×
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

designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

(OP)
I am often dealing with beams that are partly integrated in a slab. Usually I design them as rectangular cross section. But I am wondering if this is really the best way to go since I think its pretty conservative assumption (that way we dont consider part of the slab that also helps with bending).
This way is the quickest and most simple.

If we design said beam as T seaction with effective width of a slab (beff) we get much wider compression area of the beam so we need less tension reinforcement. I think this option is slower (to determine beff) but more accurate?

Which way do you go?
Also how do you determine beff?





RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

It's going to try to act like a T-beam whether you want it to or not.

As far as beff goes.....it is (according to ACI 318):

8.12.2 — Width of slab effective as a T-beam flange
shall not exceed one-quarter of the span length of the
beam, and the effective overhanging flange width on
each side of the web shall not exceed:
(a) Eight times the slab thickness; and
(b) One-half the clear distance to the next web.

8.12.3 — For beams with a slab on one side only, the
effective overhanging flange width shall not exceed:
(a) One-twelfth the span length of the beam;
(b) Six times the slab thickness; and
(c) One-half the clear distance to the next web.

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

As far as beff goes.....it is (according to EC2), similar to ACI:

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

Attached picture should explain it really well. This is taken from Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design by Wight and MacGregor.



I always found ACI's wording a little confusing. ACI 318 sections 8.12.2 and .3 define the overhang so don't forget to add the width of the stem to determine the effective flange width.

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

Just an fyi ACI 13.2.4 provides secondary requirements for beams in two-way slab systems, see this criteria get missed a lot.

Open Source Structural Applications: https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

(OP)
Thank you for help.
I have also found this if - its the same as WARose posted but in picture.




I found Eurocode's explanation confusing in a case when we are dealing with only one beam integated in RC slab. I like ACI's better and more clear.

So do you guys choose the faster and more safer way when dealing with this (rectangular cross section) or an actual T-beam?

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

Quote:

So do you guys choose the faster and more safer way when dealing with this (rectangular cross section) or an actual T-beam?

About the only time I ignore T-beam action is when I am worried about openings in the slab. (At the risk of opening that can of worms.)

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

(OP)
I have looked up what Celt83 posted.

I dont really know what is meant by projection - can someone explain?

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

(OP)
found it:

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

We ALWAYS use the flange (T-beam action).
It makes very little difference in design time unless the compression block extends below the bottom of the slab - otherwise it is really just the same as a rectangular beam design....where everything below the compression block is assumed cracked and neglected whether it is a rectangular beam shape or a "T" beam shape -

So your design cross section is simply a rectangular compression block at the top and a transformed area of reinforcement at the bottom.
Plus our spreadsheets, software simply does it for us after we input the beff.

Heck - I even had my old HP programmed to do T-beams.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: designing a RC beam partly integrated in a slab

"get much wider compression area of the beam so we need less tension reinforcement."

Including the effective flange will help deflections a lot, but it will only have a small effect on the amount of reinforcement required for Ultimate Strength!

I would always include it for the deflection benefits and also ductility at positive moment regions,.

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