Dear safians,

I always come
across the problem
while modeling
frame structure in
STAAD.PRO. Some
of the structural
engineers releases
the secondary
beam end
moments Mx, My,
Mz; so that only
reaction should get
transfered to
primary beam.
Now my problem
is, if secondary
beam supporting
other beams and
resting on primary
beam is released
for the moments,
warning for
instability occurs.
How to rectify this
problem? Is is OK
if beams are
partially released?

Back to top

rahul.leslie Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:36 am Post subject:

General Sponsor

Release only MZ

Joined: 01 Apr 2008

Posts: 470
Location: Trivandrum

Back to top

Dr. N. Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections
Subramanian
General Sponsor
Hi All,

I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and how do we know
whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?

I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you attempt to release
end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What the software says is a valid thing.
Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion given by Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good
practice. Why do you want to release the end moments? Can we not check the beams for combined BM and
Torsion?

This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind of release may
be critical for lateral loads), Er Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er Mallick, Er Suraj, Er Sangeeta and Er
Bharsoda to express their views.

Best wishes,
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 5084
Location: Subramanian
Gaithersburg, MD,
U.S.A. kulkarninm wrote:

Dear safians,

I always come across the problem while modeling frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the structural
engineers releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only reaction should get
transfered to primary beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam supporting other beams and resting
on primary beam is released for the moments, warning for instability occurs. How to rectify this problem?
Is is OK if beams are partially released?

Back to top

thirumalaichettiar Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:25 am Post subject:

Silver Sponsor

Dear Er.Kulkarninm,

The problem of releasing Mz in STAAD is a modeling problem and as Er.Rahul said it can be solved as per his
instruction.
There are torsion due to:
1) Equilibrium of internal and external forces
2) Compatibility of strains in concrete and steel
Coming to the point raised by Dr.N.S you have different type of Torsion in a structure. The problem stated by
is the COMPATIBILITY TORSION. This can be released and detailing is very important at the junction with
Primary beam.
As Dr.N.S said it is difficult to achieve the secondary beam as simply supported one in practice specially in
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 R.C.C structures. Better design it for torsion and detail it carefully. Also in many cases the Mz from analysis
Posts: 3434 may be very small.

In many discussions in the forum it was pointed out that DETAILING is as important as ANALYSIS and
DESIGN.

Enclosed is a PDF file related to the above topic which gives some good idea about it.
Hope it is clear.

T.Rangarajan.

Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools before
opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.
torsion.pdf
Description:
Filename: torsion.pdf
Filesize: 232.25 KB Download
Downloaded: 2150 Time(s)

Back to top

bijay sarkar Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:40 am Post subject:
...

In Staad, warnings will be given when end release command has been given at both ends of a member for the
following forces :
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 314 Mx, Fx, Fy, Fz.

Mx released at both ends of a member will mean the member is capable to rotate about its own axis.

Fx released at both ends means the member is capable to move along its own axis.

Similar is the case for Fy and Fz.

As T. Rangarajan sir told, if in detailing we provide moment connection, we consider "No release" at ends and
if we consider only shear connection with shear cleats only at web, we consider "End Release". This is adopted
for any kind of beams i.e. for secondary and also for primary beams in steel structures.
 With regards,

Bijay Sarkar

Back to top

sdec.in Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections
Silver Sponsor

Dear Dr NS

It is a common practice to release Mz for secondary beams to avoid torsion in Supporting beams; however it is
very important to give a matching end support (sec to main beam)detail where development length for top
bars is curtailed to Ld/3 and not ld+10dia usually adopted for ductile joints.

best regards
Sangeeta Wij

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 473 Quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: drnsmani ([email protected])
To: [email protected] ([email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:09 PM
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections

Hi All,

I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and how do we
know whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?

I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you attempt to
release end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What the software says is a
valid thing. Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion given by Er Rahul, I feel that it is
not a good practice. Why do you want to release the end moments? Can we not check the beams for
combined BM and Torsion?

This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind of release
may be critical for lateral loads), ER Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er Mallick, and Er Bharsoda to
express their views.

Best wishes,

Subramanian
kulkarninm wrote: Dear safians,

I always come across the problem while modeling frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the structural
engineers releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only reaction should get
transfered to primary beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam supporting other beams and resting
on primary beam is released for the moments, warning for instability occurs. How to rectify this problem?
Is is OK if beams are partially released?

