Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Deformed Wire Stirrups with "Standard Hooks"

Status
Not open for further replies.
CARunderscore

CARunderscore

Structural
Nov 12, 2015
28
US
I have an unusual precast wall design that might need out-of-plane shear reinforcement. I might be able to use #3 bars, but I'm already in pencil-sharpening mode, and single-leg deformed wire stirrups look like they might be a hypothetically better option due to a need to keep congestion down within a constrained thickness of wall. I've never seen any such thing before, but neither have I encountered my current set of design constraints before.

Here are the code requirements as I understand them (ACI 318).
[ul]
[li]Shear stirrups are allowed to be single-leg.[/li]
[li]Deformed wire is a permissible stirrup type.[/li]
[li]Stirrups are a permissible type of shear reinforcement for one-way "slabs"... which this essentially is from an analytical perspective. ACI is silent about out-of-plane reinforcement for "walls".[/li]
[li]Acceptable anchorage for a deformed wire stirrup is a "standard hook" that encloses a longitudinal bar.[/li]
[/ul]

Questions:
1. Am I off-base on any bullet points above?
2. Are loose (not in a mat/mesh) deformed wires something that can be reasonably purchased? Not readily, just reasonably. Custom orders are acceptable.
3. What the heck is a "standard hook" for a deformed wire? ACI's tables only list bar sizes, though I see no technical reason that I can't assume that the "No. 3 through No. 5" case should just read "No. 5 and smaller bars/wires".
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
I share a frustration that ACI limits a lot of discussion to #3 and larger bars (for NA practice) despite regional or project circumstances that may guide a smaller bar solution. I've gone to the Australian code in the past to develop reasonable guidance for smaller bar sizes.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
KootK said:
How thick is this wall?
Click to expand...

About 18 inches. I could add a couple inches if it helped, but it doesn't. Think heavy industrial.

It's primarily a flexural element, so there's a good bit of flexural steel on both faces (loading can come from either side). I hesitate to try something like stud rails because I want to tread lightly in terms of anchoring the ends of the shear reinforcement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CAR said:
I hesitate to try something like stud rails because I want to tread lightly in terms of anchoring the ends of the shear reinforcement.
Click to expand...

I would actually deem stud rails to be the best solution in terms of performance and congestion. The major drawback of them, in my opinion, being cost.

I've seen folks use z-bars, as shown below, to shear reinforce basement walls. It does tend to get pretty busy if you're having to reinforce large swaths of the wall however.

CAR said:
Think heavy industrial.
Click to expand...

Got it. It might be worth mentioning that no reinforcement scheme will become active until after some icky shear cracks open up. This might factor into your decision making if your dealing with water retention etc. This is one of the reasons that I try to not use shear reinforcing for most wall applications. Obviously, you situation is exceptional.

C01_nbedjk.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think that z-bars will work, since they're directional. I just ran some calcs and, if I used stirrups, I'd be looking at either a #2 bar or a D5 wire. Probably not a worthwhile space savings over #3 bars, to be honest...

It should be able to retain water, but it doesn't need to be swimming pool tight. φVc is greater than the maximum unfactored shear, so theoretically the shear reinforcement is only there to provide a margin of safety and shouldn't actually need to engage. Theoretically. I've also been deliberately conservative in estimating the load effects in order to keep cracking down, but your comment has inspired me to look up some criteria for water-retaining structures to get a better handle on the expected level of cracking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CAR said:
I don't think that z-bars will work, since they're directional.
Click to expand...

That's easy enough to solve. Just make the bend angles 90 degrees. Or a 90/135 candycane if you prefer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Or something like this viewed from the top if the bending would be feasible. This could just as easily be WWM if your prefer.

c01_ljcdil.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ReverenceEng
  • Locked
  • Question
Standard Hooks for Dowels...
Replies
3
Views
92
DaveAtkins
DaveAtkins
DTS419
  • Locked
  • Question
How to reference "generally accepted engineering standards" 1
Replies
10
Views
209
lexpatrie
lexpatrie
RDR89
  • Locked
  • Question
"Side Friction" to resist overturning in shallow precast foundation
Replies
5
Views
129
RDR89
RDR89
grogannc
  • Locked
  • Question
Hollow Core Plank Stirrups?
Replies
14
Views
137
Ingenuity
Ingenuity
cec17
  • Locked
  • Question
Access platform "moment frame"
Replies
10
Views
163
GC_Hopi
GC_Hopi

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom