Q: RC beams — trigger for side face reinforcement According to reinforced concrete detailing practice, side face reinforcement shall be provided when the overall depth (web depth) of a beam exceeds which limit?

Introduction / Context: Side face reinforcement in deep beams helps control cracking on the exposed faces of the web where concrete is subject to restraint shrinkage and tension fields that are not fully captured by conventional longitudinal and transverse bars. Given Data / Assumptions: We are checking the depth threshold at which side face reinforcement becomes mandatory. Standard RC detailing rules (IS-style practice) apply. Depth refers to the overall web depth of the beam. Concept / Approach: When beams are very deep, tension and shrinkage cracks can form on side faces even if shear and flexural steel are adequate. Hence a minimum side face steel area is mandated above a specified depth, typically at 750 mm, to ensure distributed crack control. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the codal depth trigger for side face steel.Step 2: From detailing rules, the trigger depth is 750 mm.Step 3: Select 750 mm from the options. Verification / Alternative check: Deep beam provisions universally require nominal distributed steel on side faces beyond this depth to keep crack widths within serviceability limits and to improve ductility of the web zone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 600, 650, 700 mm: Too low; would over-prescribe side face steel for moderately deep members. 800 mm: Too high; may permit excessive cracking before reinforcement is mandated. Common Pitfalls: Confusing beam overall depth with effective depth to tension steel. Omitting distribution on both faces; the requirement applies on each exposed face. Final Answer: 750 mm

Q: Gantry girders — minimum web plate thickness for heavy lifting For a crane gantry plate girder carrying a lifting load exceeding 15 tonnes, the minimum thickness of the web plate shall be not less than:

Introduction / Context: Crane runway (gantry) girders are subjected to high wheel loads, impact, fatigue, and lateral forces from crane operation. Web plate detailing must ensure adequate robustness against shear buckling, weld distortion, and handling damage, which is why a codal minimum thickness is enforced for heavier lifting classes. Given Data / Assumptions: Lifting load exceeds 15 tonnes. Requirement sought is the minimum web plate thickness (detailing rule). Standard practice and teaching references for gantry girders apply. Concept / Approach: For heavier duty gantry girders, minimum web thickness avoids excessive panel slenderness and provides a practical welding thickness. Widely used detailing guidance sets 8 mm as the minimum web plate when lifting load exceeds 15 t, while lighter classes may permit 6 mm. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Classify the crane load level: > 15 t.Step 2: Apply the detailing rule linking load class to a minimum web thickness.Step 3: For > 15 t, t_web ≥ 8 mm → select 8 mm. Verification / Alternative check: Design notes and lecture handouts on gantry girders list 8 mm minimum web thickness for > 15 t lifting, consistent with past IS practice and workshop fabrication norms. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 4–6 mm: Too thin for heavy-duty gantry girders; excessive slenderness and poor weldability. 10 mm: More conservative than the minimum; not required by the rule as a blanket minimum. Common Pitfalls: Using general plate girder limits instead of special gantry girder detailing rules. Ignoring impact factors that effectively increase service demands on the web. Final Answer: 8 mm

Q: Laced compression members — effective length of lacing bars Identify the correct definition(s) of the effective length for lacing bars in different connection types and patterns.

Introduction / Context: Accurate effective length definitions for lacing bars are vital because slenderness checks, minimum thickness, and width rules depend on it. Different connection types (riveted/bolted versus welded) and lacing patterns (single versus double) alter the effective length used for detailing and stability checks. Given Data / Assumptions: Single and double lacing in riveted/bolted construction are considered. Welded lacing uses effective weld lengths at each end. Standard detailing reduction factor of about 0.7 applies for double/welded cases. Concept / Approach: In single lacing, the bar spans the clear distance between inner end connectors; that is its effective length. In double lacing, each diagonal system shares shear, so a reduced factor (≈0.7) is used. For welded lacing, the welds provide end fixity over their effective lengths, so the clear distance between inner ends of effective welds defines the bar's effective length, with a similar 0.7 factor in many detailing guides. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: State single lacing effective length: distance between inner end connectors.Step 2: Apply 0.7 reduction for double lacing (riveted/bolted).Step 3: For welded lacing, use distance between inner ends of effective weld lengths; a 0.7 factor is often adopted similarly.Step 4: Hence, all listed statements are correct. Verification / Alternative check: Classic steel design Q&A and summaries reproduce these definitions consistently, reflecting long-standing shop practice and codal commentary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single item alone omits the others; the comprehensive choice is 'All the above'. Common Pitfalls: Using the panel length instead of connector-to-connector (or weld-to-weld) gauge. Forgetting the 0.7 factor for double or welded lacing when sizing thickness. Final Answer: All the above

Q: Deep beams — minimum total area of side face reinforcement For a reinforced concrete deep beam (depth beyond the codal trigger), the total area of side face reinforcement provided along the two faces should not be less than what percentage of the we…

