Cracked Versus Uncracked
Cracked Versus Uncracked
(OP)
I am still unclear on this issue. I am working on a metal stud job where I am using epoxy anchors in various situations. Many are for a cantilevered sill, so I have one bolt at each stud (16" O.C.) and it acts in tension only (about 1400 lbs ASD). This is an existing building with 9" PT slabs. They are going to x-ray it to make sure we don't hit anything.
If I assume cracked concrete, my anchor fails unless we go with a deeper embedment. If I assume un-cracked, it passes.
I have asked a few former collegues and they say they would assume un-cracked.
What are the rules?
If I assume cracked concrete, my anchor fails unless we go with a deeper embedment. If I assume un-cracked, it passes.
I have asked a few former collegues and they say they would assume un-cracked.
What are the rules?






RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
Seismic is minimal. Mostly wind. This is a long distance job so I have no idea of the tension or compression face. Cracked concrete really neuters these anchors!
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
My feeling is if it is PT, I should be able to use un-cracked.
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
Example--Assuming a normal DL + LL concrete beam, simple-span:
If you are anchoring at midspan to the underside , you are anchoring into the tension face, and I would design as 'cracked' every time because one would expect these fibers to always be in tension.
If you are, however, anchoring at the same mid-span location but into the top side of the beam, I would treat it as 'un-cracked' as one can assume the top fibers remain in compression under normal loading.
If you have a multi-span condition, you can expect tension zones at the top over supports (say span/3), and tension on bottom in middle third-ish (I am not accounting for Live-Load skipping, although you should).
For the PT case, using same DL+LL and simple-span beam as above: The pre-compression (P/A) provided by the post-tensioning may create a situation where, during service level loading, the expected tension stresses at the bottom of the beam may never/rarely be realized during service because P/A is large enough such that it overcomes any tension by My/I. This is an idealized scenario though. A cantilever, for example, may have different states of stress depending on backspan geometry, deflection requirements, tendon drape, amount of pre-compression etc.
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
Separately, you mentioned your factored load in ASD.. I don't think you can use ASD loads with the strength reduction factors given in Appendix D. You may be even further from the mark.
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
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: Cracked Versus Uncracked
My only load is wind so going back and forth with a factor of 1.6 should not be an issue. I do the stud design in ASD (because deflection controls 99% of my designs) and the anchors in LRFD.
I am only fastening into the slab and there is no cantilever. They really make this stuff complicated nowadays. I can't wait to retire!
Thanks for your advice
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
This is what I don't get. These bolts are not for major structural components - just some light exterior metal stud walls. An earthquake big enough to crack the slab will still have no effect on these walls as they weigh nothing. Yea, i can see if it was the Big Dig, but there is no safety issue here.
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
That is what I was thinking. I agree, they should just ditch it or maybe add some stipulations about situations where you have redundancy, how critical the component is and the potential for life safety.
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
Link
Link
That's just what came up in a Google search. I don't claim any extraordinary expertise in this arena.
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: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
Unlikely. The links that I provided will take you to the sources for the snippets.
Yeah, that's the short of it.
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: Cracked Versus Uncracked
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
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: Cracked Versus Uncracked
http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/download/document-types/...
It is amazingly specific and clear. It has areas that can be considered uncracked by inspection, and also clarifies that minor cracking is acceptable at time of installation as long as it is not expected that further cracks will form or that existing cracks will expand. That would take shrinkage cracks out of the equation, for most applications.
Note that this is a british opinion, so their recommendations for areas that remain uncracked don't appear to account for seismic load reversal. I'd never consider a potentially life safety seismic application as uncracked, personally. Even if analysis level loads show that a member stays in compression, the true deformations are going to be higher and part of the assumed ductility mechanism involves concrete cracking.
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
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: Cracked Versus Uncracked
https://www.hilti.com.hk/anchors
Hilti's non-north american technical information is significantly more in-depth. I have a european manual hanging around somewhere and it goes significantly further into how they've come up with their capacities.
That page goes a bit into cracking and makes it clear that the major concern is that when cracks propagate after an anchor is installed they have the propensity to intersect with the anchor hole itself due to the stress concentration at that point. If a wide enough crack forms, it basically bisects the pullout cone into two pieces.
Presumably, small width random cracking that would existing in almost any concrete beforehand has a significantly smaller effect on the breakout characteristics.
RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked
Shrinkage cracks don't expand? That's news to me.
I'm all in favour of following engineering judgement and keeping it simple, but that means adopting the more conservative option if there is any reasonable doubt.
What are the potential consequences of designing for cracked when uncracked would have been ok?
What are the potential consequences of designing for uncracked if at any stage of the life of the structure it may become cracked, and subsequently be subject to maximum possible loads?
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/