Question 1

In reinforced concrete detailing practice, identify the correct precautions to follow when splicing (lapping) reinforcing bars to ensure strength, ductility, and constructability.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Splicing (lapping) reinforcing bars in reinforced concrete is a critical construction detail. Poorly located or excessive splices can weaken the section, concentrate strains, and create congestion that impairs compaction. Standard detailing precautions reduce these risks and ensure that the splice region can safely transfer forces through bond and confinement. Given Data / Assumptions: Reinforcing bars require splices where bar lengths end or as per bar schedule. Splices must maintain force transfer without compromising flexural and shear capacity. Best practice rules from codes and detailing manuals apply. Concept / Approach: Precautions focus on minimizing stress demands at splice locations and spreading splices so that the section is not significantly weakened. Avoiding splice placement in peak moment zones, staggering splices, limiting the fraction of bars spliced at any one section, and observing moment-demand thresholds are standard measures to maintain safety and serviceability. Step-by-Step Solution: Locate splices away from sections of maximum stress (peak bending or high tension regions) to reduce bar force demand during transfer.Stagger splices so that adjacent bars are not lapped at the same location, improving sectional uniformity and bond.Do not provide splices where the applied bending moment exceeds about 50% of the section’s moment of resistance.At any one section, limit the number of bars spliced—typically not more than half of the bars—so that the remaining continuous bars carry through forces.All these precautions together constitute accepted good practice; therefore, choose the inclusive option. Verification / Alternative check: Detailing handbooks show splice zones shifted toward regions of lower tension, often near points of contraflexure or where computed steel stress is lower, verifying the rules above. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A–D are each correct but partial; the best answer is the comprehensive choice. Common Pitfalls: Placing too many splices at a single section, causing congestion and poor compaction. Locating splices directly at midspan or support faces where steel stress is highest. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 2

For plain (mild) reinforcing bars placed in compression, by what percentage may the permissible design bond stress (based on tension) be increased to account for improved anchorage performance?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bond stress represents the interface shear transfer between steel and surrounding concrete. Bars in compression develop improved confinement and bearing effects, allowing a modest increase in permissible bond stress compared with the tension case. This adjustment is routinely used in anchorage and development length calculations for compression bars. Given Data / Assumptions: Bars considered are plain (mild) bars in compression. Baseline permissible design bond stress is the one specified for tension. We seek the percentage increase allowed in compression. Concept / Approach: Because compressive action enhances bar-concrete interaction and reduces splitting risk, codes allow a percentage increase in bond stress for compression bars versus tension bars. This provides shorter required development lengths while maintaining safety. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with permissible bond stress for tension as the base value.Apply the allowed increase for compression in plain bars: +25% of the tension value.Use this increased value when checking development length and anchorage at compression ends. Verification / Alternative check: Design examples for column longitudinal bars in compression typically adopt 1.25 times the tension bond stress, confirming the rule-of-thumb increase. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%: Do not match the commonly accepted 25% increase for plain bars in compression. Common Pitfalls: Applying compression increase to deformed bars without checking the specific code clause. Forgetting to verify adequate confinement and cover, which still govern splitting capacity. Final Answer: 25%

Question 3

A short reinforced concrete column has a rectangular cross-section 15 cm × 20 cm. What is the maximum recommended unsupported length to prevent excessive slenderness effects?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Column slenderness influences stability and second-order effects. To classify and design a member as a short column, codes restrict the maximum unsupported length with respect to the least lateral dimension, reducing the risk of buckling and magnified deflections under axial load and bending. Given Data / Assumptions: Rectangular section: 15 cm × 20 cm. Least lateral dimension = 15 cm. Rule: limit unsupported length to a multiple of the least dimension for short-column behavior. Concept / Approach: A common limit for reinforced concrete is: maximum unsupported length ≤ 60 × least lateral dimension. This cap, along with end restraints and slenderness checks, ensures the member remains within short-column design assumptions. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute L_max = 60 * least dimension.Least dimension = 15 cm → L_max = 60 * 15 cm = 900 cm.Convert to metres: 900 cm = 9.0 m.Select 9.0 m as the restricted unsupported length. Verification / Alternative check: Even with L ≤ 9.0 m, column design must still verify slenderness ratios about both axes; the limit primarily prevents obviously slender behavior. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10.0 m, 11.0 m, 12.0 m: Exceed the 60× limit for a 15 cm least dimension. 7.5 m: More conservative than necessary per the cited rule; not the asked upper bound. Common Pitfalls: Using the greater lateral dimension (20 cm) instead of the least (15 cm) when applying the limit. Ignoring end-restraint conditions which alter effective length for slenderness calculations. Final Answer: 9.0 m

Question 4

For rolled I-beams and channels designed by working-stress methods, the permissible axial tensile and compressive stresses in mild steel shall not exceed which value?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Before limit-state design, steel members were commonly designed using working-stress methods with specified allowable stresses. For mild steel rolled sections (I-beams and channels), permissible stresses in axial tension and compression are fractions of yield stress, ensuring adequate safety under service loads. Given Data / Assumptions: Mild steel yield stress assumed ≈ 2500 kg/cm2 (≈ 250 MPa). Allowable stress in axial tension/compression ≈ 0.6 * fy in working-stress design. Question asks for the cap used for rolled I-beams and channels in service conditions. Concept / Approach: Using 0.6 * fy for axial stress gives an allowable ≈ 1500 kg/cm2. This conservative limit accounts for variability, residual stresses, and serviceability under repeated loading. Step-by-Step Solution: Take fy ≈ 2500 kg/cm2.Compute allowable stress = 0.6 * 2500 = 1500 kg/cm2.Select 1500 kg/cm2 as the permissible limit. Verification / Alternative check: Contemporary limit-state design expresses capacities differently; however, legacy MCQs referencing working-stress values consistently cite ≈1500 kg/cm2 for mild steel axial stress limits. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1400 kg/cm2: Overly conservative relative to the standard allowable. 1650 or 1800 kg/cm2: Closer to bending compression/tension allowables; high for axial service stress. 2000 kg/cm2: Too high for working-stress axial design in mild steel. Common Pitfalls: Confusing axial allowable stress with bending allowable stress values. Mixing limit-state capacities with working-stress allowables. Final Answer: 1500 kg/cm2

Question 5

For a reinforced concrete member totally immersed in sea water (marine exposure), by how much should the normal nominal cover to reinforcement be further increased to improve durability?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Marine environments accelerate corrosion due to chlorides and wetting–drying cycles. To protect reinforcement, codes require additional nominal cover for concrete members directly exposed to sea water or fully immersed. This extra cover delays chloride ingress and extends service life. Given Data / Assumptions: Exposure condition: totally immersed in sea water. Base nominal cover is known for the member type and grade. We need the additional increment to be added to the normal cover. Concept / Approach: For immersion in sea water, detailing provisions typically increase the normal cover by a fixed increment to enhance durability without excessively enlarging sections. A practical rule is to add 10 mm to the normal cover under total immersion conditions. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify exposure as marine immersion.Apply the prescribed increment to nominal cover for this exposure: +10 mm.Specify and detail cover blocks/shutters accordingly to achieve the increased cover on site. Verification / Alternative check: Project specifications often combine increased cover with low water–cement ratio, supplementary cementitious materials, and surface sealers as part of a durability strategy in marine structures. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 20–50 mm: Excessive as a blanket increment; cover must also remain constructible and consistent with bar spacing and compaction. Common Pitfalls: Failing to adjust bar chairs and spacers, resulting in less cover than specified. Ignoring workmanship; honeycombing near cover negates the benefit of added thickness. Final Answer: 10 mm

Question 6

In concrete quality control, the ‘‘test strength’’ of a sample is defined as the average compressive strength of how many standard specimens (e.g., 150 mm cubes) cast from that sample?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Acceptance of concrete strength on site relies on statistical sampling. A ‘‘sample’’ comprises multiple test specimens so that random variability is averaged out. The test strength is then compared with specified characteristic strength for compliance checks and quality adjustments. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard compressive strength specimens are 150 mm cubes (or cylinders as specified). Multiple specimens are cast from a single sample of concrete. The test strength equals the arithmetic mean of the specimen strengths. Concept / Approach: Using three specimens per sample balances practicality and statistical reliability. Averaging three values reduces the influence of outliers due to minor casting or curing variations and provides a robust estimate of the sample strength. Step-by-Step Solution: Cast three standard specimens from the same batch (sample).Cure and test the specimens at the specified age (e.g., 28 days).Compute the average of the three measured strengths.Use this mean as the ‘‘test strength’’ for acceptance criteria. Verification / Alternative check: Specifications also impose limits on individual specimen results to avoid masking poor units by averaging; nevertheless, the mean of three remains the core test strength metric. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2 specimens: Too few for reliable averaging. 4, 5, or 6 specimens: Provide more data but are beyond the standard definition of a single sample’s test strength. Common Pitfalls: Mixing specimens from different batches into one sample. Not recording curing or age precisely, which skews results. Final Answer: 3 specimens