Introduction / Context: Deep beams experience disturbed-region (D-region) behavior where conventional plane-section assumptions do not strictly apply. To control side face cracking from shrinkage and tension fields, codes require a minimum distributed reinforcement on both side faces. Given Data / Assumptions: Beam qualifies as a deep beam per codal trigger (e.g., depth and span/depth limits). Side face steel must be distributed on both faces. Web area refers to b_web × overall depth used for percentage calculation. Concept / Approach: Minimum side face steel provides crack control and enhances ductility. Standard practice stipulates that the total side face reinforcement (both faces combined) be at least 0.1% of the web area, placed approximately equally on the two faces with appropriate spacing limits. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Determine web area A_web = b_w × D.Step 2: Compute minimum total side face steel A_sf,min = 0.001 × A_web.Step 3: Distribute A_sf,min roughly equally on both faces, respecting bar spacing and cover requirements. Verification / Alternative check: Handbooks echo 0.1% as the baseline minimum for deep beams; higher percentages may be used where exposure or crack-width limits are stringent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.2–0.6%: Higher than required minimum; may be used for severe exposure or design judgment but not the codal baseline. Common Pitfalls: Calculating percentage on gross section including flanges in T-beams; use web area. Providing all steel on one face, leading to asymmetric crack control. Final Answer: 0.1% of web area

Q: Lacing bars — minimum width rule in riveted/bolted construction In riveted/bolted steel construction, the minimum width of a lacing bar is generally taken as:

Introduction / Context: Lacing bars connect components of built-up compression members and must be wide enough for practical drilling/bolting and to avoid local bearing failures at end connections. Codes give a simple minimum width rule tied to fastener size. Given Data / Assumptions: Lacing is riveted or bolted (not welded). Nominal diameter d of end rivet/bolt is known. We need the minimum bar width requirement. Concept / Approach: A widely used rule states: minimum width b_min ≥ 3d, where d is the nominal diameter of the end connector. This ensures adequate edge distance, hole clearance, and bearing area without resorting to overly thick plates. Rounding to stock sizes is permitted, but the rule itself is 3d. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify connector diameter d.Step 2: Compute b_min = 3 × d.Step 3: Select nearest available plate width ≥ b_min, keeping standard rounding separate from the rule. Verification / Alternative check: IS-style summaries and training problems consistently cite the 3d rule for riveted/bolted lacing bars. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Equal to d or 2d: Too narrow; risks poor edge distances and bearing. Maximum of the above rounded: Mis-states the rule; rounding does not replace the 3d minimum. 4d: Overly conservative as a blanket minimum; not required. Common Pitfalls: Confusing bar width (3d) with thickness rules (l/40 or l/60). Ignoring edge distance and hole spacing checks alongside the width rule. Final Answer: Thrice the nominal rivet diameter

Q: Bundled reinforcement — development length increase When three reinforcing bars are bundled together, the required development length of each bar shall be increased by:

Introduction / Context: Bundling bars reduces the perimeter available for bond for each individual bar, which lowers bond efficiency. To compensate, codes require an increase in development length (Ld) for bars in bundles, with the increment depending on the number of bars bundled. Given Data / Assumptions: Three bars are bundled together in the same plane. Standard bond stress provisions for deformed bars in tension/compression apply. Question asks the percentage increase in Ld for each bar. Concept / Approach: Typical tabulated increments are: +10% for two bars, +20% for three bars, and +33% for four bars bundled together. These multipliers reflect the reduction in effective surface area per bar and the tendency for slip within bundles. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify number of bars n = 3 in the bundle.Step 2: Apply codal increment: Ld_increase = +20% for n = 3.Step 3: Hence, required Ld per bar = 1.20 × Ld (for a single bar). Verification / Alternative check: Detailing handbooks and solved examples reproduce the same 10/20/33% sequence for 2/3/4 bars respectively, confirming the 20% increase for triplets. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10%: Applies to two-bar bundles, not three. 33%: For four-bar bundles. 50%: Excessively conservative; not specified for three-bar bundles. 5%: Too small; not a recognized increment. Common Pitfalls: Applying the increment to lap length only; it applies to development length too. Ignoring minimum spacing/stirrups needed to confine bundled bars. Final Answer: 20%

Question 1

Meaning of A and B in the base-plate thickness formula In the standard formula, identify A and B correctly (column supported on a base plate).

