Question 1

In structural steel fabrication, a fillet weld may legitimately be described by which of the following terms based on its profile or application?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Fillet welds join two members at roughly right angles forming a triangular weld profile in the joint (e.g., lap, T, or corner joints). Depending on detailing and execution, the face of a fillet weld may be concave, flat, or convex, and corner applications are often referred to as mitred connections in shop terminology. Given Data / Assumptions: We address terminology used in practical steelwork. Options reference the weld face profile and a corner (mitre) application. Concept / Approach: A fillet weld is not limited to a single surface contour. Weld face profiles are intentionally specified for stress distribution and aesthetics: concave faces reduce stress concentration at toes; convex faces can add throat but may create higher toe stresses. In corner joints cut at angles (mitred), the connecting welds are commonly still fillet welds along the meeting edges, hence the colloquial “mitre weld.” Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that concave and convex define fillet face geometry. Acknowledge that corner/mitred joints frequently use fillet welds along the edges. Therefore, a fillet weld may be termed concave, convex, or mitre in context—making “All the above” correct. Verification / Alternative check: Fabrication standards allow specifying fillet size and contour (convex/concave) and detailing typical corner (mitre) joints with fillets; shop drawings and WPSs reflect this practice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Selecting any single profile ignores the accepted variety of fillet faces and applications; the comprehensive choice is correct. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “mitre” implies a butt weld; many mitred corners are still fillet-welded. Believing only flat/concave faces are allowed; convex faces are also used when specified. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 2

Rolled steel I-sections are most commonly selected for beams because they provide which combination of structural advantages?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Beam selection aims to maximize bending stiffness and strength per unit weight while ensuring stability. The rolled I-section concentrates material in the flanges away from the neutral axis where it contributes most to bending resistance, making it the workhorse of steel framing. Given Data / Assumptions: Comparison among generic rolled shapes for beams under vertical loads. Focus on inertia, section modulus (moment of resistance), and stability. Concept / Approach: For a given mass, shifting area to flanges increases second moment of area about the strong axis, boosting bending stiffness and section modulus. The web provides shear capacity with minimal added weight. This distribution also assists lateral stability for practical spans when bracing is adequate; torsional properties are acceptable for strong-axis bending with common restraints. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate flange area at large distance from neutral axis to increased I and Z. Note the web's efficiency in carrying shear with small thickness. Acknowledge improved stability compared with shallow/wide thin plates when braced. Conclude that I-sections offer all listed advantages for beams. Verification / Alternative check: Design tables show higher Z_x/I_x per unit weight for I-sections than many alternative shapes (e.g., solid rectangles), validating their efficiency for bending about the major axis. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each single advantage is true; the most complete and therefore correct option is “All the above.” Common Pitfalls: Ignoring lateral-torsional buckling; beams still require lateral restraint of compression flanges. Assuming I-sections are optimal for all loadings; for torsion or biaxial bending, other shapes may be superior. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 3

For determining allowable compressive stress in axially loaded steel columns, which column formula is adopted in Indian Standard practice (classical approach)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Allowable compressive stress in columns depends on slenderness and residual imperfections. Classical Indian Standard practice for working-stress design used an empirical-rational column curve based on the Perry–Robertson (modified Rankine type) approach to cover inelastic buckling and imperfections more realistically than Euler’s ideal formula. Given Data / Assumptions: Axially compressed, prismatic steel columns. Working-stress/allowable-stress design context in traditional IS code. Concept / Approach: Euler's formula applies only to perfectly straight, elastic columns with high slenderness. Real columns have residual stresses and imperfections; Perry–Robertson modifies the ideal curve to provide allowable stresses across a wide slenderness range. Indian practice historically adopted this basis to generate column curves used in design tables. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize limitations of Euler for stocky/intermediate columns. Identify Indian code's classical adoption of Perry–Robertson-type curves for allowable stress. Select Perry–Robertson as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Later limit-state versions (e.g., IS 800:2007) use buckling curves calibrated to tests; the historical working-stress framework is consistent with Perry–Robertson lineage for allowable stress values in older editions and exam problems. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Euler: valid only for very slender, ideal columns. Rankine/Engesser/Secant: related formulations exist but Indian allowable-stress tables were based on Perry–Robertson-type curves. Common Pitfalls: Confusing modern limit-state buckling curves with older allowable-stress foundations. Final Answer: Perry–Robertson formula.

Question 4

In a plate girder, tongue plates are typically provided at which location to facilitate connection between web and flange components?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Plate girders are fabricated from flange plates/angles and a web plate. At the junctions of the web with flanges, detailing components such as tongue plates help achieve proper fit-up, load transfer, and connection of cover plates or angles—especially near splices and ends. Given Data / Assumptions: We are concerned with where tongue plates are placed in relation to the web and flanges. Concept / Approach: Tongue plates are small connection plates projecting from the web to assist in attaching flange elements at both the top and bottom. Providing them at both web ends ensures symmetry, simplifies erection, and allows consistent load transfer from the flange components into the web, particularly during splicing or cover-plate transitions. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the interface needing the accessory plate: web-to-flange. Recognize the mirror requirement at top and bottom to carry moment flange forces. Select placement: at both the upper and lower ends of the web. Verification / Alternative check: Fabrication drawings for built-up girders depict tongue/cover arrangements at both flanges; field practice relies on symmetric detailing to avoid eccentricities and ease assembly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Single-end locations provide incomplete detailing; both ends are typically required. Common Pitfalls: Confusing tongue plates with stiffeners; stiffeners are different components used for web stability and bearing. Final Answer: At both the upper and lower ends of the web.

Question 5

In riveted (or bolted) connections, what is the term for the distance measured along one rivet line from the centre of a rivet to the centre of the nearest rivet on an adjacent, parallel rivet line?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Rivet and bolt spacing terminology is crucial for connection detailing to prevent tearing and ensure efficient load transfer. Different distances describe different directions and patterns of hole placement in one or multiple lines. Given Data / Assumptions: We compare pitch, gauge, and staggered pitch. Adjacent rivet line is parallel to the original line. Concept / Approach: Pitch is the centre-to-centre distance of consecutive fasteners along the same line. Gauge is the perpendicular distance between parallel rivet lines. When lines are staggered, the diagonal centre-to-centre distance between a rivet and the nearest rivet on an adjacent line is called staggered pitch; along one line, the longitudinal offset pairs with the transverse gauge to define the diagonal spacing. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the asked direction: from a rivet on one line to the nearest rivet on the adjacent line (diagonal). Exclude straight-line pitch (same line only) and gauge (perpendicular distance only). Conclude the correct term is “staggered pitch”. Verification / Alternative check: Design checks for net section across staggered patterns use staggered pitch to compute the additional term that increases net area because of the zig-zag path. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Pitch: Measures along one line only. Gauge: Measures perpendicular spacing between lines. All/None: Not applicable; a specific correct term exists. Common Pitfalls: Misusing “pitch” generically for any spacing, which leads to detailing errors. Final Answer: Staggered pitch.

Question 6

For a plate girder web, yielding governs the web failure if the ratio of clear web depth to web thickness (d_c / t_w) is less than which approximate limiting value?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Webs of plate girders resist shear and contribute to bending. Their limit state can be governed by yielding (stocky webs) or by buckling (slender webs). The slenderness indicator is the ratio of clear web depth to web thickness. Recognizing the threshold helps select whether stiffeners or thicker webs are required. Given Data / Assumptions: d_c = clear depth of the web plate between flanges. t_w = thickness of the web plate. We seek the approximate ratio below which yielding (not buckling) is the controlling mode. Concept / Approach: A lower d_c / t_w implies a comparatively thick (stocky) web, which has sufficient stiffness to avoid elastic buckling under shear; the web then reaches yield before buckling. Classical plate-girder design adopts a practical limit around 60 for this transition, beyond which intermediate or end stiffeners and shear buckling checks are necessary. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate the web slenderness using d_c / t_w. Compare with the empirical threshold ≈ 60. If less than 60, design for web shear yielding; if greater, check for shear buckling and provide stiffeners as needed. Verification / Alternative check: Modern limit-state codes use more refined buckling curves and tension-field action, yet the traditional teaching threshold near 60 aligns with many exam problems and legacy working-stress provisions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 45 or 55: More conservative than the commonly taught threshold. 75 or 82: Too high; such webs are typically slender enough to require buckling checks. Common Pitfalls: Confusing overall beam slenderness with web slenderness. Ignoring bearing/buckling near concentrated loads where special checks are still required. Final Answer: 60.

