vermont department of highways materials ......the cost for materi al of horn thiopoxy 60 and the...
TRANSCRIPT
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Materials Division Research Report
TESTING PROGRAM FOR BRIDGE RAILING ANCHOR
Report 1967 – 01
February 17, 1965
FOB.
BOLTS
DEPARTHENT HIGHHAYS
II. Arnold, r
. LBne, neer
p
Structural Cone t Sub Division
conclusion
ON IIBRT RAILING
BY ARCHIE •
DURING THE FEW MONTHS A STUDY OF METHODS AND MATERIALS USE
IN DGE RAILING ANCHOR
THE USE OF DISCARDED SECTIONS OF
4n DEEP AND SET IN DIFFERENT
THAN THE
�IERE STRONG ENOUGH TO BE
OF CONCRETE USED SO v�n""'�£""
DERED FOR
S'rRESS
THE
3/4" 1{-1I IMBEDMENT
THE PHASE AND THEIR ARE
#223 - SPECIMEN AT , 300 LBS.
2. FOID4ULATION WITH STONE - SPECIMEN 200
3. HOT LEAD - SPECIMEN FAILED AT 3,000 18S.
4. EXPANSIVE CEMENT GROUT (PROPERLY CURED) - SPECIMEN AT 6,550 LBS.
5. EXPANSIVE GROUT (DRIED OUT) - STARTED TO PULL AT 3,000
AT 5,600 LBS.
6. NORMAL GROUT (PROPERLY CURED) - SPECIMEN AT 7,000
7. NORMAL CEMENT GROUT (DRIED OUT) - SPECH1EN
IT BE THE RESULTS OF THESE ARE
TO CONCRETE IN THE SPECIMENS.
AT
ORDER TO DEVELOP A
BLOCK WERE �4ADE AND CURED
OF EACH BLOCK: ANCHOR
FOLLOWING RESULTS.
8. STAR
9. CEMENT MORTAR
DECIDED THAT A LARGER CONCRETE
BEFORE BRE1UnNG. A FEW 12" X 1211 X 1011
A f;!ONTH. THESE HAD DRILLED HOLES 2" X 611 IN THE CENTER
WERE SET IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT GROUTING A18 THE
7/811 X 611 IMBEDMENT) - FAILED AT 5,600
CURING) - FAILED AT 27,400 LBS.
MARCH 20, 1968
SHEET NO. 2
10. SULFASET (RAPID CURING) - FAILl!tD AT 12,800 LBS.
* 11. EMBECO (MASTER BUILDER) = FAILED AT 24,700 LBS.
w 12. HORN THIO POXY 60 � FAILED AT 14,950 LBS.
* 130 RAMCHEM (EPOXY FORMULA 223) = FAILED AT J2,250 LBS.
HERE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT * M ATERIALS DEVELOPED MORE STRENGTH THAN
THE CONCRETE TEST BLOCK COULD STAND, THEREFORE, THESE STRENGTH RESULTS ARE THE
MAXIMUM THAT THE CONCRETE WOULD STAND AND NOT NECESSARILY THE MAXIt�M STRENGTH OF
THE MATERIALo
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ON EVERY SAMPLE OF THE NONSHRINKI NG GROUTS
THERE vffiRE SOME CRACKS DEVELOPED AT THE SURFACE EDGES; THESE WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE
TO BE SEALED WITH SOME OTHER MATERIAL TO KEEP OUT SALT BRINES.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SELF-EXPANDING GROUTS SHOULD NOT BE
USED ADJACENT TO ALUMINUM MATERI A18 AS ELECTROLYTIC ACTION \-1ILL QUICKLY CORRODE THE
ALUMINUM.
COST CONS1DERATION:
THE COST FOR MATERI AL OF HORN THIOPOXY 60 AND THE RAM CHEM EPOXY COMPOUNDS ARE
APPROXIMATELY $1. 00 PER BOLT Wli.l' .. 'REAS THE CEMENT AND NONSHRINKING GROUTS ARE MUCH
LESS BUT NOT WORTH THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE IN COMPARISON TO A NORMAL CEMENT MORTAR
GROUT. (HOI-lEVER, WE FEEL THAT THE "THIOPOXY 60" COMPOUND V.JAS QUITE PUNKY IN
APPEARANCE COMPARATIVELY.)
LABORATORY RECOMMENDATIONS: ORDER OF PREFERENCE.
L USE OF A LONGER ANCHOR B011' TO EXTEND THROUGH THE ENTIRE DEPTH OF CONCRETE
WITH NUTS AND WASHERS.