Accepted Answer

Introduction: For steel columns on base plates, plate thickness is often sized using a bending strip model. Two parameters A and B appear and correspond to how far the plate projects beyond the loaded area in the major and minor directions. Given Data / Assumptions: Column (steel) bearing on a rectangular base plate. A and B appear in the thickness expression. The loaded area equals the column footprint (or bearing area after deductions). Concept / Approach: The plate bends as cantilever strips beyond the column face under bearing pressure. Therefore, the controlling geometry is the projection length in each direction, not the overall plate dimensions or the column's total size. The symbols generally denote: A = larger projection and B = smaller projection beyond the column face. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Determine column footprint on the plate.2) Compute plate projections (half-plate minus half-column dimensions) in both directions.3) Assign A to the greater projection and B to the lesser projection.4) Use these in the thickness formula to estimate required plate depth. Verification / Alternative check: Checking plate bending by strip method or finite strip confirms projection lengths govern fiber stresses. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options (a) and (b) refer to overall sizes; thickness depends on projection beyond the loaded area, not the raw dimensions. Common Pitfalls: Substituting overall plate size for projections; ignoring grout thickness and bearing uniformity assumptions. Final Answer: Both (c) and (d) of above.

Question 2

Staggered pitch in riveted/bolted joints How is staggered pitch measured between two consecutive fasteners?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Joints with multiple rows of rivets or bolts often employ staggering to improve efficiency and reduce the risk of crack propagation. The staggered pitch is a geometric measure used in net-section calculations and detailing. Given Data / Assumptions: Member carries axial stress along its length. Multiple fastener rows are arranged with offsets (stagger). We need the definition of staggered pitch. Concept / Approach: Two pitch measures exist: chain (longitudinal) pitch parallel to load and transverse pitch perpendicular to load. When rows are staggered, the relevant distance between successive fasteners on adjacent rows is measured along the diagonal line joining them, i.e., the staggered pitch. This affects deduction for net area with zig-zag holes. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify two consecutive fasteners on adjacent rows.2) Draw the diagonal line connecting their centers.3) Measure the center-to-center distance along this diagonal.4) Use this measure in stagger correction for net area where required. Verification / Alternative check: Net-section formulae include a term accounting for stagger (e.g., additional area via transverse and diagonal components); this uses the diagonal pitch. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Parallel or perpendicular distances define chain or transverse pitch, not staggered pitch. "None of these" is incorrect because a diagonal measure is explicitly defined. Common Pitfalls: Measuring horizontally or vertically instead of along the diagonal; mixing up notations in drawings. Final Answer: diagonally (along the stagger line)

Question 3

Short column criterion for rectangular RCC columns A column is considered short if both slenderness ratios are less than:

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Slenderness ratio governs whether a column behaves predominantly in compression (short) or requires additional allowance for buckling (slender). Recognizing the limit ensures the correct interaction curves and capacity reduction factors are used. Given Data / Assumptions: Rectangular reinforced concrete column. Slenderness ratios considered about both principal axes. Limit value to classify the member as short. Concept / Approach: For RCC, slenderness ratio is defined as l_e / D for each axis (effective length divided by respective lateral dimension). If both ratios are less than a threshold (commonly 12), the column is classified as short, and axial load with small eccentricity design is applicable without slenderness amplification. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Compute l_ex / D_x and l_ey / D_y.2) Compare each with 12.3) If both are < 12, treat the column as short.4) Otherwise, apply slender column design including additional moments from second-order effects. Verification / Alternative check: Design examples and charts demarcate short vs slender at about 12 for RCC; steel columns use different limits. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 8 and 10 are overly restrictive; 16 is too lax and may allow significant buckling effects to go unchecked. Common Pitfalls: Using overall instead of effective length; checking only one axis while neglecting the other. Final Answer: 12

Question 4

Steel design — thickness requirement for flat double lacing (compression members) For a laced compression member using flat bars in a double-lacing system, the minimum thickness t of each flat lacing bar is taken as what fraction of its effective le…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Laced compression members in steel structures use slender flat bars or angles to connect the main components and prevent out-of-plane buckling. Codes and classic design texts specify minimum size rules for these lacing bars to control local buckling and ensure adequate stiffness during fabrication and service, particularly distinguishing between single and double lacing. Given Data / Assumptions: Member is a compression member with double lacing using flat bars. t denotes lacing bar thickness; l denotes the effective length of that lacing bar. Standard IS/handbook-style sizing rules apply (detailing requirements). Concept / Approach: Double-laced systems have shorter effective length per diagonal because two systems share shear and stabilize the main member more effectively. Hence, codes permit a lower t/l ratio than for single lacing. A common rule is: single lacing t ≥ l/40, double lacing t ≥ l/60. Effective length l is measured as the distance between inner end fasteners for single lacing and taken as 0.7 times that distance for double lacing in riveted/bolted work. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify l as the effective length of a lacing bar for double lacing.Step 2: Apply detailing rule: thickness of flat for double lacing ≥ l/60.Step 3: Compare with options; select l/60. Verification / Alternative check: Reference tables and practice problems for laced columns repeatedly list single lacing t ≥ l/40 and double lacing t ≥ l/60, matching workshop-fabrication experience and preventing thin-plate local buckling. Why Other Options Are Wrong: l/20, l/30, l/40: These are too thick for double lacing and correspond to more conservative or single-lacing rules. l/80: Too thin; risks local buckling and handling damage. Common Pitfalls: Confusing single- and double-lacing thickness rules. Using panel length instead of the lacing bar's effective length. Ignoring that double lacing reduces effective length by about 0.7 in riveted/bolted connections. Final Answer: l/60

