Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

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

ACI 350 or ACI 318?

Status
Not open for further replies.

a7x1984

Structural
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
177
Location
US
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top