×
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

Composite Design - Modular Ratios

Composite Design - Modular Ratios

Composite Design - Modular Ratios

(OP)
Hi:

I am in the process of analyzing an existing floor to determine the maximum load it can take.  It was constructed in the 1930's, and is a composite floor featuring a 4" lightly-reinforced slab that sits on a W6x12 beam.  The beam is entirely encased in concrete, and the slab and beam appear to have been cast at the same time.

I am analyzing this as a T-Beam with the slab (or actually the upper portion of the slab) as the compression element and the W6x12 as the tension element.  My question regards the modular ratio.  

I have computed the modular ratio, n, as 8.6, using E =  29,000,000 for the steel and ACI 8.5.1 for the concrete.  

I have approached the analysis from 2 points of view using the Theory of Transformed Section - Converting everything to steel, and converting everything to concrete.

I have calculated the location of the centroid from both perspectives.  From All-steel P.O.V. (Point of View) I divided n into the concrete values and solved by completing the square.  From All-Concrete P.O.V., I multiplied the steel values by n and solved by completing the square.  Both ways yielded the same centroid location.  My problem arises when I compute the Moment of Inertia, I, of the transformed section.

When I approach things from the all-steel perspective, I have divided n into the I of the concrete before adding A x d squared. When using allowable f values for steel and concrete, and using the standard f = Mc/I equation, I get one set of allowable moment values.  

When I approach things from the concrete perspective, by multiplying the steel areas by n, and leaving the I values alone, and using f=Mc/I for the same allowable f values, I get significantly lower moment values.  I had believed that they should be the same.

I suspect that this may be a Math error on my part and I deparately need to brush up on my algebra.  Or perhaps I goofed up and one way is better than the other.  Maybe I am 100% wrong in my analysis methods.  Any way, could someone shed some light on where I am screwing up?   I am a geotechnical engineer, and I don't do this too often....only when I have to.

Thanks!!

RE: Composite Design - Modular Ratios

Hi
You can refer to any book on steel design to see exactly where you had done a mistake! I recommend the book by Jack C. McCormac titled "Structural Steel Design". However note that you should be careful about the concrete section that you should include in the transformed section; only that part in compression should be included. I guess that your mistake could be that you included the whole concrete section in the transformed section; which , of course, is not correct.

RE: Composite Design - Modular Ratios

(OP)
Thanks for your reply.  

I actually own the 3rd edition of that book and neglected to refer to it.  I never realized that there was composite design examples in it.  I was busy refering to McCormac's Concrete design book, plus a few other references I have (Gaylord and Gaylord, Wang and Salmon). You have been very helpful and I appreciate it.

My problem seems to lie in my calculations of the composite moment of inertia along with where I use the modular ratio in the stress calculations. Fortunately, McCormac gives some very good information and examples for this, more in-depth than the other references I was using.

For what it's worth, I was only using the compression area of the concrete in my calculations.  I was just misusing the modular ratio.

Thanks again!

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