Question 7

For a rectangular cross-section in shear, what is the ratio of the maximum shear stress to the average (nominal) shear stress across the section?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Shear stress distribution over a rectangular section is parabolic, with zero at the free surfaces and maximum at the neutral axis. Designers must relate the peak shear to the average shear used in V / A calculations to ensure adequate safety when checking shear strength. Given Data / Assumptions: Prismatic rectangular section subjected to transverse shear V. Average shear τ_avg = V / A. Concept / Approach: The elastic shear formula gives τ = V * Q / (I * b). For a rectangle, τ varies parabolically and reaches τ_max = 1.5 * τ_avg at the centroidal axis. Thus the ratio τ_max / τ_avg equals 1.5, a standard result used widely for beams of rectangular section in both steel and timber design. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute τ_avg = V / (b * h). Use elastic shear formula to find τ_max at neutral axis for a rectangle. Obtain τ_max = 3/2 * τ_avg ⇒ ratio = 1.5. Verification / Alternative check: Textbook derivations integrate the parabolic distribution to recover the same average V / A, confirming internal consistency and the 1.5 ratio at the centroid. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0: Overstate the peak; they would imply unrealistic stress amplification for rectangular sections. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a uniform shear distribution; real elastic distribution is not uniform. Confusing with circular sections (ratio 4/3 ≈ 1.33). Final Answer: 1.5.

Question 8

In plate girders and thin-webbed beams, web crippling is most likely to occur at which location or loading condition?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Web crippling is a local failure mode of thin webs under concentrated bearing loads at supports or under point loads from cross-beams, wheel loads, or jacks. It involves localized compression and buckling of the web, sometimes with flange participation, and is distinct from global bending or shear yielding. Given Data / Assumptions: Consider a plate girder or a rolled section subjected to support reactions or point loads. Web thickness is relatively small compared with depth. Concept / Approach: Concentrated loads introduce high local compressive stresses in the web under the load patch or at supports. If bearing stiffeners, adequate web thickness, or load dispersion plates are not provided, the web may locally crush and buckle—this is web crippling. It does not necessarily coincide with locations of maximum global bending moment or maximum deflection, which are broader structural behaviors. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the local load introduction points (supports, point loads). Recognize that local compressive bearing on thin webs governs here. Conclude web crippling risk is highest at concentrated load locations unless stiffened. Verification / Alternative check: Design provisions require bearing stiffeners or checking web bearing/crippling capacity under reactions and point loads; this confirms the mode is associated with concentrated loads rather than spanwise global effects. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Maximum moment/deflection: Relate to global bending, not local bearing failure. Minimum shear: Unrelated to the local compressive mechanism of crippling. All the above: Overbroad; only concentrated loads are primarily responsible. Common Pitfalls: Neglecting bearing checks when adding heavy point loads even if overall bending/shear capacities are adequate. Omitting stiffeners under concentrated loads due to space constraints. Final Answer: Where concentrated (bearing) loads act, such as under point loads or reactions.

Question 9

In structural engineering, the slenderness ratio of a compression member is defined as the ratio of its effective length to its least radius of gyration, used to assess buckling tendency.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In steel and reinforced concrete design, compression members such as columns can fail by buckling well before the material reaches its compressive strength. The key non-dimensional parameter that signals buckling vulnerability is the slenderness ratio, which compares a member's effective length to its least radius of gyration. Given Data / Assumptions: Member carries primarily axial compression. Effective length L_eff accounts for end restraints (fixed, pinned, free, etc.). r_min is the least radius of gyration among the principal axes. Concept / Approach: The radius of gyration r about an axis is r = sqrt(I/A). Slenderness ratio is defined as lambda = L_eff / r. Buckling is more likely as lambda increases; therefore the least radius of gyration r_min must be used because buckling occurs about the weakest (least stiff) axis. Step-by-Step Solution: Define r = sqrt(I/A)Identify r_min among available axesCompute L_eff based on boundary conditions (for example, pinned-pinned: L_eff = L; fixed-free: L_eff = 2L)Slenderness ratio lambda = L_eff / r_min Verification / Alternative check: If end conditions are changed, only L_eff changes; the expression remains L_eff / r_min, confirming the definition is independent of material strength and depends purely on geometry and restraint. Why Other Options Are Wrong: r_min / L_eff reverses the definition and would decrease with increasing slenderness, which contradicts buckling behavior. A / I and I / A are unrelated ratios; they neither include length nor capture end restraint effects. Common Pitfalls: Using actual length L instead of effective length L_eff. Using radius of gyration about the strong axis rather than the least (critical) axis. Final Answer: Effective length / least radius of gyration (L_eff / r_min)

