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!

*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

Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

(OP)
Live load reduction per ASCE 7 uses the Kll factor. The item is question is a double tee used in an office building, with a 3.5" (average) thickness topping slab . I would use Kll = 1.0 for this double tee. The original calcs used Kll=2.0. This seems optimistic to me, but is it common in the precast industry to use Kll=2.0?

I don't consider it an Interior Beam, but I could see some making that argument.

Thanks

RE: Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

I've been doing some double tee work lately and, in particular, studying their ability to load share between units. I'd love to be wrong about this but, as far as I can tell, double tees don't really share load among themselves owing to their low torsional stiffness to flexural stiffness ratio. Certainly, load/response sharing is not as aggressive as it's purported to be with hollow core.

If load sharing is non-existent, then I would argue that [Kll x At] for each unit is equal to the projected area of the individual unit.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

(OP)
I can see an argument that the topping slab acts as a transfer mechanism, but it feels wrong to me to assume that load sharing. The slab is always cracked at the joints between DT's so you have shear friction at the joint and some minimal flexural transfer.

RE: Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

Maybe i am wrong, but Kll for an interior beam is 2.0; Kll for a one way slab is 1.0

I would consider a double tee to be a one way slab not a beam and a hollowcore as a slab and not a beam in this scenario. Now if the precast member was being loaded by transverse framing.... i would say it is a beam and therefore kll=2.

Now i know this means you doing get to reduce live loads most likely, and these loads will stack over floors which can be frustrating for load bearing walls (CMU/Concrete) becuse they don't really get to reduce much until multiple floors have added up.

RE: Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

After the previous discussion about this, I did a bit of digging. There's a report from the Texas DOT (will see if I can find it) that did tests on tee load sharing. As I recall, load sharing only takes place if something like a shear key or notched grout joint is in place on the edges of the flange.

Personally, I've never done any sort of double tee load sharing, for the reasons KootK mentions.

Brian C Potter, PE
Simple Supports - Back at it again with the engineering blog.

RE: Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

(OP)
I am firmly in the Kll = 1.0 boat. I has a discussion with 2 other engineers who both routinely use 2.0. I just don't see it unless you have a good topping slab, and even then I don't really like the idea.

RE: Live Load Reduction on a Double Tee

Quote (dcarr)

I can see an argument that the topping slab acts as a transfer mechanism, but it feels wrong to me to assume that load sharing.

There's usually some load transfer mechanism even without a topping. See the related article attached. There pretty much has to be some load transfer ability otherwise you form lips from one plank to the next under differential load. I think that it comes down to an incompatibility between how much transfer can keep adjacent flanges together and how much can truly engage the flexural capacity of the neighboring tee. The former is relatively easy and, one could argue, mandatory. The latter is pretty tough.

Quote (dcarr)

I has a discussion with 2 other engineers who both routinely use 2.0.

Any chance those would be precast engineers?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

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


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