×
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

Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

(OP)
For residential construction where the seismic or wind uplift loads at the end of shear walls are relatively low I have a detail that I use when the edge distance governs the uplift.
Basically anything above 2.0kips ASD I specify this detail.

See pdf. Basically I add concrete to the side of the existing footing and dowels in order to transfer the uplift force in to the new concrete.

A plan checker is telling me that I can't do this because there is a cold joint too close to the edge and that ACI 318-14 section 17(anchorage to concrete) would treat this as a cold joint and it is un-acceptable.

I do not see an issue with this detail since the calculation already assumes cracked concrete! Is there something that I am missing? How would I persuade him to agree with me?

THanks

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

I too don't see an issue as long as forces are developed.
How is this any different than dowelling a new foundation extension to an existing house.

P

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

If you have to post install HD anchors, it is hard to find anything that is acceptable. You are stuck with the 1.75" edge distance. There will be load transferred through the top #4 bar. I also believe that Simpsons did testing on a 1.75" edge distance that you can use. My understanding is that is how Simpson got into the anchor bolt business. Hilti wasn't interested in testing for a 1.75" edge distance and Simpson needed a product that would work. You can also argue that the Simpson product (or Hilti product) is stronger than the cast in place concrete-to-bar bond. Really, if you embed the anchor far enough, you can argue that you can conservatively use the embed and splice equations for rebar.

You should ask back to the plan checker if there was anything that they would have found acceptable. If Simpsons couldn't find an acceptable alternative on what is a real world problem, I doubt the plan checker would have a reasonable answer.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Are your horizontal rebar continuous through the cold joint?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA, HI)


RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

"... to transfer the uplift force in to the new concrete"

So what's your proposed load path? Out of the 5/8" dowels into the existing footing, from the existing footing to the dowels, from the dowels to the new footing, and ultimately resisted by the new footing?
I`m not sure that I`m seeing that and I don't think that you can get the load from the 5/8 dowels into the existing footing.

Are you intending for the new concrete to somehow reinforce the epoxy so that you can get the load transfer that you need into the existing footing?
I`m not really sure that I`m seeing that either, unless you make some sort of Shear Friction argument...

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

(OP)
Once, the new concrete added & doweled to the face of the existing footing is essentially increasing the edge distance for the new all-thread epoxied into the existing footing because the uplift force is too great with 1-3/4" edge distance for a 2x4 stud wall. Keep in mind these calculations are based on anchorage to concrete aci318-14 ch 17 for seismic loading and cracked concrete is assumed in the calculation. This is an uplift load of short duration and not a sustained load.

I guess what you quoted me as saying is probably incorrect and that is my fault for not taking the time to thoroughly describe what I believe to be occurring when the seismic load is applied. A more accurate description of the behavior would be that the dowels are creating a positive attachment of the new concrete mass to the existing footing therefore limiting the concrete breakout in the calculation since that is the governing failure more in this case. Alternately 2-#4 dowels are more than capable of resisting 3-4kips ASD load as well as resisting the tension induced between the new and existing concrete when the all-thread tries to pull out.

With that being said this detail has not been tested and I am OK using it in this manner based on my judgement. I do not just look at a calculation I also take into consideration the duration of the load and the condition of the existing footing. If the existing footing is old and not in good condition I will not use this detail. I think that this is a case where engineering judgment comes into play.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

I honestly fail to see how this actually improves the resistance to edge breakout. In order to mobilize the steel, there will need to be an unacceptable amount of movement of a chunk of concrete first.

Depending on the magnitude of the forces, could you not face mount something to the outside edge of the foundation that is connected to your stud pack?. That way edge breakout disappears as an issue.

What magnitude of uplift are we talking about here?

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

(OP)
Jayrod, you said, "In order to mobilize the steel, there will need to be an unacceptable amount of movement of a chunk of concrete first."

Based on the calculation 1.75" of side cover is not enough to develop the uplift force, from 2.0kips to 6kips. That is why I am adding the concrete centered on the HD A.B. in order to increase the side cover and the dowels anchor this concrete to the face of the existing footing.

Also, what is a stud pack? I have never heard that term before.

Thanks

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

So does this mean that if you have a crack in monolithic concrete you can not use the cracked concrete capacity? What is the difference between cracked concrete and a roughened cold joint that is held together with rebar. I think the detail does have some merit. Like I said earlier, Simpson does have pull out values for 1.75" edge distance but I can also see the logic/rationale of the detail. The rod above the new blob of concrete is just effectively a rod. The rod below the top of the new blob of concrete is just embedded into a cracked piece of concrete that is held together with rebar. You should be able to use the anchor pull out values for cracked concrete.

