Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums

Member Login

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • 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!

Join Eng-Tips
*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.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

ars001 (Structural) (OP)
22 Aug 07 17:38
Situation where I have axial tension on a reinforced concrete column.  I don't due alot of concrete design so please bear with me.  Crack control isn't an issue as in like a water tank design.  My 11th edition of Design of Concrete Structures equation 1.14 says P=fy*As, but the next proceeding line states "to provide adequate safety, the force permitted in a tension member under normal service loads should be of order of 1/2P".  I don't understand the service load portion?  Can't I just use my .9 phi factor and use my ultimate load in equation 1.14?
JAE (Structural)
22 Aug 07 19:22
I've always used the following:

Req'd As =  Pu

where Pu is the factored axial tension force
fy is the yield of the rebar (usually 60 ksi)

This gives you the required strength check for the member as the steel takes everything and concrete takes nothing.

For serviceability I'm not sure what to say here as the natural tendency is for the reinforcing bars to stretch and the resulting cracks in the concrete would vary depending on the uniformity of the load application and the distribution of the reinforcing (i.e. you should have more, smaller bars instead of fewer, large bars).

JAE (Structural)
22 Aug 07 19:22
Req'd As    =     Pu
JAE (Structural)
22 Aug 07 19:24
I messed it up again....just to clarify the equation, here's a third try:

Req'd As    =     Pu
ars001 (Structural) (OP)
23 Aug 07 9:09
Thanks JAE

I have a fairly large prefab metal building (225'x350').  I'm tying the bases of each column for each frame together to take out the horizontal thrust loads.  My loads are great enough where I need actual grade beam/tension member to take out my tension.  I'm going to use (8) #7.  I'm going to bundle my bars in sets of two.  I think with all my clear distances and so forth I will be able to use a 16"x16" grade beams.  The bundled bars seem to work since I can wrap them at the anchor bolts of the columns.

Is it fair to say that I meet spacing and clear distance requirements for my rebar that I will be able to transfer my load sufficiently (i.e. have enough concrete to transfer the load) through my lap splices?

Another question I have..... This large grade beam can also see compression (not nearly the tensile load).  The grade beam will have soil on 4 sides.  The top side of the beam will unfortunetly have only 8" soil above it.  Can I consider it to be fully braced.  Obviously if I can't I will never get a column that long to work.

Sorry for the long post.  Thanks for your help.

UcfSE (Structural)
23 Aug 07 10:19
I would take the service limit as a limit on cracking.  It may be based on experience or research, but if a text has made it to the 11th edition, then the authors are probably pretty knowledgeable.  I wouldn't just discount their recommendation without a lot of thought.  
csd72 (Structural)
23 Aug 07 10:48
I would provide much more reinforcement than required just to limit cracking.

Tension members will almost definately crack if only the minimum required strength steel is added.

JKW05 (Structural)
23 Aug 07 11:15
". . . to provide adequate safety, the force permitted in a tension member under normal service loads should be of order of 1/2P".

I have the 9th edition, and this sentence is followed by:

"Because the concrete has cracked at loads considerably smaller than this, it does not contribute to the carrying capacity . . .   It does serve, however, as a fire and corrosion proofing . . ."

So it would appear that the intention is to minimize crack sizes.
JKW05 (Structural)
23 Aug 07 11:26
Something else to keep in mind is the anchor bolts.

With uplift at the column base, consideration will have to be given to the anchor bolt embedment, and how that tension load is transferred to the rebar, verifying adequate edge distance at your piers, and consideration of possible conflicts between anchor bolt locations and vertical rebar and pier ties.

On the last metal building foundation I did, the metal building manufacturer would not specify the anchor bolt length, so you might want to tie down who is responsible for that.
ars001 (Structural) (OP)
23 Aug 07 11:32
Thanks everyone! All your comments are greatly appreciated.  With the reinforcing I will be calling out, my service load will be less than 1/2P.  So I do also meet this limit as the text book suggests.
ars001 (Structural) (OP)
23 Aug 07 11:36
JKW05-Yes, I will be responsible for the anchor bolt length.  I will be verifying embedment, edge distance, etc.
sundale (Structural)
23 Aug 07 14:11
Look at ACI 12.15.5 about lap splices in tension tie members (reference is for 2002 edition).  These need to be mechanical couplers in lieu of a contact lap splice and the splice locations should be staggered.
ars001 (Structural) (OP)
23 Aug 07 14:28
sundale- thanks for the reply.  I guess that answers another one of my questions.  I guess lap splices don't work in my situation.  Mechanical splices will be specified.
ars001 (Structural) (OP)
23 Aug 07 15:25
I think I might be beating this to death but when to I just go to providing a req'd steel plate size and encompass it in concrete to protect it?  I figure I would need like a 3/4" x 8" plate?
miecz (Structural)
23 Aug 07 15:29
In the 8th Edition, the wording indicated that the service axial force should be less than 0.5*fyAs.  With normal load and resistance factors for the design state, it would seem that the service load criteria would govern.
JKW05 (Structural)
23 Aug 07 17:54
With regard to the mechanical coupler detail: Is it suggested that this if for use in the grade beam tie for the horizontal thrust?  If so, on past projects, I have just detailed a continuous steel rod in a trench with turnbuckle(s). Then extended the rod to the outside faces of the column piers through a bearing plate.  Once the rod is brought up tight, the rod was protected by filling the trench with concrete.

zaes73 (Structural)
25 Aug 07 15:00
225' clear Span, and a 16"x16" beam in spaning direction ; pardon me but i dont think that this beam would actually act as a tie beam to resist the lateral thrust which you want it to resist, for such large spans not typical beams but "Stressed tendons" or "tie rods" are used thats what i have seen in common practice.

if you are intrested in details! just ask.

ars001 (Structural) (OP)
27 Aug 07 8:55
zaes73-  Please explain more..  I'm guess I'm not seeing what your saying.  What is the difference if I use tie rods or use mechanically fastened rebar?

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!

Back To Forum

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close