Search results for query: *

If the bulkhead is removed then the surface at point 2 is free to air so P must equal 0 - that's my understanding anyway. Also, worth noting that concrete pressures are not fully hydro static - refer to CIRIA 108.

Probably the easiest solution is to remodel it with 2D plate elements - sometimes simple is best?

Agree with KootK, I think this is crying out for a flat slab raft footing

In this case it's taking some roof load as well - worth mentioning in the UK it's much more common in my experience to see the plate welded to the bottom flange to pick up the cladding brick with triangular stiffeners if required. My preference typically (if the cavity width allows) is to have...

If there is weld cracking (albeit minor) at 40% of ultimate loads, would this not be quite a severe cause for concern as fracture of the weld would be a brittle failure of the gantry?

With traditional reinforced concrete water retaining structures, we typically specify a limestone aggregate (low thermal expansion co-efficient) and 50% GGBS cement replacement (lower heat generation during hydration) as it is better for early age thermal cracking. May be a consideration for...

Steel frame design : CADS A3DMax Concrete / General FEA : SCIA Engineer (Do have a STAAD License but find it much less user friendly in comparison to SCIA) Manual Calculations: SAND SCALE structural proforma & Excel 2D Modelling: Pencil 3D Modelling: Send 2D pencil sketch to technician:ROFLMAO:

Good point, depends on the pad I suppose. I've had to spec some big ones in the past! Even as a minimum I would normally expect a 1.2x2.4m pad for any decent size crane.

Structural engineer here - so may be speaking out of term. But.. CBR / plate bearing test with a 450 dia. plate (?) will only indicate strength of the soil very close to the surface (about 1.5d). It will NOT tell you if the ground is suitable for outrigger pads or similar. This will require...

BS5975 is a permissible stress based code, so the applied loading remains unfactored but you reduce the allowable stress in the prop to provide the factor of safety. Temporary works isn't my specialty but that's my understanding of it. I don't believe you'll find the clause you are looking for...

I believe the Bluebook would be for a restrained top web too - the resistance value for this case (150mm stiff length bearing >Clim from end with 254UC107). However, using the allowable stress methods in BS 5975 using Table J.1 of Appendix A for the increased effective length (hopefully...

Oops, classic... - hopefully see attached!!https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=196587c4-31ae-46b7-b0d0-dd96c94ce7dc&file=Sketch_09-10-24.PDF

Hello. I have been assisting in the design of an unrestrained column section which is supported continuously on the bottom flange and subject to a point load (see sketch attached), and would like to calculate the design resistance of the web due to the transverse force. Currently, I have...

Thanks for the response. Yes I feel like one of the reasons it looked 'wrong' was more the congestion of reinforcement rather that the overall dimensions. Appreciate the insight.

Hello all, I'm an avid Linkedin doom scroller of all things engineering (sad, I know..). Just wondering what other Engineers thoughts are on the below with more experience in larger (and taller) projects than I? Background - Steel fixer posting pictures of pre-fixed cages for a high rise...

I would guess that given the relatively large load and low bending stiffness of a 19mm plate the structural behaviour would be more like a cable and the stress would come from membrane forces due to deflection (assuming supports cannot move).

Would be interested to hear the justification on taking restraint from the rafters?

Thanks George. I think both replies have made the penny start to click where it's more of a decision based on effective depth and moving the critical section further from the joint, rather than the capacity of the joint itself.

I would typically check moments at the base of the wall, as this is the section which is being designed. I would argue not to design for forces at the centre line as these become reliant on member thickness - say a 1m thick base slab would result in much higher design forces? Would you agree...

Can't say I have experience of designing a 60m truss, but I would suggest sticking to the code.. they exist for a reason! 6m bay spacing may be more appropriate? On Georges point - I always think having some form of bracing / ties between bottom cords of large span trusses is a good idea.