Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: drilled and epoxied rods (Samir)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Samir,

I've seen some of the ICBO reports where the allowable values were
adjusted by the LABC, but I'm not sure what the reason is for the
sometimes drastic reductions.  Do you know of the history or technical
aspect of these adjustments?

Thanks,
Dave K. Adams, S.E.
Lane Engineers, Inc.
979 N. Blackstone St.
Tulare, CA 93274
PH:  (559) 688-5263
FAX: (559) 688-8893
E-mail:  davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Samir Ghosn [mailto:sghosn(--nospam--at)harris-assoc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:47 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: drilled and epoxied rods


Be aware in the real world out there there are no ideal conditions that
resemble test protocol.  Futher, if you look at ICBO approval reports
and
LABC approval reports you might find out that the established Catalog
Values, Sales pitch program, are higher than approved reports allow.
use
some judgement.  Evaluate if the anchors are used to resist seismic
conditions, evaluate if the test protocol allows for dynamic motion and
relative degredation of the impacted bolt assembly.  Thats my 0.02
cents.
Good luck.
  At 10:38 AM 1/29/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>For those interested, I got a very good response from Hilti this
morning.
>Hilti uses a method called the 5% fractile to calculate their
capacities.
>With this method, 95% of the anchors tested exceed the listed capacity.
In
>addition a factor of safety is applied that varies from 3 to 5. Their
manual
>has some documentation on this. In my opinion, this seems adequate from
a
>practical standpoint. Their procedure has been accepted by ICBO in
report
>AC01 published January 2001. However, the testing of anchors to this
>procedure has not been approved yet. I assume that this is in progress
as
>the method was only accepted recently. So for at least Hilti products
it
>sounds like this issue will be resolved in the future. I assume other
>manufacturers will potentially use the same procedure to justify the
values.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sherman, William [mailto:ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:05 AM
>To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
>Subject: RE: drilled and epoxied rods
>
>
>I've struggled with the same question regarding which values to use. I
often
>use ICBO values for projects in California, since there seems to be
more
>emphasis on their use there; but I often use manufacturer's catalog
values
>for non-UBC areas. If I am comparing two manufacturer's values, such as
for
>product substitutions in submittals, I often use ICBO values for
comparison
>to ensure that consistent test parameters are used. 
>
>
>William C. Sherman, PE
>CDM, Denver, CO
>Phone: 303-298-1311
>Fax: 303-293-8236
>email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Panos Trochalakis [mailto:panost(--nospam--at)ckcps.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:51 PM
>> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
>> Subject: drilled and epoxied rods
>> 
>> 
>> I am working on a project that involves allot of drilled and 
>> epoxied rods.
>> Up until this point I have been using the capacities listed in the
>> manufacturer's catalog. However, the allowable values in the 
>> catalog do not
>> match the allowable values listed in the ICBO report for the 
>> same product.
>> This appears to be consistent regardless of the manufacturer. 
>> For example,
>> both Hilti and Rawl do not match. In some cases the 
>> discrepancy is large in
>> others negligible. In other cases, anchor diameters listed in 
>> the catalog
>> are not even mentioned in the ICBO report. I called one 
>> manufacturer and was
>> told that they have conducted additional in-house testing to 
>> create the
>> allowables listed in their catalog. I am waiting to hear from another
>> manufacturer but was hoping to get input from other engineers in the
>> meantime. Do other engineers typically use the catalog values 
>> and if so how
>> do you feel about using values that are not backed up by independent
>> testing?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for any help.
>> 
>> 
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> *   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 
>******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
>


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