Recent content by BH6

Thanks I'll look at that. I think that would work. So it would look like this? Any rule of thumbs on the haunch dimensions? Also, I did see something where the haunch was squared off. Are there any advantages to that?

I thought the swelling and non-swelling deteriorated over time. I also read that they can weaken the concrete around them. It is critical to stop all water seepage so that's why I didn't consider them. It will also be exposed to salt. I'll look at the external waterstop to see if that might work...

I don't know of a better waterstop to use. I think this is what I need in this situation. Do you have a different suggestion? It needs to be completely waterproof.

Is there a specific book or paper that you would recommend I get? I can find several under either name. Just wondering which is best to buy. I am thinking of this one The slab in the bottom of the "pond" will restrain it and handle the sliding. I will order his book and this may be in...

Thank you! 1. Why don't we do that on a normal retaining wall more often? Is it just cheaper/easier to do the L shaped bars? 2. And just so I understand --based on the moment I can get the tension in the bar by dividing the distance between the two bars on the U bar. But what about the four...

Thanks, I should be able to lower the top mat just fine. I have not seen a starter wall on a retaining wall. Just curious if that creates any problems or other things to consider.

They are adding another "pond" next to the existing one so the existing retaining wall was your typical retaining wall with soil behind it. Now it will be essentially a wall that separates the water on either side. (Can be completely filled on one side and empty on the other) Also, we don't know...

Hello everyone, I have a retaining wall 50 feet in length and around 7' high that will be going up against an existing retaining wall. It will be now holding back water that can be on either side. I will not be using the existing wall to take any of the loads but it will not be removed...

@Kootk and @strucbells Thanks for your help understanding this!

Thanks-- Thanks- just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I don't need them but it seems like they should be there--I guess just for peace of mind.

A couple questions about Figure R17.4.2.9 I have can get the ld and ldh but it shows the breakout at 1.5hef My understanding is that I don't have to check that or meet 1.5hef because I am replacing that requirement with an anchor reinforcement check. Am I reading that correctly? See attached...

It is a braced frame. I do have a OMF as well but I haven't checked that yet. The OMF is assumed pinned at the base however.

Okay, thanks-- If you use option 2 or 3 would you still need to use the amplified seismic load? I guess I am a little confused on what is allowed when you hit the higher seismic zones and what still applies from ACI when using these other options. Also, so I understand option 1. I thought...

Hi, I am looking at the concrete pedestal reinforcement in seismic zone D for uplift on a column base plate. The commentary on ACI 17.5.2.1 states that research for allowing you to use the design strength of the anchor reinforcement instead of designing for concrete breakout strength was based...

Sorry I didn't see the last few comments. There are multiple beams its a canopy. Continuous bottom chord bridging with bracing every few bays? So an angle along the bottom? And every few bays? So every other or can you go further and how do you determine that? How do you determine the loads...