Q: Structural behavior of circular slabs: Under symmetric external loading (e.g., uniform load), a circular slab deflects into which surface shape?

Introduction / Context: Circular slabs in floors, water tanks, and rafts often experience axisymmetric loading. The resulting deflected surface provides insight into bending moments (radial and circumferential), reinforcement orientation, and serviceability. Recognizing the characteristic shape aids intuition and preliminary checks. Given Data / Assumptions: Thin circular plate (slab) with small deflection theory applicable. Axisymmetric loading such as self-weight or uniform pressure. Material obeys linear-elastic assumptions within service levels. Concept / Approach: For axisymmetric loading on a circular plate, the governing differential equation yields a deflection surface that is parabolic in the radial coordinate. In three dimensions, the deflection surface is a paraboloid. This result underpins standard closed-form expressions for bending moments M_r and M_θ and for reinforcement detailing in circular slabs. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume axisymmetry: deflection w = w(r).Solve the plate equation under uniform load → w(r) follows a quadratic dependence.Interpret the 3D shape: a paraboloid of revolution fits the axisymmetric quadratic profile. Verification / Alternative check: Classic plate theory solutions (e.g., clamped or simply supported edges) demonstrate quadratic radial deflection and corresponding linear moment distributions, confirming the paraboloid shape under uniformly distributed load. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Semi-hemisphere and ellipsoid imply different curvature relationships not produced by linear plate bending. A hyperbolic paraboloid is a saddle surface requiring different boundary/loading conditions. A cone would imply piecewise linear deflection, not typical of elastic plates. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a spherical cap shape due to symmetry; ignoring boundary conditions which affect magnitude, not the basic parabolic character for uniform loads; confusing membrane behavior with bending-dominated response. Final Answer: Paraboloid

Q: Concrete strength of standard 15 cm cubes at 28 days: Under favorable materials, mix, and curing, what maximum crushing strength is commonly cited in elementary building practice texts?

Introduction / Context: Compressive strength of concrete is measured using standard 15 cm cubes at 28 days. While design uses specified characteristic strengths, elementary building construction texts often quote indicative ranges in traditional units (kg/cm²) for common mixes and curing. This question asks for the upper bound referenced for “favorable circumstances.” Given Data / Assumptions: Standard cube size = 150 mm. Strength assessed at 28 days under controlled curing. Traditional unit system maintained to match the option set. Concept / Approach: Historically, ordinary mixes yielded 100–300 kg/cm², with good quality materials, proper proportioning, compaction, and curing enabling substantially higher strengths. Textbook tables frequently remark that up to about 500 kg/cm² can be achieved with quality control, though modern high-strength concretes may far exceed this in SI units. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the range of conventional strengths for normal and good-quality concrete.Select the highest value in the provided set that aligns with “favorable circumstances.”Hence choose 500 kg/cm² as the representative maximum cited. Verification / Alternative check: Cross-reference with typical design grades: 200–300 kg/cm² (≈20–30 MPa) for ordinary structural concrete; higher strengths are achievable with better cement, low w/c ratio, admixtures, and curing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 100–400 kg/cm² represent lower or mid-range strengths and do not reflect the “maximum in favorable circumstances.” Common Pitfalls: Confusing characteristic design strength with occasional maximum test strengths; mixing units (MPa vs kg/cm²) without conversion (1 MPa ≈ 10.197 kg/cm²). Final Answer: 500 kg/cm²

Q: Imposed (live) load on an accessible roof in building design: What value should be considered for service load calculations in traditional kg/m² terms?

Introduction / Context: Live load selection for roofs affects member sizing, slab reinforcement, and serviceability. Many codes provide tabulated imposed loads for “accessible” roofs (used for maintenance and occasional occupancy) versus “inaccessible” roofs. The question uses traditional units (kg/m²) common in older texts and exams. Given Data / Assumptions: Roof is accessible to people for maintenance or intermittent use. Load value is a nominal uniformly distributed load used for design. Units are kg/m², matching classic building practice problems. Concept / Approach: Accessible roofs carry higher live loads than roofs accessible only for inspection. A typical tabulated value in many curricula is 150 kg/m² for accessible roofs, used along with wind loads and, where relevant, ponding checks for drainage. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify roof usage category: accessible.Select standard imposed load for this category → 150 kg/m².Use this for member design with appropriate load factors and combinations in the relevant code basis. Verification / Alternative check: Modern codes provide similar ranges in kN/m²; conversion shows 150 kg/m² ≈ 1.5 kN/m². This aligns with common practice for accessible roofs in non-assembly conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Nil is for inaccessible roofs only; (b) 75 kg/m² is too low for accessible; (d) 200 kg/cm² is a unit error (immense load); (e) 300 kg/m² is conservative for ordinary accessible roofs unless special use applies. Common Pitfalls: Confusing accessible with inaccessible roofs; mixing units (kg/m² vs kN/m²); ignoring superimposed dead loads (screed, waterproofing) in addition to live load. Final Answer: 150 kg/m²

Q: Minimum clear cover for reinforced concrete columns: What is the prescribed minimum cover requirement to main reinforcement?

