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

Re: ACI procedures for 355.2 test method

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
<< 
In a message dated 3/19/01 6:06:06 PM, 76573.2107(--nospam--at)compuserve.com writes:

<< I have just contacted ICBO and received some very disturbing news.

ACI has already presented the test method for incorporation into the ICBO

ES methods. The presentation was made in January, 2001, and the public

comment period closes today (!)

While the draft ACI 355.2 is indeed a test method, not a code, this is most

certainly not true of the ICBO standards. 


>This is incorrect.  ACI did not propose the revisions to the ICBO ES 
acceptance criteria AC01 and AC 58 (expansion anchors and adhesive anchors 
respectively).
This has been done by Hilti.


<<2) There are a lot of unhappy engineers over there who feel they've been

had by a company trying to corner the market on concrete anchors.

>That feeling is shared by many here in the US, including the manufacturers 
listed on the alertACI355-2 website. 
Please note that the Covert Operations DUC Undercut anchors, the ITW Spit 
anchors, Williams Form S-9 anchors, Drillco Maxibolt anchors, and others are 
designed to work in cracked concrete, and will pass the ACI 355 and ICBO ES 
requirements.  From a business standpoint, it makes sense for Covert 
Operations to support these new standards.  We will sell more expensive 
anchors, and have less competition.  However, this is not the point.  We are 
not trying to push for new standards to gain marketing advantage.  There 
should be solid evidence of field failures to prompt such changes, which has 
been noted extensively already.

Howard Silverman >>

--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 3/19/01 6:06:06 PM, 76573.2107(--nospam--at)compuserve.com writes:

<< I have just contacted ICBO and received some very disturbing news.

ACI has already presented the test method for incorporation into the ICBO

ES methods. The presentation was made in January, 2001, and the public

comment period closes today (!)

While the draft ACI 355.2 is indeed a test method, not a code, this is most

certainly not true of the ICBO standards. 


>This is incorrect.  ACI did not propose the revisions to the ICBO ES 
acceptance criteria AC01 and AC 58 (expansion anchors and adhesive anchors 
respectively).
This has been done by Hilti.


<<2) There are a lot of unhappy engineers over there who feel they've been

had by a company trying to corner the market on concrete anchors.

>That feeling is shared by many here in the US, including the manufacturers 
listed on the alertACI355-2 website. 
Please note that the Covert Operations DUC Undercut anchors, the ITW Spit 
anchors, Williams Form S-9 anchors, Drillco Maxibolt anchors, and others are 
designed to work in cracked concrete, and will pass the ACI 355 and ICBO ES 
requirements.  From a business standpoint, it makes sense for Covert 
Operations to support these new standards.  We will sell more expensive 
anchors, and have less competition.  However, this is not the point.  We are 
not trying to push for new standards to gain marketing advantage.  There 
should be solid evidence of field failures to prompt such changes, which has 
been noted extensively already.

Howard Silverman

--- End Message ---