|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > December 2005 > use drilled mechanical vs. poured-in-place anchor bolt
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
use drilled mechanical vs. poured-in-place anchor bolt
|
|
|
| My contractor is vehement about not using L or J anchor bolts that are
set during the concrete pour.
His reasons are:
1) concrete bumps around bolt prevent plate from lying flat
2) never in the right place everywhere requiring cutting and drilling
anyway
3) bent from vertical during pour
4) gets in the way during pour
His preference is drilling and using mechanical wedge type anchor
bolts. I'd leave it to the mechanical engineer, but see assumptions...
The house is on Oahu, Hawaii, so assume:
1) no risk of tornado
2) slight risk of hurricane of maybe 100mph winds (don't think Oahu
has ever had hurricane winds in excess of 100mph)
3) could get 90mph wind gusts every 4 or 5 years for a day or so
4) not near the water
5) mechanical engineer will sign off on just about anything, but he's
cheap
6) slab is 6" with #3 rebar 16" oc criss-crossed
So, should I care what he uses?
Thanks for any help,
Paul
| |
| chickenwing 2005-12-10, 7:21 am |
|
Hugh wrote:
> So, should I care what he uses?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Paul
Sure you should care!
Has he ever built a house before? And you like those houses?
I would just go with that, and don't let something this small
(there is no difference in the performance of either method
of anchoring you describe..no difference in performance) come
between ya's. Keep it simple. Be done with the anchor thingy.
Strife and variance will just make for the two of you having some
future axe to grind. Very unproductive.
Just my 2 cents.
| |
| chickenwing 2005-12-10, 7:21 am |
|
Hugh wrote:
> My contractor is vehement about not using L or J anchor bolts that are
> set during the concrete pour.
>
> His reasons are:
> 1) concrete bumps around bolt prevent plate from lying flat
> 2) never in the right place everywhere requiring cutting and drilling
> anyway
> 3) bent from vertical during pour
> 4) gets in the way during pour
> Paul
I've built many houses as a framer. I have drilled the very holes you
speak of...
I have also customized my plate to match the pre-existing bolts...
yeah, It don't matter, just so long as it's bolted. It's not the cheap
way either.
It takes more labor to drill and set the bolts afterward. Which is
harder, putting
a bolt in wet concrete, or drilling into cured concrete?...there is
your answer.
Dude just wants precision. This should be a comfort to you, hopefully
he will
treat the balance of the project with the same attention.
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2005-12-10, 8:21 am |
| I agree.
The bolt only has to be a strong as the 2X4.
The 2X4 sill plate will tear apart before you ever pull one of those bolts
out of the concrete.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
yeah, It don't matter, just so long as it's bolted. It's not the cheap
way either.
It takes more labor to drill and set the bolts afterward. Which is
harder, putting
a bolt in wet concrete, or drilling into cured concrete?...there is
your answer.
Dude just wants precision. This should be a comfort to you, hopefully
he will
treat the balance of the project with the same attention.
| |
|
| Believe the sheer strength of a 1/2" anchor bolt is much greater than a
skinny ceramic screw.
--
Jonny
"Hugh" <hugh.mckreely@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134201418.066537.28340@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My contractor is vehement about not using L or J anchor bolts that are
> set during the concrete pour.
>
> His reasons are:
> 1) concrete bumps around bolt prevent plate from lying flat
> 2) never in the right place everywhere requiring cutting and drilling
> anyway
> 3) bent from vertical during pour
> 4) gets in the way during pour
>
> His preference is drilling and using mechanical wedge type anchor
> bolts. I'd leave it to the mechanical engineer, but see assumptions...
>
> The house is on Oahu, Hawaii, so assume:
> 1) no risk of tornado
> 2) slight risk of hurricane of maybe 100mph winds (don't think Oahu
> has ever had hurricane winds in excess of 100mph)
> 3) could get 90mph wind gusts every 4 or 5 years for a day or so
> 4) not near the water
> 5) mechanical engineer will sign off on just about anything, but he's
> cheap
> 6) slab is 6" with #3 rebar 16" oc criss-crossed
>
> So, should I care what he uses?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Paul
>
| |
|
|
"Jim" <gonehuntin@joesbar.net> wrote in message
news:hWAmf.2381$Dd2.763@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Believe the sheer strength of a 1/2" anchor bolt is much greater than a
> skinny ceramic screw.