Posted via Email

Back to top

vikram.jeet Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:15 am Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections
General Sponsor

Torsion(in main beam) due to Sec beam -main beam connection in RCC construction

As expressed by Dr NS , the structure will behave in its natural way and our assumptions
must be close enough to its natural behavior

In RCC, A secondary beam resting over a main beam will make the condition as simple support
without generating any moment in the connection
However when a secondary beam is monolithic at its end with main beam to some appreciable
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 depth, the connection is no longer simply supported and end moment in sec beam will bound
Posts: 2212 to occur ,thereby resulting in torsion in the main beam.

The extent of torsion generated in main beam will depend upon many factors:
(i) Presence of floor slab
(ii) Flexural stiffness of sec beam , Torsional stiffness of main beam components
on either side of sec beam
(iii) Detailing of reinforcement at junction

Presence of floor slab

This is very important factor and realistic behavior of frames , main-sec beam junctions
(in question)must be viewed in presence of the floor slabs.
Due to presence of floor slab, Torsion generated will be greatly reduced depending upon
the depth of main beam w.r.t sec beam (since one of the component force of
couple is cared by the slab element present in the structural system)

Extent of torsion:
This will be calculated by distributing the End moment in proportion of respective stiffness
of three members meeting at joint (in plan) viz Flexural stiffness of sec beam, torsional
stiffness of main beam portions on either side of sec beam.

Detailing of reinforcement at the joint

The joint is developed for a partial fixity to allow some cracking by providing reduced
anchorage length.

Codal provision:
IS 456 (2000) clause 41.1 on Torsion states

In structures where torsion is required to maintain equilibrium, memebers

shall be designed for torsion in accordance with 41.2,41.3 and 41.4.
Howeever for such indeterminate structures where torsion can be eliminated
by releasing redundant restraints, no specific design for torsion is necessary
, provided torsional stiffness is neglected in calculation of internal forces.
Adequate contriol of any cracking is provided by the shear reinforcement as
per 40.

In light of above , personally I feel that:

(i) Torsion calculations may be attempted in cases where RCC slab is not present in
structural system e.g. Architectural PERGOLA , Industrial strucutres with rcc
beams but chequred plate flooring and similar situations

(ii) Torsion calculations may be ignored for RCC structures having floor slabs in
the structural systems but the sec beams must be designed as simply
supported for BM= (w*L*L/ .Detailing at junction (joint ) shall facilitate ,only ,
a partial fixity.
However ,such Main beams must also be tackled in detailing by providing
additinal shear reinf .(as a thumb rule -- Shear reinf in main beam may be worked
out by ignoring the[ tc* B *d ] relief offered by concrete to account for
some twisting).

With best regards

vikramjeet

Hi All,

I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and how do we know
whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?

I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you attempt to release
end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What the software says is a valid thing.
Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion given by Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good
practice. Why do you want to release the end moments? Can we not check the beams for combined BM and
Torsion?

This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind of release may
be critical for lateral loads), Er Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er Mallick, Er Suraj, Er Sangeeta and Er
Bharsoda to express their views.

Best wishes,
 Subramanian
--

Posted via Email

Back to top

sukanta.adhikari Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:26 am Post subject: Re: Secondary to Primary beam connections
General Sponsor

As per fig. 8.16 of SP34...a detaling of simply supported beam resting on brickwall is shown...In this diagram
the bottom reinforcement which is the main bending tension reinforcement extends Ld/3 from face of brick
wall support to the beam resting on brickwall.
However no detailing has been shown when a secondary beams connects a main beam...But in general this
method of extending Ld/3 has been adopted incase of secondary beam connecting main beams by many
deisgners in practice..for which MZ is released in the software like STAAD etc....
However we cant have a pure simply supported beam in RCC structure..some moment will always get
transferred once a seconday beam is connected to a primary beam...even if Ld/3 is provided..

Hence I agree with the suggestion given by respected NS that it is always better to design the main beam for
combined torsion and moment...

Regards,
S.Adhikari

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 689 kulkarninm wrote:
Dear safians,

I always come across the problem while modeling frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the structural
engineers releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only reaction should get
transfered to primary beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam supporting other beams and resting
on primary beam is released for the moments, warning for instability occurs. How to rectify this problem?
Is is OK if beams are partially released?