Question 5

RC beams — trigger for side face reinforcement According to reinforced concrete detailing practice, side face reinforcement shall be provided when the overall depth (web depth) of a beam exceeds which limit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Side face reinforcement in deep beams helps control cracking on the exposed faces of the web where concrete is subject to restraint shrinkage and tension fields that are not fully captured by conventional longitudinal and transverse bars. Given Data / Assumptions: We are checking the depth threshold at which side face reinforcement becomes mandatory. Standard RC detailing rules (IS-style practice) apply. Depth refers to the overall web depth of the beam. Concept / Approach: When beams are very deep, tension and shrinkage cracks can form on side faces even if shear and flexural steel are adequate. Hence a minimum side face steel area is mandated above a specified depth, typically at 750 mm, to ensure distributed crack control. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the codal depth trigger for side face steel.Step 2: From detailing rules, the trigger depth is 750 mm.Step 3: Select 750 mm from the options. Verification / Alternative check: Deep beam provisions universally require nominal distributed steel on side faces beyond this depth to keep crack widths within serviceability limits and to improve ductility of the web zone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 600, 650, 700 mm: Too low; would over-prescribe side face steel for moderately deep members. 800 mm: Too high; may permit excessive cracking before reinforcement is mandated. Common Pitfalls: Confusing beam overall depth with effective depth to tension steel. Omitting distribution on both faces; the requirement applies on each exposed face. Final Answer: 750 mm

Question 6

Gantry girders — minimum web plate thickness for heavy lifting For a crane gantry plate girder carrying a lifting load exceeding 15 tonnes, the minimum thickness of the web plate shall be not less than:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Crane runway (gantry) girders are subjected to high wheel loads, impact, fatigue, and lateral forces from crane operation. Web plate detailing must ensure adequate robustness against shear buckling, weld distortion, and handling damage, which is why a codal minimum thickness is enforced for heavier lifting classes. Given Data / Assumptions: Lifting load exceeds 15 tonnes. Requirement sought is the minimum web plate thickness (detailing rule). Standard practice and teaching references for gantry girders apply. Concept / Approach: For heavier duty gantry girders, minimum web thickness avoids excessive panel slenderness and provides a practical welding thickness. Widely used detailing guidance sets 8 mm as the minimum web plate when lifting load exceeds 15 t, while lighter classes may permit 6 mm. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Classify the crane load level: > 15 t.Step 2: Apply the detailing rule linking load class to a minimum web thickness.Step 3: For > 15 t, t_web ≥ 8 mm → select 8 mm. Verification / Alternative check: Design notes and lecture handouts on gantry girders list 8 mm minimum web thickness for > 15 t lifting, consistent with past IS practice and workshop fabrication norms. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 4–6 mm: Too thin for heavy-duty gantry girders; excessive slenderness and poor weldability. 10 mm: More conservative than the minimum; not required by the rule as a blanket minimum. Common Pitfalls: Using general plate girder limits instead of special gantry girder detailing rules. Ignoring impact factors that effectively increase service demands on the web. Final Answer: 8 mm

Question 7

Load test recovery criterion for flexural members A structure subjected to an imposed load after 72 hours for a period of 24 hours is deemed unacceptable if, on removal of the load, it fails to recover at least what minimum percentage of the net def…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Load testing of reinforced concrete floors and beams assesses serviceability by checking residual deflection after unloading. Codes specify recovery criteria to ensure that time-dependent effects and microcracking have not impaired stiffness beyond acceptable limits. Given Data / Assumptions: Load is applied after 72 hours and maintained for 24 hours. Net deflection refers to the deflection due to the imposed load only (after subtracting dead-load effects). Acceptability depends on the percentage recovery within 24 hours after unloading. Concept / Approach: Two checks are typical: (a) immediate recovery after 24 hours should not be less than a codal percentage (often 75%), else the test may be repeated; (b) if, on repeat or overall assessment, the recovery is less than 80%, the structure is considered unacceptable. The 80% threshold protects service performance against creep/damage. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Determine the acceptance threshold for recovery of net deflection.Step 2: Apply the specified limit: if recovery < 80% → unacceptable.Step 3: Choose 80% as the minimum acceptable recovery; anything less fails. Verification / Alternative check: Several solved-code examples summarize: first check 75% within 24 h; if recovery remains < 80% even after 72 h cycle, declare unacceptable. The decisive acceptability threshold is 80%. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 90%, 85%: Too conservative relative to the prescribed acceptability limit. 75%: Used for the preliminary 24 h check, not the final acceptability criterion. 70%: Too low; would permit excessive residual deflection. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the interim 75% recovery check with the final 80% criterion. Using total deflection instead of net (superimposed load) deflection. Final Answer: 80%

