×
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

bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??
7

bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

(OP)
Am an inspector (not EOR) on some work on a tilt-wall project. I have not asked the EOR about this yet but will if needed. No tilt panels have been poured yet. Thirty to 40 are under construction. The contractor is using Maxi-Tilt as the bond-breaker between SOG and tilt-panels. It says right in the Dayton instructions "Do not spray on reinforcing steel." But regardless I'm apparently the only one on the project that thinks it a bad idea to spray the reinforcing steel with the bond-breaker. Do I have it all wrong?

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

ACI 301-10 3.3.1.1 "When concrete is placed, reinforcement shall be free of materials deleterious to bond. ..."

Bond breaker, by definition, interferes with bond, and should be avoided.

Some overspray of things like form oil is inevitable. Very thin mists of oils have not been shown to be deleterious to bond, but the line between acceptable and problematic is not well defined.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

No, you don't have it wrong.. but why would the reinforcing steel be sprayed with bond breaker? The slab should be prepared prior to constructing the panels.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

(OP)
"why would the reinforcing steel be sprayed with bond breaker? The slab should be prepared prior to constructing the panels. "

1. slab sprayed
2. slab sprayed
3. rebar placed
4. rain
5. rain again

They all think I'm crazy and that some how tilt-wall panels are exempt from this ACI rule.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

boffintech..

Any bond breaker will have the exact same warning. How do you propose that they form the panels?

You have to trust that the subcontractor knows what he's doing. If you are going to micromanage every aspect of a project based on potential problems, it will not come close to being done on time or under budget. That's not to say you shouldn't be vigilant or speak up when it comes to pointing out errors or shortcuts, but the sub who does the tilt wall panels will be experienced with potential issues.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

If they can demonstrate that the bond breaker will not be deleterious to bond between bar and concrete...

http://www.concreteconstruction.net/concrete-const...

AND can show that the bond breaker will not increase corrosion in the bars.

Depending on the type of material applied, one or both could be an issue. Bar development is primarily a function of deformations wedging against the surrounding (well-consolidated) concrete, so a very thin film of material may be OK. A film-forming, membrane-type bond breaker may well significantly interfere with bond, while a waterborne material may form a reactive salt or soap layer which could lead to increased corrosion. Some bond breakers would do neither, and may be perfectly acceptable.

Remember that the EOR can waive provisions of ACI 301 when they have compelling reasons to do so. (Or no reason at all, if they really want to, and have the insurance to back it up.)

There are instances where our business is excessively conservative, but I don't think particular prohibition this is one of those.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

(OP)

From the article:
" "When concrete is placed, all reinforcement shall be free of materials deleterious to bond." Inspectors often cite this sentence when requiring contractors to remove form-release or bond-breaker overspray and cement splatter from contaminated rebar. But is this work really necessary?"

Well over-spray is one thing and re-spraying an entire panel area with the rebar already in place in my estimation is something else altogether. I mean if rebar has been placed is a panel and the panel area next to that panel is being sprayed with bond-breaker and some "over-spray" drifts over in a breeze well OK, but if the rebar is already in the panel and the panel area is re-sprayed holding the wand 1' above two-mats of rebar so that all the rebar get thoroughly coated well that's just bad practice.

When any engineer says: "a little over-spray is OK" you have to try imagining that run through contractor DNA which is hardwired at birth to actually hear/interpret that as "100% coated with bond-breaker OK".

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

2
"You have to trust that the subcontractor knows what he's doing"... good lord! I'm dumbfounded to find a polite way to respond to that statement. The reinforcing mats should be removed before respraying. Too bad it rained. Is that a good excuse for taking shortcuts that jeapardize the integrity of the panels? I've seen a lot of tilt-up in the field, and subs don't think it's even necessary to remove standing water in the forms. Would standing water be OK with you because the sub said it was OK?

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

spats..

Read the OP's original post. He simply asked whether the bond breaker could be used. I took his scenario about raining as a hypothetical situation against which he was guarding by prohibiting the use of this bond breaker. It never occurred to me that anyone on this thread could seriously consider that a subcontractor would respray without removing the steel. Again, if the subcontractor knows what he is doing he absolutely knows that this is simply not OK.

But as to you being dumbfounded at my suggestion that at some point you have to trust that your subs know what they are doing.. why is this such an outlandish suggestion? Do you seriously micromanage every decision made by subs? That is precisely why you specify what inspections are required and you require an independent inspector. The subs are free to use means and methods they see fit and which, in theory at least, have worked successfully in the past. Provided they pass the inspections and your requirements, why would you micromanage. I'm assuming, of course, that part of your requirement is that all rebar be free of materials deleterious to bond.. or other such verbiage. If you have this in your inspection requirements, as most engineers do, then how do you think they will be able to justify spraying with the cage in place?

We work with a lot of tilt wall. I've never once had a contractor request spraying after the cage is in place. That's not to suggest it can't happen, but in the many tilt wall jobs I've worked on, it hasn't happened once.

I'd appreciate it if you were be a bit more judicious when throwing around words like "shortcuts". I explicitly stated that an inspector should be vigilant about compliance and spotting shortcuts. How do you take what I wrote and then literally suggest I'm advocating the contrary?

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I have not been involved in tilt-up wall construction, so I may not be understanding correctly, but there seems to be something wrong with the following:

Quote (boffintech)

1. slab sprayed
2. slab sprayed
3. rebar placed
4. rain
5. rain again

Shouldn't that read:
1. slab sprayed
2. rebar placed
3. rain
4. slab sprayed through rebar
5. rain again
6. slab sprayed through rebar again???

BA

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

It is common practice to spray in one direction, then spray in the orthogonal direction. THEN place the bar.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I'm with spats on this. My first thought after ready frv's post was "Are you nuts?" No disrespect intended, but I deal in the failure world daily and I can make this generalization with confidence and observations to back it up.....Most subcontractors know little enough about what they do (they often know one or two techniques to implement) and NOTHING about the repercussion of what they do. The GC's who supervise them usually know even less, but that's another soapbox that I won't climb on this time.

This has nothing to do with micro-managing and everything to do with the poor state of construction education, training, certification and licensing in the US (I am only referring to US construction as I know that boffintech is in the US). boffintech is exactly right to call them on this and exactly right to do his research and show them the error of their ways. He is being diligent and protective of the necessary process. The SEOR will hopefully laud his attention to detail and diligence. He should.

Quote (frv)

It never occurred to me that anyone on this thread could seriously consider that a subcontractor would respray without removing the steel.

Removing the steel takes time and effort. The spraying is probably being done by a subcontractor that has nothing to do with the steel placement, perhaps even the GC is doing that. Again...the guy probably knows how to spray bond breaker, but doesn't know the repercussion on other systems. If such a condition has not occurred on any of your jobs, you are dealing with a much better than average group of contractors. Congratulations. I know quite a few, but they are not the norm.

Quote (frv)

The subs are free to use means and methods they see fit and which, in theory at least, have worked successfully in the past.

Herein lies one of the problems. Design professionals usually refrain from dictating means and methods for liability purposes and under the sometimes false assumption that the contractor knows better ways to accomplish the end game. The difference is that the "end game" has to be performance of the system over its expected useful life. The "end game" to a subcontractor is often the lesser of either "when I get paid" or "when my warranty is up". That leads to the commonly used statement "I have over 20 years of experience doing this and I've never seen a problem"....well the problem is that they probably have 1 year of experience, 20 times over, having never seen the failed result of their work because either no one pursued it or no one could find them when a problem occurred. They usually don't know if their techniques have worked well in the past, they just know that no one has called them on it. Big difference. It is similar to the false assumption that is made about structural performance of buildings....they haven't failed in the past so they are not likely to fail in the future! Not true either. They probably have never been close to the design conditions.

Keep it up boffintech.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

...sorry, "ready" should be "reading". I should proofread better or at the least, sooner!

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

Ron is exactly right. The EOR should have some very kind words for the GC regarding this issue. ;)

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

(OP)
sandman21 wrote: "The EOR should have some very kind words for the GC regarding this issue."

And he did: OK as-placed - spraying rebar with bond breaker not as issue.ponder

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

CYA Time- Get a sealed letter in writing from the EOR, and include this letter with your inspection report

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

That was a curious comment from the EOR. Perhaps he felt he had excess development length in the bars so that he could rely on mechanical bond of the deformations against the concrete...similar to epoxy covered reinforcement.

BA

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

Nice rationalization BA... but I'm not buying it. Sounds to me like he caved, so as not to make waves and maybe jeopardize his relationship with the contractor or owner. Hope he sleeps well at night!

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

You may be right, spats...I don't really know. I would have guessed that bond-breakers should not be applied to reinforcement, but the attached article seems to suggest that some bond-breakers do not affect bond between the bar and the concrete. I would have to study the issue a little more before drawing any definite conclusions, however.

BA

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

Is there any insulation in these panels?

On a project that I am currently involved in calls for a 3" concrete face 3" of insulation and a structural back up. I don't think there is any reinforcing in the face but I may be wrong (I'm not designing these panels). The panels are cast face down against the SOG with the lifting lugs on the back side of the panel. Once the bond breaker is placed and the face case they should need to use bond breaker again. So, on my projects I would think it would be difficult to spray the structural reinforcing with bond breaker.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

Quote (boffintech)

sandman21 wrote: "The EOR should have some very kind words for the GC regarding this issue."

And he did: OK as-placed - spraying rebar with bond breaker not an issue.
The question is: was the EOR justified in this opinion? There seems to be some literature indicating that he was.

BA

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

BA's second article indicates that while the ultimate bond strength is not affected by the bond breakers, there is more initial slip, which could mean more deflection in bending elements. The contaminents affect the bond, but the deformations still mechanically develop the bars.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

So, can we conclude that standard practice is to spray bond-breaker with reinforcement in place? I am beginning to believe we can.

BA

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

BA,

I didn't get a chance to read all your articles... doesn't it matter if the bondbreaker is petroleum-based vs. water-based?

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

BA,
I don't think we can conclude that this is standard practice, and it is definitely not allowed by most engineers where I am. Actually, I doubt that anything about tilt wall construction can be said to be "standard practice", as there are lots of different ideas about best practice in tilt wall construction.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

spats,
Petroleum based and water based bondbreakers were included in the tests.

hokie,
I'm not sure that "standard practice" was the right choice of words. Perhaps "acceptable practice" would have been better.

Prior to seeing this thread, I would never have even considered allowing form oil to come in contact with reinforcement and I believe that most engineers in my area feel the same way. However, the cost of removing the reinforcement to spray the forms, then replacing it is being questioned in the above named literature and I am simply wondering if we have been overly cautious in the past.

BA

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I don't understand why anyone would want to do it in that order. It is much easier to spray before placing the reinforcement.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

Hokie, I suspect that nobody intended to do it in that order, but rainfall occurred after the reinforcement had been placed and before the concrete was poured, so the bondbreaker had to be applied again.

BA

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I see. Yes, boffintech did explain that. I don't think that is a valid reason. Rain creates havoc on job sites in a lot of ways, but should not be allowed to compromise quality.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I will bring this to the Tilt-up Concrete Association when we meet with them at World of Concrete in February.
The reinforcing industry obviously needs to clarify what is required and why. When it comes to how much effect there is from "materials deleterious to bond", it seems that we are talking in terms of fractions rather than orders of magnitude. There is a good bit of research going on right now into straight and hooked bar development length, and we expect results on these projects within the next year.

As far as development of deformed bars goes, only about 15-30% or bond strength is generally considered to rely on surface bond between steel and concrete. One of the previously-linked articles noted that "initial slip" was affected. This could very well be the critical part of the equation, since once slip starts, the only resistance remaining is provided by resistance to splitting (that is, concrete tension strength and confining reinforcement and geometry.) Splitting failures of unconfined splices can be brittle and sudden. In the case of a thin wall reinforced in one plane only, reduction of adhesion between bars and concrete could decrease the force required in the bar to induce splitting along the plane of reinforcement.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

And therein lies the problem. Thanks, TX. Look forward to clarity on this.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

Yeah more codes, brought to you by the SOB's who don't want to do their job.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I ran through this exact scenario a few years ago. I came to same conclusion that the EOR for this project did. I still did not like the idea, and knew that I would be working with the GC and subcontractor again in the future. My main concern was cracking due to the reinforcing slip during lifting. It was in an enviroment of moderate freeze thaw. I suggested to the owner that they require the GC to purchase a performance bond that would cover repair of the panels if the need arose in the future. This way the owner was protected.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

My initial reaction was that this was not a good practice and I'm still of that opinion. It appears that it is not as detrimental as I would have originally anticipated.

Three items that would be of concern are the initial slippage, and a greater tendency to cracking due to lack of bond and the consequences of this. OHIOMatt has, somewhat, addressed this item. The second item would be the possible interaction of the chemical with the reinforcing steel and the promotion of corrosion. The third item that Ron alludes to, is that in accepting this 'silliness', it's only moved the 'goalposts'... and permits 'greater silliness' down the road...

Dik

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I'll be interested in seeing what, if any, similarities there are in the discussion of this issue as there might be with epoxy-coated rebar. I know ACI provides a reduction factor when epoxy-coated rebar is used and I know from personal observation that the surface of the concrete that's exposed to it appears quite slick in the core samples I've seen. Just something to think about...

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

Official word from the Tilt-up Concrete Association (TCA), regarding bond breaker on reinforcement:

Always remove the reinforcement and apply bond breaker to the form slab. This is for a couple of reasons:
1) Bond breaker applied through placed reinforcement will have irregularities in thickness and surface that will cause shadowing of reinforcement patterns onto exposed surfaces. And
2) Thick applications of bond breaker can result in adhesion of tilt slabs to form slabs, resulting in pop-outs and other defects in the tilt panels.

This is what TCA tells their member contractors and designers.

They tell us that they have seen drips and such cause both of these problems, as well as recognizing that ACI prohibits materials deleterious to bond on the reinforcement (and a bond breaker is by definition going to interfere with bond.)

I will be reviewing ACI 551 (best practices for tilt-up concrete) and will get back to the forum soon.

John Turner CSP PE
CRSI Greater Southwestern Regional Manager

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I'm not sure that item 1 is not something that can be easily overcome... I would think that if there was a drip on the reinforcing this would form a 'soft' spot on the bar and a drip on the form... I'm not sure that 'shadowing' would be a big issue...

Also, it's interesting that there is no reference to bond... one of my bigger concerns.

Overall, I don't think spraying with the rebar in place is a good practice... I've not encountered this problem, but, wouldn't permit the contractor to do it...

Dik

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

There is controversy about the effect on bond, as noted in this thread. But there should be no mistake that applying a "bond breaker" is considered "having material deleterious to bond." From a purely code-compliance aspect, you should never allow reinforcement to be coated with oils or factory bond breakers. This thread was discussing the real world implications.

In a thin slab, layers of unbonded bar will create shear planes that negatively affect performance.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

If the "Tilt-up Concrete Association" tells its members not to do something, I don't see why a design engineer would allow it. After all, the organisation represents a group of contractors, who are always looking for cost-saving measures.

RE: bond-breaker vs tilt-wall rebar ??

I agree, hokie. So the recommended practice is:

Always remove the reinforcement and apply bond breaker to the form slab.

BA

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