KudoZ home » English » Construction / Civil Engineering

please help fill the missing part in this sentence

English translation: See explanation below...

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
05:09 Jul 10, 2008
English to English translations [PRO]
Tech/Engineering - Construction / Civil Engineering / torque-controlled anchors
English term or phrase: please help fill the missing part in this sentence
The following text was translated from French and I am translating it into Polish. I think the FR-EN translator skipped something here.

"in case of aborted hole: new drilling at a minimum distance away of twice the depth of the aborted hole or smaller distance if the aborted drill hole is filled with high strength mortar and if under shear or oblique tension load it is not [***missing part???***] to [***missing part???***] the anchor in the direction of load application;"

Unfortunately I do not have access to the French original.

I will appreciate your help.
Piotr Bienkowski
Poland
Local time: 23:44
English translation:See explanation below...
Explanation:
Yes, you're quite right, it seems there is an error in the translation!

"en cas de forage abandonné : nouveau forage à une distance minimale de deux fois la profondeur du trou abandonné, ou à une distance plus petite si le trou abandonné est comblé avec du mortier à haute résistance, et si sous des charges de cisaillement ou de traction oblique, il ne correspond pas à la direction d'application de la charge;"


"in case of aborted hole: new drilling at a minimum distance away of twice the depth of the aborted hole or smaller distance if the aborted drill hole is filled with high strength mortar and if under a shear or oblique tension load it [i.e. the hole] is not in the direction of load application;"

I think it's not that text is missing, but that "to the anchor" is spurious. It also reads slightly better if you add in the indefinite article 'a' before 'shear' (so often omitted in FR but needed in EN)

NOW it makes sense!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2008-07-10 08:59:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Dimitris has raised the point of the interpretation of the 'it' in this chunk of sentence, so I shall reply here in order to have more space to explain properly.

Firstly, from a purely linguistic point of view, it seems to me that 'it' can ONLY refer back to the old hole; see this simplified version of the sentence structure:

"...new drilling at a minimum distance ... or smaller distance IF *the aborted ... hole* is filled ... AND IF ... *it* is not in the direction of load application"

Secondly, it seems to me at any rate to make more sense from an engineering viewpoint — the aborted hole would be a source of potential weakness if it were in line with the direction of application of forces on the new anchor, but would have far less impact if it were off to one side, for example.

That's the way I see it, anyway!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-10 15:23:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

To respond to Ken's comment about the potential ambiguity of the FR source text:

I agree that the text is by no means as limpid as it might be, but I still think the same linguistic arguments apply as in EN:

"...nouveau forage à une distance minimale ..., ou à une distance plus petite SI LE TROU abandonné est comblé avec du mortier à haute résistance, ET SI ..., IL ne correspond pas à la direction d'application de la charge"

Even as a non-native speaker, it seems to me that the the 'il' can only be referring back to 'le trou abandonné' — it is the only preceding masculine noun available, unless we consider 'nouveau forage', but that seems to me highly unlikely, given the structure of the sentence.

Besides which, as I said above, from an engineering POV, I can't see anything else making sense; if the last part of this sentence were referring to the NEW hole, then it wouldn't make sense to say "if it corresponds to the direction of application of the force" — by definition, whichever direction the force is coming from, it is acting on the very hole itself, so there is no issue!

As far as I can see it, the only thing that makes engineering sense is the position of the OLD hole relative to the new hole AND the direction of any shear/oblique forces.

However, I do totally endorse Ken's underlying point: this is too important and potentially dangerous to take ANY risks with, and the only option is to seek an authoritative opinion from an outside expert.

That said, one thing remains clear: whatever way you try and interpret the FR source text, it is clear that the translation into EN is defective in some way or another! I wonder if Piotr would have more luck in the FR > PL language pair?


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-10 15:25:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I think in formal FR one would write "si... et que...", wouldn't one? But I guess that 'rule' is probably relaxed a bit in this kind of document written by engineers more than writers?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-10 15:29:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Piotr, in reply to your comment above @ 6.30 am:

regardless of the other issues at stake here, the question you have raised in this comment seems to me much more clear-cut.

Where sideways loads may be involved (instead of straight, pull-out loading), it is important to make sure that the old hole is not in line with the direction of that sideways load on the new hole, as the presence of the old hole (even if correctly filled) would create a weakness in that direction. So in other words, any new hole must be positioned relative to the old hole in such a way as to avoid the old hole's being in line with the loading.
Selected response from:

Tony M
France
Local time: 23:44
Grading comment
Thanks Tony. They say that most translations of EU legislation into Polish is of very low quality. Reason: The lowest bidders got the job...
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
4 +3See explanation below...
Tony M
4 +1explanationxxxd_vachliot
4Nothing is missing - it is complete
Demi Ebrite
3hold point
Gary D
3change "to the anchor" to "anchored"
fourth


Discussion entries: 5





  

Answers


47 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
change "to the anchor" to "anchored"


Explanation:
would give it more sense

fourth
France
Local time: 23:44
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Tony M: Possibly; but in the light of the FR text Piotr has now found, that wouldn't be an accurate translation of it!
2 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

2 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
explanation


Explanation:
This is the French original:

"en cas de forage abandonné : nouveau forage à une distance minimale de deux fois la profondeur du trou abandonné, ou à une distance plus petite si le trou abandonné est comblé avec du mortier à haute résistance, et si sous des charges de cisaillement ou de
traction oblique, il ne correspond pas à la direction d'application de la charge;"


"in case of aborted hole: new drilling at a minimum distance away of twice the depth of the aborted hole or smaller distance if the aborted drill hole is filled with high strength mortar and if under shear or oblique tension load it is not to the anchor in the direction of load application;"


They way I read the last part (based on the French original and the English translation):

"...and if under shear or oblique tension load, it is not in the direction of load application;"

In other words, the new hole should not be drilled in the direction of the load applied.

xxxd_vachliot
Local time: 00:44
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in GreekGreek

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Tony M: I think your re-translation is correct, but don't agree w. yr interpretation of the result; I believe 'it' refers back to the OLD hole, not the NEW one; would make more sense from an engineering POV. Pse see added note to my answer!
19 mins

agree  fourth: Dimitris, I agree
7 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

21 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
Nothing is missing - it is complete


Explanation:
This is the official 'European Technical Approval', translated into English from French - it is apparently the standard.

This segment:
4.2.2. Installation of anchors

"in case of aborted hole: new drilling at a minimum distance away of twice the depth of the aborted hole or smaller distance if the aborted drill hole is filled with high strength mortar and if under shear or oblique tension load it is not to the anchor in the direction of load application;"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 27 mins (2008-07-10 05:37:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I can't locate it in French

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-10 15:18:23 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The concrete carries the load ~
Shear Load – A load applied perpendicular to the axis of an anchor +
Tension Load – The load applied parallel to the axis of anchor =
Oblique Load – Both tension and shear loads.

This ETA specifies stainless steel torque-controlled expansion anchors into concrete, for critical-use stability - ref. ETA 1.2

The expansion action at one end of the anchor distributes the anchored load throughout the length of the anchor. This expansion anchor is recommended for shear loads or where the bolt is subjected to side pressure or vibration.

I find it hard to change the wording; I think Tony is onto it ~


    Reference: http://www.spit.cz/img/downloads/download_file_1173781206.pd...
    Reference: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ggWNZGOZlOYJ:www.hilti....
Demi Ebrite
United States
Local time: 16:44
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 3

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Ken Cox: It may be complete, and if it has already been published and is being quoted in the asker's document it must be retained as is, but it's far from being clear or unambiguous English.
1 hr
  -> Thank you, Ken. It is a document used as the Eurpoean standard, but like many such docs , it is poorly written ~ I see the problem with translating it further ~

neutral  asptech: complete it may be, but not intelligible
1 hr
  -> Thank you, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Apparently one who installs these things is expected to understand this with little explanation. It seems to be a critical point.

neutral  Tony M: Nothing (much) is missing — the problem is that there's a bit of spurious text! But I honestly don't see how you can say it makes sense as it stands. The translation is flawed.
2 hrs
  -> Thank you, Tony ~ I had to read it 10 times before it made sense to me; it is written like so many such regulatory or instructional documents, regardless of the fact it was translated from French. The key is understanding its meaning to translate it.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

3 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +3
See explanation below...


Explanation:
Yes, you're quite right, it seems there is an error in the translation!

