Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Recent content by degenn

  1. degenn

    An new approach for design documentation

    Thanks everyone for your comments... I'll try to answer some of the questions raised. Equations are typed in as simple text. Equations are a paragraph that uses a particular style, so other text doesn't get accidently get entangled. Equation are type as simple text. For example -...
  2. degenn

    An new approach for design documentation

    Thanks for your replies. Yes I've heard of MathCAD, SMath and TEDDS and Slydrule is a bit like each but also a bit different to each. Firstly, as a Word add-in, it is very accessible to everyone and extremely easy to learn. You can simply add a few equations to any document, rather than working...
  3. degenn

    An new approach for design documentation

    Hi I’d like to get some feedback from experienced engineers on a new tool we have developed for documenting calculations. It is a add-in for Word that allows updatable, unit based equations to be added directly in a Word document. It provides an alternative to spreadsheets, “black box”...
  4. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    Hi Rapt Are you aware that this paper suggests using the current (2009) rules for mu=2.
  5. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    And there needs to be some mechanism to limit the exposure of the third party checker to damages to reflect their reduced fee, otherwise no one may be interested in the work.
  6. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    So just to be clear, you believe the correct interpretation of 11.7.4 requires all walls designed as columns that are over 50MPa must be restrained to 14.5.4. In other words 11.7.4(a) cannot be used, even though not clearly stated. Moving to 14.5.4, this clause in intended for an IMRF ie mu=3...
  7. degenn

    Design of Walls - Simplified Method - Restraint of Vertical Reinforcement - AS3600-2018

    11.7.4 is very badly drafted as the final paragraph appears to contradict (b) since the strength must be <50Mpa, if the last paragraph is read in isolation. The reference to 14.5.4 should only be relevant, reasonably, if mu > 1. If the design is based on mu=1, then the higher moment is probably...
  8. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    Can you elaborate?
  9. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    AS3600-2018 gives cases, in 11.7.4, where wall can be designed as columns not requiring restraint of vertical steel according to 10.7.4. The new last paragraph says vertical reinforced is to be restrained to 14.5.4 if over 50MPa. I believe the correct interpretation of this only if restraint...
  10. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    I can totally understand why the developer, builder and engineer wants to keep it quiet but do they have an obligation to explain more when there is such public interest and the entire industry is being brought into disrepute
  11. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    ShearForceEng A great diagram showing what has happened! The interesting point is the crack in the lintel beam in vertical indicating a tensile crack. A true shear crack would be on an angle. The drop in the floor is a secondary effect. The fact that is has tension suggests that the grout and...
  12. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    Am i correct in reading the latest photo as a vertical crack in the wall over the centre of the column? If so, it would appear that a tensile force existed in the base of the wall due to the rectification of the dispersed column force into the wider wall. This force would be say 10% of the axial...
  13. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    rscassar You give the capacity of the wall over the column as 4050kN. This presumably includes a phi of 0.6. This is a safety factor and shouldn’t be considered in assessing an actual failure. Similarly the 5% eccentricity is a contingency but probably doesn’t actually exist with a symmetric...
  14. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    A quick calc... 30m2 x 10kPa x 23 floors = 6900kN The area and load generous I think. (0.7 + 2 x 0.2) x 0.2 = 0.22m2 Assuming a 45 degree dispersion 6900 / 0.22 = 31MPa. Seems maybe a bit high for a wall but unlikely to cause an actual failure since the service load would only be about 70%...
  15. degenn

    Opal Tower - Sydney Australia

    I know that we are all talking about something were we don’t know all the facts. What we do know is something serious failed under normal service. That is at about a third of what should be its actual capacity. There are twenty similar details in the structure. Although they may not have failed...

Part and Inventory Search