Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • 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!

Join Eng-Tips
*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.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

shakeelahsan (Civil/Environmental) (OP)
15 May 09 11:46
Dear All,

For a high seismic activity zone, what frame system for a multi storey RCC building should be proposed.

Two options being;

1. Flat Slab supported directly on columns
2. Conventional Beam Slab supported on columns.

Recommendations requested.

 

Engr. Shakeel Ahsan
Director Engineering
CMEC - Pakistan

kslee1000 (Civil/Environmental)
15 May 09 12:01
I would say beam-column is my choice. The chance to survive after a major seismic event looks better than flat slab.
shakeelahsan (Civil/Environmental) (OP)
15 May 09 12:20
Could you please give a description of how the structure responses better with a conventional frame system than a flat slab?

 

Engr. Shakeel Ahsan
Director Engineering
CMEC - Pakistan

inju (Structural)
15 May 09 12:29
I would say both would work favorably as long as you provide lateral force resisting system, say, concrete shear walls. Your choice may be driven by whether cost or aesthetics is critical. with flat-slab you have a flat ceiling finish as compared to exposed beam which may require additional ceiling.
I expect beam-column option could be cheaper.
kslee1000 (Civil/Environmental)
15 May 09 12:41
My call was based on concern over crashing force due to stress reversal around columns. Stress redistribution is likely for beam-slab (also higher reserve capacity) systems rather than flat slab.
CTSeng (Structural)
15 May 09 13:03
Beam systems if with moment frames may offer some seismic advatages, lower R. Otherwise flat plate with shearwalls generally will have cheaper forming cost.  
InDepth (Structural)
15 May 09 13:05
There are several ACI documents and there are also papers related to flat slab connections to shear walls and columns. Some engineers will use the slab to resist seismic moments....kind of like connecting the shear wall to the exterior frame to load share (semi-dual system). It is up to you to decide wether you want to take the slab or slab/beam stiffness into account for the structural system...or merely use it as mass....different design philossphies that will have impact on the overall response. I would say envelope the cases.

Others have studied PT slabs and the ability to prevent crushing at column and shear wall interfaces.

Like anything else, you can always design and detail the connection.

In Terms of concrete systems, see ASCE 7-05. In California we use Concrete Moment Frames, Concrete Shear Walls, and Dual Systems. System selection depends on height, arch requirements, and what space is available for a seismic system etc... High rises lend themselves to dual systems....but some have designed with shear walls alone (tube structures). Pauley & Priestly have a good discussion on the topic of system selection.
 
shakeelahsan (Civil/Environmental) (OP)
15 May 09 14:02
Would that be a good idea to set different fc' for Columns and other structural members.

We have set fc' for columns at 3750 Psi and for raft, retaining walls, shear walls, beams and slabs at 3000 Psi.

How this helps increasing stiffness at joints?

 
kslee1000 (Civil/Environmental)
15 May 09 14:46
It is prone to causing mistakes in design and construction. Except the floor slab, and non-structural walls, try to maintain consistent fc' to simplify the processes.  
KootK (Structural)
15 May 09 18:30
I dislike the use of flat slabs for lateral resistance in high seismic regions because there's no sensible way to provide shear resistance without relying on the concrete shear strength.  That makes it tough to ensure a ductile flexural failure mode.  Shear studs do help with this to some degree.

It's also very difficult to design flat slab / column joints such that they can sustain repeated, inelastic rotations without resulting in bond stress problems.
shakeelahsan (Civil/Environmental) (OP)
16 May 09 23:29
How helpful is stiffness at Column - Beam joints?

 

Engr. Shakeel Ahsan
Director Engineering
CMEC - Pakistan

kslee1000 (Civil/Environmental)
17 May 09 10:10
Why not to make a simple example for comparison. Say a 20'x20' one story building with 4 columns and 2' overhang each side. One with flat slab, the other with beam in between columns. A day's work, worth a lot.

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!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close