Question 1

In concrete technology and quality control, the minimum compressive strength (15 cm cube) for M 30 grade concrete at 7 days should be approximately: choose the closest standard value in N/mm^2.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete does not achieve its characteristic (28-day) strength immediately. Site engineers therefore use early-age results, typically at 7 days, to monitor quality and predict 28-day outcomes. For an M 30 grade (characteristic strength 30 N/mm2 at 28 days), we identify a reasonable minimum 7-day compressive strength for standard 150 mm cubes under standard curing. Given Data / Assumptions: Grade of concrete: M 30 (characteristic strength = 30 N/mm2 at 28 days). Specimen: 15 cm cube (150 mm). Age of test: 7 days under standard curing and temperature. Objective: select a practical minimum 7-day value used for routine control. Concept / Approach: Typical ordinary Portland cement concretes achieve about 60%–70% of the 28-day strength at 7 days. Applying this proportion to M 30 gives a 7-day expectation near 0.65 * 30 ≈ 19.5 N/mm2, commonly rounded and controlled around 20 N/mm2 for quick field checks and cube acceptance trends. Step-by-Step Solution: Estimate proportion of 28-day strength at 7 days ≈ 0.6 to 0.7.Compute expected range for M 30: 0.6 * 30 = 18 N/mm2 to 0.7 * 30 = 21 N/mm2.Adopt a practical minimum target within this range → 20 N/mm2.Select the option equal to 20 N/mm2. Verification / Alternative check: Field correlations often use maturity or historical lab data to confirm that 7-day cubes at or above ~20 N/mm2 for M 30 mixes trend to satisfactory 28-day strengths, assuming proper curing and mix control. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 7 or 10 N/mm2: Too low for M 30 at 7 days; indicates under-performance or poor curing. 30 N/mm2: That is the characteristic value at 28 days, not 7 days. 16 N/mm2: On the weak side for M 30 at 7 days under standard curing expectations. Common Pitfalls: Comparing 7-day field-cured cubes (often weaker) with lab-cured standards. Ignoring cement type and admixtures; blended cements may gain strength more slowly. Final Answer: 20 N/mm2

Question 2

In reinforced concrete slab detailing, if D denotes the overall slab thickness, what is the maximum allowable diameter of reinforcing bars to be used within the slab section?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bar diameter limits in slabs help ensure proper concrete flow, compaction, cover, and crack control. Oversized bars in thin slabs can cause congestion, inadequate cover, or honeycombing, which compromise durability and strength. Hence, standard detailing rules cap the maximum bar size relative to the slab thickness D. Given Data / Assumptions: D is the overall slab thickness (measured in mm). We seek the limiting diameter for reinforcement used in the slab. Assume conventional RC slab practice with normal cover and bar spacing requirements. Concept / Approach: A widely adopted detailing guideline for slabs is: maximum bar diameter ≤ D / 8. This ensures a balanced relationship between bar size and slab thickness, allowing proper concrete placement and adequate distribution of steel for crack control. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify governing detailing rule for slab bar size: dia_max = D / 8.Check practicality: larger bars would reduce the number of bars and may hinder compaction.Select the option exactly matching D / 8. Verification / Alternative check: Design offices often also limit spacing by min(3*d, 300 mm) where d is effective depth; the D / 8 bar-size limit works compatibly with such spacing caps for typical slab thicknesses. Why Other Options Are Wrong: D/6: Too large; risks poor compaction and cover violation. D/10 or D/12: Conservative but not the standard maximum limit widely cited for slabs. 0.25 * D: Excessively large; not a recognized detailing limit. Common Pitfalls: Using one or two very large bars instead of multiple smaller bars, which worsens crack control. Ignoring minimum clear spacing to allow aggregate passage. Final Answer: D / 8

Question 3

In steel connections, the minimum pitch (center-to-center distance) between rivet holes should not be less than what multiple of the hole diameter?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pitch limits in riveted (and analogous bolted) joints ensure adequate material between holes for load transfer, reduce stress concentration, and maintain constructability. The minimum pitch prevents hole overlap, lamellar tearing, and edge splitting during fabrication and service. Given Data / Assumptions: Pitch p is the center-to-center spacing between adjacent holes along the line of fasteners. Hole diameter includes drilling allowance over nominal rivet diameter. We seek the standard minimum multiple of hole diameter. Concept / Approach: Design practice specifies a lower bound: p ≥ 2.5 * d_hole. This gives enough ligament area for shear and tension and accommodates fabrication tolerances while avoiding cracking during driving or tightening. Step-by-Step Solution: Define d_hole as the diameter of the rivet hole.Apply minimum pitch rule: p_min = 2.5 * d_hole.Choose the corresponding option: 2.5 times the hole diameter. Verification / Alternative check: Guides also impose maximum pitch limits to prevent plate buckling and ensure force sharing; however, the question addresses only the minimum, which is 2.5 * d_hole. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1.5 or 2.0: Too small; risks weakened ligaments and fabrication issues. 3.0: Acceptable but not the mandated minimum; it is more than necessary. None: Incorrect because a standard minimum exists. Common Pitfalls: Confusing pitch with edge distance (from hole center to plate edge). Using nominal rivet diameter instead of hole diameter, which underestimates pitch. Final Answer: 2.5 times the hole diameter

Question 4

While designing rectangular base plates per legacy steel code provisions (IS:800-1982), the permissible bending stress constant fbct to be used in thickness calculations is taken as:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Base plates transfer concentrated column loads to concrete pedestals or foundations. Thickness design treats the plate as a slab on elastic or bearing medium, limiting plate bending stresses to an allowable value. In older working-stress formats (IS:800-1982), a permissible bending stress constant fbct is used for sizing. Given Data / Assumptions: Legacy code basis: working-stress design for structural steel. Typical mild steel yield stress considered ≈ 2500 kg/cm2 (≈ 250 MPa). Permissible bending stress taken as a fraction of yield. Concept / Approach: In working-stress design, the permissible bending stress is typically around 0.66 * fy for mild steel. Converting ≈ 0.66 * 2500 kg/cm2 gives ≈ 1650 kg/cm2, which is the standard constant employed in plate thickness formulae of that era. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume fy ≈ 2500 kg/cm2 for mild steel.Compute permissible bending: fbct ≈ 0.66 * fy.Calculate: fbct ≈ 0.66 * 2500 ≈ 1650 kg/cm2.Select 1650 kg/cm2 as the appropriate constant. Verification / Alternative check: Handbooks accompanying IS:800-1982 list identical working-stress limits for bending in plates. Though modern limit-state design uses factored actions and partial safety factors, legacy multiple-choice questions still reference this constant. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1500 and 1800/1890/2000 kg/cm2: Do not match the standard permissible bending constant derived from 0.66 * fy for mild steel in the old code framework. Common Pitfalls: Mixing modern limit-state values with working-stress allowable stresses. Using concrete bearing stress values instead of steel bending for plate sizing. Final Answer: 1650 kg/cm2

Question 5

For heavily reinforced concrete members, the nominal maximum size of coarse aggregates should be restricted based on bar spacing and cover. Which criterion should govern the maximum aggregate size?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Aggregate size directly affects workability, segregation risk, and the ability of concrete to pass through congested reinforcement. In heavily reinforced sections, limiting the nominal maximum size helps ensure proper compaction and minimizes voids near bars and cover regions, thereby improving durability and bond. Given Data / Assumptions: Member is heavily reinforced (close bar spacing and smaller covers). We compare two limits: bar clear spacing and concrete cover. Aggregate must pass between bars and avoid cover conflicts. Concept / Approach: To guarantee placement, maximum aggregate size should be strictly less than both the minimum clear spacing between bars and the minimum cover dimension. A practical rule sets it as 5 mm less than each of these dimensions, with the governing limit being the smaller of the two. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute limit from spacing: size ≤ (clear spacing − 5 mm).Compute limit from cover: size ≤ (cover − 5 mm).Adopt the smaller (more restrictive) of the two limits.Therefore, criterion = smaller of (a) and (b). Verification / Alternative check: Field experience confirms that obeying the tighter constraint avoids blocking and honeycombing in congested cages, especially with larger aggregates. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) or (b) alone: Ignores the other geometric constraint, risking placement issues. Greater of (a) and (b): Non-conservative; could permit aggregates that cannot pass one of the restrictions. Equal to largest bar diameter: Unrelated to flow between bars or near cover. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring tie/secondary reinforcement when judging clear spacing. Not accounting for construction tolerances; a 5 mm margin is intentional. Final Answer: smaller of (a) and (b)

