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

Re: Bent anchor bolts / welding high strength bolts?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> And might this not be the reason that AISC had the foresight to designate
> these anchor devices as, "anchor rods" so as to circumvent such inane
> interpretations of some obscure law?  Would an "anchor rod" truly be a
> "fastner" under its intended usage?

Yes, 'anchor rods' are covered, as NIST was quick to pick up on the
irrelevance of a fastener name vs. its function.  (This cut both ways by the
way, and kept many threaded parts that aren't really fasteners out of the

The law was drafted to net the purveyors of counterfeit and substandard
fasteners, which was a SUBSTANTIAL problem in the 1980's.  It was later
during the rule-making stages that fastener suppliers realized they would be
on the legal 'hook' if subsequent purchasers altered their products by
heat-treatment, cutting threads, etc.  The fear was that any subsequent
problems would lead to the original manufacturer being held accountable for
the 'manufacturing' steps taken by others without their knowledge.  Thus,
the requirements for re-marking for traceability, transfer of liability, and
testing for certification were put in the rule.

The Fastener Quality Act of 1990 spent nearly 10 years in the rule-making
process, and I don't think there was a one of us (regardless of which side
of an issue one was on,) who came away with much respect for either
democrats or republicans.

David Sharp

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********