Question 10

According to IS:800 (1971), what is the minimum thickness requirement for a vertically stiffened web plate in a steel girder?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Plate girders with vertical stiffeners require a minimum web thickness to prevent local buckling and to ensure stability. IS:800 (1971) provides this codal requirement. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard: IS:800 (1971) Web plate is vertically stiffened d = clear depth of web between flanges Concept / Approach: The minimum thickness is derived from buckling and fabrication considerations. For vertically stiffened webs, the limit is expressed as t_w ≥ d/250. Step-by-Step Solution: Case: vertically stiffened girder webCodal limit: t_w ≥ d/250 Verification / Alternative check: Other codes and design guides confirm that d/250 is standard for stiffened webs, while unstiffened webs have stricter limits. Why Other Options Are Wrong: d/85: too conservative d/200, d/225: not as per IS:800 Common Pitfalls: Confusing clear depth with overall depth; applying unstiffened criteria mistakenly. Final Answer: d/250

Question 11

For a column of length L with flexural rigidity EI and the loaded end free (cantilever), the Euler critical buckling load is derived using the effective length concept.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Euler buckling theory provides the theoretical elastic buckling load for slender columns. The critical load depends strongly on end conditions through the effective length factor, which modifies the column length in the formula. Given Data / Assumptions: Column length = L. Flexural rigidity = EI. One end fixed, other end free (cantilever). Column is straight, prismatic, centrally loaded, and remains elastic up to buckling. Concept / Approach: Euler's formula for critical load is P_cr = (pi^2 * EI) / (L_eff^2). The effective length L_eff is obtained from boundary conditions. For a cantilever (fixed–free), L_eff = 2L. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify end condition: fixed–free (cantilever)Use effective length: L_eff = 2LApply Euler formula: P_cr = (pi^2 * EI) / (L_eff^2)Compute: P_cr = (pi^2 * EI) / (2L)^2 = (pi^2 * EI) / (4 * L^2) Verification / Alternative check: Relative to a pinned–pinned column (L_eff = L), a cantilever has one-fourth the buckling load for the same L and EI, aligning with the factor 1/4 in the denominator. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (pi^2 * EI) / (L^2): correct for pinned–pinned, not fixed–free. (pi^2 * EI) / (2 * L^2): would imply L_eff = sqrt(2) * L, which is not a valid end condition. (pi^2 * EI) / (16 * L^2): corresponds to L_eff = 4L, not applicable here. Common Pitfalls: Using actual length instead of effective length. Confusing fixed–free with fixed–pinned or fixed–fixed cases. Final Answer: (pi^2 * EI) / (4 * L^2)