Question 6

The concrete is deemed not to comply with the strength requirements if the strength is less than the greater of

Accepted Answer

all the above.

Question 7

For continuous reinforced concrete beams under typical loading, the distance between adjacent points of contraflexure (zero bending moment) within a span is approximately what fraction of the effective span l?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Continuous beams develop negative moments over supports and positive moments near mid-spans. The locations where the bending moment changes sign are called points of contraflexure (zero moment). Estimating the spacing between these points helps with detailing of tension steel (top vs bottom) and quick checks of bending diagrams in preliminary design. Given Data / Assumptions: Member: continuous beam. Loading: typical uniform loading patterns producing standard moment shapes. l is the effective span. Concept / Approach: For prismatic continuous members under uniform load, classical analysis shows zero-moment points occurring roughly at about 0.21 l from each support (as in the fixed-end or well-restrained case). Hence, the distance between the two zero-moment points is approximately l − 2 * 0.21 l = 0.58 l, often rounded off to 0.6 l for design thumb rules. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume typical zero-moment locations near 0.21 l from each support.Compute spacing: l − 2 * 0.21 l = 0.58 l.Round to a practical rule of thumb ≈ 0.6 l.Select 0.6 l as the closest option. Verification / Alternative check: Other load cases produce similar magnitudes; detailing guides commonly use ≈0.6 l to position cut-offs and distribution steel in spans of continuous beams. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.5 l or 0.4 l: Underestimate the spacing for standard patterns. 0.7 l or 0.8 l: Overestimate; would move zero-moment points unrealistically close to supports. Common Pitfalls: Treating all spans as simply supported; continuous action shifts moment distribution. Ignoring load type; concentrated loads alter exact positions but not the useful 0.6 l heuristic. Final Answer: 0.6 l

Question 8

For axially loaded steel columns subjected only to dead load and superimposed (sustained) service loads, what is the maximum permissible slenderness ratio?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Slenderness ratio limits (effective length divided by radius of gyration) control susceptibility to buckling and excessive lateral deflection. Codes specify different maxima depending on the nature of loading—sustained gravity loads vs transient wind or earthquake actions—because reliability requirements differ. Given Data / Assumptions: Member type: steel column. Loading: dead load and superimposed service loads only (no predominant wind/earthquake). We require the limiting slenderness ratio for such a case. Concept / Approach: For columns carrying sustained gravity loads, a commonly adopted maximum slenderness ratio is 180. More relaxed limits (e.g., 250) may apply when members are subjected primarily to wind/earthquake, but not for sustained compression governing service behavior. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify loading category: sustained gravity (dead + superimposed).Recall the limit for such compression members: slenderness ≤ 180.Choose 180 from the options. Verification / Alternative check: Design manuals align with this limit; larger limits are reserved for members where loads are transient and service instability is less critical. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 250/350/400: Too high for columns with sustained compression; increase buckling risk. 120: More restrictive than required; uneconomical without specific service demands. Common Pitfalls: Using wind/earthquake-only limits for gravity-dominated columns. Ignoring effective length (end restraint) when computing slenderness. Final Answer: 180

