Search results for query: *

Many thanks all, cleared it for me!

Hi all, Is any Italian-speaking engineer able to explain what the letters A1, B1 and A2,B2 represent in the attached diagram? I can follow all the other headings but it's just those that fox me. Thanks.

Hi WARose and BA - many thanks for responses and suggestions.

Hi all, I frequently have to detail a fabricated beam consisting of a wide-flange section with welded plate underneath, carrying two loads. Naturally, there will be some torsion. To allow for this, I have normally (lazily) just taken moments about the web to find the net moment and then found...

Our code (not AISC) uses 1.25 x (hole dia) for machine cut metal, or 1.4 x (hole dia) for hand flame cut, in the non-loaded direction, so presumably yours will be similar?

Probably just shrinkage cracking. As it's rendered on top, may be they used aerated concrete block for the outer skin; aac block is notorious for shrinkage, often leading to vertical cracking. As the others have said - almost certainly of no consequence.

Glue and metal fixings do not have the same characteristics and cannot be assumed to act together.

(@ Dick; "UB" = Universal Beam, a UK designation - similar to wide-flange "I" beam; and if OP refers to a block wall, it is unlikely to be reinforced). @ OP; if you are overhanging 40mm, you might be inducing torsion and other problems in the beam (is it a 203 x 102?) Maybe you should speak...

The maximum slenderness ratio of 27 is generally for unreinforced masonry walls carrying vertical loading only. Panel walls have different criteria, including orthogonal ratio, edge support condition etc. "Structural Masonry Designers' Manual" by Cutin et all (Blackwell pub.) has some good...

Thanks Leon,dik and koot, advice appreciated and noted.

Hi all, Steel beam spanning 9.6m in masonry opening, simply-supported on the masonry each end. Top flange is adequately restrained by two incoming steel beams; the top flange of the subject beam supports a de-stabilizing wall load along its full length. - see image. How would I evaluate an...

If it's domestic loading for normal (2-storey?) housing, mini-piles @ 2.5m c/s with 400 x 400 ground beams are usually OK.

Don't know what your code allows, but won't there be an increase in bending capacity of about 10% or so by using the three beams?

Eurocodes are OK to an extent - EC 3 for example can often give lighter steel structures than other codes, but they are really intended for spreadsheets rather than hand calculation.

Why would only the top two rows be in tension? Surely all rows are allin tension, the tension being the greatest in the top row. I would take the point of rotation as level with the bottom flange.

Just stick with BS 5950 - it's easier than EC3!

Will increased deflection be an issue? Would it be better to add the plate to the top flange to reduce LTB.

Just to throw confusion into the mix our (BS) code is similar, using fm x 0.35 for old (existing) walls and fm x 0.4 for newly-constructed walls -- not a million miles from your Code. fm x 0.25 would be safest.

In mechanical engineering, friction is always there when you don't want it; in structural engineering, it's never there when you DO want it.

Try these;http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=b56d5ccd-b575-409a-90bc-2243548299e4&file=DSCF5667.JPG