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

Re: Anchor rods -- ASTM F 1554

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Joel,

Your read of the document is correct.  As I recall, we did wrestle with the
language with respect to the 'weldability' supplement, and  we went
back-and-forth a few times in an attempt to reach consensus.

I suggest you call our ASTM F16.02 Subcommittee Chairman, Fred Weingruber,
and ask him as well.  He can provide some background, and perhaps based upon
your querry, prepare a ballot that would improve the clarity of the
standard.

Fred may be reached at (412) 271-3956.

David Sharp
Officer, ASTM Committe F-16


> This question is, perhaps, directed to Charlie Carter, but help from
anyone
> with experience using the ASTM F 1554 spec for anchor rods would be
> appreciated.
>
> Our office recently decided to begin using the ASTM F 1554 spec for our
> anchor rods.  In doing so, we reviewed the spec along with Charlie
Carter's
> SEAINT posts on the subject and the Modern Steel article about material
> specifications.  As we read these materials, we had some disagreement on
the
> interpretation of the portions of the spec related to steel grades and
> weldability.  One engineer concluded, "We should make grade 55 our
standard,
> and require the weldability supplement, since this is the only way to make
> the rods weldable."  My interpretation was, "Grade 36 anchor rods are
> intrinsically weldable, therefore there is no weldability supplement for
> that material.  If you want Grade 55 rods and want them to be weldable,
you
> must specify the weldability supplement."  Which of these interpretations
is
> correct -- or are neither?
>
> We also had some confusion over which material is most commonly used.
> Charlie's recent e-mail stated that Grade 36 is the most common, but the
> Modern Steel article (also written by Charlie) said that Grade 55 was the
> most common.  Since the e-mail is more recent, I am assuming that this
> represents the best info, and am leaning toward using Grade 36 as our
> standard, and using Grade 55 only when the additional strength is
required.
> We just don't want to get ourselves into a situation where we're
specifying
> a material that is not readily available.  Anybody had any problem with
> getting either material?
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> -------------------------
> Joel Adair, EIT
> Halff Associates, Inc.
> E-mail: jadair(--nospam--at)halff.com
> -------------------------
>
>