Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: big dig structural failure - epoxy anchors overhead supporting gravity

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Paul,

That was my first thought as well when I say a diagram in one news article
indicating failure of epoxy anchors supporting the hanger rods.

Such a situation has always been the concern when I worked for a company
that specified epoxy anchors.  When we used epoxy anchors for anchor bolts
on one project, we had inspection of the holes and cleaning of the holes
called for plus some proof load testing of at least some random set of the
epoxy anchors.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Paul Feather wrote:

> I agree with your experiences, with one exception.  Epoxy rods do not
> need to be galvanized, the threads provide the interlock.  If the report
> is that the epoxy bolts pulled "clean out", it is most likely the holes
> were not properly cleaned of drill dust and latent material and the
> entire piece separated cleanly, bolt with epoxy and all.
>
>
>
> Paul Feather PE, SE
>
> pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
>
> www.SE-Solutions.net
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Mark Swingle [mailto:mtswingle(--nospam--at)rcn.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 6:14 AM
> To: seaint
> Cc: Mark Swingle
> Subject: big dig structural failure - epoxy anchors overhead supporting
> gravity
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I lived in California for 13 years, including 3 years in the
> construction industry and 10 years practicing structural engineering.
> According to my recollection, I never met, worked for, or worked with
> ONE SINGLE engineer who would specify anchors grouted with epoxy to be
> used in an overhead application supporting gravity loads.  And yet, that
> is what was apparently used in some areas of the big dig to anchor the
> concrete hung ceiling to the tunnel's concrete roof.  Frankly, I am
> shocked that epoxy anchors were used.  Perhaps I am wrong about this.  I
> would appreciate comments on this.
>
>
>
> If that system IS acceptable, I will state categorically that the Boston
> area is not the place to do it.  This is due to the culture of the
> Boston area.  After my 13 years in California, I have spent the last six
> years in construction management (of buildings, not highways!) in
> Massachusetts.  My experience over the last six years points to a
> PROFOUND difference in culture and mentality with respect to attention
> to plan review, professional collaboration, compliance with building
> codes, inspection quality, use of new technologies, and commitment to
> excellence.
>
>
>
> In my work here, I attempt to hold all of us to the highest standards of
> design and construction, and yet on a daily basis I am met with
> incredulity by my colleagues, and by the architects, engineers, and
> contractors involved in construction of buildings here.
>
>
>
> During the last six years in Massachusetts I have never seen an
> evaluation report for a manufactured item, such as an epoxy anchor.  It
> simply isn't done here, in my experience.  The typical process is this:
> the engineer will be vague in the specs, indicating say epoxy OR
> mechanical anchors.  Then there may be a submittal, maybe not.  If there
> is, there is no follow-up.  The contractor is free to install them as he
> sees it.  There is no inspection required by the authorities having
> jurisdiction.  The inspection firms sometimes may be asked to inspect,
> but in general the particular individuals are not qualified to inspect
> such a thing.
>
>
>
> For instance, yesterday when I read in the paper that the epoxy had
> "pulled out cleanly", I told some colleagues that it seemed to me the
> only way that could happen was if the threaded rod was NOT galvanized.
> Plain steel comes from the supplier with a coating of oil.  Incompatible
> with epoxy grout.  Now it looks like that's what happened.  Only in
> Boston could this happen with the culture we have here.
>
>
>
> As another example, in six years I have never seen a list of plan check
> comments.  It simply isn't done.  If I ever question some aspect of the
> design during the construction phase, no one will look into my comments,
> but instead the reaction will be "we have a building permit, so your
> question doesn't matter".  Or I am met with a stone wall of puzzled
> looks.  "Who are you to question the engineer?"  "Well, the engineer has
> his stamp on it, so it's OK."  "That's the way we've always done it."
> But NEVER an answer to the question.
>
>
>
> This mentality in Massachusetts covers ALL aspects of construction, not
> just structural, but also HVAC, fire protection, civil design, egress
> requirements, accessible design, etc etc etc.
>
>
>
> My experience in California was completely different.  Plans are
> checked, comments are made, professionals revise the drawings, building
> inspectors require inspections, building inspectors require inspections
> by the professionals, etc etc etc.  Questions raised are viewed as an
> OPPORTUNITY.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Mark Swingle
>
>
>
>

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