Question 7

A column supports the fourth-floor framing via four mutually perpendicular beams framing into it. If the reduced level of the third-floor slab at the column is 205.350 m and the undersides (soffits) of those beams are at 208.350 m, 208.450 m, 208.50…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In frame analysis and column design, the supported (unbraced) length is measured between points where lateral support is provided—typically at floor or beam levels. For a column at the intersection of several beams, the lowest beam soffit defines the top bracing level for that storey, controlling the unbraced segment length. Given Data / Assumptions: Third-floor slab level (at column): RL = 205.350 m. Beam soffit RLs at the next floor: 208.350 m, 208.450 m, 208.500 m, 208.550 m. Beams are mutually perpendicular and frame into the column, providing lateral restraint at their soffits. Concept / Approach: The unbraced length is from the lower bracing level (floor below) to the first bracing level above—i.e., the lowest soffit among the incoming beams. Using the lowest soffit is conservative and reflects the actual first restraint encountered along the column height. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify lower support level = 205.350 m (third-floor slab).Identify lowest upper bracing level = min(208.350, 208.450, 208.500, 208.550) = 208.350 m.Compute supported length = 208.350 − 205.350 = 3.000 m.Select 3.000 m as the unbraced length. Verification / Alternative check: Even if higher beams brace later, the earliest bracing (lowest soffit) governs the segment length, which is the correct basis for slenderness and effective length evaluation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 3.100 m, 3.150 m, 3.200 m: Use higher soffits, overestimating unbraced length. 2.950 m: Not consistent with given levels; arithmetic mismatch. Common Pitfalls: Measuring to beam centerline instead of soffit where restraint actually begins. Ignoring that different beams may sit at different soffit elevations. Final Answer: 3.000 m

Question 8

Effective span rules for beams and slabs — identify the correct statement(s) (Use IS code practice; consider clear span, effective depth, and centre-to-centre of supports.)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: In reinforced concrete design, the effective span determines bending moments and deflections. Codes specify how to measure spans depending on support conditions and continuity. This question checks familiarity with code-consistent definitions used in beams and slabs. Given Data / Assumptions: Simply supported versus continuous members. Slabs and beams follow the same span logic for many cases. Roller/rocker bearings are special supports with defined bearing centres. Support width is assumed small relative to span. Concept / Approach: The effective span is the controlling dimension for analysis. Codes permit taking the lesser of two measures to avoid overestimating span: (clear span + effective depth) or the centre-to-centre of supports. This reflects how compression struts and tension ties develop within the member depth and through bearing widths. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Simply supported beam: adopt min(clear span + effective depth, centre-to-centre).2) Simply supported slab: same rule applies because the slab behaves as a flexural member spanning between supports.3) Continuous beam/slab: the same minima logic applies; supports are often narrow relative to span, justifying the rule.4) Roller/rocker bearings: the span is taken between bearing centres by definition. Verification / Alternative check: Design examples show small changes in effective span can noticeably change design moments; using the lesser value is conservative and code-aligned. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each statement A–D is individually correct; therefore “All of the above” is also correct and the best choice here. Common Pitfalls: Confusing clear span with effective span; ignoring the member depth; or using face-to-face distance when code requires centre-to-centre for some supports. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 9