Question 12

In plastic analysis, the shape factor for a solid circular section (ratio of plastic moment capacity to elastic moment capacity) is approximately 1.697.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The shape factor is central to plastic analysis of beams. It quantifies how much additional moment capacity is available beyond first yield due to redistribution of stresses from an elastic to a fully plastic distribution. It depends only on cross-sectional shape, not on material strength. Given Data / Assumptions: Section: solid circular cross-section. Material behaves ideally elastoplastic at the section level. No effects of strain hardening or residual stresses considered in the definition. Concept / Approach: Shape factor S_f = M_p / M_y, where M_p is the fully plastic moment and M_y is the elastic yield moment. For a solid circle, the plastic neutral axis passes through the centroid and divides the circle into two equal areas under uniform yield stress, leading to a known closed-form factor ≈ 1.697. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute elastic section modulus: Z = I / y_maxCompute plastic section modulus: Z_p from equal area blocks at yield stressM_y = f_y * Z; M_p = f_y * Z_pShape factor S_f = M_p / M_y = Z_p / Z ≈ 1.697 for a solid circle Verification / Alternative check: Reference values: rectangle ≈ 1.5, solid circle ≈ 1.697, diamond (square at 45°) ≈ 2.0. The circular value sits logically between rectangle and diamond due to distribution of area away from the neutral axis. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1.50: matches a solid rectangle, not a circle. 1.60: close but not the standard value for a circle. None of these: incorrect because 1.697 is correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing elastic section modulus with plastic section modulus. Using hollow circular values for a solid circular section. Final Answer: 1.697

Question 13

Under working stress design for mild steel rolled I-sections and channels, the permissible (allowable) axial tensile stress is taken as approximately 1500 kg/cm^2.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In traditional working stress design (WSD) as per older steel codes, permissible stresses are fractions of yield stress, providing a safety margin under service loads. For common rolled I-sections and channels in mild steel, a standard allowable axial tensile stress is used for sizing and checking tension members. Given Data / Assumptions: Material: mild steel with nominal yield strength around 2500 kg/cm^2. Design philosophy: working stress method, not limit state. Members considered: rolled I-sections and channels in axial tension. Concept / Approach: Permissible stress sigma_perm in WSD is typically sigma_y multiplied by a factor less than 1 (for example, around 0.6 for tension in mild steel). For sigma_y ≈ 2500 kg/cm^2, sigma_perm ≈ 0.6 * 2500 ≈ 1500 kg/cm^2, which has been widely adopted historically for rolled shapes in axial tension. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume mild steel yield stress sigma_y ≈ 2500 kg/cm^2Use WSD factor for tension ≈ 0.6Compute permissible stress: sigma_perm ≈ 0.6 * 2500 = 1500 kg/cm^2 Verification / Alternative check: Cross-check with classic WSD tables: values for allowable axial tension for rolled sections customarily lie near 1500 kg/cm^2, validating the selection. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1420 kg/cm^2: conservative but not the standard tabulated value for rolled I- and channel sections in axial tension. 2125 kg/cm^2: too high for WSD; leaves inadequate safety margin. 1810 kg/cm^2: also higher than typical WSD permissible tension values. Common Pitfalls: Mixing limit state design values with working stress permissible values. Ignoring net area reductions due to holes when checking actual member stress. Final Answer: 1500 kg/cm^2

Question 14

If a section has moment of inertia I about a given axis and effective area A, the radius of gyration r about that axis is r = sqrt(I / A).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The radius of gyration links a section's second moment of area with its area to provide a convenient measure of how area is distributed about an axis. It is heavily used in column buckling to compute the slenderness ratio and to identify the critical (least) axis. Given Data / Assumptions: Moment of inertia about an axis: I. Effective cross-sectional area: A. Section is prismatic and properties refer to the same axis. Concept / Approach: By definition, I = A * r^2. Rearranging gives r = sqrt(I / A). This applies to any axis about which I and A are taken, whether principal or non-principal. Step-by-Step Solution: Start from definition: I = A * r^2Rearrange: r^2 = I / ATake square root: r = sqrt(I / A) Verification / Alternative check: Dimensional check: I has units of length^4; A has length^2. I / A has length^2, and sqrt(I / A) has length, which is consistent for a radius measure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I / A: has units of length^2, not length. A / I: has units of 1/length^2, not a length. sqrt(A / I): has units of 1/length, incorrect dimensionally. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting to use the least radius of gyration when assessing buckling. Mixing axes (using I about one axis and r about another). Final Answer: sqrt(I / A)

