Anchoarage of corbel reinforcement

[Prestressed Guy]

I had a reviewing engineer question whether or not the As reinforcement was developed per ACI 318 section 11.8.6. Many of the precasters that I work for use the attached detail for corbels with the As reinforcement also being used as framing bars and terminating back into the column below the corbel. The argument is that this provides anchorage per 11.8.6 (c) “By some other means of positive anchorage,”

What do you say?

 

[Prestressed Guy]

One additional piece of info. I do not want to weld a transverse bar across the hooks per 11.8.6 (a) because the rebar is epoxy coated.

 

[JAE]

Is the reviewing engineer concerned about the anchorage of the lower legs of the #7 bars? or the anchorage across the top?

It seems to me that the top is adequately anchored back to the corbel on the other side.

The bottom doesn't need the anchorage does it?

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[Prestressed Guy]

He was asking about the development in the nose of the corbel. I have revised the bar to be (6) #6 bars and provided a calc for Hdl = 7½"

 

[dcarr82775]

Can't develop a #7 in 7" or so, even with a hook.

 

[Prestressed Guy]

You can develop a #7 in 7" with a welded nose bar per 11.8.6(a) "By structural weld to a transverse bar of at least equal size; weld to develop fy of primary tension reinforcement"

In this case I did not want to weld the bars because they are epoxy coated which is why I change to #6. (ref. calculation per 12.5 in attachment to previous post)

Primarily what I was asking about is can you reduce the length of Ldh if you use a longer than “standard hook” length?