Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

DetailingCorner

Detailing Corner RFIs 09-3, 09-4, and 09-5

Alternate joint details to transfer large moments, the “0 in.” dimension, and lap splicing hooks

The material published in the last Detailing Corner (V. 31, No. 9, Sept. 2009, pp. 43-45) spawned requests for information from our readers. This month’s Detailing Corner provides responses as well as additional information. We thank those who contacted us and encourage all readers to participate.

RFI 09-3: In the September 2009 Detailing Corner, a number of wall corner joints were illustrated with preferred means of detailing reinforcement to accommodate pretied curtains of wall reinforcement. Most of the details appeared to be reinforced for low or minimal horizontal moment transfer at the joint. Could you please comment on alternate joint details that can better transfer large moments?

Response: Yes, you are correct that the corner reinforcement illustrations in the September 2009 Detailing Corner were intended for low levels of moment capacity in the wall. When we define “low moment” capacity, we are considering a wall with a low percentage of horizontal flexural reinforcement, likely conforming to minimum temperature and shrinkage requirements. A buried tank would be one example; two perpendicular shear walls joined together at their intersection with negligible corner moment transfer would be another example. For large horizontal moments at a corner joint, the loading would likely be applied by a liquid or granular material in a tank structure. In this instance, frame joint detailing concepts become applicable. Research has shown that the addition of diagonal bars in the corner significantly enhances the flexural capacity. 1,2 The

diagonal bars are intended to resist the opening (prying) moment, which causes tension and potential cracking in the inside corner of the joint. Figure RFI 09-3.1 illustrates the addition of the diagonal bars. These bars would be detailed at every horizontal bar elevation in the wall. Because the maximum moment occurs in the inside corner projected along a diagonal line (potential crack plane), these bars are then developed beyond this point

DETAILING CORNER
DETAILING CORNER

Joint ACI-CRSI Committee 315-B, Details of Concrete Reinforcement-

Constructibility, has developed forums dealing with constructibility issues for reinforced concrete. To assist the Committee with disseminating this information, staff at the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) are presenting these topics in a regular series of articles. If you have a detailing question you would like to see covered in a future article, please send an e-mail to Neal Anderson, CRSI’s

Vice President of Engineering, at nanderson@crsi.org with the subject line “Detailing Corner.”

Neal Anderson, CRSI’s Vice President of Engineering, at nanderson@crsi.org with the subject line “Detailing Corner.”
Neal Anderson, CRSI’s Vice President of Engineering, at nanderson@crsi.org with the subject line “Detailing Corner.”

Concrete international / november 2009

55

c) b) a)
c)
b)
a)

Fig. RFI 09-3.1: Diagonal bars (red) provide increased flexural resistance against opening of joints

a)
a)
b)
b)

Fig. RFI 09-3.2: The detail shown in Fig. 2(g) of the September 2009 Detailing Corner can be improved by: (a) increasing the extensions on the hook bars and overlapping the extension at the joint; (b) adding two diagonal bars (red)

Fig. RFI 09-3.3: Example of the diagonal “D” bar at the base of a retaining wall to enhance the flexural capacity of the T-joint (Fig. 14-1, CRSI Design Handbook,

2008)

of the T-joint (Fig. 14-1, CRSI Design Handbook, 2008) 56 november 2009 / Concrete international of

56 november 2009 / Concrete international

of maximum moment by extending them into the compression zone in each wall. For a T-joint in a tank or retaining wall structure, corner moment capacity can be enhanced in two

fashions. Where moment reversal at the joint is possible, the detail shown in Fig. 2(g) of the September 2009 Detailing Corner can be improved by increasing the extensions on the two 90-degree bent bars and placing the hooks so the extensions cross through the joint, as in Fig. RFI 09-3.2(a). At the T-joint shown, the bars should be spliced in the discontinuous wall, but standard hooks should be acceptable in the continuous wall. Figure RFI 09-3.2(b) shows a further enhance- ment of the T-joint with the addition of two series of diagonal bars. This figure is similar to Fig. 15 of the ACI 315 Detailing Manual. 3 If only moment in one direction can occur at the T-joint, only one series of diagonal bars need be detailed. Figure RFI 09-3.3 illustrates an example of this detail for a T-joint on a retaining wall from Chapter 14 of the CRSI Design Handbook. 4

RFI 09-4: Often when checking reinforcement placing drawings, I come across the dimension “0 in.” indicating some bar spacing. Coincidentally, this was also shown in the September 2009 Detailing Column in Fig. 1. Can you provide an interpretation of this dimension, as I have had some disagreements with contractors and inspectors in years past?