I believe the original post was referring to "L or J anchor bolts" vs
"mechanical wedge type anchor bolts" ... both of which are 1/2" and I
believe both have the same holding strength. I think you might be thinking
of Tapcons which are regular looking screws for use in concrete.
| |
| tbasc@bellsouth.net 2005-12-10, 12:21 pm |
| Jerry, or chickenwing: I'd like the name of a manufacturer for the
wedge type anchor bolts.
Can you help?
TB
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-10, 1:21 pm |
| tbasc@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Jerry, or chickenwing: I'd like the name of a manufacturer for the
> wedge type anchor bolts.
> Can you help?
Rawl is one. Powers.com is an online seller.
R
| |
| chickenwing 2005-12-10, 1:21 pm |
|
tbasc@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Jerry, or chickenwing: I'd like the name of a manufacturer for the
> wedge type anchor bolts.
> Can you help?
> TB
I don't remember any names on boxes, I never ordered, I was on a crew,
bossman ordered them.
| |
| Phil Scott 2005-12-10, 3:21 pm |
|
"Hugh" <hugh.mckreely@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134201418.066537.28340@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My contractor is vehement about not using L or J anchor
> bolts that are
> set during the concrete pour.
>
> His reasons are:
> 1) concrete bumps around bolt prevent plate from lying flat
> 2) never in the right place everywhere requiring cutting and
> drilling
> anyway
> 3) bent from vertical during pour
> 4) gets in the way during pour
>
> His preference is drilling and using mechanical wedge type
> anchor
> bolts. I'd leave it to the mechanical engineer, but see
> assumptions...
>
> The house is on Oahu, Hawaii, so assume:
> 1) no risk of tornado
> 2) slight risk of hurricane of maybe 100mph winds (don't
> think Oahu
> has ever had hurricane winds in excess of 100mph)
> 3) could get 90mph wind gusts every 4 or 5 years for a day
> or so
> 4) not near the water
> 5) mechanical engineer will sign off on just about anything,
> but he's
> cheap
> 6) slab is 6" with #3 rebar 16" oc criss-crossed
>
> So, should I care what he uses?
The contractor has good reasons... the wedge anchors he
suggests will work fine..
Phil Scott
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Paul
>
| |
| HerHusband 2005-12-10, 3:21 pm |
| > 1) concrete bumps around bolt prevent plate from lying flat
If he's going to the trouble of drilling concrete, it seems just as easy
to grind or chip away any bumps around the bolt? Especially the first day
after the pour, the concrete is really soft and workable. There's a do-
it-yourself job if he doesn't want to bother with it. 
Besides, the foam sill sealer will take up a bit of the slop, and the
wood itself will compress around any minor bumps.
> 2) never in the right place everywhere requiring cutting and drilling
> anyway
If the anchor bolts are secured in place before the pour, they'll be
EXACTLY where you want them. Inaccuracy is usually due to the "jab the
bolt in the wet concrete" method. Around here, ALL steel had to be
secured in place before I could even pass inspections.
In any case, exact accuracy isn't usually needed when placing the anchor
bolt, and it's easy to mark and drill the sill plates. As long as you
don't stick a bolt where a joist is supposed to rest, and get it close to
the center of the sill plate, you should be fine.
> 3) bent from vertical during pour
Once the concrete cures for a few days, you can easily straighten the
bolts with a 3 foot length of 3/4" pipe. Just slip it over the bolt, and
bend it where it needs to be.
> 4) gets in the way during pour
Yeah, that part CAN be a pain... But experienced concrete folks will be
used to working around obstacles like pipes, bolts, and similar items.
> His preference is drilling and using mechanical wedge type anchor
> bolts.
As others have said, the sill plate will probably give out before the
bolt, but I still prefer the J-bolts. Especially if you use the 2" square
washers to distribute the load around each bolt and don't oversize the
bolt holes.
We had a few cases where we had to install special shear walls (each side
of the garage doors, and in our living room where two window walls meet.
For these we had to install 2 foot long tie down bolts, which got
bracketed to posts in the wall above. These required a bit more exacting
placement than a regular anchor bolt (they had to end up next to the
post), but have much greater uplift resistance.
Anthony
| |
| Bobk207 2005-12-10, 4:21 pm |
| Third option
Post pour drilling & chemical anchoring (ie epoxy)
Use SIKA Sikadur Anchor Fix
They have
slow set ~1 hr to gel ~24hr full strength
fast set ~5 min to gel ~1hr full strength
uses a standard caulking gun, this stuff good & fast
I'm not a huge fan of mechanical (post pour installed) anchors used to
resist uplift loads; shear only ok but not for seismic or wind (ie
shear walls)
cheers
Bob
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2005-12-10, 5:21 pm |
| Red Head is another brand name.
You can buy them right at Home Depot.
I think 4½" or 5" is as long a bolt as they stock, though.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
> Jerry, or chickenwing: I'd like the name of a manufacturer for the
> wedge type anchor bolts.
> Can you help?
Rawl is one. Powers.com is an online seller.
R
| |
| Dan Deckert 2005-12-11, 2:21 am |
| I've got to go with 'herhusband' & Bobk207'.
Both state what I've seen used in 20 plus years of construction.
Wedge anchors are pieces of SHIT! Well, okay for little shit, but darn sure
not critical anchorage.
Dan
"Hugh" <hugh.mckreely@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134201418.066537.28340@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My contractor is vehement about not using L or J anchor bolts that are
> set during the concrete pour.
>
> His reasons are:
> 1) concrete bumps around bolt prevent plate from lying flat
> 2) never in the right place everywhere requiring cutting and drilling
> anyway
> 3) bent from vertical during pour
> 4) gets in the way during pour
>
> His preference is drilling and using mechanical wedge type anchor
> bolts. I'd leave it to the mechanical engineer, but see assumptions...
>
> The house is on Oahu, Hawaii, so assume:
> 1) no risk of tornado
> 2) slight risk of hurricane of maybe 100mph winds (don't think Oahu
> has ever had hurricane winds in excess of 100mph)
> 3) could get 90mph wind gusts every 4 or 5 years for a day or so
> 4) not near the water
> 5) mechanical engineer will sign off on just about anything, but he's
> cheap
> 6) slab is 6" with #3 rebar 16" oc criss-crossed
>
> So, should I care what he uses?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Paul
>
| |
|
| On 10 Dec 2005 11:56:27 -0800, "Bobk207" <rkazanjy@gmail.com> wrote:
>Third option
>
>Post pour drilling & chemical anchoring (ie epoxy)
>
>Use SIKA Sikadur Anchor Fix
>
>They have
>slow set ~1 hr to gel ~24hr full strength
>fast set ~5 min to gel ~1hr full strength
>
>uses a standard caulking gun, this stuff good & fast
>
>I'm not a huge fan of mechanical (post pour installed) anchors used to
>resist uplift loads; shear only ok but not for seismic or wind (ie
>shear walls)
>
>cheers
>B
Have him put in anchor bolts. Here in California, they don't allow
"red heads" anymore. Simpson and other companies sell metal and
plastic anchor bolt holders that do a good job of keeping the anchor
bolts in place during the pour. Check with your bulding department.
I'm pretty sure stabbing bolts into wet cement or red heads aren't
allowed anymore. Like you say Hawaii gets huricanes. Anchor bolts
help transfer loads to the foundation. Its more work to put in
anchors later, and concrete finish around the edges doesn't show
anyway. At least epoxy them, but this might require a "special
inspection".
| |
| Bob Morrison 2005-12-11, 3:21 pm |
| In a previous post Hugh wrote...
> So, should I care what he uses?
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
My standard structural notes allow the use of poured in place or field
drilled anchors. However, I do require that poured in place anchors must
be tied in place prior to pouring concrete. No "wet stabbing" is allowed.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
| |
| Bob Morrison 2005-12-11, 3:21 pm |
| In a previous post tbasc@bellsouth.net wrote...
>
> Jerry, or chickenwing: I'd like the name of a manufacturer for the
> wedge type anchor bolts.
> Can you help?
>
Rawl, Powers, Molly, Hilti are just a few of the more common names.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
| |
| sanjian 2005-12-11, 8:21 pm |
| Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Hugh wrote...
>
> My standard structural notes allow the use of poured in place or field
> drilled anchors. However, I do require that poured in place anchors
> must be tied in place prior to pouring concrete. No "wet stabbing" is
> allowed.
Why is wet stabbing bad?
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-11, 8:21 pm |
| sanjian wrote:
> Bob Morrison wrote:
>
> Why is wet stabbing bad?
It's prohibited by many codes as it pushes the rough aggregate out of
the way and can leave voids.
R
| |
| sanjian 2005-12-11, 8:21 pm |
| RicodJour wrote:
> sanjian wrote:
>
> It's prohibited by many codes as it pushes the rough aggregate out of
> the way and can leave voids.
Makes sense. Thanks for the info.
| |
| Bob Morrison 2005-12-12, 12:21 pm |
| In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
> It's prohibited by many codes as it pushes the rough aggregate out of
> the way and can leave voids.
>
>
Once again, Rico's answer is right on the money.
As an extension to his his reply: wet stabbing can leave voids around the
anchor bolts. At that point they no longer function as intended, which is
to transfer horizontal shear forces (wind & seismic) to the foundation
from the walls.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-12, 12:21 pm |
| Bob Morrison wrote:
>
> wet stabbing
Wouldn't that be a great name for a movie? Or a porn star.
R
| |
| Rich-out-West 2005-12-13, 4:21 pm |
|
Bob Morrison wrote:
> As an extension to his his reply: wet stabbing can leave voids around the
> anchor bolts. At that point they no longer function as intended, which is
> to transfer horizontal shear forces (wind & seismic) to the foundation
> from the walls.
>
> --
> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
This is the one regret I have with my foundation. I hired a guy
generally regarded as the best foundation man in our area. Several of
the framers I talked to indicated they wouldn't even bid the job unless
this guy was doing the foundation. Anyway our foundation was
relatively complicated - steps, integral cantilever retaining walls,
hardscape features tied into the founadation, hydronic heating details,
etc. Also the house is a hybrid timber frame, complicating placement
of the anchor bolts. I spent quite a bit of time up front, figuring
out exactly where to put the bolts and recorded this info on my very
detailed foundation plan. The night before the pour, I noticed none of
the bolts were in place, so I talked to the sub. He indicated that it
was "standard" practice to "place" the bolts into the wet concrete (aka
wet stabbing), but he would be sure to follow placement dimensions on
the drawing. I didn't know enough at the time to object to the wet
stabing on principal alone. I also figured that I'd asked him to do
quite a bit of finicky work already, and it might just be better to
choose my battles.
Well I'm sure you can imagine what happened. Amidst the chaos of
the pour, very few of the anchor bolts ended up where they were
supposed to. We just got the standard 4-foot spacing without regard to
what type of framing might be going on above. Come framing time, we
ended up having to cut off and replace about a third of the bolts and
do quite a bit of notching to get others to work. I thought about
trying to get some compensation from the concrete guy, but other than
this snafu his work was just outstanding (18mo later, not a crack
anywhere, with every sub commenting it's most square and level
foundation they've ever worked on).
I figured better to just chalk this one up to experience. After
all, I'll probably work with this guy again down the road. The next
one however will be different. I won't do another foundation without
anchor bolt holders set in place prior to the pour. That way I can
verify location up front while avoiding any possible weaknesses caused
by wet stabbing.
Richard Johnson PE
Camano Island, WA
P.S. OK, I do have one more regret... I wish I'd figured out **all**
my knockout locations prior to the pour. It's a hell of a lot easier
telling the sub to put knockouts here or there than spending an
afternoon going at it with a roto-hammer. :~(
| |
|
|
"Dan Deckert" <deckert@owt.com> wrote in message
news:9-CdndaqBulpJQbenZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@owt.com...
> I've got to go with 'herhusband' & Bobk207'.
> Both state what I've seen used in 20 plus years of construction.
>
> Wedge anchors are pieces of SHIT! Well, okay for little shit, but darn
> sure
> not critical anchorage.
>
> Dan
I don't do anything residential, but we do end up building a lot of things
that are anchored into concrete and on an industrial type job you will find
it harder and harder to find anyone who will spec a bent imbedded anchor. J
anchors straighten out under load.
We do however see hundreds of uses of wedge anchors and epoxy anchors every
month in very highly stressed applications.
Of course nelson studs are prefered over every other method, but they are a
hard fit post pour ; )
JTMcC.
>
>
> "Hugh" <hugh.mckreely@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134201418.066537.28340@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-13, 8:21 pm |
| JTMcC wrote:
>
> I don't do anything residential, but we do end up building a lot of things
> that are anchored into concrete and on an industrial type job you will find
> it harder and harder to find anyone who will spec a bent imbedded anchor. J
> anchors straighten out under load.
> We do however see hundreds of uses of wedge anchors and epoxy anchors every
> month in very highly stressed applications.
How deep of an embedment do you need to have with an epoxied anchor to
equal say a 10" 1/2" J-bolt?
> Of course nelson studs are prefered over every other method, but they are a
> hard fit post pour ; )
I've never seen Nelson studs and I've just returned from their web
site. Two questions: How would they be used in a foundation? How can
the weld be stronger than _either_ the stud or the material it's welded
to? I'd a thunk that it would be as strong as the stronger of the two.
R
| |
| sanjian 2005-12-13, 8:21 pm |
| RicodJour wrote:
> JTMcC wrote:
>
> How deep of an embedment do you need to have with an epoxied anchor to
> equal say a 10" 1/2" J-bolt?
>
>
> I've never seen Nelson studs and I've just returned from their web
> site. Two questions: How would they be used in a foundation? How
> can the weld be stronger than _either_ the stud or the material it's
> welded to? I'd a thunk that it would be as strong as the stronger of the
> two.
Welds are actually stronger than the metal that they're welded to - there's
less slippage before the grain boundaries intefere. The question is the
"weld-affected zone" surrounding the weld that has had its grain structure
changed by the heating and cooling. In steam plants, at least, unless the
weld was a piss-poor job, it's never the weld that breaks (tack welds aside,
but that's expected).
| |
| Bob Morrison 2005-12-13, 10:21 pm |
| In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
> How deep of an embedment do you need to have with an epoxied anchor to
> equal say a 10" 1/2" J-bolt?
>
Depends on how you are loading it. The weak link is usually the concrete
not the anchor. For shear loading, any anchor bolt (J or wedge) will do
just fine at about 3-1/2" embedment. UBC and IBC simply double that
number (7-inch embed) for residential work.
I won't spec wedge anchors for tension loaded bolts. For epoxy anchors,
most manufacturers say around 4 inches for 3000 psi concrete will be
adequate. But that assumes that the anchor is in a large area of
concrete, not a foundation wall. I typically spec a minimum embedment of
12 inches for tension loaded epoxy anchors. The ensures that the
potential failure shear cone is large enough to transfer the load from the
anchor into the concrete. If there is to be a failure I would much rather
it be in the threaded rod because that will be a ductile failure, whereas
a concrete failure will be abrupt.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
| |
| JTMcC 2005-12-13, 11:21 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1134517472.018234.168120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> JTMcC wrote:
>
> How deep of an embedment do you need to have with an epoxied anchor to
> equal say a 10" 1/2" J-bolt?
>
>
> I've never seen Nelson studs and I've just returned from their web
> site. Two questions: How would they be used in a foundation? How can
> the weld be stronger than _either_ the stud or the material it's welded
> to? I'd a thunk that it would be as strong as the stronger of the two.
>
> R
My work is pretty much apples to oranges compared to building a home but I
don't think you can find an engineer that will spec a bent rod anchor
anymore in a steel structure.
I garantee a wedge anchor will survive after the wood that's bolted to it is
floating several miles off the Gulf Coast ; )
Nelson studs are welded to an item thats to be embedded tying the iron to
the concrete. Composit bridge decks are their most common use, tying the
concrete bridge deck to the supporting bridge beams. In structural
anchorages they are very common. Nelson will provide a weld procedure that
developes 100% strength of the stud, it doesn't take much. On a 3/4" stud a
5/16" fillet does it.
I didn't mean to swearve so far afield ; )
JTMcC.
>
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-14, 12:21 am |
| Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
>
> Depends on how you are loading it. The weak link is usually the concrete
> not the anchor. For shear loading, any anchor bolt (J or wedge) will do
> just fine at about 3-1/2" embedment. UBC and IBC simply double that
> number (7-inch embed) for residential work.
>
> I won't spec wedge anchors for tension loaded bolts. For epoxy anchors,
> most manufacturers say around 4 inches for 3000 psi concrete will be
> adequate. But that assumes that the anchor is in a large area of
> concrete, not a foundation wall. I typically spec a minimum embedment of
> 12 inches for tension loaded epoxy anchors. The ensures that the
> potential failure shear cone is large enough to transfer the load from the
> anchor into the concrete. If there is to be a failure I would much rather
> it be in the threaded rod because that will be a ductile failure, whereas
> a concrete failure will be abrupt.
Succint and to the point as usual, Bob. Thanks for the synopsis.
R
| |
| Dan Deckert 2005-12-14, 2:21 pm |
| Most metal buildings (99.9%) we place use embedded anchor bolts. (j bolt if
you wish) This includes interior columns as well. (Load Bearing/Shear/etc.)
Bolts are usually 3/4"~1-1/4" dia. Simple type load frames (something that
would support a piece of equipment like a transformer/heater/ac
unit/saws/lathes/etc) bolted to the floor, we use wedge anchors.
Last EPOXY run I sorta remember was placement of 3/4" Hilti anchors w/5"
embedment and pull tested to 4000# after 24 hrs. I 'think' they failed @
6300# due to elongation. 50 year old concrete to nuclear specs from the mid
40's. Always Hilti brand for warranty and design spec.
JTM states;
every[color=darkred]
We NEVER use wedge type except for shear applications. We also quit using
the vial applications and stick to dual tube type epoxies. Spendy as hell
but guaranteed.
R -- Never seen Nelson studs used in foundations. They're usually used as
anchors on the back side of angles/plates/beams/etc when you neen cohesion
to concrete floors/walls/ceilings with steel. When installed using a stud
welding machine, there is a higher failure rate as compared to welding the
studs with rod or wire. Rod or wire usually @ 70,000# tensile to meet base
material. (angles/plates/beams/etc) The steel will obviously exceed the
concrete for compression/tension psi but still needs x-amount of surface
area for pull-out just like embedded anchor bolts. Nelson studs are just
like a big bolt with no threads and a circular head instead of hex/square.
FYI --A weld can be stronger or weaker then the matl. you're welding to
depending on the rod composition and base matl. composition..
Rod -7018~70,000# Tensile
Rod -8018~80,000# Tensile
Rod -10018~100,000# Tensile
Dan
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1134517472.018234.168120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...[color=darkred]
> JTMcC wrote:
things[color=darkred]
find[color=darkred]
anchor. J[color=darkred]
every[color=darkred]
>
> How deep of an embedment do you need to have with an epoxied anchor to
> equal say a 10" 1/2" J-bolt?
>
are a[color=darkred]
>
> I've never seen Nelson studs and I've just returned from their web
> site. Two questions: How would they be used in a foundation? How can
> the weld be stronger than _either_ the stud or the material it's welded
> to? I'd a thunk that it would be as strong as the stronger of the two.
>
> R
>
| |
|
|
"Dan Deckert" <deckert@owt.com> wrote in message
news:I9KdnZ-sEs25yj3eRVn-qg@owt.com...
> Most metal buildings (99.9%) we place use embedded anchor bolts. (j bolt
> if
> you wish) This includes interior columns as well. (Load
> Bearing/Shear/etc.)
> Bolts are usually 3/4"~1-1/4" dia. Simple type load frames (something that
> would support a piece of equipment like a transformer/heater/ac
> unit/saws/lathes/etc) bolted to the floor, we use wedge anchors.
I'm not talking about metal buildings but large steel structures. Typical
epoxied anchors in our recent work run around 1 1/2" with 12" embeddment.
>
> Last EPOXY run I sorta remember was placement of 3/4" Hilti anchors w/5"
> embedment and pull tested to 4000# after 24 hrs. I 'think' they failed @
> 6300# due to elongation. 50 year old concrete to nuclear specs from the
> mid
> 40's. Always Hilti brand for warranty and design spec.
>
> JTM states;
> every
> We NEVER use wedge type except for shear applications. We also quit using
> the vial applications and stick to dual tube type epoxies. Spendy as hell
> but guaranteed.
>
> R -- Never seen Nelson studs used in foundations. They're usually used as
> anchors on the back side of angles/plates/beams/etc when you neen cohesion
> to concrete floors/walls/ceilings with steel. When installed using a stud
> welding machine, there is a higher failure rate as compared to welding the
> studs with rod or wire. Rod or wire usually @ 70,000# tensile to meet base
> material. (angles/plates/beams/etc) The steel will obviously exceed the
> concrete for compression/tension psi but still needs x-amount of surface
> area for pull-out just like embedded anchor bolts. Nelson studs are just
> like a big bolt with no threads and a circular head instead of hex/square.
