×
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

Cracked Versus Uncracked

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?

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

For seismic loads, ACI D.3.3.4.4 requires that you assume the concrete is cracked unless it can be demonstrated by calculation that the concrete remains uncracked. For non-seismic conditions I would probably consider anchors installed into the compression face as uncracked and into the tension face as cracked.

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

(OP)

Quote (jdgengineer)

unless it can be demonstrated by calculation that the concrete remains uncracked
How is it even possible to show that? What type of cracking?

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

I second jdgengineer. My approach is: Compression zone = un-cracked. Tension zones = cracked. Seismic = cracked. Unsure = cracked. In a PT situation, you can likely make a better argument for un-cracked IN GENERAL, but I would ask the EOR (if you can).

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

(OP)
It is a 30 year old building, so no original EOR to ask.
My feeling is if it is PT, I should be able to use un-cracked.

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

How to demonstrate? Try qualitatively first.

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

If this is in the top of a floor slab, is it near an area of negative moment? If not you may be ok. However in SDC C or higher you have to assume cracked concrete.

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've seen several definitions of uncracked concrete that name shrinkage restraint as a source of fastener compromising cracks. With that on the table, even a PT slab might not qualify as uncracked locally. I wish that they'd ditch the untracked option altogether so that we could just all play by the same rules. I feel more comfortable with uncracked when there is some redundancy and, by virtue of probability, not all of the fasteners will land in cracks. You situation would qualify 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: Cracked Versus Uncracked

(OP)

Quote (carrg1)

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.

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.

Quote (FoxSE14)

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, etc.

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

(OP)

Quote (carrg1)

If this is in the top of a floor slab, is it near an area of negative moment? If not you may be ok. However in SDC C or higher you have to assume cracked concrete.

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

I'm all for the 'keep it simple' route whenever possible. I think you've just justified using un-cracked!smile

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

(OP)

Quote (KootK)

I feel more comfortable with uncracked when there is some redundancy and, by virtue of probability, not all of the fasteners will land in cracks. You situation would qualify in my opinion.

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

Think about how/when the loads are applied. When you're dealing with the wind load, the slab is uncracked so the anchors are fine. When you're dealing with the seismic load, the slab is cracked but there is no significant force, so the anchors are fine.

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

(OP)
Well said

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

If shrinkage cracking were on the table, how could anyone reliably treat any concrete as uncracked? If that were the case, providing uncracked values would be straight up negligent.

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

I hear it. But from the perspective of the anchors, is a crack not a crack regardless of the cause? The clips below come from the following sources:

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

(OP)
Is this actually written by practicing engineers? Seems that everything is cracked because it is not possible to say it is not.

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

Quote (XR250)

Is this actually written by practicing engineers?

Unlikely. The links that I provided will take you to the sources for the snippets.

Quote (XR250)

Seems that everything is cracked because it is not possible to say it is not.

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

(OP)
Do you still feel ok with using un-cracked in my situation?

RE: Cracked Versus Uncracked

Yessir, I do.

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

The AEFAC technical note had a list of references that I started digging through. I found this.

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

Damn. Way to run with it TLHS. If nothing else, I bring that to court with me.

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

And a bit more...

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

Quote:

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.

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/

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