Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Question on need to use "skip" live loads in 2-way slabs

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
As pointed out, the IBC 2000 references ACI 318, therefore it seems that section 13.7.6 of the ACI  is applicable for two-way slabs as a special case of sections ACI 8.9 and IBC 1607.10. I don't see any real contradiction here.
Nonetheless, forgetting all that, my experience has been that the positive steel for most regular continuous one-way or two-way slabs should be governed by minimum temperature steel requirements. I would only be concerned about skip loading where there was only two spans.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Schwinger [mailto:clifford234(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:48 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Question on need to use "skip" live loads in 2-way slabs



Thanks for the responses to my question. I will let everyone know (next week) what the differences in design are between "skip" and "non-skip". 


Although the differences in design between the two load patterns may be small, there will be measurable cost differences.


I just want to be certain that I am not being overly and unnecessarily conservative in my approach to this issue (skipped vs. non-skipped live loads).


Does anyone else out there have any other thoughts on this issue?


Thanks again.


Clifford Schwinger   


Out of curiosity,  what is the difference in the reinforcement required when you skip live loads versus when you don't skip live loads- i.e. what is the difference in the the post-tensioning required and what is the difference in the additional mild steel required for ultimate moment?  What is the difference in the shear calculations?