×
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 App. D - Pryout Failure & Supp. Reinf.

ACI 318 App. D - Pryout Failure & Supp. Reinf.

ACI 318 App. D - Pryout Failure & Supp. Reinf.

(OP)
I'm in the process of designing some pilasters with fairly large loads and am planning to design supplemental reinforcing to prevent concrete breakout.  The problem that is arising for me is that pryout is controlling shear failure.

My interpretation of the code is that supplemental reinf. is for concrete breakout only, exclusive of pryout, but am i being to restrictive on my design?

In appears to me, that Pryout is a similar failure to Tension Breakout, so if i properly design supplemental tension reinf. can i assume pryout will not control the design?

Any thoughts or interpretations on this matter would be great.

RE: ACI 318 App. D - Pryout Failure & Supp. Reinf.

As you increase the embedment depth of your anchors, pryout capacity increases. Another reason to have longer anchors is to provide sufficient lap length for supplemental tension reinforcement. I think the Bechtel paper talks about that also.

RE: ACI 318 App. D - Pryout Failure & Supp. Reinf.

(OP)
Ultimately, my question is:

Can I prevent concrete Pryout with properly designed (fully developed and sized) supplemental reinforcing in the vertical (Tensile) direction?

In the article you provided (Page 4, Item 4): "When reinf. is used to restrain concrete breakout, the overall anchor should ensure that there is sufficient strength corresponding to the three other modes... (pullout, side-face blowout failure, and PRYOUT).

So, the article indicates that Pryout can't be prevented with supplemental reinforcement, BUT I disagree with this.

If you look at the failure mechanism of PRYOUT in ACI D Figure RD4.1(b)(ii) it is much like Tensile Concrete Breakout. Additionally, the calc. for pryout has a direct correlation to concrete breakout, and is essentially a scaled version tensile concrete breakout capacity.

So if Tensile Concrete Breakout is prevented, then shouldn't Pryout also be subsequently prevented?

RE: ACI 318 App. D - Pryout Failure & Supp. Reinf.

I don't think that you can make that assumption based on theory alone. Even though pryout capacity is directly correlated to tension breakout capacity in the code, they are two distinct failure mechanisms in reality.

It's possible that supplemental reinforcement can increase your pryout capacity, but I would want to see testing that proves it.

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