Question 8

Laced compression members — effective length of lacing bars Identify the correct definition(s) of the effective length for lacing bars in different connection types and patterns.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Accurate effective length definitions for lacing bars are vital because slenderness checks, minimum thickness, and width rules depend on it. Different connection types (riveted/bolted versus welded) and lacing patterns (single versus double) alter the effective length used for detailing and stability checks. Given Data / Assumptions: Single and double lacing in riveted/bolted construction are considered. Welded lacing uses effective weld lengths at each end. Standard detailing reduction factor of about 0.7 applies for double/welded cases. Concept / Approach: In single lacing, the bar spans the clear distance between inner end connectors; that is its effective length. In double lacing, each diagonal system shares shear, so a reduced factor (≈0.7) is used. For welded lacing, the welds provide end fixity over their effective lengths, so the clear distance between inner ends of effective welds defines the bar's effective length, with a similar 0.7 factor in many detailing guides. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: State single lacing effective length: distance between inner end connectors.Step 2: Apply 0.7 reduction for double lacing (riveted/bolted).Step 3: For welded lacing, use distance between inner ends of effective weld lengths; a 0.7 factor is often adopted similarly.Step 4: Hence, all listed statements are correct. Verification / Alternative check: Classic steel design Q&A and summaries reproduce these definitions consistently, reflecting long-standing shop practice and codal commentary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single item alone omits the others; the comprehensive choice is 'All the above'. Common Pitfalls: Using the panel length instead of connector-to-connector (or weld-to-weld) gauge. Forgetting the 0.7 factor for double or welded lacing when sizing thickness. Final Answer: All the above

Question 9

Deep beams — minimum total area of side face reinforcement For a reinforced concrete deep beam (depth beyond the codal trigger), the total area of side face reinforcement provided along the two faces should not be less than what percentage of the we…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Deep beams experience disturbed-region (D-region) behavior where conventional plane-section assumptions do not strictly apply. To control side face cracking from shrinkage and tension fields, codes require a minimum distributed reinforcement on both side faces. Given Data / Assumptions: Beam qualifies as a deep beam per codal trigger (e.g., depth and span/depth limits). Side face steel must be distributed on both faces. Web area refers to b_web × overall depth used for percentage calculation. Concept / Approach: Minimum side face steel provides crack control and enhances ductility. Standard practice stipulates that the total side face reinforcement (both faces combined) be at least 0.1% of the web area, placed approximately equally on the two faces with appropriate spacing limits. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Determine web area A_web = b_w × D.Step 2: Compute minimum total side face steel A_sf,min = 0.001 × A_web.Step 3: Distribute A_sf,min roughly equally on both faces, respecting bar spacing and cover requirements. Verification / Alternative check: Handbooks echo 0.1% as the baseline minimum for deep beams; higher percentages may be used where exposure or crack-width limits are stringent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.2–0.6%: Higher than required minimum; may be used for severe exposure or design judgment but not the codal baseline. Common Pitfalls: Calculating percentage on gross section including flanges in T-beams; use web area. Providing all steel on one face, leading to asymmetric crack control. Final Answer: 0.1% of web area

Question 10

Lacing bars — minimum width rule in riveted/bolted construction In riveted/bolted steel construction, the minimum width of a lacing bar is generally taken as:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Lacing bars connect components of built-up compression members and must be wide enough for practical drilling/bolting and to avoid local bearing failures at end connections. Codes give a simple minimum width rule tied to fastener size. Given Data / Assumptions: Lacing is riveted or bolted (not welded). Nominal diameter d of end rivet/bolt is known. We need the minimum bar width requirement. Concept / Approach: A widely used rule states: minimum width b_min ≥ 3d, where d is the nominal diameter of the end connector. This ensures adequate edge distance, hole clearance, and bearing area without resorting to overly thick plates. Rounding to stock sizes is permitted, but the rule itself is 3d. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify connector diameter d.Step 2: Compute b_min = 3 × d.Step 3: Select nearest available plate width ≥ b_min, keeping standard rounding separate from the rule. Verification / Alternative check: IS-style summaries and training problems consistently cite the 3d rule for riveted/bolted lacing bars. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Equal to d or 2d: Too narrow; risks poor edge distances and bearing. Maximum of the above rounded: Mis-states the rule; rounding does not replace the 3d minimum. 4d: Overly conservative as a blanket minimum; not required. Common Pitfalls: Confusing bar width (3d) with thickness rules (l/40 or l/60). Ignoring edge distance and hole spacing checks alongside the width rule. Final Answer: Thrice the nominal rivet diameter

Question 11

Bundled reinforcement — development length increase When three reinforcing bars are bundled together, the required development length of each bar shall be increased by:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bundling bars reduces the perimeter available for bond for each individual bar, which lowers bond efficiency. To compensate, codes require an increase in development length (Ld) for bars in bundles, with the increment depending on the number of bars bundled. Given Data / Assumptions: Three bars are bundled together in the same plane. Standard bond stress provisions for deformed bars in tension/compression apply. Question asks the percentage increase in Ld for each bar. Concept / Approach: Typical tabulated increments are: +10% for two bars, +20% for three bars, and +33% for four bars bundled together. These multipliers reflect the reduction in effective surface area per bar and the tendency for slip within bundles. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify number of bars n = 3 in the bundle.Step 2: Apply codal increment: Ld_increase = +20% for n = 3.Step 3: Hence, required Ld per bar = 1.20 × Ld (for a single bar). Verification / Alternative check: Detailing handbooks and solved examples reproduce the same 10/20/33% sequence for 2/3/4 bars respectively, confirming the 20% increase for triplets. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10%: Applies to two-bar bundles, not three. 33%: For four-bar bundles. 50%: Excessively conservative; not specified for three-bar bundles. 5%: Too small; not a recognized increment. Common Pitfalls: Applying the increment to lap length only; it applies to development length too. Ignoring minimum spacing/stirrups needed to confine bundled bars. Final Answer: 20%

Question 12

Lacing bars — slenderness (ratio) limit For compression members with laced systems, the slenderness ratio of individual lacing bars shall not exceed:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The slenderness ratio of lacing bars influences their ability to carry the diagonal shear and restrain the main components against buckling. Excess slenderness leads to premature local buckling and ineffective bracing. Given Data / Assumptions: Member is a built-up compression member with lacing (single or double). We seek the codal limiting slenderness ratio for the lacing bar itself. Slenderness is computed using the bar's effective length and least radius of gyration. Concept / Approach: A well-known limit adopted in many summaries is 145 for lacing bar slenderness. This balances fabrication practicality and the need to keep lacing elements stocky enough to resist diagonal forces and secondary bending during handling and service. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Compute effective length of the lacing bar (per connection type/pattern).Step 2: Calculate its slenderness ratio λ = l_eff / r_min.Step 3: Check λ ≤ 145. If λ exceeds 145, increase thickness/width or reduce panel length. Verification / Alternative check: Design question banks and handbooks consistently cite the 145 limit for lacing elements, aligning with classic steelwork practice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 80 and 120: Too restrictive relative to the commonly accepted limit, leading to unnecessarily heavy lacing. 200 and 250: Too slender; risk instability and poor bracing action. Common Pitfalls: Using panel length instead of the lacing bar's effective length for λ. Ignoring the 0.7 reduction for double/welded lacing in effective-length calculation. Final Answer: 145

Question 13

Flat slab — support system identification A flat slab is a reinforced concrete slab with or without drops that is supported how?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Flat slab construction eliminates the need for traditional beams, transferring slab loads directly to columns. It may have drop panels and sometimes column capitals (heads) to reduce punching shear and improve moment transfer. Given Data / Assumptions: Terminology follows conventional RC building practice. Slab may have drops; column heads may or may not be present. We are distinguishing flat slab from beam-and-slab systems. Concept / Approach: A defining characteristic of a flat slab is that it spans directly onto columns, not onto beams. The presence of column heads is optional; many systems use drops alone, while others use both. What is not a flat slab is a two-way slab carried by beams (that is a beam-and-slab or flat plate with beams, not a flat slab system). Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify support: direct support by columns is essential.Step 2: Recognize optional features: drops and column heads may be provided to control punching and negative moments.Step 3: Exclude support by beams; if beams carry the slab, it is not a flat slab system. Verification / Alternative check: Textbooks define flat slabs as slabs supported directly by columns with or without column capitals and drop panels; a slab resting on beams is classified differently. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only 'without heads' or only 'with heads': Each is incomplete; both arrangements are valid. 'On beams': Contradicts the definition of flat slab. 'On walls only': Not the intended structural system for flat slabs. Common Pitfalls: Confusing flat plate (no drops, no heads) with general flat slab; both are column-supported without beams. Assuming presence of beams at column lines still qualifies as flat slab; it does not. Final Answer: On columns (with or without column heads), not on beams

