• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

19 Good

1 Follower

About dik

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 06/13/47

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
  • Occupation
    Structural Engineer
  • Expert in
    Actions on Structures
  • CV
    Dik has in excess of 45 years of practical engineering experience, functioning as a structural analyst/designer, project engineer, project manager, and consultant. Dik has gained an extensive knowledge in the field of parking structures encompassing planning, design and restoration, has become familiar with a wide variety of materials of construction and the related building sciences involved, including seismic analysis, and has become well versed in the preparation, interpretation and application of specifications including a working knowledge of construction contracts.

    Experience encompasses the design of concrete, steel and wood structures, electrical sub-station structures, pre-stressed concrete structures, storage tanks, tunnels, lifting devices, crane runways, retaining walls, and fall protection systems. Design experience includes both the use and programming of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) methods.

    Dik has a good working knowledge of other engineering discipline design requirements and design documents including: general arrangement drawings, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) schematics and project specifications.

    Dik has also provided numerous forensic reports to engineers, lawyers and insurance companies and has testified as an expert witness on numerous occasions.

Recent Profile Visitors

1292 profile views
  1. L/3 is a little much, it means that only a portion of your footing is in compression and a portion of it is not bearing at all... Have to be careful with that type of design. By using L/6, the load is effectively falling within the kern area of your footing and the soil beneath your footing is in some form of compression. Dik
  2. catch the discussion at http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=426349 I'm surprised that no one has filed a complaint with the Royal Institute of British Architects; in most jurisdictions, the architects would be responsible for the building envelope and the insurance that the building was not a death trap. Dik
  3. Took a brief tour... logging in was a breeze... the calculation page could use a bit of work to make it a little easier/faster to navigate. The one example, I ran, yielded values that represented numbers from doing an independent calculation. You should also have a disclaimer to keep silly people from abusing your efforts; you have no control over how the information is being used. You've put a lot of work into the sheet and it shows. Thanks, Dik
  4. Any information on the type of construction? Particular interest on the type of cladding used. Fire seemed to quickly engulf the building via the cladding. Dik
  5. I don't have a spreadsheet for this, only cohesive soils, and, it is not to Eurocodes. As with my earlier response, the design values should be determined by a competent geotechnical engineer. This engineer may suggest suiltable foundation types. I would think that for cohesionless soils, you might be looking at driven piles. Dik
  6. Neat project, and raises a couple of questions... How is Mech and Elect handled? If seismic zone then 20 storey is a fairly complex project. What floor construction... with columns at approx 20' (6m) then you are likely looking at a 6" (150) post tensioned slab and maybe a 7" or so for conventional reinforced concrete. Best to do two designs and get a contractor to do a costing on both to see what framing is most economical. Looks like an apartment type of building so your live loading will be 40 psf to 50 psf. With 18 or so floor plate repetitions there is some economy in doing a detailed analysis of a typical floor. You have to choose symmetric lateral resisting walls for seismic. Have you looked at steel and hi-bond composite deck (likely the least costly). Fire resistance should be 2 hour for the type of structure... as I said, lots of questions to resolve. What are the finishes? ceiling? materials? and, what is the construction of the exterior wall? Dik
  7. I cannot understand your question. Is the beam fixed at each end, or simply supported? If top rfg is required, then you may need two layers. Bottom reinforcing can be distributed outside the beam width. Is 'A' a plan or an elevation? and what is hanging off the left hand side of the beam section? Dik
  8. Just a caution... I have one of these and use MasterFormat (a North American standard specification format) as an overall guide with sub-directories in each of the sections. Over the years, I've filed thousands of articles ( and at times it is difficult to find something I'm looking for. About 30 years of accumulation and also currently at 36,172 Files, 2,693 Folders and takes up 43.4 GB (46,680,927,418 bytes)). Another problem is that some of the information is 'dated' and that there are more current articles on various websites. Dik
  9. Reinis: I didn't respond to his picture because I didn't know what the numbers represented... and I don't have Eurocode data... a discussion is all I could offer. Dik
  10. I generally use the 'U' bar as a stirrup/tie... and the smaller bending radius should be adequate... generally for 10M, 15M, and 20M bars... and, not had any difficulties... If bar is welded, then usually spec 400W reinforcing which is weldable and is capable of being bent to a tighter radius, but not smaller than a stirrup or tie radius. If the cross bar is welded, then all reinf has to be weldable; this carries a bit of a premium cost. Failure of hooked bars is not normally a 'crushing' failure of the concrete, but is caused by the rebar 'straightening' out. I'm not sure about the overall effect of the welded cross bar... it doesn't hurt. Dik
  11. The first radius for the dowel to the wall would be a larger inside bend diameter and would be for a standard hook. The bending radius for the 'U' bar would be considered as a tie and would be the smaller bend diameter. This inside bend diameter varies with the reinforcing bar diameter. Unfortunately, I've used all my space for uploading pictures, else, I would send you a table for the various inside diameters (applicable in North America). Bar diameters, steel yield strength, and bar sizes may vary between North America and Europe and the Eurocode may have different prescribed inside bend diameters. Dik
  12. In North America, stirrups and main steel hooks have different bending radii, independent of force. Dik
  13. and the corbel can be designed using a strut and tie approach...
  14. should add that the benefit of using T-beam design is more appropriate for beams with greater flexural reinforcement ratios. For small amounts of reinforcing, the depth of the flexural compression zone does not reduce very much for T-beams and the amount of reinforcing steel required does not diminish by much. The use of a T-beam also has an impact on short and long term deflections. Dik
  15. Not familiar with this... do you have a source or authority? Dik