Helix steel fiber for concrete reinforcement

[retire09]

Is Helix steel fiber allowed by code as a replacement for rebar in foundations or is this product only allowed in nonstructural slabs?

Are these types of products specifically mentioned in the IBC?

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Icc esr 3441

 

[north star]

@ / @ / @

FWIW, ...here is picture of the Helix steel.

@ + @ + @

 

[retire09]

According to the ESR, it sounds like it is only allowed in nonstructural slabs or plain concrete footings with no reinforcement required.

 

[mark handler]

According to the ESR, it sounds like it is only allowed in nonstructural slabs or plain concrete footings with no reinforcement required.

Correct, Not a Rebar replacement

 

[HelixSteelRep]

Know this is super old, but just doing some googling on what's currently out there: Helix definitely can be used as a rebar replacement, based on equivalent capacity of flexural strength to the specified reinforcement. This is verified on the UES Report (https://www.uniform-es.org/media/27494/er_0279.pdf) on the second page sections 4.3 and 4.4, and on the ICC Report (https://icc-es.org/report-listing/esr-3949/) in section 2.0

This does not mean Helix can always replace ALL rebar or even ANY rebar depending on the application, but there are many structural applications where a direct rebar replacement is allowed. Wont get into any salesy talk here, just trying to provide accurate information.

 

[Mark K]

This is the sort of thing that should go through the code adoption process. In this case I would expect ACI to produce a report addressing the product and if appropriate the product would be referenced in an ACI standard which ultimately be adopted into the building code.

This process allows for a thorough review by uninterested parties. On the other hand ESR's have an inherent bias in favor of the manufacture because ICC is influenced by the money they can charge the manufacturer.

 

[HelixSteelRep]

This is the sort of thing that should go through the code adoption process. In this case I would expect ACI to produce a report addressing the product and if appropriate the product would be referenced in an ACI standard which ultimately be adopted into the building code.

This process allows for a thorough review by uninterested parties. On the other hand ESR's have an inherent bias in favor of the manufacture because ICC is influenced by the money they can charge the manufacturer.

ACI 318-14 1.10 is ACI's catch all for this, "Approval of special systems of design , construction, or alternative construction materials" - The data linked previously, along with project specific calculations, are always supplied to the EOR and building official for their approval.

 

[Mark K]

Your product should go through the code adoption process. IBC 104.11 is much abused and was not intended as a mechanism to allow manufacturers to avoid the code adoption process.

IBC 104.11 governs over ACI 318 1.10

 

[HelixSteelRep]

Can't (or won't) comment on what "should" happen, whether codes intended to promote innovation are "abused" or not, or any other opinion based commentary.

Sticking to the facts, and the topic of the original question, yes the ICC has certified that Helix Steel meets the code requirements set down by both IBC and ACI to directly replace traditional rebar in foundations. The test data, calculation process, and design methods are published and publicly made available. Neither the IBC or the ACI will ever specifically mention a proprietary product - this is the purpose of the independent evaluation reports.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Its main use appears to be for temperature & shrinkage reinforcement. It requires a PE design for other applications and for footings other than seismic categories A, B & C.

 

[ICE]

I have no experience with steel strands in concrete but I do have experience with fiberglass strands in concrete. The strands will stick out of the concrete and I suppose they are worn away over time...or perhaps the strands are removed. Does the same thing happen with steel? What about rusting?

 

[Mark K]

Can't (or won't) comment on what "should" happen, whether codes intended to promote innovation are "abused" or not, or any other opinion based commentary.

Sticking to the facts, and the topic of the original question, yes the ICC has certified that Helix Steel meets the code requirements set down by both IBC and ACI to directly replace traditional rebar in foundations. The test data, calculation process, and design methods are published and publicly made available. Neither the IBC or the ACI will ever specifically mention a proprietary product - this is the purpose of the independent evaluation reports.

Other proprietary products have found their way into the building code. They create a performance standard.

Strictly speaking ICC reports have no legal standing. It is the building official that needs to make a decision regarding whether it is an alternate means of compliance. A building official cannot automatically defer that decision to ICC.

When considering an alternate means of compliance the building department should require the test and other data be submitted. Product manufacturers use the ICC evaluation reports as a way to hide that information. ICC claims that information is proprietary. This shows that ICC's loyalty is to the manufacturer and not to the members of ICC. There is an exception to this non disclosure if you will go to the ICC office the building department can view the data but who is going to go to the ICC office. So from a practical point of view manufacturers use ICC evaluation reports to hide the data.

