Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: UBC 97 Anchorage to Concrete

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Javier,

I would assume that Jake was referring to Appendix D in ACI 318-02.

This is especially true since ACI 318-95 and ACI 318-99 (and other earlier
ACI 318s) do not really have provisions for anchorage to concrete.
Appendix D is new to the 2002 edition of ACI 318.

And I believe that you meant to type ACI 349 not 347.  Appendix B of ACI
349-01 (and the "accompanying" ACI 349.2R-97, although it is somewhat
outdated and I think provides examples based upon the older ACI 349
provisions) is the only other ACI document that I am aware of that
actually provides design provisions/procedures.

There is also ACI 355.1R-91 Reapprove 1997 (State-of-the-Art Report on
Anchorage to Concrete), but it is definitely not a document with code
provisions on anchorage to concrete nor does it seem to really offer
design procedures.  It seems to more be aimed at providing background
information on the overall topic.  It does talk some about the procedure
in ACI 349.

There is also ACI 355.2-00 (Evaluating the Performance of Post-Installed
Anchors).  As implied by the title, it is not a design procedure document
but rather a standardized test method to evaluate post-installed anchors
(mainly mechanical anchors such as wedge, sleeve, etc for now...chemical
anchors are not really included in this edition as I understand it) that
is meant to be used in conjunction with Appendix D of ACI 318-02.  FYI,
this was the controversial part of the inclusion of Appendix D in ACI
318-02.  There are a number of people out there that don't like ACI
355.2-00.  They maintain that many mechanical anchors that appear to have
work satisfactorily in the past will now be prohibited by this test
method.  While their concerns do have some validity, such anchors will not
be prohibited, but rather could be potentially required to have a lower
allowable load when determined by this test procedure as opposed to the
non-standardized test methods that have been used by manufactors in the
past.  The big difference with this test method is that it requires
testing of the mechanical anchors in cracked concrete specimen (imagine
that...concrete cracking...what an absurd though...OK, sarcasitc mode
turned back off for now).

There is also a document by PCA that covers the design of anchorage to
concrete.  This document was the starting point for what eventually became
Appendix D of ACI 318-02, at least as I understand it.  The PCA
publication is titled Strength Design of Anchorage to Concrete.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Javier Encinas wrote:

> UBC 97 Anchorage to ConcreteWhat specific ACI procedure are you refering to? 318-95, 99, 02, 347?
>
> Javier Encinas
> Encinas & Associates
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jake Watson
>   To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 8:15 PM
>   Subject: RE: UBC 97 Anchorage to Concrete
>
>
>   You may also consider following the ACI procedure.  It is much more thorough in the treatment of edge distances.  I know it is not part of the UBC, but I can't see anyone having a serious disagreement with using it.
>
>   Jake Watson, P.E.
>   Salt Lake City, UT
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Chan, David [mailto:DCHAN(--nospam--at)ladpw.org]
>     Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:48 PM
>     To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>     Subject: UBC 97 Anchorage to Concrete
>
>
>     I am getting a difference in opinion on the calculation of Ap in UBC 97 Section 1923 Anchorage to Concrete and would like the list's opinion.  For discussion sake, assume a 24"x24" block of concrete in plan with an anchor bolt located 3 inches from the south and west edges and embedded 12 inches.  Is the area Ap equal to a circle with a 3 inch radius (corresponding to 3 inch edge distance)?  or is it equal to the overlapping area of a 12 in. diameter circle and the block of concrete (a circle with two sides cut off)?  I personally believe it is the latter, as it represents a more realistic pullout cone.
>
>     David
>     Los Angeles
>
>
>
>
>
>



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********