Introduction / Context: Concrete cover protects reinforcement against corrosion and fire and ensures proper bond. For columns, minimum cover is larger than for many beams or slabs due to exposure and durability considerations. This question tests recognition of the standard rule used in many Indian practice texts for columns. Given Data / Assumptions: Question refers to main longitudinal bars in R.C.C. columns. Normal environmental exposure conditions unless specified otherwise. Traditional rule: use a minimum clear cover not less than 40 mm or the bar diameter, whichever is greater. Concept / Approach: Cover must at least equal a prescribed minimum for durability, and for large bars, ensuring the cover at least equals the bar diameter aids bond and fire resistance. Hence the conditional “greater of” formulation is applied. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify member type: column.Apply column cover rule → cover ≥ max(40 mm, bar diameter).Detail ties and spacers so that the specified clear cover is maintained throughout. Verification / Alternative check: Durability tables in codes increase cover for severe environments; however, the baseline minimum for columns remains aligned with the “40 mm or bar diameter, whichever greater” guidance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) and (d) reduce protection unacceptably. (c) is a beam/slab-like lower limit and may be inadequate for columns. (e) ignores bar size and environment. Common Pitfalls: Measuring cover to the center of bars instead of to the bar surface; not accounting for tolerance and spacer thickness; forgetting increased cover for aggressive exposure or fire ratings. Final Answer: Greater of 40 mm or bar diameter

Q: Ribbed (waffle) slab as a T-beam system: The effective flange thickness of a T-beam formed by a rib and a thin topping is generally taken equal to which dimension?

Introduction / Context: Ribbed (waffle) slabs consist of a thin slab (topping) cast monolithically over regularly spaced ribs. Each rib-and-slab strip behaves like a T-beam, where the slab acts as the flange in compression and the rib acts as the web in bending. Determining the effective flange thickness is essential for flexural calculations. Given Data / Assumptions: Regular waffle/ribbed slab with thin topping over ribs. Monolithic behavior assumed; loads produce compression in the slab topping over ribs. Elementary textbook rule: the flange thickness is taken as the slab (topping) thickness for ribbed systems. Concept / Approach: In ribbed systems, the thin slab topping provides the compression flange. Its actual thickness, not the rib depth or width, defines the flange thickness. While effective flange width depends on spacing and code equations, the flange thickness itself is simply the topping thickness. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify T-beam components: flange = topping slab; web = rib.Apply the usual assumption: effective flange thickness = topping thickness.Proceed to compute effective flange width per code if full flexural design is required. Verification / Alternative check: Design manuals and codes specify formulas for effective flange width based on rib spacing and span. However, they consistently treat the flange thickness as the topping thickness for ribbed slabs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rib width or depth relates to web properties, not flange thickness. Halving rib thickness is arbitrary. Twice the rib width addresses breadth, not thickness, and has no physical basis here. Common Pitfalls: Confusing effective flange width (a plan dimension) with flange thickness (a depth dimension); using large bar diameters in thin toppings leading to cover issues; neglecting shear and punching checks at supports. Final Answer: Thickness of the concrete topping (slab)

Question 1

When the cross-sectional size of a reinforced concrete column is reduced above a floor level, how should the main longitudinal bars be handled across that level to ensure continuity and safe force transfer?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Column size transitions are common for architectural or load-path reasons. Proper continuity and anchorage of longitudinal bars across the step are crucial to ensure axial load transfer, bending continuity, and confinement compatibility. Given Data / Assumptions: Column size reduces at a floor level. Need a detailing strategy for main reinforcement across the step. Lap length and confinement must satisfy code requirements. Concept / Approach: There are multiple acceptable methods provided they meet development length, splice, and bend radius requirements. Options include: (1) continuing bars straight through into the upper column, (2) bending bars inward with adequate radius and cover to match the smaller core, or (3) stopping bars and providing properly lapped starter bars above with sufficient confinement via ties. Step-by-Step Solution: Choose a method based on congestion, cover, and practicality.If bending inward, ensure bend diameter, cover, and no sharp kinks.If lapping, provide lap length ≥ required development length in compression/tension as applicable and within a well-tied splice region.Maintain continuity of ties/links across the transition zone. Verification / Alternative check: Design checks must confirm that the splice zone has adequate confinement (closer tie spacing) and that the lap length satisfies bar grade, concrete strength, and bond conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each single option alone may be correct in some scenarios; the best answer encompasses all permissible approaches with correct detailing. Hence the comprehensive choice is preferred. Common Pitfalls: Insufficient lap length, inadequate tie spacing in splice zones, and cover violations when bars are bent sharply to fit upper dimensions. Final Answer: All the above can be used with proper detailing.