Flat slab design — location of the critical section for two-way (punching) shear (Measure distance from the periphery of column or drop panel; d = effective depth.)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Punching shear is a critical limit state in flat slabs around column supports. The correct position of the critical (control) perimeter directly affects the calculated shear stress and the need for shear reinforcement or thickening (drop panels). Given Data / Assumptions: Flat slab supported by columns or drop panels. d denotes effective depth of the slab. We are evaluating the location of the critical section for two-way (punching) shear around a support. Concept / Approach: For two-way shear in flat slabs, the code defines a control perimeter located at a set distance from the column or drop panel edge. This perimeter captures the shear flow where diagonal tension cracking is most likely to form due to concentrated column reaction punching through the slab. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify support type: interior column/drop panel.2) For two-way shear, the critical section is taken at a uniform offset from the support periphery.3) Standard practice places this perimeter at distance d/2 from the column/drop panel edge.4) Use this perimeter length to compute punching shear stress v_u = V_u / (b_0 * d), where b_0 is the critical perimeter. Verification / Alternative check: Design examples for flat slabs consistently adopt d/2 offset. One-way shear (beam shear) is checked separately at distance d from the face; do not confuse the two checks. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (d) corresponds to one-way shear, not punching. Option C (0) underestimates critical perimeter length. Option D (1.5 d) is unconservative and not code-based for punching shear. Common Pitfalls: Mixing one-way and two-way shear locations; forgetting to exclude openings within the perimeter; ignoring column capitals/drop panels when drawing the periphery. Final Answer: At a distance d/2 from the periphery of the column or drop panel.

Question 10

Limit state design — design bond stress for plain bars in tension (concrete grade M30)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Bond stress quantifies the interface action between reinforcing steel and surrounding concrete. In limit state design, a design bond stress is specified for different concrete grades and bar types; this ensures adequate development length and anchorage in tension zones. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete grade: M30. Bars: plain (not deformed) in tension. We are concerned with the code-specified design value, not test values. Concept / Approach: Design bond stress (tbd) increases with concrete strength and is higher for deformed bars than for plain bars. For plain bars, codes tabulate tbd by grade. Development length Ld is later calculated using Ld = (phi * sigma_s) / (4 * tbd), where phi is bar diameter and sigma_s is design stress. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify table entry for M30 concrete and plain bars in tension.2) Read off the design bond stress value corresponding to M30.3) The typical tabulated value for M30 (plain bars, tension) is 1.5 N/mm2.4) Therefore, the correct choice is 1.5 N/mm2. Verification / Alternative check: Compare adjacent grades: M25 often uses about 1.4 N/mm2; moving to M30 increases to about 1.5 N/mm2, consistent with strength progression. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1.0 and 1.2 N/mm2 are typical of lower grades; 1.4 N/mm2 aligns more with M25 plain bars. They understate the bond for M30 and would produce unconservative (excessive) development lengths. Common Pitfalls: Confusing plain and deformed bars; mixing characteristic and design bond values; forgetting to adjust for bar type when computing Ld. Final Answer: 1.5 N/mm2

Question 11

Maximum characteristic strength permitted for stirrup (shear) reinforcement in RC members

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Stirrups (shear reinforcement) control shear cracking and provide confinement. Codes limit the yield strength adopted for stirrups to ensure adequate ductility, bendability, and anchorage at hooks. Given Data / Assumptions: Shear reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams/columns. Characteristic yield strength options: 350–415 N/mm2. Concept / Approach: While high-strength steel exists, codes typically cap the characteristic strength for shear reinforcement that may be used in design calculations. This avoids brittle behavior at bends and ensures reliable anchorage with standard hook details. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify code cap for shear reinforcement strength.2) The commonly accepted maximum characteristic strength for stirrups is 415 N/mm2 (Fe 415).3) Choose the corresponding option. Verification / Alternative check: Detailing provisions for hooks and bends, minimum bar diameters for stirrups, and spacing limits are calibrated around Fe 415 stirrup steel. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 350, 375, and 395 N/mm2 are below the permissible maximum; selecting them imposes unnecessary conservatism and does not reflect the cap. Common Pitfalls: Assuming Fe 500/Fe 550 may be used for stirrups; in many codes the design does not permit taking higher strength for shear links because of ductility and bend radius limitations. Final Answer: 415 N/mm2

