×
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

Floor area vs Static for reactions

Floor area vs Static for reactions

Floor area vs Static for reactions

(OP)
I would like to know which method do you use when determining reactions on transfer slabs, I've been told to use static if you have a concrete framed structure (multi-storey building) and use floor area when the slabs are supported by walls.

I usually get higher reactions when using floor area but when using static the loads are distributed differently and I get lower reactions at transfer columns,I know the reaction would be lower due to the slab deflecting, hence the load is distributed elsewhere. I then usually go for the higher reaction to design the slab.

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

I may be showing my ignorance, but can you explain the two?

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

(OP)
Floor area load; you work out the tributary area over the column, eg columns spaced at 4m centres each way say 200mm thick slab over, weight of slab over one column 0.2x24kN/m3 x 2x2 = 19.2kN = reaction on column

Static linear: basically solving equations of equilibrium

I guess my question is the reactions from the columns above is only realized when the slab below cracks (hence lower reaction), effectively if you take the extreme case and remove the surrounding supports the column would just hang and therefore there would be zero reaction.

I hope this makes sense
 

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

Ok, I understand what you are talking about now.  If designing the transfer slab/beam/girder I would assume it is a rigid support for the column such it will not deflect.  The reason for this is, as you noted, when the support deflects, it takes load off of the column.  Although, this is not true if all beams are simply supported, this is really only true if the beams framing into the column are continuous over the column.  If they frame in simply it will not matter.  
Just to be conservative, I would not account for the deflection of the supporting slab/beam/girder.  
I would track the load using statics however, and use the higher of that and the trib area load.

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

(OP)
Thanks StructuralEIT, that's exactly what I do, however does the reaction "reduce" to it's final state once the slab cracks?

 

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

No, this would be a fairly slow, gradual process since some of the deflection will be due to creep and shrinkage (which is time dependent).  This effects of the initial deflection and cracking would be seen right away, but there is a good portion of the total deflection that is time dependent.  

Additionally, EIcracked of the supporting member is not the easiest value to come up with (if you want an accurate representation of the true behavior), and this value is what directly affects the deflection, and consequently, the load on the column.

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

nicam,

You are very right in realising that the deflection of the transfer beam can effect the loads from the beam over.

I would agree with structural EIT in that I would not use this to reduce the imposed loads.

One thing you need to consider, however, is the redistribution of moments resulting from the deflection of the supports. If a given support deflects more than the surrounding supports then this will increase the positive elastic moment values at that support (possibly negating the negative moment from continuity) if the support deflects less than the surrounding supports then this will increase the negative moments.

I would always try and design transfer nbeams to as stringent a deflection criteria as possible at least L/500 but preferably L/1000 or better. This will help to reduce the effects of sagging supports noted above.

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

(OP)
csd72 thanks, I agree.

When I design a tranfer slab/beam I do following; compare reaction floor analysis (RFA) and Reaction Static analysis (RSA) on transfer slab.
I also increase the tranfer slab stiffness by 4 times and use static analysis and compare with RFA. The results seem more accurate this way. what do you think?  
 

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

nicam,

I am not familiar with your terminology,  is there a particular publication that outlines these methods?

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

(OP)
csd72, RFA = reactions by floor area analysis
RSA = reactions by Static analysis

it just my way of know which type of analysis I used, I put RSA or RFA at end of file name.
  

RE: Floor area vs Static for reactions

nicam,

What you propose sounds reasonable.

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