Releasing Moment For Secondary Member

www.sefindia.
org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections
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
Log in to check your private messages
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.
Secondary to Primary beam connections

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author
kulkarninm
Message
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:01 am
Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections
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?
Joined: 07 Nov 2009

Posts: 17
Back to top
rahul.leslie
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:36 am
Post subject:
General Sponsor
Release only MZ
Joined: 01 Apr 2008

Posts: 429
Location: Trivandrum
Back to top
Dr. N. Subramanian
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections
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?
Joined: 21 Feb 2008

Posts: 4848
Location: Gaithersburg, MD,
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
www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections
2 of 7
U.S.A.
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,
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
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:25 am
Post subject:
Silver Sponsor
Dear Er.Kulkarninm,
Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 3394
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:
...
Joined: 14 Dec 2009

Posts: 314
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
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?
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,
Posted via Email

Back to top
vikram.jeet
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
Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 2212
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
to occur ,thereby resulting in torsion in the main beam.

The extent of torsion generated in main beam will depend upon many factors:
(i) Presence of floor slab
(ii) Flexural stiffness of sec beam , Torsional stiffness of main beam components
on either side of sec beam
(iii) Detailing of reinforcement at junction
Presence of floor slab
This is very important factor and realistic behavior of frames , main-sec beam junctions
(in question)must be viewed in presence of the floor slabs.
Due to presence of floor slab, Torsion generated will be greatly reduced depending upon
the depth of main beam w.r.t sec beam (since one of the component force of
couple is cared by the slab element present in the structural system)
Extent of torsion:
This will be calculated by distributing the End moment in proportion of respective stiffness
of three members meeting at joint (in plan) viz Flexural stiffness of sec beam, torsional
stiffness of main beam portions on either side of sec beam.
Detailing of reinforcement at the joint
The joint is developed for a partial fixity to allow some cracking by providing reduced
anchorage length.
Codal provision:
IS 456 (2000) clause 41.1 on Torsion states
In structures where torsion is required to maintain equilibrium, memebers
shall be designed for torsion in accordance with 41.2,41.3 and 41.4.
Howeever for such indeterminate structures where torsion can be eliminated
by releasing redundant restraints, no specific design for torsion is necessary
, provided torsional stiffness is neglected in calculation of internal forces.
Adequate contriol of any cracking is provided by the shear reinforcement as
per 40.
In light of above , personally I feel that:
(i) Torsion calculations may be attempted in cases where RCC slab is not present in
structural system e.g. Architectural PERGOLA , Industrial strucutres with rcc
beams but chequred plate flooring and similar situations
(ii) Torsion calculations may be ignored for RCC structures having floor slabs in
the structural systems but the sec beams must be designed as simply
supported for BM= (w*L*L/ .Detailing at junction (joint ) shall facilitate ,only ,
a partial fixity.
However ,such Main beams must also be tackled in detailing by providing
additinal shear reinf .(as a thumb rule -- Shear reinf in main beam may be worked
out by ignoring the[ tc* B *d ] relief offered by concrete to account for
some twisting).
With best regards
vikramjeet
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?
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
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
Post subject: Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections
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,
Back to top
vikram.jeet
General Sponsor
In continuation to earlier mail on this subject:

-----------------------------------
Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 2212
In light of above , personally I feel that:

(i) Torsion calculations may be attempted in cases where RCC slab is not present in
structural system e.g. Architectural PERGOLA , Industrial strucutres with rcc
beams but chequred plate flooring and similar situations
(ii) Torsion calculations may be ignored for RCC structures having floor slabs in
the structural systems but the sec beams must be designed as simply
supported for BM= (w*L*L/
a partial fixity.
.Detailing at junction (joint ) shall facilitate ,only ,
However ,such Main beams must also be tackled in detailing by providing

additinal shear reinf .(as a thumb rule -- Shear reinf in main beam may be worked
out by ignoring the[ tc* B *d ] relief offered by concrete to account for
some twisting). Provide side face reinforcement to the extent of 0.1%
for any beam depth (i.e irrespective of beam depth limit )
With best regards
vikramjeet
--
22-01-2015 17:51
6 of 7
Posted via Email

Back to top
prof.arc
...
Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 648
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?
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
Posted via Email

Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts
Oldest First
Go
www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General

Discussion
All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
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
2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration
22-01-2015 17:51
7 of 7
Structural Engineering Forum of India

You like this.
Structural Engineering Forum of India shared Phoenix Webtech Private Limited's album.
6 hrs
You and 66,045 others like Structural Engineering Forum of India.
Facebook social plugin
tsunami
earthquake
Voice of America - US School to Provide Vertical Tsunami Refuge

CNBC - California not ready for quakes-and they're coming
powered by
powered by
22-01-2015 17:51

Releasing Moment For Secondary Member

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Releasing Moment For Secondary Member

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.sefindia.

org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections

Log in to check your private messages

Secondary to Primary beam connections

www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General Discussion

Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections

Joined: 07 Nov 2009

Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:36 am

Joined: 01 Apr 2008

Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:39 pm

Post subject: Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections

Joined: 21 Feb 2008

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:25 am

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:40 am

Joined: 14 Dec 2009

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:45 am

Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections

Posted via Email

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:15 am

Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections

to occur ,thereby resulting in torsion in the main beam.

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:26 am

Post subject: Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:25 am

Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections

In continuation to earlier mail on this subject:

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

In light of above , personally I feel that:

.Detailing at junction (joint ) shall facilitate ,only ,

However ,such Main beams must also be tackled in detailing by providing

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections

Posted via Email

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:39 am

Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posted via Email

www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> SEFI General

All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration

www.sefindia.org :: View topic - Secondary to Primary beam connections

Structural Engineering Forum of India

You and 66,045 others like Structural Engineering Forum of India.

Facebook social plugin

Voice of America - US School to Provide Vertical Tsunami Refuge

You might also like