"en cas de forage abandonné : nouveau forage à une distance minimale de deux fois la profondeur du trou abandonné, ou à une distance plus petite si le trou abandonné est comblé avec du mortier à haute résistance, et si sous des charges de cisaillement ou de traction oblique, il ne correspond pas à la direction d'application de la charge;"


"in case of aborted hole: new drilling at a minimum distance away of twice the depth of the aborted hole or smaller distance if the aborted drill hole is filled with high strength mortar and if under a shear or oblique tension load it [i.e. the hole] is not in the direction of load application;"

I think it's not that text is missing, but that "to the anchor" is spurious. It also reads slightly better if you add in the indefinite article 'a' before 'shear' (so often omitted in FR but needed in EN)

NOW it makes sense!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2008-07-10 08:59:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Dimitris has raised the point of the interpretation of the 'it' in this chunk of sentence, so I shall reply here in order to have more space to explain properly.

Firstly, from a purely linguistic point of view, it seems to me that 'it' can ONLY refer back to the old hole; see this simplified version of the sentence structure:

"...new drilling at a minimum distance ... or smaller distance IF *the aborted ... hole* is filled ... AND IF ... *it* is not in the direction of load application"

Secondly, it seems to me at any rate to make more sense from an engineering viewpoint — the aborted hole would be a source of potential weakness if it were in line with the direction of application of forces on the new anchor, but would have far less impact if it were off to one side, for example.

That's the way I see it, anyway!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-10 15:23:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

To respond to Ken's comment about the potential ambiguity of the FR source text:

I agree that the text is by no means as limpid as it might be, but I still think the same linguistic arguments apply as in EN:

"...nouveau forage à une distance minimale ..., ou à une distance plus petite SI LE TROU abandonné est comblé avec du mortier à haute résistance, ET SI ..., IL ne correspond pas à la direction d'application de la charge"

Even as a non-native speaker, it seems to me that the the 'il' can only be referring back to 'le trou abandonné' — it is the only preceding masculine noun available, unless we consider 'nouveau forage', but that seems to me highly unlikely, given the structure of the sentence.

Besides which, as I said above, from an engineering POV, I can't see anything else making sense; if the last part of this sentence were referring to the NEW hole, then it wouldn't make sense to say "if it corresponds to the direction of application of the force" — by definition, whichever direction the force is coming from, it is acting on the very hole itself, so there is no issue!

As far as I can see it, the only thing that makes engineering sense is the position of the OLD hole relative to the new hole AND the direction of any shear/oblique forces.

However, I do totally endorse Ken's underlying point: this is too important and potentially dangerous to take ANY risks with, and the only option is to seek an authoritative opinion from an outside expert.

That said, one thing remains clear: whatever way you try and interpret the FR source text, it is clear that the translation into EN is defective in some way or another! I wonder if Piotr would have more luck in the FR > PL language pair?


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-10 15:25:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I think in formal FR one would write "si... et que...", wouldn't one? But I guess that 'rule' is probably relaxed a bit in this kind of document written by engineers more than writers?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2008-07-10 15:29:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Piotr, in reply to your comment above @ 6.30 am:

regardless of the other issues at stake here, the question you have raised in this comment seems to me much more clear-cut.

Where sideways loads may be involved (instead of straight, pull-out loading), it is important to make sure that the old hole is not in line with the direction of that sideways load on the new hole, as the presence of the old hole (even if correctly filled) would create a weakness in that direction. So in other words, any new hole must be positioned relative to the old hole in such a way as to avoid the old hole's being in line with the loading.

Tony M
France
Local time: 23:44
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 24
Grading comment
Thanks Tony. They say that most translations of EU legislation into Polish is of very low quality. Reason: The lowest bidders got the job...

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Ken Cox: exactement\\revised supplementary comment: this is exactly the sort of analysis I was hoping to see, and the argument that the old hole should not be in the load path is convincing.
8 mins
  -> Thanks a lot, Ken!

agree  xxxd_vachliot: No, IMO, the French text is pretty clear. It is the OLD hole that it refers to. The English translation got me confused.
7 hrs
  -> Efharisto, Dimitris!

agree  Demi Ebrite: Tony, I think you have the meaning spot on, as you've articulated in your most recent posting ~
7 hrs
  -> Thanks, Demi! I usually get there in the end, it just takes me a lot of words ;-))
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

22 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
hold point


Explanation:
oblique tension load it is not to hold the anchor point

Gary D
Local time: 07:44
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 5
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search