Hromis1
Can't be Responsible - Off his Meds today
Hi all, I am trying to work the NCEES, SE II example problem number 260. Have any of you worked this problem? There is quite a lengthy errata given on the NCEES web site.
The difficultly I am having is that I am agreeing more with the original solution than the errata. The problem (part a) has could calculating the moments in a beam that carries a slab on both sides. (I cannot located anywhere in the problem statement information as to if the slab is continous or simple spans).
No beam sizes are given, so you only have the center line to center line spans to work with. The original solution does the math in manner as if the slabs are continous. (adding 15% to the shear/reaction bearing on the center beam).
The errata treats the problem using the center to center spans, but does not add the extra 15%. (Big difference)
Granted both solutions never give you the beam dimensions, so both solutions start off in a some what conservative manner as you never have Ln.
The solution in the errata simply has the statement "since no member sizes are provided, use span lengths in lieu of clear spans".
The end result is a significantly lower moment the the beam being designed. (45 ft-kips)
I am having a hard time "swallowing" the errata solution. Any of you worked this problem yet?
The difficultly I am having is that I am agreeing more with the original solution than the errata. The problem (part a) has could calculating the moments in a beam that carries a slab on both sides. (I cannot located anywhere in the problem statement information as to if the slab is continous or simple spans).
No beam sizes are given, so you only have the center line to center line spans to work with. The original solution does the math in manner as if the slabs are continous. (adding 15% to the shear/reaction bearing on the center beam).
The errata treats the problem using the center to center spans, but does not add the extra 15%. (Big difference)
Granted both solutions never give you the beam dimensions, so both solutions start off in a some what conservative manner as you never have Ln.
The solution in the errata simply has the statement "since no member sizes are provided, use span lengths in lieu of clear spans".
The end result is a significantly lower moment the the beam being designed. (45 ft-kips)
I am having a hard time "swallowing" the errata solution. Any of you worked this problem yet?