Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

5/6/2019 ACI 355.

2 January 30, 2006 Ballot Summary 1

Draft Minutes
ACI COMMITTEE 355
ANCHORAGE TO CONCRETE
Sunday, November 5, 2006
Denver, CO
Adams Mark

Chair Don Meinheit called the meeting to order at 8:28 AM. A quorum was present.

All members and guests were self-introduced. Attendees are listed at the end of these
minutes. Pete Carrato sent his regrets that he would not be able to attend

Roster/Address changes: Werner Fuchs has been added as a voting member.

Minutes: The minutes from the March 27, 2006 meeting in Charlotte, NC were approved
unanimously with the correction that Remaining Changes Item 7 referred to the repeated load
test, not the crack movement test.

Report from ACI Committee 349 Subcommittee C: Richard Orr reported that ACI 349
Subcommittee C is developing design examples for updating Design Guide 349.2R to the
CCD method. TAC will be issuing comments at this convention.

Report from ACI Committee 318 Subcommittee B: Ron Cook reported that Sub B and the
Main Committee are finishing changes to the ACI 318 Code. The changes balloted in
Charlotte, CB048, to accommodate the seismic changes being made in ACI 355.2 passed.
Sub B is considering removing the supplemental reinforcement provisions, and allow brittle
failures, but that change may not be approved. After lengthy discussion, Committee 355
voted 20-0-0 to support the original CB049 as balloted in LB065 that would remove Condition
A. This supports the removal of supplemental reinforcement in Appendix D.

It was proposed that this subject be put on the 355 agenda in Atlanta for a presentation by
Rolf Eligehausen on supplemental reinforcement.

ACI Anchorage to Concrete Seminar: Don Meinheit reported there were 6 seminars last
spring, 5 this fall, and 5 more planned for next spring. They have been well received, with
attendance ranging from about 11 to 28 per seminar. Feedback is that Appendix D is
complicated.

TAC Comments on ACI 355.2: TAC comments on the revised version of ACI 355.2 that
includes 3 changes approved by Committee 355 were reviewed and responses approved,
including some changes to ACI 355.2 and ACI 355.2R. The final summary of the response to
TAC comments is attached to these minutes. Primary comments items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
11,14,15,17 through 35 and 38 were approved.

Item 17 was found to correctly identify an error. Proposed change to ACI 355.2 to correct this
error was approved by a 17-0-0 vote.

Presentation of adhesive anchor general behavior: Rolf Eligehausen gave a presentation


on the background and performance of adhesive anchors upon which the draft ACI 355.YR
5/6/2019 ACI 355.2 January 30, 2006 Ballot Summary 2

Qualification of Adhesive Anchor in Concrete is based. The presentation will be posted on the
ACI 355.website.

Discussions from summer meeting of ad hoc group: A presentation was made of the
results of the ad hoc working group that met in Chicago on August 4/5, 2006 to discuss the
issues concerning the significant negatives votes received on the January 2006 letter ballot.
A summary document of that meeting was sent out to the committee and will be posted on
the ACI 355 website.

ACI 355.YR Adhesive Anchor Standard: After Committee discussion, it was concluded that
the adhesive anchor provisions will not make ACI 318-08, but the -11 version was more likely.
Another draft of ACI 355.YR will be prepared for letter ballot early next year that will
accommodate many of the proposals made during the Chicago meeting as well as responses
to many of the comments received from the January 2006 letter ballot. A Commentary is
under preparation with the intention that it will be sent to TAC at the same time as the
qualification standard.

Resolution of comments for remaining changes to ACI 355.2-04: Dick Wollmershauser


gave a quick overview of the 4 remaining changes to ACI 355.2 that were tabled. It was
recommended that those changes be taken up at a later meeting after new version of ACI
355.2 in available.

Resolution of comments on September 26, 2005 ballot on Design Examples 8, 10, 11,
and supplemental reinforcement: Design example 8 and Supplemental Reinforcement did
not receive sufficient yes votes to pass. They will be worked on and reballoted.

Design example 9 had primarily editorial comments which were accepted. This item passes.

Design Example 11 will require rework and a reballot. The Task Group met on November 6,
2006 to work on the revisions.

There was extensive discussion about the need for design examples to assist design
professionals to understand and use Appendix D. Problems 1 through 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16
should be sent to TAC as soon as possible for review. Don Meinheit will prepare an
introduction for the document.

Anchor Programs of Interest: Matthew Hoehler gave a presentation based on his


dissertation, Behavior and Testing of Fastenings to Concrete for use in Seismic Applications.
He presented about 20 slides from over 100. His presentation will be posted on the ACI 355
website. Access to his dissertation and the full presentation is available at the University of
Stuttgart via : http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2006/2758/. The dissertation is in
English.

Unfinished business: Don Meinheit will request a technical session at the Los Angeles
Convention spring of 2008.

New business:
5/6/2019 ACI 355.2 January 30, 2006 Ballot Summary 3

A proposal was made from Powers Fasteners to prepare changes to ACI 355.2 to include
testing provisions for screw anchors. A task group was established to proceed. Jake Olsen to
chair, with Tony Lamanna to help.

The proposed dates in Atlanta for the next meeting are Sunday 8:30 – 5:30 PM and Monday
8:30 – 2:00 PM, April 22 and 23, 2007.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Wollmershauser
Secretary

Voting members present (21 of 28): Ranjit Bandyopadhyay, Harry Chambers, Ron Cook, Rolf
Eligehausen, Sam Eskildsen, Brian Gerber, Herman Graves, Chris Heinz, Bruce Ireland,
Richard Klingner, Tony Lamanna, Nam-Ho Lee, Lee Mattis, Robert McGlohn, Donald
Meinheit, Richard Orr, Alan Price, Patrick Sullivan, Brett Turley, Harry Wiewel, and Richard
Wollmershauser.

Associate members present: Ben Lavon, Rick McGrath, Jake Olsen, Venkatesh Seshappa,
and John Silva.

Guests present: Young Ho Kim, Amy Kolczak, Jason Krohn, Adam Lubell, Matt Senecal (ACI
Staff), and Chuck Zalesiak (TAC).

Committee Mission: “Develop and report information, and develop and maintain standards
for anchorage to concrete.”

Future ACI Conventions:


Spring 2007 Apr 22 – Apr 26 Hilton, Atlanta, GA
Fall 2007 October 14 – 17 Wyndham, Puerto Rico
Spring 2008 April Los Angeles, CA
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

Committee Response November 5, 2006 (see end of document)


No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response
The designer uses the data contained in Table
11.3. This is correlated with the data requirements
of ACI 318 Appendix D. The designed does not get
involved with the reduction history and calculation.
He sees only the data from a table like Table 11.3.
There is no lower limit for Neq, reduced. However,
experience has shown that typically there is only a
minor reduction for good functioning mechanical
anchors. Very good functioning anchors typically
No revision summary was provided in the TAC Review document,
do not experience a reduction in tension testing. If
although the text was formatted in underline and strikeout to identify
the reduction is too great, that anchor system will
changes. It would appear from my review that the major scope of this
not be competitive in the marketplace.
revision was to accommodate seismic qualification testing for anchors at
Similarly, for shear, reductions are more likely to
a reduced tension and/or shear cyclic load history. It is not clear how a
occur due to the gap between the anchor and the
designer would apply these reduced cyclic load histories to anchor
wall of the drilled hole, and the resulting localized
qualification testing programs. Specifically, my question is:
concrete crushing and anchor bending during
testing.
1. 00 00 .P 1.) What determines the lower limit of N eq, reduced? Is the lower limit set
Propose adding the following wording to Section
by the specific design application, local building code/regulator or is
R9.5 and R9.6 of the Commentary:
it bounded by the lower limit of 0.60>Nb,r/Nb,o? Please clarify.
“The seismic testing programs in both tension and
2.) Similarly, what determines the lower limit of V eq, reduced? Is the lower
shear allow for lowering the test loads applied to
limit of Veq, reduced set by the specific design application or by local
the anchors if failures occur during the cyclic tests.
building code/regulator? Veq, reduced does not appear to be bounded by
There is no lower bound for these reduced loads,
the lower limit of 0.60>Nb,r/Nb,o, since shear is not part of this anchor
but significant reductions may yield seismic
category methodology. Please clarify.
capacities that are too low to be useful. Very good
functioning anchors will pass the seismic tests with
no or small reductions.
When failures occur and additional testing is
performed at reduced loads, the failures are reported
in the test report, but the lowest obtained capacities
are published in the anchor data.”

This response and change was approved by a 20-0-1


vote on November 5, 2006.

4 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


Divide list into events with numbers. For example “… in the following Not accept. Keep wording as originally written.
2. 2 3 E conditions: 1) uncracked concrete, 2) in cracked or…

Change to “…installing anchors, and conducting tests.” Accept. Make change.


3. 3 1 E
Clean up tables and words in tables. Will be corrected.
4. 18 6 E
No, not a straight line. See Commentary, R7.3.1.
For concrete cone breakout failures, the anchor
capacity is a function of the square root of the
concrete compressive strength. For steel failure, it is
The compressive strengths provided will produce a straight line curve that a single value, when the steel ruptures. For pullout
will imply that the tensile capacity will continue to increase linearly with or pull-through failures, the relationship of the
the tensile capacity of the steel as the limiting factor. What test data do failure capacity to concrete compressive strength is
5. 20 15 .P you have that would substantiate this assumption? If not then the limiting determined by testing.
tensile capacity, regardless of concrete strength, is going to based on the These relationships are detailed in ACI
highest compressive strength tested. 355.1R(1991), State-of-the-Art Report, the CEB
Design of Fastenings in Concrete (1996), and the
CEB Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry
Structures (1994).
This response was approved by a vote of 21-0-0
on November 5, 2006.
Testing in ACI 355.2 is performed in both a lower
concrete compressive strength range and a higher
concrete compressive strength range. The basic
reason for increasing the upper bound for the lower
concrete strength range was to give the testing labs
I understand from the Commentary R5.1.3, that ACI 318-05 sets a lower
a greater range in which to test. It can be difficult to
limit on specified compressive strength at 2,500 psi. What is the
get concrete test members at specific concrete
6. 20 16 .P technical basis for increasing the upper limit of low-strength concrete to
strength that don’t go out of strength during the
from 3,500 psi to 4,000 psi in this document?
testing (which can take several weeks to months).
The data is normalized back to 2,500 psi for almost
all tests, so the upper bound is unimportant and has
no influence on the data.
This response was approved by a vote of 21-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.

5 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


See answer to comment No. 6 (immediately above).
ACI 318 establishes a maximum specified
I understand from the Commentary R5.1.3, that ACI 318-05 sets a lower compressive strength for anchors. The actual
limit on specified compressive strength at 2,500 psi. However, this concrete strength is usually somewhat greater. So,
section also says that ACI 318-05 establishes an upper limit of 8,000 psi. the upper bound for the actual compressive strength
If the Commentary R5.1.3 is correct, then what is the technical basis for in which testing is performed was increased.
7. 20 17 .P
increasing the upper limit of high-strength concrete to 8,500 psi in this The lower bound of 6,500 psi was somewhat
document? Similarly, what is the technical reference for setting the lower arbitrary, but sufficiently higher than 4,000 psi, so
limit of high-strength concrete to 6,500 psi? as to establish 2 separate concrete strength ranges
for the tests.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
The testing agency does dimensional and
metallurgical checks and compares to the
specifications of the manufacturer for the product
How does the investigator confirm that the anchors conform??” being evaluated. It has been standard procedure for
8. 21 4 .P
the evaluation of anchors under previous anchor
testing criteria (ICBO ES, ICC ES, etc.).
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
Torque wrenches are calibrated as part of a
laboratory qualification process under the ISO and
Specify the test (ASTM, etc) required to ‘calibrate’ the torque wrench.
other requirements. Such a reference is not needed
9. 26 6 .P Guidance is needed here.
in ACI 355.2.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
What classes are covered under All?? Shallow and deep, and any other embedment that is
10. 29 21 E
tested.

6 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


No limit is needed. If the coefficient of variation is
not reduced to an acceptable value after 5 or 10
more tests, it will be futile to continue testing more
anchors. And the cost of testing will influence
number of anchor tested. See Section 4.2.3 that
covers sample sizes.
Propose adding wording to the Commentary as
follows:
“R4.2.3 The minimum sample sizes for each test is
given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The sample size is
Should there be a limit on the increase of the sample size or special permitted to be increased. There are two primary
11. 36 11 .P provisions? reasons for increasing the sample size. First, if the
coefficient of variation is greater than allowed in
the requirements sections of each of the tests, then
adding additional test samples may bring the
coefficient of variation to an acceptable level. The
trade-off is cost of testing versus attempting to
reduce the coefficient of variation. The second
reason is that the calculation of the k-factor is
dependent on sample size. Increasing the sample
size might possibly increase the k-factor.”
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
Something wrong with graphics (i.e. ). Will be corrected. The “square” should be a dot,
12. 38 6 E
signifying a multiplication.
Something wrong with graphics (i.e. ). Will be corrected. The “square” should be a dot,
13. 38 7 E
signifying a multiplication.
This is explained in the corresponding Commentary
What is a ‘stabilization of movement’? Explain here or include in
in R8.5.3.
14. 38 12 .P Definitions.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.

7 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


See answer to Comment 11 for proposed wording..
There is no specific recommendation to be given. It
How large an increase in the number of replicates is considered depends on the number of anchors (usually 5) that
acceptable and how many times can the test be increased before it is are included in the additional testing. That is up to
15. 38 16 .P
deemed to be a failure? State your recommendations clearly. the manufacturer and the testing agency. See
Section 4.2.3.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
Should there be a subscript “,cr” after Np. Editorial. Yes. Make change.
16. 41 1 .P

8 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


Accept the comment. The following changes are made.
In 8.6.4, remove last sentence, This residual capacity
shall be used to establish the anchor category according
to Chapter 10.
Change Eq. 8-1 to use the square root symbol.
Change last sentence of first paragraph of Section 8.6.5
to read:
…The characteristic capacity Np,cr shall be reduced in
proportion to the reduced sustained load as calculated by
Eq. (8-2)

N w, red f c'
N p , cr  (8-2)
0.3 f c , test

where
Np,cr = characteristic pullout or pull-through capacity to
The requirement for the mean residual capacity of the anchor to achieve
be reported in Table 11.2 or 11.3;
at least 80% of the mean capacity in the corresponding reference test Nw,redw,red = reduced static tension load applied to anchor
was deleted for reliability tests under repeated load in Table 4.1, Test 6. during crack cycling portion of test.
17. 41 11 .P Should the 90% requirement be deleted here for the reliability test in
cracked concrete in Table 4.2, Test 8? It does not appear to be Change second paragraph to read:
consistent. Please explain. Then reduce the characteristic pullout or pull-through
capacity in proportion to the reduction in the sustained
load; this reduced characteristic capacity shall be used in
establishing the anchor category in Chapter 10. The
mean residual capacity of the anchor shall be not less
than 90% of the mean capacity in the corresponding
reference test.
The residual capacity shall be used to establish the
anchor category according to Chapter 10. The coefficient
of variation ν of the ultimate tension load in any test
series shall not exceed 20%. If the coefficient of
variation of the original or cumulative test series does not
meet this requirement, the sample size shall be permitted
to be increased. If the requirement for maximum
coefficient of variation is not met, the anchor shall be
considered unqualified.
(Continued on next page.)

9 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


In Section 8.6.2, third sentence, change “to” to
“by” so as to read “…Open the crack by a crack
17 width…” This is the same wording of Section 5.4.1.
cont
This response was approved by a vote of 17-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
Defined in 2.1.12.
What is meant by statistically equivalent?
18. 42 8 .P This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
See Commentary Section R9.4 which explains this.
If the anchor has an unusual geometrical shape, or
has reduced sections that are cold-formed and the
mechanical properties are not uniform along the
What is meant by “reliably calculated”?
19. 44 10 .P length and will affect the shear capacity, the shear
capacity cannot be calculated and anchor must be
tested.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
Explained in Commentary Section 5.5.3.2. The
manufacturer, in the development of the anchor,
Table 5.7 does not provide adequate information to determine embedment will establish the specific embedments for which
depths. In the absence of anchor manufacturer’s installation instruction, the anchor is to be used. The testing agency uses
20. 45 7 .P
no embedment depths are given. those embedments in the testing. Not all anchors
use the same embedments.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
Could probably use some more editing. At times, it
There are times in the document that definitions are in the text or list and
is helpful to have the specific term explained where
others where they are left it for the nomenclature section. Is there a reason
21. 45 17 .P it is being used in the test procedure.
that it in not consistent?
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.

10 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


Given in answer to Comment 1. If the anchor fails
during the seismic tension cycles, the test may be
repeated with a reduced applied load cycle. The
Stipulate the disposition of the test if the anchor fails during the seismic
failed test is reported, but not used in the final data,
22. 46 12 .P tension cycles.
since a reduced capacity will be reported in Table
11.3.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
What is the technical basis for requiring the mean residual capacity of the The testing cycle used in ACI 355.2 has its origin in
anchors in the test series to achieve at least 160% of the corresponding the ICBO ES Acceptance Criteria AC01 in 1995,
reference test value computed in Eq. (9-1)? whereby three levels of load are applied to the
anchor to simulate a seismic event. The 160%
corresponds to approximately 80% of the expected
23. 46 21 .P
ultimate capacity (after any reductions are taken, if
any). This is well above the expected capacity of
ACI 318 Appendix D.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
What is the technical basis for requiring the mean residual capacity of the See answer to No. 23.
anchors in the test series to achieve at least 160% of the corresponding This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
24. 47 22 .P
reference test value for Neq, reduced? November 5, 2006.

What is the technical justification for the intermediate and minimum See answer to No. 23. The three levels of loads
tension cyclic test values of Ni = 0.75Neq and Nm = 0.50Neq? Are these applied to the anchor were established to represent a
values set by the local building code/regulator? Please clarify. seismic event: a few high loads from the initial
shocks, some intermediate after-shocks, and many
25. 48 13 .P low-lever after-shocks. The number of cycles and
loads are conservative, especially the 0.75Neq and
0.5Neq.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
What is the technical justification for the intermediate and minimum See answer to No. 25.
shear cyclic test values of Vi = 0.75Veq and Vm = 0.50Veq? Are these This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
26. 48 20 .P
values set by the local building code/regulator? Please clarify. November 5, 2006.

11 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


What is the technical basis for requiring the mean residual capacity of the See answer to No. 23.
anchors in the test series to achieve at least 160% of the corresponding This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
27. 51 20 .P
reference test value for Veq, reduced, as given by Eq. (9-3) or (9-4)? November 5, 2006.

What is the technical basis for requiring the mean residual capacity of the See answer to No. 23.
anchors in the test series to achieve at least 160% of the corresponding This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
28. 52 16 .P
reference test value for Veq? November 5, 2006.

Change wording of Section 12.1 to read:


”The testing and evaluation of anchors under ACI
355.2 shall be performed or witnessed by an
independent testing and evaluation agency (ITEA)
accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 by a recognized
accreditation body conforming to the requirements
of ISO/IEC 17011. [rest of Section stays as
written]”
Remove reference to Guide 58 on page 66 under
Referenced Standards, ISO and add the reference:
After ‘agency’ add ‘conforming to ASTM E329 and consider ISO 17025’
29. 65 5 .P ISO/IEC 17011:2004 Conformity assessment --
General requirements for accreditation bodies
accrediting conformity assessment bodies

The reference to ASTM E 329 is not appropriate. “E


329 Standard Specification for Agencies Engaged in
Construction Inspection and/or Testing” is used for
the “Agencies Engaged in Construction Inspection
and Testing” not qualification of products.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.

