Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1 of 7
http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8120
www.sefindia.org
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]
Search
Share
Subscriptions
Follow @sefindia
66k
Digest Preferences
FAQ
Profile
Search
Memberlist
2,495 followers
Usergroups
Register
Security Tips
Donate
Log in
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.
Message
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:01 am
General Sponsor
Dear safians,
I always come across the problem while modeling frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the
structural engineers releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only reaction
should get transfered to primary beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam supporting other
beams and resting on primary beam is released for the moments, warning for instability occurs.
How to rectify this problem? Is is OK if beams are partially released?
Back to top
rahul.leslie
Post subject:
General Sponsor
Release only MZ
Back to top
Dr. N. Subramanian
General Sponsor
Hi All,
I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and how
do we know whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?
I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you
attempt to release end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What the
software says is a valid thing. Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion given by
Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good practice. Why do you want to release the end moments? Can
we not check the beams for combined BM and Torsion?
22-01-2015 17:51
2 of 7
U.S.A.
http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8120
This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind of
release may be critical for lateral loads), Er Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er Mallick, Er
Suraj, Er Sangeeta and Er Bharsoda to express their views.
Best wishes,
Subramanian
kulkarninm wrote:
Dear safians,
I always come across the problem while modeling frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the
structural engineers releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only
reaction should get transfered to primary beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam
supporting other beams and resting on primary beam is released for the moments, warning for
instability occurs. How to rectify this problem? Is is OK if beams are partially released?
Back to top
thirumalaichettiar
Post subject:
Silver Sponsor
Dear Er.Kulkarninm,
The problem of releasing Mz in STAAD is a modeling problem and as Er.Rahul said it can be solved
as per his instruction.
There are torsion due to:
1) Equilibrium of internal and external forces
2) Compatibility of strains in concrete and steel
Coming to the point raised by Dr.N.S you have different type of Torsion in a structure. The
problem stated by is the COMPATIBILITY TORSION. This can be released and detailing is very
important at the junction with Primary beam.
As Dr.N.S said it is difficult to achieve the secondary beam as simply supported one in practice
specially in R.C.C structures. Better design it for torsion and detail it carefully. Also in many cases
the Mz from analysis may be very small.
In many discussions in the forum it was pointed out that DETAILING is as important as
ANALYSIS and DESIGN.
Enclosed is a PDF file related to the above topic which gives some good idea about it.
Hope it is clear.
T.Rangarajan.
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.
torsion.pdf
Description:
Filename:
torsion.pdf
Filesize:
232.25 KB
Downloaded:
1509 Time(s)
Download
Back to top
bijay sarkar
Post subject:
...
In Staad, warnings will be given when end release command has been given at both ends of a
member for the following forces :
Mx, Fx, Fy, Fz.
Mx released at both ends of a member will mean the member is capable to rotate about its own
axis.
Fx released at both ends means the member is capable to move along its own axis.
Similar is the case for Fy and Fz.
As T. Rangarajan sir told, if in detailing we provide moment connection, we consider "No release"
at ends and if we consider only shear connection with shear cleats only at web, we consider "End
22-01-2015 17:51
3 of 7
http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8120
Release". This is adopted for any kind of beams i.e. for secondary and also for primary beams in
steel structures.
With regards,
Bijay Sarkar
Back to top
sdec.in
Silver Sponsor
Dear Dr NS
It is a common practice to release Mz for secondary beams to avoid torsion in Supporting beams;
however it is very important to give a matching end support (sec to main beam)detail where
development length for top bars is curtailed to Ld/3 and not ld+10dia usually adopted for ductile
joints.
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 473
best regards
Sangeeta Wij
Quote:
----- Original Message ----From: drnsmani (forum@sefindia.org)
To: general@sefindia.org (general@sefindia.org)
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:09 PM
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections
Hi All,
I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and
how do we know whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?
