Hello Dr. CEE, Thank you for your work on the series, beautiful stuff as usual. I am a huge fan of “theory and key concepts first before application”. And I am glad that the CEE does not stray from this approach. In my opinion; a good understanding of concepts allows an engineer to be able to use rational scientific principles with a good sense of the kind of the results that one can expect from a problem, this is as opposed to blindly relying on “magic numbers” and blindly relying on whatever a software spit out. I was excited to see the objectives of this part 6 focusing on both 1) skin resistance in Sand and 2) skin resistance in Clay. My excitement was short lived soon after the CEE indicated that skin resistance in clay will no longer be covered on the video. Clay (expansive clay) has been identified as one type of problem soils which makes foundation design and construction a challenge in many structures. Perhaps the CEE could reconsider to include an addendum (a separate video perhaps?) that is focusing on “understanding pile skin resistance in clay”? It would be really beneficial to understand how pile skin resistance is dealt with in clay soils as these soils are a reality that one will have to deal with at some point. I am enjoying this series; and I am learning (from the CEE) how to consistently make sense of even the seemingly vastly different numerical results and information such as those which one can expect from theories which are used to solve (or more accurately, theories which are used to TRY to solve 😊) problems in soils mechanics. Case in point = the results @ 11:39; I have little doubt that the CEE is probably aware that both 490kN and 480kN as a numerical value which has been "reduced to a single quantified number for practical considerations" and "in this context” (the context is very important as outside of this context, the current statements which I am making will not be true and they will not be applicable) could in fact be considered to be the same numbers [i.e., either 490kN or 480kN could be considered to be “good enough” to be used or to be assumed for most practical applications]. BUT and strictly speaking, one does need to pick a method and to then be consistent with the use and interpretation of the subsequent results from their method of choice. I accordingly fully understand and I agree with the logic to rather “round down” the least resistance value from the calculations as it has been explained by the CEE, or to alternatively leave the results as it is with minimal to no rounding. In that context, I would also consider the value of 483kN or 480kN to be the most consistent number which is resulting from the use of the two theories. Thank you for shining the light. Keep well and kind regards, DK
Hi there Engr. DK, sorry for being late - again - in my replies. I was kind of pushing content like it is a sport, so I cooled down a couple o days. However, I am ready for round 2 of pushing more content, so you can expect another rapid fire very soon. I totally agree with you, just using a black box approach to design might work, but one would lose the "big picture" of why stuff is working. Of course if it does not work, then, game over. Oh for skin resistance in clay, It is gonna be the next video in the series. I will be following Braja M Dass's book in that, I think it does talk about different clays so I will be covering it. Also, btw, once I finish with Braja's chapter, I will be checking out ACI and EN-UK annex codes to see how this theory is reflected in codes of practice, so a lot of cool stuff is coming. The cool point that is actually mentioned in the reference book is that: if multiple approaches are valid for a set of given inputs, the book will use all the approaches and select the smallest result. But also note: the method is to be consistent. Meaning: if you use the method of scientist X for tip bearing, you would have to use the same scientist for skin friction. I agree with your interpretation and you mentioning the context is the cherry on top! Thank you very much for enjoyable discussions I have. I am pretty sure that the viewers will be reading those and find them equally beneficial. Regards, CEE
@@CivilEngineeringEssentials Thank you for the response; I really like all of the plans for what is yet to come. And Lol, “…. [Doc] pushing content like it is a sport…”. Comparing how ACI and EN-UK annex codes reflect the piles theories is a wonderful idea and I think that it shall be very beneficial. I am looking forward. Thank for all the hard work Doctor. The channel remains a real joy to watch. DK
