difference in shear reinforcement detail?

[gmd255]

I am connecting new and existing concrete elements. Its hard for new stirrups to have sufficient anchoring in existing concrete element so I designed the beam as noncomposite (new RC part is able to take over the whole shear force). For shear reinforcement (vertical stirrups)I was thinking about using detail A or B. Detail B is common but I have seen detail A before. As far as the lenght of rebar go its pretty much the same. Detail A is more easy to make. Have you ever used detail A, does it have any advantages over detail B? What do you guys think?

 

[rapt]

I must be common, B for me. I would have thought it is easier to make.

 

[jayrod12]

B is so much easier to make.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

The shop guys would crucify me if I had them try to make A.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

 

[Teguci]

Keep the hoop and replace the stirrup with pairs of candy canes so they can be individually epoxied-in.

 

[dik]

Teguci... easier to accommodate holes that may not be exactly placed... good call.

 

[KootK]

I was going to make the same suggestion as Teguci. Not only are u-bars more difficult to install but you often end up having a condition where one of the legs is in contact with the side of it's hole making it difficult to really epoxy easily. Especially in an overhead installation.

I'm guessing that the proposed stirrup configurations were, in part, motivated by a desire to respect the somewhat challenging sequence of construction here. I've proposed an alternative below.

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.