Understanding Concrete Beam Construction Methods

  • Thread starter Thread starter stglyde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beam Concrete
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on concrete beam construction methods, particularly the practice of pouring concrete in halves and the implications for structural integrity. Participants explore various construction techniques, repair methods for damaged structures, and the interactions between concrete and steel in beam-column connections. The scope includes theoretical considerations, practical applications, and comparisons of practices in different regions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the structural implications of pouring concrete in halves, suggesting that the center may not be continuous and could rely solely on mid-position rebars for strength.
  • Others argue that as long as the beam is not in pure tension, the method is acceptable since forces on the center would be negligible when flexed.
  • A participant raises concerns about repair methods used in earthquake-damaged buildings, questioning whether the strength of repaired structures would match the original and how this compares to practices in the United States.
  • Some participants assert that proper concrete mix and correct placement of rebar can restore strength to repaired structures, likening it to the standard practice of not pouring all concrete at once.
  • There is a discussion on the reasons why reinforced concrete beams are not typically placed on steel I-beam columns, with some attributing it to the weight of concrete and others to issues of ductility and stress distribution.
  • Participants explore the feasibility of connecting concrete with rebars to I-beams, discussing methods such as bolting and potential welding practices.
  • One participant seeks examples of the technique of placing concrete beams on I-beams, particularly in retrofit situations, to understand stress in column-beam joints related to seismic shear resistance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the structural implications of construction methods and repair practices. While some points are clarified, no consensus is reached on the best practices or the implications of various techniques.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of specific construction practices and the conditions under which different methods are employed, particularly in relation to seismic considerations and regional practices.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for civil engineers, construction professionals, and students studying structural engineering, particularly those interested in concrete construction methods and seismic design principles.

stglyde
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
I saw in some building constructions where they pour concrete in half of the horizonal beam (with rebar skeleton). Then the next day, they pour the other half of the rebar skeleton. This means the center of the concrete is not contniuous and only the rebars in the mid position holds the strength. Isn't this a bad idea? Or since constructions use it. What's the explanation why they allow that?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
As long as the beam is not in pure tension this will not be a problem as there would be zero forces on the very center of the beam. If the beam is flexed, one side will only be in tension and the other side will only be in compression. The side which is only in tension will be the side that needs the rebar, the compression side does not require it.
 
tekanin said:
As long as the beam is not in pure tension this will not be a problem as there would be zero forces on the very center of the beam. If the beam is flexed, one side will only be in tension and the other side will only be in compression. The side which is only in tension will be the side that needs the rebar, the compression side does not require it.

In some 2 or 3 storey buildings in Turkey damaged by earthquakes where only one side of the foundations is affected. They remove the concrete cement in the column-beam joint and one meter of the beam and remove the column then put new column rebars and tie it to the existing beam rebars. Then pour concrete into it the joint and new column. Would this have similar strength as the original or would this be more weaken? How does this compare to the United States practice (like do they even allow it)?
 
That is a common practice to repair damaged concrete structures, as long as the concrete mix is proper, and the rebar joints are put in the correct places it will be just as strong as the original. Think of it this way when buidling a structure out of concrete they don't pour it all at once! :smile:
 
tekanin said:
That is a common practice to repair damaged concrete structures, as long as the concrete mix is proper, and the rebar joints are put in the correct places it will be just as strong as the original. Think of it this way when buidling a structure out of concrete they don't pour it all at once! :smile:


Thanks.

An unrelated question. How come I can see construction techniques where steel horizontal beam is put on concrete column.. yet I don't see reinforce concrete beam being put on steel I-BEAM column?
 
Because concrete is heavier than steel.
 
What I just said is technically incorrect, steel is denser than concrete, but it usually takes more concrete to perform the same function in a building.
 
tekanin said:
What I just said is technically incorrect, steel is denser than concrete, but it usually takes more concrete to perform the same function in a building.

Or maybe because of ductility. To attach horizontal reinforced concrete beam to a vertical steel i-beam. The point of attachment can break the cement due to unequal steel to cement stress and tension. Maybe this is why you don't see this technique being done. Right?
 
It can be done, but the point you are making is generally why it is not done.
 
  • #10
tekanin said:
It can be done, but the point you are making is generally why it is not done.

Why would anyone do it that way?
 
  • #11
Perhaps the price of concrete is cheaper than steel, that would be a reason to do it that way.
 
  • #12
but how do you connect concrete with rebars to i-beam? maybe by soldering the rebars right to the i-beam? Does any construction do that?
 
  • #13
let's just use a concrete support column for example
on top there's a bracket
anchored in the column
the steel i beams are BOLTED to the bracket
i don't know if it's practice to
also weld the bracket to rebar before pouring concrete
 
  • #14
average guy said:
let's just use a concrete support column for example
on top there's a bracket
anchored in the column
the steel i beams are BOLTED to the bracket
i don't know if it's practice to
also weld the bracket to rebar before pouring concrete

But it's the other way around.. the support column is i-beam and the horizonal beam is concrete. Has anyone actually seen this technique being done in original or most likely retrofit situations anywhere? If yes, where? I just want to understand the stress in the column-beam joint in such scenerios as I'm studying about column-beam joint seismic shear resistance and failure.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
18K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K