What you call a foundation and what I call a foundation are two different
things, like I said I've caused a large swerve in this thread, for that I
appologize. Foundations in my world are bridge, dam, dock/warf/pier, intake
structures, that type of thing. Nelson studs are in use there by the
jillions. I've bought/installed several hundred since July.
Here is an example of the foundation work we sometimes do:
http://www.firstratefabricators.com/page10.html
>
> FYI --A weld can be stronger or weaker then the matl. you're welding to
> depending on the rod composition and base matl. composition..
> Rod -7018~70,000# Tensile
> Rod -8018~80,000# Tensile
> Rod -10018~100,000# Tensile
Well, sort of but not really. The 70 in 7018 is a required minimum. As
welded figures are always quite a bit higher. In the as welded condition
most 7018 fillers will run in the mid 80's to the low 90's. Same applies to
other rods/wires.
JTMcC.
>
> Dan
>
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134517472.018234.168120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> things
> find
> anchor. J
> every
> are a
>
>
| |
| RicodJour 2005-12-15, 1:21 am |
| JTMcC wrote:
>
> bridge, dam, dock/warf/pier
Great name for a band. It's got a certain ring-a-ding-ding to it. And
it can be abbreviated BDDWP, which also has a ring to it. ;)
You know, JT, this thread hijacking has got to stop, dag nabbit! I'm
giving you six months or a year to cut it out...
R
| |
| sanjian 2005-12-15, 1:21 am |
| RicodJour wrote:
> JTMcC wrote:
>
> Great name for a band. It's got a certain ring-a-ding-ding to it.
> And it can be abbreviated BDDWP, which also has a ring to it. ;)
>
> You know, JT, this thread hijacking has got to stop, dag nabbit! I'm
> giving you six months or a year to cut it out...
But it lacks a certain something.... maybe more cowbell?
| |
|
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1134621798.562676.304810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> JTMcC wrote:
>
> Great name for a band. It's got a certain ring-a-ding-ding to it. And
> it can be abbreviated BDDWP, which also has a ring to it. ;)
Or a meaningless chant for disenfranchised pile drivers:
BRIDGE..... DAM,.....DOCK-WARF-PIER!
It could happen
JTMcC.
>
> You know, JT, this thread hijacking has got to stop, dag nabbit! I'm
> giving you six months or a year to cut it out...
>
> R
>
| |
| Bobk207 2005-12-15, 2:21 am |
| >>>>>How deep of an embedment do you need to have with an epoxied anchor to
equal say a 10" 1/2" J-bolt ?<<<<<
Surprisingly not very deep, just deep enough (if that's what you're
after) to ensure a steel failure.
It's been awhile since I've tested chemical anchors but my recollection
was that Hilti HY150 (?) needed only about 5" of embed to break the
steel reliably.
Don't quote me on those numbers but I'm pretty sure they're close.
cheers
Bob
| |
| Dan Deckert 2005-12-15, 2:21 pm |
|
"JTMcC" <firstrateYUPfab@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ep6of.1227$OU3.236@news01.roc.ny...
>
> I'm not talking about metal buildings but large steel structures. Typical
> epoxied anchors in our recent work run around 1 1/2" with 12" embeddment.
>
I just referenced tin cans & their foundations because that's what we do a
lot of around here. Lord knows I've spent my time on nuke, coal, gas fired
plants, paper mills, and more then a few bridges, high rises etc due to 25+
yrs. as a Union Ironworker/certified welder. (And fell on my face more then
once hanging a pantleg on those damn studs)
> What you call a foundation and what I call a foundation are two different
> things, like I said I've caused a large swerve in this thread, for that I
> Here is an example of the foundation work we sometimes do:
> http://www.firstratefabricators.com/page10.html
Nice clean web site. But, WTH is "a belly dump truck unloader.?"
Dan
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2005-12-15, 5:21 pm |
| > But, WTH is "a belly dump truck unloader.?"<
When I worked in North Dakota, the power plant was fired with coal.
The coal came from nearby strip mines.
The HUGE trucks that hauled the coal had dump bodies on them like a airplane
bomber.
They would drive the truck over a huge grate and open the bottom of the dump
truck.