Question 12

Steel tension members — rivet hole allowances and net section calculation (Choose the correct combination based on steel design practice.)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Tension members in steel structures require careful deduction for fastener holes to obtain the net section. Rivet (or bolt) hole allowances vary with nominal diameter. This problem checks knowledge of net area calculation and standard hole clearances. Given Data / Assumptions: A: Net area equals gross area minus deductions for holes. B: Hole allowance stated as +1.5 mm for holes greater than 25 mm. C: Hole allowance stated as +2.0 mm for holes greater than 25 mm. D: Total deduction equals thickness multiplied by sum of diameters of holes in any critical chain. Concept / Approach: Net section is found by subtracting material removed by holes along the critical section. Standard practice is to take the gross diameter of a hole as the nominal fastener diameter plus a clearance. For larger rivets (> 25 mm), the clearance adopted is typically larger (about +2.0 mm). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Statement A is fundamental and correct.2) Statement B conflicts with standard allowance for sizes greater than 25 mm; +1.5 mm is typical for smaller diameters, not larger.3) Statement C is correct for > 25 mm nominal size (about +2.0 mm).4) Statement D correctly describes deduction across a chain (critical path) through the section. Verification / Alternative check: Worked examples for net section in tension members consistently use the enlarged hole diameter (nominal + clearance) multiplied by thickness to compute deductions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (only A and C) omits D, which is correct. Option C misclassifies B and D. Option D claims all statements are correct, but B is not consistent with larger-hole allowances. Common Pitfalls: Using nominal diameter instead of hole diameter for deductions; forgetting stagger corrections when applicable; choosing the wrong critical chain across multiple rows of holes. Final Answer: A, C and D are correct; B is incorrect.

Question 13

Minimum thickness of structural steel members directly exposed to weather (Member is accessible for cleaning and repainting.)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Corrosion control in steel structures begins with adequate member thickness. Codes prescribe minimum thicknesses depending on exposure and maintainability to ensure durability and reasonable life between maintenance cycles. Given Data / Assumptions: Member is directly exposed to weather. Member is accessible for routine cleaning and repainting. We seek the minimum permissible thickness. Concept / Approach: Thicker plates corrode more slowly to a critical loss point, offering longer protective life. When a member is accessible, slightly lower minimum thickness is acceptable compared with inaccessible members (which typically require thicker sections). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify exposure: direct weathering with accessibility.2) Refer to minimum thickness table for such conditions.3) The usual minimum for accessible, weather-exposed members is 6 mm.4) Therefore select 6 mm. Verification / Alternative check: For members not accessible to maintenance, a larger minimum (often 8 mm) is recommended; this confirms that 6 mm is appropriate here due to accessibility. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 4 mm is too thin for weather exposure; 7 and 8 mm are conservative and typical for inaccessible members, not required here. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring accessibility; specifying too thin plates in aggressive environments without corrosion allowance or protective coatings. Final Answer: 6 mm

Question 14

Deep beam criterion — simply supported RC beam (When is a simply supported beam classified as a deep beam?)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Deep beams are members with small span-to-depth ratios where plane sections do not remain plane and the usual beam theory is not applicable. Recognizing a deep beam triggers special analysis and detailing provisions. Given Data / Assumptions: Member is simply supported. We compare effective span l_eff to overall depth D. Concept / Approach: For simply supported beams, the limit for being treated as a deep beam is commonly based on l_eff / D. Below a threshold, strut-and-tie or deep-beam methods are recommended rather than standard flexural theory. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Compute ratio R = l_eff / D.2) If R is less than 2.0, the beam is a deep beam.3) For continuous beams, the corresponding threshold is typically higher (about 2.5). Verification / Alternative check: Design manuals show deep-beam regions with arching action developing between supports and load points when spans are short relative to depth. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is an equality, not the criterion; Option B and D use the continuous-beam threshold; the correct limit for simply supported members is R less than 2.0. Common Pitfalls: Using overall depth versus effective depth inconsistently; applying continuous-beam limits to simply supported cases. Final Answer: Effective span to overall depth ratio less than 2.0.

