Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are concrete beams best as slabs or beams should be beams

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
    #1

    Are concrete beams best as slabs or beams should be beams

    Hi,

    A discussion that seems to come up in our office is how beams should be modelled.
    Should they be modelled as beams or slabs?
    For example, if you have a slab with 1200 – 2400 wide beams should they be modelled as slabs and small beams can be modelled as beams? The issues is that there is then no consistency?
    Currently we model beams no-matter how wide they are or if there are upstand beams.

    Any comments or suggestions on approach to model beams is much appreciated.

    J
    Tags: None
    #2
    We work with a few different structural consultants and their models always differ. Even from the same company. I have found that you can't copy monitor beams (2015). Me being in arch I prefer to just use floors as it keeps the elements looking consistent and easier to manage graphics in sections and such. Maybe it depends on how you want to schedule your elements too.
    There are no stupid questions, only stupid people

    Comment

      #3
      Another advantage of using floors is that we can attached top of wall to them - which is not possible with beams.
      On the other hand if a beam width changes there are a lot more work involved to change it if it is modelled as a floor.

      Comment

        #4
        Definetely beams. Floors tend to bot have the right profiles in section, for the concrete beams. And it means the beam sizes aren't getting tagged intelligently, and things end up wrong. When they need to shift it's a chore, when they need to slope it's a chore.

        I go so far as to tell structural engineers that they have to use beams. Worth it in the end.
        Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
        @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

        Comment

          #5
          Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
          Definetely beams. Floors tend to bot have the right profiles in section, for the concrete beams. And it means the beam sizes aren't getting tagged intelligently, and things end up wrong. When they need to shift it's a chore, when they need to slope it's a chore.

          I go so far as to tell structural engineers that they have to use beams. Worth it in the end.
          All good points Aaron, we dont tag beams at our end but your spot on with the 'when stuff changes' issues.

          *but we do keynote them as beams, which usually includes 'refer to structural drawings'. Although I always use beams for steel members, I don't think anyone else in my office even goes near them.
          So now I'll have to evaluate some minor graphical controls vs. using beams for concrete as well. Thanks for the extra homework :beer: :beer: :beer:
          Last edited by elton williams; March 4, 2017, 02:26 PM.
          There are no stupid questions, only stupid people

          Comment

            #6
            Any preference for when importing model to a Analytical program?
            “Apparently” that is one reason for using slabs in lieu of beams as it is importing better to the analytical software.

            Comment

              #7
              I am on a project now where all the models are exported to SCIA and i have to use beams so the analytical model is correct for the engineers.
              www.jansenengineering.nl

              Comment

              Previous template Next

              Related Topics

              Collapse
              Working...
              X