Question 9

For concrete subjected to sustained loads, the creep coefficient (ratio of ultimate creep strain to initial elastic strain) depends on the age at loading. Identify the correct typical values for loading ages of 7 days, 28 days, and 365 days.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Creep in concrete is the time-dependent increase in strain under sustained stress. The creep coefficient helps designers estimate long-term deflections and prestress losses. Importantly, creep depends on the age at which the load is first applied—earlier loading produces higher ultimate creep relative to the elastic strain at loading. Given Data / Assumptions: Creep coefficient = ultimate creep strain / initial elastic strain at time of loading. Representative age at loading cases: 7 days, 28 days, 365 days. Typical values used in simplified design/estimation contexts are provided in the options. Concept / Approach: As concrete matures, microstructure densifies, reducing additional creep. Thus, creep coefficient decreases with later loading ages. Typical simplified values used for preliminary design or teaching problems are around 2.2 (7 days), 1.6 (28 days), and 1.1 (365 days). Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize trend: earlier age → higher creep coefficient.Map given ages to typical coefficients: 7 d → 2.2; 28 d → 1.6; 365 d → 1.1.Since each individual statement is correct, select the inclusive choice. Verification / Alternative check: These values align with simplified tables used in many design aids; advanced models (e.g., CEB-FIP, ACI) compute creep based on humidity, size, and strength, but the qualitative age trend remains the same. Why Other Options Are Wrong: None of these: Incorrect because the listed values are widely accepted approximations for teaching and preliminary checks. Common Pitfalls: Confusing creep coefficient with shrinkage strain; shrinkage occurs without load, while creep requires sustained load. Ignoring environmental factors (humidity, temperature) that modify absolute values. Final Answer: all the above.

Question 10

Serviceability limit state: the maximum vertical deflection of a structural member should not normally exceed the lesser of span/350 or which fixed limit (in millimetres)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Deflection limits protect finishes, partitions, and user comfort. Many specifications cap deflection by a span ratio and also impose an absolute millimetre limit to prevent noticeable sag in shorter spans. The governing requirement is the lesser (more restrictive) of the two criteria. Given Data / Assumptions: Deflection criterion includes a span-based term: span/350. An absolute millimetre cap also applies. We must identify the fixed limit commonly paired with span/350. Concept / Approach: Typical serviceability provisions for finished members (ceilings, claddings) set the absolute deflection cap at 20 mm. Hence, the allowable deflection is min(span/350, 20 mm), ensuring both proportional control for long spans and absolute control for short spans. Step-by-Step Solution: Write combined limit: δ_allow = min(span/350, 20 mm).Interpretation: choose whichever is smaller to be more conservative.Select 20 mm as the fixed limit value. Verification / Alternative check: Project specifications often refine limits (e.g., span/250 for total long-term). The 20 mm cap is a common baseline for members supporting brittle finishes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10 or 15 mm: More restrictive than typical baseline; used only in special cases. 25 or 30 mm: Too permissive; could lead to visible sag or cracking in finishes. Common Pitfalls: Applying only the span ratio and ignoring the absolute limit, which can be critical for short spans. Failing to account for long-term effects (creep) when checking final deflection. Final Answer: 20 mm

Question 11

In steel plate girder design, for webs without horizontal stiffeners that use tongue plates, the effective web depth 'd' is taken as the lesser of: (i) the clear depth between flanges minus the total depth of the tongue plates, and (ii) the clear de…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In steel plate girder detailing, webs sometimes employ tongue plates in lieu of horizontal stiffeners. To prevent web instability and to keep compressive/buckling paths realistic in design checks, the effective depth 'd' of such webs is limited by a codified geometric rule. This question tests the specific multiplier applied to the sum of tongue-plate thicknesses when computing the limiting effective depth. Given Data / Assumptions: Member type: plate girder with web composed using tongue plates and no horizontal stiffeners. Definition sought: limiting effective web depth 'd'. Comparative limits: subtract tongue-plate depth(s) and subtract a multiple of tongue-plate thickness sum from the clear girder depth between flanges; take the lesser. Concept / Approach: Tongue plates act as localized restraints in a web that otherwise lacks intermediate horizontal stiffeners. A conservative limit on effective web depth reflects potential local buckling and the discontinuity introduced by the tongues. Handbooks based on traditional steel codes provide an empirical multiplier on the total tongue-plate thickness to capture this effect for safe design without resorting to advanced stability analysis. Step-by-Step Solution: State the rule: d = lesser of (i) clear depth between flanges − sum of tongue-plate depths, and (ii) clear depth between flanges − k * Σ(t_tongue).For webs without horizontal stiffeners but with tongue plates, k is taken as 6.Therefore, the correct multiple is 'six times the sum of the thicknesses of the tongue plates'. Verification / Alternative check: This multiplier is consistent with conservative detailing provisions that limit slender unsupported web panels and account for local weakening due to cut-ins and welds at the tongue interfaces. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Eight times / four times / ten times: not the standard multiplier; adopting them would make the effective depth either too restrictive or unconservatively large.'None of the above': incorrect because an established multiplier exists. Common Pitfalls: Confusing tongue-plate depth (a geometric subtraction) with tongue-plate thickness (used in the multiplier).Applying the rule to webs that already have horizontal stiffeners, where different limits apply. Final Answer: six times the sum of the thicknesses of the tongue plates

Question 12

In reinforced concrete beam design, the maximum area of compression reinforcement permitted in a rectangular section of size B × D is limited to what fraction of the gross area BD?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Limiting the quantity of steel in beams avoids congestion, ensures proper compaction of concrete, and preserves ductile behavior. While tension steel often governs, compression reinforcement is also restricted by code to maintain constructability and reliable strain compatibility. This question asks for the maximum permissible area of compression steel as a fraction of the gross concrete area BD for a rectangular beam section. Given Data / Assumptions: Section: rectangular beam with breadth B and overall depth D. Quantity: maximum compression reinforcement area relative to gross area BD. Normal reinforced concrete beam design context; no special confinement provisions. Concept / Approach: Codes cap the total steel percentage in a beam to avoid over-reinforcement and brittle compression failures. A common upper bound used in exam literature is 4% of the gross cross-sectional area. Staying within this limit typically ensures that the neutral axis does not shift excessively and that the section can develop adequate rotation capacity at ultimate loads. Step-by-Step Solution: Define gross area: A_g = B * D.Maximum permitted compression steel: A_sc(max) = 0.04 * A_g = 0.04 * B * D.Hence the correct limit is 0.04 BD. Verification / Alternative check: Check constructability: with 4%, bar spacing and cover are usually achievable without honeycombing or blocking concrete flow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.02 BD or 0.03 BD: unduly restrictive compared to the widely accepted cap.0.05 BD or higher: risks over-reinforcement and congestion; not standard for beam compression steel limits. Common Pitfalls: Confusing column steel percentage limits with beam limits.Assuming the limit applies only to tension steel; many texts present the same overall cap for total steel in the section. Final Answer: 0.04 BD

Question 13

Select the correct comprehensive statements for reinforced concrete columns regarding steel percentage, minimum number of longitudinal bars, helical reinforcement, and the pedestal definition based on effective length.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Design and detailing rules for columns cover steel percentage limits, minimum number of bars, and special reinforcement such as helical ties. Additionally, members with very small effective lengths relative to their lateral dimensions are categorized differently (as pedestals) because slenderness effects are negligible. This question bundles several fundamental rules typically recalled from RCC design codes and handbooks. Given Data / Assumptions: (1) Longitudinal steel percentage limits relative to gross area. (2) Minimum bar count for rectangular and circular columns. (3) Minimum bar count when helical reinforcement is used. (4) Pedestal identification based on effective length to lateral dimension ratio. Concept / Approach: Columns must ensure adequate ductility and load transfer through a reasonable distribution of longitudinal bars. Minimum percentages and bar counts prevent reinforcement from being too sparse; maximum limits avoid congestion. Helical reinforcement improves confinement but still requires a minimum number of longitudinal bars. Short stocky members are treated as pedestals, simplifying design against buckling. Step-by-Step Solution: (1) Minimum and maximum longitudinal steel: not less than 0.8% and not more than about 4% of gross area for practical design (though absolute maxima may be higher, practice often caps near 4%).(2) Minimum bars: rectangular columns ≥ 4 bars; circular columns ≥ 6 bars.(3) Helically reinforced columns: retain a minimum of six longitudinal bars.(4) Pedestal definition: effective length < 3 times the least lateral dimension → treated as a pedestal. Verification / Alternative check: These rules are ubiquitous across RCC exam guides and align with typical provisions that promote ductility and mitigate accidental eccentricities. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any subset option omits a correct statement; all four listed statements are jointly correct in the standard exam context. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up column limits with beam limits; forgetting that circular columns require more bars to maintain spacing and symmetry. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 14

In the detailing of plate girder stiffeners, the maximum permissible outstand (projection) of a flat stiffener leg in compression should not exceed which multiple of its thickness t?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The outstand (projecting width) of a plate stiffener behaving as a compression element must be controlled to prevent local buckling. Design rules therefore limit the ratio of outstand to thickness for flats used as stiffeners in plate girders and similar built-up steel members. Given Data / Assumptions: Element: flat stiffener leg in compression. Parameter: outstand (projection beyond the attachment line) relative to thickness t. Objective: avoid local plate buckling under compressive stresses. Concept / Approach: Local plate buckling capacity improves with thicker plates and smaller outstands. Traditional steel design rules specify a simple limit—often expressed as a multiple of t—to keep the slenderness of the outstanding element within safe bounds without detailed plate-buckling checks. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify controlling limit for flat stiffeners in compression.Apply the customary outstand rule: maximum ≈ 12 t.Select '12 t' as the correct limit from the options. Verification / Alternative check: This value aligns with long-used fabrication handbooks to preclude early local buckling and ensure effective stiffener action. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 6 t / 8 t / 10 t: more restrictive than necessary for standard stiffener design.15 t: too permissive; risks local buckling before the stiffener can fully develop capacity. Common Pitfalls: Confusing outstand limits for flange plates with those for stiffener flats; the controlling multiples may differ. Final Answer: 12 t

Question 15

For battened compression members (battened struts), by what percentage is the effective length customarily increased to account for shear deformation and additional flexibility?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Battened columns possess discrete batten plates that connect component elements. Compared to laced systems, battened members exhibit additional shear deformation and reduced stiffness. To reflect this in buckling checks, design practice increases the effective length by a fixed percentage for battened members. Given Data / Assumptions: Member type: battened strut/column. Requirement: percentage increase in effective length for design. Reason: allowance for shear lag/deformation between components due to battening. Concept / Approach: Because battened systems are less efficient in shear transfer than continuous lacing, a conservative increase in the effective length factor is applied. Traditional rules specify an increment of 10% for battened members, whereas laced members often use smaller increments. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that effective length Le controls Euler-type buckling capacity.Apply battening modification: Le(design) = 1.10 * Le(ideal).Hence select 10% as the required increase. Verification / Alternative check: Compare with laced members, which commonly adopt a smaller addition (e.g., about 5%). The larger increment for battened members is consistent with their lower shear continuity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5% / 7.5%: typical of laced systems or interim values; not standard for battened members.12.5% / 15%: unduly conservative in this context. Common Pitfalls: Using the same increment for both laced and battened systems; their stiffness characteristics differ. Final Answer: 10%

Question 16

In transformed section analysis for reinforced concrete, the area considered in compression equals the concrete area in compression plus the reinforcement area converted using the modular ratio. What is this combined area called?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: When analyzing composite concrete–steel sections under bending, we often 'transform' the steel into an equivalent area of concrete using the modular ratio m = Es/Ec. This permits the use of simple elastic beam theory on a homogeneous 'equivalent' section, enabling the calculation of neutral axis, stresses, and curvature without explicitly dealing with two materials in parallel. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete is uncracked in compression. Steel reinforcement in compression is converted to concrete area using modular ratio m. Objective: name of the combined concrete+transformed steel area in compression. Concept / Approach: By multiplying the steel area by m, we obtain an area that, under the same strain, carries the same force as the original steel. Adding this to the concrete area gives the 'equivalent section' used for elastic analysis. The term 'cracked section' refers to tension-side concrete being ignored after cracking, which is not the same definition as requested here. Step-by-Step Solution: Determine modular ratio: m = Es/Ec.Transform steel in compression: A_s,comp(equiv) = m * A_s,comp.Add to concrete compression area: A_equiv = A_conc,comp + m * A_s,comp. Verification / Alternative check: Use A_equiv to locate the neutral axis and verify stresses with elastic formulas (M/I = σ/y = E/R). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Transferred section: not a standard term; 'transformed section' is used, but the combined area used in analysis is called the equivalent section.Cracked section: describes ignoring tension concrete, not the transformed compression area.None of these / elastic modular section: not the conventional nomenclature in RCC analysis. Common Pitfalls: Confusing 'transformed section method' with the name of the resulting area; the accepted label in exam literature is 'equivalent section'. Final Answer: equivalent section

Question 17

Quality control of concrete: for M 20 grade concrete, what should be the minimum compressive strength (on 150 mm cubes) at 7 days of curing?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete strength gain is time-dependent. While the characteristic grade (e.g., M 20) is defined at 28 days, site quality control frequently checks 7-day strengths to assess early performance and curing adequacy. Empirical correlations guide the minimum expected 7-day strength that indicates the mix will likely achieve its 28-day target if proper curing continues. Given Data / Assumptions: Grade: M 20 (characteristic strength 20 N/mm2 at 28 days on 150 mm cubes). Specimens: 150 mm cubes tested at 7 days. Objective: minimum expected 7-day strength for acceptance in routine control. Concept / Approach: Typical strength-gain curves show that 7-day strength is roughly 60–75% of the 28-day strength for ordinary Portland cement mixes under normal curing. For M 20, this places the 7-day expectation around 12–15 N/mm2. Many exam standards adopt 15 N/mm2 as the convenient minimum checkpoint threshold for M 20, signaling acceptable early hydration and mix proportioning. Step-by-Step Solution: Target 28-day strength: f28 = 20 N/mm2.Take 7-day fraction ≈ 0.7 (typical) → f7 ≈ 0.7 * 20 = 14 N/mm2.Adopt the widely used minimum checkpoint: 15 N/mm2. Verification / Alternative check: Early-age tests combined with curing records (temperature, moisture) help refine predictions; values at or above 15 N/mm2 generally indicate the mix is on track for M 20. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 7 or 10 N/mm2: too low for M 20 under normal curing; would signal potential issues.20 N/mm2: equals the 28-day characteristic strength; unrealistic at 7 days for ordinary mixes.12 N/mm2: borderline low compared to the adopted exam threshold. Common Pitfalls: Equating site acceptance at 7 days with compliance at 28 days; 7-day checks are indicative, not definitive. Final Answer: 15 N/mm2

Question 18

In the design of laced compression members, the transverse shear to be resisted by the lacing system is commonly assumed as what percentage of the total axial load?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Laced columns comprise individual components connected by inclined lacing bars. Imperfections and load sharing introduce secondary shear forces that the lacing must carry to keep the components acting together. A conventional design assumption prescribes a fixed percentage of the axial load as the shear to be resisted by the lacing system in each lacing plane. Given Data / Assumptions: Member: laced compression member. Design requirement: nominal transverse shear resisted by lacing. Assumption: shear expressed as a percentage of total axial load. Concept / Approach: The lacing prevents relative displacement and buckling of individual components by carrying transverse shear and ensuring composite action. Traditional provisions assume 2.5% of the member's axial load as the design shear for the lacing plane, ensuring adequate stiffness without excessive conservatism for ordinary proportions. Step-by-Step Solution: Let P = axial load in the member.Design transverse shear per lacing plane V = 0.025 * P (i.e., 2.5% of P).Size lacing bars and their connections accordingly for shear and slenderness. Verification / Alternative check: Engineering texts consistently quote 2.5% for lacing, while battened systems adopt different adjustments (e.g., effective-length increases). Why Other Options Are Wrong: 3%, 3.5%, 4%: conservative relative to the customary assumption; not the standard default value.1.5%: unconservative; may under-design lacing for necessary transverse stiffness. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting to check lacing slenderness and connection detailing after sizing for shear. Final Answer: 2.5% of axial load

Question 19

For a thin-walled rectangular box (closed) of depth d, width b, and uniform wall thickness t, what is the approximate torsion constant k (Saint-Venant torsional rigidity parameter)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The torsion constant k (often denoted J for Saint-Venant torsion) governs the elastic twist of prismatic members under pure torsion: θ' = T * L / (G * k). For thin-walled closed sections, warping is restrained, and the torsional rigidity is substantially higher than for open sections. A compact approximate expression exists for rectangular thin boxes of uniform thickness t, useful in steel and aerospace structures. Given Data / Assumptions: Section: closed rectangular thin-walled box. Dimensions: width b, depth d, uniform thickness t. Thin-wall assumption: t << b and t << d. Concept / Approach: For thin closed sections, the standard approximation is k ≈ 4 * A_m^2 / Σ(s/t), where A_m is the area enclosed by the midline of the wall, and Σ(s/t) is the summation of (segment length / thickness) around the perimeter. For a rectangle with uniform thickness, A_m ≈ b * d and Σ(s/t) ≈ 2 * (b + d) / t. Substituting yields a compact formula for k in terms of b, d, and t. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with thin-walled closed section formula: k = 4 * A_m^2 / Σ(s/t).Use A_m ≈ b * d for a rectangle (midline area).Use Σ(s/t) ≈ 2 * (b + d) / t for uniform thickness t.Compute: k ≈ 4 * (b * d)^2 / (2 * (b + d) / t) = (2 * b^2 * d^2 * t) / (b + d). Verification / Alternative check: Dimensional check: k has units of length^4. Right-hand side gives b^2 * d^2 * t / (b + d) → L^4, which is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2 * b * d * t * (b + d) and 4 * b * d * t: scale as L^4 but ignore the squared area dependence, underestimating stiffness.(b * d * t) / (b + d): scales as L^3, dimensionally incorrect for k.(b^2 * d^2 * t) / (2 * (b + d)): off by a factor of 4 relative to the correct derivation. Common Pitfalls: Using open-section approximate J instead of the closed-section formula.Forgetting that A_m is the midline area, not the gross area minus wall thickness corrections (difference negligible for thin walls). Final Answer: k ≈ (2 * b^2 * d^2 * t) / (b + d)

Question 20

Deep beam identification: a continuous reinforced concrete beam is deemed a deep beam when the ratio of effective span to overall depth satisfies which criterion?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Deep beams behave differently from slender beams because plane sections do not remain plane, and load paths resemble strut-and-tie or arching action. Codes distinguish deep beams by span-to-depth ratios, with separate detailing and shear provisions. The limit varies for simply supported versus continuous members. Given Data / Assumptions: Member: continuous reinforced concrete beam. Parameters: effective span l and overall depth D. Objective: threshold on l/D to classify as a deep beam. Concept / Approach: For continuous members, a commonly used threshold is stricter than for simply supported members due to continuity-induced stiffness and different moment distributions. Educational references typically adopt l/D < 2.5 as the deep-beam threshold for continuous spans, while simply supported spans use l/D < 2.0. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify classification rule for continuous beams: deep if l/D < 2.5.Compare with options and select the statement that captures the 'less than 2.5' criterion.Note: simply supported deep beams often use l/D < 2.0, hence the difference in the criterion. Verification / Alternative check: This threshold aligns with deep-beam provisions that switch analysis to strut-and-tie or equivalent methods and adjust shear design accordingly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: '2.0' and 'less than 2': describe simply supported deep-beam criteria, not continuous ones.'2.5' (exact equality): the conventional phrasing requires 'less than 2.5' for continuous deep beams.'less than 3': too lax; includes members that are not deep by standard definitions. Common Pitfalls: Applying slender-beam flexural formulas to deep beams; deep beams require special shear and detailing rules. Final Answer: less than 2.5

Structural Design Specifications Questions