Design of anchor plates based on the component method

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ulrike Kuhlmann

Institute of Structural Design
Universitt Stuttgart
Stuttgart, Germany
u.kuhlmann@ke.uni-stuttgart.de
Markus Rybinski
Institute of Structural Design
Universitt Stuttgart
Stuttgart, Germany
markus.rybinski@ke.uni-stuttgart.de

ABSTRACT
Steel or composite joints can be designed and optimised by the component method according
to Eurocodes [EN 1993-1-8:2005] and [EN 1994-1-1:2004]. The structural behaviour (strength,
stiffness, ductility) of these joints is defined by assembled components. Their individual behaviour is described by a mechanical spring model. For the extension of the component method to
anchor plates, which are used to transfer loads between steel and concrete structures, a mechanical model has been developed. The model is based on several test series with anchor
plates carried out by the Institute of Structural Design (Universitt Stuttgart) and describes the
load-carrying capacity of anchor plates. In some tests supplementary reinforcement has been
taken into account influencing the load capacity and ductility of these steel-to-concrete joints.
Additional tests have been performed to study the influence of a flexible anchor plate on the
structural behaviour of the joint. Altogether, the component model shows transparency of load
distribution and may easily be transferred to alternative situations.

APPLICATION OF ANCHOR PLATES

In mixed buildings various steel or composite elements like girders, columns or bracing ties
have to be connected to concrete members like staircases and fire protection walls, columns,
strip foundations or foundation slabs. An effective solution for the load transfer between these
structural steel and concrete elements is the application of anchor plates allowing for a quick
and easy connection.
In Figure 1a-c different solutions for a pinned joint with anchor plates and welded headed studs
are shown. The steel or composite elements are connected by a butt strap or a connection with
welded bolts developed by the steelwork and engineering companies. These fastening solutions
meet basic demands like an economical and easy fabrication and a quick and easy erection
also allowing for the adjustment of tolerances. By using post-installed anchors these joints can

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1 Application of anchor plates for connecting steel to concrete members

also be used to connect steel members to existing concrete structures. Also rigid or semi-rigid
joint solutions for steel members may be realized by taking into account the moment resistance,
stiffness and ductility of the joint. The joints of composite joints may be enhanced by assigning
shear and compression loads to the anchor plate and using the slab reinforcement for tension
load transfer. So there is a variety of possibilities for the use of anchor plates as joints between
steel / composite and concrete elements.
But typically problems occur where steel and concrete meet, due to a gap between the rules of
fastening design in concrete and steel design. There are different design methods for anchor
plates as shown in the following section with different limitations in applicability and calculated
load capacity. Therefore new experimental and numerical investigations have been conducted
to aim for an integrative solution of steel and concrete design rules based on the component
method which is already used for steel and composite joints.
EXISTING DESIGN METHODS FOR ANCHOR PLATES
At present, in European countries anchor plates are designed according to technical approvals
[EOTA 2006]. The load distribution on anchors is calculated by elastic theory as shown in Figure 2. For example, the anchor forces of an anchor plate loaded by a moment can be determined by taking into account the stiffness of the anchors with positive elongation and the stiffness of the concrete under compression. The stiffness is proportional to the stressed crosssection and the modulus of elasticity. The stiffness of anchors under compression is neglected.
The calculation is based on the assumption of a stiff anchor plate with full contact to the base,
where the anchor plate remains plane and stays in the elastic range. The yielding of the anchor
plate has to be avoided and the anchor displacements are normally insignificant.