Question 2

Flanged (T-beam) action in reinforced concrete: Under what conditions may a portion of a slab be considered to act as the flange of a T-beam integral with the web (beam)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Monolithic slab-beam systems often develop T-beam action where the slab contributes compression as a flange while the beam web carries shear and houses tension reinforcement. Recognizing when such action is valid ensures economical and safe flexural design. Given Data / Assumptions: Beam and slab cast together (typical floor system). Load induces compression at the slab top over the beam. Proper reinforcement and bond between slab and web. Concept / Approach: T-beam behavior requires: monolithic casting (or equivalent shear connection), adequate transverse reinforcement to control cracking and distribute compression, and effective bond so that strain compatibility is maintained. With these, a code-defined effective flange width participates in compression block calculations. Step-by-Step Solution: Check casting sequence or connectors to ensure composite action.Provide transverse slab steel for crack control and load distribution.Ensure interface preparation and shear transfer (bond) meet code provisions. Verification / Alternative check: Compute effective flange width per code limits (functions of beam span, slab thickness, and spacing between webs) and verify compression block remains within flange thickness or includes web if needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual condition is necessary but not sufficient alone; together they justify T-beam behavior. Hence “All the above” best captures the requirement. Common Pitfalls: Overestimating effective flange width, ignoring cracking and bond, or assuming composite action without adequate transverse reinforcement and interface shear capacity. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 3

Design focus for R.C.C. cantilever beams: At which location is the resultant design effect (bending moment and shear) critical and therefore governs sizing and detailing?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Cantilever beams are common in balconies, canopies, and footings. Their boundary conditions produce maximum negative bending and shear at the support (fixed end), which governs reinforcement and section depth selection. Given Data / Assumptions: Cantilever with a fixed support and a free end. Uniformly distributed load or point load at or along the span. Serviceability and strength checks per standard design practice. Concept / Approach: For a cantilever of length L with load w per unit length: maximum shear Vmax = w * L at the fixed end and maximum moment Mmax = w * L^2 / 2 at the fixed end. For an end point load P: Vmax = P and Mmax = P * L at the fixed end. Therefore, design is governed at the support. Step-by-Step Solution: Establish loading and length.Compute design actions; identify peak shear and moment at the fixed end.Provide top (negative) steel over the support and check shear reinforcement near the face of support. Verification / Alternative check: Free-body diagrams confirm zero moment at the free end and linearly increasing moment towards the support, peaking at the fixed end; shear likewise is greatest at the support section. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Free end: bending moment is zero there. Mid-span: moments are lower than at the fixed end. Mid-span and fixed end equally: not true for classical cantilever behavior. Common Pitfalls: Insufficient anchorage/top steel over support, neglect of diagonal tension near the face of support, and inadequate cover against environmental exposure for projecting members. Final Answer: At the fixed end.

Question 4

Practical field methods of pile installation: Which of the following are commonly used to drive piles on site?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pile foundations transfer loads to deeper strata where surface soils are weak. Installing piles requires imparting energy to overcome soil resistance and achieve required set or depth. Multiple hammer types are used depending on site conditions and pile type. Given Data / Assumptions: Common pile materials: timber, steel, concrete. Objective: penetrate soil to design depth with acceptable driving resistance and minimal damage. Driving equipment must match pile and soil. Concept / Approach: Drop hammers are simple gravity hammers; diesel hammers are self-contained combustion devices providing high blows per minute; single-acting steam (or air) hammers use pressurized working fluid to lift the ram and let it fall under gravity. All are established methods for driving displacement piles. Step-by-Step Solution: Select hammer type based on pile capacity, soil resistance, and noise/vibration limits.Monitor set per blow and ensure integrity (e.g., through PDA or dynamic formula checks).Stop when criteria (depth, set, or capacity) are met. Verification / Alternative check: Dynamic formulae or wave equation analyses relate hammer energy and set to capacity; load tests confirm capacity post-installation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each single hammer listed is a valid method; hence the composite choice “All the above” is the correct answer. Common Pitfalls: Using an overly aggressive hammer causing pile damage; inadequate cushioning; not accounting for setup/relaxation effects in certain soils. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 5

Lap splicing in compression members: The lap length shall not be less than bar_dia * (permissible_stress / (5 * bond_stress)) or which minimum value expressed in bar diameters, whichever is greater?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Lap splices in compression must safely transfer force between bars through bond with concrete. Codes specify a calculated lap length and also a minimum bar diameter multiple to cover variability in workmanship and conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: Compression member with lapped longitudinal bars. Design stresses and bond stresses per standard practice. Requirement: adopt the larger of calculated or minimum lap. Concept / Approach: The calculated lap uses permissible stress and bond stress values; however, a minimum of 24φ (φ = bar diameter) is typically specified for compression laps to ensure adequate embedment and confinement length even when calculated values are small. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute L_calc = φ * (permissible_stress / (5 * bond_stress)).Compare with L_min = 24φ.Provide lap length = max(L_calc, 24φ) within a zone of adequate transverse reinforcement. Verification / Alternative check: Confinement via closer ties in splice regions enhances bond behavior; design guides consistently adopt 24φ as the baseline for compression laps in normal conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 12φ and 18φ: usually insufficient for reliable compression splices. 30φ or 36φ: conservative but not the commonly mandated minimum for compression laps in ordinary conditions. Common Pitfalls: Placing splices at highly stressed sections, inadequate tie spacing, and ignoring cover limitations which reduce bond effectiveness. Final Answer: 24 bar diameters.

