Jike...Thanks for the reply
The steel is not to be pulled up into the fresh concrete...there is not sufficient depth to the topping slab placement. Coverage at the surface is already 3/4"-1", at best.
And, well...there is this...On this project I am in an observation, report and (limited)suggest/advise roll only...unfortunately the GC's Pre-cast Eng/Mfg Sub controls the design and the GC is going with what they've paid for as primary incentive for quality for design.
Did I say that I despise "Design/Build" Projects, especially where Independent QC is contracted by the GC.
I've been told that the #5 bar is the primary reinforcement in the topping slab, therefore is, now, on top of the mesh and the mesh is to support the #5...and "minimize the damage below the floor if the floor broke up" (?!?!) so the mesh being in the cold joint doesn't matter. It's all said to be "a composite design"...yeah, so? (There seemed to be the implication that "composite design" explains why the composition doesn't matter as much......Words!! "Let's build it anyway we want, just use some creative words.")
A little history, though...The Pre-cast specs originally called for the mesh to be over the #5, with another layer of bar(#4) running perp to, and under the #5. I questioned the 1/4" coverage that that would leave at the surface and the #4 bars were removed from the picture.... a continued show of concern seemed to lead to the flip-flop of mesh/bar...I'm not really sure whether any of this made a bad design worse or made a worse design "not-as-bad -as-it-was"...either way, it doesn't seem to me to approach "good".
Oh, listen, I'm very open to being wrong here...matter of fact, Please, somebody, convince me of it...is it supposed to be this complicated?