You should also be able to use the concrete code rebar embeddment values as well (with or without the new blob of concrete).

You can bolt on the outside of the foundation wall but this presents other issues. It can be a difficult piece of steel to protect from corrosion or potentially condensation that can rot the wood.

FYI Shacked, a "stud pack" is a built-up stud. So something like two or three 2x4 wall studs nailed together. Simpson usually requires at least 2-2x4 for a stud pack at hold downs. "Stud pack" could be a local terminology but it is fairly common where I come from.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

To me, cracked concrete still has some significant aggregate interlock.

I've got to think about this a bit more, all I know is when I look at a cold joint like that, it does not give me the same feeling as a cracked footing.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

(OP)
Earth, I think stud pack may be local terminology, I've worked in California for 13 years and have never hears that term before.

Also, I use Simpsons anchor designer software for post installed anchor bolts and although I do get an uplift value with 1.75" edge distance it is not enough for an ASD uplift of greater than 2.1kips.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

For better or worse, I have shown the bolt running at a slight angle to help with the edge distance issue. Only a few times and when the loads are low.
Not sure if they had to drill out the bottom of the HDU in the field. Probably ended up getting installed straight :)

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

To the folks that think the new concrete helps, what's your load path?
What does your failed shape look like? I have a hard time envisioning it.
Anybody want to provide a sketch?

I think the best argument that I can envision in support of your standpoint is that the failure plane would still develop along the same plane as though the new concrete wasn't there, but then the top horizontal dowel crossing the failure plane prevents the failed piece of concrete from moving, thereby increasing the capacity. This is the shear friction argument i alluded to in my initial post.
To say it slightly differently, the tension in the vertical bar is transferred to the concrete, and then the horizontal dowel resists the force in shear.
In this description, the blob of concrete to the left doesn't contribute in any way.
My concern with the argument is that top horizontal dowel will only have a couple inches of bite into the failed concrete, and how much could it actually help? That, and all the traditional complaints about shear friction voodoo.



RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Once20036 has pretty well described my concerns. Especially with the whole rebar must be developed on either side of the joint, in this case failure plane.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint


Quote (op)

A plan checker is telling me that I can't do this because there is a cold joint too close to the edge and that ACI 318-14 section 17(anchorage to concrete) would treat this as a cold joint and it is un-acceptable.

1) I am ignorant of this ACI provision. Can you direct me to it?

2) I'll admit that when I first saw the detail, my initial gut reaction harbored a little "ick". That said, it's my brain's job to accurately mold my gut's intuition over time. I can see why the detail has drawn some reviewer concern though.

3) On a purely technical basis, I fail to find fault with this. I envision the load path as shown below and, for me, the only real question is that which the OP has raised. Namely, does the cold joint sour things for the expanded breakout frustum?

4) I think that an important question for us to ask ourselves here, en route to any real understanding, is this: why is it okay for us to ever anchor into cracked concrete? After all, as many have pointed out, we routinely anchor into cracked concrete. I don't know the answer to this question with certainty but my feel for it is as follows:

a) The level of cracking that we're talking about is on the order of 0.3 mm.

b) I think that Mr. Poisson is our friend here and that the natural compression field that develops helps to close the joint so long as that compression is counterbalanced by some tension resistance someplace.

c) a + b = you probably still have well functioning shear friction operating on the vertical cold joint that allows the diagonal tension stresses to continue to govern the performance of the joint.

5) I struggle to see how the argument formulated in #4 wouldn't apply to a cold joint like the one that we're discussing here unless shrinkage results in a joint much larger than 0.3 mm, which I doubt. Moreover, there are all manner of cold joints routinely used in beams and slabs that are required to do more or less the same thing: stitch the transverse plane together robustly that diagonal tension continues to govern shear capacity. So there's nothing new under the sun here in that regard.

6) As shown below, I suspect that you'd develop the upper crack pattern prior to fully engaging the lower unless the upper portion is debonded somehow. I don't see this as a deal breaker, however, since we're concerned with a ULS load event here.

7) If it were me, I'd like to see the bars spaced more tightly such that you had more right behind the anchor. Maybe three rows vertically and 6"-8" OC horizontally. This is just gut feel / instinct though... no numbers.

