×
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

FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

(OP)
This is tangential to the recent thread on composite action.  The green book uses an Ieff for deflection checks (which accounts for partial composite action).  The new black book calls this same equation Iequ and recommends multiplying this by 0.75 for deflection (based on testing).  RAM did not recognize this.  I called them last week and they were unaware of this change, but will incorporate it into the next version.  In the meantime, anyone using RAM should bump up the deflection criteria for composite beams to account for this (e.g. L/360 will want to be L/480).

RE: FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

Are the new Iequ values close to the old Ieff values? The L/360 has worked pretty well I thought for years based on the inertia we have been using, whatever they want to call it. Is AISC now proposing that the floors have been deflecting too much and should have been designed closer to L/480 with the old Ieff?   

RE: FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

(OP)
The new Iequ are identical to the old Ieff values.  AISC says, in the commentary, that tests show that the effective MOI is roughly 15% to 30% lower than the equivalent MOI (the old Ieff).  It's quite possible that deflection wasn't an issue because there actually is some end restraint, even though we don't consider it, which helps deflection.

RE: FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

A couple of side notes on this subject:

1.  The 0.75 reduction is not new to the 13th edition manual - it first appeared in the 3rd edition commentary (see 16.1-220).  It just got screwed up and had to be fixed in the 13th because the nomenclature changed (in the 3rd edition it was written as Ieff = 0.75Ieff which isn't very clear so it was revised to Ieff = 0.75Iequiv. except the nomenclature for the equation for Iequiv wasn't changed in the first printing).  

2.  Note that Commentary is just that, Commentary - and therefore not required.  You could just as easily be arguing that RAM should be using the lower bound moment of inertia which is another approved commentary method.  If you feel that the 0.75 etc. is not necessary and L/360 with Ieff has been performing fine then I would continue to use that.     

 

RE: FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

"If you feel that the 0.75 etc. is not necessary and L/360 with Ieff has been performing fine then I would continue to use that." Agree.

RE: FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

Can you all clarify what is meant by I(equiv)?

Is I(equiv) simply the calculated I(eff) prior to multiplying by 0.75?

 

RE: FYI - composite beam deflections and RAM SS

(OP)
yes.

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