Login | Register

Previous in Forum: CAD File for a Cable   Next in Forum: Glass Deflection Calculations
Close

Comments Format:






Close

Subscribe to Discussion:

CR4 allows you to "subscribe" to a discussion
so that you can be notified of new comments to
the discussion via email.

Close

Rating Vote:







7 comments
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 178
Good Answers: 9

Maximum Reinforcement Percentage in Walls

09/24/2009 8:47 PM

I have a wall where the consultant has been exhuberant in the amount of starter bars he has provided. Unfortunately, the contractor has already cast the base of the wall with all the starter bars.

The wall below ground is 400 thick and above ground 200 thick. We required only T20@200c/c EF. We have been provided 2T25@100c/c EF. This amounts to about 9.8% reinforcement. In certain areas where drainage has been accomodated we have upto 6 T25 bars.

The limit in BS8110 for a wall is 4% reinforcement.

What are the risks in having too much reinforcement? Is it durability, embedment, lapping? What are the criteria that define the maximum amounts of reinforcement?

I dare not put any photos up here as all you can see is a laughable amount of re-bar. The solution will be to cut some of the starter bars off, but the question still remains for even the 400 thick wall which exceeds the 4% maximum.

Before getting everyone in a tizzy on site, I'd like to know what are the reasons for the defined maximums. Columns are different at 6% maximum for cast vertical columns.

Send to a friend Digg this Add to del.icio.us
Pathfinder Tags: concrete maximum RC reinforcement wall walls
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 903
Good Answers: 41
#1

Re: maximum reinforcement percentage in walls

09/24/2009 11:01 PM

Too much reinforcement is not desirable because the concrete cannot easily be placed around the bars. So far as I am aware, there is no other reason for limiting the maximum amount of reinforcement. In your situation, if you do not need all of the reinforcement provided, simply cut off the starter bars not required structurally so as to provide easy placement of the concrete.

But, laughable as it may be, please post your photos to help us understand the exact situation. Faced with the pictorial evidence, I may change my mind.

__________________
Bruce
Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Glen Mills, PA.
Posts: 168
Good Answers: 2
#2

Re: maximum reinforcement percentage in walls

09/25/2009 9:25 AM

Caveats. I have been retired for a while now and terminology changes; further, I worked with ACI codes.

I think the maximum steel requirement in walls has to do with having enough concrete to carry loads from the loading surface to transfer to and develop the bars. I note that you have steel at EF in a thin wall. This suggests a flexural loading. If so, the larger bars would change the geometry for the flexural calculation. The wall may be a shearwall too.

I seem to remember that over reinforcing was permitted as long as the loading in the actual bar provided did not exceed the load that would be in the correct bar. If I am correct, then cutting back to T25@200 would be okay, you would have a T25 bar, but it would only carry the load of the T20.

This argument would also work for the wall below, or is it a footing, that is a big jump for a wall.

You will need to dig through the calculations and appropriate codes to see if my thinking does apply to your problem.

I don't know what size aggregate you are using, but that provides one of the minimums for the spacing of bars. Are the 2T25 placed against each other? if so, the development length changes.

If you are sure that the T20@200EF is adequate, then I would remove all of the unnecessary bars until I had T25@200EF, if you don't, you will find that you have to use pencil vibrators to get between the bars to compact the concrete, because there won't be room for the normal sized ones, and you may still end up with voids.

__________________
“I have caused great calamities. I have depopulated provinces and kingdoms. But I did it for the love of Christ and his Holy Mother.” ~ Queen Isabella of Spain, who promoted the torture and genocidal atrocities of the Inquisition
Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 178
Good Answers: 9
#3

Re: Maximum Reinforcement Percentage in Walls

09/25/2009 11:25 PM

Here are two photos. It's a bit messy.

It is a vertical concrete shaft and so acts as a tubular wall. One side in compression and the other in tension under wind load.

You can see the very worst case here where upto 6 bars are in contact which is also not allowed. I believe the maximum is 4 at laps but can't find the clause in the code.

Thanks for the comments so far. Very helpful.

Active Contributor

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16
#4
In reply to #3

Re: Maximum Reinforcement Percentage in Walls

09/26/2009 2:47 AM

As a precaster and contractor we find that there is usually always another way to skin the cat. ( no offense Del ) Since the photos are somewhat oblique it is still hard to tell which are laps and which are simply too many bars. The previous comments about aggregate size are right on track. ACI standards will tell you what is allowed for clearance and CRSI standards will tell you what you need for the laps. Simple volume calcs will give you the tale of what is superfluous rebar. The engineer of record will need to sign off on what ever you decide to do. Going to a self-consolidating ( SCC ) type of concrete can eliminate the bughole or voiding issues and will often give you the strengths you need with with less experienced workers. If you get a cage that simply won't allow even a pencil vibrator in ( which often doesn't have sufficient force in a column that big ) you can get a rebar vibrator that clamps onto the bar and turns the rebar into the vibrator. They really work. I don't see anything in the photos that can't be dealt with. Onward and upward.

Guest
#5

Re: Maximum Reinforcement Percentage in Walls

09/26/2009 8:08 AM

It's not mentioned here abt type of wall, if its small height wall naturally it has more reinforcement and as per design criteria no need of steel bars of dia 20 or 25 to be

provided.In big retaining walls or big silo's walls such big dia bars are provided as per

design requirement where wall thickness are more and height of walls also more. We hv constructed many retaining walls in cement plant of 200 mm thickness with steel

bars of lesser dia than 20 or 25. No need of waisting money by providing more unnecessary steel bars which are not required.

Off Topic (Score 5)
Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 8
#6

Re: Maximum Reinforcement Percentage in Walls

09/26/2009 9:58 AM

Hi all,

From my RC lectures (40yrs ago!) I still remember that the main reason to limit the amount of reinforcement in RC is to prevent catastrophic failure.

If an over-reinforced RC structural element is loaded to failure, the concrete will explode without giving any indication that the element is overloaded.

Cheers

Vince

__________________
"There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new order of things." - Niccolo' Machiavelli
Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Glen Mills, PA.
Posts: 168
Good Answers: 2
#7
In reply to #6

Re: Maximum Reinforcement Percentage in Walls

09/26/2009 11:11 AM

That is true of flexural reinforcement. ACI only allows 75% of "balanced" ratio of steel in flexural members because the failure of the steel is slow and the failure of the concrete is, as you say, catastrophic. "Balanced" is when the steel ratio is the exact amount to bring both the steel and the concrete to full load.

__________________
“I have caused great calamities. I have depopulated provinces and kingdoms. But I did it for the love of Christ and his Holy Mother.” ~ Queen Isabella of Spain, who promoted the torture and genocidal atrocities of the Inquisition
7 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

ba/ael (1), Guest (1), omw7 (1), passingtongreen (2), Sourdough (1), Vince GEntile (1)

Previous in Forum: CAD File for a Cable   Next in Forum: Glass Deflection Calculations
You might be interested in: Web Application Software, Cast Irons, Motor Starters and Contactors