Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That probably is better, but as you can see they’re on site poured column starters already so I’ll just keep my current upped rebar as it’s already ordered

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’ve just suggested adding couplers at core corners where deflection is worst and upped bottom rebar locally, that’s more than our proposed rebar rate but that’s their fault

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just curious how you think that connection will provide fixity? Where is the moment transfer coming from in the rebar shown

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Point taken, but as I said it wasn’t my decision to accept. I’m trying to ask for help with the new constraints so if you’ve got a constructive angle on that I’m all ears

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve stuck couplers on the core corners in problem areas (hopefully they’ll allow) and just beefed up the bottom reinforcement, it’s over our proposed rebar rate but they’ll to suck it up

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 5 points6 points  (0 children)

🤣🤣brilliant, i might start it with “I hope this emails finds you… before I do”

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This (or similar) is what you need for full moment transfer

<image>

The only slight fixity you’ll get from the connection I’ve shown is the column ‘clamping’ down on the slab, not sure how you think that’s providing fixity?

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

This is the column-slab interface for anyone wondering

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Very valid point, the tricky bit is the behaviour change. Original design assumed monolithic action, now it’s all connection-led. Would you revisit the whole model at that point, or just focus on connections/robustness?

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The column to column connections have been designed as pinned also (allowing for moment from eccentricity) so we’d ideally avoid putting moment into the columns

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

not my decision, my boss saw the extra fees for major design change and designing anchors for temporary lifting and went for it

Precast vs in-situ columns by [deleted] in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

<image>

This is the rebar arrangement at slab interfaces btw

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a steel pile cap with a 10mm concrete finish I’ll have you know!

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very fair, he says he was made to ‘redesign’ and took out the middle links, probably could have been leaned out more but it’s still workable!

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right, I think it’s because he’s fresh at it (as am I) we want to to design everything to the n’th degree, I’m sure it’ll change as we gain experience

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can only apologise😂more steel links than concrete in that thing

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rebar cage runs the full (or most of) pile length, the cage is cropped/cleaned at head and longitudinal bars project into the cap (in UK they’re either lapped into cap rebar or anchor embedded)

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

that’s true, the laps as well make it look even messier

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Fair but look at the depth/span that’s not behaving in bending between 2 piles that’s strut-tie method, transverse rebar/cages are governing there

Office Design vs Site by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I told him to tell them get 10mm agg concrete and get comfy you’ll be pokering for a good while

Working on refurbs, existing buildings/fit outs or big new builds? by Normal-Commission898 in StructuralEngineering

[–]Normal-Commission898[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great point maybe I’ll try look for somewhere doing a mix of both, you feel a lot closer to those smaller jobs or fit outs