×
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

RC beam with "broken line"

RC beam with "broken line"

RC beam with "broken line"

(OP)
English is not my 1st language.
What Im asking is what does it mean when beam has "a broken line" (i dont know a proper expression for this).
I compared a normal - straight line beam with a broke beam (distance A is small - lets say 300 mm) in FEM software and got the same results (bending moment, shear forces).
Is there anything special/different? Something to be careful about when reinforcing beam - especially at the point where line breaks? Shear reinforcement because a part that is perpendicular to other two lines transfer whole load from one to other line?

RE: RC beam with "broken line"

(OP)
thanks for answer but i was thinking of horizontal offset not vertical offset...

RE: RC beam with "broken line"

Torsion. Your beam with a crank on plan will experience torsion, thus you will need to design the rebar (both shear links and longitudinal steel for the effects of this.
What is the reason for the crank?

RE: RC beam with "broken line"

Why not run the beam straight between the supports? Not everything has to be orthogonal.

RE: RC beam with "broken line"

With a short crank, you may have difficulty developing rebar... Only good for light loading... unless the beam gets large. The center portion may be equal to the depth of the beam.

Dik

RE: RC beam with "broken line"

Seems pretty likely that this would be related to the other thread that you've got going at the moment. Assuming that to be the case, cantilevered beam four that ties into the jog ought to do an ample job of rectifying your torsion. The presence of the slab helps too, of course, but I'd be counting on beam four to do the lion's share of the work. After that, it's really all about the rebar detailing required to accomplish moment continuity across the offset. And that's not likely to be easy. You'll wind up with something that will be costly for you to design and express and costly to build. And the behavior will be more difficult to predict than is the case with more conventional framing.

As discussed in the other thread, I'd recommend something simpler like what hokie has suggested. If you do decide to go with this arrangement, I expect that you'll need a fair bit of overlap between beams in order to make a go of the detailing. It's not like HSS steel tubes where you can just CJP the miters and sleep easy.

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