Question 6

Shear design in reinforced concrete beams: Based on working-stress era thumb rules, how should shear reinforcement and section sizing be decided from the computed nominal shear stress (kg/cm²)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Shear design in reinforced concrete beams ensures that inclined cracking and brittle web failures are prevented. Older working-stress practice (expressed here in kg/cm²) uses simple decision thresholds for the nominal shear stress to decide whether stirrups are needed and whether the section must be resized. This question checks recognition of those classical ranges and the intent behind them. Given Data / Assumptions: Nominal shear stress τv has been computed from V / (b * d) in kg/cm². The values 5, 20 kg/cm² represent traditional guideposts from elementary design texts. Behavioral intent: very low shear → concrete alone adequate; moderate shear → provide stirrups; very high shear → resize the section (or redesign). Concept / Approach: Concrete has limited diagonal tension resistance. Below a small bound, web cracking is unlikely, so stirrups may be waived. In an intermediate band, standard stirrups (or bent-up bars) are provided to carry diagonal tension. If shear is excessive, simply adding stirrups can become uneconomical or ineffective; increasing b and/or d reduces τv and improves shear and flexural capacity simultaneously. Step-by-Step Solution: Classify the computed τv against guide thresholds.If τv ≤ 5 kg/cm² → omit shear steel (subject to minimums in modern codes).If 4 < τv < 20 kg/cm² → provide designed stirrups for Vus = Vu − Vc.If τv ≥ 20 kg/cm² → increase section depth/width or redesign to bring τv down. Verification / Alternative check: Increasing effective depth d directly reduces τv = V / (b * d). Basic checks for bearing, anchorage, and serviceability accompany any redesign. Modern limit-state codes use different symbols and limits but the qualitative decisions remain similar. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options (a), (b), and (c) are partial truths applicable only in their ranges. Option (d) correctly assembles the full decision tree. Option (e) contradicts standard practice. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring minimum stirrups even when τv is very low; relying on stirrups alone for extremely high shear; mixing units (N/mm² vs kg/cm²) without conversion; forgetting to check shear near supports where V is highest. Final Answer: All of the above (applied in their respective ranges)

Question 7

Combined footing for two columns with unequal loads: The location of maximum hogging (negative) bending moment occurs at which column position?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In foundation engineering, a combined footing supports two columns on a single slab or beam. When column loads are unequal, the soil pressure distribution and internal bending vary along the footing. Recognizing where the maximum hogging (negative) bending moment occurs is essential for correct placement and sizing of top reinforcement. Given Data / Assumptions: Two-column combined footing on uniform soil with eccentricities accounted by maintaining resultant soil reaction through the centroid of footing. Column loads are unequal, causing different peak reactions beneath each column footprint. Hogging moment is negative bending at the column locations (top fibers in tension) in a typical strap/combined footing. Concept / Approach: The footing behaves like a continuous beam on elastic support (soil). Concentrated column reactions plus distributed soil pressure produce bending. Larger column load increases the negative moment demand at that column, because soil reactions and compatibility generate a greater curvature reversal near the heavier column. Step-by-Step Solution: Model the footing as a beam with supports (soil) and two applied column loads.Draw qualitative shear-force and bending-moment diagrams.Note that negative bending peaks beneath column locations; the heavier column produces the larger hogging moment demand. Verification / Alternative check: Elastic-foundation solutions and strip-method approximations show that the section over the heavier column requires greater top steel due to higher negative moment, matching design experience in combined footings and strap footings. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Less-loaded column sees a smaller hogging moment. (c) Midway between columns is typically a sagging region. (d) and (e) confuse shear and bending locations; maximum shear and zero-shear points do not necessarily coincide with negative-moment peaks. Common Pitfalls: Assuming symmetric reinforcement when loads are unequal; neglecting punching and two-way shear near columns; ignoring soil pressure limits near heavily loaded column edges. Final Answer: Under the more-loaded column