Figure 2 Load distribution of anchors by elastic theory

The ultimate resistance of the anchors is calculated by the Concrete Capacity-Method [EOTA
2006], [Eligehausen and Malle and Silva 2006] which describes very well the load capacity of
anchors in plain concrete. If necessary, the influence of edge distances of the anchors has to
be taken into account. The possibilities to consider supplementary reinforcement are limited
and if both shear and tension forces occur, a conservative interaction relation has to be verified.
Also in some cases, supplementary reinforcement may even not be considered for anchors with
small edge distances.
The final draft of the Technical Specification [prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007] considers hanger reinforcement for anchors loaded by tension forces by a strut and tie model, see Figure 3a. The
tension forces of the studs are anchored by stirrups. The resistance of the stirrups is calculated
with the effective anchor length l1 and the concrete bond strength in the concrete breakout cone
follows [EN 1992-1-1:2004]. In addition by surface reinforcement acting rectangular to the
edges another strut and tie model is applied to take up shear forces, see Figure 3b. So the actual situation to consider reinforcement for the transfer of shear/tension forces has much improved.
(a)

(b)

Figure 3 Strut and tie models for load transmission between studs and reinforcement
[prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007]
The design of anchor plates with elastic theory often leads to thick, uneconomic steel plates.
Therefore an optimization of the joint may be achieved by a plastic design approach.
In [prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007] rules for a flexible, thin anchor plates are given. Focus is given to
a maximum utilization of the fasteners, so no yielding of the base plate on the tension side is
allowed whereas yielding of the base plate on the compression side is possible. However, in
dependence of the stiffness of the anchor plate, a reduced inner lever arm of the resultant concrete compression force and the tension stud force has to be taken into account. Thus, a certain optimization of the construction of the joint may be realized but this plastic design approach
does not include any regulations for the design of the joint stiffness and ductility what is necessary for a complete plastic design approach.
So the application of the component method offers the possibility to determine the structural
joint behaviour like strength, stiffness and ductility. But the implementation of this method for
the design of column bases in [EN 1993-1-8:2005] shows up to now some limitations and
weaknesses [Stark 2007]. For example, the types of fasteners are restricted to anchor bolts
with sufficient anchorage length of the anchor bolts to avoid a concrete failure mode, other
types are not sufficiently described or included. Also a very conservative position of the concrete compression force directly under the compression flange of the column has to be considered.
A combination of the introduced design methods with consideration of the needs of steel and
fastenings designer on basis of the component method will help to realize an economic and
safe design of the mentioned steel-to-concrete joints. Therefore different experimental und numerical investigations have been started to improve the component method for anchor plates.

INVESTIGATIONS ON ANCHOR PLATES WITHOUT INFLUENCE OF EDGE DISTANCES

Within the first experimental investigations [Kuhlmann and Imminger 2004] main focus was
given to the load capacity of stiff anchor plates with headed studs without influence of edge distances in dependence of different joint parameters like the effective stud length hef, the distance
s between the stud axis, the number n of stirrups in the concrete breakout cone, the surface
reinforcement as and asII, the concrete grade and the load eccentricity e (related to the concrete surface), see Figure 4a. The anchor plate was installed flush with the concrete surface.
Due to an installed soft strip at the edges of the anchor plate shear loads were only transmitted
by mechanical shear elements and friction. The tests were performed deformation-controlled to
examine the joint ductility, the load capacity and the structural behaviour after failure. The test
setup for pure shear loading (=0) is shown in Figure 4b.
(a)

(b)

Figure 4 Tests without edge distances: (a) varied parameters and

(b) test setup for shear loading
Due to the variation of only one parameter within a test row, the influence of each parameter
could be identified. The most effective way to increase the joint load capacity was to extend the
effective stud length hef, as shown in Figure 5a. Beside the increasing load-carrying capacity of
the concrete breakout cone, an increased transmission length between headed studs and stirrups enhances the load capacity of the whole joint.
The influence of the number n of stirrups within the concrete breakout cone is shown in Figure
5b. The load capacity increases by 30 percent when using an additional stirrup within the concrete breakout cone and can be increased up to 45 percent by using several stirrups.
Also the ductility of these steel-to-concrete joints is increased clearly due to the ductile behaviour of the supplementary reinforcement instead of a brittle failure of the concrete cone.
(a)

(b)

Figure 5 Load capacity of anchor plates in dependence of (a) the effective stud length
hef and (b) the number of stirrups within the concrete breakout cone

(a)

(b)

Figure 6 Deformed anchor plate at maximum load with indication of resultant forces and
normal stress distribution: (a) normal stresses z and (b) normal stresses y
The experimental investigations were accompanied by numerical investigations with the pro
gram MASA developed for non-linear calculations of fastenings in concrete at the Institute of
Construction Materials, Universitt Stuttgart. The numerical model showed satisfying correlation
between test and calculated load capacity of the anchor plates with supplementary reinforcement. So the numerical model was used for further parameter studies to identify the decisive
parameters for the mechanical model.
As an example, for an anchor plate loaded by a shear force V the inner load distribution may be
described as follows: due to the eccentricity of the shear force a tension stud force N on the
non-loaded side of this configuration appears, see Figure 6a. The integrated normal stress of
the other studs sums up to nearly 0, so that these studs have no tension forces which have to
be considered for the design of the inner moment resistance. In Figure 6a and 6b sketches of
the normal stresses z and y calculated for the anchor plate at maximum load are shown. The
shear force V is transmitted into the concrete specimen mostly by the shear studs V2 on the
loaded side as well as by the shear studs V1 and friction Vf between anchor pate and concrete
surface.
INVESTIGATIONS ON ANCHOR PLATES CLOSE TO THE EDGE
Anchor plates with studs in short edge distances like strip foundations, see Figure 7a, or concrete columns are often designed by technical approvals [EOTA 2006]. Here consideration of
supplementary reinforcement like stirrups is not included sufficiently. Therefore some experimental and numerical studies have started [Kuhlmann and Rybinski 2007] to take into account
the influence of stirrups on the load-capacity for longitudinal shear loading, see Figure 7b.
(a)

(b)

Figure 7 Column base and strip foundation: (a) possible loading and (b) test specimen

(a)

(b)

Figure 8 Anchor plate with edge distances loaded by an eccentric shear force:
(a) load-displacement curve and (b) load-strain curve of stirrups
The test specimens were loaded by shear forces with an eccentricity e=45 mm, combined tension / shear forces or tension forces. Beside variation of the concrete grade, the main focus
was given to the variation of the hanger reinforcement. The tests were performed with a minimal configuration (stirrups 6/150mm), a basic configuration (stirrups 8/150mm) and an advanced configuration (stirrups 10/150mm and additional stirrups beside stud rows).
In Figure 8a the load-displacement curve for the basic configuration is shown. When first cracks
appeared, the tension load of the stud row 1 was transferred to the nearby stirrups with increasing loading, see Figure 8b. Due to the application of stirrups in the concrete breakout cone, a
ductile joint failure could be observed. However, for this configuration the measured strains in
the stirrups remained in the elastic range.
In Figure 9 the influence of the different stirrup configurations on the load capacity is shown.
For the minimal configuration a pure concrete failure mode is decisive whereas the configuration with stirrups 8/150mm is about the borderline between stirrup and concrete failure. An
increased load-capacity can be achieved by the configuration with more stirrups. For the studs
in short edge distances the most effective way to increase the load-capacity however is a
higher concrete grade.
For anchor plates close to the edges more failure modes like concrete edge failure have to be
considered than for fastenings in continuous slabs. The calculative consideration in the component model is possible by existing design rules for the fastenings [prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007],
[EN 1994-2:2005].

