×
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

Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"
2

Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

(OP)
Has anyone become more enlightened regarding this thread? http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=415064

I am struggling to prove that an existing railing embed connection works.

One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

(OP)
bump

One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

As TME notes, a lateral load test. We do them routinely as Florida has a requirement that balcony rails be tested periodically because of the idiots on spring break.

If it is close by calculation, load test it. If not close....provide a fix. If aluminum, the fix is more difficult. If steel, not so much.

If you are proving the depth of fixity for an embed, check the attachment....

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

(OP)
Thanks for the sample calc, Ron. I have reaction results from my calcs that are almost the same as using yours. The issue is the breakout at the edge. Currently, I have rigged ACI anchoring provisions. I also tried assuming a tension stress distribution to simulate a sort of zippering of failure planes. Both models resulted in under-capacity, but testing may be plausible.

One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

I've had success treating it as a zero depth shear lug per ACI 349 provisions. I take the lever arm at the full embedment depth.

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: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

(OP)
KootK - interesting. I investigate this.

One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

I understand the practical, definitive advantages of doing a load test on the railing.

50 lbs per linear foot, nominal 200 lbs per post if the posts are at their usual 4 foot interval.

But, where do you find the 200 lb test device? Surely not a bathroom scale turned sideways between the railing and a nearby wall.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

racookepe1978.....here is our test setup for lateral load testing guardrails....

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Curious Ron: state wide, what kind of failure rates do you see and what is the most common mode of failure?

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: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

KootK....actual failure rate is fairly low. Usual failure mode is either a weld failure, end anchor pullout, or failure to recover deflection (though that's not a code requirement).

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Ron,

How much load do you apply and for what duration?

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

XR250....200 lbf lateral and/or vertical....it is immediate load and release. There are no criteria in the code (IBC and derivatives) for any duration or deflection limits/recovery. The applicable ASTM Standard (E985) does not have deflection criteria either, except for Public Assembly buildings. Otherwise essentially the same as building code.

Adding to my comment previously of a low failure rate....that is because we are usually working on higher end construction I think. Hotels in Florida are required to be load tested; however, we do little of that because of our fee. There are some out there who will do this test for $200. We can't do that.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Ron,
The embedment depth calculations based on concrete compressive strength are not clear to me. I include shear with the moment and calculate the elastic stress as V/A + M/S with A = diameter x embedment depth and S = diameter x (embedment depth)2 / 6.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Ron:

In your horizontal load test setup you are using the column/wall on the LHS as a reaction to the ram/jack force, through the horizontal SHS?

Is that a 5-ton or 10-ton capacity ram/jack?

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Ingenuity. It is a 10-ton ram; however, the gauge is calibrated for lower loading up to 500 lbf. That way we can control the loading to much smaller increments.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Ron: Yes, a low-end calibrated gauge is important when a 200 lb.f load on a 10-ton cylinder (that is capable of 10,000 psi) is only at a pressure of less than 100 psi.

With a single-acting cylinder like the one you use (that uses a spring for the return) the calibration should consist of system-calibration (gauge, cylinder and pump) against a NIST-traceable load cell, not just a gauge calibration to a master gauge. At low levels of load the spring in a 10-ton ram provides considerable 'internal' resistance, resulting in less externally applied load/force, if using ram effective area x gauge pressure (which I don't recommend).

I usually use an external small-capacity calibrated load cell in these instances, for redundancy.

Sorry for the hijack, MacGruber22.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Ingenuity...same here.This is "system calibrated". We have several rams but we don't mix and match without separate system calibration. All of our equipment is calibrated with NIST traceability or other recognized standards if NIST traceability is not available...load cells, gauges, manometers, moisture meters, sound testing, etc.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Quote (Ron)

200 lbf lateral and/or vertical....it is immediate load and release. There are no criteria in the code (IBC and derivatives) for any duration or deflection limits/recovery.
So it seems you are testing the ultimate capacity of the guardrail. Does that mean when we design them we should be designing without a factor of safety? Does not appear correct.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

How they are designed is not the impetus for the test loads. The test loads are code mandates. They are obviously required to resist those. In design, it is incumbent upon us as designers to use our engineering judgment with regard to safety factors, load factors, load combinations or other criteria we deem necessary for safe and efficient design, all the while meeting at least the minimum criteria required by code.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

That response made my brain hurt :>
Let me re-phrase: When you design guardrail assembles, what factor of safety do you use?

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

I use SF=1.0, but I use ASD for design....so there's more than a 1.0 margin of safety in there. For unwelded aluminum, it works out to about 2.0+. For steel, it is about 1.67. Not a whole lot different for LRFD, I just prefer ASD.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

(OP)
No worries, Ron. All good information.

KootK - the lug procedure is the way to go. Much more representative of the failure planes, I think. The only issue I do not like is that the bearing stress is not uniform as assumed in the lug breakout capacity (not to say that is was by rigging ACI anchoring equations!). I still worry about added tension from the moment about the btm edge of slab. The change in moment about that point is 18% when comparing a uniform bearing stress versus the "real" non-uniform, which in my case, gets me 5% under capacity. How have you rationalized that? Maybe your calcs never got that close.