2. THE USE OF AN APPROVED EPOXY COMPOUND (STRAIGHT EPOXY).
J. NORMAL CEMENT MORTAR GROUT PROPERLY CURED AND WATERPROOFED.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: R. I. Ro�yell, Materials Engineer
FROM: E. F. Perkins, Chief Bridge Designer
DATE: January 2, 1968
SUBJECT: Testing Program for Bridge Railing Anchor Bolts
Following the preliminary tests of grouteJ anchor bolts on December 22, 1967 it was felt that additional testing and evalua t ion were necessa r y before making a final d ecisio n on the grout system to be used vlhen making ne�." railing i nstalla tions on exis ting bridges. The attached tes ting program vlaS deve loped to aid in making this decision.
We have determined that the Planning Division has research funds available for this sort of program and in order to receive approval for the use of these monies it is necessary to have an estimate of the costs involved. Accordingly, would you review this program outline and give us your estimate of mater i a l and labor cost involved to carry out each of the phases noted.
We believe the material to be self-explanatory, but if you have questions regarding any of the details please contact eithe r myse l f or R. L. Merchant.
EFP:RLM:pmp Attach.
HD·21J6/\ 15M ]1·65
Purpose and Scope :
TESTING PROGRAM FOR BRIDGE RAILING ANCHOR BOLTS
Derby I 9l-3 (1) PE Derby I 91-3 (22) Canst . December 29 , 1967
This progrl'lm is designed to determine the materials and methods to be used when ins ta 11 ing bridge rai ling, whidl co nfo rm to 1965 AASHO design specifi ca tions, on the existing safety walks on the I 91 (NB) over u.S. 5 b ridge . The program is designed to study the resistance of an individual anchor bolt subjected to tensi le force only and to confirm the d esign of the standard bolt group .
Objecti ves :
1. Determine effectiveness of various mater ials used to grout bolts into holes drilled in precas t blocks.
2. Determine depth of embedment required to develop anchor bolt tension in exis ting bridge safety walks.
Specifica t ions :
A. Materials:
1. Test Blocks. Two types of test blocks are to be prepared as indicated ori the attached sheets. Test block "A" is a heavily reinforced block designed to determine the effectiveness of several materials as a grouting system. Test block "B" is intended to simulate the actual conditions of con crete depth and reinforci ng steel distribution to be found in exist ing safety wa lks. Blocks are to be of Class AA Concrete, properly cured and reinfo rced with Intermed iate Grade Reinforcing Bars. Holes are to be drilled after curing to depth necessary to provide embedment indicate d .
2. Grout Systems. Several systems of commonly available material are to be tested , including :
a. Portland Cement grou t b. Non-shrink cement grout (commerCial grade) c. Epoxy-sand grout
1. Ram-Chern 2. other as available
d. Epoxy ( �ithout aggregate) 1. Ram -Chem 2. other as available
e . Sul phide Materials 1. Sulfex 2. Porock 3. Leadite
Grout systems are to be evaluated using test block "A". The minimum acceptab le ultimate st rength of the system shall be 40,000 pounds. The systems shall be observed for rapid deterioration under service conditions (free ze -thaw and salt act ion ) or actlon which would lead to maintenance problems . Systems to be designeo according to usual practice or manufacturer's recommendations.
S. Procedure:
Derby I 91-3 (1) PE Derby I 91-3 (22) Const. December 29, 1967 Page 2
Phase I. Evalu ati on of the various grout systems using Test Block I�I', to determine the specif ic system to be. used. An alternate system may be designated. Two (2) t es t blocks are to be prepared for each grout system.
Phase II. Evaluation of the effectiveness of various depths of embedment using the grout system selected in Phase I and Test Block "B". Two (2) test blpck s are to be prepared for each of the following embedmen t depths: 4", 6", 8", 10" . . Test loading is to be carried to failure. Minimum acceptable ultimate strength is to be 40,000 pounds.
Phase I I I. Full scale test of SB-RI-64 ra�l post bolt group using grouted anchor bolts and subjected to l965 AASHO rail post loading. Anchor bolts to be set with embedment and grout system eelected in Phases I Bnd I I.
C . General:
Testing is to be carried out by the Materials Division, Vermon t Highway Department. Detail test procedures, records and reports are to be developed by the Materials Engineer.
¥ .. __________ _ _ ___ _ _ _ OAT. ________ _ _ __ _
CMttD_ .v .. , _ _ _ _ DAT •. ______ _ _ __ . .
