×
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

Top Bar Development Length in conc wall
4

Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

(OP)
Do you have to apply the reinforcement location factor of 1.3 (ACI 318-02) for horizontal bars in a concrete wall which are spaced less than 12 inches on center?  I have applied this factor to all the horizontal reinforcing, however two different rebar detailers have stated this factor does not apply to horizontal bars in concrete walls spaced less than 12" o.c.  Any opinions would be appreciated!  I work in SE USA.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

According to ACI 318-02, Chapter 12, the α factor on "top bars" does not mention anything about an exclusion for walls.  There is nothing else in chapter 14 (walls) either about this.  (this factor is referred to as Ψt in 318-05)

I would say you have to use the 1.3 factor.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

I would apply it, although I can't prove that it's necessary.

The idea is that bars with substantial elevations of concrete below might have water/air accumulated underneath.  I don't see why this would happen for a beam, but not for a wall.

Then again, the Code specifically says "member."

The research paper dealt with beams only, IIRC, so maybe nobody knows the answer for walls.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

While ACI 318-02 uses the phrase "member, it's been taken out of 318-05.  Even still, isn't a wall a "member" in some sense?  

The concept is that during placement of concrete, there is the potential for late plastic sag and, as 271828 states, air pockets forming under the bar and thus diminishing the bond between concrete and bar.  Wall, beam, whatever, the concept still applies.

The only other aspect for a wall is that sometimes the horizontal reinforcing in a wall isn't all that important other than to meet a minimum value and you might be able to use As required / As provided.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

stuff like this kills me.  make the detailer give YOU the code reference.  as engineers, we usually play the nice guy and do the leg work.

let's take a stand!

alright, that's over the top.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

If you are asking about splice lengths, then 12.15.1 does not allow a reduction for excess reinforcement, unless you qualify for a Class A splice.

Earlier references to this provision in ACI 318, textbooks, and Code Committee 408 always included the term "top bars."  My college textbook (Wang & Salmon) says it was based on limited tests with concrete depths of 12 to 18 inches that indicated the splitting resistance was lowered by 10 to 20%.  I the old days, we only included this tem for bars at the top of beams and thick slabs.

Sometime between 1977 and 1995, the term "top bars" was eliminated from the code.  I never saw an explanation for the change.  That is, I never read that new research done on walls indicated that the provision should be applied to horizontal wall bars.

I remember reading or hearing the argument that it does not apply to wall bars spaced less than 12 inches on center.  The argument is that any air bubbles migrating up that get caught on one bar certainly can't get caught on the bar above, so each bar has less than 12 inches of concrete from which to trap air.  Makes sense to me.

However, the code says what it ways, so I apply the 1.3 factor to all horizontal wall bars, regardless of the spacing.

If anyone has read any research that supoorts this provision in wall reinforcing, I would be interested in reading it.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

"If anyone has read any research that supoorts this provision in wall reinforcing, I would be interested in reading it."

The references are 12.4 and 12.5 in ACI 318-02.

12.4 is a research report, so not sure how to get it.

12.5 is in the ACI Structural Journal, 1988.  I don't have them going back that far, but surely somebody here does.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

Horizontal reinforcing with more than 12" of concrete below, (no exceptions listed).  Could apply to circular ties in columns.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

civilperson, you mean ones without hooks, I assume?

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

I obtained a copy of the research report (reference 12.4) from the author and finally got around to reading it.  There are some startling revelations in this report, particularly regarding superplasticized concrete, and vertical reinforcing.  And yes, a position factor is meant to apply to all horizontal bars with more than 12 inches of concrete cast below, regardless of bar specing.  I highly recommend e-mailing the author and asking for a copy of this report.  I may take o couple of months for the author to respond, but it's worth the wait.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

2
This has to do with the amount of concrete below the bar, NOT the bar spacing. Air bubbles form underneath the bar requiring more development length. Have you ever known a bubble in a glass of water to always rise perfectly vertical? Or could it rise on a 1:12 slope?

Tell the detailer that you regard them to follow your notes irregardless of the assumptions they made in their bid.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

(OP)
Thanks again for the comments!

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

Hooks are ineffective in compression, development length of horizontal deformed reinforcing bars in walls are under discussion.  The lap length splice and end anchorage are the applicable applications, if no compression is possible in the bars under discussion, then hooks would negate the need for top 1.3 factor.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

Are these flexural bars? I'm picturing a cantilevered or tied top and bottom wall with a nominal amount of horizontal steel.

If they are just shrink & temp then I wouldn't get too excited about using 1.0 instead of 1.3.

RE: Top Bar Development Length in conc wall

(OP)
JLNJ,

No, the bars in this situation are in a tank wall designed for two-way flexure.

J

 

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