Question 15

Slenderness ratio limit for a tie member in a roof truss (Member may experience stress reversal under wind or seismic actions.)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Slenderness limits prevent excessive vibration, lateral deflection, and second-order effects. For tension members that may see load reversal (becoming compression under wind or earthquake), stricter limits apply. Given Data / Assumptions: Member type: tie in a roof truss. Possible stress reversal due to wind/seismic actions. Slenderness ratio is L_e / r, where L_e is effective length and r is radius of gyration. Concept / Approach: Ties normally work in tension and can have higher slenderness limits. However, if reversal is possible, they must satisfy lower limits similar to compression members to avoid buckling during transient compression. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Classify the member as a tie with potential reversal.2) Adopt the slenderness cap recommended for such members.3) The standard cap in this case is 180. Verification / Alternative check: Compare with ties that never see reversal; those may adopt higher limits (e.g., 350). The reduction to 180 reflects the compression vulnerability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 210, 250, 350 are too high for members that may see compression; they risk instability under wind/seismic load cases. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring accidental compression in design combinations; using overall length instead of effective length; not checking r about the weak axis. Final Answer: 180

Question 16

Minimum area of tension reinforcement in an RC beam — constant K in Ast,min = K * b * d / fy

Accepted Answer

Introduction: The minimum steel area in flexural members prevents sudden tension-cracking and ensures post-cracking stiffness. In beams, codes express Ast,min with a constant K multiplied by section dimensions and divided by steel yield strength. Given Data / Assumptions: RC beam under bending. Formula form: Ast,min = K * b * d / fy. b = width, d = effective depth, fy = yield strength of steel. Concept / Approach: Unlike slabs (often governed by a percentage of gross area), beams use a K-based expression. The constant K encapsulates empirical calibration so that beams have sufficient distributed reinforcement to control crack widths and maintain ductility. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recall the prescribed K for beams in code tables.2) The value widely specified is K = 0.85.3) Therefore Ast,min = 0.85 * b * d / fy. Verification / Alternative check: For typical beam sizes and Fe 415 steel, this formula yields steel percentages consistent with serviceability crack control requirements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Values 0.95, 0.90, and 0.80 do not match the standard beam constant and would either increase or reduce minimum steel beyond code intent. Common Pitfalls: Mixing slab and beam minimum steel rules; using overall depth instead of effective depth; forgetting that Ast,min must also satisfy bar spacing and cover constraints. Final Answer: 0.85

Question 17

Minimum thickness requirements for structural steel members (Exposure and member category considerations.)

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Minimum thickness prescriptions in steel design reduce corrosion risk and ensure a practical maintenance interval. Requirements vary with exposure and whether a member is primary (main) or secondary. Given Data / Assumptions: Exposure: weather-exposed vs not directly exposed. Accessibility for repainting. Member category: main vs secondary members. Concept / Approach: Weather exposure accelerates corrosion; accessibility permits more frequent maintenance and allows slightly thinner minimums. Secondary members may have somewhat lower thickness requirements than primary load-carrying members when not exposed. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) For exposed but accessible members, minimum thickness is commonly taken as 6 mm.2) For main members not directly exposed, 6 mm minimum ensures durability.3) For secondary members not directly exposed, 4.5 mm minimum is acceptable.4) All three statements are therefore correct. Verification / Alternative check: Comparative durability charts show faster section loss in exposure; minimum thicknesses are set accordingly to maintain structural capacity between maintenance cycles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A–C are each correct; hence the best choice is “All of the above”. Common Pitfalls: Applying exposed-member minima to sheltered interiors; neglecting coating systems and detailing that improve durability (drip edges, sealants). Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 18

Concrete core acceptance by equivalent cube strength (IS-based): For accepting in-situ concrete by core tests, the average equivalent cube strength of the extracted cores must be at least 85% of the specified cube strength of the concrete grade at t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Core testing is used when standard cubes/cylinders are not representative or are unavailable. Codes specify how to judge acceptability of in-situ concrete based on core strengths compared with the specified grade's cube strength at the designated age. Given Data / Assumptions: Acceptance is based on equivalent cube strengths from drilled cores. Average of cores must reach at least 85% of the specified characteristic cube strength. There is also a lower bound for each individual core result. Concept / Approach: Most codes derived from IS practice require both: (1) average core strength threshold and (2) minimum individual core threshold. The widely used limits are 85% (average) and 75% (individual). These limits acknowledge the inevitable reduction in core strength due to extraction, size, and moisture effects, while still ensuring structural adequacy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the governing acceptance clause for cores (average ≥ 85%).Step 2: Check the accompanying requirement for individual cores so that a single weak core does not pass the lot.Step 3: The minimum for any single core is taken as 75% of the specified cube strength.Step 4: Therefore, the correct limit for “no individual core” is 75%. Verification / Alternative check: Typical national standards and many QA manuals list 85% (average) and 75% (single core) as paired criteria for core-based acceptance, reflecting empirical reductions observed for cores versus standard cubes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 90%: Too conservative for individual cores; not the standard limit. 85%: This is the average criterion, not the minimum per-core value. 80%: Not a standard threshold in IS-based acceptance for individual cores. 70%: Too low; would risk accepting under-strength concrete. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the average (85%) with the minimum individual limit (75%). Comparing core strengths directly to cube strengths without applying the code-prescribed criteria. Final Answer: 75%

