Nor Cal SE
Structural
- Mar 7, 2017
- 84
I'm interested in others' opinions regarding a disagreement I've had with a coworker. This involves non-shrink grout for leveling/bearing beneath steel column base plates.
Most of the major non-shrink grout manufacturers, such as MasterFlow, FiveStar, etc, list a minimum application thickness, often 1". Despite how carefully I detail my design drawings, with relative frequency I have scenarios where the gap between the column base and the concrete foundation below needs reduction, sometimes down to 1/2", to result in the correct top-of-column elevation.
My coworker believes we should never vary from the manufacturer minimum for liability reasons. My thought is that if any aggregate in the mix is small (say, less than 1/3" the gap thickness), there should be no problem getting full coverage in the tight space, especially if the plan area of the base plate is not great. It would seem that a gap reduction does not compromise the structural integrity provided the grout achieves full coverage. The grout will still provide the bearing strength, and the manufacturer minimum most likely relates to ease or difficulty of workability. I contend that if you want extra reassurance, you can specify a small hole or two in the base plate to aid in verifying grout coverage. Despite the effort this takes, usually the contractor still prefers to go this route as opposed to some type of steel column modification.
This flexibility usually buys some good will with the contractor, though ultimately my main concern, and highest responsibility, is prudent engineering design that will last. I'm interested in others' opinions.
Most of the major non-shrink grout manufacturers, such as MasterFlow, FiveStar, etc, list a minimum application thickness, often 1". Despite how carefully I detail my design drawings, with relative frequency I have scenarios where the gap between the column base and the concrete foundation below needs reduction, sometimes down to 1/2", to result in the correct top-of-column elevation.
My coworker believes we should never vary from the manufacturer minimum for liability reasons. My thought is that if any aggregate in the mix is small (say, less than 1/3" the gap thickness), there should be no problem getting full coverage in the tight space, especially if the plan area of the base plate is not great. It would seem that a gap reduction does not compromise the structural integrity provided the grout achieves full coverage. The grout will still provide the bearing strength, and the manufacturer minimum most likely relates to ease or difficulty of workability. I contend that if you want extra reassurance, you can specify a small hole or two in the base plate to aid in verifying grout coverage. Despite the effort this takes, usually the contractor still prefers to go this route as opposed to some type of steel column modification.
This flexibility usually buys some good will with the contractor, though ultimately my main concern, and highest responsibility, is prudent engineering design that will last. I'm interested in others' opinions.