Figure 9 Test loads under shear loading

MECHANICAL MODEL FOR DESIGN OF ANCHOR PLATES

Based on the component method, a first mechanical model for stiff anchor plates was developed and verified by the accomplished tests [Kuhlmann and Imminger 2004], [Kuhlmann and
Rybinski 2007] where the calculated load capacity slightly underestimates the test results. The
design model may be used for anchor plates under shear, tension or combined forces independent of the kind of fastener and with consideration of supplementary reinforcement.
Within the scope of this first model only the maximum strength was considered. The stiffness
and the ductility of the components as also of the joint were not been taken into account, due to
a clear inner load distribution, e.g. as there is only one type of fastener for tension load transfer.
If shear forces are transmitted by several rows of fastener or different fasteners, the stiffness of
the fastener has to be considered in order to calculate the inner distribution of the shear force.
If, in addition, the connection device is designed according plastic resistance, the ductility of the
fastener has to be considered as well. However, for the examined anchor plates the stiffness
and ductility of the components may be neglected.
For each configuration of anchor plate three different component groups in dependence on the
component loading are identified: tension, shear and compression. The component group "tension" may be modeled as several springs in a row. Each failure mode of the component group
can be understood as a single spring and the load capacity of the component group is defined
by the weakest spring. The component group "shear" may be understood as spring model with
springs in parallel. Each shear component is defined as a single spring. Thus, a failure of one
component does not cause a complete failure of the whole joint. The load capacity of the component group "shear" can be determined as the sum of the shear components.
The maximum resistance of anchor plates loaded by shear forces may be calculated following
the calculation scheme in Figure 10. The scheme may be adopted for other types of loading.

Figure 10 Calculation scheme for anchor plates with shear loading

(a)

(b)

Figure 11 Two states of equilibrium (a) tension and compression forces acting rectangular to the concrete surface and (b) shear forces acting parallel to the concrete surface
So in the first step the maximum strength of the component group "tension" Nb1,R has to be calculated taking into account the different failure modes like steel failure NR,s, pull-out failure NR,p,
blow-out failure NR,cb and concrete cone failure with or without reinforcement NR,c or NR,re according to [prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007], see Equation (1). Figure 3a shows the strut and tie
model [prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007] for determining the transferable load of the reinforcement.
The load of the reinforcement is limited by steel and anchorage failure [EN 1992-1-1:2004].
(1)

N b1,R = min NR ,s ; NR , p ; NR ,cb ; max (NR ,c ; NR ,re )

Then the assumption is made that the component group "tension" is decisive for joint failure
Nj=Nb1,R. Figure 11a shows the equilibrium of forces acting rectangular to the concrete surface,
where the concrete compression force Nc has to be equal to the tension force of stud row Nb1,R.
The height of the compression zone x can be determined by the allowable stress fj according
[EN 1993-1-8:2005] and [EN 1992-1-1:2004]. Thus the inner lever arm and the inner moment
resistance of the anchor plate can be determined, see Equation (2).
(2)

M i ,R = Nc (d 0.5 x ) = Nc zi

In Figure 11b the shear forces acting parallel to the concrete surface are identified. The friction
force Vf may be calculated with the coefficient of friction between steel and concrete and the
compression force Nc. The maximum shear strength VR(Mi,R) in dependence on the calculated
inner moment resistance Mi,R of the anchor plate may be calculated by the equilibrium of moment in the point of application of the resultant shear force Vb2 of the studs whereas it is assumed that inner lever arm eb1 is approximately equal to eb2. The inner lever arm can be estimated in dependence of the stud diameter dstud, the concrete grade and the degree of utilisation
of the stud. In the component model the inner lever arm was set equal to 0.5-1.0 dstud.
The maximum shear strength of the component group "shear" consists of the friction force Vf,
the shear resistance of stud row Vb2,R and the residual shear resistance Vb1,R(Nj) considering the
interaction relation between shear and tension forces of the studs. The maximum shear resistance of the studs has to be calculated taking into account the different failure modes like local
concrete failure VR,cl=PRd,2 [EN 1994-2-1:2004], steel failure VR,s, concrete pry-out failure VR,cp or
concrete edge failure VR,c. If the concrete edge failure becomes decisive, the stirrups can be
taken into account to strengthen the component load capacity as shown in Figure 12. They take
up the rectangular acting splitting forces comparable to the design model for horizontally lying
shear studs in concrete slabs of composite girders [EN 1994-2:2005]. The factor a,c takes into
account the orientation of the shear loading Vbi and position of the stirrups [Kuhlmann and Rybinski 2007].