Response: The “0 in.” dimension is commonly used on a two-dimensional (2-D) drawing for reinforcing bars to indicate the presence of two bars that are in the same plane. If shown in true drafting convention, the second bar would be hidden and consequently not visible or clearly

b) c) References 1. Swan, R.A., “Flexural Strength of Corners of Reinforced Concrete Portal Frames,”
b)
b)

c)

References

1. Swan, R.A., “Flexural Strength of

Corners of Reinforced Concrete Portal Frames,” Technical Report TRA434, Cement

and Concrete Association, London, UK, Nov. 1969, 14 pp.

2. Nilsson, I.H.E., and Losberg, A.,

“Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joints Subjected to Bending Moment,” Journal of

the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, No. ST6, 1976, pp. 1229-1254.

3. ACI Committee 315, “Details and

Detailing of Concrete Reinforcement (ACI 315-99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 44 pp.

4. “CRSI Design Handbook,” Concrete

Reinforcing Steel Institute, Schaumburg, IL, 2008, 790 pp.

5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code

Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.

Thanks to Joint ACI-CRSI Committee 315 Chair Dennis Hunter and H.V. Nawlin of Gerdau Ameristeel, in Tampa, FL, for the Fig. RFI 09-4.1 illustrations.

Selected for reader interest by the editors.

Fig. RFI 09-4.1: Example of a 0 in. dimension, here indicating that hook extensions on the stirrup bars are lapped in the horizontal plane: (a) section through beam at stirrup; (b) elevation view of a beam section with a stirrup; and (c) isometric view of the beam section and stirrup

and (c) isometric view of the beam section and stirrup a) evident on the 2-D drawing.
and (c) isometric view of the beam section and stirrup a) evident on the 2-D drawing.

a)

and (c) isometric view of the beam section and stirrup a) evident on the 2-D drawing.

evident on the 2-D drawing. Without showing the bars with a “0 in.” dimension, the risk is that it would be missed or misplaced if provided. In Fig. 1(c) of the September 2009 Detailing Corner, the 90-degree bent bar shown in the sectional plan was intended to be located above or below the horizontal bars, and in contact with the horizontal bars. Thus, the bars would be located in the same vertical plane. This is what the “0 in.” dimension refers to in this illustration—these two bars are in the same plane. To illustrate the point further, consider the beam in Fig. RFI 09-4.1(a), with a 0 in. dimension shown at the top of the stirrup. As shown in elevation view in Fig. RFI 09-4.1(b) or in the 3-D view of Fig. RFI 09-4.1(c), the two bars are located in the same horizontal plane, one behind the other. The note does not indicate that two bars are stacked on top of one another with a “0 in.” spacing between them. This incorrect placement would likely violate the clear cover requirements or (because the stirrup bars are hooked at each end) require shifting the longitudinal bar toward the beam centerline.

RFI 09-5: The September 2009 Detailing Corner showed some reinforcement details for small

concrete structures in Fig. 3. For the detail in Fig. 3(b), the article notes the 90-degree hook only needs a 12-bar diameter (12d b ) dimension. Shouldn’t the bars be long enough to develop the tension lap splice rather than just hooked?

Response: The length of the extensions shown in Fig. 3(b) must be at least the distance required for a tension lap splice, with a minimum length of 12 in. (305 mm). The 12d b length referred to in the article is the length of the minimum extension for a 90-degree hook, as required in Section 7.1.2 of the ACI 318-08 Building Code. 5 Assuming there will be horizontal moment at the corner, the hook extension length must also be long enough to provide a full lap splice length and the necessary adjustability. The fourth sentence in the second full paragraph on page 45 should have read:

“Note that the length of the extensions on the 90-degree hooks shown in Fig. 3(b) must be long enough to not only meet the 12d b requirement of Section 7.1.2 of the Code, but must also provide the length required for a full tension lap splice (but not less than 12 in.), plus an allowance to provide adjustability to meet tolerances.”

Concrete international / november 2009

57