I asked several suppliers (Valmont, Sabre, etc.) at the ASCE ETS conference a few months ago in Atlanta. All were still regularly using 18J anchor rods for engineered poles and haven't seen a major shift to F1554. All of my utility clients still spec 18J rods, either full-length anchor-rods as the entirety of the reinforcing cage or else shorter anchor rods transferring to a standard cage.

Personally, as our standard detail has nuts with a spacer/template at the bottom of the 18J bars anyway, the deformations aren't really necessary. If the client allowed it I would go with F1554 without hesitation for poles. But so far none have been willing to make the switch, and they're the one paying for it. The old "that's the way we've always done it" argument.

But I specifically asked about 18J for poles, not 14J. It may be different in your situation with the smaller anchor rods. The only client I have that still regularly installs new lattice towers uses stub-angles, not anchor rods.

The 18J's typically call for a minimum Charpy value. We usually specify A706 that are weldable incase someone bends one over during installation of the pole. We usually don't thread the bottom but use U-Bolts and rolled rings to keep the bolts in alignment.

And yes, our industry boldly goes where we have always gone before.

_____________________________________
I have been called "A storehouse of worthless information" many times.

Hey transmissiontowers, any word on when we can expect to see the newest edition of ASCE 113? Or when it might be up for public comment?
Thanks!

We are meeting next week to talk about it. Hopefully we will make some progress, but don't hold your breath. We still have to get it where all committee members agree and then on to peer review and address comments.

_____________________________________
I have been called "A storehouse of worthless information" many times.