• KCI Concrete Journal
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.36-42
• /
• 2002

Flexural behaviors of the two typical precast beam sections (inverted tee and rectangular) for buildings were investigated and compared. The height of web in the inverted tee beam was generally less than half of beam depth to be adapted to that of the nib in the ends of double-tee where the total building height limited considerably. The inverted-tee beams were designed for a parking live load - 500kgf/$m^2$ and a market - 1,200kgf/$m^2$ from the currently used typical shape of a domestic building site in Korea. The area and bottom dimension of rectangular beams were the same as those of inverted tee beams. These woo beams were also reinforced with a similar strength. following results were obtained from the studies above; 1) the rectangular beam is simpler in production, transportation, and erection, and more economic than the inverted tee beam in the construction test for these two beams with a same dimension and a similar strength, 2) all of the beams considered in the tests were generally failed in values close to those of the strength requirements in ACI Provisions. The ratios of test result to calculated value are averaged to 1.04. One rectangular and one inverted tee beams failed in a value only 2-3％ larger than the estimated volue of the Strength Design Methool the results of the Strain Compatibility Method wire slightly more accurate than those of the Strength Design Method, 4) the maximum deflections of all of the beams under the full service loads were less than those of the allowable limit in ACI Code Provisions. The rectangular beams experienced more deflection then inverted tee in the same loading condition and failed with more deflection, and 5) the rectangular and inverted tee beams showed good performances under the condition of service and ultimate loads. However, one inverted tee beams with fm span developed an initial flexural crackings under 88％ of the full service load even though they designed to satisfy the ACI tensile stress limit provisions.