RecentGrad

Members
  • Content count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About RecentGrad

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 01/22/93

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Scotland
  • Occupation
    Structural Engineer
  • Expert in
    Actions on Structures

Recent Profile Visitors

393 profile views
  1. Sorry Pictures didn't attach
  2. Hello all, I have posted the permissable allowable stresses when designing to british standard below. These are compared to unfactored loading.(Table 8 - BS 5268-2). I have also attached the eurocode characteristic strength table (Table 1 - BS 338) As you can see obviously the characterisitc values are higher when comparing to the permissable values in british standard. Well all apart from compression perpindicular to the grain. In BS Compression perpindicular to grain = 2.4N/mm2, In eurocode compression perpindicular to grain = 2.5N/mm2 (For C24 Timber). This does not make sense to me as we are comparing the chaacteristic value to a factored load and applying material factors so why would these 2 values be almost the same. This is a problem when designing stud walls to eurocode. Has anyone any thoughts on this and if their national annex is similar?
  3. Thanks for reply, Ive never designed a wall to arch between supports but will look into it. Would the arching method not rely on the flexural strength of the masonry perpindicular to the bed joints (Assuming the wall is spanning fully horizontally)?
  4. Hello, Has anyone designed any masonry retaining walls to eurocode? The eurocode does not allow the flexural strength of the masonry to be taken into account if it is under permanent loads i.e. retaining wall. So this is making things a bit confusing. Say there is a retaining wall with concrete columns (buttress) then brick spanning between them, how would this be taken into account with the eurocode? The older engineers in my work that designed to BS cant get their heads round not taking the flexural strength into consideration. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
  5. I have just read the start of the document that I posted. It refers to ammendments made to that clause since this book was released. Is there a reason this change was implemented? I done a design to eurocode and a design to BS for stud rails, For british standard I got F.O.S of 4.1, for eurocode I got FOS of 1.8. (Using eurocode load factors for load also whereas BS uses unfactored loads) This is totally changing the stud sizes than what we are used to on BS, is there something I am missing or is this just the way it is? Thanks
  6. Hello all, I read many guidance books that refer to clause 6.1.5 for a formula to calculate kc,90. This is also refered to in the Istucte timber design manual. However when I refer to the clause in the code the value of kc,90 for solid softwood timber should be taken as 1.25. Using kc,90 = 1.25 is alot lower than the kc,90 factor than can be calculated using the formula mentioned in books. Has eurocode been ammended to remove this, I ask because without this factor being higher it greatly reduces load-carrying capacities of timber stud walls especially when compared to british standard. It is explained in this book from page 118 - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/Structuraleurocodebd2405.pdf Any further information on this would be appreciated, thanks
  7. Its been ober 3 years since this thread wa slast replied to. I was wondering if there has been any eurocode specific guidance released on raft slabs/ground bearing as I am struggling to find much information. Thanks
  8. Thanks for replies guys, I looked up the clause you suggested reinis but it didn't really cover what I was looking for. Edu90 this etag publication seems to cover what I was looking for although I have not had a chance to study it in detail. I have actually came across it before but I never thought of using it for this situation. This wasn't for a certain job or anything it was more just for self teaching as I had seen this situation and was wondering how to deal with it. I am going to do an example calculation to add to my reference material for future. Thanks again
  9. Hello, Is there any guidance available for the concrete strength to resist a balustrade load? The kind of situation I am looking for is a hole being drilled into precast for steel post and then grouted? The actual design of the post is totally fine as thats done by convential methods, but its the connection/resistance of concrete I am unsure how to go about. I have attached screen shots of a similar situation I found on another forum but it is to american design codes but I was wondering if the checks were the same. Thanks
  10. Yes I understand that, was just checking if its anything people have came across or if there was a clause in Eurocode for what I was looking to do. Thanks
  11. Reinis, thanks for your replies. As usual very in depth and informative with reasoning behind your thinking. I have attached links for quick sketches at the bottom of my post for my situation. Basically I have a raised tie truss with a steel column coming to the underside of it for support. This raised tie truss carries a girder truss in the upper portion of is vertical member whereas below there is nothing restraining around 600mm of the vertical timber. There are reasons the CHS post and tie cannot be raised to the same height as the underside of the girder truss (due to the roof layout and other trusses having higher raised ties) but i think it would lead to confusion when you cannot see the full layout. I have attached a simplified sketch which assumes the timber member cantilevering 600mm from the truss, this is what I was looking to apply a restraint force to check its deflection and bending capacity. Can the way you outlined above be used as a point load instead of an axial force at the end of the timber member in order to check its ability to restrain the column in 1 direction (the ceiling tie will restrain in the other direction). I hope this has made sense, it is basically the cantilever sketch I am looking for advice on but I provided the truss sketch to provide some background as to why I am asking this. Thanks Links - Truss Sketch - http://i63.tinypic.com/23mssol.jpg Cantilever Sketch - http://i68.tinypic.com/28k5115.jpg
  12. Hello, I have attached a clause from british standards to check the adequacy of horizontal restraint to a steel compression member. It mentions checked the restraint for 1 percent of the axial load, is there a clause like this in eurocode as I have not came across it? Thanks
  13. hello, For a steel beam bearing onto a concrete padstone should bearing strength be calculated from frd=0.4fcu using the concrete strength as fcu? I am unsure how to properly carry out this check as another method I was using was calculating the compressive stress onto the padstone from the beam and then comparing this to the compressive resistance of the padstone, which made sense to me but then I came across this clause. Another method I have seen on the internet for allowable padstone stress = (1.25 x compressive strength of padstone)/3. This is then compared to stress under beam bearing, I thought the factor of 3 was for maosnry element whereas I seen a padstone a more of a concrete element. Thanks for any help
  14. I have attached the kind of set up I am talking about. It is just ground beams spanning over individual piles. I can understand strut and tie action for the width of the ground beam as this is less than 2D, But in the longitudinal direction where the span may be 5/6 metres I though punching may occur. Thanks
  15. Thanks for reply, is that because all load within 2d will be transferred directly to support through strut and tie action?