. ,
-
's .. i�lge '") r I I I '. • I I I I .
c....
:: : :'j I I I \ I�
/ I I I I" I
r--- I I I I L...J.1
r-;t:l"6Ae
,:. '" C" 19J,e "L:.. �"BMl.)·
--t
}
eM !III _ __ ••• __ • __ 01" _ _____ " _ _
.10. NO. ___ £ .. '1.1.. -::_.J..c.Jl .. _
- - - .. -.. �.""----.- -.--.. -.. ----.-
� 8AA!S�
N "
�-d':'
" " Z-C�
9" 7·n7> /5'/'
/Z'
t!f' ", 'I
.' -$i
I I,
�N
/()"
7',1
O ... TE ..... .
0 ... 1'&: • . .•••. . . '
r-- -_ . . _--
/�.
�
,
.-
I , I "
I
d I
,
, , : ' , ,
,I .t , .--- 6
// ,
L' ,
:- - -.� �- .-� �''> I'
'�>� ... L.-- ,4
£c-&/�·TIO()
. c/.a: 61f1/� e M6e/;"�H1'
SHEeT NO .. . _. _ .... OF . .. _ . .
Joe NO . . . _£'!!..:.:l(�J.. .. .
...... �.��--........ -. .... - ... . . . . -
I, I ' �.AI' /-15 ..,-
/Z"
j() "
By.�_�:.0 ....... DATE!���!� 7 O'KD. BY 7'....�IIL N·"",
1 /
51::.
/l@ 845E37 (04-) Z5( 5) ;:
IZ( s) :::
I /2'
./
/
I;V-K
�o "
/85IN-;C. J.. c· /)
/!SSt:/,.v/E FW't!G t:..CJrtlO /S T#/L£A./ 8Y FeC)NT /'fou..J c::J,c" eOL.T.s
A"uD PC-ATE t:U/� /?tUO:r �.8ovr 13/iCi: OF Pc"c;TE /
/ /' / j10MEJJT AIZfV{ -:: .5 12.. (-I 8 :. G �.
;; cc. r 15,/
� /3,90
:::: SUPPo
,11
i
B/-/SE 25 (/.2.5; :::
/2- ( /.2. 5) :: /s. 0/ //.J-.<::.::
4C::, ,25/ / A..J-� pSSU;'--/e PiC! 0 r /9/3 0 '"' r
/t?{)i"-fE/Jr RAD!-/ -:: 3 � 'f- I l--= = S I /z
! 1/ 8
FcJ/.:?C"c / If.) / P-R'u{;1 /;I/\j I;) / [30t-T
�
4�. zi' (.5) ;;;. 4, / 5,/25
19.6/ T=/6'. 7)::,
, : es-, /e IIJ /iV, 5., O().:,
Olt" - .fY YIC' // S r'f6
::;:. G,2 K ;V" c;. -I f�/' �tI"d />1 .s;r: r:r;'!;'
DC,1/;'h
BY_�_��:! _ _ _ _ __ _ _ DATE/�t13fo7 SU['lJECT _______ _ _ _ _ _ . ____________ ... __ . _ _ _ _ ________ . _ _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ _ SHEET NO. _____ � __ OF ____ k __
CHKD. By.!!?!rL DATE_!,;'.:-:I:� _ _ &?·
/7 <","'--" � .t. ',c /7........,) ......... r{A'f' I �
;z;.�c:(/
2.::-,·-h
/q , '-" -�---��.�
/
. I F,CD</F e()LF
ASSu./-'1c 7CJT/',��-
2. 7, 17
JOB NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
,-LJ /i.: -) .:"./
10 lr:i-r,:· F 0 /ZL-'.G /='/c_?:') ,k( IV; ::: 25, e 1· -<:: /-?? c:.6�./ -25' ' "9 ,.:.- (Flll.';)
P .:5-2 Z
/-0/2 /7.-30? BOeTS
(55/ ca�.'.') F.J:.-:i)
/0·31 .- 2,58/e -9'
� ::. ZCJ� cJ 00 - /, c,:tV
5'5 ! ?a 0 - /, C;.? ;."{/
8.12. k
(1..1,;, ZI; /':>1) , j
.4&2
c/o 0
rr- - 5"5';. 0 '«5�' - (I, �)( 5,5 e) = c:;7C,./ C:;; c:
Tc/f..JSIi,[ srI? £/UG; TN OF BOL r --;: 7"'� -/ (. '9c,z) :... 21.:3 0 p'S
?0'/'/VO 5T/J,.U-C//l;(::}� 13'£/.::'.:3 /!:: v /F£,/-lIVS:)" --� Au CJ T /1BOt:/7 BAt:?::
/pc:.�o.-J CJr SOL rs ./
L 0 /JG / TV.D I/Y/-,:,SA-ME t4S Iff!. ,) 05-
A.5Sc'.//'-.-tE roecc /,{J CE/'vF!�_ (' 13�:' i
::- 12 �/lr.? c r::- /') /", / rr "I .'"')� ):--./ .,- / .) 1 -_ / t,/ ....... - "' f\....-I Lj ..... / . --' � ..... � "-' �""",.-I
d / ),:-: /� (3 q., 7{-) -I ") �J (G P ? �� /(.;:?,'- .. ..-J \ " -.-/ __ 1'-' ----" )
F=-
r /2,'::-;
13.1-=- /2 .
