Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
(OP)
There is an existing opening 51" x 24" thru an existing post-tensioned slab. They want to increase this by 1.5" each of the 4 sides, at each of a number of floors, for a larger size duct, so that the opening will become 54" x 27" (see attached). We have had x-rays taken of the tendons. We have to allow some tolerance for the tendon location, when interpreting the x-ray.
Question:
How close to the opening can the tendon be, given the curvature of the tendon? Is there any industry standard for this?
(We realize that we should try to maintain at least the required fire protection, but our question is asked from the perspective of the tendon breaking out of the concrete due to its change in direction).
Question:
How close to the opening can the tendon be, given the curvature of the tendon? Is there any industry standard for this?
(We realize that we should try to maintain at least the required fire protection, but our question is asked from the perspective of the tendon breaking out of the concrete due to its change in direction).






RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
BA
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
If you have x-Ray shots at the 4 corners of the opening/s you should be able to determine the existing cover to the side of the closest tendon. If you have GPR scans you accuracy to determine side cover is NOT going to be good as x-Ray results.
We have undertaken numerous repairs of tendons to situations similar to what you are trying to achieve, primarily as a result of tendons being constructed with insufficient (zero?) side cover, and tendons sweeps in plan that 'cut the corners' of the opening.
Our preferred detail, most especially if the scan results are questionable to the magnitude of the side cover, is to jack hammer the corners of the openings at the top surface and determine the tendon locations directly, and from there proceed with making the opening wider based upon those "exploratory" probes.
Are you proposing that the 1.5" of cover concrete to be removed is going to be done via a concrete saw, or manually with a chipping/jack hammer.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
I just had another look at your marked up drawing attachment. There is a note on the original drawing that states "FIELD DEAD ENDS" and it possibly refers to the small tick marks representing dead ends for the uniform tendons that are adjacent to a solid line that is possibly a construction joint (running north-south). Anyway, if so, something else to watch out for in one corner of where you wish to increase the opening size.
If your X-ray photos are of decent resolution are you able to scale them and determine the side cover?
After enlarging the opening, 2" or greater is my preferred desired side cover for PT - may get away with less for interior condition etc.
Coring for the corners makes sense, but stitch/line coring for the 4 sides to remove 1-1/2" is going to be a real pain (will take some time and water/slurry control may be an issue) and you may still have to chip the 'dags' to square up the cut line anyway.
I would manually chip the lowest level slab where the opening enlargement is proposed (the first level where the original contractor was getting it all worked out/set up for sweeping tendons around openings) and work from the top at one corner, expose the top trimming rebar, then expose the PT - all using say a 15-20lm jack hammer. If the dimensional results correlate with X-day scaling then you are probably safe to proceed with the upper levels based upon the X-ray results only.
We have repaired many many tendons where X-ray, GPR etc were first used and given the all clear for core holes, openings etc only to sever multiple tendons and have to undertake repairs. Usually the tech using the NDT equipment got it wrong in these instances.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
Well the tell-tale sign for me that they are UNbonded tendons is the mid-70's practice of using graphic symbols to describe the # of UNbonded MONOstrand tendons, namely: half-circle = 1 tendon, full circle = 2 tendons, triangle = 3 tendons, square = 4 tendons, , and diamond = 5 tendons.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
If I had my druthers, I would also have two separate accounts. I would like one, primary account for getting to know people and a secondary account for when I would prefer to have utter anonymity. Some projects have confidential dimensions to them. Additionally, I occasionally have technical questions that are so silly that I'm hesitant to broach them even here.
Now that I think of it, I know the answer. Everybody should have only one account but you should have the option of posting / replying anonymously if your choose. How about that?
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
As for confidential aspects of projects, it is probably best not to reveal them whether posting under your forum name or anonymously. I have been on sites where anonymity was permitted, but I never used it. The administration would have to guard against offensive comments from anonymous posters which could use up a lot of their time.
BA
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
1) I don't understand rebar anchorage. As far as I can tell, neither does anybody else. Everyone just seems to treat a developed bar as though it is a bar that could not be pulled out from the concrete in which it is embedded. That's wrong. Rebar anchorage is rather important to the whole RC design thing. I design a lot of concrete buildings. This is a question that I've been hesitant to bring up semi-publicly for some time.
2) Many years ago, I was assigned the task of creating a whitepaper on the use of a concrete admixture that is produced in my (our) area of practice. There wasn't much information readily available so I thought to myself "hey, I should ask my engi-tips buddies!". I did exactly that and managed to find GOBS of relevant information in the process. However, several people on the forum pounced on me because I didn't instantly recognize the term SCM when it was mentioned. They carried on about how, if I didn't know that term, I had no business doing any work on concrete admixtures.
Of course, I'm quite familiar with the term supplementary cementitious material. I just had a brain fart when I first saw the acronym. If this wasn't bad enough, my client then stumbled across the thread and noticed where I'm located. He contacted my boss and said something to the effect of "why are we paying you to do this work for us if you're just trolling around the internet for information?". Then, of course, my boss paid me a visit. I defended my strategy successfully to both client and manager but it was not a particularly pleasant afternoon. In that instance, I wish that my profile had me listed as working in Belize.
3) In general, this is a community more interested in practical matters than theoretical ones. Usually this suits me but, sometimes, it doesn't. A review of the threads that I've started will reveal that I often drift into areas that others find overly pedantic. I worry about this because I fear that my forays into pedantry will make me seem like an impractical spaz -- which is only partly true -- within a community that I value highly. In the past, I've considered tracking down JAE, showing up on his doorstep, and seeing if he'll take me on as his protege. Will engineer for room and board. JAE probably wouldn't take me on because he's seen my ridiculous diatribe about composite beam theory.
As I understand it, the administrators of this forum are big fans of anonymity. I believe that we are discouraged from posting our email addresses or contacting one another directly for that reason. As an interesting aside, I'm fairly certain that you and I live in the same geographical area. And, through our mutual participation on the site, I know that you know stuff. Lots of stuff. I've often considered reaching out to you to see if you might be willing to serve as a sort of external mentor for me. But, alas, we are two semi-anonymous ships passing in the night...
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
Thanks for the laugh. As for acronyms, I hate them. By they way, what does GOBS stand for?
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
...and based upon some recent attachment/sketches you have posted on company calc pad you currently (or previously) work for Canadian consulting company that I used to work for back in the late 80's/early 90's.
Small world, eh!
I don't miss the Canadian winters!
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
@ Ingenuity: Totally not fair. I demand to know your location and employer this instant! Don't make me call HR. Due to my promiscuous nature, I have calc pads at home from pretty much every major structural firm north of the 49th. A few US outfits too. But yeah, you got me.
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
I reside these days in much, much warmer climates...
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
Sorry for hijacking the thread hope9010/ajk1...
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
I dislike acronyms too. Attached are a few definitions for SCM:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/SCM.html
When a person uses an acronym he really should define it the first time he uses it. I often find that I know the term intended but can't think of it off the top of my head. And some people use acronyms incorrectly. One example I can think of is RCC which hokie and I have discussed before. It should stand for Roller Compacted Concrete but some people think it stands for Reinforced Cement Concrete. Is there any other kind? But when you look up the acronym RCC you get this:
http://www.abbreviations.com/RCC
which suggests they are both right. I give up!
BA
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
BA
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
Happy to have a discussion on number 1 of your list, but the term that comes to mind is "average bond" strength. Also strut - tie analysis can provide some insight into the nodal points that the code often have requirements for that aren't clear in a moment analysis.
http://www.nceng.com.au/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
1) In traditional, non-STM, models of corbel design, the primary tension steel is only required to be embedded ld or ldh into the column. If the column were only ld+cover wide, and it's often close, this arrangement would never satisfy an STM check. The primary strut would be too steep. The same is true of end span beam/column joints. How can that be okay?
2) Imagine a large block of unreinforced concrete on the ground with a single piece of rebar sticking out of it. Now use a crane to grab the rebar and lift the assembly off the ground. Size the rebar to handle the tension. What will be the required anchorage length here? Most folks will say ld. I think that's wrong. It's an important case because that's exactly the condition at shear wall footings at the tension zones.
3) In an elevator shaft coupling beam, how far into the walls should the beam reinforcement extend? Many folks will again say ld. I say more, much more. Seismic codes seem to agree with me here in that they often specify some multiple of ld. But then, that seems like an arbitrary improvement.
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
Look forward to your new thread. There have been some threads where the distinction between anchorage and development has been brought into the discussion, but I can't remember one exclusively devoted to that topic.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
In a corbel, I would never stop the bars ld + cover into the column. Always to the back of the column and then cogged around a transverse bar as is required by strut tie logic. Maybe people are being misled by shear friction logic. Interesting that Shear friction logic does not appear in other design codes other than ACI!
In 2) above, the problem is in the "unreinforced". The bar you are talking about needs to develop Ld past the transverse bars that should be at cover to the face of the concrete. Unfortunately if it is unreinforced, you do not have transverse bars. So now it becomes an exercise in bar pull out and a cone of failure and is relying on concrete tension. This is not a standard development length calculation.
There is a similar problem with all fixings and how they connect to concrete members. The fixing people do it by test. But this only gets the load into the bottom of the member. All concrete design is based on loading at the top of the member. So reinforcement perpendicular to the face is required to transfer the load from the fixing to the top (far) face and it needs to fully lap with the fixing to transfer the force correctly. One important requirement in this case is that the fixing fully overlap with a transverse bar at the face where it is connected and that hanging shear reinforcement also overlap with that same transverse bar to ensure that there is not a zone where the force transfer is relying on concrete tension. i.e. to ensure that there is a reliable tensile load path from the load to the far face (compression face) of the member.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
In a corbel, I will also run the reinforcing to the far side of the column and turn it down a fair ways. Most people realize that it needs to be more than just a standard hook. The point that I'm trying to make is that, using traditional methods, the thing that you check is development length past the face of the column. Why check that if it's not sufficient to satisfy the STM model? And why don't we check the hooked end of the bar for it's ability to contain the strut that it so obviously contains? It should be a curved bar node STM with a radius on the hooks that doesn't result in excessively high bond stresses.
I disagree with you on #2 Rapt. Even with top steel in the concrete block running parallel with the top face of the block, it is still very much a concrete breakout situation.
I also disagree regarding the fixings. At least, if I understand you correctly, I do. Fixing tests should be based on un-reinforced -- and in may cases cracked -- concrete. They should ultimately be capable of converting tension into some form of pullout cone that works. Once a pullout cone is established at the bottom that works, all pullout cones further up the member would work as well and any tension will have been effectively transmitted to the main body of the member.
For what it's worth, shear friction appears in the Canadian concrete code as well as ACI.
KootK
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
I hope if you have a significant load being applied at the bottom of a concrete, you are providing "hanging reinforcement" to transfer that load to the top of the member. Similar to the way you would in a steel member.
The whole concept of the truss analogy for shear requires this. It assumes that all loads are applied at the top surface and if not then they have to be carried to the top surface using reinforcement. It cannot be carried there by concrete in tension.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening
@Rapt: I'd like to continue our discussion. I'll start a new thread right now.
The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
RE: Post-tensioning tendons - proximity to opening