I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you
attempt to release end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What
the software says is a valid thing. Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion
given by Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good practice. Why do you want to release the end
moments? Can we not check the beams for combined BM and Torsion?
This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind
of release may be critical for lateral loads), ER Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er
Mallick, and Er Bharsoda to express their views.
Best wishes,
Subramanian
kulkarninm wrote: Dear safians,
I always come across the problem while modeling frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the
structural engineers releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only
reaction should get transfered to primary beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam
supporting other beams and resting on primary beam is released for the moments, warning for
instability occurs. How to rectify this problem? Is is OK if beams are partially released?
General Sponsor
Torsion(in main beam) due to Sec beam -main beam connection in RCC construction
As expressed by Dr NS , the structure will behave in its natural way and our assumptions
must be close enough to its natural behavior
In RCC, A secondary beam resting over a main beam will make the condition as simple support
without generating any moment in the connection
However when a secondary beam is monolithic at its end with main beam to some appreciable
depth, the connection is no longer simply supported and end moment in sec beam will bound
22-01-2015 17:51
4 of 7
http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8120
Hi All,
I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and how
do we know whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?
I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you
attempt to release end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What the
software says is a valid thing. Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion given by
Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good practice. Why do you want to release the end moments? Can
we not check the beams for combined BM and Torsion?
22-01-2015 17:51
5 of 7
http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8120
This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind of
release may be critical for lateral loads), Er Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er Mallick, Er
Suraj, Er Sangeeta and Er Bharsoda to express their views.
Best wishes,
Subramanian
-Posted via Email
Back to top
sukanta.adhikari
General Sponsor
As per fig. 8.16 of SP34...a detaling of simply supported beam resting on brickwall is shown...In
this diagram the bottom reinforcement which is the main bending tension reinforcement extends
Ld/3 from face of brick wall support to the beam resting on brickwall.
However no detailing has been shown when a secondary beams connects a main beam...But in
general this method of extending Ld/3 has been adopted incase of secondary beam connecting
main beams by many deisgners in practice..for which MZ is released in the software like STAAD
etc....
However we cant have a pure simply supported beam in RCC structure..some moment will always
get transferred once a seconday beam is connected to a primary beam...even if Ld/3 is provided..
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 670
Hence I agree with the suggestion given by respected NS that it is always better to design the
main beam for combined torsion and moment...
Regards,
S.Adhikari
kulkarninm wrote:
Dear safians,
I always come across the problem while modeling frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the
structural engineers releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only
reaction should get transfered to primary beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam
supporting other beams and resting on primary beam is released for the moments, warning for
instability occurs. How to rectify this problem? Is is OK if beams are partially released?
Back to top
vikram.jeet
General Sponsor
22-01-2015 17:51
6 of 7
http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8120
...
I agree with Dr. NS views. Modelling assumptions on release of end moments in the case now
discussed or in the earlier discussion of column joint with footing [hinged condition]
would not occur in practice unless the joint is engineered with a hinge in case of column junction
or the secondary beam simply rests on a pedestal of main beam.
There should be no difficulty in analyzing as a monolithic integrated joint.
ARC
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, drnsmani <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Quote:
Hi All,
I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and
how do we know whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?
I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you
attempt to release end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What
the software says is a valid thing. Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion
given by Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good practice. Why do you want to release the end
moments? Can we not check the beams for combined BM and Torsion?
This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind
of release may be critical for lateral loads), ER Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er
Mallick, and Er Bharsoda to express their views.
Best wishes,
Subramanian
Oldest First
Go
Page 1 of 5
Jump to: SEFI General Discussion
Translation: Translate topic
Go
Go
You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files
You can download files
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
this
this
this
this
this
this
this
forum
forum
forum
forum
forum
forum
forum
22-01-2015 17:51
7 of 7
http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8120
Structural Engineering Forum of India shared Phoenix Webtech Private Limited's album.
6 hrs
tsunami
earthquake
powered by
powered by
22-01-2015 17:51