×
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

Mislocated Pile Cap Reinforcement

Mislocated Pile Cap Reinforcement

Mislocated Pile Cap Reinforcement

(OP)
I just found out that last week the special inspector noted a deficiency at the site with regards to the location of the bottom mat of steel reinforcement for a 4-pile pile cap. Instead of installing the reinforcement 3" above the top of the micropiles (9" from the bottom of concrete), the contractor installed the reinforcement 3" clear from the bottom of the concrete of the pile cap. When the contractor was notified by the special inspector of this deficiency, he elected to proceed with the pour.

I've been looking around the web this morning and can't find any references to a condition such as this. The pile cap was detailed following CRSI which uses a strut and tie method. I noted that in Appendix A of ACI 318-08, part A.2 indicates that struts may only cross at nodes but that ties are permitted to cross struts. With the tie reinforcement placed below the top of the pile, it seems that there is some "eccentricity" in the strut and tie model that isn't really ideal. My concern is whether the strut and tie method is still valid for this configuration. Also, the shallow cover on the tie reinforcement could lead to spalling of the concrete and exposure of the reinforcement to corrosion.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Thanks.

RE: Mislocated Pile Cap Reinforcement

Quote (OP)

Also, the shallow cover on the tie reinforcement could lead to spalling of the concrete and exposure of the reinforcement to corrosion.

Unless you think that you may not actually have the required reinforcing cover, I wouldn't be terribly concerned with this.

Quote (OP)

With the tie reinforcement placed below the top of the pile, it seems that there is some "eccentricity" in the strut and tie model that isn't really ideal. My concern is whether the strut and tie method is still valid for this configuration.

Strut and tie is probably more valid than usual in this situation. Just not quite the strut and tie model that the CRSI stuff is predicated upon. I'd see the following requirements manifesting themselves:

1) Slightly increased bottom bar extension required beyond the piles for anchorage (~9").

2) A small demand for tension resistance in the portion of the pile cap above the piles. Ideally that would be some top steel if there is any. Less desirably, you could attempt to make use of the concrete tensile capacity.

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