Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!


    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

  • ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Our picks

    • Hi guys just to discuss with you my understanding of crack widths in Environmental structures according to ACI. 



      Normal structures



      1. ACI 318-95 based on statistical method of Gergely & Lutz 1968 limits Z based on exposure. We are calculating crack widths here. (Normal structures)


      2. ACI 318-99 proposed limiting the spacing and removed actually calculating the width and also removed the exposure conditions. For example for beams and one-way slabs s (in) = 540/fs -2.5cc or in other words limiting the fs=0.6fy  (For normal structures)


      3. ACI 224R-01 references method 1 and 2 above and 3 european codes.

      The most confusing part is the table in which Nawy suggests 0.1mm crack width for water-tight structures. The whole document is for normal structures except this line. And people are following this line and refer to this document for water tight structures. I mean its just a suggestion and by the way this method 1 is obsolete now since ACI 318-99 (see point 2 above).



      Water tight structures



      1. ACI 318-08 states clearly that for watertight structures ACI 350-06 codes should be used. 


      2. ACI 224.4R-13 also specifically states that for watertight structures walls in section 7.4, we should use ACI 350-06. 


      3. ACI 350-06 for water tight structures does not recommend calculating a number for crack width but rather limiting max steel stress in bars to be 20k ksi or fs=0.33fy for normal conditions.



      To sum it up, 


      Philosophy of crack width control is not to calculate probable crack widths but to limit the max stress in steel bars.


      For normal structures: fs=0.6fy and for water tight structures fs=0.33fy
      • 1 reply
    • Hi

      I want to know the use of diaphragms in etabs. i discus many people who are use etabs but i can't get justified answer about the application of etabs.

      I read the Technical reference  of  Etabs, where they write about Diaphragms. i get two type of diaphragms (plate or shell and joint or beam). 

      My question.

      1. When do i use Shell diaphragms (if floor present ) 

      2.When do i use joint diaphragms ( grade beam level where no slab are provide) 


      NB: Diaphragms use to transfer the lateral load to the resisting element ( frame such as column. beam,shear wall) 
      • 2 replies
    • *SEFP Consistent Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Pile Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Doc No: 10-00-CD-0005*<br style="color:#272a34">*Date: Nov 21, 2017*<br style="color:#272a34">

      This article is intended to cover design of piles using Ultimate Limit State (ULS) method. The use of ULS method is fairly new for geotechnical design (last decade). The method is being used in multiple countries now (Canada, Australia etc). The following items shall be discussed:


      Geotechnical Design of Piles (Compression Loads, Tension Loads and Lateral Loads)

      Structural Design of Piles (Covering both Concrete and Steel)

      Connection of Pile with the foundation (Covering both Concrete and Steel)

      Pile Group Settlement

      Things to consider


      1. Overview

      Piles provide a suitable load path to transfer super-structure loads to foundation where shallow foundation are not suitable - this can be due to a number of reasons like existing space constraints or suitable soil strata is not present immediately below structure. Other uses can be to meet design requirements like to have reduced settlement etc.

      This article shall cover the use of straight shaft cast-in-place concrete piles and straight shaft driven steel pipe piles. There are a number of additional piles types like belled concrete piles, precast concrete piles, screw / helical steel piles etc but the discussion to choose a suitable pile type is not in the intended scope of this article. The article is intended  to discuss design requirements for straight shaft piles only (both concrete and steel) . The aforementioned topic about pile selection is a very diverse subject and requires a separate discussion on its own.

      Click on the link to read the full article.
      • 9 replies
    • I am suppose to design a pile foundation for a machine weighing approximately 50 tons and with an operational loading of 100 tons. 
      I ll appreciate your help in terms of guidance & provision of notes...  
      Thank you..
      • 36 replies
    • Material behavior can be idealized as consisting of an 'elastic' domain and a 'plastic' domain. For almost 200 years, structural design has been
      based on an elastic theory which assumes that structures display a linear response throughout their loading history, ignoring the post-yielding
      stage of behavior. Current design practice for reinforced concrete structures is a curious blend of elastic analysis to compute forces and moments, plasticity theory to proportion cross-sections for the moment and axial, load, and empirical mumbo-jumbo to proportion members for shear.


