Saturday, November 8, 2008

Re: Slab on grade

In my area the WWR is always pulled into place during pouring, so the
location is not so reliable. But it is used way more often than
rebar.

Does anyone have a relative cost comparison between using installed
rebar vs WWR that would provide the same steel area? Say #3 at 18" vs
WWR?

Will

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It depends on the gauge of the WWR and the spacing of the dobies. The #3's
> with dobies at 4' o.c. will (in general) rebound easier than lighter gauge
> WWR.
>
> Regards, Harold Sprague
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Rhkratzse@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:12:10 -0500
> Subject: Re: Slab on grade
> To: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com; seaint@seaint.org
>
> Is a #3 much better than WWF after a few hefty guys walk all over it?
>
> Ralph
>
> In a message dated 11/7/08 12:00:50 PM, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
>
> This means that in your 4" slab, rebars at 12" spacing do not necessarily
> have to be #4, they can be #3 placed about 1.25" below TOC.
>
>
>
> **************
> AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday
> needs. Search Now.
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
> ________________________________
> Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: Slab on grade

It depends on the gauge of the WWR and the spacing of the dobies.  The #3's with dobies at 4' o.c. will (in general) rebound easier than lighter gauge WWR. 

Regards, Harold Sprague




From: Rhkratzse@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:12:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Slab on grade
To: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com; seaint@seaint.org

Is a #3 much better than WWF after a few hefty guys walk all over it?

Ralph

In a message dated 11/7/08 12:00:50 PM, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
This means that in your 4" slab, rebars at 12" spacing do not necessarily have to be #4, they can be #3 placed about 1.25" below TOC. 



**************
AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)


Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Re: Slab on grade

Is a #3 much better than WWF after a few hefty guys walk all over it?

Ralph

In a message dated 11/7/08 12:00:50 PM, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
This means that in your 4" slab, rebars at 12" spacing do not necessarily have to be #4, they can be #3 placed about 1.25" below TOC. 



**************
AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. Search Now. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)

RE: Slab on grade

As previously stated, a SOG is not reinforced concrete and the provisions of ACI 318 are not applicable, but you should be aware of the recommendations from CRSI and the WRI.  It is recommended that reinforcement be placed 2 inches below the slab surface or within the upper third of the slab thickness, whichever is closer to the surface.  ACI 360 states that it is a common practice to place the reinforcing 1.5 to 2 inches below the top surface or at least 1/3 the slab depth below the surface. 
 
If 2 inches cover to the top surface is used in your scenario, the bottom would only have 1 inch clear for the #4 bars.  Bear in mind that the tolerance for reinforcing for SOG per ACI 117 is plus or minus 3/4".  This creates the potential for 1/4" cover. 
 
It would be my suggestion to use WWR in a 4" slab and if you choose to use #4 bars, I would suggest that you use a minimum of a 5" slab.  I generally prefer to go to a 4" WWR to make it easy to walk on the surface of the WWR once the sheets are placed on dobies.   I like going to 24 " or 18" o.c. for rebar to accommodate walking in the spaces. 
 
Again, it is not a safety or code issue, and it is not "reinforced" concrete, it is more of a serviceability issue. 
 
The election is over, my usual fees are applicable,
Regards, Harold Sprague






Subject: RE: Slab on grade
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:57:51 -0700
From: jason@wcaeng.com
To: seaint@seaint.org


Thanks!

 

Jason

 

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 11:54 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Slab on grade

 

Scope.  ACI 318  1.1.6 

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:50 PM >>>

Where is this exclusion?  I would like to show the BO.

 

Jason

 

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 11:45 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Slab on grade

 

3" clear is not req'd.  ACI 318 specifically excludes non-structural, SOGs.

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:29 PM >>>

For our typical 4" slab on grade (non-structural slab) we call out #4 at 24"o.c. each way.

 

We just got by a building official plan review for not meeting the 3" min. clearance for concrete cast next to earth.  For a non-structural slab I have never worried about the bottom clearance, maybe I should be?

 

Any thoughts?  Is there a exception for non-structural concrete not needing the 3" clearance?

 

Jason



Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.

Re: Slab on grade

Jason,
 
Slabs-on-grade (particularly, residential) are usually reinforced for shrinkage and do not generally fall under ACI318. 
 
The pertinent ACI360R and ACI302.1R do not reference any cover below the rebars in the slab, but specifically require rebars to be placed 2" below slab surface or within upper 1/2 of thickness, whichever is closer to the surface.  
 
According to ACI 360R, SOG reinforcement should be spaced not more than at 3 times the slab thickness to be effective (welded wire fabric should not be spaced more than 14 inches). 
 
This means that in your 4" slab, rebars at 12" spacing do not necessarily have to be #4, they can be #3 placed about 1.25" below TOC. 
 
It should be noted that ACI302.1R discusses the vapor barrier issue that may completely eliminate any relevancy of the 3" cover. 
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA  
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:29
Subject: Slab on grade

For our typical 4" slab on grade (non-structural slab) we call out #4 at 24"o.c. each way.

 

We just got by a building official plan review for not meeting the 3" min. clearance for concrete cast next to earth.  For a non-structural slab I have never worried about the bottom clearance, maybe I should be?

 

Any thoughts?  Is there a exception for non-structural concrete not needing the 3" clearance?

 

Jason

RE: Slab on grade

Thanks!

 

Jason

 

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 11:54 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Slab on grade

 

Scope.  ACI 318  1.1.6 

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:50 PM >>>

Where is this exclusion?  I would like to show the BO.

 

Jason

 

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 11:45 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Slab on grade

 

3" clear is not req'd.  ACI 318 specifically excludes non-structural, SOGs.

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:29 PM >>>

For our typical 4” slab on grade (non-structural slab) we call out #4 at 24”o.c. each way.

 

We just got by a building official plan review for not meeting the 3” min. clearance for concrete cast next to earth.  For a non-structural slab I have never worried about the bottom clearance, maybe I should be?

 

Any thoughts?  Is there a exception for non-structural concrete not needing the 3” clearance?

 

Jason

RE: Slab on grade

Scope.  ACI 318  1.1.6 

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:50 PM >>>

Where is this exclusion?  I would like to show the BO.

 

Jason

 

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 11:45 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Slab on grade

 

3" clear is not req'd.  ACI 318 specifically excludes non-structural, SOGs.

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:29 PM >>>

For our typical 4" slab on grade (non-structural slab) we call out #4 at 24"o.c. each way.

 

We just got by a building official plan review for not meeting the 3" min. clearance for concrete cast next to earth.  For a non-structural slab I have never worried about the bottom clearance, maybe I should be?

 

Any thoughts?  Is there a exception for non-structural concrete not needing the 3" clearance?

 

Jason

RE: Slab on grade

Where is this exclusion?  I would like to show the BO.

 

Jason

 

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 11:45 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Slab on grade

 

3" clear is not req'd.  ACI 318 specifically excludes non-structural, SOGs.

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:29 PM >>>

For our typical 4” slab on grade (non-structural slab) we call out #4 at 24”o.c. each way.

 

We just got by a building official plan review for not meeting the 3” min. clearance for concrete cast next to earth.  For a non-structural slab I have never worried about the bottom clearance, maybe I should be?

 

Any thoughts?  Is there a exception for non-structural concrete not needing the 3” clearance?

 

Jason

Re: Slab on grade

3" clear is not req'd.  ACI 318 specifically excludes non-structural, SOGs.

>>> "Jason Christensen" <jason@wcaeng.com> 11/7/2008 12:29 PM >>>

For our typical 4" slab on grade (non-structural slab) we call out #4 at 24"o.c. each way.

 

We just got by a building official plan review for not meeting the 3" min. clearance for concrete cast next to earth.  For a non-structural slab I have never worried about the bottom clearance, maybe I should be?

 

Any thoughts?  Is there a exception for non-structural concrete not needing the 3" clearance?

 

Jason

Slab on grade

For our typical 4” slab on grade (non-structural slab) we call out #4 at 24”o.c. each way.

 

We just got by a building official plan review for not meeting the 3” min. clearance for concrete cast next to earth.  For a non-structural slab I have never worried about the bottom clearance, maybe I should be?

 

Any thoughts?  Is there a exception for non-structural concrete not needing the 3” clearance?

 

Jason

Re: Twisting of rebar

All of my rebar has been yielded far beyond a strain of 0.02, at every single bend. Believe it or not, I indicate bends, sometimes, in excess of 180 degrees! Every single piece of cold formed steel I design has residual stresses, and many have strain hardening continuous along the length. Also, all of my steel designs nowadays (well, 95% of them, at least) are are designed - theoretically - into the plastic range. Heck, I've even checked stuff with two, fully plastic hinges along the beam length (thank goodness three hinges are required for failure).

Sorry for the hyperbole/sarcasm. I have no idea what the implications are for field applied torsional strains as I've never had to address the issues and haven't done the research. I was simply pointing out that cold bending a piece of rebar and enforcing a plastic deformation is part of the process of preparing all bent bars, and that it may not be as dire as it might seem on paper. Or it might.  You're correct on the shear forces, since the t/c/v is identical in pure shear of torsionally loaded bars, so the bars should fail before they yield...except the field results don't seem to support the math in all cases. I suppose my question was if anyone had data on why the practice appears common, and failures in torsional shear aren't more common in this condition.
Jordan


Steve Gordin wrote:
Jordan,
 
Do you often design your steel beams to stresses beyond Fy? Or, even better, to strains beyond, say, 0.02? There is no such thing as "safe bending radius" for torsion, shear yielding occurs at about 60% of that at bending and affects the same section that we count on in our structural design. 
 
The situation at hand is not that of life and death, and there are at least two ways of fixing it reliably - epoxying or mechanical coupling of rebars. 
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA    
    
----- Original Message -
****** ******* ****** ****** ********

coordinates

Cool tips:

RE: Wood wall sheathing

From our helpdesk:

Tom

 

Thomas D. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.

Manager, Product Evaluation

APA

7011 S. 19th Street

Tacoma, WA 98466

253-620-7479 (office)

253-620-7235 (fax)

tom.skaggs@apawood.org

www.apawood.org

 

 

 

### start helpdesk response ###

 

The following is in response to your inquiry regarding which side of an APA Rated Sheathing panel should be placed up (or out).  From a structural or durability point of view it does not make any difference which side is placed "up” (or “out”).

