Sakrete Anchoring Epoxy

[XR250]

On a recent project, I specified Simpson SET-XP for the anchor bolts. The contractor used the above instead. I am trying to determine if they are reasonably equivalent. I designed the anchor bolts using Simpson Anchor Designer software.
On Sakrete's website, the only indication of structural performance is that it has a 21,500 psi pull-out strength based on ASTM E-488
I can't find any information on Simpson's website regarding this particular test with the Set-XP.

Can anyone offer any guidance?

Thanks!

 

[Enable]

Cant offer any advice re: comparability since I have no experience with either. But just to put it out there if it's a non-trivial application you can put it on the contractor to proof test via pull-testing as a last result (assuming you're trying to play nice!).

 

[XR250]

Thanks Enable. Def. trying to play nice so a pullout test may be the way to go.

 

[XR250]

Unfortunately, this bolts were anchoring a column with a sustained moment due to a cantilever (kinda like a street light). Set-XP is rated for this, Sakrete is not.

 

[Celt83]

If it doesn't have an associated ESR report indicating approval for use with the IBC, I'd tend to reject the substitution.

I'm making a thing:

http://www.thestructuraltoolbox.com

(It's no Kootware and it will probably break but it's alive!)

 

[jdgengineer]

I would tell them no personally, especially if it has sustained loading. Does Sakrete have ICC approval? Is it cracked concrete approved (assuming some seismic)? Were the anchors installed with special inspection (if sustained tension seems like it should be).

 

[SwinnyGG]

You hate to do it.. but for a constant load scenario as you've described, I'd probably reject this entirely.

 

[TLHS]

Ask if there's an ICC report, a qualification to ACI 355.2-19, or something similar. They've got an ASTM E488 test based pullout strength on there, so they've done at least something. Plus it looks like the product line is only a few years old, so you'd expect they'd do some of the newer certification stuff as part of the initial work on it.

However, looking at the instructions, I don't love the non-explicit cleaning instructions. They leave a lot of room for the contractor to say they didn't know the extent of cleaning that can actually be required. I will always remember the time I visited a friend's place and he'd done some work you brace his basement and asked me to look at a couple of things. I asked him a couple of questions about his anchors, then grabbed some vicegrips and yanked one as hard as I could, and pulled one fully out. He picked his product and methods based on help from the hardware store and that's what he got.

So pull test might still be the right call even if you get testing. This is a spot where a pull test is reasonable, since it's likely just bond that's potentially different and not breakout. The standard small apparatus should let you know reasonably well.

 

[TLHS]

Whoop, wrote the above before I saw the cantilever bit. Yeah, without a standardized report to hang your hat on, and proof of how they were installed I'd run.

 

[XR250]

I mean, it IS "exceptionally hard and strong when cured". That should surpass any need fo an ESR report

 

[skeletron]

Question: so you reject it. do they just unbolt it, grind down the anchors and move the lightpost (assumed) over 12" onto a new pedestal or slab? Rotate it so that the 4-bolts (assumed) are halfway between the pre-existing (rejected)? I've never come to that point, but what else can you do?

 

[XR250]

I think i might have them weld a diagonal kicker near the bottom of the post back to another plate with proper anchors.
Not really any load on the front anchors so I am not too worried about them.

 

[JedClampett]

One of these (Simpson) is a tested epoxy with a code compliance report validating the installations with said code compliance. The other is a hardware store, Home Depot quality epoxy. And guess which one is cheaper? Nothing against hardware stores, but they're oriented towards handymen, not construction professionals. I couldn't even find a website for Sakrete. And honestly, the Sakrete and the Simpson might be made on the same assembly line.
Unless the contractor is your brother in law, and probably not even then, there's no reason to violate code on this. Do you want to explain that this is as good as the tested Simpson material to someone's lawyer?

 

[Aesur]

I just encountered this today as well, luckily in some fairly "non-structural" applications, new slab on top of existing. I asked for the ESR and they are supposed to be sending to me, if they have it and I actually receive it, I'll share.

 

[epoxybot]

This epoxy is non-sag, meaning thixotropic agents were added to make it non-sag. Thixotropic agents, will in most cases come with the benefit adding some reinforcing properties to the paste formula. Much like sand reinforcing large aggregate in concrete. The compressive strength and modulus of this material seems on the low side. You could ask them what category of ASTM-C-881 the epoxy qualifies under.

The image you posted doesn't offer a lot of physical(mechanical) properties, which is a red flag. A heat Deflection Temperature, ASTM-D-648, of at least 120F is the minimum value to be considered a structural epoxy adhesive.