Question 8

Structural behavior of circular slabs: Under symmetric external loading (e.g., uniform load), a circular slab deflects into which surface shape?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Circular slabs in floors, water tanks, and rafts often experience axisymmetric loading. The resulting deflected surface provides insight into bending moments (radial and circumferential), reinforcement orientation, and serviceability. Recognizing the characteristic shape aids intuition and preliminary checks. Given Data / Assumptions: Thin circular plate (slab) with small deflection theory applicable. Axisymmetric loading such as self-weight or uniform pressure. Material obeys linear-elastic assumptions within service levels. Concept / Approach: For axisymmetric loading on a circular plate, the governing differential equation yields a deflection surface that is parabolic in the radial coordinate. In three dimensions, the deflection surface is a paraboloid. This result underpins standard closed-form expressions for bending moments M_r and M_θ and for reinforcement detailing in circular slabs. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume axisymmetry: deflection w = w(r).Solve the plate equation under uniform load → w(r) follows a quadratic dependence.Interpret the 3D shape: a paraboloid of revolution fits the axisymmetric quadratic profile. Verification / Alternative check: Classic plate theory solutions (e.g., clamped or simply supported edges) demonstrate quadratic radial deflection and corresponding linear moment distributions, confirming the paraboloid shape under uniformly distributed load. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Semi-hemisphere and ellipsoid imply different curvature relationships not produced by linear plate bending. A hyperbolic paraboloid is a saddle surface requiring different boundary/loading conditions. A cone would imply piecewise linear deflection, not typical of elastic plates. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a spherical cap shape due to symmetry; ignoring boundary conditions which affect magnitude, not the basic parabolic character for uniform loads; confusing membrane behavior with bending-dominated response. Final Answer: Paraboloid

Question 9

Concrete strength of standard 15 cm cubes at 28 days: Under favorable materials, mix, and curing, what maximum crushing strength is commonly cited in elementary building practice texts?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Compressive strength of concrete is measured using standard 15 cm cubes at 28 days. While design uses specified characteristic strengths, elementary building construction texts often quote indicative ranges in traditional units (kg/cm²) for common mixes and curing. This question asks for the upper bound referenced for “favorable circumstances.” Given Data / Assumptions: Standard cube size = 150 mm. Strength assessed at 28 days under controlled curing. Traditional unit system maintained to match the option set. Concept / Approach: Historically, ordinary mixes yielded 100–300 kg/cm², with good quality materials, proper proportioning, compaction, and curing enabling substantially higher strengths. Textbook tables frequently remark that up to about 500 kg/cm² can be achieved with quality control, though modern high-strength concretes may far exceed this in SI units. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the range of conventional strengths for normal and good-quality concrete.Select the highest value in the provided set that aligns with “favorable circumstances.”Hence choose 500 kg/cm² as the representative maximum cited. Verification / Alternative check: Cross-reference with typical design grades: 200–300 kg/cm² (≈20–30 MPa) for ordinary structural concrete; higher strengths are achievable with better cement, low w/c ratio, admixtures, and curing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 100–400 kg/cm² represent lower or mid-range strengths and do not reflect the “maximum in favorable circumstances.” Common Pitfalls: Confusing characteristic design strength with occasional maximum test strengths; mixing units (MPa vs kg/cm²) without conversion (1 MPa ≈ 10.197 kg/cm²). Final Answer: 500 kg/cm²

Question 10

Imposed (live) load on an accessible roof in building design: What value should be considered for service load calculations in traditional kg/m² terms?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Live load selection for roofs affects member sizing, slab reinforcement, and serviceability. Many codes provide tabulated imposed loads for “accessible” roofs (used for maintenance and occasional occupancy) versus “inaccessible” roofs. The question uses traditional units (kg/m²) common in older texts and exams. Given Data / Assumptions: Roof is accessible to people for maintenance or intermittent use. Load value is a nominal uniformly distributed load used for design. Units are kg/m², matching classic building practice problems. Concept / Approach: Accessible roofs carry higher live loads than roofs accessible only for inspection. A typical tabulated value in many curricula is 150 kg/m² for accessible roofs, used along with wind loads and, where relevant, ponding checks for drainage. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify roof usage category: accessible.Select standard imposed load for this category → 150 kg/m².Use this for member design with appropriate load factors and combinations in the relevant code basis. Verification / Alternative check: Modern codes provide similar ranges in kN/m²; conversion shows 150 kg/m² ≈ 1.5 kN/m². This aligns with common practice for accessible roofs in non-assembly conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Nil is for inaccessible roofs only; (b) 75 kg/m² is too low for accessible; (d) 200 kg/cm² is a unit error (immense load); (e) 300 kg/m² is conservative for ordinary accessible roofs unless special use applies. Common Pitfalls: Confusing accessible with inaccessible roofs; mixing units (kg/m² vs kN/m²); ignoring superimposed dead loads (screed, waterproofing) in addition to live load. Final Answer: 150 kg/m²

Question 11

Minimum clear cover for reinforced concrete columns: What is the prescribed minimum cover requirement to main reinforcement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete cover protects reinforcement against corrosion and fire and ensures proper bond. For columns, minimum cover is larger than for many beams or slabs due to exposure and durability considerations. This question tests recognition of the standard rule used in many Indian practice texts for columns. Given Data / Assumptions: Question refers to main longitudinal bars in R.C.C. columns. Normal environmental exposure conditions unless specified otherwise. Traditional rule: use a minimum clear cover not less than 40 mm or the bar diameter, whichever is greater. Concept / Approach: Cover must at least equal a prescribed minimum for durability, and for large bars, ensuring the cover at least equals the bar diameter aids bond and fire resistance. Hence the conditional “greater of” formulation is applied. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify member type: column.Apply column cover rule → cover ≥ max(40 mm, bar diameter).Detail ties and spacers so that the specified clear cover is maintained throughout. Verification / Alternative check: Durability tables in codes increase cover for severe environments; however, the baseline minimum for columns remains aligned with the “40 mm or bar diameter, whichever greater” guidance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) and (d) reduce protection unacceptably. (c) is a beam/slab-like lower limit and may be inadequate for columns. (e) ignores bar size and environment. Common Pitfalls: Measuring cover to the center of bars instead of to the bar surface; not accounting for tolerance and spacer thickness; forgetting increased cover for aggressive exposure or fire ratings. Final Answer: Greater of 40 mm or bar diameter