Question 14

Design bond stress increase for deformed reinforcing bars (ribbed/HYSD) In reinforced concrete design practice, by what percentage may the permissible design bond stress be increased for deformed bars compared to plain (mild) round bars?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Bond stress is the critical interface action that transfers force between reinforcing steel and surrounding concrete. Deformed (ribbed) bars have mechanical interlock that increases bond capacity compared to plain round bars. This question tests the standard percentage increase adopted in design for deformed bars over plain bars. Given Data / Assumptions: Bars are standard deformed/HYSD rebars embedded in normal strength concrete. Design situation follows accepted code practice where plain-bar bond values are enhanced for deformed bars. No special coatings (e.g., epoxy) or adverse conditions are assumed. Concept / Approach: Due to ribs/lugs, deformed bars develop higher bond through both adhesion and mechanical interlock. Codes permit a percentage increase applied to the basic design bond stress specified for plain bars. This increase accounts for improved pull-out resistance and reduced slip in service. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the base: design bond stress for plain bars is the reference.2) Apply the permitted enhancement for deformed bars.3) The commonly adopted enhancement is +60% relative to plain-bar value. Verification / Alternative check: Pull-out tests and long-standing code provisions consistently show deformed bars outperform plain bars by a substantial margin. The +60% factor is conservative and widely recognized for general conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% understate the established enhancement for deformed bars and would be overly conservative for development length and anchorage checks. Common Pitfalls: Confusing development length multipliers with bond stress enhancement; forgetting that adverse conditions (e.g., poor compaction, congestion) may still warrant caution even with deformed bars. Final Answer: 60%

Question 15

Flange splices in steel girders: select the correct detailing principle Which statement best reflects a correct and generally accepted rule for flange splicing in steel members?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Flange splicing is a critical detail in steel girders and plate girders because flange forces are usually large. Proper splice design and detailing ensure force transfer without inducing unintended secondary stresses. This question probes a core principle that governs good flange splice layout. Given Data / Assumptions: Rolled or built-up steel girders with flanges carrying axial force due to bending. Splice designed to transmit axial force (and, when required, shear) safely. Welded or bolted splices are possible; detailing rules remain conceptually similar. Concept / Approach: A fundamental rule is to ensure that the center of gravity (C.G.) of the splice components lies on the same line as the C.G. of the element being spliced. This eliminates eccentricity that would otherwise create local secondary bending in the splice. Splices are also normally located near points of lower stress to minimize required plate sizes and welds, not at maximum-stress sections. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the key objective: transmit flange force without eccentricity.2) Align splice C.G. with member flange C.G. to avoid unintended moments.3) Prefer locations of lower stress where practical; design welds/bolts accordingly. Verification / Alternative check: Design models that include eccentricity show increased local stresses if the splice C.G. is offset. Field practice aligns splice elements (plates, cover plates, welds) symmetrically about the flange C.G. line to keep stresses uniform. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is incorrect: splices are preferably at points of minimum, not maximum, stress. Option B is not a universal rule; the exact excess area depends on design forces and connection method. Option D may be true for full-strength welded splices in some cases but is not mandatory for every situation (bolted splices are also common); hence it is not the single universally correct statement here. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring eccentricity, underestimating shear in the flange splice, and locating splices too close to high-stress regions or connections where access is difficult. Final Answer: The C.G. of the flange splice should coincide with that of the element spliced

Question 16

Acceptable pH of mixing water for concrete production What is the general minimum pH requirement for water used in concrete so that it does not adversely affect cement hydration or durability?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Water quality directly affects cement hydration and the long-term durability of concrete. Highly acidic or contaminated water can delay setting, reduce strength, and cause corrosion issues. This question focuses on the commonly adopted lower bound for pH of mixing water in concrete. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal potable-quality water is preferred for concrete. No special chemical admixtures requiring different limits are considered. Concrete is for typical structural applications. Concept / Approach: Concrete is alkaline, and extremely acidic water can disrupt hydration and leach calcium hydroxide, impairing strength gain. A practical and code-aligned guideline is to ensure that pH of mixing water is not less than 6, roughly in the neutral-to-alkaline range, avoiding aggressive acidity. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the threshold that avoids significantly acidic conditions.2) Use the accepted lower bound: pH ≥ 6 for mixing water in general practice.3) Confirm suitability by simple field tests or lab reports. Verification / Alternative check: If water is safe to drink, it is generally suitable for mixing concrete. When in doubt, compressive strength comparison tests with distilled water batches can verify acceptability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A and D use “not more than” and are directionally incorrect for a minimum threshold. Option C allows pH 5, which is too acidic. Option E (not less than 7) is stricter than necessary and may reject otherwise acceptable water. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring chemical contaminants (sugars, chlorides, sulfates) even if pH seems acceptable; not accounting for admixture compatibility. Final Answer: not less than 6

