Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Alternate Cold Joint Location

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I can see a few problems with both options:

Option ‘A’ requires you to pour the floor before building your walls and the rest of the building. Here in the Great White North, it is often important to get the building up and enclosed before pouring floors. It is also easier this way to dowel in the floor as you can bend the vertical bar down when you are ready for the floor slab.

Option ‘B’ allows the contractor to get the walls up, bu the bar protruding into the slab is a tripping hazard for the workers and also makes compaction of the sub-base more difficult, if not impossible. They usually end up getting bent up out of the way, but this is a nuisance.

Option ‘C’ is use an L shaped footing that allows the walls to go up and provides a seat for the floor slab, with rebar dowels out of the way. Then, the contractor complains about how to form the step, i.e., 2 pours or fancy formwork or a masonry course.

Gary Hodgson

Bill Allen wrote:

Dear colleagues,

A contractor has requested an alternate cold joint location. In the sketch found in the link below:

Alternate A is the method shown on the approved plans.

Alternate B is what the contractor wants to do.

The dowels match the slab bars.

Should I have a concern about the request?


T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.


Consulting Structural Engineers
V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********