Figure 12 Strut and tie model for concrete edge failure

In the last step the assumption of a tension failure mode has to be checked. If the calculated
strength VR(Mi,R) exceeds the calculated shear resistance of the stud rows Vb1,R and Vb2,R and
the friction force Vf, the assumption of a tension failure mode is not fulfilled and the load capacity of the anchor plate has to be recalculated iteratively with a reduced tension stud force
Nj+1 < Nj unless the assumption is fulfilled and the maximum shear resistance is determined as
VR(Mi,R).
The introduced model is valid for stiff anchor plates in pure or reinforced concrete members far
with or without influence of edges and if the loading of the anchor plate is in longitudinal orientation of the concrete member. The load transfer inside of the concrete member is assumed on
both sides of the anchor plate as shown in the simplified strut and tie model for tension and
shear loading in Figure 13. First studies of anchor plates in a cantilever have started, but need
more general investigations for validation.
(a)

(b)

Figure 13 Simplified strut and tie model for an anchor plate in a reinforced concrete
member (a) loaded by a tension force and (b) loaded by an eccentric shear force

SEMI-RIGID COLUMN BASES FOR PLASTIC DESIGN

Steel and composite structures like mixed buildings or steel frames shown in Figure 14a are
often designed using plastic design methods. Beside the load capacity also the stiffness and
ductility of the joints have to be taken into account because they determine the inner forces, the
frame displacements and the joint loading.
Especially the design of steel structures like sway frames as shown in Figure 14b is very sensitive to the joint stiffness. The usual assumption of a rigid or pinned connection for column bases
often does not comply with the real behaviour of the steel-to-concrete joints. Therefore an appropriate design model for steel-to-concrete joints is needed, determining the realistic structural
behaviour of column bases under normal and shear forces and bending moments.

(a)

(b)

Figure 14 Steel frames: (a) typical structural system and (b) frame with semi-rigid joints
An interdisciplinary research collaboration [Kuhlmann et al 2008] of the Institute of Structural
Design and the Institute of Construction Materials has been started where several tests on column bases have been conducted examining the structural behaviour of semi-rigid steel-toconcrete joints. The project aims at a design model determining a realistic structural behaviour
of column bases under combined loading (shear and normal forces, bending moment) considering the different methods for steel and fastenings design.

INVESTIGATIONS FOR FLEXIBLE ANCHOR PLATES

Within the experimental investigations in the frame of the interdisciplinary research project
[Kuhlmann et al 2008] different parameters were varied like the thickness and stiffness of the
anchor plate, the eccentricity of the applied shear force (e=50/1000mm, see Figure 15a), the
type of fastener (headed studs and undercut anchors with mortal layer), the diameter and effective length hef of the studs as also the normal force in the column. The measurements also considered the influence of friction coefficient between the anchor plate and concrete element/mortal layer. So different failure modes like concrete cone failure, concrete pry-out failure,
steel failure of the studs in tension or shear and yielding of the anchor plate could be observed
and used for verification of the adapted component model. Altogether the test program included
12 tests with headed studs and 8 tests with undercut anchors and mortal layer without edge distances and without supplementary reinforcement. By application of strain gauges and conductors the tension forces in the studs as also the deformations of the anchor plate in the com(a)

(b)

Figure 15 (a) Test-setup for large load eccentricity and (b) adapted component model
for column bases with stiff or flexible anchor plates