Question 17

Concrete grade designation: meaning of M 30 For M 30 grade concrete, the specified 15 cm cube compressive strength at standard age corresponds to 30 N/mm² after how many days of curing?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Concrete grades like M 20, M 25, and M 30 are commonly used shorthand for specified compressive strengths. Understanding exactly what age and specimen these values refer to is essential for acceptance criteria and quality control on site. Given Data / Assumptions: M 30 means a characteristic compressive strength of 30 N/mm². Standard specimen is a 150 mm cube (15 cm cube) tested under standard conditions. Standard age for grading is the conventional curing period for characteristic strength. Concept / Approach: By definition, the grade M 30 refers to the characteristic strength at the standard age of 28 days. Acceptance testing and mix design both revolve around this benchmark, although early-age tests (3 or 7 days) can be used for trend checks. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the definition of grade: M x = x N/mm² characteristic strength.2) Recognize standard age: 28 days for acceptance.3) Conclude that M 30 corresponds to 30 N/mm² at 28 days. Verification / Alternative check: Typical strength gain curves show ~65–75% strength at 7 days, confirming 28 days as the reference for grade designation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 3, 7, and 21 days are interim ages; 56 days can be relevant for some cements but is not the standard grade reference. Common Pitfalls: Confusing cube strength with cylinder strength; mixing up early-age target values with characteristic strength at 28 days. Final Answer: 28 days

Question 18

Definition of characteristic strength of concrete The characteristic strength is defined as the value below which not more than what percentage of test results are expected to fall for a specified size specimen at 28 days?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Concrete strength is inherently variable. The concept of characteristic strength provides a statistically meaningful design value that ensures a low probability of falling below a specified threshold. This question checks whether you know the conventional percentage associated with this definition. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard 28-day test on 150 mm cubes is considered. Normal quality control and sampling frequency are in place. Statistical basis uses the lower tail of the strength distribution. Concept / Approach: The characteristic strength fck is defined such that not more than 5% of test results are expected to be less than fck. This corresponds to a lower fractile of the population strength distribution and underpins acceptance criteria and mix design margins. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recognize fck as a 5% fractile (5th percentile) of strength distribution.2) Translate definition into acceptance: at least 95% of results should be at or above fck.3) Select the percentage associated with the lower tail: 5%. Verification / Alternative check: Quality control formulas (mean target strength = fck + k * standard deviation) commonly use k near 1.65, which corresponds to the 5% fractile for a normal distribution. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2–4% do not match the conventional definition; 10% would be too lenient and reduce safety margins. Common Pitfalls: Confusing fck with average (mean) strength; forgetting that acceptance involves both individual and group criteria tied to variability. Final Answer: 5%

Question 19

Creep proportionality limit in concrete Up to what fraction of characteristic compressive strength can sustained stress be assumed to produce creep approximately proportional to stress?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Creep is the time-dependent increase in strain under sustained load. For design and serviceability checks, it is important to know the stress level up to which creep strain can be considered roughly proportional to applied stress, simplifying calculations and superposition of effects. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal-weight concrete at service conditions. Stress is expressed as a fraction of characteristic compressive strength fck. Ambient temperature and humidity are within typical ranges. Concept / Approach: Within a moderate service stress range, the creep response is approximately linear with stress. Beyond a certain fraction of fck, nonlinearity increases and microcracking can accelerate deformation. A commonly adopted upper bound for proportional behavior is about one-third of fck. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the proportionality limit for service stress to simplify creep prediction.2) Adopt the conventional cap: sustained stress ≤ 0.33 * fck.3) Use linear superposition methods for long-term deflection within this limit. Verification / Alternative check: Design guides and test data show acceptable linearity for service stresses near 0.3–0.35 fck; beyond that, crack growth and elevated creep coefficients reduce linear accuracy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 15–25% are overly conservative and do not reflect standard practice; 50% is too high and would not maintain proportional creep behavior. Common Pitfalls: Applying linear models to high-stress zones, ignoring loading age and humidity effects, and neglecting shrinkage interaction with creep. Final Answer: 33%

Question 20

Support moment where two unequal spans (or unequally loaded spans) meet For design, the negative moment at the common support is generally taken as which value relative to the two span-based values obtained?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: In continuous beams and slabs, standard coefficients or analysis yield different negative support moments when adjacent spans are unequal in length or have different loading. A practical design convention reconciles these to produce a single support moment for detailing. Given Data / Assumptions: Two spans meet at an interior support. Spans may be unequal and/or carry different loads. Support moment values are computed for each adjacent span. Concept / Approach: Design practice commonly adopts the average of the two calculated support moments at the junction of unequal or unequally loaded spans. This approach balances distribution and avoids over-reliance on one span’s stiffness or loading in the detailing of reinforcement. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Compute negative support moment from analysis or coefficients for each span.2) Take the mean: Msupport = (Mleft + Mright) / 2.3) Detail top reinforcement accordingly, checking anchorage and development length across the support. Verification / Alternative check: Comparisons with rigorous frame analysis show that the average provides a reasonable, conservative basis for practical detailing over a range of common stiffness and load ratios. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Lesser value may under-reinforce; greater value may be overly conservative for economy; summation is not meaningful for a single section; “none of these” is unnecessary when a clear convention exists. Common Pitfalls: Failing to check redistribution limits, insufficient anchorage beyond the support, and neglecting torsion compatibility if edge or corner conditions exist. Final Answer: average of two values

Structural Design Specifications Questions