We have 9" flat cast-in-place concrete slab with concrete columns. Because the parking garage in the first floor and the basement, the column spacing has to go 29' apart. According to ACI, the minimum slab thickness should be l/30, which is about 12", but client doesn't want to use that much thickness slab, how I we solve the problem without failed punching shear?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
punching shear
- Thread starter happayday
- Start date
JedClampett
Structural
You're going to have to clarify. Is the slab in place or are you designing it now?
To reduce the depth, you could add drop panels and edge beams. Or possibly a prestressed system might reduce the depth. But I would strongly advise not to violate the code provision on minimum thickness. You're likely to have problems and the client will conveniently forget what he requested.
To reduce the depth, you could add drop panels and edge beams. Or possibly a prestressed system might reduce the depth. But I would strongly advise not to violate the code provision on minimum thickness. You're likely to have problems and the client will conveniently forget what he requested.
I believe you misreading the code - the l/30 value for minimum slab thickness only applies if you do not check deflections. If deflections are checked versus table 9.5(b) of ACI-02 then the slab can be as thin as 5" per 9.5.3.2 (a) no matter what the l/ value works out to be.
- Thread starter
- #4
The design is just starting. The client is really not happy increase the thickness of the slab and suggested shearheads. Is that going to work?
Acturally the deflection is fine but the puching shear around the column fail after we considered the unbanlance moment.
Acturally the deflection is fine but the puching shear around the column fail after we considered the unbanlance moment.
- Thread starter
- #8
Acturally the architect doesn't like drop panel or concrete capital idea cause he doesn't want to use ceiling to cover it. Now it leaves the shearheads. I'm not familiar with that, how much it can help, if we use shear head, then the column spacing can go 29.5' with 9" concrete slab? Is any site or books/papers regarding it can be suggested?
- Thread starter
- #9
Headed studs (sometimes known by the trade name Nelson studs) are welded to a strip of steel plate to form shear reinforcing that is placed around the column. It is much easier to place than shearheads. I believe they were originally patented by Decon in Canada ( but their patent has expired and other manufacturers like Nelson now offer competing products.
I have done a lot of similar projects with 30' spans where 8" post-tensioned slabs with studrail reinforcing turned out to be the most economical solution.
I have done a lot of similar projects with 30' spans where 8" post-tensioned slabs with studrail reinforcing turned out to be the most economical solution.
29' is very manageable with post-tensioning- envision around a 7"-9" PT 2-way flat plate. Of course you need to run your own numbers and ask for help if you are unfamiliar with PT.
If you have problems with punching shear, there are several products like Decon Studrails or Lenton Steel Fortress that can really help you out. Need to watch out for penetrations within 10 times the slab thickness IIRC- it reduces your punching shear perimeter and can cause a great deal of problems if you have an MEP engineer or architect that doesn't understand punching shear.
- as previously posted.
If you have problems with punching shear, there are several products like Decon Studrails or Lenton Steel Fortress that can really help you out. Need to watch out for penetrations within 10 times the slab thickness IIRC- it reduces your punching shear perimeter and can cause a great deal of problems if you have an MEP engineer or architect that doesn't understand punching shear.
- as previously posted.
NewImhotep
Structural
Try this Report
ACI 421.1R-99 Shear Reinforcement for Slabs
ACI 421.1R-99 Shear Reinforcement for Slabs
happyday,
On what basis did you calculate that the deflections are ok for an RC slab with a L/D ratio of nearly 40. It is a good depth for a PROPERLY DESIGNED PT slab. It will not work for RC slabs unless your end spans do not control.
As others have said, capitals or shear heads, but get the deflections right first.
On what basis did you calculate that the deflections are ok for an RC slab with a L/D ratio of nearly 40. It is a good depth for a PROPERLY DESIGNED PT slab. It will not work for RC slabs unless your end spans do not control.
As others have said, capitals or shear heads, but get the deflections right first.
Drop panels and col caps are not uncommon with parking garages and normally don't require a ceiling to cover them. They can be exposed and expressed. It is often possible to use a 'banded slab' (a wide flat beam), but, it too would be exposed.
The alternative to caps/drops is to opt for a thicker slab (if normal reinforced) and pay the hit for additional shear and concrete. Post tensioning is an option, just a matter of care for joints and corrosion. You also take a bit of a hit due to the increased concrete cover.
Dik
The alternative to caps/drops is to opt for a thicker slab (if normal reinforced) and pay the hit for additional shear and concrete. Post tensioning is an option, just a matter of care for joints and corrosion. You also take a bit of a hit due to the increased concrete cover.
Dik
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question