All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Last week
  2. Hello. This is indeed an interesting situation. Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question because I also have raised this question (not in the forums, though) and haven't found an answer yet. I have to agree that the situation seems quite odd. After reading a lot of handbooks on Eurocodes I couldn't find an answer. Cheers
  3. in american code tension Lap splice bigger than compression lap splice, why in Eurocode compression lap splice is bigger than tension?
  4. Hello, Saadat! If you have Ned / Npl,Rd >= 1,0 then your member is failing in compression, thus, there is no need to check interaction as cross-sections resistance is already insufficient for axial load alone. Have a great day, Reinis
  5. Hi All, I am trying to check an existing result using of an I-cross-section subjected to combined axial compression and bending. According to the EN 1993-1-1 (2005) code it is required to check the cross-section's capacity to withstand combined effects of compression and bending first then move to member level. Formulations set out in section 6.2.9 of EN 1993-1-1 (2005). In equation 6.36 pp 54, procedure to calculate the reduced moment about y axis (MN,y,Rd) due to the effect of compression is provided. This equation is as following, MN,y,Rd=Mpl,y,Rd(1-(NEd/Npl)/(1-0.5*a) <= Mpl,y,Rd where, a = ((Gross Area) - 2*(section width)*(flange thickness))/(Gross Area) Normally for design purpose, it have to be NEd<Npl always. But for an existing result while checking if NEd>Npl the value of MN,y,Rd becomes negative which seems irrelevant. My question is how to sort this problem? Should I take ratio of NEd/Npl maximum equal to 1 or take the absolute value of the moment ignoring the negative? As the axial compression is very high the moment magnitude will be small. Any help would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Saadat
  6. Earlier
  7. Interesting, I have seen glass roofs, floors, beams. Is it possible to make also glass columns? Are there any manufacturers who are able to build such elements? Are there any glass element design guides available?
  8. Hi all Does EUROCODE -8 any topics related to seismic design for the collector of floor diaphragm?
  9. Hello, I have one basic doubt regarding base plate design Is embedment length required for calculation of base plate and cross section area of anchor bolt. I think it is required only to calculate pullout capacity of concrete foundation(please correct me if i am wrong). Actually my aim is to calculate only base plate size (thk x width x length) and anchor bolt size (diameter only). Please share your views.
  10. Hi everyone, i have just study eurocode 8 to calculate seismic for building. One of important conditions is normalised axial force vd =< 0.65. - section 5.4.3.2.1 where : vd = N / fcd. fcd = fck / gamam C. ( section 2.4.2.4) I have question about gamma C , because gamma C has two values, that is 1.2 and 1.5. so, in this case ( seismic ) which should value of gama C is use , can you quota specific of code section?
  11. You need to model flexible connection. Calibrate connection stiffness to get 150kNm moment in the beam to column joint.
  12. This is a web site with structural design spreadsheets I've created with CalcPad: http://calcpad-en.com Spreadsheets are located in the 'Library' section. Most are free to use. Some require registration that unlocks 10 days free trial access to the whole library. The main advantage of CalcPad is that calculation formulas are automatically displayed in the output and values are substituted. It is easy to check and follow the results. You only have to fill the input boxes and click 'Calculate'. Then you can print the results from the browser. It is also very easy to program with CalcPad. Source codes are simple math formulas, mixed with text/html comments in 'quotes'.
  13. This online spreadsheet checks for the reinforcement detailing according to Eurocode 8 http://calcpad-en.com/TemplateView/215 You only need to sign up and you can use it free for 10 days.
  14. Here is one free online design spreadsheet for column design to Eurocode http://calcpad-en.com/TemplateView/157 I am only not quite sure about the method for second order effects. I think it is the nominal stiffness method.
  15. Hi. From EN 1994-1-1 6.6.1.3(4) If the plastic resistance moment exceeds 2,5 times the plastic resistance moment of the steel member alone, additional checks on the adequacy of the shear connection should be made at intermediate points approximately mid-way between adjacent critical cross-sections. What additional checks mentioned in this article?
