Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: 1997 UBC ICBO seminar-wall anchorage

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
There is a difference in the two because of the stress distribution in the concrete. BTW, I talked to Gerry Neville about the same issue. He was making assumptions about the intent of the code.
 
Some places have banned expansion anchors or severely punished them. Epoxy anchors aren't, to the best of my knowledge, treated with the same level of approbation. IMHO, if the installation is properly inspected, it should work fine. Most of the failures come from poor installation. The building officials tend to react when they summarily reject something like this. It would be better if they just made sure it as installed correctly.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Shaffer [mailto:rkdn(--nospam--at)cruzio.com]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 10:58 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: 1997 UBC ICBO seminar-wall anchorage

Jeff,

The  97 UBC Lateral seminar yesterday was filled with insights into the code and Dr. Ghosh and Mr. Neville sure did an excelent job.  I beleive that there were two seperate points made in reguards to wall anchors; ( in my words not theirs )

1.    the speaker seemed to indicate that the intent was for ALL embeded wall anchors ( for out of plane forces ) to engage the wall reinforcing,  not just straps as stated in the code.
2.    the speaker seemed to indicate that he was not enthusiastic about drilled-in anchors ( epoxy ?? expansion ?? ) since they do not engage steel for a continuous load path and they are tested in direct tension. ( not cyclical loading ??? ) And that some jurisdiction (?) has banned their use for wall anchorage.