Back to top

vikram.jeet Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:25 am Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections
General Sponsor

In continuation to earlier mail on this subject:

------------------
------------------

In light of above , personally I feel that:

(i) Torsion calculations may be attempted in cases where RCC slab is not present in
structural system e.g. Architectural PERGOLA , Industrial strucutres with rcc
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 beams but chequred plate flooring and similar situations
Posts: 2212
(ii) Torsion calculations may be ignored for RCC structures having floor slabs in
the structural systems but the sec beams must be designed as simply
supported for BM= (w*L*L/ .Detailing at junction (joint ) shall facilitate ,only ,
a partial fixity.

However ,such Main beams must also be tackled in detailing by providing

additinal shear reinf .(as a thumb rule -- Shear reinf in main beam may be worked
out by ignoring the[ tc* B *d ] relief offered by concrete to account for
some twisting). Provide side face reinforcement to the extent of 0.1%
for any beam depth (i.e irrespective of beam depth limit )

With best regards

vikramjeet

--

Posted via Email

Back to top
prof.arc Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:39 am Post subject: Secondary to Primary beam connections
...

I agree with Dr. NS views. Modelling assumptions on release of end moments in the case now discussed or in
the earlier discussion of column joint with footing [hinged condition]
would not occur in practice unless the joint is engineered with a hinge in case of column junction or the
secondary beam simply rests on a pedestal of main beam.
There should be no difficulty in analyzing as a monolithic integrated joint.
ARC

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, drnsmani <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 693 Quote:

Hi All,

I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and how do we
know whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended them to behave?

I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning that there will be instability, if you attempt to
release end moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other beams. What the software says is a
valid thing. Though you may circumvent it by following the suggestion given by Er Rahul, I feel that it is
not a good practice. Why do you want to release the end moments? Can we not check the beams for
combined BM and Torsion?

This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind of release
may be critical for lateral loads), ER Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er Mallick, and Er Bharsoda to
express their views.

Best wishes,

Subramanian

Posted via Email

Hello safians,
I have one more query on beam releases. Please refer the attached
image file. As shown in image one short beam(Beam 1) emerges
from column and supported on Beam number 2. Now when I
observe bending moment diagram in STAAD, Beam 1 is behaving
like cantilever and beam 2 splits into two separate beams
supported on cantilever 1. Now my question is,
1. Is staad treat beam number 1 as cantilever on virtue of stiffness
of column? (when Beam 1 is short in length)
2. Is it possible to instruct Staad model to behave as i expected?
(Beam 1 resting on beam 2)
Apart from this, What is exact significance of providing Partial
releases in RCC structures?Is there something to do with
redistribution of stresses in between concrete and steel? How much
% of partial release is desirable in RCC structures.
Expert may find this problem elementary but, Proper advice will
certainly help to improve analysis sense of novice designers like
me.

Beam.JPG
Descripti
on:
Filesize: 15.77 KB
Viewed: 569 Time(s)
Back to top

sarfaraj.husain Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:38 am Post subject:

... Secondary to Primary beam connections

i agree with sangeeta.......sometimes sec beams are loaded

with heavy equipment loading.........in this case Mz have to
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 be released(with proper end detailing) other wise much
Posts: 90
higher depth of main beam will be required because of heavy
torsion(not because of its own loading)......

sarfraj
--

Posted via Email

Back to top

ishacon Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:39 pm Post subject:

Silver Sponsor Secondary to Primary beam connections

Hi All,

I think a better alternate is to give a very low value of

Ix of main beam , say 0.00001,
so that it does not take much torsion .
The secondary beam is detailed so that
the top reinf at the end framing into main beam is minimal.

V.P. AGARWAL
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 148
ISHA CONSULTANTS (P) LTD
NEW DELHI 110074
PH : 011-2630 1158
091-98 68 26 27 59
091-93 13 45 21 80
Quote:

----- Original Message -----

From: drnsmani ([email protected])
To: [email protected] ([email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:09 PM
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Secondary to Primary beam
connections
 Hi All,

I somehow do not like releasing the end moments, as in

RCC, the joints are monolithic and how do we know
whether the structure behaves in the way, we intended
them to behave?

I am happy to note that the software is giving a warning

that there will be instability, if you attempt to release end
moments of a secondary beam which is supporting other
beams. What the software says is a valid thing. Though
you may circumvent it by following the suggestion given
by Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good practice. Why do
you want to release the end moments? Can we not check
the beams for combined BM and Torsion?