On balance, I think that this is a pretty clever detail. I may steal it and make it my own should the need arise.

HELP! I'd like your help with a thread that I was forced to move to the business issues section where it will surely be seen by next to nobody that matters to me: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=456235

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

In your failure mode sketch, wouldn't you need to ensure you have enough anchorage below the new reinforcing to not pull the bar straight out? I.E. bond failure, otherwise you'll never develop the lower breakout frustum.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

I have a couple issues with the detail. We do not know the configuration of the footing but say the footing is 8" wide, your bond strength at 12.5" maximum embed is ~2600# and breakout is ~2900#. Your extension increases the strength of the connection by 700#. Your connection will be governed by adhesive strength with the configuration you have shown. To get the 6kips you mention you would have to assume the maximum embed of 12.5" and the 12" concrete the full depth but your detail will not achieve that result. To have the failure as shown in Kootk sketch the shear friction reinforcing would need to develop full capacity into your existing footing. Which you will not achieve with 6" embed. I would say if the construction joint has full shear friction you could consider the concrete monolithic. But this is not the intent of the code when talking about cracked concrete. An easier and cheaper connection would be to add two holds and anchor bolts, increasing the strength by over 900#. Which will have less materiel, epoxy, pull testing, etc.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Quote (jayrod)

In your failure success mode sketch, wouldn't you need to ensure you have enough anchorage below the new reinforcing to not pull the bar straight out?

1) Sure, you need to check both breakout and bond with the lower value governing the capacity. That's just the "design" part of the exercise, though, and I'm happy to leave that in OP's capable hands. The connection has whatever capacity it has and my contribution thus far has only been meant to express my opinion that I do believe that this a legitimate connection typology with a legitimate load path and a quantifiable capacity.

2) I would take the development / anchorage length of the rods to be 8", measured from the top of the new concrete. What leads you to believe that this should be measured from the elevation of the new dowels?

Quote (sandman21)

But this is not the intent of the code when talking about cracked concrete.

What informs your opinion on that? I'd love to see a silver bullet document saying "breakout frustums shall not cross construction joints". I've done a fair bit of looking and not found such a thing however. If you could point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. I've dabbled in high-rise facade connection design and, in that space, you see anchors and embeds straddling construction joints left, right, and center (parapets, up-stand beams, etc). If those designs need to treat construction joints as free edges, we may need to set up a travelling road show to educate folks on that.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Quote (sandman21)

The key is making them into a construction joint. You need to provide sufficient anchorage of the concrete to allow the anchorage concrete failure cone to develop.

Alright, so that's just math/design then, right? You're not actaully opposed to the concept of taking a breakout frustum across a properly reinforced construction joint?

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

The reason I feel anchorage length of the anchor itself should begin at the new dowels is due to the first failure frustum you drew, what happens if that starts perfectly at the top of the hole drilled for the new dowels? Now your embedment begins at the bar (at best). I just don't see how those dowels are going to be fully developed on the far side of the potential failure cone in the long run. I guess I can get behind the detail in concept, but I think that once the numbers are ran, especially on a retrofit, that you won't properly have development of the reinforcing across the joint/failure cone, nor will you be able to develop the anchors appropriately either.

In my mind, the new dowels need to be fully developed beyond the potential breakout frustum assuming the new concrete isn't there at all. Is there enough concrete on the otherside of said failure line to fully develop the reinforcing? I have my doubts.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Quote (jayrod12)

The reason I feel anchorage length of the anchor itself should begin at the new dowels is due to the first failure frustum you drew, what happens if that starts perfectly at the top of the hole drilled for the new dowels?

If you dig into the theory for the failure modes for these kinds of anchors, you'll find that they assume that you lose a little, mini-frustum at the top of the embedment to account for something similar. So I don't feel that we need to be trying to anticipate that ourselves. And that's good because one could go altogether mad considering all of the possible failure frustums that might take place before reaching the one that we use for design.

Quote (jayrod12)

I just don't see how those dowels are going to be fully developed on the far side of the potential failure cone in the long run.

Why would they have to be developed on the far side of the failure cone? To my knowledge, nobody's suggested that this is a supplemental reinforcing scheme. Rather, I've been interpreting this as bare concrete anchorage with a cold joint tossed in to muddy the waters. By the book, the dowels should be fully developed into the existing concrete such that they can serve the shear friction function that I described but, as far as I know, that's the extent of it. The anchorage proper isn't relying on the dowels.

