RILEM_Connections_between_Steel_COncrete_Stutgart_2001

0_Preface by R. Eligehausen 1_Where structural steel and concrete meet by J.W.B. Stark, D.A. Hordijk 10_Study on standard test methods for post-installed anchors by Y. Hosokawa, K. Nakano, Y. Oohaga, S. Usami, K. Imai 100_Experimental investigations on the bahaviour of strip shear connectors with powder actuated fasteners by M. Fontana, H. Beck, R. Bärtschi 101_Design concept of nailed shear connections in composite tube columns by G. Hanswille, H. Beck, T. Neubauer 102_An experimental study on shear characteristics of perfobond strip and its rational strength equations by U. Yoshitaka, H. Tetsuya, M. Kaoru 103_Behavior of lying shear studs in reinforced concrete slabs by U. Kuhlmann, K. Kürschner 104_Composite bridge with compression joint connection concrete end slab to steel girder finite element method by M.V. Lammens 105_Perfo-bond connection and tests by S. Poot 106_Development and application of saw-tooth connections for composite structures by J. Schlaich 107_Geometry, behaviour and design of high capacity saw-tooth connections by V. Schmid 108_Composite bridge with compression joint - Connection concrete end slab to steel girder - Dowels divided in groups by D. Tuinstra 109_TH~1 11_Static behavior of anchors under combinations of tension and shear loading by D. Lotze, R.E. Klingner, H.L. Graves, III 110_Influence of fatigue loads in tension on short cast-in-place anchors in concrete by E. Cadoni 111_A test proposal for fatigue experimental studies on stud shear connectors by G. Natalino, E. Giuriani 112_Innovative interface systems for steel-girders-concrete-deck connection by M.K. Tadros S.S. Badie, A.M. Girgis 113_Non-linear analyssis of steel-concrete composite beams a finite element model by C. Faella E. Martinelli E. Nigro 114_Connections between prestressed concrete bridge decks and composite bridge decks - Hybrid construction by D. Jankowski, O. Fischer, M. Matthes 115_Anchorage behavior of 90-degree hooked beam bars in reinforced concrete wall-beam intersections by O. Joh, Y. Goto, A. Kitano 116_Embedded steel bearings instead of concrete NIBS by M.R. Kintscher 117_Anchorage zone in a steel-concrete composite slab with unbonded tendons by H. Koukkari 118_Connections for continuous framing in precast concrete structures by G. Krummel 119_Standoff screws as shear connectors for composite trusses push-out test results and analysis by J.R.U. Mujagic W.S. Easterling T.M. Murray 12_Improved structural model for channel bars with more than 2 anchors by J. Kraus, J. Ozbolt, R. Eligehausen 120_EX~1 122_Design and construction of a concrete-filled steel tube joint by S.P. Schneider, D.R. Kramer, D.L. Sarkkinen 123_Friction slipping behavior between concrete and steel - Aiming the development of bolted friction-slipping joint by T. Yoshioka, M. Ohkubo 124_AN~1 125_Low-cycle fatigue behaviour of pull-push specimens with headed stud shear connectors by S. Erlicher, O.S. Bursi, R. Zandonini 126_Static tests on various types of shear connectors for composite structures by H.C. Galjaard, J.C. Walraven 127_Structural monitoring of hybrid specimens at early age using fibre optic sensors by B. Glisic, D. Inaudi 128_Development of innovative composite system- Between steel and concrete members by K. Kitagawa, H. Watanabe, Y. Tachibana, H. Hiragi, A. Kurita 129_An experimental study on the bond-slip relationship between the concrete and steel with stud by K. Konno, A. Farghaly, T. Ueda 13_Anchors in low and high strength concrete by J. Kunz, Y. Yamamoto, M. Berra 130_The behavior of beam-to-box column connection of CFT with air cavity by M.-J. Lee, M.-S. Choi, J.-H. Kim, S.-W. Jun 131_Sheet reinforcement by O. Matthaei, H.-P. Andrä, N.V. Tue 132_Composite girders of reduced height by U. Khulmann, J. Fries, A. Rieg 133_Innovative development of light steel composites in buildings by R.M. Lawson, S.O. Popo-Ola, D.N. Varley 134_Intentional and unintentional shear connections in shallow floor composite structures by M.V. Leskelä 14_Development of common uniform regulations in Europe for the assessment of metal anchors by K. Laternser 15_Behavior of multiple-anchor fastenings subjected to combined tension_shear loads and bending moment by L. Li, R. Eligehausen 16_Load bearing capacity of torque-controlled expansion anchors by L. Li 17_Behaviour and design of anchors close to an edge under torsion by R. Mallée 18_Fixing new anchors concerning relevant base plate thickness by R. Mallée, F. Burkhardt 19_Installation verification of mechanical and adhesive anchors by L. Mattis 2_Fastening technique - Current status and future trends by R. Eligehausen, I. Hofacker, S. Lettow 20_Steel capacity of headed studs loaded in shear by N.S. Anderson, D.F. Meinheit

21_The analysis of fastener strength using the limit state approach by J.J. Melcher, M. Karmazínová 22_Behavior of shear anchors in concrete stastical analysis and design recommendations by H. Muratli, R.E. Klingner, H.L. Graves, III 23_Study on shear transfer of joint steel bar and concrete shear key in concrete connections by K. Nakano, Y. Matsuzaki 24_Performance of undercut anchors in comparison to cast-in-place headed studs by P. Pusill-Wachtsmuth 25_Shear anchoring in concrete close to edge by N. Randl, M. John 26_Behavior of tensile anchors in concrete statistical analysis and design recommendations by M. Shirvani, R.E. Klingner, H.L. Graves, III 27_Performance of single anchors near an edge under varying angles of loading by R.E. Wollmershauser, U. Nestler, V. Smith 28_The prequalification of anchors in the united states of america past, present and future by R.E. Wollmershauser 29_On the ratio of plate thickness to stud diameters for steel concrete stud shear connectors by H.D. Wright, A. Elbadawy, R. Cairns 3_Anchoring to concrete_the new ACI approach by J.E. Breen, E.-M. Eichinger, W. Fuchs 30_INC~1 31_Corrosion behavior of materials in fixing applications by N. Arnold 32_Behaviour of post-installed anchors in case of fire by K. Bergmeister, A. Rieder 33_Durability of galvanized, post-installed fasteners to concrete by K. Menzel, B. Hagmayer 34_Durability of stainless steel connections with respect to corrosion by U. Nürnberger 35_Fibre resistance of steel anchors in concrete by M. Reick 36_Anchoring with bonded fasteners by R.A. Cook, R.C. Konz 37_Experimental study on performance of bonded anchors in the low strength reinforced concrete by T. Akiyama, Y. Yamamoto, S. Ichihashi, T. Katagiri 38_Behavior of grouted anchors by R.A. Cook, N.A. Zamora, R.C. Konz 39_Long time load-carrying capacity of bonded anchors by L. Elfgren, G. Danielsson, I. Holm, G. Söderlind 4_Evolution of fastening design methods in Europe by W. Fuchs 40_Transmission of shear loads with post-installed rebars by J. Kunz 41_Design of anchorages with bonded anchors tension load by B. Lehr, R. Eligehausen 42_Load bearing bahavior and design of single adhesive anchors by J. Meszaros, R. Eligehausen 43_Rebar anchorage in concrete with injections adhesive by M. Reuter, T. Greppmeir, F. Münger 44_Investigations on bonding behaviour of the reinforcements in historic masonry by M. Raupach, J. Brockmann, A. Domink, M. Schürholz 45_Actual trends in chemical fixings from capsule to injection systems by J. Schätzle 46_PER~1 47_Study on the performance evaluation of the new capsule typed bonded anchor by M. Yonetani, A. Fukuoka, Y. Matsuzaki 48_Seismic behavior of connections between steel and concrete by J.O. Jirsa 49_Test on connectors for seismic retrofitting of concrete and masonry structures in Mexico by S.M. Alcocer, L. Flores 5_Probabilistic calibration of design methods by W. Fuchs 50_Design and construction of heavy industrial anchorage for power-plants by P.J. Carrato, W.F. Brittle 51_Dynamic behavior of single and double near-edge anchors loaded in shear by J.H. Gross, R.E. Klingner, H.L. Graves, III 52_Post-installed rebar connections under seismic loading by I. Hofacker, R. Eligehausen 53_An evaluation of tensile capacity of anchor system in NPPS by actual model tests by J. Jung-Bum, W. Sang-Kyun, S. Yong-Pyo, L. Jong-Rim 54_Structural behavior of SRC column - RC beam joint under monotonic and cyclic load by S.-H. Lee, Y.-K. Ju, S.-C. Chun, D.-Y. Kim 55_Dynamic behavior of tensile anchors to concrete by M. Rodriguez, D. Lotze, J. Hallowell Gross, Y.-G. Zhang, R.E. Klingner, H.L. Graves, III 56_Test methods for seismic qualification of post-installed anchors by J.F. Silva 57_Safety concept for fastenings in nuclear power plants by T.M. Sippel, J. Asmus, R. Eligehausen 58_Experimental study on seismic performance of beam members connected with post-installed anchors by R. Tanaka, K. Oba 59_Shallow shear anchor bolts for structural seismic strengthening of columns with wing wall by Y. Yamamoto, Y. Hattori, T. Koh, M. Kato 6_Current status of post-installed anchor application in Japan by R. Tanaka 60_Seismic response of multiple-anchor connections to concrete by Z. Yong-gang, R.E. Klingner, H.L. Graves, III 61_Smeared fracture Finite Element (FE) - Analysis of reinforced concrete structures - Theory and examples by J. Ozblot_ 62_Numerical and experimental investigations of the splitting failure mode of fastenings by J. Asmus, J. Ozbolt 63_Three dimensional modeling of an anchorage to concrete using metal anchor bolts by H. Boussa, G. Mounajed, B. Mesureur, J.-V. Heck 64_Influence of bending compressive stresses on the concrete cone capacity by M. Bruckner, R. Eligehausen, J. Ozbolt 65_ATENA - An advanced tool for engineering analysis of connections by V. Cervenka, J. Cervenka, R. Pukl 66_A computational model for double-head studs by A. Haufe, E. Ramm 67_Behavior and design of fastenings with headed anchors at the edge under arbitrary loading direction by J. Hoffmann, J. Ozbolt, R. Eligehausen 68_Evaluation of a bridge deck strengthening with shear connectors finite element analysis and experimental results by A.J. Leite 69_Numerical analysis of group effect in bonded anchors with different bond strengths by Y.-J. Li, R. Eligehausen

7_Design method for splitting failure mode of fastenings by J. Asmus, R. Eligehausen 70_Simulation of fastening systems utilizing chemical and mechanical anchors by J. Nienstedt, R. Mattner, U. Nestler, C. Song 71_Headed stud anchor - Cyclic loading and creep-cracking interaction of concrete by J. Ozbolt, J. Hofmann, R. Eligehausen 72_Numerical investigations of headed studs with inclined shoulder by P. Pivonka, R. Lackner, H.A. Mang 73_Simulating investigations of headed studs with inclined shoulder by R. Pukl, J. Cervenka, V. Cervenka 74_Non-supported crash barriers - Proof of the concrete resistances according to the concrete-capacity-method by J. Buhler 75_Reconstruction of multi-layer-walls by E. Dereser, J. Buhler 76_Load carrying capacity of fasteners in concrete railay sleepers by H. Thun, S. Utsi, L. Elfgren, P. Nilsson, B. Paulsson 77_Anchorage with headed bars with exterior beam-column joints by J. Hegger, W. Roeser 78_Halfen HDB-S bars as shear reinforcement in slabs and beams by J. Hegger, K. Fröhlich, R. Beutel, W. Roeser 79_Behaviour of fasteners in concrete with coarse recycled concrete and masonry aggregates by D.A. Hordijk, R. van der pluijm 8_Behaviour and design of fastenings of shear lugs in concrete by H. Michler, M. Curbach 80_Regarding strength of anchor bolts used for PCa Curtain wall fasteners by H. Kawamura, T. Otobe, S. Oka 81_New method of reconstruction - Strengthening of old buildings by M. Marjanishvili, T. Zuzadze, D. Ramishvili, A. Lebanidze 82_Fastening in masonry by A. Meyer, T. Pregartner 83_Study on design method of joint panels for hybrid railway rigid-frame bridges by H. Nishida, K. Murata, T. Takayama 84_Tension stiffening model based on bond by M.A. Polak, K. Blackwell 85_OVE~1 86_Redundant structures fixed with concrete fasteners by M. Rößle, R. Eligehausen 87_Numerical and experimental analysis of post-installed rebars spliced with cast-in-place rebars by H.A. Spieth, J. Ozbolt, R. Eligehausen, J. Appl 88_Dowel action of titanium bars connecting marble elements by E. Vintzileou, K. Papadopoulos 89_Case study - Application of high strength post-tensioned rods for anchoring aerial tram structures to rock by G.P. Wheatley 9_Safety relevant aspects for torque controlled expansion anchors by H. Gassner, E. Wisser 90_Behaviour and design of fastenings with concrete screws by J.H.R. Küenzlen, T.M. Sippel 91_Behaviour and design of anchors for lifting and handling in precast concrete elements by D. Lotze 92_Behaviour of plastic anchors in cracked and uncracked concrete by T. Pregartner, R. Eligehausen 93_TES~1 94_A new step forward for composite bridges - The Bras de la Plaine Bridge by E. Barlet, G. Causse, J.-P. Viallon 95_Anchorage of the steel elements to the concrete piers at the specific pipe bridges over a Danube-bay in Budapest by B. Csiki 96_BEH~1 97_Recent developments and chances of composite structures by U. Kuhlmann 98_Design of lying studs with longitudinal shear force by U. Breuninger 99_STU~1

Preface
Anchorage by fasteners and composite structures of steel and concrete have seen dramatic progress in research, technology and application over the past decade. The understanding of the fundamental principles underlying both disciplines has significantly improved. Concurrently, there has been rapid growth in the development of sophisticated new products and the establishment of international directives and codes to ensure their safe and economical use in a wide range of engineered structures.

Although they deal with very similar problems, the two disciplines have developed independently from each other. To optimize the use of composite structures and fastenings to concrete, however, it is necessary to have knowledge of both: the local behavior of the fastening system and the global behavior of the structure. It became apparent that a forum offering the opportunity to expand and to exchange experience in the field of connecting steel and concrete would benefit all involved. Furthermore this forum would aid in the rapid dissemination of new ideas, technologies and solutions as well as explore new areas of research.

To meet these objectives the first symposium on 'Connections between Steel and Concrete' was conducted in Stuttgart, Germany from September 9 to 12, 2001 organized under the auspices of RILEM, the International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures and the University of Stuttgart. The event was cosponsored by the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib) and the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE). Experts from all facets of the research, design, construction and anchor manufacturing community from around the world were invited to present papers covering the topics of testing, behavior and design, durability, exceptional applications, strengthening and structures as well as related topics such as anchorage to masonry.

Regrettably, due to the limitation on the number of papers, dictated by the time frame of the symposium, not all worthy papers proposed for presentation could be accepted. 134 authors were invited by the scientific committee to address the topic of connections between steel and concrete at the symposium. Their papers are gathered in this volume. I hope this volume will significantly contribute to knowledge in the field of connecting steel and concrete, related design methods, code specifications and new applications.

I wish to thank the authors for their excellent contributions and the scientific committee for the useful technical advice. I would like to express particular thanks to Mr. Stefan Fichtner and Werner Fuchs for their essential assistance in the local organization of the symposium and the preparation of the present volume.

Rolf Eligehausen Stuttgart, September 2001

WHERE STRUCTURAL STEEL AND CONCRETE MEET
J.W.B. Stark*, D.A. Hordijk** *Delft University of Technology CiTG, The Netherlands **Adviesbureau ir. J.G. Hageman B.V., The Netherlands

Abstract
Traditionally "steel structures" and "concrete structures" formed more or less two different worlds in structural engineering. However, fortunately this situation is changing rapidly. It is now recognised that each of the two materials have advantages and disadvantages and that often an optimal solution is found by combining both materials in for example a "Composite steel-concrete construction" or a "Mixed construction". It is important that the design rules for the two materials are consistent, especially for those components connecting both materials. However, in the past the design standards and recommendations for concrete and steel have been developed separately. So evidently at this moment there are still considerable differences in design assumptions and treatment of various aspects. During drafting of the Eurocodes and the conversion of the ENV's into EN's these inconsistencies became apparent. As the Eurocodes, additional to level national differences, also aim at harmonisation over the materials, it is now urgent to trace inconsistencies and find solutions for improvement. In this paper situations in modern buildings are described where steel and concrete meet. On the basis of an overview of the historic situation in education and practice, differences in approaches for concrete and steel design can be explained. Then for some aspects of steel-concrete-connections the present approaches will be discussed and compared with emphasis on inconsistencies, gaps and possibilities for harmonisation of design rules.

1. Introduction
In the past for the design of a building the choice was normally between a concrete structure or a steel structure. Looking at recent practice in Europe there is an evident tendency that designers also consider the combined use of concrete and steel in the form of composite or mixed structures as a serious alternative. Use of composite elements in

1

the form of beams, columns and composite slabs is already common practice in many countries (see Figure 1).
Composite slab

Composite beam Composite column

Fig. 1: Composite elements Applications are supported by accepted National Standards or Recommendations, including rules for the design and verification of the connection between the concrete and steel parts. These National Standards will be replaced by a Harmonised European Standard: EN 1994 - Eurocode 4 [1], now being in a final stage of completion. However, this supporting material is not available for mixed constructions where (reinforced or prestressed) concrete elements and structural steel elements are used in combination. The elements itself are covered by the respective design standards for concrete and steel. But in many cases the joints where the elements meet form a black spot as far as Design Standards and information is concerned. So the designer has to develop design models based on a creative interpretation of methods and rules in use for concrete and steel. It is of course a complication when these design methods for the different materials are not consistent. In the past the Design Standards and Recommendations for concrete and steel have been developed separately. So evidently at this moment there are still considerable differences in design assumptions and treatment of various aspects. Some examples of these differences will be illustrated in this paper. That this situation exists is understandable from the historic perspective where separation existed for education and design practice between concrete and steel. At Universities students were (are) separately educated by professors specialised in concrete or steel. Each had (have) separate academic chairs and departments. Also in practice often difference is made between concrete designers and steel designers rather than structural engineers. This is also caused by the fact that for concrete most often the complete design is made by the design consultant while for steel the task of the design consultant is limited to the overall structural design. Detailing for steel structures, inclusive connection design, is often carried out by the fabricator or a specialised design office. Also professional organisations act separately. In Germany, for example, “Betonverein” and “DAST” and on an international level CEB and FIP (now merged to fib) and ECCS act respectively for the concrete and the steel society. Incidentally there are examples of co-operation between these organisations as for example in the “Joint

2

Committee on Structural Safety” and the “Joint Committee for Composite Structures”. It would be useful to form a similar Joint Co-operation for connections between concrete and steel (and possibly other materials).

2. Typology
Many different details exist depending on the type of members to be connected, the actions to be transferred and the performance requirements. An exhaustive treatment of all possible details is not possible in the context of this paper. Just to give an idea an arbitrary selection is made. 2.1 Column bases This is one of the most commonly used details. The steel column is connected to a base plate, which is attached to the concrete foundation by some form of so-called “holding down” assembly. A typical detail is shown in Figure 2. The system of column, base plate and holding down assembly is known as a column base. The holding down assembly comprises two, but more commonly four (or more) holding down bolts (anchors). These may be cast-in-place, or post-installed to the completed foundation. Cast-in-place bolts sometimes have some form of tubular or conical sleeve, so that the top of the bolts are free to move laterally, to allow the base plate to be accurately located.

base plate

anchor

Fig. 2: Typical detail of a column base

grout

Base plates for cast-in assemblies are usually provided with oversized holes and thick washer plates to permit translation of the column base. Anchor plates or similar embedded arrangements can be attached to the embedded end of the anchor assembly to resist pull-out. Post-installed anchors may be used, being positioned accurately in the hardened concrete. Post-installed assemblies include, for instance, torque-controlled expansion anchors, under-cut anchors and bonded anchors (see also [2]).

3

2.2 Connections of steel beams to concrete walls or columns A stiff concrete core often provides the stability of a multi-storey steel frame. The steel beams of the floors are connected to the wall of the concrete core (see Figure 3a). To provide sufficient fire resistance sometimes (prefabricated) concrete columns are used instead of steel columns with fire protection. In Figure 3b a connection is shown as used in a refurbishment project where new steel floor beams are connected to existing concrete columns by means of an extended end plate connection.

concrete core

anchor

a

b

Fig. 3 Connection composite beam-concrete core (a) ; steel beam-concrete column (b). A great number of different forms of connection details are possible for these types of connection. The choice of the most appropriate solution is dependent of the following aspects of consideration: • Sequence of construction • Method of fabrication of the core or column. • Tolerances of both concrete and steel • Type of action effects (shear, tension or compression, moment) • Static or variable loading • Reversal of loading • Support conditions (degrees of freedom) • Required static properties (resistance, stiffness and deformation capacity) • Behaviour under elevated temperature caused by fire 2.3 Outrigger in a high rise building In some structures taylor-made solutions have to be invented by the designer. As an example in Figure 4 an outrigger structure in a high rise building is shown. The steel outrigger had to be connected to a concrete core and to a composite column.

4

Outrigger

Composite column

Concrete core

Fig. 4: Outrigger in a high rise building

3 Standards and Recommendations
The European Standards Organisation (CEN) has planned to develop a complete set of Harmonized European Building Standards. This set includes Standards for concrete, steel and composite steel-concrete buildings and bridges. The Eurocodes, being the Design Standards, form part of this total system of European Standards, together with Standards for fabrication and erection and Product Standards. After a period of experimental use of the ENV(European Pre Standard)-versions of the Eurocodes, a start has been made with the conversion to EN’s (European Standards). At the time of the conference, draft prEN versions of the relevant parts covering – "General Rules and Rules for Buildings" will have been completed [1,3,4]. The Eurocode-programme is aiming at a two dimensional harmonization: 1) Harmonization across the borders of the European Countries; 2) Harmonization between different construction materials, construction methods, types of building and civil engineering works to achieve full consistency and compatibility of the various Codes with each other and to obtain comparable safety levels. Especially the 2nd item is relevant for the topic of this paper. The designer of a “mixed structure” is concerned with the Eurocodes listed in Table 1. A check of the present drafts shows that he will find not many detailed rules specific for the design of joints between concrete and steel elements. Table 1: Eurocodes relevant to “mixed” structures Standard Subject Material General EN 1990 Basis of Design “ EN 1991-1 Actions on structures Concrete EN 1992-1-1 Concrete - General & Buildings Steel EN 1993-1-1 Steel - Common rules “ EN 1993-1-8 Steel – Design of joints “ EN 1993-3 Steel – Buildings Composite EN 1994-1-1 Composite steel & concrete – General & buildings

5

prEN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2 – 2nd Draft Jan. 2001) [3] In Eurocode 2 no specific section for the design of connections is included. This situation will change since recently within CEN/TC250/SC2 a new Working Group ‘Design of fastenings’ started their activities. prEN 1993-1-8 (Eurocode 3 – 2nd Draft Dec. 2000) [4] Eurocode 3 has a separate part for the design of steel joints. The present draft contains design rules for fasteners (bolts, rivets and welds) but also principles and application rules for the design of joints. The principles are so general that they apply globally to ”mixed” joints as well. For example clause 2.5 states: “2.5 Design assumptions (1)P Joints shall be designed by distributing the internal forces and moments to fulfill the following criteria: (a) the assumed internal forces and moments are in equilibrium with the applied forces and moments; (b) each element in the joint is capable of resisting the forces or stresses assumed in the analysis; (c) the deformations implied by this distribution are within the deformation capacity of the fasteners or welds and of the connected parts, and (d) the deformations assumed in any design model based on yield lines are based on rigid body rotations (and in-plane deformations) which are physically possible. (2)P In addition, the assumed distribution of internal forces shall be realistic with regard to relative stiffnesses within the joint.” The design method for joints in EN1993-1-8 is based on the so-called “component method”. The advantage being that the rules for “all steel” joints can easily be extended to ”mixed” joints. Detailed rules are given for the application of the component method for typical steel joints but also for column bases. prEN 1994-1-1 (Eurocode 4 – 3rd Draft April 2001) [1] Composite joints in frames for buildings are covered in Section 8 (and Annex A) of prEN1994-1-1. This Section is consistent with prEN 1993-1-8. A great advantage is that the design method in EN1993-1-8 is based on the component method so only rules for properties of specific composite components had to be given in EN19941-1. The proposed EN provisions therefore deal only with what is peculiar to composite joints. It is assumed that the user of EN1994 will be familiar with EN 1993-1-8. Design moment resistance and rotational stiffness are each to be “determined in a manner analogous to that for steel joints”. No attempt is made to present detailed modifications to the provisions of the Steel Code.

So far Design Standards as covered by the Eurocodes. Other groups also produce design guidance. A CEB Task Group (since the merging of CEB and FIP in 1998 now a fib Group) prepared a Design Guide for fastenings in concrete [5]. It only covers the load transfer into the concrete. For the design of the fixture (f.e. a base plate) the designer is referred

6

to “the appropriate code of practice”. In [5] so far only rules for cast-in-place headed anchors and post-installed expansion and undercut anchors are given. Work is in progress for other types of anchor, like bonded anchors and channel bars. Many types of anchor are special products. The determination of the characteristic properties is not covered in the Eurocodes. They either refer to Harmonized Product Standards or ETA‘s (European Technical Approvals). For ETA‘s, guidelines (ETAG’s) are being produced by the European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA). In the ETAG for “Metal anchors for use in concrete” [6] a Design Guide is given in an Annex. The motivation for including design rules was the fact that there is a relation between the anchor properties and the design and that a Design Guide was not yet provided by CEN. With the new Working Group of CEN/TC250/SC2, as mentioned before, this situation will change. The elastic design approach in the ETAG Design Guide [6] is similar to the CEB guideline [5]. However the CEB document is more comprehensive than the ETAG design guideline, since also a plastic design approach is included, while cast-in-place anchors are also covered. As a result of a joint project of ECCS/TWG10.2 “Semi-rigid connections” and COST/C1/WG2 a publication [7] was issued. This publication gives details of a design method for column bases. It covers the calculation of characteristic values for the resistance and rotational stiffness. An evaluation of the CEB Design Guide model is included.

3. Comparison of some fastener aspects in different Codes
3.1 General As mentioned before, in Eurocode 2 connections are not treated. Therefore, for some aspects the rules in Eurocode 3 are compared with the CEB/EOTA Design Guidelines. In Section 3.2 rules for the resistance of the steel part of a single anchor fastening are compared. In Section 3.3 some aspects related to a base plate connection are discussed. 3.2 Anchor strength In table 2 resistances for the steel part of a single anchor according EC3 and EOTA/CEB are compared. Values are given for the design tension resistance Ft.Rd (NRd.s) and the design shear resistance Fv.Rd (VRd.s). For some cases there are significant differences. The design shear strength according to EC 3 is always greater than that according to CEB and EOTA. It should be noted that in case of shear there is a difference between a bolt connecting two steel parts and an anchor connecting a steel component to concrete. The design resistance to combined tension and shear load is according CEB [5] and EOTA [6] to be determined with the following interaction equation:

N N Sd VSd + ≤ 1,2 but Sd ≤ 1 and N Rd VRd N Rd

VSd ≤1 VRd

(1)

It is noted that this yields conservative results for steel failure and that when NRd and VRd are governed by steel failure more accurate results are obtained by:

7

 N Sd   VSd    N  +  V  ≤1     Rd   Rd 

2

2

(2)

For bolts subjected to combined tension and shear Eurocode 3 [4] gives the following interaction equation :

Fv.Sd Ft .Sd + ≤ 1,0 but Fv.Rd 1,4 ⋅ Ft .Rd

Ft .Sd ≤1 Ft .Rd

(3)

The resistance functions in Eurocode 3 have been developed by statistical evaluation of a international collection of test results evaluated in accordance with the procedure given in Annex D of prEN1990 : “Basis of Design” Table 2 Comparison of the design resistance of the steel part of a single anchor according to Eurocode 3 [4] and the CEB/EOTA [4,5] Design Guidelines. tension ‘Code’ ‘original equation’ 4.6 5.8 8.8 10.9 EC 3 Ft.Rd = 0,9⋅fub⋅As / γMb = 0,72⋅As⋅fuk 288⋅As 360⋅As 576⋅As 720⋅As CEB/EOTA NRd,s= As⋅fyk / γMs = 0,83⋅As⋅fyk 200⋅As 333⋅As 533⋅As 750⋅As Note: fyk = characteristic steel yield strength (nominal value) fuk = characteristic steel ultimate tensile strength (nominal value) The ‘original equation’ differs between CEB and EOTA, but the result is, except for 10.9 anchors, equal; CEB result is shown. shear ‘Code’ ‘original equation’ 4.6 5.8 8.8 10.9 EC 3 384⋅As Fv.Rd= 0,6⋅fub⋅As / γMb = 0,48⋅As⋅fuk 192⋅As 200⋅As 400⋅As Fv.Rd= 0,5⋅fub⋅As / γMb = 0,40⋅As⋅fuk CEB/EOTA VRd,s= 0,6⋅As⋅fyk / γMs = 0,5⋅As⋅fyk 120⋅As 150⋅As 320⋅As 360⋅As Note: CEB/EOTA: for 10.9 anchors γMs=1,5 instead of 1,2 for lower classes. In the CEB and EOTA Design Guidelines steel failure under a shear load with a lever arm (causing combined shear and bending stresses in the anchor) is treated separately. This is not covered by Eurocode 3. 3.4 Base plate connection Probably the most common connection between concrete and steel is the base plate connection of a column (see Figure 2). Quite a lot of steel research into the structural behaviour was carried out in the past. These research activities mainly focussed on the strength and stiffness of the steel base plate, while for the behaviour of concrete under concentrated loads use was made of knowledge provided by the‘concrete-colleagues’. For tensile loading “holding down bolts” have to be used, as they are named in the

8

normative Annex L of Eurocode 3 [4]. For the anchorage of these bolts reference is made to Eurocode 2. This means that the anchorage should be such that steel yielding governs anchorage failure. One could speak of an anchorage according to the reinforced concrete technique. With the fastener technique relative shorter anchorages with other governing failures modes (break out of concrete cone, pull-out and concrete splitting), are introduced. The length of short anchors is normally about 10 times their diameter, while for anchorages of reinforcing steel according to the concrete codes lengths of 20d to 30d, depending on cover and concrete strength, are required. Now two items from the CEB Design Guide will be discussed more in detail. These items were selected because the authors expect that a combined effort of experts from the steel and fastener groups shall lead to improvement of the design rules . Base plate stiffness and load distribution over the anchors. In the CEB Design Guide [4] distinction is made between an elastic design approach and a plastic design approach. The plastic approach is only acceptable when the anchor has sufficient deformation capacity. For short anchors with a high steel strength this is often not the case. Furthermore, in many situations the resistance of the concrete is reduced by edge effects of the concrete element. This may also cause that the requirement for the plastic approach is not fulfilled. For an elastic approach it is required that the fixture does not deform under the design actions. It may be assumed that this is valid when the base plate is rigid and in full contact with the concrete or with a layer of mortar. Furthermore, the base plate may be assumed to be rigid when the maximum steel stress under the design actions does not exceed fyk/γMs with γMs = 1,1. It is expected that in practice this requirement will sometimes not be fulfilled and/or even not checked in many cases. The guidance in [5] on this aspect is rather limited, which can be understood since the document mainly deals with the load transfer into the concrete. According the CEB Design Guide the use of flexible end plates is permitted, provided that the non-linear load distribution over the anchors and the associated prying forces are taken into account. Shear strength and contribution of friction According the CEB Design Guide for base plates with a grout layer thicker than 3 mm plastic design is not allowed, friction forces underneath the base plate should be neglected and the shear capacity has to be calculated for the mechanism ‘shear load with lever arm’. For column bases usually a grout layer with a thickness greater than 3 mm is used. Though it is realised that there may be uncertainties about the strength and quality of the grout layer, the CEB method will be very conservative in many practical cases. This was confirmed by COST/WG2 [7] that compared design values with test results for column bases loaded in shear and with a varying thickness of the grout layer [8]. In particular in case of low strength bolts and a thick grout layer (60 mm) the experimentally obtained maximum shear load was many times (between 10 and 25 !!) greater than the calculated characteristic shear strength of the connection.

9

5. Concluding remarks
In daily practice the two main structural materials concrete and steel are often used in combination. When steel is fully incorporated in the concrete, as is the case with reinforcement the interaction between these two materials is treated properly. This also applies to composite elements. However, when concrete and steel elements are used in combination in a mixed structure the designer is not supported with sufficient design guidance. Significant improvement can still be achieved as far as Codes, engineering practice and education is concerned. Though things are changing rapidly in a positive direction, to some extent there are still two separate “worlds”. As far as the joint is concerned, both “worlds” tackle the aspects related to their one material in detail and look a little bit over the border to the other world. Since at the joint the interaction between the two worlds play an essential role, it is of prime importance that the treatment on both sides of the border is consistent. This is not the case yet. As a result of the “two-world-situation” inconsistencies in Codes still exist and properties of connections may not be fully utilised. Some examples have been given. The authors of this paper, one with a steel and the other with a concrete background, are of the opinion that with joint co-operation for several aspects of steel-concrete connections improvement can be achieved. In that respect, this symposium is a perfect initiative and may be a bases for new combined activities.

6. References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. prEN 1994-1-1, ‘Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings’, CEN, 3rd Draft, April 2001. CEB ’Fastenings to concrete and masonry structures – State-of-the-art’ CEBbulletin no. 216, Thomas Telford, July 1994. prEN 1992-1, ‘Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings’, CEN, 2nd draft, January 2001. ENV 1993-1-1: 1992, ‘Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings’, CEN, April 1992. CEB, ‘Design of Fastenings in Concrete. CEB Guide - Part 1 to 3’ CEB-bulletin no. 233, Thomas Telford, January 1997. Guideline for European Technical Approval of Anchors (metal anchors) for use in concrete. Part 1, 2 en 3 and Annexes A, B en C (Final Draft). EOTA, Brussels, February 1997. COST C1, ‘Column bases in steel building frames’, ECCS Technical Working Group 10.2 ‘Semi-rigid connections’ and COST C1 WG 2, February 1999. Bouwman, L.P., Gresnigt, A.M. and Romeijn, A., Research into the connection of steel base plates to concrete foundations, Stevin report 25.6.89.05/c6, 1989 (in Dutch).

7. 8.

10

FASTENING TECHNIQUE – CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE TRENDS
Rolf Eligehausen, Isabelle Hofacker and Steffen Lettow Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
In the paper the current status and future trends of modern fastening technique are described. Fastening technique is used in a wide range of the construction industry. By cooperation between industry and research more economical and safe fastening systems have been and will be developed, which work well in cracked and uncracked concrete. Engineers use special software for the selection of fastening systems and the design of fastenings according to the CC-method. For the installation of anchors technicians are more and more supported by manufacturers with descriptive technical manuals and in some cases with training courses. This will lead to an expanding field of application of modern fastening technique.

1. Introduction
Modern fastening systems are becoming more important in civil engineering constructions. In Figure 1 on basis of a simple graph an overview of the wide area of applications of fastenings is given. Fastenings are used in all types of constructions. Because the failure of a fastening may lead to an endangerment of human life or major economic consequences, reliable fastenings are necessary. To ensure reliable fastenings a good co-operation of producer, engineer and user is needed (Figure 2). The producer has to supply efficient and well functioning fastening systems, the engineer must choose the optimal fastening system for the application in question and proof the adequate safety of the fastening by accurate design methods and the user has to ensure a correct installation of the fasteners.

11

Figure 1. Examples of the field of application of fastenings

Figure 2. Requirements to ensure reliable fastenings

2. Fastening Systems
The fastening systems currently in use in concrete structures may be classified in cast-inplace installations and post-installed installations for applications (Figure 3). Cast-inplace systems are typically positioned in the formwork before the concrete is cast and thus may also be used in members with dense reinforcement. Post-installed systems may either be installed into drilled holes (drill installation) or be driven into the base material with impact energy (direct installation). They are very flexible in application. For tension loading the load-transfer mechanisms employed by the fasteners may be identified by three different types: friction, mechanical interlock and bond (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Fastening methods in concrete

Figure 4. Load transfer mechanisms

12

Cast-in-place systems like headed anchors (Figure 5a) and channel bars (Figure 5b) transfer tension load mainly by mechanical interlock to the concrete. Typical postinstalled fasteners based on the above mentioned load-transfer mechanisms are shown in Figure 6. In case of expansion anchors (Figure 6a), the load is transferred to the concrete mainly by friction. The frictional resistance depends on the expansion force generated by the expansion of the anchor. Undercut anchors (Figure 6b) transfer tension load to the concrete principally through mechanical interlock between a local undercut and the expansion element which results in locally high bearing stresses. The load transfer of bonded anchors (Figure 6c) is ensured by bond stresses between threaded rod and mortar and mortar and concrete along the embedment length. Often fastenings systems employ a combination of load transfer mechanisms, e.g. bonded expansion anchors for use in cracked concrete. During the last decade many innovative and well functioning fastening systems have been developed by the industry often in close contact with research institutes which cover almost all applications encountered in practice (e.g. fastenings in noncracked and cracked concrete as well as fastenings in different types of masonry under static and cyclic loading).

(a) Figure 5. Typical cast-in-place anchors

(b)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6. Typical types of post-installed anchors

13

A survey at about 50 German engineering offices revealed that engineers consider the availability of detailed technical data (e.g. Technical Approval) on anchors as the most important criteria for anchor selection (Figure 7). Furthermore they ask for fastening systems that can be used in a large variety of appli- Figure 7. Selection criteria of fastenings cations. In contrast to the general believe the low price of a fastening system seems not to be an important selection criteria.

3. Testing of Fasteners
Fasteners must function properly in the application in question. To ensure this prequalification testing is necessary. During the last years test programs to check the suitability of anchors and to evaluate allowable conditions of use have been worked out by EOTA (1997) and ACI (1985). They will be explained in detail during the conference. In the suitability tests the behavior of fasteners under unfavorable conditions that may occur during installation or the service life of the fastening (e.g. behavior in a wide crack with w=0.5 mm) is checked. In Europe anchors that have passed the approval tests which are mainly performed by an independent testing institute receive an European Technical Approval (ETA) which is required for the use of anchors in safety related applications.

4. Design of Fastenings
Fastenings may be loaded by tension-, shear-, or combined tension and shear loads and bending moments. The loads may be static or dynamic. Fastenings may fail in several different modes.

14

Under tension loading mechanical fasteners may be pulled out of the hole (Figure 9e), whereby the concrete at the surface may be damaged. This failure mode will occur only if with expansion anchors the expansion force and with headed and undercut anchors the bearing area is too small. The most common failure mode is the pulling of a concrete cone (Figure 9b + d). For anchor groups the individual cones may overlap (Figure 9b) and for fastenings at the edge the cone is truncated by the edge (Figure 9d). With fastenings close to an edge or in a thin concrete member splitting of the concrete Figure 8. Load directions and failure modes might occur (Figure 9a) and headed anchors very close to an edge may generate a local blow-out failure (Figure 9f). The maximum capacity of the fastening is governed by steel failure (Figure 9c). Fastenings with a sufficiently large edge distance and embedment depth loaded in shear will fail by a local concrete spall in front of the anchor followed by steel rupture (Figure 10a). If the embedment depth is not large enough, the concrete behind the anchor will fail (pry-out failure, Figure 10b). Fastenings close to an edge often fail by a brittle edge failure (Figure 10c, d + e).

Figure 9. Failure modes under tension loading

Figure 10. Failure modes under shear loading

15

While in reinforced concrete constructions in general tensile forces are taken up by reinforcement this is often not possible with fastenings. Therefore fastenings without special reinforcement utilize the concrete tensile capacity which – in case of concrete failure governs the failure load. This must be taken into account in the safety considerations. In the design it must be shown that in the serviceability limit state the displacements of the fasteners are smaller than allowable values and that in the ultimate limit state the load acting on the fastening can be safely transmitted into the concrete. Furthermore the fasteners must be durable during the expected service life. The design of fastenings – as the design of structures – is based on the concept of partial safety factors. It must be demonstrated that the design actions Sd are not larger than the design resistance Rd (Equ. (4.1)). Formelabschnitt 4

S d ≤ Rd

(4.1)

The design actions are distinguished between permanent or variable actions and actions induced by restraint of imposed deformations (e.g. by temperature variations). In the simplest case with one variable load Qk acting in the same direction as the permanent load Gk we get

S d = γ G ⋅ Gk + γ Q ⋅ Qk

(4.2)

The partial safety factors γG for permanent loads and γQ for variable loads are independent of the material or failure mode. They may be different in different countries. In Europe γG = 1.35 and γQ= 1.50 are used. The design resistance is equal to the characteristic resistance (5%-quantile) divided by the material safety factor γM (Equ. (4.3))

Rd ≤ Rk γ M

(4.3)

The partial safety factor γM depends on the accepted probability of failure. It is influenced by the failure mode (ductile steel failure or brittle concrete failure). In case of concrete failure the value of γMc should reflect the utilization of the concrete tensile capacity. Furthermore it should take into account the sensitivity of a fastening system to installation inaccuracies often observed in practice and to unfavorable conditions (e.g. hole drilled with drill but with a diameter of the cutting edge at the upper tolerance limit). In Europe values γMc = 1.80 (fastener with high installation safety) to γMc = 2.50 (fastener with low installation safety) are used.

16

To calculate characteristic resistances for different load directions and failure modes sound engineering models should be available that are sufficient accurate and generally accepted. A comprehensive design method has been published by ACI 349 (1985). It is based on the 45° cone model and assumes a constant tensile stress ( k1 ⋅ surface ( k2 ⋅ hef ) (Equ. (4.4)).
2 2 N u ,c = k1 ⋅ f c0.5 ⋅ k2 ⋅ hef

f c0.5 ) over the failure

(4.4)

Intensive research has shown that in case of concrete structures failing in tension the failure load should not be based on the theory of plasticity. But on fracture mechanics to account for the size effect (Bažant (1984)). According to the size effect the failure load of geometrical similar specimens will increase less than proportional with increasing member size. Because of the very high strain gradient in the region of the load transfer area the size effect is very pronounced in fastening technique (Eligehausen/Sawade (1989), Eligehausen/Ožbolt (1990)). It can be taken into account by multiplying Equ. (4.4) with the factor ( k5 / hef ) (Equ. (4.5)).
2 0.5 N u ,c = k3 ⋅ f c0.5 ⋅ k4 ⋅ hef ⋅ k5 / hef 1.5 = k ⋅ f c0.5 ⋅ hef 0.5

(4.5)

with:

k1 - k5 = constants fc = concrete compressive strength hef = embedment depth

Figure 11 shows the concrete cone failure loads measured in tests can be predicted with sufficient accuracy by Equ. (4.5). In contrast to that the failure loads are underestimated by Equ. (4.4) for small embedment depths and are overestimated for large embedment depths. Furthermore the angle between the failure cone and the concrete surface is not 45° but approximately 35° (Figure 12). Therefore assuming α = 45° the failure load of anchor groups or fastenings at the edge may be overestimated.

17

3.0
Eligehausen et al. (1992/1) and (1992/2)

2.5

CC-method ACI-349 (1985)

Failure load [MN]

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Embedment depth [m]

Figure 11. Concrete cone failure loads of headed Figure 12. Angle of the failure cone as a anchors under tensile load as a function of the function of the embedment depth (Fuchs, embedment depth (fcc=33 MPa), (Eligehausen et al. Eligehausen, Breen (1995/2) (1992/1), (1992/2))

The above described and other research results have been incorporated into the κ-method for the design of fastenings which is described in the CEB State-of-the-Art-Report (1994). In this method the influence of different parameters on the failure load (as edge distance, spacing, eccentricity of the resultant force, surface reinforcement, cracked concrete) is taken into account by κ−factors. Fuchs/Eligehausen/Breen (1995/1) developed the CC-method, which is based on the same mechanical models as the κ-method. The CC-method visualizes the κ-factors of the κ−method. Furthermore, more recent research results (e.g. Fuchs (1990), Eligehausen/Furche (1991), Lehmann (1993), Zhao (1993), Furche (1994), Asmus (1999)) have been taken into account to cover all failure modes. The CC-method is very user friendly and in most cases gives sufficiently accurate results. The CC-method has been incorporated in several design guides in Europe ((DIBt (1993), EOTA (1997), CUR (2000) and SIA (1998)) and the USA ((IBC (2000) and ACI 318 (2001)) and is currently discussed in China. It is described in several papers of this conference and open problems are discussed. Recent research results (e.g. Cook et al. (1998), Meszaros (2001) and Lehr (2001)) demonstrate that for fastenings with bonded anchors a modification of the CC-method is needed to cover their load transfer mechanism. These modifications will also be discussed during this conference.

5. Cracked Concrete
In concrete structures often cracks will occur due to a variety of reasons (Beeby (1991)). The most important are tensile stresses due to loads and due to restraint of imposed

18

deformations (e.g. caused by shrinkage, creep, temperature variations or support settlements). Therefore according to codes for structural concrete in the serviceability limit state the width of cracks must be limited to acceptable values by reinforcement. Extensive measurements in practice demonstrate that under quasi-permanent load the characteristic crack width is wk ≈ 0.3 mm (Bergmeister (1988), Eligehausen/Bozenhardt (1989)), which agrees with the value generally accepted by codes.

Figure 13. Crack pattern at service load. The anchors were installed in uncracked concrete, after Lotze (1987)

There is a high probability that fasteners installed in uncracked concrete will be located in a crack if the concrete cracks (Figure 13), because high tensile stresses are caused in the region of the fastening by prestressing and loading of anchors and the notch effect. The influence of concrete cracking on anchor behavior depends on the type of anchor. The failure load of anchors transferring tensile loads by mechanical interlock (e.g. headed and undercut anchors) and failing by breaking a concrete cone is reduced by about 25 % by a crack with a width w ≈ 0.3 mm (Figure 14) due to the disturbance of the distribution of the tensile stresses around the anchor by the crack. A slightly larger reduction must be expected for torque controlled expansion anchors that function well in cracked concrete (Figure 15).

19

Figure 14. Load-displacement curves of headed Figure 15. Load-displacement curves of anchors in cracked and uncracked concrete torque controlled expansion anchors de(Furche, Dieterle (1986)) signed for use in cracked concrete in cracked and uncracked concrete (Dieterle, Bozenhardt, Hirth, Opitz (1990))

Figure 16. Load-displacement curves of torque controlled expansion anchors designed for use in non-cracked concrete in cracked and uncracked concrete (Dieterle, Bozenhardt, Hirth, Opitz (1990))

Figure 17. Load-displacement curves of fully expanded displacement controlled expansion anchors in cracked and uncracked concrete (Dieterle, Opitz (1988))

20

However torque controlled expansion anchors that are designed for use in uncracked concrete may not function at all if anchored in a crack (Figure 16). With deformation controlled expansion anchors the failure load in cracked concrete (w = 0.3 mm) is on average only 50 % of the value valid for non-cracked concrete (Figure 17). The reduction of the failure load is even more pronounced if – as often in practice – the anchors are partly expanded only.

Figure 18. Interference of bond between mortar Figure 19. Influence of cracks on the and concrete caused by a crack failure load of capsule-type bonded anchors under tension loading (Meszaros (2001))

With bonded anchors the bond between mortar and concrete is partly destroyed by a crack (Figure 18) which results in rather low failure loads and a large scatter (Figure 19). With bonded expansion anchors expansion forces are generated by pulling the cone into the mortar after crack opening (Figure 20). Therefore the failure load is only reduced by about 30 % compared to non-cracked concrete (Figure 21). If fastenings must be installed in reinforced concrete that may crack only fasteners with a predictable behavior in cracked concrete (demonstrated in pre-qualification tests) should be used and the influence of cracks on the failure load should be taken into account in the design. Whether in a certain application the concrete may be considered as cracked or non-cracked over the expected service life of the fastening should be decided by the designer based on the rules for reinforced concrete.

21

Figure 20. Interference of bond between Figure 21. Load-displacement curves of bonded mortar and concrete caused by a crack and expansion anchors in cracked and uncracked load transfer mechanism of a bonded expan- concrete (schematically) sion anchor

6. Installation of Fasteners
Fasteners must be installed correctly according to the design specifications and the installation instructions of the manufacturer. To reach this goal the installation instructions - preferably in form of pictograms - should be detailed and clear and the installer should be well trained. The mistakes may not always be as severe as shown in Figure 22. However, even smaller mistakes (e.g. use of improper drill bit, no or too little cleaning of the hole, too small installation torque, improper compaction of the concrete in the region of a cast-in-place fastening) may influence the anchor behavior significantly.
Figure 22. Fastening of column. According to the design the fastening should be installed directly on the concrete surface, after Steiner (2000)

During the last decade especially manufacturers have done a lot to improve the situation by distributing adequate installation instructions. However the biggest problem is that many fasteners are installed by untrained workers. According to a recent survey in Germany, 45% of the

22

polled engineers believe that fastenings are installed by inexperienced personal resulting in an incorrect installation in about 50% of all applications (Schade (2001)). In other countries the situation is probably not much better. According to the authors opinion the situation will only improve significantly if only workers with proper training are allowed to install safety related fastenings. And if this is checked by supervision the proper training should be demonstrated by a certificate that is issued after passing a corresponding test. Very good experiences have been made in Germany with this approach for the post-installation of rebars.

7. Open Problems and Future Trends
With the CC-method fastenings under arbitrary loading can be designed. However, in some applications (e.g. fastenings close to an edge and loaded in shear parallel to or away from the edge) the design models are rather conservative and should be improved. Furthermore the influence of special reinforcement on the strength and ductility of fastenings should be taken into account by improved design models. Until now most of the research has been done for monotonic loading including sustained and fatigue loading. However, much less research has been performed to study the behavior of fastenings under seismic excitations. The results until about 1990 are summarized in the CEB State-of-the-Art Report (1994) and the results of a recently finished extensive study are given in Klingner et al. (1998). It should be clarified if the test procedures and evaluation criteria for post-installed anchors and the design models valid for monotonic loading are adequate in case of seismic loadings, especially if fastenings are installed in regions where very wide cracks must be expected in the structure. Fastenings may be subjected to fire. While some results have been published (e.g. Reick (2001)), more research is needed in this area. In many regions of the world a large number of existing structures must be strengthened to resist future earthquakes. Modern fastening technique will play an important role in this work. However, more research is needed to develop new strengthening techniques and rational design models for the actions on and the resistance of fastenings. During the last two decades many new types of anchors have been developed (e.g. undercut anchors, bonded expansion anchors, concrete screws) to cope with new requirements (e.g. cracked concrete, fatigue and seismic loading). In the future more systems will be developed by combining different working principals to reach more economical solutions, better performance or both satisfy new demands by the user.

23

Figure 23. Procedures used in praxis for the design of fastenings, after Schade (2001)

According to a recent survey in Germany about 70% of the polled engineers design fastenings according to the CC-method by using software provided by manufacturers and in only 20% of applications a hand calculation is done according to a simplified design method (Figure 23). In the future the design of fastenings with the help of a computer will be common all over the world.

Several committees all around the world work on test procedures and evaluation criteria for fasteners and on design methods for fastenings. The authors hope that because of modern information technologies, communication between the acting persons and – last but not least – conferences like this one the provisions will be harmonized world wide. The knowledge on fastening technique has increased significantly over the last two decades which is demonstrated by an increasing number of papers, reports, text books and conferences. However, the subject is often not taught in engineering schools. The authors believe that this will change in the future when more design guides are published by code committees.

8. Summary
Modern fastening technique is increasingly used in the building industry. New and innovative fastening systems have been developed by the industry and reliable design methods have been incorporated in design guides. This will go on in the future. However, the training of designers and installers should be improved. Currently fastenings to concrete structures with cast-in-place or post-installed fastening systems are often not used in practice with the same confidence as other connections (e.g. welding or screwing in steel structures). It is hoped that this will change in the future, thereby expanding the field of application of modern fastening technique.

24

9. References
1. American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 318: Proposed Canges to Building Code Reqiurements for Structural Concrete. Appendix D – Anchoring to Concrete, scheduled to be published in edition of Concrete International, June 2001. 2. American Concrete Institute, ACI Standard 349-85: Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures, Appendix B – Steel Embedments, 1985 3. Asmus, J.: Verhalten von Befestigungen bei der Versagensart Spalten des Betons. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1999. 4. Bažant, Z.P.: Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock, Metal. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 110, No. 4, S. 518-535, April 1984. 5. Bergmeister, K.: Stochastik in der Befestigungstechnik mit realistischen Einflußgrößen. Dissertation, Universität Innsbruck, 1988. 6. Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving (CUR): Aanbeveking 25, Korte Ankers in Beton; berekening en uitvoering. Redactionale Bijlage bij Cement 4/2000. 7. Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB): Design of Fastenings in Concrete. Bulletin D’Information No. 226, Lausanne. Thomas Telford, London 1995. 8. Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB): Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures. State-of-the-Art-Report, Bulletin D’Information No. 216, Lausanne. Thomas Telford, London 1994. 9. Cook, R.A.; Bishop, M.C.; Hagedoorn, H.S.; Sikes, D.; Richardson, D.S.; Adams, T.L.; De Zee, C.T.: Adhesive Bonded Anchors: Bond Properties and Effects of InService and Installation Conditions. Bericht Nr. 94-2A, University of Florida, Department of Civil Engineering, Collage of Engineering, Gainsville 1994. 10. Cook, R.A.; Kunz, J.; Fuchs, W.; Konz, R.C.: Behavior and Design of Single Adhesive Anchors under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 1, 1998, S. 9-26. 11. Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt): Bemessungsverfahren für Dübel zur Verankerung in Beton (Anhang zum Zulassungsbescheid). Berlin, Ausgabe Juni 1993. 12. Dieterle, H.; Bozenhardt, A.; Hirth, W.; Opitz, V.: Tragverhalten von Dübeln in Parallelrissen unter Schrägzugbeanspruchung. Bericht Nr. 1/45-89/19 (nicht veröffentlicht). Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen. Universität Stuttgart, 1990. 13. Dieterle, H.; Opitz, V.: Tragverhalten von nicht generell zugzonentauglichen Dübeln, Teil 1: Verhalten in Parallelrissen. Bericht Nr. 1/34-88/21 (nicht veröffentlicht). Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1988. 14. Eligehausen, R.; Bouska, P.; Cervenka, V.; Pukl, R.: Size Effect of the Concrete Cone Failure Load of Anchor Bolts. In Bažant, Z.P. (Herausgeber), Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures. S. 517-525, Elsevier Applied Science, London, New York, 1992/2. 15. Eligehausen, R.; Bozenhardt, A.: Crack Widths as Measured in Actual Structures and Conclusions for the Testing of Fastening Elements. Bericht Nr. 1/42-89/9, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1989.

25

16. Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; Ick, U.; Mallée, R.; Reuter, M.; Schimmelpfennig, K.; Schmal, B.: Tragverhalten von Kopfbolzenverankerungen bei zentrischer Zugbeanspruchung. Bauingenieur 67, S. 183-196, 1992/1. 17. Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.: Befestigungstechnik im Beton- und Mauerwerkbau. Bauingenieur-Praxis. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2000. 18. Eligehausen, R.; Ožbolt, J.: Size Effect in Anchorage Behavior. Proceedings, ECF8, Fracture Behavior and Design of Materials and Structures, Turin, 1990. 19. Eligehausen, R.; Sawade, G.: A Fracture Mechanics based Description of the PullOut Behavior of Headed Studs embedded in Concrete. Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, From Theory to Application. S. 281-299. Herausgeber: Elfgren, L. Chapmann and Hall, London, New York, 1989. 20. European Organization for Technical Approvals (EOTA): Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete. Part 1, 2, 3 & 4, Brüssel, 1997. 21. Fuchs, W.: Tragverhalten von Befestigungen unter Querlast im ungerissenen Beton. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1990. 22. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; Breen, J.E.: Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, S. 73-94, 1995/1. 23. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; Breen, J.E.: Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete, Authors’ Closure to Discussion. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 6, S. 794-802, 1995/2. 24. Furche, J.: Zum Trag- und Verschiebungsverhalten von Kopfbolzen bei zentrischem Zug. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1994. 25. Furche, J.; Dieterle, H.: Ausziehversuche an Kopfbolzen mit unterschiedlichen Kopfformen bei Verankerungen in ungerissenem Beton und Parallelrissen. Bericht Nr. 9/1-86/9 (nicht veröffentlicht), Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen. Universität Stuttgart, 1986. 26. Furche, J.; Eligehausen, R.: Lateral Blow-out Failure of Headed Studs Near the Free Edge. In: Senkiw, G.A.; Lancelot, H.B. (Herausgeber), SP-130, Anchors in Concrete, Design and Behavior. American Concrete Institute, S. 235-252, Detroit, 1991. 27. International Building Code (IBC): International Code Council. Fall Church, Virginia, March 2000. 28. Klingner, R.E.; Hallowell, J.M.; Lotze, D.; Park, H.-G.; Rodriguez, M.; Zhang, Y.G.: Anchor Bolt Behavior and Strength During Earthquakes. Report No. NUREC/CR-5434. The University of Texas at Austin, 1998. 29. Lehmann, R.: Tragverhalten von Metallspreizdübeln in ungerissenem und gerissenem Beton bei der Versagensart Herausziehen. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1993. 30. Lehr, B.: Bemessung von Befestigungen mit Verbunddübeln. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 2001. 31. Lehr, B.; Eligehausen, R.: Vorschlag eines Bemessungskonzeptes für Verbundanker. Bericht Nr. 20/25-98/6, (nicht veröffentlicht). Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1998.

26

32. Lotze, D.: Untersuchungen zur Frage der Wahrscheinlichkeit, mit der Dübel in Rissen liegen – Einfluß der Querbewehrung. Bericht Nr. 1/24-87/6 (nicht veröffentlicht), Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1987. 33. Meszaros, J.: Tragverhalten von Einzelverbunddübeln unter zentrischer Kurzzeitbelastung. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 2001. 34. Ministry of Construction of People’s Repuplic of China: Anchors for Use in Concrete (Draft). China, 2000. 35. Rehm, G.; Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.: Befestigungstechnik. Betonkalender 1988, Teil II, Verlag Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 1988, S. 569-663. 36. Rehm, G.; Lehmann, R.: Untersuchungen mit Metallspreizdübeln in der gerissenen Zugzone von Stahlbetonteilen. Forschungsbericht, Forschungs- und Materialprüfungsanstalt Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 1982. 37. Reick, M.: Brandverhalten von Befestigungen in Beton bei zentrischer Zugbeanspruchung. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 2001. 38. Schade, P.: Stand der Befestigungstechnik in der Praxis. Diplomarbeit am Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 2001. 39. Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architekten-Verein (SIA): SIA 179, Befestigungen in Beton- und Mauerwerk. Zürich, 1998. 40. Steiner, J.: Vermeidbare Qualitätseinbuße – Erfahrungen mit der Planung und der Ausführung von Verankerungen mit Dübeln. IBK-Bau-Fachtagung, Dübel- und Befestigungstechnik, Darmstadt 2000. 41. Studiengemeinschaft für Fertigbau e.V.: Verankerungen am Bau. Technisches Merkblatt der Arbeitskreise “Dübel” und “Verankerungen am Bau”. Wiesbaden 2000. 42. Zhao, G.: Tragverhalten von randfernen Kopfbolzenverankerungen bei Betonbruch. Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1993.

27

ANCHORING TO CONCRETE: THE NEW ACI APPROACH
John E. Breen*, Eva-Maria Eichinger** and Werner Fuchs*** *Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin, USA **Institute for Structural Concrete, Technical University of Vienna, Austria ***Institute for Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
This paper outlines the general approach of a new appendix for design of anchoring to concrete in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code. It covers cast-in-situ anchors and mechanical post-installed anchors. ACI 318 and the ACI Technical Activities Committee have approved this proposal, and it is being published for public comment as part of the ACI 318-2001 revision. The proposed design procedures are in general harmony with provisions being developed by fib.

1. Foreword
It is a great privilege to participate in this Symposium. It is fitting that it is being held at the University of Stuttgart where Professors Gallus Rehm, Rolf Eligehausen and their coworkers, established the extensive scientific basis for modern approaches to Anchoring to Concrete. While ACI has long had recommendations for the design of anchors when used in nuclear related structures (ACI 349) the ACI 318 Building Code has been silent on this subject. In 1970, ACI Committee 355, Anchorage to Concrete, was established to report on performance and recommend design and construction practices for anchorage to concrete. Because of trade conflicts, no design related code recommendations ever came to ACI 318. In 1989 ACI 318 Sub B formed a task force to develop anchoring to concrete design provisions. Anchor qualification provisions were left to ACI 355 and ASTM. The design approach adopted by ACI 318 stems directly from the interaction with Dr. Fuchs as a DFG post-doctoral fellow at The University of Texas in 1990-1991. His visit resulted in major integration of the European and North American test data on cast-in-place and post-installed anchors reported in comparison studies of Reference 1. Detailed discussions led to adaptation of the previously proposed Stuttgart κ method to

31

make it more “designer friendly,” a most important factor in subsequent adoption by ACI 318. Now, twelve years later that challenge is virtually done, at least in its first phase. This paper describes where ACI 318 is and its general approach. But, in structural concrete, doors never truly close. While the new recommendations cover much and represent a great improvement, they are still only first steps. The search is just beginning for similar design provisions for adhesive and grouted anchors.

2. Introduction
In 1995 when setting the goals for the 2001 ACI 318 Building Code, the membership voted overwhelmingly to add specific design provisions for anchoring to concrete. This reflects the increased demand for such design guidance by code users, the considerable research and design development stimulated by ACI Committees 349 and 355, and the increased cooperation with CEB (now fib). Main decisions in the ACI 318 approach were based on the unanimous technical advice from Committee 355. The approach had to be compatible with the load and resistance factor format of the present code. The nominal resistance expressions should be consistent with the observed accuracy of the design formulae or values from comprehensive tests. A design approach should be found that accommodates brittle failure as well as ductile failure modes. The design provisions that envision brittle failure should use load and resistance factors appropriate for brittle failure modes. The nominal resistance design formulae should account for the effects of the type of anchor, anchor material, anchor diameter, edge distance, spacing, concrete strength, embedment depth and for the effects of cracking. An alternate approach using site specific testing to determine design values should be included. The basic approach of the ACI 318 Building Code provisions is to express all possible modes of failure for the anchors, to require the use of conservative design provisions based on the 5 percent fractile, and to provide some limited spacings, edge distance minimums and minimum thicknesses for the concrete member. Then, while the user is allowed to choose any design models or design by test values that meet these general requirements, for practical use a “deemed to satisfy” procedure is included. This latter procedure for steel failures is based on the method of AISC LRFD [2] while for concrete failures, it is based on the Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) procedure [1,3] that is accurate, designer friendly and in good agreement with tests. Special provisions for seismic applications and enhanced ductility through use of supplementary reinforcement are included. The ACI 318 Building Code provisions are applicable in scope to cast-in-place headed studs and headed or hooked bolts as well as a variety of post-installed anchors such as expansion anchors and undercut anchors [See Fig. 1]. Committee 318 plans to include provisions for adhesive anchors in a future code revision. A key element in the design philosophy is that the post-installed anchors must be prequalified by acceptance testing

32

using performance standards developed by ASTM or ACI 355 (ACI 355.2-00) [4]. This testing differentiates between post-installed anchors according to their installation sensitivity, behavior in oversize holes, low and high strength concrete, or with partial torque or expansion in cracked or uncracked concrete. These standards are similar to European EOTA (ETAG) requirements but adapted to American certification procedures. The anchors are placed in one of three categories according to their performance in tests. The ACI Code gives reduced resistance factors (φ) for the poorer performing categories. Designers may specify allowable categories to be used according to their safety requirements. The ACI 318 Appendix passed all voting procedures of Committee 318 and was approved by the ACI Technical Activities Committee pending final approval of the reference testing standard. A version for cast-in-place anchors that does not require such acceptance testing was adopted and included in the International Building Code 2000 [9]. An almost identical version has been adopted by ACI 349B for cast-in and post-installed anchors for nuclear-related structures. Since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission prescribes test procedures for fastening acceptance, the ACI 349B-1999 version did not have to wait for completion of the reference acceptance testing standard. Thus, ACI has now replaced the traditional 45º cone approach of ACI 349B with the new CCD procedures. The overall approach has also been adopted by the Fastening to Concrete committee of NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) for inclusion in NEHRP 2000 [10].

hef
(a) post-installed anchors

hef
(b) cast-in-place anchors

Figure 1 – Types of anchors The proposed Appendix provides design requirements for structural anchors used to transmit structural loads from attachments into concrete members by means of tension, shear, or a combination of tension and shear. Several failure types of fasteners can be differentiated [See Figs. 2 and 3]. Strength design of structural anchors is based on the computation or test evaluation of the steel tensile and shear strengths of the anchor and the attachment, the concrete breakout tensile and shear strengths, the tensile pullout strength of the anchor, the side-face blowout strength, the concrete pryout strength and required edge distances, spacing and member thickness to preclude splitting failure. The minimum of these strengths is taken as the nominal strength of the anchor for each load condition. Regardless of the mode which governs for a given anchor at a given embedment depth, the suitability of post-installed anchors for use in concrete must be demonstrated by the prequalification tests of ACI 355.2 [4].

33

Many possible design approaches exist and the user is always permitted to “design by test” as long as sufficient data are available to verify the model. If test results are used these must be evaluated on an equivalent statistical basis to that used to select the values for the concrete breakout method in the “deemed to satisfy” provisions. The basic capacity shall not be taken greater than the 5 percent fractile. When the failure of an anchor group is due to breakage of the concrete, the behavior is brittle and there is limited redistribution of the forces between the highly stressed and less stressed anchors. In such a case the theory of elasticity must be used for determining the force on the anchor, assuming the attachment that distributes loads to the anchors is sufficiently stiff. The forces in the anchors are considered to be proportional to the external load and its distance from the neutral axis of the anchor group.

Nn

Nn

(a) Steel Failure Nn (b) Pullout Nn

Nn

(c) Concrete Breakout

Nn

Nn

Nn

Nn

(e) Concrete Splitting (d) Side-Face Blowout

Figure 2 — Failure modes for fasteners under tensile loading

34

Vn

Vn

(a) Steel Failure Preceded by Concrete Spall Vn

(b) Concrete Pryout for Fasteners Far From a Free Edge

Vn

Vn Vn Vn Vn Vn

(c) Concrete Breakout

Figure 3 — Failure modes for fasteners under shear loading If an anchor failure is governed by ductile failure of the anchor steel, significant redistribution of anchor forces may occur. In such a case, analysis assuming the theory of elasticity will be conservative. A non-linear analysis, using theory of plasticity, is allowed for the determination of the ultimate loading conditions of ductile anchor groups. The levels of safety defined by the combinations of load factors and resistance factors (φ) are appropriate for structural applications. The designer may use lower levels of safety in design for non-structural applications and may wish to use more demanding safety levels for particularly sensitive structural connections. The safety levels are not intended for handling and construction conditions. The φ factors proposed for use with the current load factors given in the 1995 ACI Code Section 9.2 are given in Table 1. Condition A applies where the potential concrete failure surfaces are crossed by supplementary reinforcement proportioned to tie the potential concrete failure prism into the structural member. Condition B applies where such supplementary reinforcement is not provided or where pullout or pryout strength governs. Higher φ factors are given for anchors that have supplementary reinforcement in the direction of the load to increase overall ductility, i.e. Condition A [See Fig. 4].

35

Table 1: φ factors a) Anchor governed by tensile or shear strength of a ductile steel element .................... 0.90 b) Anchor governed by tensile or shear strength of a brittle steel element...................... 0.75 c) Anchor governed by concrete breakout, blowout, pullout or pryout strength Condition A Condition B i) Shear Loads ...................................................................... 0.85 0.75 ii) Tension Loads Cast-in headed studs, headed bolts, or hooked bolts ........ 0.85 0.75 Post-installed anchors with category as determined from ACI 355.2 Category 1 (Low sensitivity to installation and high reliability) ...................................................................... 0.85 0.75 Category 2 (Medium sensitivity to installation and medium reliability) ........................................................ 0.75 0.65 Category 3 (High sensitivity to installation and lower reliability) ...................................................................... 0.65 0.55

Figure 4 – Influence of reinforcement on the load-displacement behavior of headed anchors loaded in shear (from Ref.5)

36

For a post-installed anchor to be acceptable in seismic loading situations, the system must be proven to have adequate ductility. The anchor must demonstrate the capacity to undergo large displacements through several cycles as specified in the seismic simulation of the ACI 355.2 prequalification tests. If the anchor cannot meet these requirements or if substantially reduced design loads are being applied which assume substantial ductility in the structure, then the attachment must yield at a load well below the anchor capacity.

3. Steel Based Resistance
For the calculation of steel failure, an approach based on the AISC LRFD [1] approach was “deemed to satisfy” (See Reference 6). In case of steel failure the shear and tensile strength of an anchor are evaluated based on the properties of the anchor material and the dimensions of the anchor. Values based on the 5 percent fractile of test results may also be used.

4. Concrete Based Resistance
The basic design concrete capacities for any anchor or group of anchors must be based on design models which result in predictions of strength in substantial agreement with results of comprehensive tests and which account for the size effect. They are to be based on the 5 percent fractile of the basic individual anchor capacity, with modifications made for the number of anchors, the effects of close spacing of anchors, proximity to edges, depth of the concrete member, eccentric loading of anchor groups, and presence or absence of cracking. Limits on edge distances and anchor spacing in the design models shall be consistent with the tests that have verified the model. The “deemed to satisfy” design method used for the calculation of the concrete breakout capacities under tensile or shear loading was developed from the Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Method [1,3], which was an adaptation of the κ method [7,8] and is considered to be accurate, relatively easy to apply, and can be extended to irregular layouts. For single anchors, it assumes a breakout prism angle of about 35 degrees [Figs. 5, 6]. Both the CCD and the κ methods include fracture mechanics theory, which indicates that in the case of brittle concrete failure the failure load increases at a rate less than the increase in the available surface and that the nominal stress at failure (peak load divided by failure area) decreases with increasing member size. The method predicts the load-bearing capacity of an anchor or group of anchors by using one basic equation for a single anchor in cracked concrete, and multiplying by factors which account for the number of anchors, edge distance, spacing, eccentricity and absence of cracking [1,6]. A very important attribute of the CCD approach is that it is reasonably “transparent” and hence designer friendly. Rather than working with the complex intersection of 45º cones as previously required by the ACI 349B approach, the CCD method when applied to groups uses values of AN/ANo or AV/AVo that are based on projected areas of

37

quadrilaterals. These areas are illustrated in Figure 7 for tension loads and in Figure 8 for shear loads.

The critical edge distance for headed studs, headed bolts, expansion fasteners, and undercut fasteners is 1.5hef . 1.5 hef 1.5 hef
≈ 35° h ef

1.5hef

1.5hef 1.5hef 1.5hef

Section through failure cone Plan view

A No = 2 * 1.5 h ef × 2 * 1.5 h ef = 3 h ef × 3 h ef
2 = 9 h ef

Figure 5 – CCD concrete cone breakout model for tensile loading
c1 1.5c1
≈35o

1.5c1

The critical edge distance for headed studs, headed bolts, expansion fasteners, and undercut fasteners is 1.5c1

Vn Center of fastener where it crosses the free surface Edge of concrete Plan view Vn hef

1.5c1

1.5c1

1.5c1

A Vo = 2 ∗ 1.5c 1 × 1.5c 1
2 = 3c1 × 1.5c 1 = 4.5c 1 Front view

Side section

Figure 6 – CCD concrete cone breakout model for shear loading

38

c1 1.5 hef AN 1.5 hef 1.5 hef AN = (c1 + 1.5hef) (2 x 1.5hef) if c1 < 1.5hef

c1 1.5 hef 1.5 hef

s1 1.5 hef AN AN = (c1 + s1 + 1.5hef) (2 x 1.5hef) if c1 < 1.5hef and s1 < 3hef

c1 s2 1.5 hef

s1 1.5 hef AN AN = (c1 + s1 + 1.5hef) (c2 + s2 + 1.5hef) if c1 and c2 < 1.5hef and s1 and s2 < 3hef

Figure 7 – Projected areas for single anchors and groups of anchors for tension loads

5. Other Design Concepts
A comparison with the extensive test database indicated that the CCD method gave good results over the full range of applications [Figs. 9, 10]. While the ACI 349-85 procedure had very much the equivalent accuracy in some ranges, it was very unconservative in other ranges, particularly with group effects, and the geometry of intersecting circles was much more complex in group applications [Fig. 11]. However, recognizing that widely accepted procedures such as the earlier ACI 349-85 model as well as the PCI model can give satisfactory results in certain ranges, the proposed ACI 318 Appendix allows any “design models which result in substantial agreement with results of comprehensive tests” to be used. This generalized wording

c2

39

allows previous procedures like the ACI 349 or PCI techniques to be used in applicable ranges if desired.

if h < 1.5c1
Vn Av h 1.5c1 1.5c1 c1

if h < 1.5c1
Vn/2

Vn/2

Av h

c1

1.5c1 1.5c1

AV = 2 x 1.5c1 x h if c2 < 1.5c1
Vn Av 1.5c1 c1

AV = 2 x 1.5c1 x h
Note: One assumption of Note: One assumption of the the distribution forces indicates that half distribution of of forces indicates that half the shear would be critical the shear would be critical on front on front and its projected area. fasteneranchor and its projected area.

if h < 1.5c1
c2 1.5c1 Vn Av h c1

AV = 1.5c1 (1.5c1 + c2)

if h < 1.5c1 and s1 < 3c1
Vn Av h 1.5c1 s1 1.5c1 c1

1.5c1

1.5c1

Av = 2 x 1.5c1 x h
Note: Another assumption of Note: Another assumption of the the distribution forces that applies only distribution of of forces that applies only where anchors are rigidly connected where fasteners are rigidly connected to to the attachment indicates the the the attachment indicates thatthat totaltotal shear would critical on on rear shear would be be critical the the rear anchor and its projected area. fastener and its projected area.

AV = (2 x 1.5c1 + s1) x h

Figure 8 – Projected areas for single anchors and groups of anchors for shear loads

Typical cast-in-place headed studs, headed anchor bolts and hooked anchors have been tested and have proven to behave predictably, so calculated pullout values are acceptable.

40

Post-installed anchors do not have predictable pullout failure loads, therefore they must be tested. The pullout strength of headed studs or headed anchor bolts can be increased by provision of confining reinforcement such as closely spaced spirals throughout the head region. This increase can be demonstrated by tests. The tensile and shear capacity can be increased by provision of supplementary reinforcement with resisting components in the direction of the applied force [See Fig. 4] [5].

a) Equation vs Tension Test Results for Post-Installed Anchors
in uncracked concrete, and not affected by edges or spacing
300 Mean CCD Equation for tension on post-installed anchors in uncracked concrete

b) Equation vs Tension Test Results for Headed Studs and Anchor Bolts
in uncracked concrete, and not affected by edges or spacing
Mean CCD equation for tension on headed studs and anchor bolts in uncracked concrete

1000

Failure Load, kN

200

Failure Load, kN

500 Design equation for anchors in uncracked concrete 0

100 Design equation for anchors in uncracked concrete 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Effective Embedment Depth, hef, mm

0

125

250

375

500

625

Effective Embedment Depth, hef, mm

Figure 9 – Mean and design CCD equations for anchors in uncracked concrete compared to test data for a) post-installed anchors and b) headed anchors

41

Equation vs. Shear Test Results
for single anchors in deep uncracked members (European Tests)

150

Mean CCD equation for shear in uncracked concrete

Failure Load, kN

100

50

Design equation for shear in uncracked concrete

0

0

75

150

225

300

Edge Distance in Direction of Shear, c1, mm

Figure 10 – Mean and design CCD shear equations for uncracked concrete compared to test data

N [kN] 3000

n 1 4 16 36
St

Symbol

+
I3 AC 85 49fcc′ = 25 N/mm2 hef = 185 mm n = 1-36 headed studs

2000

Si

1000

hod Met CCD

+

Mean value of a series

200

400

600

800

1000 Si [mm]

Figure 11 – Comparison of ACI 349-85 and CCD design equations for anchor groups

42

Interaction of tensile and shear loads is considered in the design using an interaction expression which results in predictions of strength in substantial agreement with results of comprehensive tests [See Ref. 6 and Fig. 12]. The values used for the tension part of the interaction equation shall be the smallest of the anchor steel strength, concrete breakout strength, sideface blowout strength, or pullout strength. For the shear part, the smaller of the steel strength, the concrete pryout strength or the concrete breakout strength shall be used.

Nu φ Nn  Nu    φ N  n  

5

3

  +  Vu    φ n  V

5

3

=1

Trilinear Interaction Approach

0.2 φ Nn φ Vn Vu

0.2φ Vn

Figure 12 – Shear and tensile load interaction equation

6. Status
In North America, a task force of ACI 318 Subcommittee B developed and refined the current proposals that have been approved by ACI Committee 318. ACI 355 recently completed the post-installed anchor acceptance test standard [4], but it has been subject to procedural and legal challenges by one anchor manufacturer. Assuming resolution of this challenge, comprehensive design provisions will be in ACI 318-2001. Even if the challenge provides further delay in adoption of the provisions for post-installed fasteners, the new ACI 349B expressions will be widely used and cast-in anchors will be governed by the recently adopted IBC 2000 provisions. These are identical to the ACI 318 provisions given herein but are limited to cast-in applications. The proposed new Appendix to the ACI 318 Building Code is a very important step in harmonizing several existing design procedures. The user is allowed to choose any design models or design by test values that meet the general requirements. A design procedure based on the CCD design method is “deemed to satisfy.” The harmonization with the CEB task force leads to the hope that future fib recommendations and Eurocodes will be in close agreement with the new ACI approach.

43

7. References
1. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., and Breen, J., Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 92(1), Jan.-Feb., 1995, pp. 73-93. 2. American Institute of Steel Construction (1986). Manual of Steel Construction – Load and Resistance Factor Design. 3. Eligehausen, R., and Balogh, T., Behavior of Fasteners Loaded in Tension in Cracked Reinforced Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, 92(3), May-June 1995, pp. 365-379. 4. ACI Committee 355, ACI Provisional Standard 355.2-00, Evaluating the Performance of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI. 5. Comité Euro-International du Béton (1994). Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures – State of the Art Report. Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London. 6. ACI Committee 318, Proposed Changes to Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, scheduled to be published in June 2001 edition of Concrete International. 7. Eligehausen, R., Fuchs, W., and Mayer, B., Load Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fastenings in Tension. Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik, 12(87), pp. 826-832, and 1/88, pp. 29-35. 8. Eligehausen, R., and Fuchs, W., Load Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fastenings under Shear, Combined Tension and Shear or Flexural Loadings. Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik, 2(88), pp. 48-56. 9. International Code Council, International Building Code 2000, Falls Church, Virginia, March 2000. 10. Proposed year 2000 revisions to the 1997 edition of the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Federal Emergency Management Agency 302, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, 1997.

44

EVOLUTION OF FASTENING DESIGN METHODS IN EUROPE
Werner Fuchs Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
Since antiquity there has been a demand for more flexibility in the planning, design and strengthening of concrete structures in Europe. Although a wide variety of fastening systems have been invented over the years to help achieve this goal, our understanding of the behavior of these systems and the corresponding development of design provisions has only in the past three decades made significant advances. This paper gives a brief overview of the evolution of fastener design. Emphasis is placed on the importance of understanding the physics behind these problems and the need for a unified design approach throughout Europe.

1. Foreword
Stability, durability and aesthetics have always been primary concerns for buildings. These requirements have been equally important for fastening technology. In the 1st century B.C., Vitruvius described in his 10 books on architecture practical solutions for fastening applications. It can be assumed that fasteners played an important role in the construction of the Colosseum in Rome as evidenced by the ruins (Fig. 1). At many other excavation sites in Europe traces similar fastening devices have been found. At the beginning of the 20th century, the common thinking of the master builder with regard to fastening technology was: "leave well-enough alone". That is to say, use what has been proven to work. Consequently, fastening technology was restricted for many centuries to grouting or cast-in situ installation of steel parts. This dogma was thrown into turmoil as new construction methods were developed such as mixed constructions from concrete and steel or concrete and wood which placed higher demands on fastening technology. For the fulfillment of these tasks, new solutions in the fastening technology such as post-installed fasteners were provided.

45

Figure 1: Colosseum, Rome The diversity of products increased with the number of possible applications of fastening devices. For the user in the practice, it became difficult to find the correct fastening solution and to design safe connections. It became apparent that guidelines to aid in the design of structures using fastening systems was necessary.

2. Introduction
The push over the last two decades to reduce construction duration has brought about increased use of fasteners for the transfer of concentrated loads in concrete structures. Various types of fastenings, such as cast-in-place headed anchors, as well as postinstalled mechanical and chemical fastening systems, are available to meet a wide range of strength and application requirements. Furthermore, installation techniques have been developed for certain fastening systems, which have features that can be tailored to fit special construction situations and offer added constructability and productivity advantages. These advances have been brought about through extensive scientific work and today myriad prequalified, quality controlled products with demonstrated repeatable performance characteristics meet the ever increasing demand for safe and secure fastening products in a wide field of applications. This paper surveys fastener design techniques from past to present. It illustrates how fastenings were historically used to meet project demands and the progress of products for new applications. Some developments in building design codes are also highlighted. The review focuses primarily on developments in Europe, however, similar trends can be observed in other parts of the world.

46

3. Basic principles
Plutarch (45-125 A.D.) reported that the building contractors who promise quality construction and fast execution, with the lowest costs, will receive the contract for the erection of a building. The trade-offs between quality, costs and deadlines have apparently existed for millenniums and are still valid today for the discipline of structural fastening technology. As the use of fasteners has increased in recent years, so has the need to ensure their correct use on site. Faced with a bewildering multitude of fastening systems, the first question one must ask one's self is: 'Which kind of fastening type is most appropriate for my application?'. The second question is: 'How do I use it to achieve its maximum effect?'. This work is the domain of the engineer. The best design method and the most careful design by engineer, however, are of no use if the fastening device specified by the designer does not function reliably or is not installed properly. The factors influencing the successful design of connections are illustrated in Figure 2.
reliable fastening systems

satisfying design provisions

designer (accurate design)

installer (proper installation)

safe, economical, aesthetically pleasing connection

Figure 2: Success factors for connections It goes without saying that connections for safety relevant applications where fastening devices are used, should be planned and designed by experienced personnel. Reproducible calculations and drawings must be done. The fastening installation has to be carried out by properly trained workers. Reliable connections based on reliable fasteners and appropriate design procedures may be ensured only by cooperation of both: the designer and the installer. One should never lose sight of the fact that proper connection design and application are vital for the overall performance of a structure.

47

4. Evolution of fastening systems
As the development of new and innovative products in fastening technology has gained pace, design provisions have become considerably more accurate, more transparent and unfortunately, more time consuming. In Figure 3 the load-bearing principles of three commonly used fasteners are shown. Load transfer through mechanical interlock by anchor heads (Fig. 3a)) and grouting or glueing of steel parts to the base material (Fig. 3c)) are very old techniques. In the past the design of such fastening elements was based mainly on trial and error. Failure was to be avoided at all costs and it was for this reason that the fasteners were overdesigned in most applications. This poor engineering was due to a lack of understanding of the behavior of fasteners.

N

N

N

N

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 3: Load-bearing principles of fastening elements a) mechanical interlock (direct) b) expansion (friction) c) grouting, glueing (bond, shear) In 1920 a new era in fastening technique began, when John Rawlings applied a time tested scientific principle as a means of making fasteners. Namely, he used the principle of expansion (Fig. 3b)) to develop the first expansion anchors (Fig. 4). When a screw was turned into a threaded plug, the product expanded and tightly griped the side of the hole that had been made for it. The result was that the plug and screw become securely fixed. This invention immediately gained public favor for small fastener dimensions. It was not until the 1960's, however, that the real break-through for post-installed fasteners occurred: This was when the first electric compact hammer-drill tools were launched to the construction market. It became possible to drill large holes into concrete in a reasonable period of time. At about the same time the first post-installed glass-capsule

48

type adhesive anchors became available to the construction market and increased the range of applications for post-installed fastening systems. The use of post-installed anchors for structural applications began to soar, and today a big variety of fastening systems classified in cast-in situ fasteners and post-installed fasteners with different load-bearing principles are known and used in virtually every country of the world. The need for reliable design provisions taking into account the load-bearing principles is evident.

Fig. 4: One of the first expansion anchors

5. Development of design concepts
Fastener design provisions must account for several influencing factors. For example they must consider the type of fastener, its load-bearing mechanism, fastener material, fastener diameter, edge distance, anchor spacing, concrete strength, embedment depth, as well as for the conditions of the base material (cracked or non-cracked concrete), the type of loading and the loading direction. Early on there was little known about the parameters mentioned above. The designer, liable for his work with his fortune and perhaps even his life, had to design according to experience and gut feeling. Therefore, he may have used lower levels of safety in design for non-structural applications and more demanding safety levels for particularly sensitive structural connections. With the development of post-installed fasteners this situation changed. It was necessary to promote new products and to convince the engineering community of their performance. The design of early post-installed fasteners was primarily based on test results. Tensile loading was thought to be the most critical application. Therefore, values obtained from static, short-duration tests with single fastenings under tensile loading were published as technical data in most manufacturers' product information brochures. The producers recommended to apply a global safety factor 4 ≤ γ ≤ 5 to the mean ultimate load of the tests to account for variations e.g. in concrete, steel and fastening reliability. For non-standard applications the designer had to refer to his own experience and limited common knowledge. Until about 1970, no guidelines or standards for fastener testing and evaluation were available. Testing was conducted based on an individual laboratories' experience or

49

according to the manufacturers' recommendations. It became apparent that depending on the testing laboratory, the same product could end up with different load-bearing behavior, ultimate capacity and consequently, a different recommended allowable load. The need for harmonization of testing and evaluation procedures became obvious. In response to several, in part severe accidents mainly due to improper use and installation of post-installed fasteners, an expert committee 'Channel bars and dowels' was set up in Berlin, Germany in 1972 to refine the application of fasteners to allow for greater safety and durability. Thus began the first true research work in fastening technology with the goal of understanding the influence of the test methods on the fastening systems. The focus was on the most common case of predominantly static loading. The investigations yielded testing guidelines. The experimental program included tensile tests and shear tests far away from edges. Furthermore, the experience from a large number of fastener tests showed that the load-bearing capacity of the fasteners approximates a normal Gaussian probability density function. This allowed for the use of statistical evaluation techniques, which could relate the allowable load to the reliability of the connection. Thus, design could be defined based on the 5%-fractile with a global safety factor γ = 3 for concrete failure and γ =1.75 for steel failure. The minimum strength after evaluation was taken as the allowable load for each load condition: tension, shear and combined tension and shear loading. Acceptable quality levels were defined and the era of approved fastening systems began. The design was founded on experimental results, corresponding evaluation method and allowable loads for certain applications. In addition it became necessary to the manufacturer to shown by internal (plant) and external quality control (testing agency), that the product samples used in the approval tests are conform with of the products marketed. Only fastening systems which were approved were permitted for use in safety relevant applications. In 1975 the first approvals for post-installed expansion and bonded anchors as single fastenings with large edge distances and anchor spacings for applications in non-cracked concrete were released. Both the admissible loads and the fields of application were limited, however, and not in accordance with practical requirements. This is illustrated by the technical data of a sleeve type expansion anchor M 12 with an embedment depth hef = 80 mm: The allowable load in non-cracked concrete C20/25 was 5.7 kN at a minimum edge distance c1 = 130 mm, a minimum distance to the corner c1 = c2 = 180 mm and the minimum anchor spacing s = 450 mm. As our knowledge of the behavior of structural fasteners increased the range of applications regulated by German approvals was extended. Approvals were granted for double fastenings with post-installed anchors in non-cracked concrete (1978) and for single fasteners with expansion anchors in cracked concrete (1979). Then, the allowable load for an expansion anchor M 12 situated in cracked concrete was just 1.5 kN.

50

In the mid 1970's, the headed stud industry in the United States intensified testing and supported the development of the first design methods for applications in non-cracked concrete only [9]. The nominal tensile capacity of an anchor governed by concrete failure was assumed to be computed by the maximum concrete tensile strength acting equally distributed on the surface of an idealized truncated conical failure surface (Fig. 5). The inclination of the concrete break.-out surface was assumed to 45 degrees. The design of fastenings under shear loads was based on similar assumptions of the failure mechanism. Because this design approach was conceptually simple and in satisfactory agreement with the limited test results available at this time, it was adopted by ACI 349 [10]. Due to the lack of design aids for cast-in parts, the ACI 349 design method was often used by designers in Europe.

Fig. 5: Concrete tensile capacity of a headed stud [10] In the beginning of the '80s, comprehensive research in fastening technology started in Germany. The first physical models explaining the behavior and failure of different fastening systems were developed [4]. These models lead to the so-called κ-method for the design of fastenings (Fig. 6). The main research focus was on the load-bearing principles of mechanical interlock and the mechanics of anchor expansion (Fig. 3a, b). In 1983, the first approval incorporating the κ-method was published for cast-in-place headed studs in non-cracked and cracked concrete. In 1985 followed approvals, also based on the κ-method, for mechanical post-installed anchorage systems for use as fastenings in the tensile and compressive zones of slab-type and beam-type concrete and reinforced concrete structural members. Fasteners were placed in load classes according to their anchorage depth (Fig. 7). Fastening in the tensile zone (i.e. cracked concrete)

51

was regarded as the normal case. The permissible load in the compression zone (noncracked concrete) was about 1.33 times the value in the tension zone. The higher allowable loads in the compression zone could be used for design, if in each individual case it was shown, that the anchors were installed in a concrete member, which is under compression over the full embedment depth of the fastener. Then, for the example of an expansion anchor M12, installed to concrete C20/25, the admissible load in cracked concrete might be 6 kN (compare to 1.5 kN in 1979), in non-cracked concrete 9 kN (compare to 5.7 kN in 1975), the minimum edge distance c1 = 120 mm, a minimum distance to the corner c1 = c2 = 120 mm and the minimum anchor spacing s = 80 mm.

Fig. 6: κ-method for fastenings according to German approvals [6] The κ-method represented a significant advance in the design methods given in approval documents up until this point, which – with a few exceptions – were applicable only to single anchors in the compressive zone with large anchor spacing and edge distances. The κ-method permitted to determine the admissible load of a single anchor and of an anchor in a double or quadruple fastening far from and close to an edge. The admissible load for a fixture is calculated from the admissible load of an individual anchor located at considerable distance from other anchors and from an edge of a structural member by multiplication with coefficients κ (Fig. 6). The values for the admissible load of the individual anchor, the critical anchor spacings and edge distances, that prevent adjacent anchors from interacting with each other as well as the minimum spacings and distances were stated in the approval documents. However the κ-method of the German approvals still had the disadvantage, that the minimum of the capacities under shear and tensile

52

loading evaluated from test results regardless of the mode of failure was taken as the admissible load of the fastener for each load direction, i.e. the admissible load represented the most unfavorable case.

Fig. 7: Load classes for mechanical anchors in cracked concrete [6] In the mid '80s, approvals for mechanical expansion anchors were released by SOCOTEC in France, which allowed higher loads and a wider range of applications than given in the German approvals. The basematerial used to establish these approvals, however, was non-cracked concrete. The admissible loads for each product were derived directly from experimental results. Since the French system did not use load classes, allowable anchor loads were dependent on scatter of concrete strength and on the testing methods of the testing institute, where proof testing was performed. In other countries where no approval system existed the designer had to rely on information provided by the manufacturers. Most of these published data were based on fastener testing. The manufacturers believed that determining the ultimate or allowable loads for fasteners from 'theoretical (i.e. calculation) methods' e.g. the κ-method would not give satisfactory results because of the interrelationships of the many variables involved e.g. material strength, friction coefficients, etc.. Hilti developed a design concept very similar to the κ-method also taking into account product specific characteristics. In some cases even different sizes of a single product had different tuning factors. Furthermore, the Hilti design method distinguished between load

53

directions and in this respect was superior to the κ-method of the German approvals at this time. The various efforts to develop new design provisions reflected the increased need and demand to design reliable connections with cast-in-place and post-installed anchors at reasonable costs. Further improvements were necessary. The German design concept of one admissible load for all directions could be presented in a very simple form, however, it resulted in many cases in a considerable underestimation of the load-carrying capacity of the fastening. For reasons of economy, it was desired to optimally utilize the capacity of anchor-type fastenings in most applications. Thus it was necessary to develop a more application oriented approach. The first steps in this direction are documented in [6, 7 and 8]. In these documents expanded κmethods for the computation of concrete break-out failure of post-installed mechanical expansion and undercut anchors as well as cast-in-place headed studs under tension, shear and combined tension and shear loading fracture mechanics theory are explained in detail. Fracture mechanics indicated that the failure load increases less than the available concrete break-out failure surface. That means the nominal stress at failure (peak load divided by failure area) decreases. Furthermore, corresponding to widespread observations in tests, the κ-method is based on 35 degrees concrete break-out cones. Note, these are major differences to the ACI 349 design approach. It was determined that an improved design method should distinguish between different directions of loading, modes of failure and condition of the base material (cracked or non-cracked). In addition, modern design recommendations should consider all available test data and differences among already existing recommendations should be analyzed and reconciled. This task was performed at the University of Stuttgart and during the visit of the author to the Structural Engineering Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin in 1990-1991. During his visit the European and North American test data for cast-in-place and post-installed mechanical fasteners were assembled and integrated into a database to facilitate comparison studies with different design approaches. Furthermore, the κ-method to predict concrete capacity was adapted to make the design process more transparent and user friendly by implementing a rectangular prism model (Fig. 8). The combination of the accuracy of the κ-method and the transparency analogous to the ACI 349 cone model yielded the Concrete Capacitymethod (CC-method). The CC-method not only improved computation for design with fasteners, it also helped to increase the accuracy of the computed fastener capacity in comparison to design provisions using test results. Detailed results of the comprehensive studies leading to the development of the CC-method are given in [11]. A summary is published in [1].

54

The critical edge distance for headed studs, headed bolts, expansion anchors, and undercut anchors is 1.5hef . 1.5 hef 1.5 hef
≈ 35° h ef

1.5hef

1.5hef 1.5hef 1.5hef

Section through failure cone Plan view

A No = 2 * 1.5 h ef × 2 * 1.5 h ef = 3 h ef × 3 h ef
2 = 9 h ef

Fig. 8: Concrete cone surface idealized by a 35° prism, according to CC-method [11] To predict the capacity of other failure modes, such as steel failure, additional design models may be used. The pull-out capacity for typical cast-in-place headed studs has proven to be predictabe by calculation. Post-installed anchors on the other hand do not have predictable pullout failure loads and therefore they must be tested. Tests are also necessary to determine the minimum concrete member dimensions, minimum spacing and edge distances of fasteners to avoid a splitting failure. These values are characteristic of a product and are given in approvals or technical data sheets of the manufacturers. In 1987, in order to improve the design methods, the general knowledge and the awareness of the engineering profession in this area, the formation of Task Group III/5 (TG III/5) with members from academia, practice and producers from Asia, Europe and North America was authorized by the Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB, now fib). One of the TG III/5's first major tasks was providing test data to support the author in the construction of a data base of European fastener tests at the University of Stuttgart. Until 1991, the group produced a state-of-the-art report on fastenings to concrete and masonry, first published as CEB Bulletins 206 and 207. A revised hardcover edition was published in 1994 [5]. Therein the revised safety concept for the design of fastenings based on partial safety factors was introduced to Europe.

55

In the new safety concept it has to be shown that the value of the design actions Sd does not exceed the value of the design resistance Rd.
Sd < Rd Sd Rd

(1)

= =

value of design action value of design resistance

The partial safety factors for the actions depend on the type of loading and shall be calculated according to Eurocode 2 or Eurocode 3. The partial safety factors for the resistances cover steel failure, concrete cone failure, splitting failure and pull-out failure. Furthermore, the partial safety factor γ2, which indicates the sensitivity of a fastening system to installation inaccuracy, was introduced. It is determined as part of the proof testing in so-called suitability tests and may not be changed because it describes a characteristic of the fastening system. The partial safety factors can be found in the relevant approvals. In 1993, stimulated by these results, DIBt (Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik) replaced the traditional κ-method with the new CC-method and the new safety concept for postinstalled mechanical fasteners [12]. Cracked concrete still was assumed the normal state of the base material. In 1995 in Germany the first approvals based on this new design concept were released for headed studs and mechanical post-installed fasteners suitable for applications in cracked concrete. Compared to 1985, with regard to tensile loading nothing has changed. However, now the admissible shear load in cracked concrete C20/25 is 14,9 kN (compare to 6 kN in 1985). At the same time throughout Europe harmonized test regimes were developed to create data necessary to fit the new design concept and to prequalify the products for safety relevant applications. In 1995, the CEB TG III/5 published a comprehensive design method for cast-in-place headed anchors and mechanical post-installed fasteners in concrete based on the CC-method in CEB Bulletin No. 226, released as a revised hardcover edition in 1997 [13]. This approach to the design of mechanical anchors forms the basis for current design codes in Europe and the United States. It was adopted by EOTA in ETAG 001, Appendix C [14] in 1997. According to ETAG the design resistance is based on the performance of a specific product demonstrated in prequalification tests following the ETAG directive [14]. Corresponding to the type and number of tests, three different design methods are proposed. The relation between the design methods and the required tests is given in Table 1. The design method to be applied is given in the relevant European Technical Approval (ETA) of the product concerned. In design method A the characteristic resistance is calculated for all load directions and failure modes. It must be shown that Equation (1) is satisfied for all loading directions

56

(tension, shear, combined tension and shear), as well as all failure modes (steel failure, pull-out failure and concrete failure). To design the anchorage the loads acting on each anchor shall be calculated, taking into account partial safety factors.

Table 1: Design methods and required tests according to ETAG [14]
Design method cracked and noncracked concrete x x x x B x x x x C x x x x non-cracked concrete only characteristic resistance for C 20/25 only C 20/25 to C 50/60 x x x x x x x x x x x tests according ETAG Annex B, Option 1 2 7 8 3 4 9 10 5 6 11 12

A

x

Design method B is based on a simplified approach in which the design value of the characteristic resistance is considered to be independent of the loading direction and the mode of failure. In the case of anchor groups, the design is performed for the most highly stressed anchor. Design method C is based on a simplified approach in which only one value for the design resistance FRd is given, independent of loading direction and mode of failure. The actual spacing and edge distance must be equal to or larger than the characteristic values given in the relevant ETA specifications. With this combination of testing guidelines and design models EOTA was able to publish approvals for mechanical fasteners that are valid in the whole European community. This means that for a product with an ETA there are uniform technical data for Europe. This is a significant improvement from the old situation, where different national approvals and manufacturers' recommendations showed different technical data and fields of application for the same product. Furthermore, it is now easier to compare similar products. Trade barriers have been removed and since establishment of the first ETA in 1998, engineers can now design with fastenings almost without problems Europe wide. Today about 30 ETAs for different types of mechanical post-installed fasteners exist.

57

In accordance with European agreement after a transition period of 33 months after the publication of an ETAG , national approvals in the areas covered by an ETAG, are not allowed. For the first ETAGs the transition period takes longer i.e. for the ETAGs P.1 to P. 4 the deadline is June 2002. Since the establishment of the new design recommendations for mechanical anchors, in the mid 1990's the efforts of the CEB TG III/5 have been directed to channel bars and adhesive anchors. Channel bar and adhesive anchor design is still based mainly on knowledge from the 1980's. It is performed according to national regulations and recommendations of the manufacturers. It is hoped that design methods compatible with the CC-method can be formulated for these systems as well in the future. Work in this direction have already begun. It is under discussion in the now fib Task Group and is expected to be finalized within the next year. In 2000, the new Working Group of CEN/TC250/SC2 'Design of Fastenings' was given the task of coming up with a new Eurocode covering 'Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete'. The Working Group plans to include the existing design provisions for mechanical anchors and the soon to be completed design provisions for adhesive anchors and channel bars under static and fatigue loading [15]. Earthquake loading will not be covered in this document due to lack of published research. A key element in the design philosophy will be that fasteners and fastening systems must be prequalified using performance criteria described in ETAG, stated by a European Technical Approval (ETA) or relevant Eurocode (EN).

6. Conclusion
The first documentation of the use of fastenings to concrete was provided by Vitruvius over 2000 years ago. Up until the mid 20th Century, engineers were still designing fastening systems according to experience and gut feeling – often with huge safety factors thrown in for good measure. This situation changed dramatically with the development of hammer-drill tools and innovative post-installed fastening systems. The urgent need for the detailed understanding of the working principles of fasteners increased. In the last two decades very comprehensive research programs were undertaken to consolidate existing knowledge and significantly extend the general knowledge in the field of fastening technology. The efforts allowed the design of fastenings to be based on physical understanding. This allowed for the development of universal design models and their international application. Optimal utilization of anchor capacity in all applications under static loading using castin headed studs and mechanical metal anchors is possible by the existing CC-method. More recently, research efforts have been directed towards the design of grouted and

58

bonded (adhesive) anchors. A design method compatible with the CC-method can be formulated for these systems and is under consideration in Europe. Additionally, the design of cast-in-place channel bars following the principles of the CC-method, has been undertaken and is nearly finalized. The design of anchors for earthquake loading continues to be a focus of research and will hopefully be addressed in future codes. It is known that the load-bearing behavior of fasteners can be enhanced by properly detailed local reinforcement. Such enhancement can be included in future design provisions a s well as the resistance of fasteners under seismic load. To conclude, today fastening systems are reliable, economical and satisfy many needs in construction practice. However, it is important to keep in mind that even the most expensive fastenings form a nearly negligible part of the total cost of a building, and a failure can damage property and endanger lives. Connections - their accurate design and correct application - are vital to the performance of the building!

7. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express special thanks to Dr. Schätzle (fischerwerke), Dr. Arndt and Dr. Pusill-Wachtsmuth (Hilti), Mr. Tschositsch (Unibautechnik) as well as Mr. Frischmann and Mr. Zimmermann (UPAT) who provided brochures, technical data and product information that were needed to give a historical background. Special thanks are also accorded to Matthew Hoehler who spent many hours in reviewing the paper.

8. References
1. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., and Breen, J.E., Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 92(1), Jan.-Feb., 1995, pp. 73-93. Marsh, P., Fixings, Fasteners and Adhesives, Site Practice Series, Construction Press, London, New York, 1984. Maass, G., Bauwerksdübel, Werner-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1987. Eligehausen, R., Pusill-Wachtsmuth, P., Stand der Befestigungstechnik im Stahlbetonbau. IVBH Bericht S-19/82, IVBH-Periodica 1/1982, Februar 1982. Comité Euro-International du Béton. Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures – State of the Art Report. Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London, 1994. Eligehausen, R., Design of Fastenings with Steel Anchors – Future Concept. Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik, 5(88), pp. 88-100. Eligehausen, R., Fuchs, W., and Mayer, B., Load Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fastenings in Tension. Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik, 12(87), pp. 826-832, and 1/88, pp. 29-35.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

59

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

Eligehausen, R., and Fuchs, W., Load Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fastenings under Shear, Combined Tension and Shear or Flexural Loadings. Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik, 2(88), pp. 48-56. Cannon, R.W., Burdette, E.G., Funk, R.R., Anchorage to Concrete, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Dec. 1975. ACI 349-76, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1976. Fuchs, W., Entwicklung eines Vorschlags für die Bemessung von Befestigungen (Development of a Proposal for the Design of Fastenings to Concrete), Report to the DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, February 1991. Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), Bemessungsverfahren für Dübel zur Verankerung in Beton, DIBt, Berlin, 1993. Comité Euro-International du Béton. Design of Fastenings to Concrete. Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London, 1997. European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), ETAG, Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete, P. 1: Anchors in General, P. 2: Torque-controlled Expansion Anchors, P. 3: Undercut Anchors, P. 4: Deformation-controlled Expansion Anchors, P. 5: Bonded Anchors, Annex A: Details of Tests, Annex B: Tests for Admissible Service Conditions – Detailed Information, Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages, European Organisation for Technical Approvals, Brussels, 1997-2001. CEN/TC 250/SC/WG 2 'Design of Fastenings', Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete, 1st Draft, Brussels, 2001.

60

PROBABILISTIC CALIBRATION OF DESIGN METHODS
Richard E. Klingner Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Abstract
In this paper, basic steps in the probabilistic calibration of design methods are identified. These include identification and evaluation of test data; comparison of design models with test data; evaluation of safety in the context of an overall design approach; and final development of code language. Challenges to the success of each step are described, and means of overcoming those challenges are suggested. Finally, calibration is shown to be an ongoing process, one of whose benefits is to suggest areas in which additional research would be particularly cost-effective.

1. Introduction
This Symposium, had it been held a decade earlier, would have been quite different. At that time, many of the world’s researchers on anchor behavior were divided into two camps, which, if not opposing, certainly had different perspectives on how to design anchorage to concrete. Those different perspectives had been developed by technical committees of the Comité Euro-International du Beton in Europe, and the American Concrete Institute in the USA. In Europe, a broad-based and reasonably coordinated technical community, tied on many levels to the University of Stuttgart, was convinced of the reality of cracked concrete, and of the need to address concrete cracking in anchorage design. They were equally convinced of the potential weaknesses of traditional design methods for anchors, and of the need to develop and adopt new design methods. In the USA, an equally broad-based but much less coordinated technical community was beginning to examine these same issues. Instead of a single Eurocode, though, we had a bewildering array of manufacturers’ recommendations, consensus resource documents,

61

and model codes, which agreed with each other only on the broadest issues, and were sometimes in direct conflict. The past 10 years have witnessed a remarkable convergence of technical understanding among Europe, the USA, and other countries around the world with respect to design of anchorage to concrete. Most modern design provisions for anchors admit the possibility of cracked concrete, and require that anchor designs have reasonably consistent levels of safety. In a most important sense, this convergence is the result of tremendous work by individuals who believed that a connection to concrete should behave in the same manner whether it is designed and built (for example) in Austin, Texas, or in Stuttgart, Germany. Several key steps in that convergence depended on the successful probabilistic calibration of design methods. That is the subject of this paper.

1. Basic Steps in the Probabilistic Calibration of Design Methods
The probabilistic calibration of design methods can be discussed in terms of the following steps: o o o o identification and evaluation of test data; comparison of design models with test data; evaluation of safety in the context of an overall design approach; and final development of code language.

In the remainder of this paper, each step is described, and is illustrated by specific examples from technical committee work in the anchorage area over the past decade. Challenges to the success of each step are described, and means of overcoming those challenges are suggested, again with reference to one specific example: tensile breakout capacity.

2. Background for Specific Examples
Design codes are not intended to predict behavior. Rather, they are intended to enable practicing engineers to produce designs that are sufficiently safe. Nevertheless, if design codes are to be more than empirical expressions of what has worked before, their design equations must be linked to engineering mechanics and physical reality. The first linkage occurs through rational design models; the second, through comparison with test data. Let us first discuss design models, using the specific example of tensile breakout capacity. A decade ago, one particular area of controversy existed with respect to predicting the tensile breakout capacity of anchors in concrete. Many designers in the USA and elsewhere used the 45-Degree Cone Method, a traditional way of computing that capacity. A growing number of designers in Europe used what has now evolved into the CC Method.

62

The 45-Degree Cone Method assumes that a constant tensile stress of 4 f c′ acts on the projected area of a 45-degree cone radiating towards the free surface from the bearing edge of the anchor (Figure 1).
2hef+dh T

45º

dh

Figure 1

Tensile breakout cone as idealized by 45-degree Cone Method

For a single tensile anchor far from edges, the mean cone breakout capacity is determined by:
2 To = 0.96 f c′ π hef 1 + d h hef

(

)

N

(1)

where: To f c′ dh hef

= = = =

tensile breakout capacity (kN); specified concrete compressive cylinder strength (MPa); diameter of anchor head (mm); and effective embedment (mm).

Breakout capacity is reduced by edges or adjacent anchors as a function of the reduction in area of the projection of the breakout cone on the free surface. The CC Method [1] computes the mean concrete breakout capacity of a single tensile anchor far from edges as:
1 To = k fc′ hef.5

(3)

where: To = tensile breakout capacity (kN); k = constant; equal to 13.48 for expansion and sleeve anchors, 15 for undercut and headed anchors, in SI units; f′c = specified concrete compressive strength (6 in. × 12 in. cylinder) (MPa);

63

hef = effective embedment depth (mm). In the CC Method, the breakout body is in effect idealized as a pyramid with an inclination of about 35 degrees between the failure surface and the concrete member surface (Figure 2). Breakout capacity is reduced by edges or adjacent anchors as a function of the reduction in area of the projection of the breakout pyramid on the free surface. Other modification factors are used as well.
3hef 3hef

h

ef

35º

Figure 2

Tensile breakout body as idealized by CC Method

3. Identification and Evaluation of Test Data
A decade ago, technical discussion of the relative merits of the 45-Degree Cone Method and the CC Method for predicting tensile breakout was complicated by the fact that there was no consensus database of test results that could be used as a standard. Proponents of each method referred to separate sets of test data. To cut through that Gordian knot, Dr. Werner Fuchs, during a stay as a Visiting Researcher at The University of Texas at Austin, began to assemble such a database. He identified original test reports from all over the world; he placed each tensile test in a common framework of units (both US customary and SI); and most important, he began the process of evaluating each test result to distinguish those tests governed by steel failure, from those governed by pullout, and from those governed by concrete breakout. His original work was done in DOS. Since then, the database that he began has been converted into Excel, has been expanded to include many more tests, and has been even more extensively studied [2, 3, 4]. It is in the public domain, and is maintained by ACI Committee 349 (Subcommittee 3) and ACI Committee 355. The database for tensile breakout behavior in uncracked concrete under static load now numbers almost 1600 tests, partitioned into shallow and deep embedment, absence or presence of edge effects, and absence or presence of adjacent anchors. For cracked

64

concrete, dynamic loading, or combinations of these, statistically significant number of tests (for example, 50 to 200) are available in several categories.

4. Comparison of Design Models with Test Data
The next step is to evaluate each design model with respect to the consensus database of tensile breakout results. In the case of models for predicting tensile breakout capacity, the required steps are as follows: 1) For each failure mode, ratios of tested capacity to that predicted by the design provisions are computed. The ratios are plotted as a function of embedment depth. 2) The resulting plots are evaluated, using the criteria that an ideal design method should have: a) no systematic error (that is, no variation in ratios with changes in embedment depth); b) high precision (that is, little scatter of data); and c) appropriate conservatism, achieved by a combination of normalizing criteria for the design equation (mean versus lower fractile), load factors, and φ-factors. Examples of those plots are given in Figure 3 and Figure 4, for single tensile anchors with shallower embedments, for the CC Method and the 45-Degree Cone method respectively. Both methods have been normalized so that they predict approximately the mean capacity from test results. The implications of this normalization are discussed in more detail later in this paper. Comparison of those figures shows that the CC Method has little systematic error (that is, almost zero slope), high precision (that is, relatively low dispersion), and appropriate conservatism (mean values close to unity for this normalization). In contrast, the 45-Degree Cone Method, while at least as conservative, has high systematic error and lower precision.

65

RATIOS OF OBSERVED TO PREDICTED CAPACITIES, CC METHOD, SHALLOWER EMBEDMENTS 3.5 3 2.5 (Nobs/Npre) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 50 100 Effective Embedment, mm 150 200 Mean = 0.981 COV = 0.197 y = 0.0009x + 0.9097

Figure 3

Ratios of observed to predicted tensile breakout capacities, CC Method, single anchors with shallow embedment
RATIOS OF OBSERVED TO PREDICTED CAPACITIES, 45-DEGREE CONE METHOD, SHALLOWER EMBEDMENTS, NO EDGE EFFECTS

3.5 3 2.5 (Nobs/Npre) 2 1.5 1 0.5 y = -0.0059x + 1.8074 0 0 50 100 Effective Embedment, mm 150 200 Mean = 1.356 COV = 0.266

Figure 4

Ratios of observed to predicted concrete tensile breakout capacities, 45Degree Cone Method, single anchors with shallow embedment

66

Plots such as these immediately indicate how to improve a given design method. Downward-trending systematic error, as in the case of the 45-Degree Cone Method, indicates that as embedments increase, the ratios of observed to predicted capacity tend to decrease. This means that as embedments increase, predicted capacities are too high, and it implies that the exponent of the embedment (equal to 2.0 in the case of the 45Degree Cone Method) should be reduced to a value between 1.5 and 1.6.

5. Evaluation of Safety in the Context of an Overall Design Approach
The next step is to compare the safety that will result from the use of different design models, in the context of a particular overall design approach. For example, as in the work of Farrow et al. [2, 3] and Shirvani [4], using each tensile breakout method, and a probabilistic analysis based on the design framework of ACI 349-90 Appendix B [5], the probabilities of failure under known loads, and the probabilities of brittle failure independent of load, are evaluated for each method. Any probabilistic evaluation of safety faces several daunting challenges: o o many design professionals are suspicious of probabilities; and many design professionals are unfamiliar with probabilistic tools.

For example, referring to Figure 3 and Figure 4, many design professionals, while recognizing that the 45-Degree Cone Method has greater dispersion than the CC Method for shallow embedments, would intuitively think that this greater dispersion would be compensated for by the former’s higher ratios of observed to predicted capacity, leading to approximately equivalent levels of safety for each method. This in fact is not the case. In spite of the higher conservatism of the 45-Degree Cone Method, its greater dispersion makes it less safe than the CC Method. Experience has demonstrated that while very few technical committee members (including this author) have the formal mathematical background to compute probabilities of failure in closed form, most feel reasonably comfortable with approximating probabilities of failure by Monte Carlo analysis, for which tools such as Schneider [6] are readily available and reasonably user-friendly. Monte Carlo analysis has the additional advantage of being practical when a design method involves complex logic with many possible branches. Using an assumed statistical distribution of loads, and known distributions of the ratios between observed and predicted strengths as governed by steel yield and fracture, and by tensile breakout, it is possible within the context of a given overall design approach, such as that of ACI 349-90 [5], to predict the probabilities of failure under given loads, or the probabilities of brittle failure independent of loads. Results of typical statistical analyses for known loads are summarized in Table 1. Higher values of β indicate lower probabilities of failure. The table shows that in most anchor categories, anchors

67

designed using the 45-Degree Cone Method to predict concrete breakout capacity, have a much higher probability of failure than if the CC Method were used. This is particularly evident for anchors with edge and group effects. Table 2 shows corresponding probabilities of brittle failure independent of load. These probabilities are essentially the probability of brittle failure if the load increases beyond the value used in design. For design against earthquakes or loads that are similarly difficult to predict, it is important to reduce the probability of brittle failure (“capacity design”). The 45-Degree Cone Method has much higher probabilities of brittle failure, than the CC Method. Table 1 Probability of failure under known loads for different categories of tensile anchors, ductile design approach, static loading, uncracked concrete CC METHOD ANCHOR CATEGORY Probability of Failure 5.46E-05 1.39E-05 1.92E-03 1.70E-06 2.23E-05 5.23E-04 β 3.87 4.19 2.89 4.65 4.08 3.28 45-DEG CONE METHOD Probability β of Failure 8.56E-04 3.14 1.99E-03 2.88 1.00E-03 9.87E-04 1.79E-03 5.08E-04 3.09 3.09 2.91 3.29

single anchors, shallower embedments single anchors, deeper embedments single anchors, shallower embedments, edge effects single anchors, deeper embedments, edge effects 2- and 4-anchor groups, shallower anchors, no edge effects 4-anchor groups, deeper embedments, no edge effects

68

Table 2

Probabilities of brittle failure independent of load for different categories of tensile anchors, ductile design approach, static loading, uncracked concrete CC METHOD ANCHOR CATEGORY 45-DEG CONE METHOD Probability β of Brittle Failure 0.066 1.51 0.369 0.335 0.198 0.848 0.717 0.125 0.273 0.573 1.15 0.603

Probability of Brittle Failure single anchors, shallower embedments 0.178 single anchors, deeper embedments 0.088 single anchors, shallower embedments, 0.206 edge effects single anchors, deeper embedments, 0.0405 edge effects 2- and 4-anchor groups, shallower 0.107 anchors, no edge effects 4-anchor groups, deeper embedments, 0.0621 no edge effects

β

0.922 1.36 0.821 1.75 1.24 1.54

6. Final Development of Code Language
Once a design method has been agreed upon, it is necessary to decide how that method should be expressed in code language. The following questions are relevant: o o How should the design method be normalized? How should appropriate load factors and understrength factors be derived?

Design methods can be normalized so that they predict either mean values, or some lower fractile (such as 5%). Provided that ratios of observed to predicted capacities are reasonably consistent from case to case, either normalization technique can produce equivalent levels of safety. Nevertheless, because the scatter of observed to predicted capacities varies from case to case, it is probably preferable to normalize design methods to a lower fractile of the expected capacity. It is simple to convert design models normalized on mean values, to models normalized on lower fractiles. For example, if a 5% fractile value is about 75% of the mean for the tensile breakout database, then design methods normalized to mean values can simply be multiplied by 0.75 to give the corresponding design methods normalized to 5% fractiles. For example, the leading coefficient k in the CC Method (normalized to mean values) for tensile breakout is 15 for cast-in-place and undercut anchors. If it is desired to normalize to the 5% fractile of test results, then the leading coefficient k would be 15 multiplied by that same factor of 0.75, or 11.25.

69

Probabilities of failure such as those presented in Table 1 depend on the load and understrength factors used in the overall design framework. To keep the probability of failure the same, if the load factor is increased by 10%, the understrength factor should be decreased by 10%, without any need to run additional probabilistic studies. In most cases, load factors are prescribed uniformly for all materials, and are beyond the control of those developing anchor design provisions. In such cases, it is necessary to arrive at suitable understrength factors by trial and error. In some cases, understrength factors will be constrained by practical limitations, such as being less than unity, or less than that corresponding so some other failure mode. If both load factors and understrength factors are constrained, the only possible adjustments may be in the fractile against which the design method is normalized. Finally, it is necessary to modify design methods to account for effects such as dynamic loading and cracked concrete. Modification factors for such cases are most appropriately arrived at by comparing the results of tests in which everything is held constant, except for the loading rate, or the presence of cracks.

7. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
In this paper, essential steps in the probabilistic calibration of design methods have been identified, and examples of how challenges to those steps were successfully overcome, with reference to the particular issue of methods for predicting tensile breakout capacity. Those steps, and the methodology behind them, need to be checked against new data and new design criteria. Finally, while more research is not always needed, the methodology outlined here can be used to indicate areas in which additional research information would be particularly cost-effective.

8. References
1. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen and R. and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, January-February, 1995, pp. 73-94. Farrow, C. Ben and Klingner, R. E., “Tensile Capacity of Anchors with Partial or Overlapping Failure Surfaces: Evaluation of Existing Formulas on an LRFD Basis,” ACI Structures Journal, Vol. 92, No. 6, November-December 1995, pp. 698710. Farrow, C. Ben, Frigui, Imed and Klingner, R. E., “Tensile Capacity of Single Anchors in Concrete: Evaluation of Existing Formulas on an LRFD Basis,” ACI Structures Journal, Vol. 93, No. 1, January-February 1996.

2.

3.

70

4.

Shirvani, Mansour, “Behavior of Tensile Anchors in Concrete: Statistical Analysis and Design Recommendations,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, May 1998. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures,” American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1990. Schneider, Jörg, “VaP version 1.6,” Institute of Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland.

5. 6.

71

CURRENT STATUS OF POST-INSTALLED ANCHOR APPLICATION IN JAPAN
Reiji Tanaka, Faculty of Eng., Tohoku Institute of Technology, Japan

Abstract
Currently about 450 million pcs. of post-installed anchors are being used annually in Japan. This report introduces the outline where and how these post-installed anchors are utilized. Japan Construction Anchor Association (JCAA) is now producing an approval system and design guide of post-installed anchors. This outline is also presented. This report aims for the comprehensive study on current status and overall picture in the near future concerning post-installed anchor application in Japan.

1. Post-installed Anchor Products Construction Anchor Association

Approval

Project

by

Japan

Japan Construction Anchor Association (JCAA) is preparing for the approval of post-installed anchors. Target products are confined to ones manufactured or sold exclusively by JCAA members. Foreign products sold by JCAA members are qualified to get approval. The initial application was accepted in January, 2001. 1.1 Product approval procedure Product approval procedure is shown in the flow chart of Table 1. 1.2 Approval Committee Approval Committee members are composed of more than 10 experts. Present chairman is Prof. Reiji Tanaka, Tohoku Institute of Technology.

72

1.3 Overall plan of product approval Followings are the outline of product approval project. Applicants Application Application receipt Receipt judgement

Notification of acceptance

Approval

Approval committee

Decision Yes/No

Notification of Yes/No

To sign the agreement

Issue of certificate

Renewal Table 1 Procedure of product approval

73

a) Target products All products which applicants wish to apply. But the secretariat will check in advance whether these products are qualified for JCAA approval. Post-installed anchors consist of metal anchors, bonded anchors and other anchor group. Applicants can freely select which category their products belong to. Basically every product can be acceptable by establishing the category of other anchor group and also their criteria can be specified by self-declaration. But at least they should have shape and form of post-installed anchors. b) Approved products 1) Approved products consist of standard type and special type. Special type is composed of Type 1 and Type 2. Standard type Approved products Type 1 Special type Type 2 The structure of approved products is shown below for metal anchor, bonded anchor and other anchor group respectively. Metal anchors Standard type Approved products Special type Type 2 Bonded anchors Standard type Approved products Special type Type 2 Other anchor group Type 1 Approved products Special type Type 2 Type 1 Type 1

74

2) Standard type Similar to JIS standard, acceptance criteria is already available and only those that pass this criteria can be approved. Standard type has the self-regulatory feature, and has an advantage of clear quality contents for the public such as JIS standard. Also users receive the merit of exchangeability of products. This type is very important in order to show the consensus of JCAA to the public society. Some standard testing methods are available to confirm the performance in the acceptance criteria. Approval shall be given to depending on the experimental results of those testing methods. 3) Special type It is also necessary to cope with the technical development and originality of each manufacturer. The acceptance criteria of those products are self-declared by applicants. After the reliability of the self declared contents has been confirmed, approval will be granted. Though the contents of evaluation items are self-declared, the evaluation process is the same as standard type, and therefore the approval level is never damaged. Plenty of products are considered in special type, and they are classified into type 1 and type 2. It is up to the applicant to which category he wish to apply. The evaluation items should include specific ones in addition to the standard type items. These specific items are also self-declared. Type 1 is supposed to those anchors designed by the JCAA Design Guide. On the other hand, type 2 is supposed to be designed in very simple form or used without any engineering approach. Its evaluation items and evaluation methods are self-declared. For example, evaluation items can be several ones like shape, material quality, strength, etc. But the minimum information for anchor performance is necessary. Though the quantity of evaluation items may be small. their contents are carefully investigated like standard type and therefore the approval level is never damaged. As for specific evaluation items for special type, some standard testing methods will become necessary. At this time nobody knows which specific items will appear in the future, and we can not prepare all standard testing methods. But for the time being we estimate following ones: cyclic loading test (tension and shear), crack test(tension and shear), thermal effect test for bonded anchors. The name of above mentioned “standard testing method” is tentative. When some new specific items appear, we will have to consider additional standard testing methods to cope with them. For both metal anchors and bonded anchors, the next table is applied for standard type as well as specific type. For other anchor group, the rule of special type is applied.

75

Standard type Evaluation item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 approval standard

Approval standard is available

Special type Type 1 Type 2 Evaluation approval Evaluation approval item standard item standard 1 ** 2 ** Self3 ** declaration 4 ** 5 6 Self7 declaration 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Specific items Selfdeclaration

Quality level of standard type and special type (Type 1 , Type 2) is as follows. Special type 1 > Standard type > Special type 2 Specific items are declared by applicants. Foe example, we consider strength effect, rigidity effect, cyclic loading effect, crack effect, and thermal effect as specific items for the time being. Evaluation items 1 through 15 of special type 1 are same as standard type. But the approval standard of special type is self-declared. The evaluation items of special type 2 shall be selected from the counterparts of standard type 1 through 15 and self-declared. Approval standard is also self-declared. Those anchors designed by JCAA Design Guide should belong to the category of at least standard type 4) Evaluation items and acceptance criteria Product approval is evaluated by next items. Evaluation items for metal anchors and bonded anchors are shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3 respectively.

76

Table 2 Approval items of metal anchors
Approval items

1) Shape, size and tolerance of anchor parts. 2) Material of parts. 3) Strength of parts 4) Hardness and ductility of parts 5) Thread class, appearance and surface finish 2 Subjects concerning quality 6) Shape, size and tolerance before and after “set” condition. and performance of anchor 7) Drill bit diameter, drilling depth and tolerance products. 8) Product strength 9) Hardness and ductility of products 10)Base material type 11)Scope of base material design strength 12)Tensile resistance 13)Tensile rigidity 14)Shear resistance 15)Shear rigidity Table 3 Approval items of bonded anchors
1 Subjects concerning quality and performance of anchor parts. Approval items 1 Subjects concerning quality and performance of anchor parts.

2

Subjects concerning quality and performance of anchor products.

1) Shape, size and tolerance of capsule 2) Material and strength of adhesive 3) Property of adhesive 4) Type, shape and appearance of anchor bolts 5) Material and surface finish of anchor bolts 6) Strength and thread class of anchor bolts 7) Drill bit size and tolerance 8) Drilling depth and tolerance 9) Base material type 10)Scope of design strength of base material 11)Environmental conditions 12)Tensile resistance 13)Tensile rigidity 14)Shear resistance 15)Shear rigidity

For the evaluation of approval items in Table2 and Table3, the acceptance criteria on quality/performance are given in Table4 and Table5.

77

Table 4 Quality/performance criteria of metal anchors Criteria 1 Shape, size and tolerance of anchor parts. Criteria 2 Material of parts. Criteria 3 Nominal yield strength and tensile strength of parts Criteria 4 Hardness and ductility of parts Criteria 5 Thread class, appearance and surface finish Criteria 6 Shape, size and tolerance before and after “set” condition Criteria 7 Drill bit diameter and drilling depth Criteria 8 Product material: nominal yield strength, tensile strength Criteria 9 Product material: Hardness, ductility Criteria 10 Base material type Criteria 11 Scope of design strength of base material Criteria 12 Tensile resistance Criteria 13 Tensile rigidity Criteria 14 Shear strength Criteria 15 Shear rigidity Table 5 Quality/performance criteria of bonded anchors Criteria 1 Shape, size and tolerance of capsule. Criteria 2 Material and strength of adhesive. Criteria 3 Mechanical property of adhesive Criteria 4 Type, shape and appearance of anchor bolts Criteria 5 Material and surface finish of anchor bolt Criteria 6 Strength and thread class of anchor bolts Criteria 7 Drill bit diameter and drilling depth Criteria 8 Drilling depth and tolerance Criteria 9 Base material type Criteria 10 Scope of design strength of base material Criteria 11 Environmental condition Criteria 12 Tensile resistance Criteria 13 Tensile rigidity Criteria 14 Shear strength Criteria 15 Shear rigidity 2.JCAA “Post-installed Anchor Design Guide” JCAA is now working on their original “Post-installed Anchor Design Guide (draft)”. Its working activities are nearly finished. Design Committee consists of eight members with chairman Prof. Reiji Tanaka, Tohoku Institute of Technology. I will give just the content of this guide below.

78

Post-installed Anchor Design Guide and its Commentary (Draft) Contents 1. General rules 1.1 Scope of application 1.2 Post-installed anchors 1.3 Base material 1.4 Operation of post-installed anchors 1.5 Terminology 2. Design of post-installed anchors 2.1 Security of structural performance 2.2 Safety factor 2.3 Characteristic values of materials 2.4 Design load and design deformation 2.5 Design resistance and design deformation limit 2.6 Serviceability limit state design 2.7 Ultimate limit state design 3. Resistance and rigidity formula 3.1 Resistance and rigidity formula of metal anchors 3.2 Resistance and rigidity formula of bonded anchors 4. Structural specification Design example 1 Design example 2 Design example 3 Design example 4 Design example 5 Design example 6 Design example 6 Design example 7 Equipments fixed on floors (Underground) Equipments fixed on floors (High importance case) Equipments fixed on floors (Rooftop) Suspension Sign board (fixed on wall) Metal handrail Seismic reinforcing (added shear wall) Deformation design

79

DESIGN METHOD FOR SPLITTING FAILURE MODE OF FASTENINGS
Jörg Asmus*, Rolf Eligehausen** *Ingenieurbüro Eligehausen und Sippel, Stuttgart, Germany **Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
The failure of a fastening is often caused by a rupture of steel, anchor pullout or by a concrete-cone failure. In the past these failure modes have been intensively investigated and the associated failure loads can be calculated with sufficient accuracy [1]. For the failure mode splitting there exists no general equation to calculate the failure load. Therefore, theoretical and experimental investigations have been performed [2]. Splitting of a concrete member can be expected if the member dimensions are relatively small or in large concrete specimens if the fasteners are installed near to an edge or corner. The splitting failure load depends on dimensions and on material properties of the concrete member. Moreover, the design and load-bearing area of the fastener influence the failure load as well. In the present paper the results of experimental and numerical investigations in case of splitting are discussed and a design method to calculate the splitting failure load is proposed. Details of the design method are given to illustrate how installation parameters (dimension of concrete member and material properties) and the type of the fastener (headed anchor and undercut anchor) influence the splitting resistance.

1. Introduction
For fastenings loaded under tension concrete-cone failure, bursting failure, steel failure or pull-out failure are the most common failure modes (Fig. 1a-d). For these failure modes design methods are available [1]. However, fastenings in concrete can also fail by splitting (Fig. 1e). The corresponding failure load may be smaller than the concrete cone failure load. Therefore, the failure mode splitting has to be considered in the design of fastenings. The mechanism of splitting failure is not well understood and the ultimate load associated with it is not easily predictable. Currently splitting is prevented in Technical Approvals by prescribing minimum edge distances and spacing. These parameters have

80

to be determined in tests. However, to design safer and more economical fastenings for any geometry a realistic design method which accounts for splitting failure is needed.

a) concrete-cone failure

b) bursting failure

c) steel failure

d) pull-out failure

e) splitting failure

Fig. 1 Failure modes of fastening systems Splitting is especially relevant for anchor systems which transfer loads by high local stresses into the base material. These stresses are present for systems with mechanical interlock as well as for expansion systems. Therefore, a design method for the failure mode splitting valid for headed anchors, undercut anchors and torque controlled expansion anchors has been proposed [2]. In this paper the design model for headed anchors and undercut anchors is presented (Fig. 2).
A1

F

αΗead

Drilling pin a) Mechanical interlock b) Headed anchor c) Undercut anchor Fig. 2 Fastening systems with load-transfer mechanism mechanical interlock

81

2. Splitting failure mechanism
2.1. Numerical investigations To study the splitting failure mechanism numerical non-linear calculations using a realistic material model for concrete have been performed. In a three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis the splitting of a concrete block caused by a concentrated internal pressure has been investigated. The results show that the ultimate pressure at splitting failure depends mainly on the size and geometry of the specimen as well as on the size of the load-bearing area. When the structure geometry and the load-bearing area are scaled proportionally, the ultimate load increases approximately proportionally as well, i.e. no significant size effect on the splitting failure load is observed. However, if the structure size is scaled proportionally but the size of the load-bearing area is kept constant, there is a strong size effect on the ultimate load. The reason is the localisation of damage and consequently a decrease of the peak resistance by an increase of the size. The numerical results are in good agreement with the experimental observations [2] as well as with theoretical and experimental studies for concrete members loaded by locally applied compressive forces [2]. The numerical investigations are explained in detail in [12]. 2.2. Model When modeling the splitting failure mode it must be taken into account that anchors transfer high loads on a relatively small area compared to the size of the concrete member. The concentrated load causes highly concentrated stresses which are several times higher than the uniaxial compressive strength. In literature several cases have been studied in which small areas are loaded by concentrated compression forces [4], [5], [6]. On the basis of theoretical and experimental investigations the pressure σu under the loaded area A1 is assumed to be proportional to the square root of the ratio between loaded area Ao and load transfer area A1 σu ∼ (Ao/A1)0,5. The investigations in [10] show that the square root relationship is valid for a range of Ao/A1 ≤ 950 which covers the range valid for fasteners. Assuming the tensile capacity of concrete as proportional to fcc0,5 the following equation for splitting resistance is recommended in [10]: Nu,sp = 4,65 ⋅ A10,5 ⋅ Ao0,5 ⋅ fcc0,5 (1)

When loading a small concrete area on the surface of a concrete member by a rigid disk the typical failure mechanism shown in Fig. 3a) is observed. First, a local failure on the concrete surface occurs, which is associated with radial cracking and spalling around the disk. If the ratio A1/Ao is high below the disk a sheared compressed cone with an angle between 25° to 40° is observed. Fig. 3a) shows a typical schematic cross section of a concrete specimen loaded by a stiff disk. With increasing load splitting failure may occur due to the wedging action.

82

In case of headed or undercut anchors the concrete around the load bearing area is confined. Therefore no spalling is possible. As shown in numerical investigations [12] the loading zone is high compressed in all directions. Under the compressed volume zone high tensile strains localize in the radial as well as in the splitting direction and failure is caused by splitting. The failure mechanism is very similar to the failure mechanism shown in Fig. 3a). Therefore in principle, Equation (1) is also valid for headed anchors. However, certain modifications must be taken into account. While the loaded area Ao can easily be calculated the definition of the area A1 needs some considerations (see section 3.1).

Loading plate member surface sheared compressed concrete
h LE
h LE

Fastening by mechanical interlock
αB
αB

Concrete member Sheared compressed concrete

a) Partial loading on a concrete surface Fig. 3 Load-transfer mechanism

b) Loading by a headed anchor in a concrete member

Based on the Mohr-Coulomb-law and a friction angle of concrete φ of about 36° [11] an angle of the compressed cone αB = 27° is determined [2]. This angle, α deduced by theoretical considerations, φ N agrees well with angles observed in α tension pull-out tests with headed anchors RES F [8]. In tension tests with headed anchors a shearing of the concrete in front of the R (α+φ) anchor head with an angle of about 25° is observed. Because the sheared compressed F Fig. 4 Forces in the load bearing area of cone in front of a headed anchor has angle αB = 27°, a similar behavior for headed a headed anchor anchors with a head angle (see Fig. 2b) between αHead= 27° to 90° is to be expected. For a head angle αB < 27° the splitting and bursting forces increase significantly. Therefore, the higher splitting forces of fasteners with mechanical interlock with a head angle αB < 27° have to be taken into account when calculating the splitting failure load. From the mechanical model shown in Fig. 4 a factor kα is introduced in Equation (2) to consider a head angle αB < 27°.
z
SP

83

3. Calculation of the Average Failure Load for Splitting
3.1. General In [2] it is shown that a substitution of the loaded area Ao by the fracture area Acrack is needed. The fracture area depends on member size and edge distance. The fracture area for anchors installed in the middle of a narrow concrete member is defined by the member width b and the member height h. Numerical and experimental investigations with anchors installed in a large specimen near the corner or edge the typical splitting failure mode as shown in Fig. 5b is observed. The splitting crack appears at a specific angle β to the edge. In Fig. 6 the angles as observed in tests are plotted as a function of the edge distance. Besides the results of tension pull-out tests also results of tests with a shear load to the edge [7] are evaluated in Fig. 6. The test results can be approximated by Equation (6), which is represented by the line in Fig. 6. A similar result have been found for fasteners at the corner Equation (7). Equation (6) and (7) are valid for an edge distance c ≥ 40 mm. Furthermore, the splitting area must be restricted to a member height h ≤ 2hef (hef = embedment depth) because the concrete at a distance larger than hef is not stressed significantly [2]. Therefore, the member height in the calculation is limited by h ≤ 2hef (compare Equations (4) and (5)). Equations (2) to (7) give the average splitting failure load of a single fastener with mechanical interlock. In [2] equations for calculating the failure load of double and quadruple fastenings are given. Furthermore, an equation valid for torque controlled expansion anchor is proposed as well. Nu,sp = 4,65 ⋅ kα ⋅ A10,5 ⋅ Acrack0,5 ⋅ fcc0,5 kα = 0,51⋅tan (αB + 36°) = 1
fastening member h fracture area Acrack
c1

(2) for αHead < 27° for αHead ≥ 27° (3)

fracture area Acrack

h

c3

b b

c1

c2

Fastener installed in the middle of b) Fastener installed at the edge or a narrow concrete member corner (5) h ≤ 2 hef ACrack = rCrack ⋅ h h ≤ 2 hef (4) ACrack = b ⋅ h Fig. 5 Failure area in a concrete member loaded by a fastener

a)

84

60

Angle of crack ß [°]

50

40

30

20

ß
10

ß

rcrack/2

c1

0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Edge distance [mm]
h = 120 mm h = 240 mm Shear load to edge (scatter range) h = 160 mm tension, Blow-out sin (21 + 0,15c)

Fig. 6

Splitting of a single fastener located at the edge; angle of crack as a function of the edge distance
2 ⋅ c1 sin (21 + 0,15 ⋅ c1 )

rcrack,edge =

(c1 ≤ 40 mm: r = 4,4c; c1 ≥ 160 mm: r = 2,8c)

(6)

rcrack,corner =

2 ⋅ c1 sin (61 − 0,1 ⋅ c1 )

(c1 ≤ 40 mm: r = 2,4c; c1 ≥ 160 mm: r = 2,8c)

(7)

3.2. Undercut Anchors Headed anchors are cast-in-place systems, while undercut anchors are systems installed in hardened concrete (post-installed systems). Undercut anchors transfer tension loads to the concrete primarily through mechanical interlock. Nevertheless, there are some differences between headed anchors and undercut anchors. Fig. 7 shows details of the load-bearing area of an undercut anchor. The annular gap between the anchor sleeve and the wall of the drilled hole and gaps between the elements of the expansion sleeve reduce the load-bearing area. Furthermore, with some types of undercut anchors with increasing tension load the cone is drawn further into the expansion sleeves. Due to this follow-up expansion the expansion forces are increased. Furthermore, the concrete surrounding an undercut anchor is affected by the drilling process. The aggregate granules may split when drilling the hole or when generating the undercut.

85

To consider these differences to headed anchors for the calculation of the splitting failure load of undercut anchors a factor kp is introduced in Equation (2): Nu,sp,undercutanchor
hLE Drilling pin

= kP ⋅ Nu,sp

(8)

kP ≤ 1 product factor The factor kp is product dependent. For headed anchors it is kp = 1.0. For undercut anchor it must be evaluated by tests. For typical undercut anchors values kp = 0.8 to 1.0 have been found.

Undercut elements Sleeve Space Threaded rod Load bearing area b d1

d2

Fig. 7

Expansion zone of an undercut anchor

4. Comparison with experimental data
To evaluate the proposed design method, numerous tests with undercut anchors (see Fig. 2c) were carried out. In these tests several influencing factors were investigated. According to Equation (2) the splitting failure load of systems with mechanical interlock depends on the member width or edge distance, member height and other parameters of the fastening system (embedment depth hef, load-bearing area A1). Fig. 8 a) to d) shows the ratio of the measured and calculated splitting failure load in narrow concrete member (compare Fig. 5a) plotted as a function of edge distance (c = b/2), member height, embedment depth and load-bearing area. The splitting failure load is calculated with a factor kp = 1, i.e. for a headed anchor. The head angle of the undercut anchor is 18°. An optimal agreement between measured and calculated splitting failure loads corresponds to Fu,test/Fu,calc = 1. The comparison shows a good agreement between the proposed formula and the experimental data. Furthermore, a histogram for the ratio of measured to calculated splitting failure loads is shown in Fig. 9. The diagram is based on the results of 164 tests with single fasteners in narrow concrete members. The coefficient of variation is approximately 20%. The scatter is not significantly larger than that of the measured concrete tensile strength. The design formula visualises the effect of influencing parameters and it predicts the splitting failure load obtained in the experiments with sufficient accuracy.

86

2,00 Nu,s p,tes t/Nu,s p,calculation 1,80 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 0 100 200 300 400 Edge dis tance [cm] 500

2,00 1,80 Nu,s p,tes t/Nu,s p,calculation 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 0 100 200 300 400 500 M ember height h [cm] 2,00 1,80 Nu,s p,tes t/Nu,s p,calculation 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 0 50 100 150 Embedment depth h ef [mm] 200

2,00 1,80 Nu,s p,tes t/Nu,s p,calculation 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 0 100 200 300 Load-bearing area A 1 [mm²] 400

Fig. 8

Single fastenings with undercut anchors in narrow members; Ratio of the measured to the calculated splitting failure load as a function of (1 = optimal agreement): a) edge distance with c = b/2 b) member height c) embedment depth c) load-bearing area

87

50 45 40 35 30

n = 164 x = 1,08 v = 21,6 %

Number

25 20 15 10 5 0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Splitting failure load Test/Calculation

Fig. 9

Comparison of measured to calculated splitting failure loads; Single fastenings (undercut anchors) in narrow concrete members

In [2] more details are given related to the influence of the bending and the spacing of multiple fastenings on the splitting failure load. Furthermore, a design method for calculating the splitting failure load of torque controlled expansion anchors is proposed as well.

5. Summary
Splitting of concrete occurs when the dimensions of the structural member are too small or the anchors are located too close to the edge or are spaced too closely. The failure load is normally less than in the case of concrete cone failure. Therefore, the failure mode splitting has to be considered in the design of fastenings. In the present paper the results of experimental and numerical investigations are discussed and a design method to calculate the splitting failure load is proposed. Details of the design method are discussed to illustrate how installation parameters (dimension of concrete member; material properties) and type of fastener (headed anchors or undercut anchors) influence the splitting failure load. To demonstrate the validity of the proposed design method, numerous tests with undercut anchors were performed. The calculated and experimentally obtained failure loads agree with sufficient accuracy.

88

6. References
[1] European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA) (1994): Guideline for European Technical Approval of Anchors (Metal Anchors) for Use in Concrete, Final Draft, Sept. 1994. Asmus, J., „Bemessung von zugbeanspruchten Befestigungen bei der Versagensart Spalten des Betons”, Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, 1999. Eligehausen, R.; Mallee, R.: Befestigungstechnik im Beton- und Mauerwerksbau, Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH, Berlin, 2000. Lächler, W.: „Beitrag zum Problem der Teilflächenpressung bei Beton am Beispiel der Pfahlkopfanschlüsse.“, Dissertation, Institut für für Grundbau und Bodenmechanik der Universität Stuttgart, 1977. Spieth, H.P: Das Verhalten von Beton unter hoher örtlicher Pressung und Teilbelastung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Spannbetonverankerungen. Dissertation TH Stuttgart, 1959. Niyogi, S. K.: The Bearing Strength of Concrete-Geometric Variations; ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division No. 99, July 1973. Fuchs, W.: Tragverhalten von Befestigungen unter Querlast in ungerissenem Beton, Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton, Heft 424, Beuth-Verlag, 1992. Furche, J.: Zum Trag- und Verschiebungsverhalten von Kopfbolzen bei zentrischem Zug, Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart, 1994. Furche, J.; Eligehausen, R.: „Lateral Blow-Out Failure of Headed Studs Near a Free Edge“, In: Senkiw, G. A.; Lancelot, H. B. (Herausgeber), SP-130, Anchors in Concrete, Design and Behaviour. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991, S. 235 - 252. Lieberum, K.-H.: Das Tragverhalten von Beton bei extremer Teilflächenbelastung. Dissertation an der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, 1978. Szabo, G.: Über die Berechnung der Bruchlast örtlich belasteter Stahlbetonkörper, Betonstein-Zeitung, Heft 2/1963. Asmus, J.; Ozbolt, J.: Numerical and experimental investigations of the failure mode splitting of fastenings, Symposium on connections between steel and concrete, University Stuttgart 2001 Furche, J.: „Spalten des Ankergrundes Beton infolge zentrisch belasteter formschlüssiger Befestigungsmittel“; Nachtrag zur Diplomarbeit Bohner (1988), Bericht Nr. 9/7 - 88/20, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart, 1988.

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

[6] [7] [8]

[9]

[10]

[11] [12]

[13]

89

BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN OF FASTENINGS OF SHEAR LUGS IN CONCRETE
Harald Michler, Manfred Curbach Dresden University of Technology, Germany

Abstract
Research on special structures with shear lugs to transmit high values of shear load to fixed ground has been carried out. An additional loading with normal force and bending moment is possible, but the shear load will be the main loading. In this case the base will be concrete and the fitting will be made of steel. The fixing is built into the green concrete. The advantage of the fittings with shear lug is reasonable in the splitting of the load transfer. The special components of the load especially the shear load is transmitted by highly specialized structural parts. The behaviour and capacity of these structures will be shown.

1. Introduction
An experimental and theoretical analysis of the bearing behaviour of complex shear loaded fixtures with shear lugs has been carried out at Dresden University of Technology, which was supported by the DFG. As part of the working group ”Design of Fastenings in Concrete (Design Guide of fib)”, fastenings are examined for the transfer of great surface parallel shear loads into the concrete structure [1] [2] [3]. The experiments discussed later are an extension of work done at the Bechtel Power Corporation in Ann Arbor, Michigan and at the former Institute of Reinforced Concrete in Dresden. The earlier experiments in Dresden are the basis for this examination [4] [5]. The analysed units are different from systems based on friction or prestressed units. And they do not need any normal pressure, which is a usual feature of a steel pillar feet. The analysis has turned the attention to a major shear force load combined with small normal forces either in tension or compression and also a bending moment or not. The basic idea of the new components is the construction from highly sophisticated and specialised modules.

90

The fixings mentioned can be used F for any kind of concentrated load fixture transmission or assembly joints M fitting between structural concrete (steel) V components, steel/wooden structures or other concrete elements loaded base plate parallel to the surface. Possible fields abutting of application of the new components padding will be all cases that match to the face principle of corbel load introduction. tie bar shear lug The strengthening of existing = round bolt concrete structures using additional headed Ø14 steel structures, fixing facade anchor bolt elements on the main construction Figure 1 Schema of fixing, main parts part or supporting girders using a corbel may be some examples for future applications. As shown in Figure 1, the component always consists of three main parts: the base plate, the shear lug and the tie bar. The base plate parallel to the surface is the interconnection between the load and the actual anchoring components, the shear lug and the tie bar. The design of the shear lug is supposed to deliver an optimal transmission of the shear force into the concrete component and the tie bar is designed only for the transfer of tension forces. Because the shear lug has a rectangular cross section with flat surfaces, the load transmission is more effective than the load transmission of the tie bar. Even it is possible to easily built a stress distribution at fixing systems much greater cross section than the circular cross • bending stiff • rigid joint section of a traditional anchor bolt of shear lug round anchor bolt. So the tie h e bar has only been a b considered as transmission of tension forces either from R2 h e external load or resulting from the eccentricity of the shear force V (see Figure 2). Normal compression forces R1 are transmitted directly R1 using the base plate. For this loading no further special cross section cross section elements are needed. So the of anchor bolt: of shear lug: specified construction is most ideal for great shear Figure 2 Comparison of stress distribution, anchor forces in combination with bolt and lug

V

V

l/2

l/2

91

lower normal forces or bending moments. A design concept for this shear anchorage will be presented here. The concept is based on numerous tests, and a numerical description will be discussed. The resistance will be explained in dependence on different stiffness conditions, especially the geometry and material of the lug, various depths of embedment of the lug and the tie bar, different strength of the concrete ground and, of course, different load combinations. In addition to the failure modes and the capacity, the ductility of the construction will be described.

F M
eS eV eD

V

RS RA
eA/2 eA/2

FA

RD
shear lug

Figure 3

Forces at the fixture

2. Testing
The tests have been carried out at the OTTO MOHR LABORATORY at the INSTITUTE OF STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS IN DRESDEN. The fittings are designed in the style of experiments carried out before. But, the double symmetric design of these former experiments is given up for the benefit of a directional layout. In this manner the individual elements can be specialized more consequently. In Figure 1, a schematic profile view is presented. It is easy to see that the shear force V is only suitable in one direction, according to the design. Consequently there is only one headed anchor bolt placed behind the shear lug, the tie bar. Its task is to take the tension part from the equilibrium moment and introduce it into the anchor ground. In front of the lug a weaker pressure-anchor is placed. Between these elements the shear lug itself is placed. It serves to transfer the shear load to the concrete base. The shear lug is supported by the base plate. The front end face of this base plate also transfers a part of the shear load to the ground. The experiments are designed to make the concrete failure in front of the lug decisive. A possible breaking of the tie bar bolt due to shear load is prevented by padding the bolt shaft directly below the base plate. By this coating, the concrete in this area is not connected to the tie bar shaft and no shear load can be transmitted. This will be the theory until there is a moving of approximately 2 mm. Therefore, the tie bar is only loaded by a tensile normal force, according to plan. There are three mechanisms which may lead to a breakdown of these fittings. These are: 1) concrete failure; shear failure of the concrete part in front of the lug and/or the base plate, or rather crushing 2) steel failure of the shear lug, shear failure or plastification and rotation 3) breaking down of the tie bar a) concrete cone failure or pull-out failure b) steel failure

92

The concrete failure aspect should be examined mainly. A failure according to 2) and 3) is not planned, however, it represents important limiting conditions for failures according to 1). This mutual susceptibility can be shown if we look at the reaction forces RD, see Figure 3. The quantity of RD represents the main part of the shear force. But the eccentricity, say eD, of it sets the loading of the shear lug by the bending moment and of Figure 4 Fixings with rigid block lugs course the load of the tie bar FA according to the equilibrium moment. But this eccentricity itself is influenced by the vertical movement of the tie bar – theory of 2nd order. RD is based on the multiaxial compressive stress in front of the shear lug, and this stress itself is dependent on the tie bar extension. The whole tests are divided into three parts, to investigate the essential experimental parameters. The mean parameters are: concrete strength, lug stiffness, anchoring depth of the lug and the tie bar, and of course the load carrying capacity of the tie bar. Its influence on the shear load capacity of the shear lug will also be of interest. Figure 4 shows the fittings of a series of experiments of the 1st group. We see the stiff box lugs, composed from two channel sections, with stepping of 0 cm, 4 cm and 8 cm anchoring depth. By the first group the influence of the concrete strength is investigated, also the lug stiffness and the anchoring depth of the lug are varied. The lug stiffness is achieved by two different lug designs. On the one hand, flat lugs made from steel plates - 2 cm thickness. They will be called soft lugs. On the other hand, inflexible box lugs composed from two welded channel sections, which are the stiff ones. The cell composed from them is filled by concrete, too. All these lugs are tested with anchoring depths of 4 cm and 8 cm. So the building relevant sizes are covered. In each series fittings also are tested without lugs at all, so the anchoring depth will be 0 cm. In this case only the base plate will transmit the shear load to the ground. The tie bars are varying at 20 and 30 cm. Hereby the swapping stress state in front of the shear lug is tested. It is influenced by the volume belonging to the pull-out failure of the tie bar, and the stress in front of the shear lug itself. In the second group, the concrete strength is then held unchangeable and the load combination is varied. Only the soft flat-sheet lugs are applied with 4 and 8 cm anchoring depth. Besides an additional eccentricity of the shear force V, an unchangeable tensile or compression normal force F is applied. The tie bar anchoring depth itself is unchangeably 30 cm. In the third group, the experimental body is changed, first the location of the base plate is bonded in the concrete and, second on top of the concrete. Only soft 4 cm and 8 cm lugs are used. The solid experimental body, measuring 120·120·90 cm, of the first two groups is changed in the last group. Here a narrow rectangular reinforced column measuring

93

45·45 cm is used. The effect of a placing of the fittings close to the edge should be examined hereby, and of course the influence of reinforcement. All experiments are designed to expect a failure of the concrete in front of the load transmitting faces. Only if higher strength classes of concrete and the stiff box lug are used, pull-out-failure or steel failure of the tie bar is to be expected.

3. Crushing mechanics and behaviours

V

The failure case ”exhaustion of lug load-carrying v 1 v2 v6 v7 w4 capacity” is used for the assessment of lug effects and ability. This failure is characterized by w6 shearing a wedge-shaped concrete volume in front of the base plate, in general (Vks failure). With beginning loss of the pressure transmitting in front of the base plate the shear force itself is V 3 increasingly relocated to the shear lug and finally onto the bolt of the tie bar itself. This will 1 2 4 6 7 happen if the bolt will crush onto the concrete face after the padded path around the tie bar is used. The ability of the tie bar to pick up these 5 additional loads and to transmit them to the concrete decides whether it comes to an immediate Figure 5 Measuring points with breaking of fixing or a stable balance can still shift direction appear in the deformed state in spite of damage. The exact description and explanation of the damage process is of decisive importance. From the first crack to the crack propagation and the final crushing down, the whole procedure of damage is to be observed to do a valid description of the cause to fracture and the evaluation of a calculation model. Special attention must be given to the special cause that will release the final breaking down. The failure of the concrete can be traced back to four basic cases. These can occur both in a pure form and in combination: a) Loss of the stress transmission in front of the base plate by shearing a wedge sized concrete volume in front of the base plate face or damage of concrete in this area. The shear force is shifted onto the shear lug and possibly the anchor bolt of the tie bar. b) Shearing of an wedge sized concrete volume according to a) with immediately following breaking down of the tie bar near the base plate due to combined tensile shear load. c) Tie bar outbreak due to the load attacking at the tie bar head, with an outbreak of a cone behind the base plate. (pull-out failure) d) Complete destruction of the experimental concrete body. Cracking starting at the shear lug will reach up to the component edges. A more detailed description of these basic cases is done in [8] [9] and [10].

v5 v4 v3

F

94

4. Structural behaviour and load-bearing capacity
Figure 6 presents a first view of all achieved ultimate loads. All experiments are plotted on one graph and the load is shown over the concrete compressive strength. It should be noted that all tested parameters are shown. Therefore the achieved loads need some comments, because different load applications, different forms of fittings and, of course, reasons of crushing are presented. Obviously the three classes of concrete compressive strength can be recognized clearly. Please note the fittings have two different shear transfer faces with quite a varying bearing behaviour. The base plate, embedded in the concrete, which will transmit important parts of the shear loading into the concrete at its front face. But only 2 cm are embedded in the concrete, and the result is an edge compression. The free surface does not allow the concrete to establish a multiaxial compressive state of stress, in the sense of partial load pressure. And the shear lug itself that transmits decisive parts of the shear load V. The concrete body in front of this shear lug is enclosed in concrete and steel. On the top it is protected by the lateral cantilever of the base plate and all the rest is enclosed in concrete, too. So the differB15 B25 B45 -> concrete strength ent conditions make it clear 0 cm 4 cm flat 4 cm box -> lug anchoring that the failure mechanism 8 cm flat 8 cm box depth and sort for the final crushing canD, e = 0 cm Z, e = 0 cm -> additional load . D, e = 10 cm Z, e = 10 cm e = 10 cm tension/compression not automatically be the same for the experiments V eccentricity F bewehrt, bewehrt without lugs and for the mit Stirn ohne Stirn e experiments with lugs present. 1200 Consequently, the consideration of a summary lug face AC [8], cannot allow a 1000 general estimation of ultimate load. Also it is not 800 possible to transfer the results to a more general layout of fittings. So the 600 failure of the base plate end face (Vks) is to view separately from the total failure 400 (Vges). Here Vks designates the shear load step that 200 brings the breaking out of the concrete in front of the 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 base plate front side. Vges f c [N/mm²] whereas is the maximum shear load achieved in the Figure 6 Total failure load of all tests experiment.

total failure load V [kN]

95

Concrete failure in front of the base plate, Vks e 1000 The dependence of concrete failure on the existing uniaxil or multiaxial stress 800 state is confirmed by the experiments. In certain 600 experiments, the concrete in front of the base plate is crushed and is shifted out without dowel 400 4 cm rigid dowel without a total failure oc4 cm soft dowel curring. Even this case of 8 cm rigid dowel 8 cm soft dowel 200 events often is difficult to e = 10 cm compressiv F discover in the load-distensile F placement diagrams be0 cause there is no sudden 100 300 500 700 900 relocation of the load failure load V ks [kN] transmitted in the base plate contact surface to the lug Figure 7 Possible increasing of load Vks to Vges surface. This failure load Vks due to concrete failure in front of the base plate only indicates that the complete shear load V is now transferred by the shear lug itself. It is still possible to increase the load after the concrete destruction on the end face of the base plate. This is shown by Figure 7. For the experiments without special shear lugs (black points), the load must be relocated to the tie bar if the Vks-failure occurs. The bolt of the tie bar will now act as a dowel and will be shear loaded, like the lug. It looks similar in the experiments with flat sheet lugs (triangles). The load increasing ability is smaller in the case of the experiments with 4 cm lugs and greater in the case of the experiments with 8 cm lugs. For the experiments with the stiff block lugs the load is not increased after the Vks-failure has occurred. In this case the load due to the Vks-failure is greater than or equal to the load of final breaking, but this will happen on a quite higher load step. The same also occurs in all experiments with enlarged eccentric load attack eV, and in experiments with additional tensile normal force. Merely in the case of the experiments with pressing normal force an appreciable load increase can be found in turn.
F

4.1.

