Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
(OP)
Hey,
I'm trying to get people's opinions on the proper way to call out additional reinforcement required for a two-way slab.
I've seen where its just called out as (11) #7 T (11 #7 bars at the top). The instance would be additional rebar over a column.
But should the EOR show how long these bars are, and at what spacing?
If the EOR doesn't, how does the steel detailer know? Just based on embedment length? The spacing?
Thanks
I'm trying to get people's opinions on the proper way to call out additional reinforcement required for a two-way slab.
I've seen where its just called out as (11) #7 T (11 #7 bars at the top). The instance would be additional rebar over a column.
But should the EOR show how long these bars are, and at what spacing?
If the EOR doesn't, how does the steel detailer know? Just based on embedment length? The spacing?
Thanks






RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
OLD SCHOOL
- Use column strip / middle strip conventions in plan with typical details showing the disposition of rebar.
- Fabricator figures out the lengths of most bars using typ details.
- Good for simple, regular slabs and column layouts. Painful for complex stuff. I may post a terrible example of this later today if I have time.
- KootK wants this method to die.
MODERN METHOD
- Call out a continuous bottom mat of steel everywhere. Size and spacing.
- Add some additional bottom steel in plan where needed at specific locations. Specify length and spacing.
- Call out the column top steel either explicitly on plan (length, size, spacing) or define column "mats" elsewhere if the plan gets too busy.
- Add additional top steel where required, calling up size length and spacing.
- Cover a few simple conditions with typical details.
- This method is easier to construct, results in a zillion percent less queries, reduces shop drawing review time, and reduces field review time. It even makes for prettier drawings in most cases in my opinion.
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: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
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: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
Below I've added the following:
1) Standard detail/plan that is often used for the middle strip / column strip detailing method.
2) An irregular plan where, in my opinion, the arrangement becomes almost incomprehensible.
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: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
If I had the time and the fee, I'd call out the lengths of each bar.
We do one plan for rebar and one plan for details / geometry. Both top and bottom bars are on one plan.
When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.
-R. Buckminster Fuller
RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
For RC slabs, I'll draw a typical top and bottom mat and then call up additional bars where needed. I would definitely have separate top and bottom reo plans though...
RE: Two Way Slab Additional Reinforcement Call-Outs
For the benefit of future generations reading this thread, that is most definitely not "KootK's" drawing. It is an example of a presentation style that KootK would like erased from human kind's collective memory.
How do you handle that with the top mat? A continuous top mat is a rare thing and it's an equally rare building that's regular enough to have a single column top mat be applicable.
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.