Question 12

Ribbed (waffle) slab as a T-beam system: The effective flange thickness of a T-beam formed by a rib and a thin topping is generally taken equal to which dimension?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ribbed (waffle) slabs consist of a thin slab (topping) cast monolithically over regularly spaced ribs. Each rib-and-slab strip behaves like a T-beam, where the slab acts as the flange in compression and the rib acts as the web in bending. Determining the effective flange thickness is essential for flexural calculations. Given Data / Assumptions: Regular waffle/ribbed slab with thin topping over ribs. Monolithic behavior assumed; loads produce compression in the slab topping over ribs. Elementary textbook rule: the flange thickness is taken as the slab (topping) thickness for ribbed systems. Concept / Approach: In ribbed systems, the thin slab topping provides the compression flange. Its actual thickness, not the rib depth or width, defines the flange thickness. While effective flange width depends on spacing and code equations, the flange thickness itself is simply the topping thickness. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify T-beam components: flange = topping slab; web = rib.Apply the usual assumption: effective flange thickness = topping thickness.Proceed to compute effective flange width per code if full flexural design is required. Verification / Alternative check: Design manuals and codes specify formulas for effective flange width based on rib spacing and span. However, they consistently treat the flange thickness as the topping thickness for ribbed slabs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rib width or depth relates to web properties, not flange thickness. Halving rib thickness is arbitrary. Twice the rib width addresses breadth, not thickness, and has no physical basis here. Common Pitfalls: Confusing effective flange width (a plan dimension) with flange thickness (a depth dimension); using large bar diameters in thin toppings leading to cover issues; neglecting shear and punching checks at supports. Final Answer: Thickness of the concrete topping (slab)

Question 13

In pile driving practice, the minimum drop (fall) of the drop hammer on piles should be at least how much? Select the most appropriate minimum value used to ensure sufficient driving energy without damaging the pile head.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pile driving with a drop hammer develops driving energy equal to hammer weight multiplied by the drop height. A practical lower bound on the drop height is adopted to ensure adequate energy transfer for penetration while limiting impact damage to the pile head and minimizing excessive set measurements. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional drop-hammer pile driving for timber, precast concrete, or steel piles. Typical site practice with helmet and cushion blocks in place. Question asks for a common minimum drop used in field guidelines. Concept / Approach: Driving energy per blow E is approximated by E = W * h, where W is hammer weight and h is drop height. Too small a drop results in low energy, many blows, and poor efficiency; too large a drop risks overstressing or shattering the pile head. Many standard practices adopt a minimum drop around 1 m as a balanced choice, especially for moderate hammer weights, to achieve practical set with reasonable blow counts. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the energy requirement: a minimum drop is needed so that E = W*h is not trivial.Field rules of thumb commonly specify h ≈ 1.0 m as the minimum safe and effective drop.Select the nearest listed value matching the practical minimum. Verification / Alternative check: Driving formulae (e.g., engineering practice variants of Hiley/ENR) include hammer efficiency, set per blow, and compressibility; using a drop below about 1 m for standard hammers typically yields inefficient progress and inconsistent sets, supporting the 1 m minimum convention. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 80 cm: Often insufficient energy; leads to excessive blows and unreliable set. 120–150 cm or 140 cm: Possible in practice but not the minimum; higher drops are selected based on pile capacity and hammer–pile compatibility. Common Pitfalls: Confusing minimum drop with optimum drop; ignoring helmet/cushion condition; using very high drops on fragile pile types without proper cushioning. Final Answer: 100 cm

Question 14

In flat slab (beamless) construction used in reinforced concrete buildings, the slab is primarily supported by which structural element(s)? Choose the most accurate statement about the support system.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A flat slab system eliminates downstand beams; loads are transferred directly from the slab to columns through column capitals and/or drop panels. Understanding the support mechanism is fundamental for punching shear checks, detailing, and service integration. Given Data / Assumptions: Beamless slab system (flat slab) in reinforced concrete. Slab cast monolithically with columns and, where required, drop panels or column heads. Concept / Approach: By definition, a flat slab is supported directly on columns (and sometimes on shear heads/column capitals) without intermediate beams. Monolithic casting ensures composite action and enables direct load path to the columns while controlling punching shear with drops or shear reinforcement. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify structural system: beamless slab connected to columns.Confirm monolithic construction to ensure proper transfer and continuity.Hence, support is ‘‘on columns monolithically built with the slab’’. Verification / Alternative check: Design procedures for flat slabs focus on column-strip and middle-strip moments and punching shear at column faces—further evidence that beams are not the primary supports. Why Other Options Are Wrong: On beams / on beams and columns: contradicts the beamless nature of flat slabs. On columns (generic): close, but omits the essential monolithic behavior emphasized in design practice. All the above: incorrect because beams are not part of the system. Common Pitfalls: Assuming beam action in a flat slab; neglecting punching shear; forgetting that drops/column heads modify stiffness and moment distribution. Final Answer: on columns monolithically built with the slab