The coal would fall out, go through the grate and onto a conveyer belt where
it was sent to a storage area. (a large coal bin)
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
> Here is an example of the foundation work we sometimes do:
> http://www.firstratefabricators.com/page10.html
Dan
| |
|
| JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>
>
> When I worked in North Dakota, the power plant was fired with coal.
> The coal came from nearby strip mines.
> The HUGE trucks that hauled the coal had dump bodies on them like a airplane
> bomber.
> They would drive the truck over a huge grate and open the bottom of the dump
> truck.
> The coal would fall out, go through the grate and onto a conveyer belt where
> it was sent to a storage area. (a large coal bin)
>
>
I think what you may be talking about is commonly called a scraper. They
are actually not a dump truck but an earth removal tool. They have a
bowl with a cutting edge at the bottom. As the machine is traveling
along the bowl is lowered to the ground and begins to scrape the ground
filling the bowl. When full they either dump on the run or dump in the
manner you stated. Very common in surface/strip/mountaintop mining and
for transport on massive coal piles.
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37840&x=7
Mark
| |
|
| My use of the word belly dump refers to a semi trailer with chutes
on the bottom (belly). On a construction site they are often used
for stone or fill sand. This is opposed to an end dump = a semi
trailer that raises just like a tandem dump truck, but these are
prone to rolling over due to wind, driver error, or just being in
a bad mood. They each haul about 27 yards.
(top posted for your convenience)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
dgriff237@7cox.net
"Dan Deckert" <deckert@owt.com> wrote in message
news:JICdnSw6K7mWLTzeRVn-jA@owt.com...
>
> "JTMcC" <firstrateYUPfab@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Ep6of.1227$OU3.236@news01.roc.ny...
>
> I just referenced tin cans & their foundations because that's
> what we do a
> lot of around here. Lord knows I've spent my time on nuke, coal,
> gas fired
> plants, paper mills, and more then a few bridges, high rises etc
> due to 25+
> yrs. as a Union Ironworker/certified welder. (And fell on my
> face more then
> once hanging a pantleg on those damn studs)
>
>
>
> Nice clean web site. But, WTH is "a belly dump truck unloader.?"
>
>
> Dan
>
>
| |
| JTMcC 2005-12-15, 11:21 pm |
|
"Dan Deckert" <deckert@owt.com> wrote in message
news:JICdnSw6K7mWLTzeRVn-jA@owt.com...
>
> "JTMcC" <firstrateYUPfab@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Ep6of.1227$OU3.236@news01.roc.ny...
>
> I just referenced tin cans & their foundations because that's what we do a
> lot of around here. Lord knows I've spent my time on nuke, coal, gas fired
> plants, paper mills, and more then a few bridges, high rises etc due to
> 25+
> yrs. as a Union Ironworker/certified welder. (And fell on my face more
> then
> once hanging a pantleg on those damn studs)
>
>
>
> Nice clean web site. But, WTH is "a belly dump truck unloader.?"
>
>
> Dan
Yes, I discovered at a young age that the engineers normally spec the
spacing of nelson studs so to make it most difficult for me to walk around
without sidestepping/walking pigeontoed/or some other odd looking gait. And
of course they are designed to grab your jeans leg.
Thanks you for the compliment.
We built that out of a couple of large beams, the trucks(belly dump beds)
just drive up the ramp, dump into a hopper in the middle (that feeds a
conveyor that deposits the material off to the side), and drive down the
other side.
I worked out of the Oakland Ironworkers (LU#378) for a bit. We are primarily
Pipeliners (LU#798) but do some Piledriving (LU#2375) related work from time
to time.
JTMcC.
>
>
| |
| JTMcC 2005-12-15, 11:21 pm |
|
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jerry@righthere.com> wrote in message
news:Dtkof.30097$XC4.10808@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> When I worked in North Dakota, the power plant was fired with coal.
> The coal came from nearby strip mines.
> The HUGE trucks that hauled the coal had dump bodies on them like a
> airplane bomber.
> They would drive the truck over a huge grate and open the bottom of the
> dump truck.
> The coal would fall out, go through the grate and onto a conveyer belt
> where it was sent to a storage area. (a large coal bin)
>
>
> --
> JerryD(upstateNY)
Yea, same principle only a small mobile version (drug around by a D9) for
use with standard size belly dump trucks.
JTMcC.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
|
|
|
|
|