Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: HILTI Anchor for anchoring Vessels

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rajendran:

It is important to remember that "ICC reports" are NOT code approvals but
rather third party (that third party being ICC-ES or ICC Evaluation
Service) evaluation reports that basically fit under the various model
codes "alternative materials" provisions (i.e. sections 104.11 and
104.11.1 in the 2000 IBC as an example.

Typically, ICC-ES does NOT do the tests themselves, but has established
Acceptance Criteria that typically must be used by the ICC-ES folks to
evaluation products.  Those AC document contain general as well as
specific testing requirement that to my knowledge must be done by a
certified lab under supervision of certified third parties.  In other
words, I don't believe that we are talking about some tests done by Hilti
in their own labs done by their own employees without some independent
observers.  Generally, to my knowledge, it is a test program that is
developed by the company making the product with SIGNIFICANT input &
review (i.e. they tell "you yes you can do that" or "no you cannot do
that") from the ICC-ES folks.  The company determines the scope of the
test program (i.e. what range of situations do they want evaluated and
covered in the evaluation report) but the ICC-ES people and their AC
documents then tell which tests must be done and approve how those tests
are run/configured.  Then the company in question hire a certified lab to
run the test program and prepare a report, which is then used by ICC-ES to
evaluate what ICC-ES will permit in the report.  In addition, the AC
documents have requirements on things like quality control
requirements/programs for manufactured products.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Padmanabhan Rajendran wrote:

> Bill,
>
>   Neil, too, brought my attention to the ICC Reports. Thanks to both of you as well as to others who shared their views.
>
>   I found something interesting about the ICC Report vis-a-vis HILTIs'  published tables for HVA adhesive anchors. The allowable loads listed  in ICC are smaller than what HILTI allows. In addition, the adjustment  factors  for edge distance and anchor spacing are also more  conservative in ICC tables. Furthemore, the tension-shear interaction  formula recommended by ICC will yield a larger number in comparison  with what would be calculated from HILTI's. In essence, ICC's  recommendation has conservatism built in at three stages of the  calculation. I was told by HILTI representative that ICC, for whatever  reason, typically, adopts a higher factor of safety (obviously!). I was  also told that ICC does not conduct any test or study on its own. It,  simply, takes the ultimate values provided by HILTI (HILTI runs its own  test program) and comes up with allowable values!
>
>   HILTI did not make a final recommendation except to say that the  engineer is bound by the directive of the controlling permitting  agency, if any, or by the code dictated by the client. If the client  does not care or, if permitting is not involved, the engineer is free  to use whatever he takes fancy to! That was comforting!
>
>   I am positive that such anamolies may exist between any other ICC  report and the corresponding vendor data. I thought this information  will be useful for the list members.
>
>   Rajendran
>
> bcainse(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:    Rajendran-
>   Go to the ICC website and download ESR-1702 for Covert Operations, Inc. products. DUC values are in Tables 15 through 19.
>   Bill Cain, S.E.
> Berkeley CA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Padmanabhan Rajendran <rakamaka(--nospam--at)yahoo.com>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Sent: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:41:48 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: HILTI Anchor for anchoring Vessels
>
>     .AOLPlainTextBody {      margin: 0px;      font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;      font-size: 12px;       color: #000;       background-color: #fff;   }    .AOLPlainTextBody pre {      font-size: 9pt;  }    .AOLInlineAttachment {      margin: 10px;  }    .AOLAttachmentHeader {      border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB;      background: #F9F9F9;  }    .AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {      font: 11px Tahoma;      font-weight: bold;      color: #666666;      background: #E9EAEB;       padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px;  }    .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel {      font: 11px Tahoma;       font-weight: bold;      color: #666666;      padding: 1px 10px 1px 9px;  }    .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {      font: 11px Tahoma;       color: #333333;  }        Harold,
>
> Thanks.
>
> 1.  I did not see any tables and charts to design Covert, Undercut anchor  at their web site. Does it mean that I prescribe the loads and the  Company designs on a case by case basis?
>
> 2. Hilti recommends tensioning epoxy anchors. So, what may be your objections to it?
>
> Rajendran
>
> Harold Sprague <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com> wrote:   I have used a Covert "Ductile Undercut Anchor" post installed mechanical
> anchor rod and tensioned the anchor rods after installation.
> http://www.covertoperationsinc.com/duc.html
> On the applications that I have employed, the bolts were checked after a
> week and showed no relaxation.
>
> I would advise against tensioning an epoxy anchor.
>
> Regards,
> Harold Sprague
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Padmanabhan Rajendran
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:58 AM
> > Subject: HILTI Anchor for anchoring Vessels
> >
> >
> > A client wants to set a vessel (8' dia X about 55' tall) on an existing,
> >2' thick, concrete mat, and anchor the vessel to the mat with 1" dia HILTI
> >epoxy grouted anchor rods. The tension and shear in the bolt is 11000 lbs
> >and 1000 lbs respectively. My scope of work is to determine the bolt
> >embedment depth. I understand that the bolt will be pretensioned after the
> >vessel is installed.
> >
> > I used the published values of nominal bolt loads, adjustment factors
> >for edge distance and bolt spacing etc. to calculate the bolt embedment
> >depth. One of the standard embedment lengths (12.375") is sufficient to
> >support the vessel.
> >
> > What bothers me is that the post-installed epoxy anchors are not
> >approved by ACI 318 (See Appendix D for Scope of application) mainly
> >because the reliability of these type of anchors has not been certified in
> >accordance with ACI 355.2. However, the published bolt values in HILTI
> >catalog have been certified, by ICC Evaluation Service, to conform to UBC
> >1997, and 2000 IBC. The certification stipulates that it is valid only when
> >the concrete is uncracked. The restriction stems from the fact that the
> >anchors were not tested in cracked concrete environment.
> >
> > The current thinking in anchor bolt design is that the headed bolt, or
> >something similar, is the most effective anchor element. It is reported
> >that L- shaped and J-shaped bolt perform poorly, in comparison. If L-shaped
> >and J-shaped bolts perform poorly, how can a straight piece (despite having
> >threads) perform any better?
> >
> > Is it possible to pretension an, un-sleeved, anchor bolt? Is it not
> >likely that concrete near the surface will crack?
> >
> > Please share your thoughts and experiences, if any.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Rajendran
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Mail
> Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze.

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