 

The stamped side of APA Rated Sheathing roof panels often goes down so the inspector can more easily access the APA trademark with the panels in place.  Note that many APA OSB sheathing producers make their panels with one rough and one smooth side.  On steep roofs, the rough side of OSB is intended to go up to provide a more secure working surface.  However, the APA trademark itself may occur on either the rough or smooth side.  Plywood sheathing may also be stamped on either side “face” or “back.”

 

While it is unlikely that a plywood APA Rated Sturd-I-Floor panel would be incorrectly placed because of the differences in the face and back surfaces, very often it is difficult to tell on an OSB APA Rated Sturd-I-Floor panel which side should be placed up.  For this reason, many manufacturers provide a "this side up" or “this side down” stamp to indicate the appropriate face.  This kind of stamp also finds its way onto plywood and OSB panels with asymmetrical tongue and groove edges.  In this case, all of the stamps should be facing up or down so the T&G joints fit flush.  As with APA Rated Sheathing, there is no structural reason for placing either side of an APA Rated Sturd-I-Floor panel up or down.  However, if stamped, plywood APA Rated Sturd-I-Floor panels installed as floor sheathing should be installed as indicated by the stamp since the face ply and cross bands behind the face may be improved veneer grades intended to meet indentation and surface requirements.

 

The reasons listed above are serviceability related and are traditionally taken to be outside the scope of building codes.  These guidelines also apply to wall sheathing.  It does not matter which side is out.

 

I hope this information will be of assistance to you.  If we can supply you with any further information please let us know.

 

 

Regards,

Ray Clark
Product Support Specialist
Wood Products Support Help Desk

APA
Southern Forest Products Association
Structural Insulated Panel Association

253-620-7400 (phone)
253-565-7265 (fax)
ray.clark@apawood.org
www.APAwood.org
www.SouthernPine.com
www.SIPS.org

Disclaimer
Neither APA, the Southern Pine Council, the Structural Insulated Panel Association nor their members make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this communication. Consult your local jurisdiction or design professional to assure compliance with code, construction, and performance requirements. Because APA and the Southern Pine Council have no control over quality of workmanship or the conditions under which wood products are used, they cannot accept responsibility of product performance or designs as actually constructed.

 

 

 

 

 

From: Michael Gregory [mailto:tsemike@ida.net]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 08:51
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Wood wall sheathing

 

Is there any reason that wood sheathing needs to be installed on walls with the smooth surface out?  The layout lines are on the rough side.  One contractor is telling me that he was red-tagged by a BO for installing the rough-side out on a recent project in another jurisdiction.    

 

Thanks,

 

M Gregory

TSE, PC

tsemike@ida.net

 

Wood wall sheathing

Is there any reason that wood sheathing needs to be installed on walls with the smooth surface out?  The layout lines are on the rough side.  One contractor is telling me that he was red-tagged by a BO for installing the rough-side out on a recent project in another jurisdiction.    

 

Thanks,

 

M Gregory

TSE, PC

tsemike@ida.net

 

RE: Twisting of rebar

ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

Thank you,

Farzin Rahbar

-----Original Message-----
From: "Harold Sprague" <spraguehope@hotmail.com>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: 11/6/08 10:34 PM
Subject: RE: Twisting of rebar


It is a point to ponder, but I doubt that twisting rebar has ever been definitively studied. All we can do is look for cracking that would indicate that we have gone too far. The cracking would be evidence of the rebar being non-usable although there would still be a lot of tensile capacity. I wish I could define "a lot". I know that "a lot" is more than some.

I am glad that the Government will now regulate my health. Why... I feal healthier allready. Regards, Harold Sprague"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin

From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.comTo: seaint@seaint.orgSubject: Re: Twisting of rebarDate: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:43:33 -0800


Harold,

I can see how a long enough rebar can be twisted 360 degrees. The thing is - will is stay that way, or can the needed plastic (permanent) torsional deformation to 90 degrees be achieved without rendering the rebar non-usable?

By the way, coming from so many grateful engineers, those beers may be really bad for your health. Hopefully, as it goes now, the government will force you to stay healthy...

V. Steve Gordin, SEIrvine CA

----- Original Message -----
From: Harold Sprague
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:24
Subject: RE: Twisting of rebar

<...If the twist occurs over a long enough length, it is not a problem...>
_________________________________________________________________
Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_5gb_112008=

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: Twisting of rebar

Jordan,
 
Do you often design your steel beams to stresses beyond Fy? Or, even better, to strains beyond, say, 0.02? There is no such thing as "safe bending radius" for torsion, shear yielding occurs at about 60% of that at bending and affects the same section that we count on in our structural design. 
 
The situation at hand is not that of life and death, and there are at least two ways of fixing it reliably - epoxying or mechanical coupling of rebars. 
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA    
    
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 04:17
Subject: Re: Twisting of rebar

I would be curious to know as well. I see this condition on a lot of commercial jobs (not mine, of course) and it seems to be almost "standard practice" in the industry.

It is worth noting that the bending of rebar does just about the same thing to the steel - it increases the yield in a portion of the steel through cold work. Presuming that it does not extend beyond the yield plateau, one might presume that the condition is  acceptable. To try and calculate the allowable twist from standard linear stress-strain relationship is incorrect due to the elastic-plastic nature of steel.

