Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Cracks in an existing composite floor deck

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
My firm is evaluating an existing composite concrete floor deck (Verco W3
deck with 3 1/4" lightweight concrete topping, total 6 1/4") to receive new
equipment loading.  The structure (ie deck, beams, girders, etc) was already
evaluated and determined to be adequate for the proposed new loading.

The contractor has removed the existing flooring, cleaned the flooring
adhesive and lightly bead blasted the concrete topping.  With the concrete
topping exposed there are numerous cracks evident and the question was
raised by the client whether or not the floor was structurally adequate.

I have gone out to inspect the floor and noticed the following:

	1.	The cracks occur, almost without fail, parallel to the girders and
beams.  This makes sense because the deck is in negative bending with the
top surface of the concrete topping in tension.  If the WWF was not place
properly this could very easily occur.  Even with the WWF placed properly
this cracking might have occured.

	2.	The cracks are between 1/16" and 1/8" wide and appear to be on the order
of 5/16" deep.  There are a few locations where the cracks are as wide as
1/4" and as deep as 1/2", but those incidents are less frequent.

	3.	There was no evidence of sawcut or cast in control joints anywhere in
the concrete topping slab.

	4.	The area of the building involved in this remodel is approximately 80
feet by 90 feet.  The columns are spaced at 40 feet on center in one
direction and 30 feet on center in the other direction.

My current conclusions are as follows:

	1.	Since the majority of the cracks are narrow and shallow they likely
occured as a resulting combination of shrinkage cracking,  no prepared
control joints, and possibly poorly placed reinforcing which lead to tension
cracks over the supporting beams.

	2.	These cracks should not affect the performance of the composite floor
system and therefore the new equipment can still be located as planned.

	3.	Any attempt to fill the cracks would mearly be cosmetic because they
would open right back up in areas of negative bending when new loading (from
the equipment) is placed.

	4.	Some of the cracks may open up a little more as a result of the
originally expected live load being partially replaced with real dead load.

My questions to the List are the following:

	1.	Does anybody have any other thoughts or concerns about the situation I
described?

	2.	Has anybody seen this type of cracking and had any repair methods worth
pursuing?

Sincerely,

Stephen Fisher,SE
Sacramento, CA


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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(--nospam--at)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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********