This is my personal opinion. I request other experienced

engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind of release may be
critical for lateral loads), ER Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er
Rangarajan, Er Mallick, and Er Bharsoda to express their
views.

Best wishes,

Subramanian
kulkarninm wrote: Dear safians,

I always come across the problem while modeling frame

structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the structural engineers
releases the secondary beam end moments Mx, My, Mz;
so that only reaction should get transfered to primary
beam. Now my problem is, if secondary beam supporting
other beams and resting on primary beam is released for
the moments, warning for instability occurs. How to
rectify this problem? Is is OK if beams are partially
released?

Posted via Email

Back to top

Dr. N. Subramanian Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:21 am Post subject: Re:
General Sponsor Secondary to Primary beam connections

Dear Er Agarwal,

Yes. If you give low I x , the analysis will not show any torsion.
But how the structure will know that? The actual I x will be
there.

No one has commented on one more point- that is, the

original doubt was to release the moments at the end
connection of a secondary beam which itself is carrying
secondary members. This kind of structural system, adopted
by a few engineers, is not efficient.

Regards,
Subramanian
Joined: 21 Feb 2008 ishacon wrote:
Posts: 5084
Hi All,
Location: Gaithersburg, MD, U.S.A.

I think a better alternate is to give a very low value

of Ix of main beam , say 0.00001,
so that it does not take much torsion .
The secondary beam is detailed so that
the top reinf at the end framing into main beam is
minimal.

V.P. AGARWAL
 ISHA CONSULTANTS (P) LTD
NEW DELHI 110074
PH : 011-2630 1158
091-98 68 26 27 59
091-93 13 45 21 80
Quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: drnsmani ([email protected])
To: [email protected] ([email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:09 PM
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Secondary to Primary beam
connections

Hi All,

I somehow do not like releasing the end moments,

as in RCC, the joints are monolithic and how do we
know whether the structure behaves in the way,
we intended them to behave?

I am happy to note that the software is giving a

warning that there will be instability, if you
attempt to release end moments of a secondary
beam which is supporting other beams. What the
software says is a valid thing. Though you may
circumvent it by following the suggestion given by
Er Rahul, I feel that it is not a good practice. Why
do you want to release the end moments? Can we
not check the beams for combined BM and
Torsion?

This is my personal opinion. I request other

experienced engineers like Prof. ARC (as this kind
of release may be critical for lateral loads), ER
Barua, Er Vikaramjeet, Er Rangarajan, Er Mallick,
and Er Bharsoda to express their views.

Best wishes,

Subramanian
kulkarninm wrote: Dear safians,

I always come across the problem while modeling

frame structure in STAAD.PRO. Some of the
structural engineers releases the secondary beam
end moments Mx, My, Mz; so that only reaction
should get transfered to primary beam. Now my
problem is, if secondary beam supporting other
beams and resting on primary beam is released
for the moments, warning for instability occurs.
How to rectify this problem? Is is OK if beams are
partially released?

Posted via Email

Back to top

rkumar Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:41 am Post subject:

... Secondary to Primary beam connections

Dear Sefian,

Joined: 11 Apr 2010 If we do release the moments, then we need to take care that
Posts: 85
the released beam is designed as a Singly reinforced beam
and their will be no negative moments. If it is designed as
doubly reinforced negative moments may arise, this moment
may be torsion for the main beam and that may be critical.
 So, please check beam design before releasing.

RAKESH KUMAR
TRUE NOTES
BUILDING DESIGN ENGINEER

*"Please consider the environment, take a print of this copy if

u really need to". Use Gently.

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:36

PM, [email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
[quote] Dear Dr NS

It is a common practice to release Mz for secondary beams to

avoid torsion in Supporting beams; however it is very
important to give a matching end support (sec to main
beam)detail where development length for top bars is
curtailed to Ld/3 and not ld+10dia usually adopted for ductile
joints.

best regards
Sangeeta Wij

--auto removed--

Posted via Email

Back to top

sukanta.adhikari Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:09 am Post subject: Re:
General Sponsor Secondary to Primary beam connections

The statement

"If it is designed as doubly reinforced negative moments may

arise" does not seem to be appropriate..

Doubly reinforced section is designed to increase the moment

of resistance in the section by providing steel in the
compression zone...

Regards,
S.Adhikari

[quote="truenotesrakesh"]Dear Sefian,
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 689
If we do release the moments, then we need to take care that
the released beam is designed as a Singly reinforced beam
and their will be no negative moments. If it is designed as
doubly reinforced negative moments may arise, this moment
may be torsion for the main beam and that may be critical.
So, please check beam design before releasing.

RAKESH KUMAR
TRUE NOTES
BUILDING DESIGN ENGINEER

*"Please consider the environment, take a print of this copy if

u really need to". Use Gently.

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:36

PM, [email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
Quote:

Dear Dr NS

It is a common practice to release Mz for secondary

beams to avoid torsion in Supporting beams; however it is
very important to give a matching end support (sec to
 main beam)detail where development length for top bars
is curtailed to Ld/3 and not ld+10dia usually adopted for
ductile joints.

best regards
Sangeeta Wij

--auto removed--

Posted via Email

Back to top

akjhacpwd Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:14 am Post subject:

Silver Sponsor

Dear sirs
Shall we extend this discussion to end conditions
of slabs monolithic with beams ? If beams are present on all
the four sides, does the support condition becomes "
Continuous on all edges" ? In the old book by Jain and
Jaikrishna Volume 2 , chapter 2 which deals with
multistoreyed buildings , all the slabs are considered fixed
because of presence of beams and for a panel of 6m by 6m
C/C , slab depth of 13 cm has been taken.
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 147 Regards

Back to top

sdec.in Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:36 am Post subject:

Silver Sponsor Secondary to Primary beam connections

Dear Mr Jha

If beams are present on all four sides, the slab will not
become continuous unless it has adjacent slab panels on all
four sides. It will be better to adopt, IS-456 criteria for design
of continuous slabs, which shows the slab will not have full
fixity(wl2/12) conditions and the applicable coefiicients are in
between a simply supported and fixed condition.

Joined: 26 Jan 2003 best regards

Posts: 473
Sangeeta
Quote:
----- Original Message -----
From: akjhacpwd ([email protected])
To: [email protected] ([email protected])
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 10:44 AM
Subject: [SEFI] Re: Secondary to Primary beam
connections

Dear sirs
Shall we extend this discussion to end conditions of slabs
monolithic with beams ? If beams are present on all the
four sides, does the support condition becomes "
Continuous on all edges" ? In the old book by Jain and
Jaikrishna Volume 2 , chapter 2 which deals with
multistoreyed buildings , all the slabs are considered fixed
because of presence of beams and for a panel of 6m by
6m C/C , slab depth of 13 cm has been taken.

Regards

Posted via Email

Back to top

amarjeetsingh Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:00 pm Post subject:

... Secondary to Primary beam connections

Dear All,

Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Theoritcally the ends of secondary beam will always have
Posts: 129
Location: new delhi
some negative moment as it is cast monolithically with the
main beam but since minimal top reinf is provided in the
secondary beam there will be a hairline crack at the junction
of the secondary beam with the main beam. This will help
release Mz for secondary beams.

The main question is of detailing of the top reinforcement as

pointed out by fellow engineers.
cheers

amarjeet singh

On 8/21/10, [email protected] ([email protected])>

wrote: [quote] Dear Mr Jha

If beams are present on all four sides, the slab will not
become continuous unless it has adjacent slab panels
on all four sides. It will be better to adopt, IS-456
criteria for design of continuous slabs, which shows the
slab will not have full fixity(wl2/12) conditions and the
applicable coefiicients are in between a simply
supported and fixed condition.

best regards
Sangeeta
--auto removed--

Posted via Email

Back to top

vikram.jeet Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:36 am Post subject:

General Sponsor Secondary to Primary beam connections

Dear Sh AK Jha ji

By considering the end slab panel- edge supported on edge-

Beam as fixed ,
may require entire edge moment to be cared by torsion in the
edge beam.Matter
may not end there, the columns/walls supporting the edge-
beam need to be designed
Joined: 26 Jan 2003 for this moment . The design becomes too complex due
Posts: 2212 compatibility of structural
members involved in the chain to facilitate the slab panel
safety.
Better to rely on the assumption of treating the edge as
discontinuous ,though
in lieu of some torsional cracking permitted by IS 456
.However I feel that
edge- beam must be tackled in detailing(as discussed in
earlier post on
main-sec beam joint) to limit the torsional cracking due to
monolithic nature
of joint between rcc slab and edge beam.

best regards

vikramjeet
--