Timeline for When would I use epoxy anchors?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2021 at 16:48 | comment | added | Askeli | One major reason for epoxy being required rather than expanding anchors is that concrete, being a porous material, is generally considered a damp environment. Expanding anchors are liable to corrode to the point of failure eventually, but epoxy is pretty much immune to dampness. Also, more immediately relevant, what Joe said — if code requires epoxy, you use epoxy. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 10:30 | vote | accept | sharptooth | ||
| Nov 26, 2010 at 2:13 | comment | added | Engineer2021 | @sharptooth: In my experience, epoxy is stronger. | |
| Nov 25, 2010 at 13:53 | comment | added | Joe | @sharptooth : if the code requires it, there's really not much of an option. If you're asking from an experimental point of view, epoxy should transfer less vibration, but I don't know if that's really an issue. | |
| Nov 25, 2010 at 13:46 | comment | added | sharptooth | Why not use usual expansion anchors in this scenario? | |
| Nov 25, 2010 at 13:45 | history | answered | Engineer2021 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |