×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Effective Width of PT Beams

Effective Width of PT Beams

Effective Width of PT Beams

(OP)
I am running ADAPT PT and have compared two strips with the same geometry.  I designated one as a PT Beam, the other as a two way slab with a continuous drop panel.  When I run the PT Beam version stresses are calculated using the ACI 318 effective flange width, which in my case varies per span but is always being governed by the span/4 provision (ACI 318 8.10.2).  When I run the strip as a two way slab there are no such restrictions on the effective section the software uses to calculate stresses.  As a result I am getting significantly larger PT forces in the PT Beam option.

The ADAPT manual touches on this subject.  It states that the ACI rules are for conventionally reinforced beams, and that ACI does not specifically address PT construction.  It goes further by saying that effective flanges can be as high as the stem width +24X (ACI is 16X) the slab thickness for interior beams, and half that for L-beams.  This recommendation does not even consider beam span.

Any input on effective flange widths would be appreciated.  I am fine using the ACI recommendations, but don't think I should be penalized by calling it a beam as opposed to a two way slab.
 

RE: Effective Width of PT Beams

mijowe,

It is not a flat slab and should not be design as one. This is completely inappropriate (though it is how Adapt were incorrectly telling people to design a couple of years ago).

The beam rules should be used, though I do disagree with the 25% maximum rule in ACI318. It is not in other major codes.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources