Deteriorated concrete ledge
Deteriorated concrete ledge
(OP)
Hi all,
Need your input please. The attached is a concrete beam with a ledge supporting adjacent floor. The rebars drawn in the beam are what I expect to be, but I don't have that info, because we don't have existing drawings. The ledge has concrete spalled from the soffit and signs of corroded rebars. I am thinking of cutting and replacing the concrete (of course after shoring), and for the corroded rebars provide epoxy anchored new bars with a hook at the end to look like J placed around the horizontal bar.
Should I worried about the existing rebars in the beam if they are not properly details? The concern I have is because when you analyze the ledge with Strut and Tie model, you end up needing to know what is in the beam to verify the model.
Or do you make the assumption that this ledge is a small cantilever and if tension bars are OK and the interface shear is OK then you're OK?
Need your input please. The attached is a concrete beam with a ledge supporting adjacent floor. The rebars drawn in the beam are what I expect to be, but I don't have that info, because we don't have existing drawings. The ledge has concrete spalled from the soffit and signs of corroded rebars. I am thinking of cutting and replacing the concrete (of course after shoring), and for the corroded rebars provide epoxy anchored new bars with a hook at the end to look like J placed around the horizontal bar.
Should I worried about the existing rebars in the beam if they are not properly details? The concern I have is because when you analyze the ledge with Strut and Tie model, you end up needing to know what is in the beam to verify the model.
Or do you make the assumption that this ledge is a small cantilever and if tension bars are OK and the interface shear is OK then you're OK?






RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
Seems like I'd want to ensure that the "new" condition met current standards with respect to either ACI corbel design (318 chapter 11) or PCI spandrel ledge requirements.
The beam stirrups do participate as a hanging element so you'd have to know what you have there. ACI's corbel design doesn't directly deal with this as I recall.
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I am in Ontario, so we use the CSA A23.3. Now, if you don't have as-built drawings, how would you know what rebars are in the beam at the ledge? would you remove concrete to left of the ledge to confirm?
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
Is this for each double tee stem or is this for an IT beam (uh-oh)?
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
1) The ledge flexural bars might full hoops.
2) There might be a diagonal hanger in there similar to retaining wall T-joint reinforcing.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I think I misled you with the sketch. The inclined line is not a crack, but the line of cutting the old concrete and replacing it with new. A long section of the ledge needs to be replaced. I am told by the restoration firm I am helping, that this is a typical repair that they do all the time. I wonder if there is a "restoration structural engineer" here to comment.
Would you be satisfied if the removing 2" to the left of the ledge from the beam showed the vertical legs of the stirrups. This way you have new ledge and the interface shear is much greater?
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I've never seen a precast(?) L-beam need this kind of repair. If the chlorides are high in the soffit then I'd think the top of the ledge is also contaminated, and I'd expect the top rebar to have expanded as well.
No, for a concrete repair option, I prefer the inclined cutline as you've shown. If the numbers work then go for it. The advantages for concrete replacement are numerous (fire, corrosion, similar construction, etc...). However, lock down why this ledge failed in the first place. During the years I designed parking structures (and some resto), I did not encounter the bottom surfaces of precast beams spalling (carbonation?).
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
However, I'd also worry about future on-going salt-water exposure on the steel.
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
With functioning friction pads = pinned connection?
Without functioning friction pads = mimics a fixed connection at the ledge, for which it was not designed?
Teguci, Hokie66, is that what you gentlemen are saying?
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I'd be more comfortable cutting along line 2 than 1, because we can confirm the presence of the stirrups, and we have longer surface to transfer shear. One concern with this is the development length of the horizontal tension bar beyond the cut line.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
With a properly working slide bearing, the support should act as a roller, neither fixed or pinned.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
Still missing some detail on this.
If this is a ledge supporting double tee stems with an expansion joint between the double-tees and L beam, then you need to allow for rotation of the double tees and allow for sliding at the joint. Ideally, there would be a neoprene pad adhered to a steel/stainless steel plate over a Teflon surface. In the real world, that's not gonna happen for this lightly loaded support. Typically, 2 plastic shims are stuck in there to allow for some sliding and a very little bit of rotation. It is usually good enough for this redundant and lightly loaded connection. In this case, we have specific evidence of a failure that may be due to the usual not being good enough. Further investigation should be pursued or provide a repair that adds rotational flexibility and better sliding.
Of course, I don't know without additional detail. If its just spalling, then replacing the concrete makes the sense.
Update: - OK this is CIP concrete. I'm sure looking at the big picture, this might make more sense. But, I'm having a tough time figuring out why a CIP deck is detailed this way. Oh well, no matter. As noted above, the bearing may be the reason for the failure and should still be looked at or provide a detail that relieves the needed motion.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
Yeah, I guess I should have written "roller", though it can't be roller on both ends. (Yeah, I know it can in the real world but I'm just referring to idealized conditions.)
I think I've got it. I guess I was just surprised that a seized up roller would make that big of a difference since a ledge is designed for top tension due to negative moment. I guess it's a matter of magnitude and, not having run any numbers, it surprised me. But clearly the bearing pads are there for a reason.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
The constructability of your "Line 2" is problematic, due to working in such close quarters. I think demolition and recasting of the entire beam would be simpler. That way, you can do it correctly.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I wouldn't answer that question because I think the premise is false. Constructability is obviously problematic.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
This is an accurate statement in my experience.
I've spent a good deal of my career working in close proximity to some of western Canada's more prominent restoration engineering groups. And, on many occasions, they've consulted me and my purely structural colleagues regarding "serious" structural stuff that crops up I their work.
I've found that there are significant philosophical differences in how your average structural engineer thinks and how your average restoration engineer thinks. In general, without pulling punches, I find restoration guys to generally be lousy structural engineer and, in return, they find me to be impractical and pedantic.
I've seen the ledge repair that you've proposed on several occasions and, to the credit of the restoration folks, so far, so good. Here's how they seem to approach it:
1) Beam torsion was working before the repair so it's reasonable to assume that it will continue to work after the repair. No needs to verify stirrups.
2) Hanger steel was working before the repair so it's reasonable to assume that it will comtinue to work after the repair. No need to verify stirrups.
3) Cut ledge back to your line one with a little back slope.
4) Post install ledge tension steel that works via anchorage principles rather than reinforced concrete / STM principles.
5) Ensure that shear friction works on your plane one.
6) Throw some extra dowels in near the bottom of the ledge for good measure.
7) Do something about the water leakage issue.
So yeah, just like your original plan.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I too have seen this detail approved and performed in the field. The key is ensuring the problem doesn't happen again (i.e. fix the source of the water into the connection) the rest seems to take care of itself.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
The Restoration engineer has to tell the owner how much damage has been done and how much money he has to pay to continue to operate a slowly failing structure
The New Design Engineer gets to provide a new revenue source to an Owner for only a small, mostly invisible fee.
In both cases, the engineer needs to do his due diligence. For Resto, there is an appropriate assumption that everything was previous designed and built correctly. This assumption is broken when something fails and needs to be addressed.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
This is the tricky bit for me with this being a waterproofing failure rather than a failure associated with the design or construction of the structure. Can we assume that the main body of the beam was designed and constructed correctly without drawings or site verification? I find that your typical restoration engineer will say yes while, as evidenced here, your average structural engineer will often say no.
I should probably clarify this a bit. Back in "the day" most restoration guys seemed to be former structural guys who crossed over. They were, and are, pretty solid structural engineers. The modern trend, however, seems to be engineers coming out of university and going straight into restoration engineering. I've found their structural competencies to be sorely lacking in many instances. I get engineers who've never designed a two way slab trying to refurbish one etc. If anything, I think that structural restoration work requires greater technical prowess than new build work does.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
Very much so. Luckily at our firm, we work close enough together that most times there's someone from the new design side, working in conjunction with a restoration person to create "the best of both worlds fix". I also don't know how many times I've gone to the restoration guy with a new design building envelope question. I should probably go buy them a box of donuts now that I think about how often it is.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Deteriorated concrete ledge