One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Quote (Ron)

I use SF=1.0, but I use ASD for design....so there's more than a 1.0 margin of safety in there. For unwelded aluminum, it works out to about 2.0+. For steel, it is about 1.67. Not a whole lot different for LRFD, I just prefer ASD.

I prefer ASD as well. This still does not make sense to me.
You are essentially testing the ultimate capacity of the assembly using 200 plf. If we design the system using wood, aluminum or steel, the factor of safety is built into the material allowables and ranges from 1.67 to 2.0 +/-, yet we still use the same 200 plf. load.

It seems you should either be testing the rail at 334 - 400 plf or we should be able to factor that load down when we design the system under ASD.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

@XR250, if you were to test the rail to the 334-400 plf range wouldn't you expect the rail to yield, assuming that it was designed to 100% of the design load? I would expect you to load test it to the specified code load as this is the actual intended load for it to resist. We build in our factors of safety in the off chance that it does get overloaded, there will be plastic deformation and the rail will prevent collapse. It wouldn't be practical to test the rail to the increased load as you'd likely have to replace it afterwards.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Miami-Dade County has this requirement from Link:



IBC 2012, ASTM and AC test requirments:




Keep in mind that "test load" sometimes refers to the requirement for the manufacturer product testing in a laboratory-type test, not necessarily a field-type load test.

When I did field-load testing to a plastic/vinyl handrail system about 20 years ago, the AHJ required we test to 2 x 200 lb.f. But the max test load in this instance was moot, the system failed at less than 200 lb.f!!!

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

XR250....I finally understand your question! Sorry.

There are some items for which load tests are carried to 125-200 percent of design. Pile load tests for instance. Guardrails are not one of those items. The ASTM Standard for testing guardrails does not require an additional safety factor nor does the building code or life safety code.

I agree with the points Shotzie noted.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

@MacGruber22: I clearly failed to communicate my zero depth lug intent effectively in my previous post. Let me know if this doesn't clear it up. My lever arm is admittedly aggressive. It's based on the deformation picture that I have in my head which is a me-specific thing. For many arrangements, lowering the center of compression will increase the size of the resisting shear frustum. It should offset some.

Sometimes, to remain solutions focused, I think that one has to do something other than make all of their choices conservatively. I'll probably take a beating for saying so in present company but I really don't care about guardrails very much. I believe the code intent for guardrails really boils down to "stout". If I can parse out a defensible evaluation technique that gets me in the ballpark of "stout", I'm happy with that. Functionally, doing otherwise means that my client heads down the road and gives his business to a crappier engineer who will produce crappier engineering. Thus, my semi-crappy engineering makes the public safer than some other guy's fully-crappy engineering. And I can stay in business. I know, that probably sounds more than a little arrogant. I'm cool with that. This is the place for the unadulterated truth to be told after all.

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: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Ingenuity....your post points out the need for a consensus on guardrail/handrail requirements, which does not currently exist. The references in the Miami-Dade requirements to Florida Building Code requirements (FBC 1618) apply only to the HVHZ areas which are Dade and Broward Counties ( 2 counties out of 67 counties in Florida).....another pet peave of mine with the Florida Building Code. The code has provisions in the HVHZ sections that only apply to those sections, but should apply to all sections of Florida....many of them have nothing to do with wind loads (HVHZ means "High Velocity Hurricane Zone")

Also....Ingenuity...did you live in or near Ponte Vedra Beach at one time?

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

KootK said it right

Especially in the world of glass guards. For every hour I have spent agonizing over stress distributions around holes in point supported glass guards, 3 other engineers in my city have rubber stamped a glass guard that would never pass a concept review. (for half the design fee too).

Sometimes, depending on the probability and consequence of failure of course, you are doing the world a favor by signing off on a guard that can resist 80% of its code required resistance, if everyone else in town is signing off on 50% or less.

Cue the debate on Locke vs Mill vs Kants theories of ethics

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Quote (Ron)

but should apply to all sections of Florida....many of them have nothing to do with wind loads

Interesting. I 'survived' 200+ mph typhoon back in 1997 when I lived on a tropical island in the Pacific - NOT many guardrails/handrail failures during that event compared to other structural failures, like 5" thick concrete roofs peeling/folding back from overhang corners of homes, prestressed concrete light/power poles snapped like toothpicks etc.

Quote (Ron)

Also....Ingenuity...did you live in or near Ponte Vedra Beach at one time?

No, never visited/lived in any part of Florida...and sorry to admit that I had to google' where Ponte Vedra Beach is located. sad




RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

Quote (Shotzie)

It wouldn't be practical to test the rail to the increased load as you'd likely have to replace it afterwards.

Makes sense.

RE: Old Thread "Railing Posts Anchored with Non-Shrink Grout"

(OP)
KootK - I should have asked what you meant by zero length. My bad. Consequently, in my case using a lever arm equal to a linear bearing stress distribution (with full-depth lug) results in about the same capacity as your generous full-depth lever arm with smaller frustum area.

One in the hand is worth two in the bush.

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