Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: embed bolts in CMU

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I believe that the factor of safety of 8 is for the tension capacity of a
bolt embedded in masonry with no special inspection.  The code allows a 100%
increase in the allowable tension capacity of the bolt embedded in masonry
when special inspection is provided.  Therefore, the factor of a safety
would be reduced to 4 on the tested tension capacity of a bolt embedded in
masonry with special inspection.

Installation of any epoxy anchor requires special inspection per ICBO code
report requirements.  Accordingly, it follows that they have a safety factor
of 4.

As you and I have stated previously, for masonry anchorage, the code limits
you to an effective area of projected shear cone with the lesser of the
embed depth or the edge distance as the radius.  Therefore, it basically
does not recognize the additional load capacity one would achieve by deeper
embedments.  For instance, a cast-in-place bolt embedded 24" into the top of
an 8" nominal CMU wall would have the same allowable tension capacity as a
3.81" (7.625" / 2) deep embedded anchor due to the code edge distance
limitation.  Obviously, the 24" embedded bolt would obtain a much higher
capacity than the 3.81" deep embedded anchor.

It seems that one could reasonably calculate the projected area on the top
of the masonry wall as the Ap in the code equations to determine the
increased capacity due to larger embedments.  Perhaps a committee member or
one more familiar with the masonry anchorage testing that was performed to
develop the code allowable load tables could "shed some light" on this
discussion.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: embed bolts in CMU


> Andrew,
>
> If you take a look at the commentary for the MSJC (ACI 530), you will
> probably see the reason for the difference.  First of all, yes, the
> equation for tension capacity of cast-in-place anchors due to masonry (EQ
> 2-1...ASD...seperate equation for tension capacity due to failure of the
> anchor itself is eq 2-2) failure is empirical, but IT IS based upon
> testing.  Thus, in theory, it should be not too much different than what
> you would get from a post-installed anchor catalog, which is also based
> upon testing.
>
> When you look at section 2.1.2.2.2 of the MSJC commentary, it discusses
> the fact that Eq. 2-1 is based upon testing.  It further states toward the
> end of the paragraph:
>
> "Comparison of Eq. (2-1) to test results obtained by Brown and Whitlock
> (ref 2.2) show an average factor of safety of approximately eight."
>
> Yes, it does appear according to that statement in the commentary that the
> MSJC committee decided to use a factor of safety of about eight (8).  So
> if you take your value of 1200 lbs (which is actually a little off for an
> anchor in TOP of a 8" CMU wall...more on that below), then to really
> compare with a value from either Simpson (3140 lbs for 5/8" or 3/4" and
> 2225 lbs for 7/8") or Hilta HIT HY 150 (1795 lbs for 1/2" anchor and 1965
> lbs for 5/8" anchor assuming that anchor is placed in middle of cell) you
> should be using 1200*2=2400 lbs (to get the "equivalent" factor of
> safety).  Thus, will still some differences (especially with Simpson's
> 5/8" and 3/4" anchor values), things are much closer.
>
> Now, first I will point out that if in fact you are placing the anchor in
> the horizontal surface at the top of a 8" wall, then the tension capacity
> of the masonry from Eq. 2-1 will be on the order of 885 lbs.  This is due
> to have to use the edge distance (3.82") of the anchor to determine Ap
> (45.7 sq in).  There could be an arguement made that in this case the Ap
> should be slightly larger than that because the edge distance only applies
> in one direction, but the code does not consider than (at least that is
> how it appears to me).  In otherwords, in theory the failure cone may have
> two "sides" that are truncated by the edge distance, but then two "sides"
> that are not.
>
> Regardless, that get's us back to the use of a factor of safety of 8.  To
> be entirely honest, I don't know why they chose to use a FS of 8, but I
> can speculate.  It is possible that a FS of 8 is used because masonry
> construction is HIGHLY dependant on quality control during construction,
> even more so than concrete.  Thus, it could be the committee's feeling
> that a high FS is warranted in this case.  Again just my own theory.
> Maybe someone from the committee could respond (I know at least one
> committee member used to be a member of SEAINT...regardless I may try to
> find out myself since it has piqued my curiousity).
>
> One other comment...while I certainly have absolutely noting against
> epoxy/adhesive anchor (used them MANY times), you do need to excercise a
> little caution with them.  While it is definitely true that they allow
> "precise placement with much less room for errors in the field", there is
> still are places where field "errors" can really screw up such anchors.
> The anchors might be able to be located very accurately, meaning that
> errors in edge distance and spacing are less likely, you do have to make
> sure that the hole preparation is done properly.  If the hole is not
> cleaned properly before placement of the anchor or adhesive/epoxy, then
> you can even have situations where a person can physically pull out the
> anchor by hand (worst case scenario with a very badly cleaned hole) to
> tension capacity of much less than specified in the catalog.  Thus, many
> times I have specified some actual testing of in-place anchors for
> critical applications.
>
> FYI, the minimum embeddment depths in the MSJC code are not there to
> produce masonry failure over failure of the anchor, but rather in
> consideration of "...a practical minimum based upon typical construction
> methods for embedding bolts in masonry."  (from MSJC commentary section
> 2.1.4.2.1)
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
> Ypsilanti, MI
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Andrew D. Kester wrote:
>
> > I think the other person writing about this subject interpreted ACI 530
the
> > same way we do. That is why we do not even bother designing using
masonry
> > embed bolts anymore, due to their limited capacity. If you plug in 8" x
8"
> > (the size of one filled cell of CMU), A=64in^2 to the equation, and
> > fm=1500psi, you get a measly 1200lb. From what I understand this would
be
> > the max you could get from a bolt in the top of 8" block, one per cell,
no
> > matter how big your embed is your effective shear cone area will not
exceed
> > this. Also, this is an empirical formula based only on the shear cone
> > relationship and the strength of your masonry/grout. It seems they give
you
> > min embeds so that you are developing the strength of the bolt fully, or
as
> > is required to get an equal strength of your shear cone, such that bond
> > stress failure between the bolt and the grout is not an issue. We know
it is
> > not the A307 bolt controlling this relationship, so it must be a
> > conservative, empirical formula. This is all we can come up with at our
> > office.
> >
> > So what do you do when you need a bolted connection with more then a
1200 lb
> > capacity? This is a common occurence, especially in low rise
construction,
> > down here in FL. We have been exclusively using Simpson SET Epoxy, which
> > give you an allowable tensile value=3140lb in the center of a grouted
cell
> > opening, w/ 5/8" diam. A307, 5" embed. My question is why is this so
much
> > greater then the code formula for cast in place bolts? I think it goes
back
> > to Simpson bases their results on testing, with a factor of safety of
4.0.
> > That makes me feel very confident. Also the flexibility of a post-pour
epoxy
> > bolt allows precise placement with much less room for errors in the
field.
> >
> > And no, I am not a salesman for Simpson nor do I get a commission. I am
sure
> > other epoxy systems work just as well. Simpson does the best job , I
think,
> > of providing quality information through their manuals and seminars. I
went
> > to a one day epoxy bolt seminar on their tab, and we drilled and epoxied
and
> > tested in the workshop. It is pretty neat seeing the bolts fail in
tension
> > (steel yielding) while the epoxy holds strong......
> >
> > Give their website a try for more info. If anyone has any insight as to
why
> > cast in place bolts for CMU are so "weak and crappy" sound off.
> >
> > All IMHO...
> >
> > Andrew Kester, EI
> > Longwood, FL
> >
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********