Question 19

Loads and material weights in structural design — pick the correct set of assumptions: • Unit weight of plain concrete ≈ 24 kN/m^3 (≈ 2400 kg/m^3) • Unit weight of reinforced concrete ≈ 25 kN/m^3 (≈ 2500 kg/m^3) • Dead load includes self-weight plus…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Preliminary design and load calculations rely on standard unit weights and proper categorization of loads. Knowing typical densities for plain and reinforced concrete, and what constitutes dead load, is essential for accurate analysis and detailing. Given Data / Assumptions: Plain concrete unit weight taken as 24 kN/m^3 (≈ 2400 kg/m^3). Reinforced concrete unit weight taken as 25 kN/m^3 (≈ 2500 kg/m^3). Dead load includes self-weight of structural members plus finishes and walls/partitions that are permanently attached. Concept / Approach: Codes and handbooks provide standard material unit weights for load take-off. Dead load is the permanent, immovable load on the structure, including self-weight and permanent attachments such as floor finishes and masonry partitions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Compare stated unit weights with standard handbook values: 24 kN/m^3 for plain concrete and 25 kN/m^3 for RC are accepted norms.Step 2: Confirm definition of dead load: self-weight + finishes + walls/partitions meet the definition.Step 3: All three statements are consistent with common design assumptions, so “All of the above” is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Cross-check with standard structural design data tables; these values are widely used for preliminary and even detailed design where more accurate take-offs are unnecessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only first/second/third: Each omits at least one true statement, so they are incomplete. None: Incorrect because all listed statements are in line with accepted practice. Common Pitfalls: Using kg/m^3 and kN/m^3 interchangeably without converting (1 kN/m^3 ≈ 100 kg/m^3 for gravity ≈ 9.81 m/s^2). Forgetting to include finishes and partitions in dead load, leading to underestimation. Final Answer: All of the above statements are correct

Question 20

Workability guide for nominal mix M15 (vibrated): Approximately how much mixing water is required per 50 kg bag of cement to achieve normal workability suitable for vibration in nominal mix M15 concrete?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Estimating water content per 50 kg bag of cement helps achieve the desired workability for nominal mixes, especially when internal or external vibration is used for compaction. Too much water reduces strength and increases permeability; too little water harms placement and compaction. Given Data / Assumptions: Nominal mix concrete of grade M15. Concrete will be compacted with vibration (so a moderate slump is adequate). Typical guidance values for water per 50 kg bag are used. Concept / Approach: Practical handbooks list typical water requirements per bag for standard workability ranges. For vibrated nominal mixes, about 30–34 litres per bag is commonly used, with 32 litres a representative target for normal conditions and aggregates. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Select a nominal water content suited for vibration (lower than hand-placed concrete).Step 2: Use tabulated practical values; 32 litres per 50 kg bag is a standard reference for M15 under normal conditions.Step 3: Choose the nearest listed value that matches standard guidance: 32 litres. Verification / Alternative check: Trial mixes can fine-tune water content considering aggregate moisture, shape, and grading. However, 32 litres is a widely accepted starting point for vibrated nominal mixes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 30 litres/34 litres: Possible in edge conditions, but 32 litres is the typical benchmark for normal workability under vibration. 45 litres: Excessive; risks high w/c ratio and strength loss. 28 litres: Usually too low for normal workability, leading to placement difficulty. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring aggregate moisture corrections which alter free water. Assuming higher slump is always better; with vibration, moderate slumps are adequate. Final Answer: 32 litres

Structural Design Specifications Questions