.--� =--4C. t_
, b�� y""f cue,)
, PSi-
CHt�C'. Gy .....
\ " /I 1.. ':. 1
DATE ............ .
I
~
'5J (0
I I
I
�
I
L. I
-t- CD ! I I
. -.
_.
cp ,
SHEET NO ........... OF ......... .
JOB NO . ............................ ..
.-.�
I 1\
.� 5� I
<CD> I L-�......J
J [--. c...
__ L_
78: $ Eo rt. ;:P aX;S+I;"'�
� I
1
I .f \ 0 �
)
I I 0,:;,.1 j e"�"''';
!
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OFFICE
TO: E. F. Perkins, Chief Bridge Designer
FROM: R. L. Merchant - Bridge Division
DATE: December IS, 1967
SUBJECT: Ralling Anchor Bolts
We have investigated the anchor bolt stresses for 1965 AASHO loading condit ions using both the SB-SG anu the SB-Rl base plates.
Using the SB-5G bolt layout (4 bo lts) the maximum load per bolt is 27.2 kips. The alloiyable loael ,)n a 7/8" A307 D01t is 6.2 kips using I,orking stresses and
25.4 kips when us ing minimum yield strength criteriD. Therefore, i t does not
appear feasible to use the p r e sen t anchor bolts when changing to the 1965 loading conclitions.
Using the SB-Rl bolt layout (5 bolts) the maximum load per bolt is 13.5 kips . The stress in a 3/4" ups et end bolt is 30.5 ksi and in a 7/S" bolt (root of thread) it is 29.2 ksi.
Recommend that either 7/8" galvani.zed 1-.325 HS bolts or staLnJess steel HS bolts b2 instalL:';! as efl(: thrE;2 (3) frO:1t boles (:.cilder existing rail installations to SB-Rl ralling.
RLM:pmp j cc: Archie McQuesten (w/a)
HD·296A 40M 9·66
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO : R. H. Arnold, Chief Engineer VIA: E. H. Stickney
FROM: L. M. Bjorn, Bridge Engineer /U41i;&rV! DATE: Apr il 8, 1968
SUBJECT: Bridge Ra i l ing Anchor Bolts
Background information on a report by A. B. McQuesten dated March 20, 1968 t i tled "A Repor t on Bridge Rail ing Anchor Bolts", is as follows:
Plans for the Derby I 91-1 (22) project provided for removal of the cast aluminum railing posts and the in�tallation of our present standard continuous rail with exttuded posts. Present AASHO railing loads would cause overstress in the existing anchor bolts. The old post had four (4) bolts, while our present post has five (5) bolts in a l a rger g roup.
To instal l the new bolts in the existi ng concrete required a new concept, whlch
we felt wo u l d be best provided by a bolt grouted into a drilled hole . A satisfactory grouting system was not readily apparent, so we asked the Laboratory for the i r recommendations.
After the tests using discarded test beams s howe d poor results, we developed an extensive program using larger reinforced blocks. The cost of t hi s program was
estimated to be $ 3,000 and no funds were found to be available to support this.
As Mr. Mc Questen notes a few blocks were made, but these apparently were not adequately reinforced and failed early giving incon clusive results.
The selection of a satisfactory grouting system cannot be made from our tests to date. It is our feeling th�t such should be determined for use in reconstruc
tion projects and by mai ntenance personne 1.
We recommend that a testing program be funded which would yi eld more conclusive results and the Labo r atory authorized to ca rry out the program. If they feel the p rogram to be beyon d their capabi l ity, an arrangement should be made with
one of the Universities.
,LMB: RI11: pm cc: A. B. McQuesten
HD-296A 20M 7·67