      From the book "Design of Concrete Structures with Stress Fields" by A. Muttoni,  J. Schwartz and  B.Thurliman.

      • 0 replies
    • Dear Fellow Researchers, Academicians, and research students,


      NED University of Engineering & Technology in collaboration with Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) is organizing 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) on December 22-23, 2017 at Karachi, Pakistan.

       The congress details are available at its website www.neduet.edu.pk/icec

       Also attached is congress flyer for information and dissemination among your peers.

       Abstracts submission deadline has been extended till October 31, 2017.

      Please click on the link to see the full description.
      • 0 replies
    • AoA all,

      Is it mandatory to do column concreting upto the soffit of the beam in a single pour ?

      What code says about the construction/cold joint location in column ?

      Majority of the contractors are pouring the column concrete upto the soffit of the beam (full height of the column), some contractors leave the column height about 9" to 12" below the beam level and then fill this 9" to 12" column height with the beams & slab concreting. On one site column concreting was stopped at the mid height and the remaining half was filled on the next day.



      • 5 replies
    • AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

      • 10 replies
    • Salam Members,

      Congratulations to Engineers, PEC has become full signatory of Washington Accord, what are the benefits to Pakistani engineers for this agreement. 




      • 3 replies
    • Please clarify the following confusions one by one:-


      1. If we run P-delta analysis in ETABS, then should we ignore stiffness property modifiers for beams and columns? I have heard that if we perform P-delta analysis and apply stiffness modifiers at the same time then the moment magnification process is doubled...?


      2. ETABS considers selenderness of a column by applying moment magnification factors. If we run P-delta analysis also, does it mean that the selenderness of column is being over-estimated? I mean once the moments are magnified in P-delta analysis process and again through moment magnification process?


      Please help me understand the software myth and clarify above confusions.
      • 1 reply
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By UmarMakhzumi
      The following excerpts are from B F Goodrich v Wohlgemoth case in which a young engineer named Donald Wohlgemuth who walked over from B. F. Goodrich to a competitor, International Latex, and then discovered, to his shock, that Goodrich objected. Brooks(Author of the book from which this text is copied) traces the story of how Goodrich dragged the young man into court to stop him sharing secrets of the space suit they were designing for Mercury astronauts. You will like it if you are related to Law or Engineering. Here is the case:
      Donald Wolhgemoth worked his entire career in the ‘pressure space suit department’ at B F Goodrich and had risen through the ranks to be manager of this highly specialized department in charge of all research and development regarding space suits. In 1964, Wohlgemuth announced his resignation to go to work for International Latex Corporation in their space suit department, which was 14 years behind B F Goodrich in the development of this specialised technology.
      B F Goodrich sued Wohlgemuth to protect its trade secrets. There was no evidence of actual misappropriation of any trade secrets although Wohlgemuth was reported to have said to fellow
      employees that ‘loyalty and ethics had their price; insofar as he was concerned, International Latex was paying that price.’Based on this record, the court had no reservation granting injunctive relief to prevent the threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.
      The court decreed ‘We have no doubt that an injunction may issue in a court of equity to prevent a future wrong although no right has yet been violated.’ Further, the court stated, ‘unless a restraining order is entered, Goodrich may suffer irreparable injury.’
      The scenario now is that an employer seeking injunctive protection for his trade secrets prior to their disclosure has to allege that either the ex-employee actually intends to do so or that the type of work is such that he is subconsciously doing so.
      The situationis such that the threat of misappropriation of trade secrets can be enjoined without regard to proof of actual misappropriation or the intent of the former employee. This is called the doctrine of 'inevitable disclosure'.
      However, the judgement passed allowed Wohlgemuth to work for Latex in the Space Suit Department as long as he keeps trade secrets to himself. The reason I am posting this is one, that it is quite relevent to what we engineers do day to day and two, that the following arguments that were presented by the defense, which I really enjoyed.
      “Usually it is not until there is evidence that the employee [who has changed jobs] has not lived up to his contract, expressed or implied, to maintain secrecy, that the former employer can take action. In the law of torts there is the maxim: Every dog has one free bite. A dog cannot be presumed to be vicious until he has proved that he is by biting someone. As with a dog, the former employer may have to wait for a former employee to commit some overt act before he can act.”
  • Recent Discussions

  • Latest Forum and Club Posts


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.