×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!
  • Students Click Here

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

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ACI 350 or ACI 318?

ACI 350 or ACI 318?

ACI 350 or ACI 318?

(OP)
Designing buried concrete vaults for a waste water commission that house various mechanical equipment. They are not fluid-retaining structures. Can anybody come up with an argument as to why one should design per the ACI 350? (Personally. I think it is overkill to do so)

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: ACI 350 or ACI 318?

I think the exposure argument could be used to lean toward 350.

But this is why they pay you the big bucks. This definitely falls under engineering judgement. I can see a reasonable engineer arguing this either way.

RE: ACI 350 or ACI 318?

(OP)
Mike, no explosive materials; just a mechanical valve gate. Sorry, my description was vague. And, the geotech report says groundwater is below the proposed structure. And, from what I read in the soils report, the site has no inherent corrosive or reactive substances. Plus, the crappy highly organic virgin soil around is being replaced entirely by CR-6 backfill.

If one approaches it from the IBC or ASCE definition of usage groups, it gets really sticky. The ASCE 7-05 seems like it could go either way as far as being low or high risk. It is a 54" valve (quite large!)on a line carrying potable water. Does this constitute a essential use building? If it fails, what are the consequences?

In the 'doomsday' situation, one could argue this is a critical structure and needs to remain in operation during crisis' for water access due to its size. Maybe analogous to the lack of redundancy of a 2-girder bridge. I agree that it could be the case for this structure. However, there is little or no probability of eminent failure, as earthquake loads are eliminated from load combination equations and the vault can be easily inspected via an access hatch.

frv, I am not so sure about exposure as it is above the groundwater table. Everything else equal, we don't use the ACI 350 for general retaining walls, e.g. landscaping structures, residential foundation walls, etc. Seems like other than the structure usage, exposure isn't a controlling factor alone.


To me it boils down to crack control for the longevity/durability of the buried structure, and not a hazard issue. I used ACI 318 for the initial design which resulted in As min equal to t&s steel in nearly every part of the vault. Without fail... changes were made at 70% submission, requiring a redesign. I am concerned that even with the lowest possible environmental factor from ACI 350, it will look like extra steel for 'no good reason'.

In the design review, the water commission didn't comment about the design methodology, so they obviously don't see a need or are as ignorant as I.



 

"Structural engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot..."...ah...screw it, we don't know what the heck we are doing.

RE: ACI 350 or ACI 318?

It comes down to serviceability, and whether you want to reduce the likelihood of water intrusion.  Also, if you are designing only a single unit, the additional reinforcement will probably not be all that costly, and the reduced long term problems using 350 might be worthwhile.  Frequently, we tend to design for minimums, when working at small margins can be unnecessarily risky.  

Also, be careful with your granular backfill.  If the surrounding soil is not well drained, you will end up with a bathtub around your vault.  We have that problem here (in Dallas.)

RE: ACI 350 or ACI 318?

Agree with TXStructural.  Minimums are just that, the least you can get away with.  I imagine that a 54" valve is an expensive item, and a bit of extra reinforcement seems a minor cost for protecting it.  On the other hand, maybe you want the pit full of water to stop it from floating out under TX's scenario.

 

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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!


Resources