Question 15

T-beam effective flange width calculation (IS-style rule of thumb): Given a slab thickness = 10 cm, web (rib) width bw = 30 cm, web (beam) overall depth = 50 cm, centre-to-centre spacing of beams = 3 m, and effective span = 6 m. Determine the effect…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In T-beams formed by a slab monolithically cast over a web, the effective flange width beff models the portion of slab that participates in compression. Codes provide empirical limits based on span, slab thickness, and beam spacing. Given Data / Assumptions: Df (slab thickness) = 10 cm. bw (web width) = 30 cm. Centre-to-centre spacing of beams s = 300 cm. Effective span lo = 600 cm. Use beff = min( bw + lo/6 + 6Df , s , available slab width ). Concept / Approach: The term lo/6 approximates the span influence; 6Df captures the flange thickness influence; bw accounts for the web. However, the effective width cannot exceed the physical spacing or the actual available slab width, ensuring no overlap with adjacent T-beams. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute lo/6 = 600 / 6 = 100 cm.Compute 6Df = 6 * 10 = 60 cm.Trial beff1 = bw + lo/6 + 6Df = 30 + 100 + 60 = 190 cm.Check spacing limit: s = 300 cm → beff ≤ 300 cm. So beff = min(190, 300) = 190 cm. Verification / Alternative check: Beff is comfortably below spacing; no need to curtail further. The value is consistent with typical code heuristics for moderate spans and thin slabs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 150 cm / 100 cm: Underestimates effective participation, leading to conservative but incorrect design capacity. 220 cm / 300 cm: Exceeds the empirical bound from lo/6 + 6Df + bw without justification. Common Pitfalls: Using overall depth instead of slab thickness in the 6Df term; forgetting the spacing cap; confusing effective span with clear span. Final Answer: 190 cm

Question 16

Flexural (average) bond stress in a reinforced concrete beam section: If jd is the lever arm and ΣO is the total perimeter of tension reinforcement at the section, express the bond stress τ_bd in terms of the applied shear/longitudinal force Q.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Flexural bond stress represents the average shear stress developed along the steel–concrete interface that allows transfer of longitudinal force from concrete to reinforcing bars. It is an essential quantity in checking anchorage and development length. Given Data / Assumptions: Beam carries shear force V; the corresponding change in tension force over a short length is related to Q (longitudinal force increment). ΣO is total bar perimeter in tension zone at the section considered. Lever arm between compression and tension resultants is jd. Concept / Approach: Equilibrium requires the increment of tensile force in steel over a short length to balance the shear flow along the interface. The average bond stress τ_bd times total interface perimeter ΣO equals the rate of change of steel force with length. For a short segment at peak shear, the relationship simplifies to τ_bd = Q / (ΣO * jd), where Q is the internal shear (linked to external shear V) developing the change in flexural force across the lever arm jd. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate shear to change in tension: dT/dx ≈ V / jd.Bond equilibrium: τ_bd * ΣO = dT/dx.Thus τ_bd = (V / jd) / ΣO = V / (ΣO * jd) = Q / (ΣO * jd). Verification / Alternative check: The formula is dimensionally consistent: Q has force units; ΣO has length; jd has length; τ has force/area. Using total perimeter consolidates multiple bars into a single average value. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Multiplying (option b) or inverting (option c) violates equilibrium. Replacing jd with d (option d) ignores the actual lever arm and overestimates bond stress. Using π*d^2 (option e) erroneously introduces bar area rather than total perimeter. Common Pitfalls: Confusing average bond stress with local peak bond; using bar area instead of perimeter; overlooking that jd, not d, governs the tensile/compressive couple. Final Answer: τ_bd = Q / (ΣO * jd)

Question 17

When should a raft (mat) foundation be adopted? Select the rule-of-thumb criterion based on the total area of individual footings compared with the building’s plan area.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A raft (mat) foundation spreads building loads over a large area, reducing contact pressure and accommodating variable soil conditions. Designers often use a rule-of-thumb trigger to decide when a raft is more economical and functional than multiple isolated footings. Given Data / Assumptions: Comparison between total area of all individual footings and the building’s plan area. Normal building loads on moderately compressible soils. Concept / Approach: If numerous isolated footings would occupy a large fraction of the site footprint, consolidating them into a single mat simplifies construction, improves differential settlement performance, and may reduce cost. A commonly cited benchmark is when the sum of individual footing areas is at least about half of the plan area. Step-by-Step Solution: Estimate total area of isolated footings required from column loads and allowable soil pressure.Compare with building plan area.If total footing area ≥ 50% of plan area, a raft is typically preferred. Verification / Alternative check: Beyond the 50% rule, a raft is also preferred where soil is weak/heterogeneous, basements are planned, or differential settlement control is critical. These considerations support the economic/functional crossover near the 50% threshold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10–40%: At these levels, isolated or combined footings usually remain economical and practical; a raft is not yet justified solely by area coverage. Common Pitfalls: Treating the 50% threshold as absolute; ignoring groundwater, basement requirements, and settlement analysis which may argue for a raft even at lower coverage. Final Answer: 50% or more of the plan area (i.e., when individual footings would cover ≥50% of the building plan)

Question 18

According to the steel beam theory for doubly reinforced concrete beams, which statements describe the assumed force-resisting mechanism?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Steel beam theory” is an idealized approach for doubly reinforced beams in which concrete is assumed not to participate in resisting either compression or tension. The steel on both faces forms a couple, akin to a pure steel section embedded in concrete. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete in both tension and compression is neglected for flexural resistance. Tension and compression steel form the resisting couple. Both steels are designed up to the same permissible stress when of the same grade. Concept / Approach: Under this theory, the internal moment is M = Tz = Cz where T and C are forces in tension and compression steel, respectively, and z is the lever arm. Since concrete is ignored in flexure, the role of concrete is primarily to hold steel in position and provide bond and cover. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume concrete carries no flexural stress → compression taken by compression steel, tension by tension steel.For identical steel grade and working-stress design, both steels may reach the same permissible stress → equal allowable stress assumption.Hence, all four listed statements follow from the steel beam theory idealization. Verification / Alternative check: While modern limit-state design considers concrete in compression, the steel beam idealization is used in some theoretical derivations and conservative checks for heavily reinforced sections. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each of (a)–(d) is consistent with the theory, so selecting any single statement would be incomplete; “all the above” best represents the model. Common Pitfalls: Confusing steel beam theory with actual behavior where concrete compression block exists; misapplying the theory to serviceability calculations where concrete stiffness matters. Final Answer: all the above

Question 19

Transverse reinforcement (ties/spirals) spacing in reinforced concrete columns is limited by which governing criteria? Choose the correct combined condition used for detailing limits.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Closely spaced transverse reinforcement in columns confines the core concrete, prevents buckling of longitudinal bars, and anchors lapped splices. Codes specify maximum spacing based on geometric and bar-diameter limits. Given Data / Assumptions: Reinforced concrete column with lateral ties (or spirals). Standard code-style spacing limits. Concept / Approach: The maximum permitted spacing s of ties is the least of several values to ensure proper confinement across different column sizes and bar diameters. Typical limits are tied to: (1) the least lateral dimension of the column, (2) a multiple of the smallest longitudinal bar diameter, and (3) a multiple of the tie diameter. Step-by-Step Solution: Check s ≤ least lateral dimension.Check s ≤ 16 × diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar.Check s ≤ 48 × diameter of the transverse reinforcement (tie).Adopt the smallest value among these as the governing spacing. Verification / Alternative check: These limits are widely consistent across major RC codes to control buckling and ensure effective confinement and shear capacity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual criterion alone is incomplete; the correct detailing rule uses all of them with the most restrictive controlling the design. Hence “All the above” is appropriate. Common Pitfalls: Using only one limit; ignoring changes at laps/hinge regions where closer spacing is required; confusing longitudinal and transverse bar diameters in calculations. Final Answer: All the above

Question 20

In flexural design terminology, an “under-reinforced” reinforced concrete section means which of the following? Select the statement that best captures the behavior at ultimate.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: RC beams are categorized as under-reinforced, balanced, or over-reinforced based on the relative amounts of tension steel and concrete compression capacity. This classification affects the mode of failure and ductility. Given Data / Assumptions: Flexural member with tension reinforcement. Ultimate limit state behavior considered. Concept / Approach: An under-reinforced section has less tension steel than the balanced amount, so the steel yields before the concrete compression zone crushes. This produces a ductile failure with significant warning (deflection/curvature) prior to collapse—highly desirable in design practice. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare actual steel ratio ρ with balanced ratio ρ_bal.If ρ < ρ_bal → steel yields first at ultimate → under-reinforced behavior.This ensures tension-controlled failure with greater rotational capacity. Verification / Alternative check: Strain compatibility shows steel reaches yield strain while concrete compression strain is below crushing strain when ρ < ρ_bal. Moment–curvature diagrams corroborate the ductile response. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Steel on underside only / one face only: A geometric placement statement, not a behavioral definition. Steel provided is insufficient: Vague and potentially unsafe wording; the intent is not “inadequate for strength” but “less than balanced” so that yielding governs. Common Pitfalls: Equating under-reinforcement with unsafe capacity; ignoring serviceability; overlooking compression reinforcement benefits for ductility and long-term deflection. Final Answer: Steel will yield first

RCC Structures Design Questions