×
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

ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

(OP)
In Section 12.15.1 in the notes under the splice requirements of 1.3(ld) for Class B splices it states, "where ld is calculated in accordance with 12.2 to develop fy without the modification factor of 12.2.5".  The modification factor in 12.2.5 is the As provided/ As req'd reduction.  Linear reduction in the capacity based on the reduced development length.  The commentary under 12.15.1 states "The development length ld used to obtain lap length should be based on fy because the splice classifications already reflect any excess reinforcement at the splice location; therefore the factor from 12.2.5 for excess As should not be used".

I am reviewing a project for a client of ours (we didn't do the design for this project) and the dowels for the pier reinforcement only have a splice of around 16".  The pier experiences minor uplift and the reinforcement specified is complete overkill(designed by others).  (4)#7 bars = 4*.6*60*.9 = 129.6 kips (ultimate tensile load)

I checked the strength using the reduced capacity of section 12.2.5 and it works, but is this allowed at a splice location?  Are the requirements of 12.2.5 just for straight development length?  I have always allowed for reduced capacity of bars at lap splices, but this project might go to the courts.  I want to have all my ducks in a row.
 

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

I think your approach is correct.  What the Commentary is saying is you cannot assume you have twice the area of steel AT a splice just because there are two bars at the splice (well, duh, that is what a splice is...).  But if you have more steel than you need ADJACENT to the splice, I think you can use the As req'd/As prov'd reduction.

DaveAtkins

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

I think the code explicitly says you cannot use the As(req'd)/As(prov) factor here.  If you look at the Commentary Table R12.15.2, it shows that in some cases you can use a reduced splice length (i.e. a Class A splice) when you have lower stress conditions, but if all of the bars are spliced you must use a Class B splice and cannot use 12.2.5.

 

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

(OP)
I think the wording of the code is flawed.  I am looking at the capacity of the (4) vertical bars, not the (8) total bars at the splice.

So based on the way the code is written, any length less than the full lap splice means the splice has zero capacity?  My uplift load is minor and less than 10% of the full capacity of the bars.  Even with a 16" lap, I have a safety factor of 2.3 (in addition to the LRFD factors)

Attorney speak, I may have to agree with JAE.  Good engineering judgement and I am with Dave.  

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

"Attorney speak, I may have to agree with JAE.  Good engineering judgement and I am with Dave. "

I'd agree with that.

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

Top layer reinforcement for Crack control if surface is visible.

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

pcronin

Section 12.2.5 pertains to "flexural" members anyway and it sounds like you have a direct tension member.

 

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

(OP)
haynewp - didn't even see the "flexural" reference.  learn something new everyday.  don't really understand the difference, since in a flexural member the reinf is in pure tension anyhow.  

i guess the code gods must know somthing we don't know.  most code revision serve a purpose of overcomplicating our profession while our fees need to remain the same.  some code revisions are valid though.  but that is another topic for another day.

thanks for the imput.  I am going with sound engineering judgement on this one.
 

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

ACI becomes a little more strict with splicing in tension only members depending on the amount of force. Your case may or may NOT qualify under section 12.15.5, but this is usually how I design tension members like tie beams for metal buildings. They don't allow lap splicing of reinforcing if the tension member meets 12.15.5.

 

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

If I remember correctly, Type B Splice is to be specified for splices without offset/staggering. The 1.3 factor is more of a practical concern over poor construction practice that resulting in the manner - uniform weakness accorss a common plane within calculated Ld. It has little to do with area of reinforcing (As). Thus As (prov)/As (req'd) is not completely justified.

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

Fellows, what is a type B and type a splice?  or better yet, where do I look to get that information?  At rough glance, I don't see them in the ACI 318.  

Thanks.

RE: ACI 318-05 Class B Tension Lap Splices

Smokiibear,
In ACI 3180-08 Section 12.15.1 & 12.15.2 talks about the Class A or B tension splices.  

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