Regardless of the intention of product manufacturers, and ICC the only way to modify the building code is for the legislative body to formally adopt a code change. In California it is recognized that alternate means of compliance can be approve individually by the building official on a case by case basis. Such approvals need to be formally recorded. A building department would be justified in charging an additional fee to cover the additional work. What ICC and manufacturers promote is the idea that an ICC ESR is a defacto code change.

Manufacturers of new product should go through the code adoption process. If they will not we should ask what they are trying to hide.

 

[Joe.B]

I have no experience with steel strands in concrete but I do have experience with fiberglass strands in concrete. The strands will stick out of the concrete and I suppose they are worn away over time...or perhaps the strands are removed. Does the same thing happen with steel? What about rusting?

I was thinking the same thing with the metal reacting to water, and how much "wicking" there might be. The strands are supposed to interlink to provide structure so I wonder how much how much that could lead to loss of integrity over time, especially over long periods of time in areas where the slab is wet year round.

The one time I saw something like that it was a nylon fiber mixed in, looked like cut and frayed pieces of nylon rope. The manufacture said if it was brushed properly the strands would not stick out. They stuck out and the owner wasn't happy, so the installer got a roofing torch and burned them all away in the visible areas. I went by about a year later and none of the strands were visible, even in areas that weren't burned away. I also noticed there was not a single crack anywhere in the walks.

 

[ICE]

What I said was fiberglass is actually fibrillated forts-ferro fiber….I googled it.

 

[HelixSteelRep]

Its main use appears to be for temperature & shrinkage reinforcement. It requires a PE design for other applications and for footings other than seismic categories A, B & C.

Yes, PE designs are absolutely necessary - Helix replaces rebar, not engineering. The process for almost all projects is that structural drawings with rebar specs will be submit, and the Helix team will provide equivalent dosages or a hybrid rebar/Helix design. The EOR reviews the calc package, and approves (or rejects) Helix as an alternate.

 

[HelixSteelRep]

I have no experience with steel strands in concrete but I do have experience with fiberglass strands in concrete. The strands will stick out of the concrete and I suppose they are worn away over time...or perhaps the strands are removed. Does the same thing happen with steel? What about rusting?

As its steel, a laser screed, vibrating screed, or just decent bull float gets all the Helix under the surface. And because the product is discontinuous, any potential rusting at joint cuts won't travel throughout the slab (although the product is zinc plated). Happy to talk more directly.

 

[bill1952]

Yes, PE designs are absolutely necessary - Helix replaces rebar, not engineering. The process for almost all projects is that structural drawings with rebar specs will be submit, and the Helix team will provide equivalent dosages or a hybrid rebar/Helix design. The EOR reviews the calc package, and approves (or rejects) Helix as an alternate.

So ok without PE design in a plain residential footing A,B, or C (though not sure IRC actually requires rebar in those) but what about in grouted cells of a block foundation wall?

 

[tmurray]

We've seen this start to be used in ICF walls (with engineering)

 

[HelixSteelRep]

Other proprietary products have found their way into the building code. They create a performance standard.

Strictly speaking ICC reports have no legal standing. It is the building official that needs to make a decision regarding whether it is an alternate means of compliance. A building official cannot automatically defer that decision to ICC.

When considering an alternate means of compliance the building department should require the test and other data be submitted. Product manufacturers use the ICC evaluation reports as a way to hide that information. ICC claims that information is proprietary. This shows that ICC's loyalty is to the manufacturer and not to the members of ICC. There is an exception to this non disclosure if you will go to the ICC office the building department can view the data but who is going to go to the ICC office. So from a practical point of view manufacturers use ICC evaluation reports to hide the data.

Regardless of the intention of product manufacturers, and ICC the only way to modify the building code is for the legislative body to formally adopt a code change. In California it is recognized that alternate means of compliance can be approve individually by the building official on a case by case basis. Such approvals need to be formally recorded. A building department would be justified in charging an additional fee to cover the additional work. What ICC and manufacturers promote is the idea that an ICC ESR is a defacto code change.

Manufacturers of new product should go through the code adoption process. If they will not we should ask what they are trying to hide.

You're not wrong, and I'm not trying to say that either of the reports are constitute code change. The reports are saying that Helix meets the performance standard already set for rebar, as an alternative, and only in certain applications. Helix may not be strictly defined in ACI or IBC, but it is certainly allowed - EOR and building official do still need to sign off. Some engineers and building officials won't.

And while I respect and even encourage the right to be suspicious, the general accusation of "hiding something" without any specific question or verifiable claim isn't productive. Happy to provide answers to informed, even critically challenging questions, but not going to just argue.