ICC Certification for Fall Arrest Anchors - Required?

[structuralecstasy]

My current project (building code: IBC 2009) requires fall arrest D-ring anchors to be post-installed in a concrete wall. When I researched fall arrest anchors, I found many that are compliant with OSHA 1926, but cannot find any that are compliant with IBC 2009, or any version of IBC for that matter. The ICC website confirms this, as all of the ESR reports listed on their website are for structural anchors, not necessarily life safety. This is a little confusing, especially since I cannot find any exception in IBC 2009 or ACI 318-08 that excludes fall arrest systems. In fact, Section D2.1 of ACI 318 states right up front that safety related devices are inclusive: "Appendix D is restricted in scope to structural anchors that transmit structural loads related to strength, stability, or life safety."

So, are there really no options for post-installed anchors for fall arrest systems, or is there some language in IBC or ACI that defaults approval to OSHA in lieu of ICC for safety system anchorage? Even if that were the case, the suppliers would then be able to advertise that their anchors are IBC compliant as well as OSHA compliant, which they do not. IBC does state in Section 1703 that approval comes from an approved agency, but it is not clear to me if an anchor is OSHA-approved that it does not need to be ICC-approved. Any thoughts?

 

[JStephen]

OSHA has regulations, but I'm not aware that they "approve" specific products, not like UL or something. If the "structural anchors" meet the OSHA requirements, they should be good, whether they advertise OSHA compliance or not.

Perhaps a related issue: There are many products available that say "Not for lifting people, or lifting loads over people" or something to that effect. Can they be used for that purpose anyway?

 

[structuralecstasy]

I agree that OSHA does not approve or certify devices. They simply provide guidelines for design and testing of those devices.

I guess what I am really getting at is: Do fall arrest anchors need to be ICC approved/certified?

 

[structuralecstasy]

Well, it turns out that the safety anchor suppliers that we were intending to use do not fabricate the anchors, but the anchor system. The anchors as a standalone component are a Hilti product that is ICC certified for IBC 2009. It took a little bit of luck and persistence to figure this out from one of the supplier data sheets. I'm still not sure why the safety anchor suppliers don't advertise that they use an anchor that is ICC certified, but maybe they are not used to working with engineers who need to know all of the dirty little details.

 

[phamENG]

I think it's important to note that ICC certification doesn't mean it meets code - it just means that International Code Council Evaluation Service (related to but separate from the people who actually write the codes) has conducted a third party evaluation of the product and published a report with their findings. You can compare those findings to the manufacturer's published data. It's up to you to determine whose data you trust and apply it so that the anchorage you design meets the minimum code requirements. I always look for ICC-ES or other reputable 3rd party testing reports for non-standard or proprietary products.

 

[Teguci]

Just to stir the pot - "...ICC-ES acceptance criteria ... anchors subjected to fatigue or shock loading is unavailable at this time ... "

Basically, ICC does not evaluate anchors for shock loading such as a person impacting against an anchor. You'll find this under section 5.0 of every ICC post installed anchor report.

 

[phamENG]

That's a good point, Teguci. Gotta love the fine print. Do you know of any testing labs that do publish impact tests for post installed anchors?

 

[structuralecstasy]

Agreed, good point Teguci. Fall arrest certainly falls in the category of shock loading. I didn't go through every ESR report but the few that I did look through did contain that language:

"Since an ICC-ES acceptance criteria for evaluating data to determine the performance of expansion anchors subjected to fatigue or shock loading is unavailable at this time, the use of these anchors under such conditions is beyond the scope of this report."

So in a way that brings us back to square one again. Going on the assumption that the above language is in all of the ESRs, which appears to be the case based on how the ICC statement is worded, there are no post-installed fall arrest anchors available that are ICC certified. But do they need to be or not need to be? That is the question.

 

[Teguci]

I don't have a copy of IBC 2009 (New Jersey still only offers 2006) but I've had no problem using post installed structural anchors for life safety in the past. I would recommend the use of ICC certified anchors over the available alternatives and for a once and done application where a 310 lb falling weight, properly restrained with an energy absorbing lanyard, hits on the system, I wouldn't worry about it (inspection to be required after an event). Clearly this is a grey area (as is everything OSHA) and puts us back into the era of picking an anchor from the old HILTI catalogs and then dividing by 2.

If you are really concerned, then pick an anchor that has a non-brittle steel failure mode. Also, I would consider anchors used to support structural loads as "life safety" anchors.

 

[dhengr]

For goodness sake, we are always looking for or assuming that every detail in the universe must be blessed by and approved by some all mighty agency, like OSHA, IBC, ICC, etc. How would any agency approve an entire system, unseen, when it is made up of ten different parts, and then attached to any number of different structural systems, with a wide choice of anchoring devices or approaches? I don’t happen to have any of the latest relevant codes or stds. in front of me, but my take on the matter would be the following. Fall protection apparatuses generally fall under the purview of OSHA since they are meant to protect employed workers. Doesn’t OSHA talk about fall protection devices ‘must withstand a 5000lb. force, in any direction, without failing’? And, this means is can be .01" and 1psi away from failing or ultimate strength. But, this set a high bar for the duffus who just throws a rope loop over a tin exhaust vent. Except, when the system and its attachment is designed by a Professional Engineer the system can be designed for some multiple of the anticipated arresting load. For some reason, about 3 times the impact loading or falling weight (mass?) sticks in my mind, and the design worker weighs about 300lbs plus 50lbs of tools or equipment. Take a look at what they do with various lanyards these days. A hard wire rope stops the load quickly, after ‘y’ fall distance, thus a high impact loading on an anchor; while energy absorbing lanyards, stop the fall over some short distance and time, absorbing much energy in the process, thus lesser anchor strength is needed. I would then expect that the IBC pretty much defaults to the OSHA reqr’mts.

I would talk with my local AHJ and local OSHA office since they are the ones who will ultimately approve the system, or rule on it if all hell does break loose. OSHA offices have been told to be more helpful to industry in understanding their reqr’mts. (contractors, engineers, etc.) and more helpful in prevention, if you ask before hand, and with an intelligent design and plan in hand, rather than just being the s.o.b’s of last resort. Some officials are more helpful than others, but if you come well informed, rather than with a really dumb idea, they generally want to help. Obviously, your design and the sum of the parts has to have a good engineering basis, and some individual documentation for the various parts. If it can overload one A.B. in a group, your design better account for that; maybe you shouldn’t fix this device to brick veneer or a ladder style up to the roof; Just good sound engineering judgement. There used to be a little verbiage in the IBC (UBC?) something like “by rational analysis and in accordance with well established principles of mechanics,” and this got us through a lot of tough details and most approval discussions.

 

[darthsoilsguy2]

curious about this excluded "shock loading".... is the shock load on an anchor something like a quick powerful jerk, like you might have if somebody falling were tied off?