×
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

PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

(OP)
Hi,

For a 2 hour rating PT unrestrained slab bottom concrete cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) specifies 1 5/8" and table 720.1.1(1) --4-1.1 specifies 1 1/2", which one should govern? Thank you.

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

Good question. I have always used 1 1/2". I did not know there were two tables with two different values. Can anyone explain why there are two tables?

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

This has been a point of debate. My boss used to argue that end bays of PT slabs are restrained and you could use the .75" cover. This was based on ASTM E119.

Incidentally AISC allows end bays of steel beam with pinned ends to be treated as restrained.

PTI's official position is that end bays are unrestrained and you should use the higher cover. With tendons exiting at mid depth and use of highe cover, you will need to jack up the number of strands in your end bays.

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

slickdeals, I understand your points, but I tink the question is that the two tables referenced by Structural20036 appear to give two different values for cover for the same scenario (i.e. unrestrained PT slab).

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

I don't know, but just a thought...perhaps one is to the duct, the other is to the strand?

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

In depends on how you are designing the fire resistance of the PT slab. Section/Tables 720 are for the Prescriptive and Section/Tables 721 are for the Calculated method.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

Slickdeal,

Did you mean the opposite, where the end bay is unrestrained and the interior bays are restrained? PTI recommends end bays be considered unrestrained and interior bays restrained.

Woodman is right, it is different methods of calculating resistance. I think you always end up with more cover when using 721. I just picked 721 and always use that one.

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

Dcarr,
I said end bays are unrestrained per PTI, but my old boss used to argue they are restrained per ASTM E119.

Also if end bay is unrestrained, how do you justify first interior bay being restrained. How does the thrust get developed?

Woodman,

It would seem prescriptive method should be more conservative than calculated method. Wonder why prescriptive method is higher.

RE: PT slab bottom cover: ibc 2003 table 721.2.3(2) and 720.1.1(1) which governs

Slickdeals,

Bosses....what can you do

As for the next bay in, I really have never studied in-depth the tests and their controlling assumptions. If the fire is somewhat localized to the first interior bay I can envision it being restrained by the diaphragm in the exterior bay. If the fire is a large portion of the floor plate I can visualize the expansion in one bay being offset by the equal and opposite expansion in the next bay. No matter the scenario, in an end bay there is also expansion on the free edge for a fire in that bay. I can also see some funky scenarios where the above idealizations fall apart and you could have unrestrained interior conditions, but those scenarios seem less likely to me.

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