Question 15

In the design of a built-up beam, the area A_p of cover plates required in one flange is expressed in terms of the section modulus deficiency and the lever arm. Which of the following formulas is correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Cover plates are provided in flanges of built-up beams to increase section modulus when the rolled section alone is insufficient. The required area depends on the moment demand and geometry of the section. Given Data / Assumptions: Z_required = required section modulus Z_beam = section modulus of rolled section h = distance between flange centroids Concept / Approach: The additional section modulus is supplied by cover plates. The formula links the deficiency ΔZ = Z_required − Z_beam to the cover plate area by ΔZ = A_p * h. Step-by-Step Solution: Determine Z_required from design bending momentCalculate deficit: ΔZ = Z_required − Z_beamRelate ΔZ to cover plate: ΔZ = A_p * hSolve: A_p = (Z_required − Z_beam) / h Verification / Alternative check: This aligns with plastic centroid approximation and common textbook derivations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Using + instead of − exaggerates section modulus Multiplication Z_required × Z_beam is dimensionally invalid (Z_beam − Z_required) / h would be negative if reinforcement is required Common Pitfalls: Neglecting bolt/rivet hole deductions, using wrong h, or misplacing plates asymmetrically. Final Answer: A_p = (Z_required − Z_beam) / h

Question 16

For a column base subjected to axial load P and moment M, what should be the ratio M/P in order to keep the bearing pressure distribution between the base plate and concrete compressive and varying from zero to maximum?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Column bases under combined axial load and moment must ensure that the contact stress remains compressive. A linear stress distribution is assumed. To avoid uplift (tension), a geometric limit on M/P exists. Given Data / Assumptions: Base plate width in bending direction = L Axial load = P Bending moment = M Stress varies linearly from zero to maximum Concept / Approach: Average stress = P/A. Additional bending stress = M/Z. To avoid negative stress (tension), the maximum eccentricity e = M/P must not exceed L/6. This ensures stress ranges from 0 to 2P/A. Step-by-Step Solution: Eccentricity e = M/PCondition for non-negative stress: e ≤ L/6Thus, ratio M/P = L/6 Verification / Alternative check: This is consistent with the middle-third rule of soil/structural mechanics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: L/4 and L/2: too large, would cause tension at the edge L/8: smaller, overly conservative Common Pitfalls: Confusing middle-third rule with middle-half rule; misinterpreting L as full base dimension instead of loaded dimension. Final Answer: M/P = L/6

Question 17

The method of steel frame design that achieves the greatest overall rigidity with good economy in weight is commonly referred to as fully rigid design.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In steel frame systems, connection behavior (moment-resisting vs. pin) governs stiffness, drift, and member forces. Choosing an appropriate design philosophy balances rigidity, strength, ductility, and economy in tonnage. Given Data / Assumptions: Primary comparison among simply (pin) connected, semi-rigid, and fully rigid (moment) frames. Objective: achieve high rigidity while maintaining reasonable weight. Concept / Approach: Fully rigid (moment-resisting) connections provide rotational restraint, creating continuous frames with higher lateral and overall stiffness. Greater rigidity reduces lateral drift and may allow smaller bracing demands. While moment connections can add fabrication cost, they often lead to efficient distribution of moments and reduced deflections for a given weight target. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare connection types: pin vs. semi-rigid vs. rigidRecognize that rigid connections transfer significant moments, increasing frame stiffnessInfer that high rigidity for serviceability implies use of fully rigid design Verification / Alternative check: Frame analysis shows that moment-resisting frames have smaller story drifts than pin-jointed frames under the same lateral loads, confirming the rigidity advantage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Simply design: pin connections give minimal rotational restraint and the least rigidity. Semi-rigid design: intermediate stiffness; typically less rigid than fully rigid frames. None of these: incorrect because fully rigid design meets the stated objective. Common Pitfalls: Assuming maximum rigidity always increases weight; efficient distribution of forces can offset connection weight. Ignoring serviceability (drift) limits when choosing connection philosophy. Final Answer: Fully rigid design

