Comment
TCP number 000-0152
R3 (with note 4) seems to be insufficiently embedded. The hook should be embedded ldh at least, probably longer due to >90 degree bend. Clearly the SSD is intending R4 to be fully developed, so likewise R3 should also be fully developed. As drawn (not to scale) LD3 for R1, R2 seems too short to compensate for deficiency in R3, and arguably would need the extra moment arm since the wingwall design is for length L, and L+1m creates much greater flexural tension on rebar (hence the cleat is needed).
The principle at stake can be viewed at the other end of the same rebar, where the bar extends to the outside face of the wingwall, which is appropriate.
Otherwise the wingwall will be weaker in flexure than needed.
Recommend changing SSD and especially Note 4 to indicate appropriate hook embedment, or to say "front face".
Submitted May 23, 2023 11:30 AM
Comment on
Wingwall Design for MTO Bridges
TCP number
000-0152
Comment ID
337
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status