V

4.2. Concrete failure in front of the lug – final failure Vges The concrete failure in front of the base plate brings a clear announcement of the breaking, but it will not automatically introduce it. Regardless of whether it is a question of block or flat lugs, in the fracture state the experiments show a concrete stress of 4.5 to 6.0 times fc for all the 4 cm lugs. The adequate values of the 8 cm lugs then range between 2.5 and 4.0 times fc, where the values of the block lugs fall out down. However,

increase of load Vks to Vges [kN]

96

for these block lugs no concrete failure is the final reason for breaking down. If the theoretical anchoring depth of all flat 8 cm lugs is reduced to 6 cm in general, the values will join the values of the F=0 4 cm lugs, too. By a pure F-tension shear load all the 4 cm lugs alone (flat and block) 0,2 0,6 1,0 1,4 1,8 give a concrete ultimate displacement v 4 [mm] stress of 5.2·fc. An additional pressure load increases this value to 800 7.1·fc, an additional tensile F-compression 700 normal force will reduce 600 the value to 4.1·fc. A 500 similar behaviour is to be 400 observed for an additional 300 eccentric load 200 F=0 introduction. A look at the 100 F-tension displacement values v4 and 0 w4 at the fracture state will show that an additional -0,2 0,2 0,6 1,0 1,4 1,8 normal force increases the displacement w 4 [mm] displacement considerably F v4 during failure. An Figure 8 Behaviour with tension w4 additional eccentric load and compression introduction with normal V force or without normal hD = 4/8 force then leads to lower values of the displacement value of w4 in the fracture state. Looking at the load displacements in Figure 8, the displacements v4 und w4 show the behaviour as it is described above. Figure 8 shows the displacements for 4 cm and 8 cm flat lugs without additional eccentric load introduction. The grouping of the lines is to be seen clearly. For an additional compressive normal load we get a very stiff behaviour, and the 8 cm lugs do not behave differently to the 4 cm lugs. The behaviour of both is much stiffer than in the case of pure shear load or shear load with additional tensile normal force. These experiments also react far more brittle than those with additional eccentricity of the load introduction. Arriving the maximal load the deformation will increase. Of course the load will go down hereby due to decreasing oil pressure, and the fitting in general is cut by shear force at the tie bar bolt.

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -0,2

F-compression

load V [kN]

load V [kN]

97

This is the reaction to fact that the concrete also has broken down in front of the lug. And the steel fitting glides up, on a wedgeshaped body of concrete that was formed in the corner between the base plate and the lug front face. Finally tests with additional tensile normal force show a much more brittle behaviour with a more sudden breaking down. Again, in principle it is not important whether 4 cm- or 8 cm flat lugs are used. Only the ultimate load is higher in the case of the latter. However, the principle of failure is not changed at all. It can be seen that the additional pressing normal force constitutes a kind of initial preloading on the tie bar. The preloading will help the tie bar and is to be directly subtracted from the rest of the tie bar load. The additional tensile normal load then is a preloading with additional load. Especially noteworthy is that the load displacement lines for v4 are identical for all of the experiments with compressive normal force without additional eccentric load. Here all the lugs with 4 cm and 8 cm act quite identically at any rate up to Vks-failure. However, the fact must be considered that the experiments with compressing and compressing eccentric load show a considerably more good-natured post-break behaviour than the experiments with tension and tensioneccentric load. This will effect the dimensioning of this fittings, by the possible choice of permissible stresses in front of the shear lugs. There will be a necessary differentiation according to load combinations, especially load combinations with tension. 4.3. Other failure modes Steel failure in the lug can occur in two variants. On the one hand, the lug can be cut by shear load in the place of the maximal stress. Both will happen as reaction to the situation of the concrete stresses in front of the lug. The type of distribution of these concrete stresses over the lug height is to be assumed here. These cannot be measured in the experiments and is examined by means of an FEM-model. The tie bar works like a normal force loaded headed anchor bolt, and will crash like that. (steel failure, concrete cone failure or pull-out failure.

5. Model of design
Finally, a simple model of dimensioning for these fittings should be presented. This must consider the three basic failure mechanisms separately (See Testing) Even if the different failure mechanism must not be considered completely independent, it is helpful for the checking process to do this. Within the framework of a simple and presumably rough dimensioning it is precise enough to isolate the failure mechanisms and to estimate deformations not at all. The key to the numerical dimensioning of the fittings is the concrete failure in front of the lug and/or the load transmitting face of the base plate. The knowledge of the resulting forces RS and RD will develop the loading of the tie bar, and all forces that will be transmitted in the fitting are known (see Figure 3). To know the location of the forces always a constant stress is assumed in front of the load transmitting surfaces. As shown, a concrete failure in front of the base plate can be distinguished clearly from a total failure. Furthermore, the dimensioning equations will be given for both, a permissible stress σm,AC and a permissible stress σm,AD. The stress of σm,AC will be combined with the available summary lug face AC, and no concrete out-

98

break in front of the base plate is to be expected. On the other hand, the pure lug face AD may be applied to the stress of σm,AD. This is the part of lug face in front of which a multiaxial stress state may develop. The load step of VAC may be considered by a concrete breakout in front of the base plate, but it will not matter. This will occur if the value VAD is greater than the value VAC. The consideration of these two values will also offer the possibility to dimension fittings without a base plate embedded in the concrete, too. 5.1. General verification equation With consideration of all available experiments, the equations (1) can be developed. Hereby hD is replaced, so it is more easy to handle the equation. The value hD is to be calculated directly from the total shear load and the permissible stress σm, because the stress σm does not depend on hD furthermore. Also reprocessing of e'V (e'V is the value from the test protocols) to eV is done.

σm, AC
fC

= 2,475 − 0,570 ∗

σm, AD
fC

F − 0,005 ∗ eV − 0,002 ∗ fC FA F = 9,175 − 2,270 ∗ − 0,0150 ∗ eV − 0,100 ∗ fC FA

a) (1) b)

Units [N] and [mm]; eV ≥ 25 mm
FA = FuE = 15,5 ∗ hr1,5 ∗ β w [N] (2)

A post processing of the experiments based on these relationships gives a good agreement with the experimental values. Naturally, for the experiments without lug only Vksfailure can be calculated. Here the final failure is characterized by a bolt shear fracture of the tie bar, and the yielding mechanisms can be found in the literature due to headed tie bars [6], [7]. For each of AC and AD, the possible value of shear load is calculated, and of course the depended value of FA, the normal force at the tie bar. The greater value indicates the permissible shear load Vges and indicates simultaneously whether a concrete outbreak is possible in front of the base plate or not. Of course, the tie bar has to be able to serve the dependent value of FA. Otherwise the permissible shear load is to be reduced. It should be noted that the tie bar can break down with a steel failure or a pull-out failure. In practice, the tie bar will be a headed bolt, and so the load carrying capacity is known (see equation (2)). In this equation the value of hr gives the anchoring depth of the tie bar. The tie bar diameter has no effect on the concrete-pull-out loading.

5.2. Model For dimensioning the fittings, the following model can be used. This model is used to get the test results by calculation and therefore it works with mean values. It is valid to all fittings which strongly separate shear load transmission from normal force transmission. Even the normal force component of the balance moment is served by the separate tie

99

bar. Using equation (1) to get the absorbable mean concrete compressive stress, the experimental total failure loads are reached sufficiently precise. Only the 8 cm lugs show a greater deviation in the results. This behaviour can be traced back to the approximation of the model itself. Naturally the effects on deformation will not allow a rectangular stress distribution in front of the lug over the hole anchoring depth. The effects of this state of affairs are more closely described in [11]and would go beyond the scope of this simple model. In detail, the procedure has to be carried out as shown in Figure 9: On the basis of the input variables, the absorbable mean concrete compressive stresses in front of the lug are determined. From these stresses the absorbable shear load is to be calculated. This total load is based, on the one hand, on the summary lug face area AC, and, on the other hand, on the pure lug face area AD. Notice that area AD will be only that contact surface which can develop a multiaxial stress status in front of itself. The bigger value of these two approaches indicates the absorbable shear load level - henceforth called V. If the shear load VAC is less than the shear load VAD, it is to be expected that the concrete will break out in front of the linked base plate, but still there will be a reserve available up to the total shear failure load given: searched: that will be V = VAD. The planned use and the secushear load V eccentricity eQ [mm] rity concept will decide normal force N [N] whether VAC as working tie bar load capacity F [N] A load may be exceeded or concrete strength fc [N/mm²] not. The form and stiffness of the lugs are still unimportant in this step. permissible stress / load Furthermore, the failure σm,AC -> tolerable VAC = σm,AC × AC of the single components is tested and they will be σm,AD -> tolerable VAD = σm,AD × AD dimensioned or the absorbable shear load V is load carrying fitness for use to be reduced to the capacity weakest part. In this step VAC ≥ VAD sudden crash it will be practically choultimate load VAC < VAD concrete breaks out in sen by which component tol VAC front of the linked base the final failure will be max =V tol VAD plate, but still load inintroduced. It is adviscrease to VAD possible able, to prove the tie bar first. Its load will be clearly given by the exdimensioning / verification ternal loading and the at the fixture (local) rectangular stress distribution in front of the base plate and the shear lug. Figure 9 Schema of verification The tie bar is to be veri-

100

fied with respect to steel failure as well as to concrete outbreak. At last the lug itself should be proved. The proofing is to be done in a separate manner for a shear failure, and bending failure that will result in plastic flow with rotation. The last one is not to be allowed, because no deformations are expected in this model. In this form the proving has the advantage that not a reduced anchoring depth of the shear lug has to be used. As a result, the shear load component in the lug is reduced by static system alternations and the applied concrete compressive stress state will remain unchangeable. Using this lug dimensioning model will result in great deformations of the fitting, and therefore the concrete will break in front of the base plate. In the case of very big values of lug anchoring depth combined with a very small value of the lug bending stiffness this dimensioning model should not be used because it does not consider the real deformations in the fitting. So the local load introduction is done. Of course, a secure load transmission to the supports is to be ensured, too. The investigation of a possible punching of the fitting is also to be made. This case is not so erroneous at mass components with low reinforcement. The test with stiff lugs and high values of concrete strength does show this.

Bibliographic references [1] Fastenings to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures, State-of-the-Art Report, Part I and Part II, CEB-Bulletin d’Information Nr. 206/7, Lausanne 1991 [2] Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures, State-of-the-Art Report, CEBBulletin d’Information Nr. 216, Lausanne 1994 [3] Design of Fastenings in Concrete, Draft CEB Guide Part 1 to 3; Fastenings to Seismic Retrofitting, State-of-the-Art Report on Design and Application, CEB-Bulletin d’Information Nr. 226, Lausanne 1995 [4] Rotz, J.V.; Reifschneider, M: Combined Axial and Shear Load Capacity of Steel Embedments in Concrete, Report Bechtel Power Corporation, 1991 [5] Körner, C; Schweigel, P: Nachweis der Betontragfähigkeit im Verankerungsbereich von Stahleinbauteilen, Betontechnik H. 1, 1986 [6] Rehm, G.; Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.: Befestigungstechnik, published in Betonkalender 1988, (Teil II-D, 609-753; 1997) and other following [7] Eligehausen, R. and other; Tragverhalten von Kopfbolzenverankerungen bei zentrischer Zugbeanspruchungen, Bauingenieur 67 (1992) pp.183-196 [8] Körner, C.: Verankerung schwerer Lasten mit Schubdübeln, 34. Forschungskolloquium des DAfStb am 9./10. Oktober 1997 an der TU Dresden [9] Curbach, M.; Körner, C.; Michler, H.: Tragfähigkeit von Befestigungen mit Schubdübeln im Betonbau zur Übertragung großer Schubkräfte. Abschlussberichtzum Forschungsvorhaben DFG Cu-37/3-1, TU Dresden, Institut für Tragwerke und Baustoffe, Lehrstuhl für Massivbau, Dresden 2001 [10] Michler, H: Load Capacity of shear loaded anchorages. International PHD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Wien 2000 [11] Michler, H: Dissertation, Lehrstuhl für Massivbau, TU Dresden (in progress)

101

SAFETY RELEVANT ASPECTS FOR TORQUE CONTROLLED EXPANSION ANCHORS
Helmut Gassner, Erich Wisser Hilti AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein

Abstract
For an assessment of expansion anchors, it is necessary to know, which parameters have to be considered. To investigate safety relevant aspects for Torque Controlled Expansion Anchors fife different types of anchors have been tested. The products were examined onto appearance, behaviour at setting and under static loading in tension and shear direction. The tests have been shown, that a lot of parameters have to be considered to compare the behaviour of different anchors, especially under difficult conditions on construction site. In addition to the ultimate pull-out and shear load, the setting procedure and the tightening torque moment are very important parameters.

1. Introduction
To investigate safety relevant aspects for Torque Controlled Expansion Anchors fife different types of anchors have been tested. The dimensions and embedment depth are nearly identical. The products were examined onto appearance, behaviour at setting and under static loading in tension and shear direction. Basic data for concrete capacity C25/30 and drill hole were evaluated. All anchors of same size were set with same embedment depth obeying the setting instructions of the respective manual.

2. Test Setup
Static pull-out test All pull-out tests were carried out with a testing system of 250 kN maximum load and a

102

chosen displacement speed of 6 mm/min. The tests were performed with and without tightening torque moments to check the reliability at wrong application. Static shear tests The shear tests were carried out with a servohydraulic test cylinder of an nominal capacity of 250 kN. The displacement speed of the piston was 16 mm/min. Clamping of gaps between concrete and attaching part Often only after installing the torque moment there is realized that the attaching part shows a gap to the substrate. So in the test a steel padding of 6 mm was placed between concrete surface and loading plate. The full torque moment was installed, then released and the padding removed. If after installing the torque moment again the loading plate could be clamped onto concrete surface, the clamping test was assessed positive. With the Anchor Type E one test was performed only with a low torque moment. Then the pads were taken out and the full torque moment applied for simulating a flexible footing.

3. Behavior under Tensile and Shear
Load F [kN] 70
A; M12 with Md A; M12 without Md B; M12 with Md B; M12 without Md C; M12 with Md C; M12 without Md D; 5/8" with Md * D; 5/8" without Md * E; M12 with Md E; M12 without Md

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Displacement s [mm]

Fig. 1 Load Displacement behaviour - Pull-Out Tests

103

In Figure 1 the results at static pull-out tests for all anchor types are shown, black curves with tightening torque moment, red curves without. All tested samples of Anchor Type A were conform to the anticipated behaviour. The follow-up expansion worked well. At pull-out test the very small scattering in the load displacement behaviour up to ultimate load is significant. But the clamping force of the attaching part is comparatively low with 15 kN. Also in shear the system works as requested. With high ductility the ultimate shear load is achieved at a displacement of about 28 mm. The claming function is ensured up to a gap of 8 mm. The results at static pull-out test of Anchor Type B shows, that at in minimum two of five anchors the expansion sleeve cracked radially and moved onto the upper cone. This causes a high number of turnings for the torque moment. So the conversion of torque to pre-load is undefined and within a wide variation of deviation. At prescribed torque moment pre-stressing forces twice of Anchor Type A were achieved. At the static pullout tests the system acted brittle and without any follow-up expansion effect. At four of five anchors the cones were pulled through. The concrete failed but no concrete cone broke out. The average ultimate load was only at 63% of the Anchor Type A value. In shear the system works - due to the failure mode bending-tension of bolt - ductile but the maximum loads were achieved after already 5-12 mm displacement (Anchor Type A only after 28 mm). For the Anchor Type C, the transmission of the torque moment varied in a wide range as with Anchor Type B. To the customer this generates a dubious feeling. However prestressing forces of 120 to 200 % of the Anchor Type A values are realised. The loaddisplacement behaviour, the ultimate loads and the failure mode were equal to that of the Anchor Type A. Nevertheless at the pullout test without a torque moment the tested anchors failed without increasing of load. Also in shear loading the ductility of the tested Anchor Type C is about 30% below the ductility of the Anchor Type A. The average of the ultimate shear capacity is 18% less however with small standard deviation - below the Anchor Type A value. The results at static pull-out of Anchor Type D are described as follow. A high number of strokes was needed for setting the anchor. At two of five anchors the plastic ring broke so that the expansion sleeve did not touch the cone. At the attempt to install the torque moment the screw got stuck at the front of the slotted and compressed cone and the cone was not pulled into the expansion sleeve. In the drill hole the cone turned through. One of these two anchors was pulled out with only 4 kN ultimate load. The average ultimate load of the other anchors for pull-out amounted only 69% of the Anchor Type A value. Without torque moment both tested anchors were pulled out without load.

104

The tested Anchor Type D System works very unsafe concerning the setting and pull-out behaviour. In shear the ductility of this anchor is comparable to Anchor Type A. The ultimate force is 17% below the Anchor Type A value because of the thin rolled sheet sleeve. The expansion cone of Anchor Type E differs from all other tested anchors in the twofold expansion angle. First an angle of 7º and 6 mm long followed by an angle of 15º and 7 mm long. At Anchor Type A the angle is 8º with a length of 12 mm. This may cause the high pre-stressing force, more than twice that of Anchor Type A. Sleeve and washer are equal to Type A parts. The torque moment was reached only after 4 1/2 to 6 turnings because 5 mm displacement are necessary that the front of the sleeve contacts the cone. Ultimate tensile load and its variation are equal to Anchor A. The follow-up expansion works well also the plastic deformation of the expansion sleeve to a tulip shape. Also without a torque moment the safety of this anchor at tensile loads is given. The shear capacity of Anchor Type E makes 73% of Type A value. But the threaded rod version of Type E has 27% reduced stress area. The ductility is much lower as with anchor A. The dimensions of the sleeve are equal to Anchor A.

4. Rest Results at Cclamping of Gaps
At Anchor Type E the functions of the plastic collapsible section are integrated into the expansion sleeve made of sheet metal. These consist of 3 folded expansion parts of 1.2 mm thickness. The rips as crumble zone should prevent internal pretension when a gap between concrete surface and attaching part has to be closed. The thickness of the sleeve is 20% less than that of Anchor Type A. To assess the function of gap clamping two tests were performed. At the first one the total torque moment was installed using steel pads between concrete surface and attaching part, then released and the pads were removed. Now no clamping of attaching parts to concrete surface could be achieved with torque moment. At the second test after a small torque moment the pads were removed and the torque moment was increased to the prescribed value now producing a clamping force. The drilled out anchors show the insufficient function of the crumble zone. To get more information for the functioning at “gap clamping” a more detailed examination is proposed.

5. Setting Behavior
In Table 1 is shown a synopsis of test results to setting behaviour. Most of anchors needs 1 to 2 hammer strokes for setting into the drill hole, but Anchor Type D significantly more. The mounting overhead can be made without falling out of the anchors and the antirotation device works at all anchors, too.

105

The clamping test with a gap of 6mm worked more or less at all anchors. At Anchor Type B broke the expansion sleeve and was pushed over the conic part. At Anchor Type C the plastic section collapsed as defined, at Anchor D as undefined. Anchor Type E managed the clamping test only at facilitated conditions. The tightening with torque moment occurred at Anchor Type A with only 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 turns. The others partially needed much more turns as you see in the table. All anchors could be removed flush to the concrete surface.

type of anchor

number of mounting strokes at with 500g overhead hammer 1 2 o.k. o.k.

antirotation device

clamping test (6 mm gap)

A B

o.k. o.k.

C

1

o.k.

o.k.

D

12-17

o.k.

o.k.

E

2-3

o.k.

o.k.

o.k. o.k., expansion sleeve broken o.k., defined collapse of plastic section o.k., undefined collapse of plastic section o.k., only at facilitated conditions

needed removable turns for flush to the tightening concrete with torque surface moment 1 ½ -1 3/4 o.k. o.k. 4 ½ -10 1¾-4 o.k.

2-2½

o.k.

4½-6

o.k.

Table 1 setting behaviour

6. Behavior at Loading
In the synopsis of test results to the behaviour at loading it is recognisable that the prestressing force of Anchor B, C and E is distinctly higher than at Anchor Type A. The pre-stressing force of Anchor Type D varies between 0 and 14 kN. The ultimate load at static pull-out of Type C is the highest one with the smallest standard deviation, followed by Anchor A. The follow-up expansion did not work at all anchors of Anchor Type B, 3 of 5 anchors of Anchor Type D.

106

type of pre-stressing ultimate pull- follow-up ultimate pull-out ultimate shear anchor force out load, expansion load without load, standard standard tightening torque deviation, n=4 deviation, n=5 moment, n=2 A ~ 15 kN Fu,m = 61,9 kN o.k. Fu,m = 55,2 kN Vu,m = 100,6 kN v = 9,1 % Fu,m = 57,3 kN with v = 8,8 % follow-up expansion B ~ 32 - 40 kN Fu,m = 39,4 kN no follow- Fu,m = 37,0 kN Vu,m = 87,2 kN v = 11,6 % up Fu,m = 38,0 kN with v = 1,4 % expansion follow-up expansion C ~ 20 - 30 kN Fu,m = 63,9 kN o.k. Fu,m = 0,8 kN Vu,m = 82,3 kN v = 4,2 % Fu,m = 1,1 kN pull v = 3,2 % out by hand D ~ 0 - 14 kN Fu,m = 42,6 kN 3 of 5 Vu,m = 83,2 kN Fu,m = 2,0 kN v = 16,6 % without Fu,m = 2,0 kN no v = 4,6 % follow-up follow-up expansion expansion E ~ 35 - 40 kN Fu,m = 60,3 kN o.k. Fu,m = 45,4 kN Vu,m = 73,7 kN v = 9,3 % Fu,m = 59,6 kN with v = 1,3 % follow-up expansion Table 2 load behaviour The pull-out test without tightening torque moment simulates, that because of confined place a tightening with full torque moment is not or only partially possible. Here Anchor Type A, B and E demonstrated follow-up expansion and high pull-out forces. Anchor Type C and D exhibited no follow-up expansion and therefore low loads. The ultimate static shear load of Anchor A was the highest, this time followed by Type B.

7. Conclusion
The tests of different expansion anchors demonstrates, that the Anchor Type A impresses with the clear and save function of the plastic collapsible section. The system is well calculable because of the small standard deviation of the results. All components are optimally adjusted to the setting procedure, pull-out and shear load. It has been shown, that a lot of parameters have to be considered to compare the behaviour of different anchors, especially under difficult conditions on construction site.

107

STUDY ON STANDARD TEST METHODS FOR POSTINSTALLED ANCHORS
Yoji Hosokawa*, Katuhiko Nakano**, Yoshiki Oohaga***, Shigeru Usami****, Kiyoshi Imai***** * Technical Development Group, Maeda Corporation, Japan ** Institute for Structural Concrete, Science University of Tokyo, Japan *** Institute for Structural Concrete, Tohoku Institute of Technology, Japan **** Institute for Structural Engineering, Kajima Corporation, Japan ***** Institute for Post-Installed Anchor, KFC Corporation, Japan

Abstract
The present paper reports the test methods and test results of Bonded anchors and Metal Anchors. So far, in Japan, Post-installed Anchors cannot be used for a newly-built building, but can be used to reinforce an existing building for earthquake resistance strengthening. There for, standards test methods are important to meet the requirement of appraisal system.

1. Introduction
About 4 hundred millions of Post-installed Anchors are used for fitting up machineries and reinforcing earthquake resistant structures. In common, the performances of Post-installed Anchors are determined by the makers, and there is not a unified standard to evaluate the performances of such anchors. In order to guarantee the quality and performances of Post-installed Anchors, Japan Construction Anchor Association makes an Approval System for the technical appraisals. The present paper reports the standard mechanical test methods, by which the necessary data of strength and stiffness are determined for the Approval of Post-installed Anchors. So far, three test methods were developed, which are the Set test, Tensile strength test and Shear test. The Set test is a performance test for a constructed anchor, in which strength test for the base material and adhesive strength is necessary for metal anchors and bonded anchors respectively. While, the Tensile test and Shear test are carried out by measuring the strengths and displacements due to tension and shear forces act on test anchors, which was supposed that the test anchors were constructed anchors fixed in concrete.

108

2. Set Test Method
2.1 Set test for metal anchors 2.1.1 Introduction In common, Metal anchors are cold formed, and the properties of its material are changed during the products process. Stress concentration always happens at the expansion head of an anchor, due to the beating and pressing during construction. So, it is very important for the quality control to confirm the performance and its quality by the Set test before the products leave the factory. 2.1.2 Method of the Set test The Testing equipment is Fig. 2.1 shown in Fig. 2.1. The equipment is composed by Reaction plate, Oil jack and Deflection Transducer. The test anchors are Nail-in, Internal cone, Out Cone, the diameter of the test anchor is M10—M20.
150

The test anchor is set between a tension rod and a jig fixed onto the equipment, and then the jack applies the tension force on to the set. Just like the real construction, the jig is filled with nonshrink mortar (compressive strength: 30N/mm2). The jig is made by steel, and its inner shape is a cone. 2.1.3 Test results Fig. 2.2 shows the loaddisplacement curve of the tests. The displacement

125

Tensile Load (KN)

M 20 100 M 12

No1M10 No2M10 No3M12 No4M12 No5M20 No6M20 No7M20

75 M 10

P l

50

δ1

δ2

25

l=50mm δ δ = ( 1 +δ 2 ) / 2
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15

0 0

Displacement (mm) Fig. 2.2 Relationship of Tensile Load and Displacement Fig. (Outer Cone Type Anchor)

109

measuring points are 50mm and 100mm below the concrete surface for Out Cone and Nail-in type respectively. The broken locations are at the thread part for the cone anchor and Internal cone, minimum section or thread part for Nail-in type. 2.2 Set test for Bonded Anchor 2.2.1 Introduction By the Set test for bonded anchor, we measured the limited value of the bond strength of the anchors, and make a standard value for quality control of bonded anchors. Hence, the bonding surface of the anchor should be very homogenous. Steel jig and mortar filled steel jig are discussed, and then mortar filled steel jig are selected as a part of the testing equipment. Event for the test using old resin, we have not found the influence of aggregate in the steel jig. 2.2.2 The test method Fig. 2.3 shows the testing equipment and the jig. The jig is a steel pipe (89.1mm in diameter and 80mm in length) filled with non-shrink mortar. The test anchor is a bolt of M16 hammered into a bored hole in the jig. In such a bonding strength test, the object anchor was set on the tension rod, and tensile force was applied with a speed of 20N/mm2 per second by the oil jack till the anchor was pulled out of the jig. 3. The Tension test method 3.1 Introduction For this test, there is not a specification for the shape of the loading equipment. But, we set the inner dimension of the reaction plate food as shown in Table 3.1, considering the support position of the reaction plates have influence on the measures results of tension Fig. 2.3 performance of the anchor.

110

Table 3.1 Minimum Inner dimension of the reaction plate Broken Type of the anchors Metal anchors Cone broken type 3.5 h Not cone broken type 2.0 h

Bonded Anchors 2.0 h 1.5 h

Fig. 3.1
3.2 Testing equipment Fig.3.1 shows the testing equipment and its Deflection Transducer. There is not a specification for the dimension of the concrete object. We used common concrete, and its minimum thickness is double of the insert depth of the anchor in the concrete body, or the biggest value of the double of the insert depth and the depth plus 10cm (same as the Shear test). The tolerance of the load cell is less than 1.5%, and the maximum tension load acted on the load cell is 1/20 (5%) of its capability. The tolerance of the Deflection Transducer is less than 0.02mm. As showing in Fig. 3.1, three Deflection Transducers were set around the test anchor, which are 15mm from the concrete surface. The reference fix points are in a distance from the anchor, double of the insert depth of the anchor in the concrete body, and are set at the top and lateral surfaces where the influence due to the bending displacement of concrete can be considered as small enough.

111

3.3 The Test method For this test, a pre-load acted on the test anchor was introduced. The value of the pre-load is 5% of the maximum of a presumed load and smaller than 2.0KN. The load was acted at a loading speed smaller than 20N/mm2 per second. The measuring of load and displacements were continued till the anchor was broken. 3.4 Confirm the Test method In the present paper, the influence of pre-load and loading speed were discussed based on the tests for checking the validity of the test methods. Table 3.2 shows the types of the anchors and the out line of the test anchors.
Table      Outline of Test Anchors 3.2
Effective Effective Minimum Embedded Bolt Calculated Embedded Horizontal Anchor Type Nominal Diameter Section Length Length Project Aria Strength Ac (cm) Tc(kN) Diameter de (mm) (mm2)   h (mm)   Le(mm) Nail-in 16.0 119 60 44.0 82.9 130 M 16 Metal Internal Cone 20.0 127 60 40.0 75.4 119 M 16 Anchor Outer Cone 21.4 157 63 41.6 82.3 129 M 16 Type Hard Sleeve 21.7 157 60 38.3 72.2 114 M 16 Bonded Vinyl 16.0 157 125 109.0 427.8 506 M 16 Anchor Urethane Calculated Strength with Shear Cone Failure・ Tc=√ óB・ Ac( Metal Type)                     ・ Tc=0.75√ ó B・ Ac( Bonded Type) Here, óB: Concrete Strength at Test( 26N/mm2) Ac: Effective Horizontal Project Aria( c㎡) (     Le: Effective Embedded Length cm) =h-de

The pre-load was applied with 3 load levels, which were a determined load level, 0% and 200% of the determined load level. And then, 3 loading speeds were used, which were a determined speed, 50% and 150% of the determined speed. The tests were carried out with an anchor hammered into concrete block (110cm 30cm, Fc = 21N/mm2) and set onto the testing equipment . 3.4.1 Influence of pre-load Fig. 3.2 shows the relationship between the pre-load and the capability. In this diagram, the average value of 3 test pieces with different levels is shown as folded line. The influence of pre-load is obvious for anchors of Hard Sleeve, and there is not obvious influence for other types of anchors. 180cm

112

Maxuium Load (KN)

3.4.2 Influence of loading speed Fig 3.3 shows that the capability increased proportionally to the loading speed for a bonded anchor. But, a little influence of loading speed was measured for Nail-in anchors, and almost no influence was measured for other types of anchors.

80 Hard Sleeve Type 60 40 80 Outer Cone Type 60 40 60 Internal Cone Type 40 20 60 Nail-in Type 40 20

4. Shear test
4.1 Introduction For this test, we set the test anchor at a certain distance from the concrete edge, so that the edge part the concrete would not break. 4.2 The testing equipment Fig. 4.1 shows the loading equipment. The loading equipment is composed with a setting-plate for supplying shear forces onto the anchor, a tension rod, an oil jack and a load cell. 4.3 Tests for confirming the equipment The tests were carried out by the equipment shown in Fig. 4.1, with different lengths of setting-plate and shearing surface, different levels of pre-load and different types of anchors. The concrete strength used for the tests is Fc = 32.7KN/mm2, and the diameter of the anchor is 16mm. Tests were carried out for different types of anchors, with different lengths of setting-plate, and different material of shearing surfaces. The anchor types used for the tests are Internal cone, Hard Sleeve, Out Cone, Nail-in and bonded anchors. Lengths of setting-plate are 7.5 and 15.0 times of the diameter of the anchor. The Pre-load are shown in Table 4.1. The shearing surface is thin steel sheet, and Teflon sheet.

0 (0%)

Fig. 3.2 Relationship of Pre-force Fig. relationship of Pre-load and Maximum Strength And Maximum strength
120 100
Maxuium Load (KN)

1.96 3.92 (Stndard) (200%) Pre-force of (KN) Pre-load of BoltBolt (KN)

80 80 60 40 60 40 20

Bonded Anchor Type

Hard Sleeve Type

Nail-in Type 9.8 19.6 29.4 (50%) (Upper Limit of Stndard) (150%) Loading Speed N/mm 2 /sec ) ) ( N/mm2/sec

Fig. 3.3 Relationship of Loading Speed and Maximum Strength

113

Reaction Frame H-200x200

Teflon sheet Reaction Frame Tension Rod Setting Plate

Swivel Load Cell Jack

S p ec ime n M1 6 A n ch o r Reaction Pedestal Anchor Plate Spring Fastening Anchor Bolt

Fig.4.1 Equipment of Shear Laoding Test
Table 4.1 indicates the types of anchors and other items for the test. In the test procedure, the concrete close to the anchor was broke first by its bearing stress, and then the anchor broke lately, which is the common phenomenon of the tests.

