Search results for query: *

My understanding is that the problem relates to crushing within the radius of the bend. In theory a transverse bar probably helps with this by increasing the bearing surface, but the only code allowance I am aware of is to use 'slow' bends with a certain radius. These bends are not always easy...

@BacBac It's normally either safe access or if the slab edge is the finish (bare or painted). I think you've mentioned this is your experience as well.

Here in AU I've only done couplers on one job and that was a VSL job. Nowadays it is always reo across the CJ. I also prefer edge stressing but it is rejected a lot.

You need to get a geotech to advise once excavation has taken place. Rock is very dependent on defects, it could be self-supporting, it could have a wedge shaped failure plane. Also the geotech can advise on the effect of stress relief on the rock which can have a big impact.

@Tomfh the issue that I see with epoxy coating bar ends is that you still have close to zero cover around the bar. You could likely epoxy coat an area of the slab as well to mitigate that? Personally I spec repair mortar to suspended slab edges.

@Smoulder from my experience yes, the Council or Building Surveyor would typically provide advice on that. This is a pretty good summary https://holdfasttas.com/our-skills-and-services/notifiable-and-permit-work/

Tasmania you need to be get an Engineer's License from CBOS. With that you are able to sign Form 35's and Form 55's, which in turn would form part of a Certificate of Likely Compliance. From memory Form 35 is for items you've designed and Form 55 is for items you've reviewed.

What is the reinforcement percentage provided in the internal wythe? How big is the panel? Is there anything that is possibly restraining the panel?

To resolve the forces there may need to be a compression member, depending on DL and seismic load. Personally I would make it the vertical due to the shortest length. Rods are not efficient for compression so I would use an angle or something like that. The diagonals should all be tension only...

Here in Australia you would be required to take the tension force to the top of the beam.

The important thing it that the bars are adequately restrained in accordance with your relevant code. If bent differently it may not achieve that (eg if they close it without 135 degree bends). Also no idea how that would be bent as one piece.

@Hokie66 yes agree I use U bars for walls. But for strip footings like this one I don't see the point and have never seen it done.

Where I work it's the norm to use L bars for all the bars. I don't see a reason for u-bars.

Are those tyre marks on the panel? (from bottom left to the crack location)

Every job I've had like this has had a car stacker. Why not consult with your colleagues and the architect?

Clearance & install requirements

Cheers that makes sense to me. It also makes sense to me that the 530UB would 'cantilever' out past the flange restraint and provide some sort of rotational restraint to the 360UB but I don't know how to verify. So will take the more cautious route.

Reading AS4100 5.4.2.3 it seems as though it could be taken as 1/3rd span. https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=fc17361b-2a47-4c1e-b5d3-f69234382706&file=Beam_effective_length.PNG

AS3600 does not seem to cater for this scenario. Personally I do not think the bars are lapped in tension. However there will be strut tie or flexural action (depending on geometry) between the two bars so provided that there is enough PT/reo forces will be transferred. In practice this is...

Hi all, when you are required to design a wall using strut and tie (AS3600 11.2.1 (b) (i)), how do you check for any buckling effects? Personally I think the strut should be checked as a column. If that is the case what length and k factor does one adopt for the column? Depending on the wall...