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

RE: ACI 355.2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The sense of your message reminds me of a retired participant on the
listserver, Franklin Lew, who became famous in our archives for asking
"where are the bodies?" whenever a new procedure was proposed that didn't
make sense.
I have had similar results to yours and I've been practicing for about 31
years.  The only failures I've observed have been when the anchor wasn't set
properly in the first place.  And isn't the inspector supposed to catch the
major, detrimental cracks for us before someone puts and anchor in it?  :<)
Bill Cain, S.E.

Original Message-----
From: 	Peter Higgins [mailto:76573.2107(--nospam--at)] 
Sent:	Wednesday, March 21, 2001 2:15 PM
To:	INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject:	Re: ACI 355.2

Re Mark Gilligans posting (omitted here for brevity).

The more I dig into it, the more I am surprised at this thing.

We have here a classic red herring. Concrete does crack. All the time. The
test procedures are in real concrete.

The proposed procedure is not representative of reality (how many of us
install anchors into a strip 2-3' wide, with a known crack all the way
across the width?). Maybe if I did anchors exclusively in sidewalks, I'd
have some sort of a problem, but not in a building sized chunk of concrete.

I personally have installed dozens of anchors into construction and full
cold joints in a slab and then pulled them to ensure they perform. I have
yet to find any problems. Why? I don't know, but there aren't any, and
that's the bottom line. One shouldn't put theory ahead of Mother Nature's
teaching. Yeah, the equations look impressive. However, when I substitute
into them, I get an answer which predicts failure at a small (less than 5%)
fraction of what these anchors were known to pull. This isn't safety factor
territory, it's plain wrong. When the theory doesn't fit reality, one
doesn't continue to insist on the theory. You go back and find out what's
wrong with the theory.

Millions of these things are installed every year. If cracking were a
problem, you would not even be able to set these anchors (the proposed
procedure requires that the pretension be present during installation. It
is only relaxed AFTER the anchor is installed. If they didn't do this, you
would never even get an expansion anchor to so much as set, let alone
develop significant torque).

The procedure also deliberately distorts the hole after drilling, which
most certainly isn't representative of reality.

With all due respect to the list, I have yet to see documented, published
problems with expansion anchors, let alone the sort of evidence required to
outlaw them completely. Anecdoteal stories can hit the trash can as far as
I'm concerned. It takes cold hard data to base a decision, not vaguely
remembered stories related second to third hand. If the data are out there,
where are they? Show me, and I'll be the first to change my mind and admit
the error of my ways. The first guy (person) to show it to me will also get
a free dinner at the restaurant of their choice.

Peter S. Higgins, SE