When is Moment Reduced in Reinforced Concrete Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter niz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concrete Design
AI Thread Summary
Moment reduction in reinforced concrete design typically occurs over supports in continuous beams due to higher bending moments in those areas. For simply supported beams, moment reduction is generally not applied. In cantilever beams, it is generally accepted that moment reduction is not necessary, as the design does not typically account for it. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding when and where to apply moment reductions based on beam type and support conditions. Clarifying these points can aid in effective design practices for reinforced concrete structures.
niz
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi!
I'm having some difficulty trying to clear some things when designing r.concrete slab and beam.
My question is : when do you reduce moment ?
I am aware we reduce moment over support...but when that support is in middle of beam .(continuous beam)
For simply supported beam we don't make reduction of moment.
Then i read on one place that we do not reduce moment over support in cantilever beam...is this true..?
can anyone give me cases when we do reduction of moment for beams and slabs..?
Thanx in advance!

Niz
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
niz said:
Hi!
I'm having some difficulty trying to clear some things when designing r.concrete slab and beam.
My question is : when do you reduce moment ?
I am aware we reduce moment over support...but when that support is in middle of beam .(continuous beam)
For simply supported beam we don't make reduction of moment.
Then i read on one place that we do not reduce moment over support in cantilever beam...is this true..?
can anyone give me cases when we do reduction of moment for beams and slabs..?
Thanx in advance!

Niz

You do moment reductions over supports on continuous beams (middle supports) in general because the bending moment function you get (by using a simple statical system approximation for your beam) has greater values (in the neighbourhoods of these points) and a different 'shape' than a more realistic moment function.
 
what about cantilever beam and cantilever arm?
do we make moment reduction for these two cases as well?
or...because of the safty we dont..?
 
niz said:
what about cantilever beam and cantilever arm?
do we make moment reduction for these two cases as well?
or...because of the safty we dont..?

I think there is no need to do moment reduction in the case of a cantilever beam, at least I didn't see a case/argument to do so yet.
 
thank you so much for your help :)
 
niz said:
thank you so much for your help :)

No problemo, I'm glad I helped. :wink:
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top