  16. Hello. First of all those kinds of connections are considered to be shear only connections (if their bolts are not preloaded), thus once should not use these for cantilever applications, by which I mean not cantilevering the long beam in the direction perpendicular to the fin plates which make up the connection but rather parallel to them (in the direction of uniformly distributed loads). Besides of that the two plates should not exhibit a lot of torsion from the long beam cantilevering out perpendicular to the plates, because of their low stiffness in torsion - they will make up a moment by two opposite reactions to fix the long cantilever beam. To get the exact value of torsional moment in every plate you should do FEA. Cheers
  17. Hi guys, I have a bit of an unusual situation. So, in reality I'm designing some stairs in which the flights/landings cantilever off of columns in the central well of the structure. All sections of the structural members will be hollow section (beams and columns) and the senior engineer doesn't want to use hollo-bolts or anything similar. His suggestion for the connection is illustrated in the picture attached. My concern is, this thin plate connection would need to resist bending plus torsion, would it be any effective in doing so? Or am I overthinking it? If you have any suggestions on how to design the connection and make sure it works as intended that would also be great! Thanks.
  18. Hello once again. I am designing a crane bridge girder with capacity 10T, span 12m and running on bottom flange (1st time) according to CMAA74. It will be box section made from joining plates. I have made the calculations for the global and local stresses, as well as checked the combinations. But I have doubt, when shall we use the intermediate stiffeners (diaphragms). Section 3.5.4.1 tells the requirements when h/t>240/(tau)^0.5 and buckling stability requirements as per section 3.4.8 are not satisfied. I am not able to interpret the section 3.4.8; My interpretation for section 3.4.8 is as follows (please correct me) "If ϑB>DFB, then no stiffeners (diaphragm) are required." I have tried many combinations with many load cases(with comp and shear stress close to their allowable limits), but never found the requirement for stiffeners according to section 3.4.8. Please do reply.
  19. Dear All, Please clarify me on the below table for gradation curve. 1. What exactly difference between the gradation A -F proportions, 2. In gradation A, the value for 25mm gravel is given as --- what exactly mean by this. 3. In gradation C, the value for 25mm weight passage % is 100, this means in this gradation the maximum aggregate size is 25mm? please clarify. Thanks in advance, https://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=77844#77844 Regards, Saikiran Gone.
  20. I don't see a need for it. It's normal practice to weld these kinds of joints without backing plate, at least here. The only thing that matters is full penetration. Cheers
  21. One more question: I am not fimilar with calculation of cscd. My calculated value for 20m aluminium mast is about 1,27. Is it real? In EC graph-s cscd factor varies from 0.9 to 1.1...
  22. What is your opinion about use of backing plate? Thank you for reminding me.
  23. No need to post new topic, so I will ask here. I am designing a mast for telecommunication use. I should use cscd structural factor in my case. Question about antennas and other equipment on mast: should I use cscd factor calculating wind load on them?
  24. Hallo. Yes, I think that it is ok to treat it like full penetration weld. Note that if the joint will sustain tension you should check the through thickness properties for the base metal which will have tension perpendicular to the "grain". Cheers
  25. Hi, I have some misunderstanding with this Reynolds number. The formula is very simple, EC 1991-1-4 p.7.9.1 Re=b*vm(ze)/v. Cant figure out how exactly should I calculate vm(ze). It is said that " Vm(Ze) is the peak wind velocity defined in Note 2 of Figure 7.27at height Z" In Note 2 said: " Typical values in the above Figure are shown in Table 7.12. Figure and Table are based on the Reynolds number with v=sqrt(2qp/ro) and qp given in 4.5" But I cant get reasonable wind speed according this formula... I am doing a mistake somewhere? PS Topic solved. As usual, the reason was very simple: I forgot to convert units from kN/m2 to N/m2
  26. Hello once again, I was looking for fillet joint with dihedral angle 135 degree. As per eurocode 1998-1-8, fillet weld with dihedral angle greater than 120 degree shall be designed with reference to Design by testing EN 1990:Annex-D. Now to avoid this testing, I have decided to go with full penetration single bevel weld from one side since it is practically not possible to weld from both sides. Also other side of welding need not to be clear i.e., excess penetrarion spatter may be allowed at root of joint, hence I have decided to weld FPW without backing plate. Please see attached image. Is this ok to treat the joint as FPW for design? Thanks and Regards GSP
  1. Load more activity