Anchor Bolt Material

[CURVEB]

I'm curious what ASTM others are specifying for anchor bolts. I was told by someone from the NCMA that F1554 is not a recognized bolt designation by the masonry people, and that it should be either A36 or A307. However, the steel manual does not list either of these as applicable designations.

1) If you are anchoring steel to masonry, which would material would control? Would you spec the anchor material that is used for steel or masonry?

2) If you are anchoring wood to masonry would you definitely specify one of the masonry designations, or is there another material that would perhaps apply?

3) The ACI 318 doesn't appear to address this issue, so I would assume that the steel designation (F1554) would be appropriate.

Thank you!

 

[JedClampett]

I'm not sure what to make of your statement "...that F1554 is not a recognized bolt designation..." It's pretty standard in the fastening industry. Take a look at Table 2-6 in the AISC 14th Edition. F1554 is there and A36 is defined as an alternate, but I'm sure you can get either it or F1554 Grade 36, which has the identical properties. And A307 is in the table for headed bolts.
And the sample CMU specification in ACI 530, has A307 and A36 in it (ACI 530.1, Section 2.4D).
I think someone is mistaken.

 

[CURVEB]

Here's what I was told by NCMA:
"ASTM F1554 isn’t in the list of referenced anchor standards. The issue is that F1554 (as well as a few other anchor standards that are not listed) include options for low alloy, high strength bolts. Because there has been very limited research on these types of anchors in masonry, the question is whether the design strength and performance characteristics of these types of bolts works with the existing design modeling assumptions.

Personally I think it is largely an academic argument. I would be hard-pressed to imagine that the break-out strength would be impacted, and bolt yield strength is a property…not a model, and hence wouldn’t be impacted. For pry-out strength there might be an impact, but my speculation is that it is within the resolution of the predictability of the pry-out design model.

Nevertheless, the Committee has opted (for the time being) not to reference F1554 anchors."

I tend to agree that this is an academic argument - just curious if others have crossed this discrepancy and what the outcome was.

 

[KootK]

I agree that it surely makes no real world difference at all. My understanding is this:

1)F1554 is an anchor rod spec but not a bolt spec.
2)A325/307 is a bolt spec but not an anchor rod spec.

Often the materials are identical. It's other features that differ. Technically, longer anchor rods will often fall outside the length limits of the bolt specs.

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.

 

[CELinOttawa]

And don't forget that, in most places, ALL of the threaded rod is Grade 5, with very few exceptions... So if you are looking for threaded rod, it is VERY TOUGH to get anything of any real quality.

Diwydag, Hilti and others do well from this fact...