Figure 16 Measured and calculated M--curves for ductile steel failure

pression and tension zone were monitored during loading and are basis for followed numerical
examinations.
The component model was adapted by considering the stiffness of the anchor plate on the tension and compression zone. The non-linear behaviour of the anchor plate was defined in comparison to the equivalent T-stub model [EN 1993-1-8:2005]. The basic calculation principle of
two equilibriums of forces was retained unchanged, see Figure 15b. In the first step the anchor
plate was calculated for a M-N-interaction, where the stiffness of the flexible anchor plate (Ka,T
and Ka,C), the stiffness of the studs, considering the elongation of the studs Kb1,1 and the displacement at the head of the studs Kb1,2, and the concrete compression zone Kc, simulated by
several non-linear concrete springs, were considered. In the second step the shear resistance
of the anchor plate is checked considering the stiffness of the different stud rows Kb1,V and Kb2,V
and the friction forces in the concrete compression zone. The interaction effects of the two
states were considered by interaction of the structural behaviour of the studs.
Altogether the component model slightly underestimates the load-capacity of the anchor plates
for flexible anchor plates in particular. The moment-rotation-curves for a ductile steel failure of
the fastener are shown in Figure 16, whereas Figure 17 shows a non-ductile concrete breakout
failure each for a stiff and a flexible anchor plate. The calculated failure modes and the loaddisplacement curves were sufficiently described compared to the test results, so that the component model shows good correlation to the performed tests.

Figure 17 Measured and calculated M--curves for non-ductile concrete failure

CONCLUSION
The developed component model for the design of anchor plates considers the different possible failure modes of the studs, of the concrete member, of the supplementary reinforcement
and of the anchor plate. The structural behaviour of the components is described on basis of

existing European Codes [EN 1993-1-8:2005], [EN 1992-1-1:2004] and Technical Specifications [prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007]. The structural behaviour of the whole joint like load-capacity,
stiffness and ductility is determined quite well, but still needs more investigations and verification to achieve a better acceptance of the component model for steel-to-concrete joints.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Acknowledgement is given to the research funding associations "Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)", "Forschungsvereinigung Stahlanwendung e.V." as also to the companies Goldbeck West GmbH and Kster &Co. GmbH for their financial support of the carried out research
projects. The authors also want to thank the staff members of the testing laboratories of the Institute of Construction Materials and the Otto-Graf-Institute (FMPA) at Universitt Stuttgart.

REFERENCES
EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, 2004.
EN 1993-1-1:2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
EN 1993-1-8:2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-8: Design of joints, European Committee for Standardization, 2005.
EN 1994-1-1:2004: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, 2004.
EN 1994-2:2005: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges, European Committee for Standardization, 2005.
Eligehausen and Malle and Silva 2006: Anchorage in Concrete Construction, Berlin, Ernst &
Sohn Verlag, 2006.
EOTA 2006: Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete,
Annex C, EOTA, Brussels, 2006.
Kuhlmann and Eligehausen and Rybinski and Fichtner 2008: Modellierung biegeweicher Sttzenfe im Stahl- und Verbundbau als integriertes System von Tragwerk und Fundament,
Report, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), 2008.
Kuhlmann and Imminger 2004: Ankerplatten und Anschlussdetails zur Kraftberleitung im
Stahlbau, Report 1/2004, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbau DASt, Dsseldorf, Germany,
2004.
Kuhlmann and Rybinski 2007: Tragfhigkeit von Ankerplatten mit Kopfbolzendbeln in stabfrmigen Bauteilen. Forschung fr die Praxis P 722, FOSTA, Verlag und Vertriebsgesellschaft, Dsseldorf, Germany, 2007.
prCEN/TS 1992-4-2:2007: Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete Part 2: Headed Fasteners, Final Draft, 2007.
Stark 2007: Design of Connections between Steel and Concrete in Eurocodes, In: Eligehausen
and Fuchs and Genesio and Grosser (Edt.): Second Symposium "Connections between
Steel and Concrete", Volume 1, ibidem-Verlag, 2007.