Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Corbel detailing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rainbowtrout

Rainbowtrout

Structural
May 8, 2014
36
US
This detailing practice may be perfect OK. But I am suspicious since ACI doesn't have this. I am not sure what is wrong and therefore putting it out here for people to comment. Thanks!

Basically, the corbel has a continuous primary and framing bar. Both ends of the bar extend well into the supporting wall. There is an anchor bar at the outer end, but not welded to anything. My concern is anchorage of the primary bar. ACI states:
At the front face of a bracket or corbel, primary
tension reinforcement shall be anchored by (a), (b), or (c):
(a) A weld to a transverse bar of at least equal size that is
designed to develop fy of primary tension reinforcement
(b) Bending the primary tension reinforcement back to
form a horizontal loop
(c) Other means of anchorage that develops fy

Is there any reason why ACI doesn't have "integral" primary bar as a suggestion?

Thanks!

 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
The continuous primary bar is legit but, to avoid spalling, the bend radius needs to hit tangency in front of the assumed bearing area. In practice, that usually means small primary bars and bearing pads set a fair ways in from the edge of the corbel.

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not sure what this continuous or "integral" primary bar looks like. A sketch would help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here is the sketch. I think KootK was on point.
3315_001_rtknyd.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If the primary reinforcing is not welded to the anchor bar to develop Fy then it has to be long enough to develop Fy on each side of the face of the column. The continuous bar you have shown shouldn't have to be welded if the length provided into the corbel develops the bar, and the bearing location relative to the hook meets ACI 11.8.7.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think anchorage is the issue here, rather than development. I would think the provision of welding to the longitudinal bar is to insure that intimate steel contact is achieved, not transferred through a thin sliver of concrete.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I thought he was trying to "anchor" the primary Asc bar into the corbel, achieving item (b) in the original post through development of Asc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In the picture, he doesn't show the primary reinforcement in a horizontal loop per (b), but rather in a vertically oriented bent bar. The welded longitudinal bar, or plate, is for the vertically oriented bar solution.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When the red bar at the top of the corbel is loaded in tension, and is only bent around the anchor bar it tends to slip a bit as it brings the anchor bar into play (into bearing btwn. the two bars), and likely crushes some concrete at the juncture too. You do not want this kind of movement (false extension, bond failure, conc. crushing in bearing) before you really start to fully stress the red bar. As Hokie suggested, the welding has proven to bring the two bars into more intimate contact and bearing and really makes the anchor bar act as an immediate anchor for the red bar.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In this context, anchorage basically amounts to development of the primary steel across the compression strut assumed to be constrained by the primary steel. Semantics aside, the sketch below from PCA Notes makes is fairly clear what is expected of designers.

I would expect the arrangement shown below to perform better than a welded anchor bar. I'll take conventional development/anchorage over localized mechanical anchorage any day. It's just not a popular configuration because it requires a long corbel and/or rather small primary bars.

20151006%20Corbel.PNG


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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
With respect, I disagree that anchorage and development are the same thing, and would never use the PCA detail.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hokie said:
I disagree that anchorage and development are the same thing
Click to expand...

No, they're not the same thing. But they are definitely related. Development alone does not guarantee anchorage. Hence the development of ACI Appendix D for post-installed rebar etc. However, development across a competent, restraining compression strut does guarantee anchorage and is, in fact, the most common form of rebar anchorage. That's how the bottom bars of simple span beams are anchored at the supports.

Hokie said:
and would never use the PCA detail.
Click to expand...

No inverted tee beams for you? Or cantilevered bridge bents, which are really just corbels in macro? In my experience, both of these forms utilize a version of the PCA method rather than mechanical anchorage.

20151007%20Inverted%20Tee.jpg


20151007%20Bridge%20Bent.jpg


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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nope. Never done one of those precast monstrosities like in your first picture, and since I am now retired, I won't have to. They are never tied together well enough to suit me, to the point that I avoid parking in them. Bridges, well, I admit to not inspecting most of the ones I drive over.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
hokie said:
They are never tied together well enough to suit me, to the point that I avoid parking in them.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Never, then, shall I accuse you of hypocrisy.

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tmalik3156
  • Locked
  • Question
New corbel on existing concrete structure 2
Replies
10
Views
154
rapt
rapt
psychedomination
  • Locked
  • Question
Split Level Slab Analysis and Detailing
Replies
3
Views
93
RobertHale
RobertHale
TRAK.Structural
  • Locked
  • Question
Timber Connection Detailing and Design
Replies
8
Views
58
DoubleStud
DoubleStud
CJLCivilStruct
  • Locked
  • Question
Reinforced Concrete: Wall to base connection detailing
Replies
5
Views
105
GeorgeTheCivilEngineer
GeorgeTheCivilEngineer
StrEng007
  • Question
Does the IBC/IRC confirm the requirement for diaphragm continuity through detailing? 1
Replies
7
Views
111
lexpatrie
lexpatrie

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top