12 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


See response to Comment 29.
Review the reference ‘ISO 17025’ and consider changing to ‘ISO 17011’
and delete ‘and Guide 58’. ISO 17011 refers to the accreditation service.
ISO 17025 refers to the testing lab. Guide 58 is obsolete and replaced by
It is assumed that 12.1 is the referenced section.
ISO 17011.
30. 65 6 .P The reference to ASTM E 329 is not appropriate. E
As presently written 11.1 is confusing and not clear who the standards
329 is used for the “Agencies Engaged in
apply to. ASTM E329 covers accreditation, concrete, quality systems,
Construction Inspection and Testing” not
etc. and is a valid reference here.
qualification of products.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
See response to Comment 29.
Review the reference ‘Guide 58’ and consider changing to ‘17011’.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
31. 66 16 .P 17011 has replaced Guide 58.
November 5, 2006.

Hasn’t the procedure and guidelines for making and controlling cracks No. The NUREG is not an appropriate document
in test specimens already been published, via a NUREG, from testing for establishing cracked concrete testing
that was performed at the University of Texas at Austin? It is not clear procedures. There are several other ways to make
what additional publication on crack making and crack control, during cracks and to control the width than was done at the
anchor testing, is required. Please clarify. University of Texas.
See Section R5.4. In the previous edition of ACI
355.2-04, TAC requested that ACI 355.2 publish an
32. 73 5 S article establishing how to make and control crack
widths. This resulted in the article in the July 2004
issue of Concrete International. Further work is
taking place in ASTM Subcommittee E 06.13,
Performance of Connections in Construction, and
specifically ASTM E 488.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.

13 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

No. Pg # Line # E/P/S TAC Comment Committee Response


I understand from the Commentary R5.1.3, that ACI 318-05 sets a lower This is explained in the answer to Comment No. 6
limit on specified compressive strength at 2,500 psi. The text on Page and 7. It relates to the difference of ACI 318 giving
20, Line 17 indicates that the upper limit on specified compressive a specified concrete compressive strength and ACI
strength for high-strength concrete is 8,500 psi. However, this section 355.2 using actual concrete compressive strengths
also says that ACI 318-05 establishes an upper limit of 8,000 psi. Which in the testing. There is no conflict.
is correct? Please change to the correct value or clarify the apparent See also R5.1.3.
33. 78 16 .P difference between Report and Commentary. Similarly, what is the The selection of 6,500 psi as the lower limit was
technical reference for setting the lower limit of high-strength concrete based on having a concrete strength range
to 6,500 psi? sufficiently above the lower strength range, but
wide enough to give testing laboratories sufficient
room in which to pour concrete testing slab.
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
It means the test fixture or testing apparatus that
What is meant by fixtures? holds the anchor/bolt during testing.
34. 89 18 .P
This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
November 5, 2006.
I understand from the Commentary R5.1.3, that ACI 318-05 sets a lower See answer to Comment No. 33.
limit on specified compressive strength at 2,500 psi. The text on Page This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
20, Line 17 indicates that the upper limit on specified compressive November 5, 2006.
strength for high-strength concrete is 8,500 psi. However, this section
35. 90 1 .P
also says that ACI 318-05 establishes an upper limit of 8,000 psi. Which
is correct? Please change to the correct value or clarify the apparent
difference between Report and Commentary.

Change “would have” to “needs” Not accept. In the context of the paragraph, “would
36. 90 4 E
have” is the better choice.
Something wrong with graphics (i.e. ). Will be corrected.
37. 97 2 E
The diamond shaped box on the flow diagram indicates that the reliability Editorial. Will be corrected.
test mean residual capacity shall achieve at least 80% of mean capacity in This response was approved by a vote of 20-0-0 on
the corresponding reference test. Wasn’t this requirement deleted on Page November 5, 2006.
38. 115 00 .P 38, Line 13, and therefore should be revised in this flow diagram as well?
Please check and clarify that the information in the diamond shaped box
is correct.

14 of 15
TAC Review Location: New Brunswick TAC Review Date: 7/20/06 TAC Agenda Item No.: 8.5
Document Title: Qualifications of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (355.2) Committee: 355

The preceding response to TAC comments was considered at the ACI Committee Meeting on November 5, 2006 in Denver. The number of
voting members of the Committee at that time was 28. The TCM requires that 40% of the voting members (12) at a meeting to take action and
approve any changes to the document. At various times during the meeting, there were 17 to 21 voting members present, exceeding the 40%
no.

15 of 15