skeletron
Structural
- Jan 30, 2019
- 885
I'm looking at attaching an interior non-loadbrg wall to metal deck (with concrete above).
Contractors love using PAF, but can't in my jurisdiction due to a technical bulletin that limits them from anchorage/seismic restraint/seismic tension loading.
Screw anchors will work, but should be more costly and may be an overkill solution. Expansion bolts are way overkill for this application.
I'm wondering if smack pins aka drive-pin anchors aka nail-in anchors could be argued as different from PAF and Drop-In, and therefore acceptable? To me, it is the mechanism of installation (smack pin = pre-drill + manual hammer action to set the expansion VS. PAF = power driven VS. Drop-In = shallow hammering) and the sustained direction of force that matters. In this case there is no sustained tension, and only potential for cyclic shear.
Contractors love using PAF, but can't in my jurisdiction due to a technical bulletin that limits them from anchorage/seismic restraint/seismic tension loading.
Screw anchors will work, but should be more costly and may be an overkill solution. Expansion bolts are way overkill for this application.
I'm wondering if smack pins aka drive-pin anchors aka nail-in anchors could be argued as different from PAF and Drop-In, and therefore acceptable? To me, it is the mechanism of installation (smack pin = pre-drill + manual hammer action to set the expansion VS. PAF = power driven VS. Drop-In = shallow hammering) and the sustained direction of force that matters. In this case there is no sustained tension, and only potential for cyclic shear.