

When a beam is hung from the side of another beam, what do you call
that type of applied load?

Do you just take the end reaction of the hanging beam and apply
it to the top of the accepting beam like a point load?

Or is it different because it come from the side?

Also what does this beam/load diagram look like?

Thank you

 

[Greenalleycat]

It would just be called a point load.
Where you apply it would depend on where it is applied.
Most beam-beam connections would have a side cleat so the load would be applied at the same level
Our Code has a punishing effect to apply on the supporting beam design if the load is applied at the top (i.e. beam sitting on top of beam)

No idea what you mean by 'beam/load diagram'

 

[JStephen]

From the description, it sounds like you'd have torsion applied to the first beam at the connection points, as well as the vertical load.

 

[dik]

Depending on the geometry and sizes, often a couple of clip angles (or single) are used, or sometimes a single plate welded to the web of the supporting beam... and the connection angles/bolts are designed as req'd.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[271828]

Based on the description, a lot of guessing is required. Need a sketch of your scenario to be sure we're on the same page with you.

 

[Eng16080]

As already mentioned above, it's a little hard to answer your questions with the limited information provided.

When a beam is hung from the side of another beam, what do you call
that type of applied load? I typically call that a "point load" or "concentrated load."

Do you just take the end reaction of the hanging beam and apply
it to the top of the accepting beam like a point load? Technically, it would be applied to the side, where it's located, not the top. For a basic structural analysis it might be that the condition is simplified with the load being applied at the centroid/neutral axis of the supporting beam within the model. This assumption might be ok, but the side loading could cause effects which might be overlooked by this simplification. For example, the side loading will induce a torsional force (twisting force) on the supporting beam. In this case, an engineer might use "engineering judgement" to determine that such effects are negligible, or they may take additional actions to account for it.

Or is it different because it come from the side? See above.

Also what does this beam/load diagram look like? Would need to see a plan/detail to answer this.

 

[Polar24]

See sketch for clarification.

Would you calculate 5 kips in red coming from the side of the beam the same
way as you would calculate 5 kips in green coming from the top?

Even if it coming from the side of the beam (rather than from the top),
is it still just considered a point load?

Thanks

 

[atrizzy]

It is a point load, yes, in an idealized scenario.

However, as you sound like you realize, there are a few hoops to jump through to convince yourself that it's an idealized point load at the top of the beam.

Firstly, the vertical load has to make it through to the beam, which the hanger does.

Secondly, the load is slightly offset, which technically imparts a bit of torsion into the beam. How you choose to justify this is up to the engineer, but if the beam has sheathing atop it, that's one way. If there are joists framing into the opposite side of the beam, that's another. I've rarely convinced myself that loads like this are a concern due to torsion in the beam.

 

[KootK]

In wood construction, one might call the side connection a "flush" connection which is indicative of the tops of both the supported and supporting members being at the same elevation.

In performing the sectional design of the supporting beam for bending, flexure, deflection etc, most codes will be agnostic as to whether or not the supported beam is connected to the side or the top of the supporting member. Greenalleycat mentioned a penalty for top loading which, I believe, is about the destabilizing effect of applying load above the shear center. That's valid but, in wood construction, it's pretty common for both the supported and supporting members to be laterally braced by sheathing which tends to neutralize this.

The big difference between side and top connections comes into play in the connection design itself, as opposed to the member design. This tends to be true in all materials, not just wood. Stacking a thing on top of another thing tends to be pretty close to to a sure thing. A side connection usually introduces undesirable failure modes that, then, require additional consideration.

With wood, a true side connection will introduce the possibility of the connection pulling the girder apart in tension perpendicular to grain. This is the side connection penalty to be paid in a wood beam to beam connection. That said, your photo appears to show a top flange hanger connection. I would normally consider that to represent a top loaded condition because it is the hanger that drags the applied load up to the top of the girder rather than the body of the girder needing to perform that function.