Recent content by BONILL

HardyParty, You are correct. I somehow missed the fact that you only had 24" to work with, and pictured a large isolated footing. It is important to note however that if you calculate your ldh (hooked) per ACI 12.5.2, that value would be reduced to about 17". Although this still wouldn't help...

rittz, If by equal construction you mean equal material and thickness (which would mean that their rigidity per unit length is the same) then yes, the shear at each shearwall would be proportional to their lengths. In order for the interior shearwall to be effective, you would need to provide...

For detail #1, I would provide stiffener plates at both sides of connection to control bending of the flange. Would also extend the 3/8" plata into the web of W12.

HardyParty, Have you considered chipping out a portion of the footing (the amount required for developing your #3/#5 bar) and then just splicing the new rebar with the old using the new pour? I agree with you that it is more of a shear friction problem, and the problem with that is that you...

A barge carrying 700 Tons of added weight (7 motors) plus its own weight is to be anchored using driven steel pipes (piles), (48” diameter, 5/16” thick) that run 34 meters deep into the sea bed. The barge is to have free vertical movement while its lateral movement is to be transferred to the...

A barge carrying 700 Tons of added weight (7 motors) plus its own weight is to be anchored using driven steel pipes (piles), (48” diameter, 5/16” thick) that run 34 meters deep into the sea bed. The barge is to have free vertical movement while its lateral movement is to be transferred to the...

@JAE, Since the opening is close to the column, the shear demand is too high for #4's @ 12" o.c. to work. I have runned the calcs.

I have a continuous reinforced concrete beam. An 8" Diameter opening was placed in the beam long after it was placed. The location of the opening is at 1/8 of the clear span of the beam. The design called for #4 @ 4" o.c. in that region. One has to assume then that the opening cut through (3)...

@hokie66, The reinforcement has been field verified, and confirmed to be only 4#8's. The reinforcement is actually within the slab depth but lower than d'(it is an error in my detail. I just assumed worst case scenario when checking the existing reinforcement and carried it on to the detail.)

@BAretired, I intend to pour the concrete from above by drilling holes through the slab. Good point about roughening the surface of the existing beam to increase shear friction. I have replaced the #3 bars spliced at the middle of the beam with all thread #8 bars in the middle of the two...

@kieran1, It is feasible. But the cantilever span can't be reduced so much as to only require 4#8's.

@BAretired, Now I understand, after seeing your detail. I have drawn up a new detail using the same concept as yours but providing a small concrete pour on either side of the beam to develop my reinforcement in lieu of having to anchor the bars. Let me know what you think...

@BAretired, Yes, it is fair to say that the 4-#8 bars are adequate to resist the full moment at a point halfway between the column face and the end of the cantilever. But you lost me on centering the bars on the column and anchoring them at each end. Can you explain?

@hokie66, There was a misunderstanding in the field because the elevation shows 7#8 bars but the section cut shows 4#8's. So,"logically", they went with 4#8's.LOL.

Upon receiving additional information from the field, I now realize that there is another beam framing into the column perpendicular to the beam in question. I have modified my detail using channels at both sides of the concrete beam, anchored using hilti bolts to develop the full capacity of...