×
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

Development length for hooked bar in footing

Development length for hooked bar in footing

Development length for hooked bar in footing

(OP)
I'm designing a retaining wall (inverted T design) and my question is in regards to how much of the footing I can use to develop my wall reinforcing. I'm thinking that the development length of my vertical reinforcing needs to be measured from my hook to the top layer of reinforcing in the footing.............not the top of the concrete footing correct? So, for example, if I have an 18" deep footing with a layer of reinforcing 3" from top and bottom, the most development length I can count on for my vertical bars tying into this would be 18"-3"-3" = 12" rather than 18-3" cover at bottom =15" right?

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

(OP)
Thanks JAE. So am I overthinking this? What if I changed the scenario to the following: In an effort to limit the number of bars that the concrete guys need to place, what if I place only one mat of reinforcing at the center of the footing depth (sized appropriately with a "d" = 1/2 the footing depth for rebar design.) In this case my hook is 3" up from the bottom, my only reinforcing in the footing is 6" above that and then I have 9" of unreinforced concrete above that. Would you still use 15"? Or would you say putting only one mat of reinforcing is not wise?

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

In my opinion, the key here is to recognize that this is an opening/closing joint design problem rather than a development length problem. See this thread for lots more info: Link. While proportioning the footing to achieve development of the vertical stem bars often leads to favorable joint proportions, providing development length is technically neither strictly necessary (in terms of ACI Ld/Ldh) nor sufficient to ensure adequate joint design.

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: Development length for hooked bar in footing

KootK, KootK, PLEASE don't muddy the waters with your theories about L-shaped bars transferring tension around cornersbigsmile

I agree with JAE--use 15", even if the footing is unreinforced.

DaveAtkins

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

Quote (DaveAdkins)

KootK, KootK, PLEASE don't muddy the waters with your theories about L-shaped bars transferring tension around corners

Pfft... My "theories" are the truth damn it! I've basically become the mythological "Cassandra" 'round these parts when it comes to proper retaining wall joint design. And I intend to keep hammering this topic until folks either come around or take it upon themselves to put an end to me. It's rough out there for a concrete detailing prophet...

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: Development length for hooked bar in footing

Keep it up, KootK. I don't know why DaveAtkins is dismissive of appropriate detailing in opening corners.

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

(OP)
Thanks for all of the posts!!

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

I would be using 2 layers of reinforcing in the footing for the top tension in the heel and bottom tension in the toe.

Plus I would have Koot's detail for the wall bars lapping with the bottom reinforcing. I would probably increase the bend radius in the L bars to reduce crushing stresses in the bend (unlike the ACI code other codes require larger radii to develop full stress around a corner, depending on the bar size.).

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

What radius is "large", rapt? 2x ACI?

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

Oh, Dave's probably just tormenting me for the entertainment value.

While I also don't care for the single reinforcing mat approach, it makes for an interesting study case. So I studied it, for sport. It creates a rather complex development condition.



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: Development length for hooked bar in footing

26sig,

Australian code says 10 db.

British code has a calculation method which depends on the bar diameter and the concrete strength.

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

Yes, I was tormenting KootK in good fun.

Although, the ACI Code currently does NOT recognize tension "going around a corner," as far as I know. This is why I will sometimes detail a standard (12*db, I think) hook on the bottom of the wall dowels, since anything longer is not recognized, by ACI, as increasing the tension available in the vertical bar.

The above paragraph is the "letter of the law." I have been thinking about this, and I realize any of us who use hairpin bars in a slab, for a pre-engineered metal building, are allowing tension to "go around bar corners."

So...I think ACI should add something like the Australian code, which says if your bar has a large enough bend radius, you can fully develop the bar in both directions (perpendicular directions, that is).

DaveAtkins

RE: Development length for hooked bar in footing

Quote (DaveAtkins)

Although, the ACI Code currently does NOT recognize tension "going around a corner," as far as I know...The above paragraph is the "letter of the law."

I believe there to be a serious misconception at play here. Here's how I see it:

1) Because of concrete crushing and bar slip issues, standard ACI bend diameter hooks longer than the ACI standard 12 db are not allowed to be assumed to improve development length.

2) Nowhere in ACI is it stated that rebar cannot transfer tension around the bend of a concrete joint. Were that the case, we'd be utterly screwed for:

2a) Roof level exterior beam column joints.

2b) Corner joints in tank structures.

2c) Retaining wall stem/footing joints.

2d) A zillion other situations that I won't bother to list...

Basically, we'd have to give up on monolithic CIP and just do precast.

3) As Dave has intimated, ACI does a piss poor job of providing explicit tools that designers can use to transfer rebar tension around corners. And that creates confusion. This is why, whenever this issue comes up, I mention non-North American provisions and the curved bar node STM method (Link). Those are the available tools that I'm aware of.



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.

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