Question 18

For a tension member plate of width b and thickness t with staggered rivet holes, what is the correct expression for the net sectional area A_net in terms of staggered pitch p, gauge distance g, number of holes n, number of gauge spaces m, and rivet…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In riveted tension members, gross area is reduced by rivet holes. For staggered pitch, some strength is regained due to the zig-zag path. IS:800 specifies an effective net area formula considering both direct hole deduction and staggered layout benefit. Given Data / Assumptions: b = plate width t = plate thickness n = number of rivet holes in zig-zag line m = number of gauge spaces in zig-zag line d = gross diameter of rivet hole p = staggered pitch g = gauge distance Concept / Approach: Gross area = b*t. Hole deductions = n*d*t. Staggered arrangement adds a term (p^2 / (4g)) * m * t to account for the zig-zag path. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with gross area: A_g = b*tDeduct holes: n*d*tAdd stagger correction: (p^2 / (4g)) * m * tNet area: A_net = b*t − n*d*t + (p^2 / (4g)) * m * t Verification / Alternative check: Matches IS:800 and standard design handbooks for staggered connections. Why Other Options Are Wrong: b*t − n*d*t: ignores staggered benefit b*t − (n−1)*d*t: incorrect deduction Negative stagger term: physically impossible Common Pitfalls: Using clear hole diameter instead of gross; forgetting to add stagger term; mixing up m (spaces) vs n (holes). Final Answer: A_net = b*t − n*d*t + (p^2 / (4g))*m*t

Question 19

In steel plate girder design, if d denotes the clear distance between the flange angles (i.e., the effective web depth), what is the maximum recommended spacing for vertical (transverse) stiffeners?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Vertical or transverse stiffeners are provided on plate girders to stabilize the thin web against buckling under shear and bearing. Practical design rules cap the spacing to ensure the web panel aspect ratio and slenderness remain within safe limits. A commonly used limit relates the spacing to the effective web depth d (clear distance between flange angles). Given Data / Assumptions: Web depth for stiffener spacing criterion: d = clear distance between flange angles. We seek a maximum spacing rule of thumb for vertical stiffeners. Plate girder web behaves as a series of panels between stiffeners. Concept / Approach: If stiffeners are too far apart, the web panel becomes slender and prone to elastic buckling in shear or due to concentrated loads. Limiting the panel width (stiffener spacing) to about 1.5 times the web depth provides a balanced panel aspect ratio that delays buckling and improves post-buckling reserve, while keeping fabrication economical. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the effective web depth d as the governing dimension for panel proportioning. Adopt the standard spacing cap used in many design references: s ≤ 1.5 d. Select the option 1.5 d as the maximum recommended spacing. Verification / Alternative check: Detailed code checks may further restrict spacing based on shear buckling curves, required end/intermediate stiffeners, and serviceability. Nevertheless, the 1.5 d guideline is widely used in preliminary sizing and aligns with traditional plate girder practice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: d or 1.25 d: Overly conservative for typical girders; may cause unnecessary stiffener count. 1.75 d: Produces wider, more slender panels that are more susceptible to buckling. Common Pitfalls: Confusing clear depth d with overall section depth (including flanges). Ignoring special stiffener requirements near concentrated loads and supports. Final Answer: 1.5 d.

Question 20

For compression members (columns) in steel structures, which cross-sectional form is generally the most economical due to a high radius of gyration per unit area?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The economy of a steel column is strongly influenced by its radius of gyration and the distribution of material away from the centroid. Sections that place more area at larger radii reduce slenderness effects and increase buckling resistance for a given mass, making them economical for compression. Given Data / Assumptions: Comparing typical rolled or fabricated sections for axial compression. Economy judged by strength and stiffness per unit weight. Concept / Approach: For a given cross-sectional area, moving material away from the centroid increases the second moment of area and radius of gyration r = sqrt(I/A). Hollow sections (tubular sections) are highly efficient because metal is concentrated in the shell, far from the neutral axis, giving higher buckling resistance per unit weight than solid forms like flats or solids. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that buckling load ∝ A * (r^2) for ideal columns. Compare geometry: tubular section maximizes r for a given A. Select tubular (hollow) section as the most economical form. Verification / Alternative check: Design tables show higher r for hollow circular and rectangular tubes when normalized by area. This translates to reduced slenderness λ = L/r and higher allowable compressive stress for the same mass. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Solid rectangles/rounds/hexagonals and flat strips place more material near the centroid, yielding lower r for the same A. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring local buckling limits of thin-walled tubes; proper thickness selection is still essential. Final Answer: Tubular (hollow) section.

Steel Structure Design Questions