- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tying New Concrete to an Existing Foundation - Yes or No?
Posted on 6/24/14 at 9:44 pm to soccerfüt
Posted on 6/24/14 at 9:44 pm to soccerfüt
quote:
But from this document proper techniques and methodologies can be gleaned and this knowledge adapted to be used by a reasonably intelligent person in an appropriate execution of the intended project.
OK, well you originally posted this.
quote:
ACI Specs on This Issue
See Chapter 5.
But maybe these people don't know as much as the O-T does.
Sort of implying that people on the OT were wrong and Chapter 5 of this committee's guideline had the correct answers.
Yet you offered no interpretation relative to the OP's situation. All chapter 5 really does is discuss the different types of joints used in slab-on-grade, their purpose, and the considerations that go along with them.
quote:
ealize you were not mentally equipped to meld the concepts presented in Chapters Five and Six
What's the relevance of Chapter 6? It isn't a parking lot that receives vehicular loading.
All you was come in this thread and act like a badass just because you linked an ACI document, yet you can't seem to add any relevant information regarding it. Maybe I should have just linked ACI 302 and told you to "suck it bro". That would have been right up your alley.
This post was edited on 6/24/14 at 9:58 pm
1
Posted on 6/24/14 at 10:54 pm to urinetrouble
I posted originally a link to "ACI Specs on This Issue"
And then I noted "See Chapter 5." I should have also noted to see Chapter Six too.
Then I wrote:
"But maybe these people* don't know as much as the O-T does."
*my note: I obviously meant ACI, I didn't infer that every person who had posted here was wrong only that the ACI is probably a better single authority on concrete construction than a chat room full of disparate opinions of laymen, etc.
It would seem that it is your contention that the O-T knows more about proper concrete application than the controlling ACI document on the subject. Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, you have difficulty understanding that the OP is attempting to build a hybrid system: a pavement, addressed in Chapter Six (his patio is technically pavement in ACI parlance, as ACI does not have a controlling specification for "patios") which may later be also incorporated into a structural foundation (addressed in Chapter Five) because it may be called upon in the future to support a roof system. Both of these applications are individually addressed in the document I referenced. Again, ACI does not (and cannot) specifically reference every possible combination of individual systems, they rely on the wisdom of professionals to incorporate the guidelines into an appropriate system in cases of hybrid activities. You seemingly can't "get" this concept.
I don't pretend to have all the specific answers for the OP on exactly how to best execute this case; none of us can here because we don't know all the variables (existent and planned) in play at his project. My referring to the controlling ACI document on this subject was to give the OP the best general overview of his project. You (for some unknown reason) took this as a personal attack. It was not meant as such.
Observation:
I'll bet your "I'm the smartest guy in the room" act goes over well at parties.
And then I noted "See Chapter 5." I should have also noted to see Chapter Six too.
Then I wrote:
"But maybe these people* don't know as much as the O-T does."
*my note: I obviously meant ACI, I didn't infer that every person who had posted here was wrong only that the ACI is probably a better single authority on concrete construction than a chat room full of disparate opinions of laymen, etc.
It would seem that it is your contention that the O-T knows more about proper concrete application than the controlling ACI document on the subject. Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, you have difficulty understanding that the OP is attempting to build a hybrid system: a pavement, addressed in Chapter Six (his patio is technically pavement in ACI parlance, as ACI does not have a controlling specification for "patios") which may later be also incorporated into a structural foundation (addressed in Chapter Five) because it may be called upon in the future to support a roof system. Both of these applications are individually addressed in the document I referenced. Again, ACI does not (and cannot) specifically reference every possible combination of individual systems, they rely on the wisdom of professionals to incorporate the guidelines into an appropriate system in cases of hybrid activities. You seemingly can't "get" this concept.
I don't pretend to have all the specific answers for the OP on exactly how to best execute this case; none of us can here because we don't know all the variables (existent and planned) in play at his project. My referring to the controlling ACI document on this subject was to give the OP the best general overview of his project. You (for some unknown reason) took this as a personal attack. It was not meant as such.
Observation:
I'll bet your "I'm the smartest guy in the room" act goes over well at parties.
