huangyhg

moment distribution in continuous concrete members
i'm designing an underground rectangular concrete tank using moody tables and i have a condition where the fixed end moment of a wall is 60 ft-kips and the fem of the adjoining wall is 20 ft-kips. after i redistribute the moments, my balanced moment ends up being 42 ft-kips. now my question is that in aci318-02 section 8.4 the section talks about not increasing or decreasing moments by redistribution by any more than 20% max...does this section refer to my case where my 42 ft-kip moment is obviously more than 20% from 60 or 20. if not could someone please clarify what the section is referring to? thanks in advance
find a job or post a job opening
you're determining the moments in a rectangular frame using "moment distribution". you're balanced moment is 42 ft-kip.
the "redistribution of negative moment" in aci 8.4 allows you to decrease that 42 ft-kip moment if the criteria is met. the decrease accounts for the change in the actual distribution of moment (assumed by elastic behavior) when plastic deflection occurs. if you can decrease that negative moment, you must increase the positive moment at (near) midspan.
good luck.
trekkie:
section 8.4 has nothing to do with moment distribution analysis. what 8.4 is talking about is the technique of slightly reducing the negative moments in a continuous
i believe that jae and i have given you the same answer. after further consideration, and if our answers were not very illuminating consider the following:
your rectangular frame is similar to a continuous beam (without end beams).
a continuous beam typically exhibits negative moments over the supports (or the corners of your frame), and positive moments near the midspan. depending on the beam (or frame), the negative moment might be much higher (absolute value) than the positive moment. the negative moment might be so much higher that you require 2 or 3 times as much rebar for the negative moment than for the positive moment. if so, you can design more economically by allowing the "partial" development of a plastic hinge at the negative moment. in effect, you're in between a truly "continuous" beam and a "simply supported" beam.
lastly, i would not take any advantage of the allowed reduction in the negative moment for an underground structure. anyway, the required serviceability (cracking) may control the required reinforcement. sorry for being long winded, and
good luck.
yes, rowe, i posted and then noticed that you had arrived right before my own post. i agree with your comments.
rowe:
since the characteristic of a plastic hinge 鈥?that is not supposed to reach at- is maintain the full capacity of resistant moment, please can you develop your idea that it is "in between a trully "continuous" beam and a "simply supported" beam"?
hernma,
factored loads are not usually intended to satisfy serviceability, but usually to ensure that the structure is adequate to sustain the load without failure.
if the criteria for failure is collapse, then you should be able to design for the development of a plastic hinge due to some extreme event (like an earthquake).
some structures, like critical bridges, hospitals, etc. require some extent of serviceability even under these types of extreme events, so that some plastic deflection is allowed, but limited (closer to elastic than to strain hardening).
as far as the original question concerning aci 8.4, suppose you have a fixed-fixed
rowe's main point being:
the 20% limit will maintain elasticity during service loading--but the code will allow redistribution for ultimate loading.
in 1930 von emperger stated, "to design a beam with uncertain fixity it is only necessary to assume an arbitrary moment diagram in equilibrium with external loads."
well written responses rowe and jae,
i love reinforced concrete

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]