×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Anchor bolt embeddment

Anchor bolt embeddment

Anchor bolt embeddment

(OP)
I have put together this spread sheet (from old calc) to check the anchorbolt embedment on this light pole.
I am not sure about the highlighted values.

Are these highlighted values correct?

If so, then there is really something wrong in the calculation. The pole is 14' tall; 2" anchor bolt embedded is obviously incorrect.

Can one of you guys please guide me here.

Thanks
GC

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

I don't know if the values are correct but the method seems pretty outdated. ACI 318-63? We have better technology now in the form of ACI 318 appendix D. Unfortunately, it generally produces worse results.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

Worse results clearly justified by real world performance, as every 60 year old building I inspect has piers broken in half from wind loads /s

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

That's actually great to hear Canwest. I've never seen any failures but, then, I haven't looked too hard either. Do you actually see it at braced columns and not others?

Ha ha! LOL! Of course! Nobody's ever seen an anchor bolt failure in the wild! YOLO! //S//

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

I recently assessed an industrial mill building on the Tennessee River, which was built during WW II for landing craft construction. The column bases sit on unreinforced piers, projecting from spread footings. The anchor rods had a slightly crooked profile on the embedded portions of the rods. Pilot holes were drilled into the cured piers, and the rods driven into the hard concrete to effect the embedment. Naturally, these piers have cracked significantly in the 70 years since. Nonetheless, these have sustained straight-line wind loads of around 70mph (as recently as two years ago), and they are still serving adequately. It puts everything I ever suspected about concrete construction to a real test, and makes me have more faith in cracked concrete sections than I once had.

Thaidavid

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

Appendix D was developed for plain concrete with some slight modifiers for supplemental reinforcement. It will not give results that are useful or practical for anchor rods embedded in piers which are typically heavily reinforced.

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

@KootK

Quote (canwesteng)

Worse results clearly justified by real world performance, as every 60 year old building I inspect has piers broken in half from wind loads /s

the "/s" mark behind canwesteng's statement indicates sarcasm...

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

Quote (theonlynamenottaken)

the "/s" mark behind canwesteng's statement indicates sarcasm...

Well.. don't I feel like a jackass. Thanks for cluing me in. Thank goodness for the new post editing functionality.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Anchor bolt embeddment

Interestingly, while nothing goes wrong in the field, it certainly does in the lab: Link. This is the only full scale testing that I know of. The capacities came up very deficient and actually validated the appendix D stuff quite handily. I speculate that braced connections in buildings rarely see design lateral loads even if the buildings themselves do.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources