Recent content by CJLCivilStruct

Interesting. Thanks for forwarding.

Interesting. Would be good to hear from people who do calculate crack widths for foundations to Eurocodes.. I can't be the only one! I do a fair bit of water retaining concrete design so can appreciate that's a different matter altogether.

Option to stagger the trimmer bars alternating top and bottom?

Makes sense - would you still be sticking to the 0.3mm crack width generally? Or with the protective measure noted you'd be more comfortable taking a pragmatic approach? Obviously this is a case by case basis. I'd be more relaxed about crack widths in a ring beam to an extension of a 1970's...

Thanks for the responses all.

Not disagreeing with any of you - I can see the logic from both sides of the fence on this one. I've attached an extract from Eurocode 2 regarding control of crack widths (the code I design to in the UK). There is no indication that I've seen to say that this does not apply to foundations. I do...

Just wondering what the general consensus is for calculating crack widths in RC foundation design - think ground beams, rafts and pads. I have always calculated and limited the crack widths to 0.3mm for exposure classes XC3/4 for durability. However, I sometimes come across examples of ground...

I think others have mentioned in threads similar before - and I agree - that for walls of this height it's a good idea to batter the front face of the wall back such that minor settlement rotations and deflections of the stem don't make it look like the leaning tower of pisa. Just a thought.

I must say i'm shooting from the hip here - and I don't have any experience with these codes but.. Minimum flexural steel requirements are based on the steel not yielding upon initial cracking of the concrete (which then may result in brittle failure). So, if you detail a raft slab with less...

I'm not familiar with the CRSI Guide, but in the UK it's pretty standard in my experience for piles to be embedded 75mm to 100mm (3-4") and have the bottom mat laid directly onto the piles.

I tend to think once a span goes beyond around 1.5m to 2m, relying on arching behavior is a bit too risky for my liking. The span of around 4.8m (sorry my brain only works in metric) is quite large, and sizing the beam using arching behavior may result in a beam size which 'looks' a bit slender...

If the bulkhead is removed then the surface at point 2 is free to air so P must equal 0 - that's my understanding anyway. Also, worth noting that concrete pressures are not fully hydro static - refer to CIRIA 108.

Probably the easiest solution is to remodel it with 2D plate elements - sometimes simple is best?

Agree with KootK, I think this is crying out for a flat slab raft footing

In this case it's taking some roof load as well - worth mentioning in the UK it's much more common in my experience to see the plate welded to the bottom flange to pick up the cladding brick with triangular stiffeners if required. My preference typically (if the cavity width allows) is to have...