That's not to say it should get blanket approval, but it may not be a dire a situation as it seems on paper.
Jordan


Harold Sprague wrote:
It is a point to ponder, but I doubt that twisting rebar has ever been definitively studied.  All we can do is look for cracking that would indicate that we have gone too far.  The cracking would be evidence of the rebar being non-usable although there would still be a lot of tensile capacity.  I wish I could define "a lot".  I know that "a lot" is more than some. 
 
I am glad that the Government will now regulate my health.  Why... I feal healthier allready. 

Regards, Harold Sprague
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."  - Ben Franklin





From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Twisting of rebar
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:43:33 -0800


Harold,
 
I can see how a long enough rebar can be twisted 360 degrees.  The thing is - will is stay that way, or can the needed plastic (permanent) torsional deformation to 90 degrees be achieved without rendering the rebar non-usable?
 
By the way, coming from so many grateful engineers, those beers may be really bad for your health.  Hopefully, as it goes now, the government will force you to stay healthy...  
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:24
Subject: RE: Twisting of rebar
 
<...If the twist occurs over a long enough length, it is not a problem...>


Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: Can anybody answer this?

In general the start time on issues like "statute of limitations" begins when the defect is discovered.  The law is not sympathetic to de-mobilization.  If the law was sympathetic to de-mobilization, it would be like the "tail light" warranty.  That is that the warranty is in force until you no longer see the tail lights. 

Regards, Harold Sprague




From: mragaven@gibb.intnet.mu
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Can anybody answer this?
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:04:19 +0400

I have a simple question concerning contractual issues:

 

Will a Contractor be in breach of contract (assume FIDIC IV 1987 CoC are used ) if the Employer instructs him to carry out work during the defects liability period after the Contractor has demobilised and a Taking Over certificate has been issued and the Contractor refuses to do so?

 

This is always assuming that there is nothing to the contrary in the Contract Documents.

Lets have some answers!

Best Regards
Murvin Ragaven
Project Engineer

 GIBB
GIBB (Mauritius) Ltd
71, Sayed Hossen Road
Solferino 
Mauritius
Telephone:  Off:  +230 402 1900  Fax:  +230 427 6800 
Web: http:/www.gibbmauritius.com
-----------------------------------------------
Legal Disclaimer

This email is intended solely for the addressee(s) and the information it contains is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient (a) please delete this email and inform the sender as soon as possible, and (b) any copying, distribution or other action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance upon it is prohibited and may be unlawful. Every effort is made to keep our network free from viruses. However you should review this email message as well as any attachment thereto for viruses. We take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred via this email and we do not accept any liability for damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses.

 
50 years

Since 1958

 



See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life Click here

Re: Twisting of rebar

Government doesn't force you to stay healthy. They just tax all those
things you enjoy. Air will be next.
Gary

Steve Gordin wrote:
> Harold,
>
> I can see how a long enough rebar can be twisted 360 degrees. The
> thing is - will is stay that way, or can the needed plastic
> (permanent) torsional deformation to 90 degrees be achieved without
> rendering the rebar non-usable?
>
> By the way, coming from so many grateful engineers, those beers may be
> really bad for your health. Hopefully, as it goes now, the government
> will force you to stay healthy...
>
> V. Steve Gordin, SE
> Irvine CA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Harold Sprague <mailto:spraguehope@hotmail.com>
> *To:* seaint@seaint.org <mailto:seaint@seaint.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:24
> *Subject:* RE: Twisting of rebar
>
> <...If the twist occurs over a long enough length, it is not a
> problem...>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: Twisting of rebar

I would be curious to know as well. I see this condition on a lot of commercial jobs (not mine, of course) and it seems to be almost "standard practice" in the industry.

It is worth noting that the bending of rebar does just about the same thing to the steel - it increases the yield in a portion of the steel through cold work. Presuming that it does not extend beyond the yield plateau, one might presume that the condition is  acceptable. To try and calculate the allowable twist from standard linear stress-strain relationship is incorrect due to the elastic-plastic nature of steel.

That's not to say it should get blanket approval, but it may not be a dire a situation as it seems on paper.
Jordan


Harold Sprague wrote:
It is a point to ponder, but I doubt that twisting rebar has ever been definitively studied.  All we can do is look for cracking that would indicate that we have gone too far.  The cracking would be evidence of the rebar being non-usable although there would still be a lot of tensile capacity.  I wish I could define "a lot".  I know that "a lot" is more than some. 
 
I am glad that the Government will now regulate my health.  Why... I feal healthier allready. 

Regards, Harold Sprague
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."  - Ben Franklin





From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Twisting of rebar
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:43:33 -0800


Harold,
 
I can see how a long enough rebar can be twisted 360 degrees.  The thing is - will is stay that way, or can the needed plastic (permanent) torsional deformation to 90 degrees be achieved without rendering the rebar non-usable?
 
By the way, coming from so many grateful engineers, those beers may be really bad for your health.  Hopefully, as it goes now, the government will force you to stay healthy...  
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:24
Subject: RE: Twisting of rebar
 
<...If the twist occurs over a long enough length, it is not a problem...>


Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

RE: Twisting of rebar

It is a point to ponder, but I doubt that twisting rebar has ever been definitively studied.  All we can do is look for cracking that would indicate that we have gone too far.  The cracking would be evidence of the rebar being non-usable although there would still be a lot of tensile capacity.  I wish I could define "a lot".  I know that "a lot" is more than some. 
 
I am glad that the Government will now regulate my health.  Why... I feal healthier allready. 

Regards, Harold Sprague
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."  - Ben Franklin





From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Twisting of rebar
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:43:33 -0800


Harold,
 
I can see how a long enough rebar can be twisted 360 degrees.  The thing is - will is stay that way, or can the needed plastic (permanent) torsional deformation to 90 degrees be achieved without rendering the rebar non-usable?
 
By the way, coming from so many grateful engineers, those beers may be really bad for your health.  Hopefully, as it goes now, the government will force you to stay healthy...  
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:24
Subject: RE: Twisting of rebar
 
<...If the twist occurs over a long enough length, it is not a problem...>


Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.

Re: Twisting of rebar

Harold,
 
I can see how a long enough rebar can be twisted 360 degrees.  The thing is - will is stay that way, or can the needed plastic (permanent) torsional deformation to 90 degrees be achieved without rendering the rebar non-usable?
 
By the way, coming from so many grateful engineers, those beers may be really bad for your health.  Hopefully, as it goes now, the government will force you to stay healthy...  
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:24
Subject: RE: Twisting of rebar
 
<...If the twist occurs over a long enough length, it is not a problem...>

RE: Twisting of rebar

David,
Ah yes, the real world as opposed to the pristine academic or design office world where a 90 degree bend is easy to put on paper, but hard to get in the field.  I visit the real world often.  Basically the ACI 318 and 301 dump it to the engineer with only limited guidance. 
 
If the twist occurs over a long enough length, it is not a problem.  The other part of the unknown is the rebar chemistry itself.  The ASTM A 615 spec allows a lot of latitude that effects ductility.  Some bars you can bend like a pretzel, and some will snap if you sneeze on them.  And they both will meet the A 615 spec. 
 
If you have a problem, it is easy to see.  The bar will crack or fracture.  It sounds like heating has been a problem, but it shouldn't be.  Require the used of Temple sticks or "crayons" to determine the heat of the bar and the use of a rosebud on the torch used to heat the bar.  The more length you heat, the better. 
 
If you allow cold bending, check for cracks.  The maximum stress will be at the perimeter where cracks are easy to spot.  You can use a dye penetrant if you want to show them that you are serious about looking for cracks.  If you are really anal, have them bring out an ultrasound.  Better yet, leave that up to the special inspector to look for the cracks and have him specifically report on the field bent rebar.  Try to avoid heating at the interface between the concrete and rebar for 2 reasons.  You want to avoid heating the concrete, and you want the bending to occur over some distance away from the concrete so that if there are cracks, you can see them easier. 
 
ACI 318:

R7.3.2 — Construction conditions may make it necessary to

bend bars that have been embedded in concrete. Such field

bending should not be done without authorization of the

licensed design professional. Contract documents should

specify whether the bars will be permitted to be bent cold or

if heating should be used. Bends should be gradual and

should be straightened as required.

Tests7.2,7.3 have shown that A615 Grade 40 and Grade 60

reinforcing bars can be cold bent and straightened up to

90 degrees at or near the minimum diameter specified in

7.2. If cracking or breakage is encountered, heating to a

maximum temperature of 1500 °F may avoid this condition

for the remainder of the bars. Bars that fracture during bending

or straightening can be spliced outside the bend region.

Heating should be performed in a manner that will avoid

damage to the concrete. If the bend area is within approximately

6 in. of the concrete, some protective insulation may

need to be applied. Heating of the bar should be controlled

by temperature-indicating crayons or other suitable means.

The heated bars should not be artificially cooled (with water

or forced air) until after cooling to at least 600 °F.

 
ACI 301:

3.3.2.8 Field bending or straightening—When permitted,

bend or straighten reinforcement partially embedded in

concrete in accordance with procedures 3.3.2.8.a through

3.3.2.8.c. Reinforcing bar sizes No. 3 through 5 may be bent

cold the first time, provided reinforcing bar temperature

is above 32 °F. For other bar sizes, preheat reinforcing bars

before bending.

3.3.2.8.a Preheating—Apply heat by any method that

does not harm the reinforcing bar material or cause damage to

the concrete. Preheat a length of reinforcing bar equal to at

least five bar diameters in each direction from the center of the

bend but do not extend preheating below the surface of the

concrete. Do not allow the temperature of the reinforcing bar at

the concrete interface to exceed 500 °F. The preheat temperature

of the reinforcing bar shall be between 1100 and 1200 °F.

Maintain the preheat temperature until bending or straightening

is complete. Measure the preheat temperature by

temperature measurement crayons, contact pyrometer, or

other acceptable methods. Do not artificially cool heated reinforcing

bars until the temperature of the bar is less than 600 °F.

3.3.2.8.b Bend diameters—Minimum inside bend

diameters shall conform to the requirements of Table 3.3.2.8.

In addition, beginning of the bend shall not be closer to the

concrete surface than the minimum diameter of bend.

 
To avoid this problem in the future, terminate your bars for multiple placements with a straight bar and lap on an L bar that can accommodate variations in placement or mislocation. 
 
Is that worth one beer or two?  Oops, you are from Kentucky.  I feel the fee of Woodford Reserve might be in order.


Regards, Harold Sprague



> Subject: Twisting of rebar
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:25:39 -0500
> From: David.Dickey@masonandhanger.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
> Is there an ACI document that specifies the amount that a bar can be
> twisted?
>
> Hooked bars extend out of the top of a load-bearing 12" concrete wall.
> The concrete roof slab has not been placed yet. The hooks are intended
> to be perpendicular to the wall, but have been placed parallel. I
> recommended that the bars be heated to 1350-1400F, straightened, and
> then bent in the correct direction. The contractor would prefer to
> grasp the bar at the point where it protrudes from the concrete and
> twist the bar 90 degrees. The bar extends approx. 12" above the level
> of the concrete, so 90 degrees of twisting in a #5 bar would be
> occurring over a 12" length.
>
> I am entertaining this proposal because another case of heating and
> bending bars on this job (without my approval) turned out to be a
> disaster.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Dickey, P.E.
> Lexington, KY





See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life Click here

Re: Twisting of rebar

Make a mental note of the concrete sub, just in case you have the good fortune of working with them in the future...

As Steve suggested, leave the bars in place and maybe add an angle/channel ledger with expansion or epoxy anchors to the shear wall (in accordance with ACI 318, App. D, of course).

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:57 AM, William Haynes <gtg740p@gmail.com> wrote:
PCA Notes on ACI 318 has bending tables and additional information
generated from references that are listed in ACI 318 section 7.3.


On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Dickey, David
<David.Dickey@masonandhanger.com> wrote:
> Is there an ACI document that specifies the amount that a bar can be
> twisted?
>
> Hooked bars extend out of the top of a load-bearing 12" concrete wall.
> The concrete roof slab has not been placed yet.  The hooks are intended
> to be perpendicular to the wall, but have been placed parallel.  I
> recommended that the bars be heated to 1350-1400F, straightened, and
> then bent in the correct direction.  The contractor would prefer to
> grasp the bar at the point where it protrudes from the concrete and
> twist the bar 90 degrees.  The bar extends approx. 12" above the level
> of the concrete, so 90 degrees of twisting in a #5 bar would be
> occurring over a 12" length.
>
> I am entertaining this proposal because another case of heating and
> bending bars on this job (without my approval) turned out to be a
> disaster.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Dickey, P.E.
> Lexington, KY
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********



--
David Topete, SE

RE: More Plywood Diaphragm's

I believe the 3x is required to avoid splitting when the nails are closely spaced, which would apply
at panel edges, with the field nailing at 12"o.c it would require only 2x intermediate framing.
You will need to show an exact plywood layout for the above to work, say a panelized roof or floor,
however if you cannot predict where the panel edges will fall, I believe the entire framing
and blocking will have to be 3x's

my 2 cents

Tarek Mokhtar, SE





I agree with William's question since footnote "g" states that intermediate framing shall be 2x, which leads me to believe that it has no bearing on the tabulated shear values for either 2x or 3x edge and boundary framing.
 
Doug Mayer, SE Structural Engineer TaylorTeter Partnership 7535 North Palm Ave., Suite 201 Fresno, CA 93711 (559) 437-0887 Ph. (559) 438-7554 Fax doug.mayer@taylorteter.com


From: William Haynes [mailto:gtg740p@gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 11/6/2008 7:02 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: More Plywood Diaphragm's

I am confused as to why if you are using 2x intermediates for field
that you have to use the lower values, as long as you are still using
3x at the adjoining edges?

WH

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:47 AM, AWC Info <AWCInfo@afandpa.org> wrote:
> We don't specifically address it in the 2005 SDPWS Commentary. However,
> it looks like we tried to clarify it in the 2008 SDPWS
>
http://www.awc.org/Standards/SDPWS.html section 4.2.7.1.1 which states
> that both blocked and unblocked diaphragms shall be constructed as
> follows:
>
> "The width of the nailed face of framing members and blocking shall be
> 2" nominal or greater at adjoining panel edges except that a 3" nominal
> or greater width at adjoining panel edges and staggered nailing at all
> panel edges are required where:
> a. Nail spacing of 2-1/2" on center or less at adjoining panel edges is
> specified, or
> b. 10d common nails having penetration in to framing members and
> blocking of more than 1-1/2" are specified at 3" on center or less at
> adjoining panel edges."
>
> So, my interpretation is if you have 2" nominal framing or blocking for
> intermediate members for field nailing, you would use the lower
> tabulated value that corresponds to the Minimum Nominal Framing Width of
> 2". I'd be interested to know if you all have seen or specify 2x
> blocking or intermediate framing with 3x framing at adjoining panel
> edges? Seems like that could be potentially confusing for the
> contractor.
>
> Not sure of the background on that, but Tom Skaggs at APA could probably
> shed some light or weigh-in if I'm wrong.
>
> HTH
>
> Buddy
>
> John "Buddy" Showalter, P.E.
> Director, Technical Media
> AF&PA/American Wood Council
> 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800
> Washington, DC 20036
> P: 202-463-2769
> F: 202-463-2791
>
http://www.awc.org
>
> The American Wood Council (AWC) is the wood products division of the
> American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). AWC develops
> internationally recognized standards for wood design and construction.
> Its efforts with building codes and standards, engineering and research,
> and technology transfer ensure proper application for engineered and
> traditional wood products.
>
> *********************
> The guidance provided herein is not a formal interpretation of any AF&PA
> standard.  Interpretations of AF&PA standards are only available through
> a formal process outlined in AF&PA's standards development procedures.
>
> *********************
>
> From: "David Topete" <d.topete73@gmail.com>
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: More Plywood Diaphragm's
>
> Note "d" is in the nail size column for 10d nailing... note "c" takes
> precedence at the tighter nail spacing. And, i agree that note "g"
> allows 2x intermediate members for field nailing. It leads me to believe
> that the you can use either value listed. Obviously the lower value
> would be more conservative for your design... I'll be curious to check
> the NDS Commentar= y for an explanation on the two values being
> listed... Good question, Doug.
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Doug Mayer
> <doug.mayer@taylorteter.com>wrot=
> e:
>> In Table 2306.3.1 of the 2007 CBC (I would assume this also appears
>> in the 2006 IBC), plywood diaphragms with nail spacing at less the 3"
>> o.c. require 3x framing at all panel edges per note "c" and "d". In
>> light of this, why are there shear values for both 2x and 3x framing
>> members at pa=
> nel
>> edges and boundaries for nail spacings of 2.5" o.c. and 2" o.c.? Is
>> it because you could still have 2x framing at field nailing? I'm
>> thinking n=
> ot
>> because note "g" states that "The minimum nominal width of framing
>> member=
> s
>> not located at boundaries or adjoining panel edges shall be 2 inches."
>
>> T=
> his
>> leads me to believe that the intermediate framing member, as long as
>> it i=
> s a
>> 2x, does not play a role in the capacities of the diaphragm.
>>
>> By the way, where is note "d" in the table? I can't seem to find it.
>> Anyway, what am I missing here? I'm surprised I haven't noticed this
>> apparent contradiction until now. Thanks for any help=85.
>>
>> Doug Mayer, SE
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at:
http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *  
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at:
http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*  
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at:
http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********


--  






RE: More Plywood Diaphragm's

In SoCal we construct 2x framing with 3x edges all the time. Confusion was
an issue early on, (perhaps 10 years ago) but not any longer.

BTW, just a heads up, from a cost standpoint. Last time I used it, I was
getting better pricing for 4x than for 3x, due, I assume, to availability.

I would think a 4x would be just as good or better. You folks might want
spec an "either/or"....

-db

-----Original Message-----
From: Showalter, Buddy [mailto:Buddy_Showalter@afandpa.org] On Behalf Of AWC
Info
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:48 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: More Plywood Diaphragm's

We don't specifically address it in the 2005 SDPWS Commentary. However,
it looks like we tried to clarify it in the 2008 SDPWS
http://www.awc.org/Standards/SDPWS.html section 4.2.7.1.1 which states
that both blocked and unblocked diaphragms shall be constructed as
follows:

"The width of the nailed face of framing members and blocking shall be
2" nominal or greater at adjoining panel edges except that a 3" nominal
or greater width at adjoining panel edges and staggered nailing at all
panel edges are required where:
a. Nail spacing of 2-1/2" on center or less at adjoining panel edges is
specified, or
b. 10d common nails having penetration in to framing members and
blocking of more than 1-1/2" are specified at 3" on center or less at
adjoining panel edges."

So, my interpretation is if you have 2" nominal framing or blocking for
intermediate members for field nailing, you would use the lower
tabulated value that corresponds to the Minimum Nominal Framing Width of
2". I'd be interested to know if you all have seen or specify 2x
blocking or intermediate framing with 3x framing at adjoining panel
edges? Seems like that could be potentially confusing for the
contractor.

Not sure of the background on that, but Tom Skaggs at APA could probably
shed some light or weigh-in if I'm wrong.

HTH

Buddy

John "Buddy" Showalter, P.E.
Director, Technical Media
AF&PA/American Wood Council
1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
P: 202-463-2769
F: 202-463-2791
http://www.awc.org

The American Wood Council (AWC) is the wood products division of the
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). AWC develops
internationally recognized standards for wood design and construction.
Its efforts with building codes and standards, engineering and research,
and technology transfer ensure proper application for engineered and
traditional wood products.

*********************
The guidance provided herein is not a formal interpretation of any AF&PA
standard. Interpretations of AF&PA standards are only available through
a formal process outlined in AF&PA's standards development procedures.

*********************

From: "David Topete" <d.topete73@gmail.com>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: More Plywood Diaphragm's

Note "d" is in the nail size column for 10d nailing... note "c" takes
precedence at the tighter nail spacing. And, i agree that note "g"
allows 2x intermediate members for field nailing. It leads me to believe
that the you can use either value listed. Obviously the lower value
would be more conservative for your design... I'll be curious to check
the NDS Commentar= y for an explanation on the two values being
listed... Good question, Doug.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Doug Mayer
<doug.mayer@taylorteter.com>wrot=
e:
> In Table 2306.3.1 of the 2007 CBC (I would assume this also appears
> in the 2006 IBC), plywood diaphragms with nail spacing at less the 3"
> o.c. require 3x framing at all panel edges per note "c" and "d". In
> light of this, why are there shear values for both 2x and 3x framing
> members at pa=
nel
> edges and boundaries for nail spacings of 2.5" o.c. and 2" o.c.? Is
> it because you could still have 2x framing at field nailing? I'm
> thinking n=
ot
> because note "g" states that "The minimum nominal width of framing
> member=
s
> not located at boundaries or adjoining panel edges shall be 2 inches."

> T=
his
> leads me to believe that the intermediate framing member, as long as
> it i=
s a
> 2x, does not play a role in the capacities of the diaphragm.
>
> By the way, where is note "d" in the table? I can't seem to find it.
> Anyway, what am I missing here? I'm surprised I haven't noticed this
> apparent contradiction until now. Thanks for any help=85.
>
> Doug Mayer, SE

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: More Plywood Diaphragm's

I agree with William's question since footnote "g" states that intermediate framing shall be 2x, which leads me to believe that it has no bearing on the tabulated shear values for either 2x or 3x edge and boundary framing.
 
Doug Mayer, SE Structural Engineer  TaylorTeter Partnership  7535 North Palm Ave., Suite 201 Fresno, CA 93711  (559) 437-0887 Ph. (559) 438-7554 Fax doug.mayer@taylorteter.com


From: William Haynes [mailto:gtg740p@gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 11/6/2008 7:02 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: More Plywood Diaphragm's

I am confused as to why if you are using 2x intermediates for field
that you have to use the lower values, as long as you are still using
3x at the adjoining edges?

WH

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:47 AM, AWC Info <AWCInfo@afandpa.org> wrote:
> We don't specifically address it in the 2005 SDPWS Commentary. However,
> it looks like we tried to clarify it in the 2008 SDPWS
> http://www.awc.org/Standards/SDPWS.html section 4.2.7.1.1 which states
> that both blocked and unblocked diaphragms shall be constructed as
> follows:
>
> "The width of the nailed face of framing members and blocking shall be
> 2" nominal or greater at adjoining panel edges except that a 3" nominal
> or greater width at adjoining panel edges and staggered nailing at all
> panel edges are required where:
> a. Nail spacing of 2-1/2" on center or less at adjoining panel edges is
> specified, or
> b. 10d common nails having penetration in to framing members and
> blocking of more than 1-1/2" are specified at 3" on center or less at
> adjoining panel edges."
>
> So, my interpretation is if you have 2" nominal framing or blocking for
> intermediate members for field nailing, you would use the lower
> tabulated value that corresponds to the Minimum Nominal Framing Width of
> 2". I'd be interested to know if you all have seen or specify 2x
> blocking or intermediate framing with 3x framing at adjoining panel
> edges? Seems like that could be potentially confusing for the
> contractor.
>
> Not sure of the background on that, but Tom Skaggs at APA could probably
> shed some light or weigh-in if I'm wrong.
>
> HTH
>
> Buddy
>
> John "Buddy" Showalter, P.E.
> Director, Technical Media
> AF&PA/American Wood Council
> 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800
> Washington, DC 20036
> P: 202-463-2769
> F: 202-463-2791
> http://www.awc.org
>
> The American Wood Council (AWC) is the wood products division of the
> American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). AWC develops
> internationally recognized standards for wood design and construction.
> Its efforts with building codes and standards, engineering and research,
> and technology transfer ensure proper application for engineered and
> traditional wood products.
>
> *********************
> The guidance provided herein is not a formal interpretation of any AF&PA
> standard.  Interpretations of AF&PA standards are only available through
> a formal process outlined in AF&PA's standards development procedures.
>
> *********************
>
> From: "David Topete" <d.topete73@gmail.com>
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: More Plywood Diaphragm's
>
> Note "d" is in the nail size column for 10d nailing... note "c" takes
> precedence at the tighter nail spacing. And, i agree that note "g"
> allows 2x intermediate members for field nailing. It leads me to believe
> that the you can use either value listed. Obviously the lower value
> would be more conservative for your design... I'll be curious to check
> the NDS Commentar= y for an explanation on the two values being
> listed... Good question, Doug.
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Doug Mayer
> <doug.mayer@taylorteter.com>wrot=
> e:
>> In Table 2306.3.1 of the 2007 CBC (I would assume this also appears
>> in the 2006 IBC), plywood diaphragms with nail spacing at less the 3"
>> o.c. require 3x framing at all panel edges per note "c" and "d". In
>> light of this, why are there shear values for both 2x and 3x framing
>> members at pa=
> nel
>> edges and boundaries for nail spacings of 2.5" o.c. and 2" o.c.? Is
>> it because you could still have 2x framing at field nailing? I'm
>> thinking n=
> ot
>> because note "g" states that "The minimum nominal width of framing
>> member=
> s
>> not located at boundaries or adjoining panel edges shall be 2 inches."
>
>> T=
> his
>> leads me to believe that the intermediate framing member, as long as
>> it i=
> s a
>> 2x, does not play a role in the capacities of the diaphragm.
>>
>> By the way, where is note "d" in the table? I can't seem to find it.
>> Anyway, what am I missing here? I'm surprised I haven't noticed this
>> apparent contradiction until now. Thanks for any help=85.
>>
>> Doug Mayer, SE
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********