This post was edited on 6/24/14 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 6/24/14 at 11:41 pm to soccerfüt
Geez 6 pages...
I do this shite everyday and I've been a member of ACI for 20 years.
For a patio... there is no need to dowel in the new slab. You can if you want to though.
I do this shite everyday and I've been a member of ACI for 20 years.
For a patio... there is no need to dowel in the new slab. You can if you want to though.
Posted on 6/24/14 at 11:56 pm to soccerfüt
quote:
I posted originally a link to "ACI Specs on This Issue"
And then I noted "See Chapter 5." I should have also noted to see Chapter Six too.
Then I wrote:
"But maybe these people* don't know as much as the O-T does."
*my note: I obviously meant ACI, I didn't infer that every person who had posted here was wrong only that the ACI is probably a better single authority on concrete construction than a chat room full of disparate opinions of laymen, etc.
Those chapters don't really address what the OP was asking. And simply posting the ACI document without any further information or recommendation is not going to be helpful to the OP, who doesn't appear to have a technical background in the subject.
quote:
It would seem that it is your contention that the O-T knows more about proper concrete application than the controlling ACI document on the subject.
How is that the controlling ACI document on the subject? There is more to this than just joints in the concrete.
quote:
Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, you have difficulty understanding that the OP is attempting to build a hybrid system: a pavement, addressed in Chapter Six (his patio is technically pavement in ACI parlance, as ACI does not have a controlling specification for "patios") which may later be also incorporated into a structural foundation (addressed in Chapter Five) because it may be called upon in the future to support a roof system. Both of these applications are individually addressed in the document I referenced. Again, ACI does not (and cannot) specifically reference every possible combination of individual systems, they rely on the wisdom of professionals to incorporate the guidelines into an appropriate system in cases of hybrid activities. You seemingly can't "get" this concept.
I don't know anyone in the profession that refers to this as a "hybrid" system. We design monolithic slab-on-grade foundations to support free-standing exterior canopies adjacent to buildings all the time. I would not consider this to be a pavement. It does not support repetitive vehicular loading, as there is a separate set of considerations that goes along with that.
quote:
My referring to the controlling ACI document on this subject was to give the OP the best general overview of his project.
You really think the OP was going to get any valuable information from that document?
quote:
You (for some unknown reason) took this as a personal attack. It was not meant as such.
Observation:
I'll bet your "I'm the smartest guy in the room" act goes over well at parties.
All I initially did was ask you where in Chapter 5 it addressed the OP's situation and you responded with a short, vague answer and a "you mad bro?". Is that not a personal attack?
Observation: You started with the "smartest guy in the room" act.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:00 am to urinetrouble
Posting information here is not always for the exclusive use or for information only to the original poster. Obviously neither you nor I would have asked this original question here but with the wide range of up information and misinformation presented in this thread, referencing legitimate outside sources such as I posted can be helpful. Whether everyone here can understand them is not always the litmus test for posting something. If you want to have your own forum you can make that a house rule.
Because you may interpret the thrust of those Chapters differently than me or others does not mean they do not address this situation. They do in general terms. As we have no real details as to soil conditions for the existing structure and the sub-grade for the project area or potential structural loads, general terms and conceptual ideas are the best we can do with the limited information available. That's why I linked to those general guidelines.
I didn't attempt to call this scenario by the proper noun of a "Hybrid System". I described it as a hybrid system with regard to the Chapters of that ACI document. It is. What is difficult to understand about that? A multi-storied parking garage is a hybrid system (also in this narrow sense) if it includes two separate topics addressed in the ACI document: in this case Paving and Structural.
"You mad bro??" is not a particularly violent personal attack. If you consider it as such you might want to grow another layer or two of skin. If you read Chapter Five, it contains much salient conceptual information which could be used to execute this project in the best manner possible. I wasn't going to quote you chapter and verse of it, it's plainly obvious upon reading. You erroneously took offense that I called you out personally on this topic and you wanted to press the issue. That was certainly not my intent. My intent was to contribute and inform. You misinterpreted. "Maybe these people don't know as much as the O-T does." Wow. A real personal attack.
Have fun with the thin skin thing. Chopping and beating down unlocked doors is heavy work. If a person wants to be wronged, they can generally manufacture an insult.
