Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Expansion Anchors in Masonry

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The biggest part of the problem has to do with minor gravity only
connections in buildings with a fire rating such that an adhesive anchor
is not a viable option.  Is it reasonable to think that one would only
be allowed to use an adhesive anchor and figure out a way of
fireproofing the connection?  (I'm referring mainly to remodel and
contractor's corrective measure proposals.)
 ----------
From: Bill Allen
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject: Re: Expansion Anchors in Masonry
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 3:01PM

Since an expansion anchor relies on the capacity of an in-situ assembly,
I
would be reluctant to specify a product that is not tested with some
sort of
standardized criteria. The ICBO evaluation service is one that is fairly
"industry standard" albeit expensive to obtain.

If there were two apparently identical products, one with an ICBO report
and
one without, I would specify the product with the ICBO approvals and
values.

Based on this concept, the new report for ITW Ramset/Redhead anchors
(ES-1372) excludes "use of anchors in resisting earthquake or wind
loads"
(para. 4.9). This paragraph in ITW's report renders the product useless.

Regards,
Bill Allen
 -----Original Message-----
From: Gill Chris <GILLCHR(--nospam--at)us.hilti.com>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: Expansion Anchors in Masonry


>
>
>> ----------
>> From: Lynn Howard[SMTP:lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 3:41 PM
>> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> Subject: Re: Expansion Anchors in Masonry
>>
>> Burch, Daniel wrote:
>>
>> > Is anyone aware of an expansion anchor which has a current ICBO
>> Report
>> > which addresses a masonry application?  ITW used to in their 1992
>> > version of Report #1372 but the 1997 version no longer addresses
>> this
>> > application.  I contacted the local ITW rep and he said that they
>> did
>> > not resubmit the masonry application on purpose.  Apparently they
>> > figured no one else needed it (they ICBO approval) so why should
>> they.
>> > Our local code jurisdiction is taking the stance that there is no
>> > product presently available with a current ICBO Report and therefore
>> > they will not allow the application.
>> >
>> > Dan Burch
>>
>>
>Lynn Howard wrote:
>> Hilti Kwik Bolt II has values in their catalog for bolts in grouted
>> filled
>> block (ASTM C90, Grade N, type I).  However, I do not kind an ICBO
>> report
>> in the back of their manual for this application.
>> It is surprising that a building official will not accept a building
>> product unless it has an ICBO report.  That is a little harsh and
>> unrealistic in my opinion.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>It is in fact true that we have values for the Kwik Bolt II's in grout
>filled block in our Technical Manual.  I like to remind people that an
>ICBO Evaluation Report is just that; it is a report and not approval.
>It does not cover anybody's backside or keep them from determining code
>compliance.  Since nobody has an ICBO report, what are the options?
>
>Chris Gill
>Manager of Field Engineering
>Hilti, Inc.
>
>gillchr(--nospam--at)us.hilti.com
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>