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


ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

I recently got a call from a contractor who mistakenly installed 3/4" anchor rods where there should have been 1 1/2". Due to reduced loads during VE, the 3/4" anchor rods actually work on a 20"x22" pier however they will not work on a 20"x28" pier with the same bolt spacing, embedment depth, size etc. However if I decrease my designed embedment depth from 14" to 4", it also works.

I believe this has to do with the Anc/Anco portion of D-5 which stems from the limitation of the Hef to 1.5Camin. I called Hilti to discuss the Profis program (after checking the calculations to make sure of it's accuracy) and they indicated that they get this phone call everyday however there is little they can do about it since it is a code issue (they can't make up their own codes).

This, from just a common sense standpoint, makes no sense. If you increase your embedment or your pier size the capacity decreases? Has anyone noticed this? I think in this instance I'm going to use engineering judgement and say that it's acceptable not to tear out the entire pier and start over.

Thanks in advance.

RE: ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

It is not always the case that this "makes no sense". While I disagree with a great deal of the Appendix D provisions, a deeper anchor bolt can in fact cause a lower strength failure. I have seen it myself when I was the lead research engineer for a seismic anchoring product company in New Zealand.

Interestingly when the standard steel strength went from 300MPa to 350MPa here in Canada, several standard sections went down in strength. This was because, at least theoretically, they were now failing earlier by another failure mode. You're facing something similar, with even less laser-accuracy so it makes it even more frustrating. Like you heard from our fine Lichensteinian friends, you will have to work about it.

I have a few suggestions for you:

- Load test the anchors. This is a perfectly acceptable solution and frequently the bolts can take it. If they cannot, you have them out of the way for a repair.
- Drill the anchors out and install the ones you called for. This may be a huge pain in the 'a', and I never like dealing with smooth shafts, but it may suit your situation.
- Approach the authority, hat in hand, and explain the situation. They are not always as difficult as the "dirty laundry" incidents we all whinge about makes them appear.
- Use the Hilti International provisions and advise all parties that it works, it is just a code provision that most engineers don't buy anyway. (Good luck with this one).

Good luck, and PLEASE come back and keep us up to date. These are the really interesting cases that just seem to disappear after a lot of free advice. Don't be that guy/gal!

RE: ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

Were these cast in place anchors? Appendix D does not apply to grouted or adhesive anchors...

RE: ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

Oops... Was just reading the latest App D, and it seems they've got you on adhesive anchors now too. Sorry.

RE: ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

Appendix D reminds me of Microsoft

RE: ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

If Appendix D was top notch, it would have been called Appendix A. I rest my case.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

RE: ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?

Check if the controlling mode of failure is applicable to your case. If your anchor is deep enough to transfer the tension to some of the longitudinal bars maybe you can justify that your controlling mode of failure is not applicable. Ref: D5.2.9

RE: ACI Appendix D Larger Pier Smaller Capacity?


I love your posts.

Is that available on the ACI website?

thanks for the laugh.

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! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Rethink Your PLM
A lot has changed since the 90s. You don't surf the Web using dial-up anymore, so why are you still using a legacy PLM solution that's blocking your ability to innovate? To develop and launch products today, you need a flexible, cloud-based PLM, not a solution that's stuck in the past. Download Now
White Paper - Using Virtualization for IVI and AUTOSAR Consolidation on an ECU
Current approaches used to tackle the complexities of a vehicle’s electrical and electronics (E/E) architecture are both cost prohibitive and lacking in performance. Utilizing virtualization in automotive software architecture provides a better approach. This can be achieved by encapsulating different heterogeneous automotive platforms inside virtual machines running on the same hardware. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close