Search results for query: *

Hi F-D; This is the fill which will be covered by an approach slab (a structural slab designed to span between the abutment and another approach structure on one side and between abut and a sleeper pad on the other side). The flowable fill below should not see any load from above the roadway...

Thank you guys for your inputs. It will be a big help if you can provide any document(s) supporting your argument.

I would love to have alternate thoughts if any. I truly appreciate your input. But I fail to see, like you have mentioned, how an equivalent fluid pressure in the order of magnitude of 30 PSF or more can develop when the CLSM is set.

Cvg, FYI. There will be drainage board behind the wall and weep holes to avoid any hydrostatic build up. There should not be any gap between the flowable fill and the wall backface as the fluid CLSM should fill up any voids. Thanks for your input.

Ron, Thanks a lot for your input. I agree with your view. However, there are people from an extremely reputed firm thinks otherwise. It will be great if I can present some evidence. Will you be able to get me some documents (research paper, guides, or past design performed on a live project...

We are planning to backfill behind abutment and wing walls of a new proposed bridge with at least 320 psi (preferably 600psi) foamed CLSM (unit weight of 65 pcf). After it is set, what kind of active pressure it can exert to the walls in dry state. We have considered 4 Ft lift height during...

hokie66; You are absolutely right. In this case we cannot allow rotation of either bar (straight or the C). The bar ends need to be threaded in right orientation to allow positional lock configuration. The direction of the k vector (perpendicular to the plane of threaded rotation) at each end of...

well said hokie66.. I am glad that I do not have to play with the numbers to crack down the puzzle... We are not using mild steel.. It will be HYSD carbon steel bars. JAE, you are right. This arrangement will provide an alternate load path to the existing column (other than thru the existing...

Never used reinforced CMU below 6" block thickness. In most application I have used 4" block as a veneer, not as a primary structural element.

See attached concept detail that I am planning for this case. Again, I have not yet ran the numbers, which will certainly say whether this is achievable or not. I agree with Dcarr82775 that providing a loop (modified stirrup) will definitely contribute to the vertical shear. However, direct...

By mechanical anchors I meant couplers. sorry for any confusion.

dcarr82775; I like your concept and I kind of agree that this detail will engage the new bars in its shear capacity. However, I am not sure how to quantify (100%, 75%, etc.) the contribution. Any thoughts? Also, I would modify the detail a little bit. I would drill a threaded bar @ top and...

Thanks to everyone for your opinions. "dcarr82775" - You have correctly assumed that these concentrated loads are substantially high similar to bridge beam bearing points on pier cap. I agree with you that the new concrete will reinforce the shear capacity of the existing beam. However...

TXStructural..Thanks for your reply.. I totally agree with you.. I too think that it will not be prudent to assume composite section just by connecting the new to the existing with dowels/ PT. Because ultimately the load path to the supports is through the existing section only. However, it...

Here is a hypothetical problem. I would appreciate any input to support or reject the concept. There is an existing concrete beam (say 5'W x 5.5'D) supporting concentrated loads from both sides of the beam. Now we need to relocate/ divide these concentrated loads beyond either edge of the beam...