Because you may interpret the thrust of those Chapters differently than me or others does not mean they do not address this situation. They do in general terms. As we have no real details as to soil conditions for the existing structure and the sub-grade for the project area or potential structural loads, general terms and conceptual ideas are the best we can do with the limited information available. That's why I linked to those general guidelines.
I didn't attempt to call this scenario by the proper noun of a "Hybrid System". I described it as a hybrid system with regard to the Chapters of that ACI document. It is. What is difficult to understand about that? A multi-storied parking garage is a hybrid system (also in this narrow sense) if it includes two separate topics addressed in the ACI document: in this case Paving and Structural.
"You mad bro??" is not a particularly violent personal attack. If you consider it as such you might want to grow another layer or two of skin. If you read Chapter Five, it contains much salient conceptual information which could be used to execute this project in the best manner possible. I wasn't going to quote you chapter and verse of it, it's plainly obvious upon reading. You erroneously took offense that I called you out personally on this topic and you wanted to press the issue. That was certainly not my intent. My intent was to contribute and inform. You misinterpreted. "Maybe these people don't know as much as the O-T does." Wow. A real personal attack.
Have fun with the thin skin thing. Chopping and beating down unlocked doors is heavy work. If a person wants to be wronged, they can generally manufacture an insult.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 5:59 am to soccerfüt
quote:
Whether everyone here can understand them is not always the litmus test for posting something. If you want to have your own forum you can make that a house rule.
I really didn't care that you posted it. Just don't be a smartass when I ask a simple follow-up question about it's relevance.
quote:
"You mad bro??" is not a particularly violent personal attack.
What provoked it? All I did was ask you question about what you posted. Don't make comments like that and then act all righteous about me being the difficult one.
quote:
If you read Chapter Five, it contains much salient conceptual information which could be used to execute this project in the best manner possible. I wasn't going to quote you chapter and verse of it, it's plainly obvious upon reading.
Then a simple description of which topics were relevant should have been easy. I didn't ask for direct quotes.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 6:04 am
Posted on 6/25/14 at 6:46 am to urinetrouble
This board is not your personal forum, and my OP was not addressed to you. Whether you feel any post is or is not relevant is ironically not globally relevant. You can ask for clarification or comment from anyone who posts here but you are not owed that from them. The referenced document was/is bleedingly simple to understand along with its general ability to speak to the project. That you were and remain obtuse about it is a "you" problem. Good luck with that issue.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 6:47 am
Posted on 6/25/14 at 7:02 am to soccerfüt
Did you work for Enron? Because its apparent you are the smartest guy in the room.
To the OP:
No need to dowel, however if you want to then do it. I would scrape the ground and remove all vegetation, dig a footing around the complete perimeter. Not a grade beam but a footing. Form with 2*4, place 6 mil visqueen in area, Place welded wire mesh in area and raise on chairs ( which you can buy where you buy the wire) or as others said, pieces of brick, block. Place 3000 psi concrete and have your finisher keep it in the chairs. Light broom finish. Put some steel in the cooing if you want. I would put a piece of key way across the middle.
24 hours later drink cold beer on new slab while watering it.
To the OP:
No need to dowel, however if you want to then do it. I would scrape the ground and remove all vegetation, dig a footing around the complete perimeter. Not a grade beam but a footing. Form with 2*4, place 6 mil visqueen in area, Place welded wire mesh in area and raise on chairs ( which you can buy where you buy the wire) or as others said, pieces of brick, block. Place 3000 psi concrete and have your finisher keep it in the chairs. Light broom finish. Put some steel in the cooing if you want. I would put a piece of key way across the middle.
24 hours later drink cold beer on new slab while watering it.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 7:09 am to Martini
I drove past two Holiday Inn Expresses yesterday. Maybe that's it....
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:34 am to soccerfüt
Oh obviously you are a comedian too!
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:43 am to CarRamrod
I assume you got it now?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:14 am to ForeverLSU02
No need to tie the two together. Tack fiberboard expansion joint material to the existing house and caulk the joint with expansion joint sealant about 7 days after you finish pouring the new slab.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News