www.sefindia.org

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]

 Forum SubscriptionsSubscriptions DigestDigest Preferences   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister FAQSecurity Tips FAQDonate
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to forum 
Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools  before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners
here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

Upstand beams
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bkkk
...
...


Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:09 am    Post subject: Upstand beams Reply with quote

Dear  sefians

While designing an up stand beam, where slab joins the beam at beam bottom,can we adopt the effective depth as  for a normal beam,what are the factors that are needed  to be considered while designing   such beams.

Er.Balaji venkateswaran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gpsarathyy
...
...


Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Posts: 481
Location: chennai

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Mr. Balaji,

I think you are referring to the inverted T-beam.
The design is similar ordinary T-beam, only effective width of Tee beam to be calculated, it depends on the other factors like the length of the span, width of the beam and the c/c to span of the beam.

I hope it clarifies your doubt.

Regards,
G.Parthasarathy M.E. (Structural Engg.,)
Chennai.
Email: gpsarathyy@gmail.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
umeshrao
...
...


Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 570
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Upstand beams Reply with quote

bkkk wrote:
Dear  sefians
While designing an up stand beam, where slab joins the beam at beam bottom,can we adopt the effective depth as  for a normal beam,what are the factors that are needed  to be considered while designing   such beams. Er.Balaji venkateswaran

     Dear Mr. Balaji,
     Unless this beam is cantilevered, you can treat this beam as normal beam. If the beam is cantilever, then slab at bottom will be compression face then you may design as T beam.
     Regards Umesh Rao
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikram.jeet
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 2212

PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:32 am    Post subject: Upstand beams Reply with quote

Upstand beam for sagging moments will be a rectangular beam
but for hogging moments will be a T- Beam


Further to add that in upstand beam the hanging action of  
slab loading shall be accounted by adding additional  
area required for direct tension due to hanging
(though small) to the area worked for shear reinf.

best regards

vikramjeet





-- ญญ

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
umeshrao
...
...


Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 570
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:35 am    Post subject: Re: Upstand beams Reply with quote

[quote="vikram.jeet"]Upstand beam for sagging moments will be a rectangular beam but for hogging moments will be a T- Beam. Further to add that in upstand beam the hanging action of slab loading shall be accounted by adding additional area required for direct tension due to hanging (though small) to the area worked for shear reinf.
best regards vikramjeet
     Dear Vikramjeet,
     Very interesting note on shear. Though we have been using this thought for water tank beams/walls, where slab is hung from beam, to restrict tension in stirrups or vertical reinforcement in the wall. But never gave a thought for slab supported at the soffit of beams.
     May be,as you rightly said that this has to be considered for design of shear, it is not done for various reasons. Normally loads on slab are small, unlike water tank slab. And hence minimum shear reinforcement takes care.
     Thanks for the new thought[ atleast for me.], I will check next time and revert back.
     Regards Umesh Rao
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shirishmehta3
SEFI Regulars
SEFI Regulars


Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:48 am    Post subject: Re: Upstand beams Reply with quote

vikram.jeet wrote:
Upstand beam for sagging moments will be a rectangular beam
but for hogging moments will be a T- Beam


Further to add that in upstand beam the hanging action of  
slab loading shall be accounted by adding additional  
area required for direct tension due to hanging
(though small) to the area worked for shear reinf.

best regards

vikramjeet





-- ญญ

Posted via Email


Dear Sir

Can you please further clarify regarding this thought on shear??
I want to share my experience I faced once.
I was designing a flat slab structure having spans of 7-8m. The slab had peripheral inverted beams. I considered the following points while designing these beams for shear.
1) I calculated the shear force in the beam due to load transferred from slab and line loads due to facade. Say for a simply supported beam Vu= wl/2
Now, assuming a cold joint between the slab and the beam as it may be the case because of an upstand, I neglected the contribution of concrete in resisting shear as a weak plane is formed at the slab beam junction. Assuming the stirrups take this entire shear I got the value of Av.
2) As you said, these stirrups are subjected to direct tension in a way as the slab seems to hang from the beam. So I thought of checking whether the stirrup area Av obtained from item 1) stated above is sufficient to carry the 1-way shear from the slab. ( i guessed it should b the slab shear and not the beam shear... because the slab shear acts as a uniformly distributed load on the beam which will be transferred to the stirrup by means of direct tension). But to my dismay I found that this method leads to very high shear reinforcement Sad
I also went one step further to ensure that only the 1st outer leg of the stirrup takes this direct tension because it is not clear to me whether the crack would be intercepted by all stirrup legs or not during this transfer of shear by means of direct tension. This further led to an uneconomical design.


I am a bit lost in this method which i used as it was giving very high reinforcement. Although the transfer of forces as explained in both items above seem logically appropriate to me.
It would be indeed appreciable if anybody can comment on the approach used and point out the mistakes in my assumptions.

Regards
Shirish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikram.jeet
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 2212

PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:06 am    Post subject: Upstand beams Reply with quote

Dear Er Sirish,

Your problem is in two parts
i) Transfer of shear from slab to upstand beam
ii) Hanging action of slab on upstand beam

i) Transfer of shear from slab to upstand beam
(Cold joint is is rarely in practice since slab is cast with beams),  
However taking to consideration of cold joint between slab and beam , the shear
between slab and beam will be transferred through the slab reinf bars through
dowel action and slab reinf entering the beam needs to be enhanced at  
beam junction. Preferably Bottom bars shall be added with Ld embedment on
either side (and top bars as per original design for partial fixity w/o enhancement)
ii) Hanging action of slab on upstand beam
This would require accountal in shear reinf(i.e. stirrups) being provided in beam
Asv = area required for stirrups for spacing =S  
due to SF =( w+w')L/2 where L is span of beam
w is the (self wt +any partition/facade load over beam) per m
and w' is load from slab per m  
Addtional area in length of one meter from hanging action A1=[ w'/perm.stress]
perm stress in direct tension, probably this would be a small addtional since
Additional area required for spacing S cm= A1*S/100

For sake of simplicity , only working stress is used but problem can be
solved in limit design with appropriate LF and allowable stresses

best regards

vikramjeet



Dear Sir

Can you please further clarify regarding this thought on shear??
I want to share my experience I faced once.
I was designing a flat slab structure having spans of 7-8m. The slab had peripheral inverted beams. I considered the following points while designing these beams for shear.
1) I calculated the shear force in the beam due to load transferred from slab and line loads due to facade. Say for a simply supported beam Vu= wl/2
Now, assuming a cold joint between the slab and the beam as it may be the case because of an upstand, I neglected the contribution of concrete in resisting shear as a weak plane is formed at the slab beam junction. Assuming the stirrups take this entire shear I got the value of Av.
2) As you said, these stirrups are subjected to direct tension in a way as the slab seems to hang from the beam. So I thought of checking whether the stirrup area Av obtained from item 1) stated above is sufficient to carry the 1-way shear from the slab. ( i guessed it should b the slab shear and not the beam shear... because the slab shear acts as a uniformly distributed load on the beam which will be transferred to the stirrup by means of direct tension). But to my dismay I found that this method leads to very high shear reinforcement
I also went one step further to ensure that only the 1st outer leg of the stirrup takes this direct tension because it is not clear to me whether the crack would be intercepted by all stirrup legs or not during this transfer of shear by means of direct tension. This further led to an uneconomical design.


I am a bit lost in this method which i used as it was giving very high reinforcement. Although the transfer of forces as explained in both items above seem logically appropriate to me.
It would be indeed appreciable if anybody can comment on the approach used and point out the mistakes in my assumptions.

Regards
Shirish.

-- ญญ

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bkkk
...
...


Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:42 am    Post subject: Up stand beams -reg Reply with quote

Thank you Prtahsarathy sir, Umesh rao sir,vikramjeet sir and shirish sir for fruitful discussions and clarifications

Er.Balaji venkateswaran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
umeshrao
...
...


Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 570
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:51 am    Post subject: Re: Upstand beams Reply with quote

[quote="shirishmehta3"]
vikram.jeet wrote:
Upstand beam for

Dear Sir
Dear Shirish,
Can you please further clarify regarding this thought on shear??
I want to share my experience I faced once.
I was designing a flat slab structure having spans of 7-8m. The slab had peripheral inverted beams. I considered the following points while designing these beams for shear.
1) I calculated the shear force in the beam due to load transferred from slab and line loads due to facade. Say for a simply supported beam Vu= wl/2
[ I do hope you added equivalent shear due to torsion to vertical shear.]
Now, assuming a cold joint between the slab and the beam as it may be the case because of an upstand, I neglected the contribution of concrete in resisting shear as a weak plane is formed at the slab beam junction. Assuming the stirrups take this entire shear I got the value of Av.
     [ A weak plane assumed can only be for in-plane shear and hence stirrups will act as shear heads and take across shear and not as tension.This shear is moment in the beam divided by lever arm of beam. This shear will be carried by all legs of stirrups.]
2) As you said, these stirrups are subjected to direct tension in a way as the slab seems to hang from the beam. So I thought of checking whether the stirrup area Av obtained from item 1) stated above is sufficient to carry the 1-way shear from the slab. ( i guessed it should b the slab shear and not the beam shear... because the slab shear acts as a uniformly distributed load on the beam which will be transferred to the stirrup by means of direct tension). But to my dismay I found that this method leads to very high shear reinforcement Sad
[To Vs add tension caused by hanging of slab and then work back Asv and Sv.]
I also went one step further to ensure that only the 1st outer leg of the stirrup takes this direct tension because it is not clear to me whether the crack would be intercepted by all stirrup legs or not during this transfer of shear by means of direct tension. This further led to an uneconomical design.


I am a bit lost in this method which i used as it was giving very high reinforcement. Although the transfer of forces as explained in both items above seem logically appropriate to me.
It would be indeed appreciable if anybody can comment on the approach used and point out the mistakes in my assumptions.

Regards
Shirish.

     Regards Umesh Rao
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thirumalaichettiar
Silver Sponsor
Silver Sponsor


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 3459

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

UP-STAND BEAM

What id the EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH for an up stand (inverted beam)? Is any guided value in IS 456-2000? Hope that there is no such guidance in IS code 456.
Please inform.

Er.T.Rangarajan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


© 2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration
Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. advertisement policy