Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Structural Engineering Rules of Thumb 5

Status
Not open for further replies.

youngstructural

Structural
Aug 17, 2004
713
0
0
CA
There have been some great posts skirting around this subject, however I really think we need a Tips & Tricks FAQ. With that goal in mind, I thought it would be good if we all posted the routine rules of thumb we use in our daily work, in order to perhaps learn some useful shorthand and tips or tricks.

Structural Engineering Rules of Thumb:

1. Beams need to have shear effects considered specifically (increased deflection, possibly reinforcement requirements in concrete, etc) when SPAN/DEPTH <=10

2. Beam design is normally deflection governed when SPAN/DEPTH >=25.

3. When checking drawings, looking at Moment/Plastic Section Modulus is a good guage of a section's sizing, even if using Limit States Design. Knowing the extreme fibre stress is a good "feel" for the beam size.

4. Always consider a minimum accidental eccentricity of 100mm in your construction. Increase this to 150mm in residential work.

5. Design shelf angles for the load at the very tip for strength (ULS), centre of bearing for serviceability (SLS). This ensures that any rotation of the beam at the support does not lead to overstress in the fixing; Particularly for stiffened angles.

6. When in doubt, add confinement to concrete. Curtailment of reinforcing should occur at a distance of 130% development length past the point where strength is last required, or Ld+d from support, whichever is greater.

7. To minimize the risk of timber floors (and all high frequency floors; Applies to Cold Formed Steel as well), check that the deflection is no greater than 1 to 2mm under a 1kN point load at centre. Do not consider T-Beam stiffening effect for this check unless the plywood is glued and screwed; slip and fastener loosening may not permit adequate composite action otherwise.

8. For steel and concrete beams, check the estimated natural frequency, equal to 18/SQRT(Total Deflection in mm), result in hertz (HZ). Use anticipated actual loads in this check (thus typically 0.25kPa to 0.35 kPa) rather than full SLS loads. A result of 15Hz or higher should be double checked with the point load check, a result between 8HZ and 15 HZ is likely okay, with likihood of difficulty increasing as the result decreases, and anything between 5HZ and 8HZ should be subject to a full accelerative methodology vibration check (such as the ATC guideline or CISC Guide 11). Picking the loading is very important, and entirely subjective; A good guide is to consider 30% of your floor load as the likely "routine" load. That way you are basing the load used on the code's anticipated exposure loads for the floor type. Remember that vibration problems normally happen under light loading.

9. For good ground checks in the field, get a metal or timber block made up which should impose the Ultimate Bearing Pressure required of the soil. Stand on this for a count of five anywhere you have some doubt over good ground. An indentation of anything more than a mark (so say greater than 1mm) is considered a failure. Example: I weight 100kg, my typical "Good Ground" value is 300 kPa Ultimate (rupture) bearing pressure, thus my block is roughly 57mm by 57mm.

I'll keep posting as I think of more.
Cheers all,

YS



B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Good start.
Points 1 and 2 are material specific?
3 - Agreed. In UK we have a limit state code (similar to LRFD) The section properties are given in a separate document (Blue Book) which can readily be used for simple cross checks. Checking designs could really do with a whole topic of its own...
Point 9 - I like this. I've never done it. It's only likely that I'd be responsible for this sort of thing on small projects but I might just make up some blocks to test it out. Guess I'll need to weigh myself. Maybe later...
 
If any of you have been or are planning on going to the NASCC, you may have heard of the course "Rules of Thumb for Steel Design" given by Socrates Ioannides of Structural Affiliates International. Well worth the hour and a half. Plus he has a handy pocket quide that he hands out at the end.

 
25.4mm per inch.

I'm going to upset people but the US and other nations still using imperial units should convert to metric.

It makes much more sense, it is all based on water.
 
youngstructural

Excellent post and I would support an FAQ section on rules of thumb. Here's a contribution.

Base width of a stable retaining wall is typically 55% of retained height. (considering zero passive pressure at the front of wall, a level backfill and zero surcharge.)
 
A column with as load at minimum (100mm) eccentricity can take half the load of a concentrically loaded column of the same size.
 
I have to give apsix a bit of support here. While it may not strictly be based on water, there are a lot of useful relationships with water, particularly for structural engineers.

A kilogram of water occupies a liter.
A tonne of water occupies a cubic metre.
A metre deep water imposes 10 kPa pressure. (better than remembering that a foot of water is 62.4 psf)
 
With metric you dont have to keep dividing by 12 and 8ths e.t.c. all the time!

Been there, done that. Back to the country that invented the inch but which has since then moved on.
 
The metric vs. imperial debate is similar to the ASD vs. LRFD debate. Yes- there is probably an argument to be made for each side, but you dance with the one that brung ya'.

I grew up using both sets of units. As soon as you spend an extended amount of time in one system, you kind of loose a feel for what is reasonable in the other set.

At the end of the day, we are engineers and we should be able to work with either set of units. I currently have a good feel for what works in imperial units, but were I to change locations and begin using metric, I'm sure it would just be a matter of time before I developed that "feel".

And please stop the "you don't have to keep dividing by 12.." b.s. That's about as irrelevant as the argument that you have to check "a whole other set of load combinations to check deflection if you use LRFD".
 
Why is "you don't have to keep dividing by 12 and 8" irrelevant? It's an additional step (or two) that is a potential source of error when doing hand calcs.

"Feel" will be the same for either system. But there are clear advantages, seen by most of the world, for using a decimal measurement system to go with our decimal numbering system. I've lived in both systems too (daily life as well as calculations on paper), and the advantage of SI is abundantly clear.

On the other hand, the U.S. system is what it is, and this forum is not going to convince the U.S. industrial base to switch. Economics will drive it, and the change is happening already, albeit at a glacial pace. There's no point in lecturing engineers who have no choice as to which system to work in that they ought to be using a different system.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top