Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

asixth (Structural) (OP)
5 Feb 10 3:01
I noticed today that the γ is given in Clause 8.1.3 as 1.0-0.003*fc whereas the draft code was given as 1.05-0.007*fc. Is this a typo given in the new code. It varies vastly from the old code for all concrete grades.
rapt (Structural)
6 Feb 10 3:25
asixth,

Yes, it is a typo. The draft figure is correct.

Standards already know about the problem.

No one knows why it changed as there was no discussion about it to question it at the time, though I have pointed out to them that the rectangular stress block figures are not very logical and need to be completely reviewed. They tried to keep the old logic and extend it, so that 0 - 50MPa stayed the same as previously), rather than developing new consistent logic. Consequently, the results are a mess in some cases. They now agree with me on this and hopefully it will be completely rewritten next release of the code.  
IDS (Civil/Environmental)
6 Feb 10 23:10

Quote:

Standards already know about the problem.

I wonder if/when they are planning to tell us.

The attached file shows design ultimate moment capacity to the new code, draft, and 2001 version for a section subject to significant axial load.

The maximum difference (for 55 MPa concrete) was 8% higer moment resistance with the new code. The difference reduced for lower and higher axial load. Not a huge difference, but enough to cause approval problems if nothing else.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
 

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close