×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Shrinkage & temperature reinforcement in thick members

Shrinkage & temperature reinforcement in thick members

Shrinkage & temperature reinforcement in thick members

(OP)
I need some insight on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design specs.

Section 5.10.8.2 states shrinkage & temperature reinforcement should be 0.18% of the gross sectional area for members less than 48" thick. The AASHTO LFD code required 0.125in² per ft of surface.

I am designing a bent cap that is 42" square. The LRFD code requires 3.18in² temp steel, while the LFD code requires only 0.44in² - this is a BIG difference.

The AASHTO LRFD commentary cites use of ACI 318. In that code, the discussion is limited to slabs only (§7.12).

My inclination is to use the smaller value, but I cannot justify this decision within the limits of the LRFD code.

Thanks in advance for your help!

RE: Shrinkage & temperature reinforcement in thick members

I am not familar with the LRFD provision, but I think you need to multiply the 0.44 in2 number by 4 to get the required steel for all sides of the cap, not just one side.

This still only equates to 1.75 in2 of T&S steel, and without the LRFD code in front of me I can't think of where the difference might be....

Anyone know the logic behind this LRFD provision?

RE: Shrinkage & temperature reinforcement in thick members

(OP)
TTK -- you're right, the LFD requirement would be 1.75in² for four faces. Conversely, 0.80in² per foot length is required by the LRFD criteria.

This would be #4 ties at 3", or #5 ties at 4½" -- much more than needed for the shear requirements.

Thanks,  RAF

RE: Shrinkage & temperature reinforcement in thick members

I went through the same thing four years ago; my client agreed to use the LFD provisions for temperature reinforcement. At the time, we were designing four integral abutment bridges and found that the temperature steel in the substructures far exceeded what was needed for flexure. I spoke to one person who worked on the concrete portion of the code, he intimated that there were some bugs with respect to substructure design.

RE: Shrinkage & temperature reinforcement in thick members

(OP)
BridgeBuster :


I concur the LRFD results seem excessive. The "break even" point occurs around 24" thickness.A square member eventually requires double the reinforcement at the 48" limit. Below the break pt, the LRFD requires slightly less. (let Ag = s²; plot 4s vs. 0.0018Ag)

Any idea if anything has been published or posted regarding this individual's comments?

Thanks for your help!   RAF

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources