Detailing Corner
Detailing Corner
RFIs 09-3, 09-4,
and 09-5
Alternate joint details to transfer large moments,
the 0 in. dimension, and lap splicing hooks
The material published in the last Detailing Corner
(V. 31, No. 9, Sept. 2009, pp. 43-45) spawned requests for
information from our readers. This months Detailing
Corner provides responses as well as additional information.
We thank those who contacted us and encourage all
readers to participate.
RFI 09-3: In the September 2009 Detailing Corner, a
number of wall corner joints were illustrated with preferred
means of detailing reinforcement to accommodate pretied
curtains of wall reinforcement. Most of the details
appeared to be reinforced for low or minimal horizontal
moment transfer at the joint. Could you please comment
on alternate joint details that can better transfer large
moments?
Response: Yes, you are correct that the corner
reinforcement illustrations in the September 2009
Detailing Corner were intended for low levels of moment
capacity in the wall. When we define low moment
capacity, we are considering a wall with a low percentage
of horizontal flexural reinforcement, likely conforming to
minimum temperature and shrinkage requirements. A buried
tank would be one example; two perpendicular shear
walls joined together at their intersection with negligible
corner moment transfer would be another example.
For large horizontal moments at a corner joint, the
loading would likely be applied by a liquid or granular
material in a tank structure. In this instance, frame joint
detailing concepts become applicable. Research has
shown that the addition of diagonal bars in the corner
significantly enhances the flexural capacity.1,2 The
diagonal bars are intended to resist the opening (prying)
moment, which causes tension and potential cracking in
the inside corner of the joint. Figure RFI 09-3.1 illustrates
the addition of the diagonal bars. These bars would be
detailed at every horizontal bar elevation in the wall.
Because the maximum moment occurs in the inside
corner projected along a diagonal line (potential crack
plane), these bars are then developed beyond this point
DETAILING CORNER
Joint ACI-CRSI Committee 315-B,
Details of Concrete Reinforcement-
Constructibility, has developed forums
dealing with constructibility issues for
reinforced concrete. To assist the
Committee with disseminating this
information, staff at the Concrete Reinforcing Steel
Institute (CRSI) are presenting these topics in a
regular series of articles. If you have a detailing
question you would like to see covered in a future
article, please send an e-mail to Neal Anderson, CRSIs
Vice President of Engineering, at nanderson@crsi.org
with the subject line Detailing Corner.
Concrete international / november 2009 55
 of maximum moment by extending
them into the compression zone in
each wall.
For a T-joint in a tank or retaining
wall structure, corner moment
capacity can be enhanced in two
b) c) fashions. Where moment reversal at
a)
the joint is possible, the detail shown
Fig. RFI 09-3.1: Diagonal bars (red) provide increased flexural resistance against in Fig. 2(g) of the September 2009
opening of joints
Detailing Corner can be improved
by increasing the extensions on the
two 90-degree bent bars and placing
the hooks so the extensions cross
through the joint, as in Fig. RFI 09-3.2(a).
At the T-joint shown, the bars should be
spliced in the discontinuous wall, but
standard hooks should be acceptable in
the continuous wall. Figure RFI
09-3.2(b) shows a further enhance-
ment of the T-joint with the addition
a) b)
of two series of diagonal bars. This
Fig. RFI 09-3.2: The detail shown in Fig. 2(g) of the September 2009 Detailing Corner figure is similar to Fig. 15 of the ACI
can be improved by: (a) increasing the extensions on the hook bars and overlapping 315 Detailing Manual.3
the extension at the joint; (b) adding two diagonal bars (red)
If only moment in one direction
can occur at the T-joint, only one
series of diagonal bars need be
detailed. Figure RFI 09-3.3 illustrates
an example of this detail for a T-joint
on a retaining wall from Chapter 14 of
the CRSI Design Handbook.4

RFI 09-4: Often when checking

reinforcement placing drawings, I come
Fig. RFI 09-3.3: Example of the across the dimension 0 in. indicating
diagonal D bar at the base of a
retaining wall to enhance the some bar spacing. Coincidentally,
flexural capacity of the T-joint this was also shown in the September
(Fig. 14-1, CRSI Design Handbook, 2009 Detailing Column in Fig. 1. Can
2008)
you provide an interpretation of this
dimension, as I have had some
disagreements with contractors and
inspectors in years past?

Response: The 0 in. dimension is

commonly used on a two-dimensional
(2-D) drawing for reinforcing bars to
indicate the presence of two bars
that are in the same plane. If shown
in true drafting convention, the
second bar would be hidden and
consequently not visible or clearly

56 november 2009 / Concrete international

Fig. RFI 09-4.1: Example of
a 0 in. dimension, here
indicating that hook
extensions on the stirrup
bars are lapped in the
horizontal plane: (a)
section through beam at
stirrup; (b) elevation view
of a beam section with a
stirrup; and (c) isometric
view of the beam section
and stirrup
evident on the 2-D drawing. Without
showing the bars with a 0 in.
dimension, the risk is that it would
be missed or misplaced if provided.
In Fig. 1(c) of the September 2009
Detailing Corner, the 90-degree bent
bar shown in the sectional plan was
intended to be located above or below
the horizontal bars, and in contact
with the horizontal bars. Thus, the bars
would be located in the same vertical
plane. This is what the 0 in. dimension
refers to in this illustrationthese
two bars are in the same plane.
To illustrate the point further,
consider the beam in Fig. RFI 09-4.1(a),
with a 0 in. dimension shown at the
top of the stirrup. As shown in
elevation view in Fig. RFI 09-4.1(b) or
in the 3-D view of Fig. RFI 09-4.1(c),
the two bars are located in the same
horizontal plane, one behind the
other. The note does not indicate
that two bars are stacked on top of
one another with a 0 in. spacing
between them. This incorrect
placement would likely violate the
clear cover requirements or (because
the stirrup bars are hooked at each
end) require shifting the longitudinal
bar toward the beam centerline.
RFI 09-5: The September 2009
Detailing Corner showed some
reinforcement details for small
a) b)
concrete structures in Fig. 3. For the
detail in Fig. 3(b), the article notes
the 90-degree hook only needs a
12-bar diameter (12db ) dimension.
Shouldnt the bars be long enough to
develop the tension lap splice rather
than just hooked?
Response: The length of the
extensions shown in Fig. 3(b) must
be at least the distance required for a
tension lap splice, with a minimum
length of 12 in. (305 mm). The 12db
length referred to in the article is the
length of the minimum extension for
a 90-degree hook, as required in
Section 7.1.2 of the ACI 318-08
Building Code.5 Assuming there will
be horizontal moment at the corner,
the hook extension length must also
be long enough to provide a full lap
splice length and the necessary
adjustability. The fourth sentence in
the second full paragraph on page 45
should have read:
Note that the length of the
extensions on the 90-degree hooks
shown in Fig. 3(b) must be long
enough to not only meet the 12db
requirement of Section 7.1.2 of the
Code, but must also provide the
length required for a full tension lap
splice (but not less than 12 in.), plus
an allowance to provide adjustability
to meet tolerances.
Concrete international
c)
References
1. Swan, R.A., Flexural Strength of
Corners of Reinforced Concrete Portal
Frames, Technical Report TRA434, Cement
and Concrete Association, London, UK, Nov.
1969, 14 pp.
2. Nilsson, I.H.E., and Losberg, A.,
Reinforced Concrete Corners and Joints
Subjected to Bending Moment, Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 102, No. ST6,
1976, pp. 1229-1254.
3. ACI Committee 315, Details and
Detailing of Concrete Reinforcement (ACI
315-99), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 44 pp.
4. CRSI Design Handbook, Concrete
Reinforcing Steel Institute, Schaumburg, IL,
2008, 790 pp.
5. ACI Committee 318, Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-08) and Commentary, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 473 pp.
Thanks to Joint ACI-CRSI Committee 315
Chair Dennis Hunter and H.V. Nawlin of
Gerdau Ameristeel, in Tampa, FL, for the
Fig. RFI 09-4.1 illustrations.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
/ november 2009 57