Frankly, my biggest concern is whether or not one can successfully drill 8"/16" into the concrete with 1.75" edge distance and not have the side of the concrete just spall off. But, then, I'm always impressed at what seems to be able to be accomplished by construction pros.

@OP: out of curiosity, is it accurate to assume that the "blob" wold be installed before the anchors are drilled?

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

(OP)
I appreciate everyone's comments.

Kootk....good point an whether or not the new concrete is installed before the holes are drilled. That is something I haven't thought about. Now that you mention it I do believe the new conc should be installed before any new holes are drilled into the concrete. Now whether or not they follow these steps during construction is another issue.

Sandman: Unfortunately in this particular case I have two short shear walls, one 4.5ft wide and the other 4'-3" wide with a 9ft plate height. If I use 2 holdowns per end post then my shear wall width would be reduced by approximatelly 9" total. 3" for each holdown and 1.5" for a trimmer at each end of the wall. Therefore the uplift increases by approx 20% and with 1.75" edge dist that doesn't work.

This has really got me thinking about the history of concrete anchorage with respect to old appendix D and how accurate the calculated allowable uplift forces are compared to real lift test results.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

I've got some pull test data that I'm not sure I can share outright, but I'll describe the test setup and results. I won't comment on the detailing used and the implications it had on the test results, or whether we can extrapolate from these results. Just wanted to share to demonstrate the efficacy of the approach.

Test Block: 4000 psi concrete, 18" wide x 24" thick x 30" long.
Anchorage: 5/8" diameter epoxy anchor with 8" embedment, centered on length of test block, 1-3/4" edge distance.
Section Enlargement: 6000 psi concrete, 6" wide x 12" thick x 16" long.

Enlargement reinforcing was as follows:
  • (2)#4 bars spaced 4" o.c. (straddling the anchor) epoxied 8" into the test block (2" from the top) and hooked alternate directions in a horizontal plane into the enlargement. Hook extension was 9".
  • (2)#4 bars spaced 2-1/2" o.c. (centered on anchor) epoxied 4" into the test block (1-1/2" from the bottom of the enlargement) and hooked in a vertical plane into the enlargement. The hook turned up toward the top of the enlargement and then turned 3" back toward the test block directly on top of the horizontal bars from bullet point above.
Without the section enlargement, load at failure was about 20 kips. With enlargement, load at failure was about 31 kips. So a pretty significant benefit.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Baby... nuclear! Do we know anything about the ultimate nature of the failure with the enlargement in play?

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Ultimate failure was by breakout. A large frustum typical of what you would expect developed in the test block along with a smaller underdeveloped frustum in the enlargement. The compression strut emanating from the anchor caused the enlargement to rotate about the bottom of the joint, causing that bottom corner to spall while creating a large separation at the top of the joint.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

(OP)
Thanks for sharing that info Deker. I figured that the failure would probably be somewhere in the range of 8 to 10kips, but not 20kips.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

Gonna pull a little well intentioned malfeasance here. This seems to have run its course so OP probably won't mind.

@Decker & Sandman21: there's an interesting thread going on here that you guys should join in on. The use of multiple risk category classifications within different parts of single structures designed via PBD in the Los Angeles market.

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

I apologize if i missed it, but I don't suppose you can rely on anchor reinforcement? Others have mentioned treating it as development length... that is essentially included in chapter 17 (old D). If you can look to that, you will skip this bs and follow 17.2.3.4.5 to 17.4.2.9 and hence to chapter 25. Given the loads we are talking about, you wouldn't need much steel to exist. It might be enough to have a couple verticles known to exist, and be inside a couple perimetre bars. Even then, you have a bit of an issue with your offsets regarding those perimeter bars, requiring reduced cover (only by 1/8" with #3s). It does say "existing" in that detail...

RE: Post installed Holdown A.B. next to cold joint

I agree that you're stuck with the 1 3/4" edge distance for the Appendix D checks because you will not develop the full pull out cone. The cone will be interrupted at the face of the cold joint.

However, it appears that you may be able to create a load path for shear friction to develop via the horizontal bars across the cold joint.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper - Design for Additive Manufacturing
With a growing number of parts manufactured directly by additive manufacturing techniques, it is important to lay down design principles suitable for such manufacturing processes and to ensure parts are designed for additive manufacturing. There are several factors that are to be considered at the design stage. Few such design issues in additive manufacturing are discussed in this paper. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close