Table Table 4.1 List of Shear Tsets
Se tting P late To r que B o undary C o nditio n Le ngth Anc ho r Type Non 120 240 ・ ・ SS T mm mm 0 kN N o te 1 N o te 2 SS +T M A1 ~ 4 M A1 M A2 M A3 M A4 ○ ○ M A5 ~ 8 M A5 M A6 M A7 M A8 ○ ○ H ar d Sle e ve M A9 ~ 1 2 M A9 M A1 0 M A1 1 M A1 2 ○ ○ M A1 3 ~ 1 6 M A1 3 M A1 4 M A1 5 M A1 6 ○ ○ M B1~ 2 O ute r Co ne M B1 M B2 ○ ○ M C1 Inte rnal C o ne ○ ○ ○ M D1 N ail-in ○ ○ ○ B o nde d Anc ho r B A1 ~ 3 B A1 B A2 ,3 ○ ○ N o te 1 : To rque= M in. [ 6 0 % o f Yie ld Stre ngth, 4 0 % o f Shear-C o rn failure Stre ngth, 4 0 % o f B o nd Stre ngth ] , The To rque is c o ntro lle d by the 0 .2 to rque c o e f fic ie nt. H ar d Slee ve : To r que Value 2 3 5 N ・ m m (Axis fo rc e 7 .3 5 K N ) O ute r Co ne : To rque Value 2 2 5 N ・ m m (Axis fo rc e 7 .0 5 K N ) Bo nde d Anco r: To rque Value 2 2 5 N ・ m m (Axle Fo rc e 7 .0 5 K N )   BA2           : To rque Value 6 5 6 N ・ m m (Axle Fo rc e 2 0 .4 8 K N ) B A3 N o te 2 : Bo undary C o nditio n: N o n-she e t SS is Ste el She e t. T is Te flo n She e t. Spe cim e n N am e
Metal Anchor

114

60 50
Shear Load Q (KN)

MA1-1(Non-Sheet)

MA2-2(Steel Sheet)

40 30 20 10 0 -2 0
MA4-2(Steel + Teflon Sheet) MA3-2(Teflon Sheet)

Shear Deflectionδ (mm) Fig. 4.2 Relationship Example of Shear Load and Displacement Fig. (Boundary Condition)

2

4

6

8

10

[1] Influence of concrete surface situation and setting-plate: The test anchor is Hard Sleeve, and take setting-plate (120mm in length) and 4 types of concrete surface situation as the items of the test. The test result are shown in Fig.4.2. The concrete surface situation (1) Bare concrete surface (2) Concrete surface covered by steel sheet (3) Concrete surface covered by Teflon sheet of 2mm in thickness (4) The composing of (2) and (3) Fig. 4.2 shows the difference of stiffness and capability depend on the situation of the concrete surface. Fig. 4.3 shows the result with different lengths of setting-plate, and that the capability and stiffness are increased with the increasing of the setting-plate lengths. [2] The influence of the pre-load Fig 4.4 shows the displacement-strength cure of Hard Sleeve due to torques of “0” and 235N・mm respectively. By this diagram, we found that there was not influence of the torque.

115

60 50
Shear Load Q (KN)

MA9-3(240mm)

MA1-1(120mm)

40 30 20 10 0 -2 0
MA1-1(240mm) MA3-2(120mm)

Shear Deflectionδ (mm) Fig. 4.3 Relationship Example of Shear Load and Displacement Fig. (Setting Plate Length)

2

4

6

8

10

60 50
Shear Load Q (KN)

M A 7-2 (3 .5K N )

40 30 20 10 0 -2 0
M A 3-2(A xis For c e 0K N )

Sh ear D e flection δ (m m ) Fig. 4.4 R elations hip E xa m ple of S hear Loa d a nd D is pla cem e nt F ig. (A xis Fo rc e)

2

4

6

8

10

Fig. 4.5 shows the test results of bonded anchor, which is a comparison between three torques, “0”, 225N・mm and 656N・mm. The maximum of stiffness increased with the increasing of the pre-load.

116

60 50
Shear Load Q (KN)

BA2-1(3.5KN)

40 30 20 10 0 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
BA3-1(10.3KN) BA1-1(0 KN)

Shear Deflectionδ (mm) Fig. 4.5 Relationship Example of Shear Load and Displacement Fig. (Axis Force)

5. Conclusion
1. 2. 3. 4. We demonstrated that it is possible to confirm the performances of metal anchors and bonded anchors by set test method before the products leave the factories. For the tension tests, the influence of pre-load is very small besides the test for Hard Sleeve anchors. Besides the Nail-in anchors, almost no influence of loading speed on the capability was found. Henceforth, we will study the in situ test methods for the anchors.

Acknowledgement I am grateful to Dr. R. Tanaka (Tohoku Institute of Technology), Dr. Y. Matsuzaki (Science University of Tokyo) and JCAA for their good cooperation throughout the research. And then, I would like to thank Dr. Pei Shan Chen (Meada Co.) for his help with composing this paper.

117

STATIC BEHAVIOR OF ANCHORS UNDER COMBINATIONS OF TENSION AND SHEAR LOADING
Dieter Lotze*, Richard E. Klingner** and Herman L. Graves, III*** *Director of Research, Halfen GmbH & Co., Wiernsheim, Germany. Former, The University of Texas at Austin. **Phil M. Ferguson, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA ***Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA.

Abstract
Under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a research program was carried out on the dynamic behavior of anchors (fasteners) to concrete. This paper deals with the static behavior of single and multiple undercut and sleeve anchors, placed in uncracked concrete and loaded by combinations of tension and shear. The results are used to draw conclusions regarding force and displacement interaction diagrams for single anchors, and regarding the applicability of elastic and plastic theory to the design of multiple-anchor connections to concrete.

1. Introduction
Under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a research program has recently been completed, whose objective was to obtain technical information to determine how the seismic behavior and strength of anchors (cast-in-place, expansion, and undercut) and their supporting concrete differ from the static behavior. The research program comprised four tasks: 1) 2) 3) 4) Static and Dynamic Behavior of Single Tensile Anchors (250 tests); Static and Dynamic Behavior of Multiple Tensile Anchors (179 tests); Static and Dynamic Behavior of Near-Edge Anchors (150 tests); and Static and Dynamic Behavior of Multiple-Anchor Connections (16 tests).

This paper deals with part of Task 2, concerning the static behavior of single and multiple undercut and sleeve anchors, placed in uncracked concrete and loaded by combinations of tension and shear. The results are used to draw conclusions regarding force and displacement interaction diagrams for single anchors, and regarding the applicability of elastic and plastic theory to the design of multiple-anchor connections to concrete.

118

2. Background
The behavior of anchors (fasteners) to concrete is discussed at length in Reference 1. The work of Fuchs [2] provides some useful information regarding shear behavior. As discussed in Reference 3, mean concrete breakout capacity in tension or shear is well predicted by the CC Method. Tensile capacity as governed by steel failure is given by the product of the ultimate tensile strength and the cross-sectional area of the anchor shank. For a uniform cross-section, the ratio of shear to tensile capacity is about 0.6 [4]. If the anchor sleeve goes through the baseplate, steel capacity in shear is increased, by an amount that depends on the degree of interaction between the anchor shank and sleeve, and the material of each component. Figure 1 shows different models for the interaction of tension and shear capacities.
1.2 1 0.8 Elliptical (5/3) Tri-linear

N/No

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

Linear

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

V/Vo

Figure 1

Tension – shear force interaction for anchors

For failure by steel fracture, an elliptical interaction is used:

 N  V    N  + V  =1     0  0

p

p

(1)

The exponent p varies between 5/3 [5] and 2.0 [6]. For failure by concrete breakout, Johnson and Lew [7] propose a linear interaction as a lower bound (Figure 1). Bode and Roik [8] propose a tri-linear interaction (Equations 2a through 2c):

 N    N  =1   0

(2a)

119

V    =1 V   0  N  V    N  + V  =1     0  0

(2b)

(2c)

The elliptical interaction of Equation 2 has been proposed for concrete failure as well, using an exponent p equal to 4/3 [9], 5/3 [4], or 2.0 [6]. Displacement interaction has not been widely investigated [10], and is in theory not required for the elastic design procedure, in which no redistribution of anchor forces is assumed. If redistribution of anchor forces is assumed, as in the plastic design approach, then knowledge of displacement interaction is necessary.

3. Anchors, Test Setups and Procedures
Based on surveys of existing anchors in nuclear applications, tests described here involved one undercut anchor (“UC1”) and a heavy-duty, sleeve-type, single-cone expansion anchor (“Sleeve Anchor”). Based on current use in nuclear applications, it was decided to test anchors ranging in diameter from 3/8 to 1 in. (9.2 to 25.4 mm), with emphasis on the 3/4 in. (19.1 mm) diameter. The Sleeve Anchor tested throughout this study is a single-cone, sleeve-type expansion anchor with follow-up expansion capability, shown in Figure 2.
spacer sleeve plastic crushable leg expansion sleeve structurally funished surface cone

D1 lef lc

Figure 2

Key dimensions of Sleeve Anchor

The Undercut Anchor 1 (UC1) opens conventionally, and is shown in Figure 3.

120

D2

D

threaded shank

extension sleeve

expansion sleeve cone

D1 lef lc

Figure 3

Key dimensions of Undercut Anchor 1

Embedment depths in Task 2 were varied according to whether steel failure or concrete breakout failure was desired. The embedments used are described when each set of test results is discussed. The target concrete compressive strength for this testing program was 4700 lb/in.2 (32.4 MPa), with a permissible tolerance of ±500 lb/in.2 (±3.45 MPa) at the time of testing. For these tests, a porous limestone aggregate was used. The typical test specimen was a concrete block 39.5 in. (1 m) wide, 24 in. (0.6 m) deep, and 87.5 in. (2.2 m) long. Seven #6 (32 mm) longitudinal reinforcing bars were placed in the middle of each block to provide safety when the block was moved. This reinforcement was placed at the mid-height of the block to permit testing anchors on both the top and bottom surfaces, while precluding interference with anchor behavior. Four lifting loops were located at the mid-height of the blocks, permitting transport by overhead crane. For loading anchors under combinations of tension and shear, the test setup consisted of a structural steel framework holding a center-hole actuator at a variable angle (Figure 4). Load was applied through a special loading shoe, shown in Figure 5. For eccentric shear tests on two-anchor attachments, the loading fixture consisted of a special baseplate with two high-strength steel inserts, two tension rods, and two compression bars (Figure 6). The inside thickness of these inserts was counter-bored to 3/4 in. (19 mm), the same as the diameter of the anchor bolts. The diameter of the baseplate holes was 13/16 in. (20.6 mm). The overall test setup is shown in Figure 7.

121

D2

D

actuator steel frame angle varies

anchor

Figure 4

Test setup for anchors loaded at different orientations
hole for mounting pin

30 deg

60 deg welded side plate baseplate screwed-in insert made of high-strength steel

Figure 5

Special loading shoe for tests at different orientations

122

External Load Strain Gages

Compression Bars

Tension Rods

Inserts Strain Gages 5 deg Plan view of base plate Elevation

Figure 6

Loading fixture for eccentric shear tests on two-anchor attachments
Load DCDT Cell Hydraulic Actuator

Loading Attachment

Clamping Beams Concrete Specimen Rollers Reaction Frame Tie-Down Rods On Floor Restraint Tubes

Additional W12 Beams

--- Lab Floor ---

Figure 7

Setup for eccentric shear tests on two-anchor attachments

The axial force and bending moment in the baseplate were calculated from strain measurements from two sets of three strain gauges each, evenly spaced on the top and bottom of the center section of the baseplate. Based on the geometry of the loading apparatus, the force in the tension rods is 1.2 times the external shear load, and the tension force on the back anchor can be calculated by equilibrium of moments about the center of the baseplate. The shear force on the back anchor equals the measured tension force in the baseplate. External load on the connection was measured with a load cell, using a spherical bearing to eliminate error due to angular deviation. The tension forces

123

on each anchor were measured with force washers placed between the normal washers and the baseplate. Baseplate slip was measured with a potentiometer placed against the back of the baseplate. The horizontal displacement of the loaded point 12 in. (305 mm) from the surface was also measured. The vertical displacement of the baseplate, δv, was measured at the centerline of the baseplate. Rotation of the attachment was calculated from the difference between the transverse displacements measured at the level of the baseplate and at 12 in. (305 mm) above the concrete surface.

4. Test Results
Results for Single Anchors Loaded at Different Orientations (Series 2.3 and 2.4) Figure 8 shows the mean force interaction diagrams for Sleeve and Expansion anchors in Series 2.3 [11]. In that series, anchor failure was intended to be governed by yield and fracture of anchor steel, so deep embedments were used.
Interaction of Load, Series 23 140 120 Vertical Load Component [ kN ] 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 Horizontal Load Component [ kN ] Series 23H64, Exp. = 1.8 Series 23M53 / 54, Exp. = 1.8 Series 23M74 / 23H74, Exp. = 1.8 Series 23M34, Exp. = 1.67

Figure 8

Interaction curves for actions (Test Series 2.3, [11])

Mean displacement interaction curves for all sub-series in Series 2.3 and 2.4 are compared in Figure 9. That figure shows large displacements in Series 23M53 under tension, approaching the values achieved in higher strength concrete with increased load angle or increased shear. It also shows good agreement between the values for UC1 and the Sleeve Anchor. Differences are evident, however, due to installation method (through-sleeve versus flush-sleeve). Under pure tension, displacements are identical. Under oblique loading, anchors installed with flush sleeves generated smaller shell-

124

shaped concrete spalling in the loading direction in front of anchors, than did otherwise identical anchors with through sleeves. For this reason, they failed under shear and oblique tension by shear fracture of the anchor shank at a comparatively small shearing deformation. With lower concrete strength, larger displacements were achieved at maximum load under tension. These approach the displacements in higher-strength concrete with increasing shear. Tests with 3/8 in. anchors showed smaller displacements, and no concrete spalling in front of the anchors under shear and oblique tension.
45 Vertical Displacement at Maximum Load (mm) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Horizontal Displacement at Maximum Load (mm)
23H64, EAII, M16, flush-sleeve installation 23H74, EAII, M16, through-sleeve installation 23M54, UC1, 5/8 in., flush-sleeve installation 23M74, UC1, 5/8 in., through-sleeve installation 23M53, UC1, 5/8 in., flush-sleeve installation 23M34, UC1, 3/8 in., flush-sleeve installation

Figure 9

Interaction curves for displacements (Series 2.3 and 2.4, [11])

Discussion of Results for Eccentric Shear Loading on Two-Anchor Attachments Despite the differences in gaps between anchors and baseplates among specimens, failure loads showed only slight scatter. In contrast, considerable scatter was observed in displacements, without any obvious correlation with the measured gaps. The gaps, however, did significantly affect the failure mode. In tests with an eccentricity of 18 in. (457 mm), failure always occurred by fracture at the outermost tension anchor. In tests with an eccentricity of 12 in. (305 mm) the shear anchors also fractured. The tension anchor fractured only with maximum gaps of the shear anchors. Normal force and bending moment in the baseplate were calculated from the results of the strain measurement. Strains are approximately constant over the width of the baseplate, due to its configuration. The bending moments and axial forces in the baseplate can be calculated from those strains. Axial force in the baseplate (equal to the

125

shear in the tension anchor) increases with the applied load. After the gap at the shear anchor is overcome, this increase slows, and the axial force even decreases near ultimate. When the shear anchor fractures, the axial normal force increases abruptly, because the applied shear must then be resisted entirely by the tension anchor. The hogging bending moment in the baseplate (tensile stresses on top) decreases with increasing external load, changing finally to a reversed moment caused by a combination of the diagonal compression (at the height of the axis of the shear anchor) and the support reaction from the concrete (at the compression edge of the baseplate). The fracture of the shear anchors causes an additional negative moment from the additional normal force of the tension anchor, applied eccentrically to the bottom edge of the baseplate. Observed versus Predicted Capacities for Two-Anchor Attachments with Eccentric Shear Loading The loading eccentricity used for these attachments was such that the tension anchors were required to resist combined shear and tension. Under these conditions, their load capacity could be limited either by load, or by deformation. Ratios of observed capacities to those predicted by elastic theory ranged from 0.954 to 1.154. Ratios of observed capacities to those predicted by plastic theory [4] ranged from 0.892 to 1.05.

5. Conclusions
Tests on Single Anchors Loaded at Different Orientations 1) Force interaction is well described by an elliptical interaction relationship (Equation 1), with an exponent of 1.67 to 1.80 for steel failure and 1.6 for concrete breakout. 2) The displacement interaction diagram for steel fracture is bulb-shaped; that is, the shearing displacement at failure under oblique tension is larger than under pure shear. This is due to larger spalling under oblique tension in the direction of the shear, in front of the anchor. 3) Failure by steel fracture and ductile behavior of the steel of anchor shank do not by themselves guarantee ductile connection behavior. Brittle fracture of the anchor shank can still occur. Low steel strength, small anchor diameters, flush-sleeve installation, and high-strength concrete lead to small deformation capacity, particularly if shear dominates. 4) Ductile fractures will be achieved, in principle, if the maximum possible steel strength of the anchor is reached. Therefore, connections with large edge distance, high-strength yet ductile steels, and through-sleeve installation (sleeve extending to the top surface of baseplate) are recommended. Eccentric Shear Tests on Two-Anchor Connections 1) For large eccentricity in shear (capacity governed by fracture of the tension anchor), plastic theory accurately predicts connection behavior and capacity.

126

2) At lower eccentricities of applied shear, the bulb-shaped interaction curve for displacements causes a failure transition from the tension anchor to the shear anchor. At this point both shear anchors and tension anchors are fully utilized, and the assumptions of plastic theory agree with the actual behavior of the connection. 3) At still lower eccentricities of applied shear, the transverse displacement of the tension anchor cannot exceed the transverse displacement of the shear anchor. For that reason, the tension anchors of a multiple-anchor connection cannot reach the fracture states in the “belly” of the displacement interaction curve. Contrary to the assumptions of plastic theory, this causes the strength of the tension anchor to be under-utilized at small loading eccentricities. Depending on how pronounced the “belly” of the interaction curve is, the calculated capacity of the group can be considerably overestimated by plastic theory, or even by elastic theory. Lotze [11] proposes that this problem be corrected by assuming an even distribution of shear to all anchors.

6. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
This paper presents partial results of a research program supported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NUREG/CR-5434, “Anchor Bolt Behavior and Strength during Earthquakes”). The technical contact is Herman L Graves, III, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. The conclusions in this paper are those of the authors only, and are not NRC policy or recommendations.

7. References
1. 2. 3. CEB, “Fastenings to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures: State-of-the-Art Report, Part 1,” Euro-International Concrete Committee (CEB), August 1991. Fuchs, W., “Tragverhalten von Befestigungen unter Querlast in ungerissenem Beton,” Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, 1990. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen and R. and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, January-February, 1995, pp. 73-94. Cook, R. A. and Klingner, R. E. “Ductile Multiple-Anchor Steel-to-Concrete Connections,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 6, June 1992, pp. 1645-1665. McMackin, P. J., Slutter, R. G. and Fishere, J. W., “Headed Steel Anchor under Combined Loading,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 10, No. 2, April, 1973. Shaikh, A. and Whayong, Y., “In-place Strength of Welded Headed Studs,” Journal of the Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1985 pp. 56-81.

4.

5. 6.

127

7.

Johnson, M. and Lew, H., “Experimental Study of Post-Installed Anchors under Combined Shear and Tension Loading,” Anchorage to Concrete, SP-103, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1987. Bode, H. and Roik, K., “Headed Studs Embedded in Concrete and Loaded in Tension,” Anchorage to Concrete, SP-103, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1987, pp. 61-88. PCI Design Handbook - Precast and Prestressed Concrete, 3rd Edition, Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, 1985.

8.

9.

10. Dieterle, H., Bozenhardt, A., Hirth, W. and Opitz V., “ Tragverhalten von nicht generell zugzonentauglichen Dübeln, Teil 4: Verhalten im unbewegten Parallelriß unter Schrägzugbelastung,” Bericht Nr. 1/45 - 89/19, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 1989. 11. Lotze, D. and Klingner, R. E., “Behavior of Multiple-Anchor Connections to Concrete From the Perspective of Plastic Theory,” PMFSEL Report No. 96-4, The University of Texas at Austin, March 1997.

128

IMPROVED STRUCTURAL MODEL FOR CHANNEL BARS WITH MORE THAN 2 ANCHORS
Josef Kraus, Joško Ožbolt, Rolf Eligehausen Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
At present, no model is available to describe concrete failure of channel bars with several anchor distances and for the general position of tensile loads. To examine this problem, an Finite Element-analysis of channel bars (profil 50/30) with several anchor distances has been carried out with various load positionings. Based on the results of the numerical study, a new design model for channel bars with more than two anchors, is proposed.

1. Introduction
In current engineering practice, no design code for fastening elements exists. Consequently, the conditions for the use of channel bars are controlled by general building authority approvals. In these approvals, the limit values of the edge distances in concrete elements, the application of loads and the minimal member sizes are recommended. The regulations do not offer a possibility for a general design of channel bars. They reflect a structural framework of demands, which limit the variability of possible applications and often leads to not very efficient and economical solutions. Therefore, there is an obvious need for design rules, which should account for the specific geometrical and loading conditions. These rules have to assure safer and more economical fastenings. With channel bars there are principal two different kinds of failure modes: (1) concrete failure and (2) steel failure. The steel failure is to a large extent clarified. However, to better understand the concrete failure mechanism of channel bars with 3 or more anchors, additional investigations are needed. Therefore, a new model should be developed, in which the critical anchor is obtained on a system of a single-span beams. So, the influence on the single anchors can be determined and compared with the characteristical resistance of the considered anchor. The resistance of the anchor is calculated

129

based on the concept of the influencing area. Depending on the system, loads can be transferred from the considered anchor, due to the stiffness and degree of constraint of the channel, to the neighbour anchor with respecting their loading condition. For better understanding the failure of channel bars, Finite Element studies have been carried out. The analysis is useful to predict the structural behaviour of channel bars with any loading conditions (e.g. load distribution on the anchors, influenced area of each anchor). Based on the results of the parametric study, a new design model for channel bars with more than two anchors is proposed.

2. Channel Bars
In engineering practice channel bars are used for fastening of facing masonry, at the mounting of claddings, for fastening of pipe systems, for the ground fastening engines and other applications.

Figure 2.1: Channel bar with bolt anchors Channel bars are made in cold-rolled or hot-rolled U-shaped steel. They are filled up with foaming agent, fixed in the formwork and casted into concrete. After removing the formwork and the foaming agent the construction members can be fixed with special hammer- or by hook bolts.

Figure 2.2: Hook bolt with channel bar The advantage of this method for fixing is, that the point of loading in direction of the channel bar, must not been known before. Consequently the system is very flexible. The

130

disadvantage of the system is, that the insertion of the channel bar has to be planned exactly. The screw can freely be moved along the channel bar and the load can be so transmitted to the channel bar. At the lower side of the channel bar headed studs are welded and they are responsible for the transmission of the load into the concrete. Several versions are available: welded I-shaped anchors clench anchors swaged headed studs The single bolts are connected by the U-shaped profile. The anchor rail itself cannot transfer loads into the concrete. The load can only be transferred to concrete by the anchors. A general topic to be discussed is, how the geometrical parameters and position of load influence the structural behaviour. The main parameters are the spacing of the anchors, the edge distance, the position of the load, the angle of load, the embedment depth and the size of the channel bar.

3. Concrete failure
3.1 Design method (CCD-method) When the steel strength is high enough, most fasteners lead under axial tension load to a concrete cone failure of a specimen. The inclination of the cone surface is between 30° and 40° measured to the direction of load. With increasing embedment depth the inclination of angle increases up to approximately 45°. The tensile resistance under the load is distributed differentially over the concrete cone. At the point of origin of the concrete cone, directly at the head of the anchor, the tensile strains are maximal and they decrease by reaching the surface of concrete. Based on a number of tests, the failure load of headed studs with large edge distances and large spacing of the anchors, can be calculated as:

N 0 ,c = 15,5 ⋅ h 1,5 ⋅ β w u ef
with: hef = embedment depth [mm] βw = concrete compressive strength [N/mm2]

(1)

The resistance calculated by equation (1) can only be achieved, if there is a sufficient concrete surface for each fastener. If the fastener is put close to the edge of the structural member or if a neighbour fastener is too close, the cones are overlapping. The characteristic spacing for an anchor group is s = 3 ⋅ hef. To transfere the maximum load of a fastener, the minimum edge distance must be at least 1,5 ⋅ hef. To estimate the concrete capacity of anchor groups and fastenings close to the edge of the building component, the mentioned influences are considered in the CCD-Method (Concrete Capacity De-

131

sign). In this method, the concrete cone is idealized as a rectangular projection of the concrete cone, on the concrete surface. By groups of anchors within the CCD-Method it is assumed that the anchor plate is sufficient stiff, to distribute the loads uniformly on all anchors. The group effect is taken into account by the formula.

N u ,c =
with: Ac,n0

A c,N A
0 c,N

0 ⋅ ψ s,N ⋅ N u , c

(2)

projected area of each single fastener with large edge distance and spacing. The concrete cone is idealized as a pyramide with the height hef and a length of the basis scr,n = 3 ⋅ hef . actual projected area of the concrete cone on the concrete surface. The limits of the area are the overlapping of the single cones of the next fasteners and the edges. = 0,7 + 0,3 ⋅ c/ccr,N edge distances c of a fastener; ccr,N edge distances required, to guarantee that a complete concrete cone can be developed, and so the tension of equation (1) with ccr,N = 1,5 ⋅ hef can be transmitted.

Ac,n

ψs,n

Nu,c0

resistance of a single anchor (1)

The ratio Ac,n/A0c,n considers the geometrical influence of the edge and further fasteners next to the calculated fastening group. An additional reduction of the concrete capacity is given by the factor ψs,n. It considers the disturbance of the radial-symmetric stress distribution. For fastenings without edge influence (c ≥ 1,5 hef) the factor is ψs,n = 1,0. This means that there is no disturbing influence of the radial-symmetric stress distribution. 3.2 Application of the CCD-method for channel bars By the calculation of the capacity of the anchor ground with a channel bar it is assumed, that by designing of each single anchor the design rules of headed studs can be used [1]. According to the method, the capacity of the anchor ground of channel bars with more than 2 anchors with any positions of single loads, is designed as follows. Each span of the channel bar can be considered as a single span beam (Figure 3.1).

132

s

s

s

s

Figure 3.1: Channel bar as a system of single span beams The model should be used for spacings s of the anchors. The resistance is for each anchor calculated with respect of the actual influencing area i.e. according to (2).
Ac,N 3 hef

s/2 + 1,5 hef

s

s

s

s/2 + 1,5 hef

Figure 3.2: Determination of the characteristical anchor resistances with respect of the influencing area. The above model is for channel bar only realisable, if the bar is stiff or the spacing of anchors relatively small. Therefore the model need to be improved.

4. Modelling of a specimen with channel bar
4.1 General To better understand the failure of channel bars a FE-analysis with the program MASA has been carried out. The FE-program MASA has been developed at the Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart and is aimed to be used for three dimensional linear and non-linear analysis structures of quasi-brittle materials, especially of concrete. The concrete is discretisized with 8-node solid elements. The channel bar is also discretisized by volume elements with steel material parameters. To discretisize the contact between channel bar and concrete, special contact elements are used which transfer only compressive forces. The load is applied incrementally by displacement control. For the graphical analysis mesh generation and analysis of the results, the pre- and postprocessor FEMAP® is used. Former investigations showed, that the symmetric part of the specimen can be used (Figure 4.1) to reduce the number of elements, what leads to a shorter calculation time.

133

modelled area

Figure 4.1: Channel bar with 5 anchors and the modelled area 4.2 Modelling The concrete and steel are modelled separately. The mesh of the concrete and the steel elements has to be similar, to be able to connect both. Figure 4.2 shows a concrete member with the size length 1800 mm, edge distance c = 75 mm and spacing of the anchors of s = 300 mm with using the double symmetrie of the system. In the concrete member an acavity for the channel bar of the profile 50/30 with 5 anchors can be seen. The steel is although modelled with 5 anchors, the elementation is similar to the concrete.

position of load

Z Y X

Figure 4.2: Specimen for 5 anchors (¼ of the specimen)

Figure 4.3: FE-model of a channel bar profile 50/30 with 5 anchors (¼ of the bar)

The load is applicated in direction of the z-axis and it’s position is at the top of the channel. The load, which is applied as a displacement onto the channel bar, is first transferred to the anchors. From the anchors the tensile force is transferred into the concrete. The transmission occurs at the head of the anchor, where the elements of steel and concrete are connected to each other.

load transfer nodes (channel bar - concrete)
Z

Figure 4.4: Back view of a channel bar with bolt and the load transfer nodes

134

The rest of the nodes of the bolt are not connected to the concrete. They have a distance of 0,1 mm to the concrete nodes. To avoid load transfer, the vertical nodes of the channel bar, are also at the distance of 0,1 mm measured from the surface of the concrete member. Under load the channel lifts from the concrete surface. At some positions between channel bar and concrete, pressure caused by bending of the channel, can be transferred. To model the real contact between channel bar and concrete, special contact elements are used. The mesh of these elements is similar to the concrete and channel elements. The tensile stress which can be transferred from steel to concrete is very low (tensile strength of interface elements is close to zero). The thickness of the contact elements is 2 mm.

Figure 4.5: Contact between steel and concrete concrete channel bar

Z Y X

contact elements anchor

Figure 4.6: FE-model of a specimen

5. Numerical investigations of channel bars with 5 anchors
5.1 General The aim of the calculations is, to investigate the concrete failure of a channel bar for different loading positions. Totally predict 22 Finite-Element-Calculations with spacings of the anchors of s = 100 mm and s = 300 mm are carried out. The profile 50/30 (width, height of the channel) with an embedment depth of hef = 85 mm was analysed. The diameter of the bolt was d1 = 16 mm, the diameter of the head of the bolt was d2 = 24 mm. The protrusion of the channel in direction of the channel length was u = 300 mm. With the chosen protrusion of the channel, the corner influence should be avoided. At the calculations with a spacing of the anchors of s = 300 mm ≥ 3 ⋅ hef = 255 mm, there is no interaction between the anchors to be expected. At a spacing of s = 100 mm = 1,18 ⋅ hef there is a strong influence between the anchors,

135

with respect to the transmission of load. In all calculations the edge distance on both sides was choosed c2 = c3 = 75 mm. The concrete properties are summarised in table 1.
Concrete compressive strength Fc,cylinder [N/mm²] 25,0 Concrete compressive strength Fc,cube200 [N/mm²] 29,4 Concrete tensile strength ft [N/mm²] 2,0 Fracture energy GF [N/mm] 0,08 E-Modulus

[N/mm²] 28000

Table 1: Concrete parameters The material model of the steel of the channel bar is supposed as linear elastic with an E-modulus of 210000 N/mm². I.e. in all cases concrete failure causes the system failure. The load on the channel bar is always symmetric to the middle anchor with 2 single loads (Figure 5.1). The distance of the single load to the middle anchor is signed with x. The position of load was varied between x = 0 mm (over the middle anchor A) and x = 100 mm respectively x = 300 mm (over the anchor B).
x x

C (le.) s

B (le.) s

A s

B (ri.) s

C (ri.)

Figure 5.1: Designation of the anchors The supports in z-direction were placed at the concrete surface. The displacement was applied incrementally on the channel bar. The increment size was 0,05 mm. 5.2 Results of the calculations for spacing s = 300 mm Different load positions are investigated for a spacing of the anchors of s = 300 mm, and the maximum loads of the anchors are compared with each other. The anchor load B is shown only once, but it actually acts 2 times in the system, caused by the symmetry. The difference between the sum of the anchor loads and the system load, is a result of the minimum tensile capacity of the contact elements. Figures 5.2a and b show crack development at the maximum load of the first broken anchor. The failure is caused by a horizontal crack to the edge of the concrete member. As can be seen from the crack development for load position x = 0 mm, only the middle anchor A is activated. For load position x = 200 mm both anchors (A and B) are activated.

136

0.01 0.00833 0.00667 0.005 0.00333 0.00167 0.
Z Y X Output Set: MASA3 A1096 Contour: Avrg.Ez stra.

Z Y X Output Set: MASA3 A10073 Contour: Avrg.Ez stra.

Figure 5.2a: Cracks pattern, x = 0 mm

Figure 5.2b: Cracks pattern, x = 200 mm

In the Figures 5.3a and b the load distribution on the single anchors is shown. At load position x = 0 mm only anchor A is activated, then at about 75 % of the maximal anchor load, the anchors B are also activated. The load of the anchors B can nearly be neglected. The system failure is caused by failure of anchor A. In comparison with load position x = 200 mm from the beginning, the middle anchor A and the anchors B are activated. At maximum load of the system the anchors A and B take up almost the same load. The failure of the system is caused by concrete failure of the anchors A and B (ri./ le.).
40 35

40 35

Anchor load A, B [kN]

Anchor load A, B [kN]

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
anchor load A anchor load B

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
anchor load A anchor load B

Systemload [kN]

Systemload [kN]

Figure 5.3a: Anchor loads, x = 0 mm

Figure 5.3b: Anchor loads, x = 200 mm

Figure 5.4 shows, that by loading above position x = 0 mm the ultimate load of the system is nearly the same, as the ultimate load of a single anchor. Load position x = 200 mm shows, that the systemload is 3-times the load of the anchor acting at x = 0 mm. At the load positions from x = 0 mm to x = 50 mm the middle anchor carries about 97 % of the total load. The neighbour anchors get only 3 % of the total load. Beginning at position x = 150 mm the load in the system is better distributed. The anchors B take up at load position x = 150 mm 63,5 % of the maximum load and the middle anchor only 36,5 %. This tendency maintains up to load position x = 200 mm. At position x = 200 mm the anchors A and B are activated at the same size. From load position x = 200 mm on, activation of anchor A is decreasing. As a result between x = 200 mm and 300 mm the

137

systemload becomes lower.
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
systemload anchor load A anchor load B

Systemload [kN]

Distance of loading point from middle anchor [mm]

Figure 5.4: Anchor loads and maximum load for different load positions At position x = 300 mm the systemload is 2 times higher than the load from position x = 0 mm. The results show, that for s = 300 mm when load is applied directly over an anchor, only that anchor can be activated. Generally can be seen, that the maximum anchor load of a single anchor is reached at 32 kN. This gives a maximal (optional) resistance if all anchors are directly loaded. This shows a good agreement between the calculated loads and the CCD-method. The analysis shows, that for s = 300 mm there is no interaction between the anchors. The results are in good agreement with the CCDmethod (34 kN), only if the load is applied directly over the anchor. 5.3 Results of the calculations for spacing s = 100 mm The representation of the results of the calculations with different load positions and spacing of the anchors of s = 100 mm is corresponding to section 5.2. The Figures 5.5a and b show crack development at the maximum. The maximum load is controlled by a horizontal crack in direction to the edge of the concrete member and a connecting crack between the heads of the anchors. From the crack development it can be seen, that at load position x = 0 mm the anchors A and B are activated and for the load position x = 75 mm the anchor C is activated as well. After peek load the anchors will break by concrete cone failure.

138

0.01 0.00833 0.00667 0.005 0.00333 0.00167 0.
Z Y X Output Set: MASA3 C1053 Contour: Avrg.Ez stra.

Z Y X Output Set: MASA3 C7055 Contour: Avrg.Ez stra.

Figure 5.5a: Crack pattern, x = 0 mm

Figure 5.5b: Crack pattern, x = 75 mm

In the Figures 5.6a and b the load distribution of the individual anchors is shown. At load position x = 0 mm anchor A carries the highest part of the acting load. In comparison with the channel bar with large spacing of the anchors the anchors B and C are activated as well (see Figure 5.3). Up to 50 % of the maximum load the activation of anchor B and C is nearly the same. From 50 % of the maximum load anchor B is activated more strongly. The system failure is caused by concrete failure of the anchors A and B. Compared with the load position x = 75 mm, both anchors A and B are activated from beginning of loading. At maximum load the loads are nearly the same. The anchor C is activated from beginning of loading as well. Extremely strong is the activation close by the maximum of the system load. The failure is caused by concrete failure of all 5 anchors.
40 40

Anchor load A, B, C [kN]

30

anchor load A anchor load B anchor load C

Anchor load A, B, C [kN]

30

20

20

anchor load A anchor load B anchor load C

10

10

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Systemload [kN]

Systemload [kN]

Figure 5.6a: Anchor loads, x = 0 mm

Figure 5.6b: Anchor loads, x = 75 mm

Figure 5.7 shows, that for s = 100 mm the influence of the position of the load on the maximum load of the system is not so strong as for s = 300 mm. Nevertheless, the maximum load is growing up in dependence on the load position from x = 0 mm to x = 100 mm. At the load position x = 62,5 mm the ratio of activation of the anchors A and B is the same. From load position x = 62,5 mm to x = 100 mm anchor C is better activated. In the CCD-method mutual influence of the anchors by spacing of s = 100 mm with an embedment depth of hef = 85 mm is taken to account on the failure of a single anchor. In

139

the FE-analyses the same influence can be seen. Especially it is shown in the activation of the single anchors at different load positions. Up to position x = 50 mm 3 anchors will break out, over x = 50 mm 5 anchors will break out. Generally it is shown, that the highest loaded single anchor has a failure load of about 20 kN. At load position x = 0 mm the failure load of anchor A is about 25 kN. This could be restored, because activated area of anchor A is low influenced by the anchors B and C. An indication therefore is the lower anchor load of the anchors B and C, compared with all other load positions at maximum load.
120

100

Systemload [KN]

80

60
systemload anchor load A

40

anchor load B anchor load C

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Distance of loading point from middle anchor [mm]

Figure 5.7: Anchor loads and maximum load for different load positions By designing anchor groups using the CCD-Method it is assumed, that the anchor plate, which connects the anchors is sufficiently stiff. Figure 5.7 shows, that the anchors close to the loading point (anchor B and A) are both activated almost the same. However the ratio of activation of anchor C is lower than for the anchors A and B. Obviously by small spacing of the anchors, the CCD-method can be used only conditional, since the load distribution on all anchors is not the same.

6. Conclusions
Presently no model is available to describe concrete failure of channel bars with more than two anchors and for different positions of loads. To investigate this problem a FEanalysis of channel bars (profil 50/30) with several anchor distances and for different load positions has been carried out. The results of the calculations are compared with the CCD-method for fasteners. By designing anchor groups with the CCD-method it is assumed, that the anchor plate which connects the anchors, is sufficiently stiff. Consequently, according to the model the load is uniformly distributed over all anchors. The numerical analyse shows, that for small spacing of the anchors, the channel bar can be viewed approximately as a stiff. Therefore the CCD-method can be used. However,

140

the results show, that for large spacing of the anchors, it is reasonable to assume the channel bar as a system of single span beams. Therefore, in the new model for design of channel bars the critical anchor is obtained on a system of single span beams. The resistance of each anchor is calculated based on a concept of the influencing area. The cases studied in the present numerical investigations are two extreme cases. To formulate a more general design model, which should account for the transition from the approach with the stiff channel bar (CCD-method) to the system of a single span beams, further numerical and experimental work is needed.

7. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the following companies: Halfen and Deutsche Kahneisen. The support is very much appreciated.

8. References
[1] Wohlfahrt, R.: Tragverhalten von Ankerschienen ohne Rückhängebewehrung, Stuttgart: Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Mitteilung 1996(4). [2] Ozbolt, J.: „MASA- Macoscopic Space Analysis“, Stuttgart: Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Internal report 1999. [3] Halfen GmbH & Co. KG: Zulassungsbescheid Halfen-Ankerschiene HTA (Z-21.434), Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (1998).

141

ANCHORS IN LOW AND HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE
Jakob Kunz*, Yasutoshi Yamamoto**, Mario Berra***, Pietro Bianchi* *Hilti AG, Corporate Research, Liechtenstein **Shibaura Institute, Tokyo, Japan ***Enel.Hydro, Milan, Italy

Abstract
Standard anchor design rules apply to normal strength concrete in a range of about 20 to 50 MPa compressive strength. However, we often encounter low strength concrete when retrofitting old buildings. On the other hand, the evolution in concrete technology leads to always higher compressive strengths in new concrete construction. A research commissioned by Hilti Corporate Research and carried out under the direction of Professor Yamamoto at Shibaura Institute of Technology in Japan investigated the transfer capability of anchors by conducting a systematic series of more than 500 shear and tension tests in low strength concrete. The behavior of anchors in high strength concrete has been investigated in the European project ANCHR. This paper puts together comparable results from both research programs and draws conclusions for the design of anchorage in low and high strength concrete. This leads to the conclusion that standard design rules can be applied for shear transmission, but that for tension load, the concrete strength has to be taken into account as proposed by structural concrete codes when designing anchorage for concrete capacity in low or high strength concrete.

1. Introduction
Standard anchor design rules apply to normal strength concrete in a range of about 20 to 50 MPa compressive strength. The failure of the concrete capacity is usually associated with the concrete strength to the power of 0.5. Thus the concrete capacity design method (CCD, [1], [2]) gives the concrete cone failure caused by an anchor as:
1 N u ,m = k ⋅ hef.5 ⋅ f c

142

(1) with: Nu,m k hef fc mean ultimate concrete cone pullout load [N] constant, =13.5 for metal anchors; =15.5 for headed studs and some undercut anchors [-] effective embedment depth [mm] concrete compressive strength [MPa]

and for shear loads:

Vc ,u ,m

 hef = 0.9 ⋅ d ⋅   d 

   

0.2

⋅ c1.5 ⋅ f c ≤ Vs ,u ,m

(2)

with: Vc,u,m d c Vs,u,m

ultimate load for concrete cone failure in shear [N] anchor diameter [mm] distance from axis of anchor to concrete edge [mm] maximum shear load for steel failure [N]

The value of the concrete compressive strength to the power of 0.5 is to represent the concrete tensile strength. This results in a good representation of the cone pullout strength for concrete strengths from 20 to 50 MPa. However, Neville [3] suggests, that probably the best fit to represent tensile strength of concrete ft is

f t ≅ 0.3 ⋅ f c2 / 3

(3)

In fact, Eurocode 2 [4] also uses this formula. In this study, tests for concrete failure with compressive strengths below and above the range of 20 to 50 MPa have been compared to both representations of the concrete tensile strength. The tests in low strength concrete have been taken from a research program carried out at the Shibaura institute of Technology, Tokyo under the direction of Professor Y. Yamamoto and the tests in high strength concrete are taken from the Brite-Euram Project ANCHR which investigated the anchor behavior in normal and high strength concrete under static load and under high strain rates. Another set of tests with undercut anchors in normal strength concrete from the Hilti testing laboratory is considered as well.

2. Tensile Load Capacity of Undercut Systems
The tensile load capacity was evaluated with headed studs and undercut anchors. A total of 97 tests representing concrete compressive strengths from 5 to 120 MPa has been analyzed. The embedment depths range from 36mm to 135mm. The measured failure loads Fu,test have been “normalized” to an embedment depth of 100mm. Since the ultimate load depends on the embedment depth hef to the power of 1.5 (1), the normalized ultimate load Fu,norm is obtained as:

143

Fu ,norm

 100   = Fu ,test ⋅  h   ef 

1.5

(4)

Figure 1 shows the normalized measured ultimate loads with two calculated curves. The first curve represents formula (1), where the factor k for the considered sample was 17.2. Thus, curve (1) represents the dependence of the ultimate load on the square root of the concrete compressive. The second curve represents formula (5), i.e. the dependence of the ultimate load on the concrete strength to the power of 2/3.
1 2 N u ,m = 10.3 ⋅ hef.5 ⋅ β w / 3

(5)

350
conrete cone failure load [kN]

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
concrete strength [N/mm2]

formula (1) formula (5) tests Shibaura tests ENEL tests Hilti failure loads normalized for hef = 100mm

Figure 1: Tests with undercutting systems Figure 1 clearly shows that both formulae yield the same results with compressive strengths in the range of 20 to 50 MPa, but that for lower and especially for higher compressive strengths the differences are considerable. For low strength concrete, the test results are lower than the results of both formulae, but formula (5) is somewhat closer than formula (1). For a compressive strength of 120 MPa, formula (1) clearly underestimates the test results, while formula (5) gives a good prediction of the average test result. A thorough analysis of the test data has shown, that the quality of a predictive formula can be further increased by taking into account the undercutting area A.

N u ,m = 8.1 ⋅ (hef + 0.9 ⋅ A0.5 ) ⋅ f c2 / 3
1.5

(6)

144

with: A undercutting area projected to a plane perpendicular to the axis of the anchor The ratio of measured to predicted ultimate load has been evaluated for all 97 tests with formulae (1), (5) and (6). The coefficient of variation obtained with the prediction formula (1) is 17.7% which corresponds to the values given in [1]. Considering formula (5), the coefficient of variation is reduced to 13.1% and with formula (6) even to 11.6%.

3. Tensile Load Capacity of Adhesive Bonded Systems
a) Bond Strength As shown earlier[5], [6], the pullout resistance of bonded anchorage systems is mainly dependent on the product specific bond strength τb and the anchor surface. The influence of the compressive strength of the concrete depends on the product. In the considered tests, the dependence varied from none to proportional to the square root of the concrete compressive strength.

N u ,m ,b

 f = τ b ⋅ φ ⋅ π ⋅ hef ⋅  c f  c ,ref

   

n

(7)

with: Nu,m,b mean ultimate maximum load for pullout failure [N] τb product specific bond strength [MPa] φ diameter of anchor [mm] fc,ref reference concrete strength, corresponds to tb [MPa] n product dependent exponent, 0.0 < n < 0.5 This statement has been confirmed by both presented test series in low and in high strength concrete. b) Splitting Bond Failure If the anchor is set near the edge and therefore the concrete cover is small, the bond strength τb may not be reached before splitting of the concrete cover. Splitting failure has been tested in normal and high strength concrete. Cylindrical concrete specimens with a diameter of 100mm. High strength reinforcement bars with a diameter of 20mm were pulled out of the concrete cylinders. Thus the concrete cover around the reinforcement bars was 40mm or 2 times the bar diameter. From the measured maximum loads, the splitting bond stress τu,sp was evaluated by dividing the maximum load by the anchor surface, i.e:

145

τ u ,sp =

Fu ,m

φ ⋅ π ⋅ hef

(8)

Figure 2 shows the splitting bond stresses evaluated from tests with cast-in and with post-installed bars against the concrete strength. Two curves show the best fit equations for predictions supposing that the splitting bond stress is proportional to the concrete strength to the power of 0.5, or to the power of 2/3, respectively.

curve1 : τ u ,sp = 1.69 ⋅ f c0.5 ;
splitting bond stress [MPa]

curve 2 : τ u ,sp = 0.81 ⋅ f c2 / 3
curve 1 curve 2 tests postinstalled tests cast in place

(9)

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0 100 200 300
concrete strength [MPa]

Figure 2: splitting bond tests with bonded systems The comparison of tests and prediction (figure 2) shows that the assumption that the splitting failure is proportional to the concrete strength to the power of 2/3 (curve 2) gives better results for very high and very low concrete strengths. When comparing the ratios of measured to predicted values, curve 1 yields a coefficient of variation of 38% while curve 2 yields a coefficient of variation of 29% for the considered sample of 30 tests. Nevertheless these results must be considered as preliminary, since the coefficient of variation is rather high in both cases.

4. Shear Load Capacity without Edge Influence in Low Strength Concrete
In the test program at Shibaura Institute of Technology the shear capacity of single anchors and of groups of 3 anchors has been measured in low strength concrete specimens. The concrete base material was cast as 1.2m long concrete blocks with compressive strengths of 5 to 15 MPa. Monotonic shear loading tests on post-installed reinforcement bars were conducted in order to measure strength, displacement and failure modes that are basic characteristics of post-installed anchors.

146

The number of cracks in the base material (existing member) decreased, as the concrete strength increased, since the mode of failure shifted from concrete bearing pressure to steel shear failure. Structural concrete design codes show how to calculate the strength of shear bolts. Eurocode 4 proposes the following formulae for the characteristic resistance PRk (sect. 6.3.2.1 [7]): steel shear failure: concrete bearing pressure:

PRk = 0.8 f u

π ⋅d 2

E cm = 9500( f ck + 8)

1/ 3

(E

4 2 PRk = 0.29d f ck ⋅ Ecm
cm

(10) (11)

, f ck [kN / mm 2 ], EC2, sect. 3.1.2.5.2 )

ultimate strength of steel with: fu fck characteristic compressive strength of concrete Ecm Young’s modulus of concrete
normalized shear strength 2 2 Fu/(n*d ) [kN/mm ] 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 d22, group 0.05 0 0 5 10 15 20 concrete strength [N/mm2] calculated steel failure calculated concrete failure d22, single d19, group d16, single d19, single

Figure 3: Shear tests Figure 3 shows the test results and the expected failure loads according to Eurocode 4, where the normalized shear strength is the shear strength divided by the diameter squared of the anchor rods, d2, and the number of anchors in a group, n. The diagram shows, that single anchors with small diameters perform in a clear concrete bearing failure, while anchors with bigger diameters in groups tend more to steel failure. In any case it seems advisable to design shear connections in low strength concrete for concrete bearing pressure.

147

5. Conclusions
All tests presented in this paper show the concrete capacity limit. For anchor pullout tests with concrete cone failure, the results have been compared to the concrete capacity design method and it has been confirmed that this method gives a good prediction for the ultimate resistance in normal strength concrete, but that in low and high strength concrete, the resistance should rather be estimated as proportional to the concrete strength to the power of 2/3. Bonded anchor systems with small concrete cover tend to reach their ultimate load when splitting of the concrete cover occurs. This is again reached with the concrete tensile capacity. For this case the considered tests also suggest to predict the failure load as proportional to the concrete compressive strength to the power of 2/3 if a wide range of concrete strengths is considered. Additional prediction accuracy can be obtained if the undercutting area of the anchorage system is taken into account. The last section has shown that the shear capacity of anchors without influence of concrete edges can be estimated with the formulae from Eurocode 4 with good precision. Thus, the investigations summarized in this paper suggest that the concrete capacity method is a good predictions of the failure loads in normal strength concrete, but that a more realistic model for the concrete tensile strength should be taken into account if a wide range of concrete strengths is considered.

6. Open Questions
The investigations shown here compare fiber reinforced high strength concrete to normal and low strength concrete without fiber reinforcement. This has been done under the assumption that fibers are generally contained in high strength concrete in order to achieve a minimum ductility. Thus, simply saying “concrete” may mean fiber reinforced for high strengths and not reinforced with fibers for medium and low strengths. Nevertheless, it should be stated that by definition fiber reinforced concrete is a material different from normal concrete. The relations found in this research apply to the two different materials as they are generally used. In order to establish clear relationships for the two different materials (fiber reinforced concrete and concrete not reinforced with fibers) further research is required.

Acknowledgement
The project ANCHR was sponsored by the BRITE-EURAM research framework 7. The authors would like to thank for the support.

148

References
1. Eligehausen, Mallée, Rehm: Befestigungstechnik. Sonderdruck aus dem Betonkalender 1997. Ernst & Sohn, Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften, Berlin 1997. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., Breen, J. E.: Concrete Capacity Design Approach for Fastening to Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, January-February 1995. Neville, A.M.: Properties of Concrete. Pearson Education Limited. Essex, England, 1995. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Cook, R. A., Kunz J., Fuchs W., Konz C.: Behavior and Design of Single Adhesive Anchors under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 1, January-February 1998. Kunz, J., Cook R. A., Fuchs W., Spieth H.: Tragverhalten und Bemessung von chemischen Befestigungen. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 93 (1998), Hefte 1 und 2. Ernst und Sohn, Berlin. Eurocode 4: Design of Mixed Structures in Steel and Concrete.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

149

DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON UNIFORM REGULATIONS IN EUROPE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF METAL ANCHORS
Klaus Laternser Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik, Germany

Abstract
The different national regulations in force in Europe in the field of metal anchors lead to the development of a first European UEAtc Directive for the assessment of anchors in 1986 by means of which common principles of testing and a mutual recognition of test results were achieved. On the basis of this Directive the EOTA (European Organisation for Technical Approval) has elaborated comprehensive compulsory "Guidelines for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete". These Guidelines endorsed in 1997 by the European Commission resulted in the issue of a great number of European Technical Approvals (ETAs) for metal anchors.

1. Introduction
During the past 30 years the use of metal anchors for anchorage in drilled holes of concrete elements has tremendously fast increased worldwide. This required regulations for the determination and evaluation of the properties and efficiency of anchors as well as for the installation of anchors. Differing national regulations in various European countries by agréments, technical approvals or standards led, at the beginning of the 80s, to a first European harmonization for the testing of metal anchors. Upon completion of uniform and binding regulations in Europe through guidelines for the European Technical Approval for metal anchors for use in concrete circa 30 European Technical Approvals could be granted up to now for metal anchors.

150

2. National regulations in Europe
The first national approvals for metal anchors in Germany were granted in 1975. The anchors concerned were torque-controlled expansion anchors (sleeve type) and deformation-controlled expansion anchors (drop-in anchors). Four years later approvals were granted for expansion anchors for use in cracked concrete and bonded anchors. At present there are a great number of German technical approvals in force for different systems of metal anchors. In other European countries such as France, United Kingdom, Sweden and The Netherlands also agréments were granted and/or standards for testing of anchors were elaborated as well. As agreed with the European Commission national regulations shall be withdrawn and replaced, after a transitional period, by European Technical Approvals as soon as EOTA Guidelines for European Technical Approvals are available. For expansion anchors and undercut anchors this transitional period will end in mid-2002.

3. UEAtc regulations
3.1 General The UEAtc – Union Européenne pour l'Agrément technique dans la Construction European Union of Agrément - joins national institutes, centres and organisations of Europe, which deal with the establishment of common guides and the elaboration of technical agréments in building, with the objective to reduce costs and time required for the different approval procedures in the European area and to simplify the mutual recognition of agréments. 3.2 UEAtc Directives In December 1986 a first European regulation, the "UEAtc Technical Directive for the Assessment of Anchors Bolts" [1] was published. This Directive contained, in addition to terminology and general requirements, details on the determination of characteristics, advice for the evaluation of the test results, information on the quality control and conditions for the use of the anchors. It applied only to anchorages realised in the compressive zone of the concrete and not to anchorages in or in the vicinity of cracks. However, a uniform evaluation of the test results and a common safety concept could then not yet be established in a binding way. For anchorages realised in the compressive zone of concrete, however, the main first objectives, i.e. common principles for testing in all UEAtc countries and mutual recognition of test results, had been achieved. 3.3 UEAtc Technical Guides As an extension of the UEAtc Directive, the Institut für Bautechnik proposed in 1987 to set up a "Test programme for suitability tests and approval tests for anchors to be used in the tension zone of concrete".

151

For the design of reinforced concrete structures the tensile zone of concrete is assumed to be cracked, since concrete has a low tensile strength which may already be utilised by inherent stresses and restraint of imposed deformations not taken into account. Additionally, there are locally increased tensile stresses in the anchorage zone due to splitting forces resulting from the installation and loading of the anchor. After agreement on the question of whether cracked and non-cracked concrete can be distinguished in practice, the scope of the new document was defined as applying to anchors - for use in cracked and non-cracked concrete, and - for use in non-cracked concrete only. The UEAtc Technical Guide [2] completed in 1992 includes the testing of torquecontrolled expansion metal anchors, the design of anchorages in concrete and details on the anchor installation. Of central importance are the good functioning tests. They are intended to establish the fitness of the anchor system for the intended use and to detect any poor performance, e.g. installation safety under normal site conditions, performance in different concrete strengths or under repeated and sustained loading.

4. EOTA
The European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA) [3] consists at present of 29 Member Bodies from 17 European countries, which were nominated and authorised to issue European Technical Approvals (ETAs). EOTA was created in the framework of the implementation of the Construction Products Directive [4] for the harmonization of construction products in the European Union. EOTA has the task to monitor the elaboration of Guidelines for European Technical Approval and to coordinate all activities in connection with the granting of ETAs. ETA-Guidelines (ETAGs) are elaborated for a certain product area within working groups and project teams. The elaboration is based on a mandate issued by the European Commission and on an approved work programme. In the field of anchors there is a total of four mandates issued by the European Commission for the elaboration of Guidelines for European Technical Approval: − Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete − Metal Anchors for Lightweight Systems − Plastic Anchors for Use in Concrete and Masonry − Injection Anchors for Use in Masonry. For all four anchor sectors EOTA has placed the elaboration under the chairmanship of the writer, thus ensuring a uniform assessment concept for the different anchor types. The convenorship and the secretariat for the four working groups are held by the Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik [5]. The European manufacturers of anchors, represented by their association CEO (Comité Européen de l'Outillage - European Tool Committee), are essentially involved in the elaboration of the Guidelines.

152

5. ETAG 001
5.1 General The Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete [6] was adopted in 1997 as the very first ETAG: ETAG 001. It consists of a general part for all types of metal anchors and of five further parts applying to - torque-controlled expansion anchors - undercut anchors - deformation-controlled expansion anchors - bonded anchors, and - anchors for lightweight systems. Part 1 includes the requirements and assessment methods for all metal anchors, whereas the subsequent parts contain additional and/or deviating requirements and assessment methods; they shall be used only in connection with Part 1. The Guideline includes three Annexes: - Details of tests - Tests for admissible service conditions – Detailed information - Design methods for anchorages. Parts 1 to 3 and Annexes A, B and C were published in 1997, Part 4 for deformationcontrolled expansion anchors was published in 1999. Part 5 for bonded anchors has been completed and will probably be published after its adoption in this year. Part 6 for anchors for use in redundant systems is presently in preparation and is envisaged to be completed next year. 5.2 Scope The Guideline applies to metal anchors placed into drilled holes in concrete and anchored by expansion, undercutting or bonding. The Guideline covers the assessment of metal anchors when their use shall fulfil the Essential Requirements 1 and 4 of the CPD and when failure of anchorages made with these products would compromise the stability of the works, cause risk to human life and/or lead to considerable economic consequences. The anchor has to be made of carbon steel, stainless steel or malleable cast iron. In the case of bonded anchors the mortar may be made of resin, cement or a combination of both. The minimum thread size of the anchor is 6 mm, the anchorage depth shall be not less than 40 mm. Anchors for use in lightweight systems shall have a diameter of at least 5 mm and an anchorage depth of 30 mm. The concrete member in which anchors are installed shall be made of normal weight concrete between strength classes C 20/25 and C 50/60. Part 6 covers also other strength classes and other types of concrete, e.g. lightweight aggregate concrete and aerated concrete.

153

Paper115

The Guideline applies to anchors subject to static or quasi-static actions in tension, shear or combined tension and shear or bending, and only applications are covered, where the concrete members in which the anchors are embedded are also subject to static or quasi static actions. The use categories are defined for use in cracked and non-cracked concrete or noncracked concrete only. The durability categories for use in structures subject to dry, internal conditions and/or in structures subject to other environmental conditions; e.g. external atmospheric exposure or exposure in permanently damp internal conditions. 5.3 Verification methods The assessment of anchors is based on the following tests: - tests for confirming their suitability - tests for evaluating the admissible service conditions - tests for checking durability. The tests for suitability are of decisive importance for the assessment of the anchors and are required for the following reasons: - The anchors must not be too sensitive to deviations from the installation instructions of the manufacturer, which might occur during installation. These may include • cleaning of the drilled hole • application of a torque moment higher or smaller than required • degree of expansion in the case of undercut anchors and deformation-controlled expansion anchors • mixing of mortar in the case of bonded anchors • striking of reinforcement during drilling. - The anchors must not be too sensitive to deviations from the concrete characteristics (e.g. concrete strength, cracks, opening and closing of cracks). - Due to drilled hole tolerances and wear of the drilling machine the load resistance of the anchor can be adversely affected. - The anchors must properly function even under sustained loads and repeated loads of varying size. However, gross errors are not covered by the ETAG 001 and should be avoided by proper training of installers and supervision on site. For these suitability tests it is accepted that there is a limited reduction of the load resistance of the anchor compared to the test results for the determination of the admissible service conditions. The different behaviour is assessed by using reduction factors and an installation safety factor of the anchor system as a function of the test results. The extent of the tests for determining the admissible service conditions depends of the field of use chosen by the manufacturer for the anchors. For this purpose the options given in Table 1 are included in the Guideline, which cover the use of anchors in

154

cracked and non-cracked concrete and in non-cracked concrete only, the characteristic load resistance FRk as a function of the concrete strength class and load direction and the characteristic load resistance respectively as a uniform value for all concrete strength classes ≥ C 20/25 and/or for all load directions. There are further options for the characteristic spacing of the anchors scr and the characteristic distance between anchor and member edge ccr and for the minimum distances smin and cmin respectively. Characteristic distances are values at which the characteristic (i.e. the full) load resistance of the anchor in the event of concrete failure is achieved. The minimum distances are the minimum admissible values. Where when using the anchors spacing and edge distance respectively are smaller than the determined characteristic values – e.g. in the case of anchor groups and/or anchors near the edge – the characteristic load resistance of the anchors shall be reduced by applying one of the design methods given in Annex C. The tests for checking durability concern mainly the resistance to corrosion, the durability of coatings and the problem of jamming in the case of stainless steel. Table 1: Options
Option Cracked Non- C20/25 C20/25 FRk to cracked only No one and C50/60 value nonconcrete cracked only concrete FRk function of direction ccr scr cmin smin Design method according to Annex C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

A B C

x x x x

x x x x

A B C

5.4 Assessment of the anchors The characteristic load resistance of the anchor is determined on the basis of statistical methods as 5% fractile of the ultimate loads measured in a test series for a confidence level of 90%. The load/displacement curves shall show a steady increase. A reduction in load and/or a horizontal or near-horizontal part in the curve caused by uncontrolled slip

155

of the anchor is not acceptable up to a defined load. Furthermore, the scatter of the ultimate loads and of the load/displacement curves is limited. 5.5 Annexes Annex A includes details of tests, such as test samples, test members, anchor installation, test and measurement equipment, test procedure and test report. Annex B contains detailed information on the type and number of tests for admissible service conditions. The number of tests is dependent on the option chosen by the manufacturer and on the current experience available on the loadbearing behaviour of the anchors. The equations given for ultimate loads for single anchors are based on current test experience. If the behaviour of the anchors falls within the current range of test experience, a reduced test programme may be carried out. Where test results are available from the manufacturer, these results - with the exception of the suitability tests - can be taken into account thus reducing the number of the tests. Annex C describes the three design methods for anchors for use in concrete. The design of the anchorages (e.g. anchor groups, influence of concrete member edges or corners) is based on the characteristic value of the load resistance given in the relevant ETA for the anchor concerned.

6. ETAs
Based on the ETAG 001 the first two European Technical Approvals were granted by Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik in February 1998. By that the first European technical specifications were available being automatically valid in all European countries; they were actually the first construction products bearing the CE marking at all. The anchors concerned are torque-controlled expansion anchors of sizes M8 to M24 made of galvanized steel and stainless steel. They were tested and evaluated under Option 1, the most extensive scope of application for use in cracked and non-cracked concrete fixed in the ETAG 001. They were followed by ETAs for undercut anchors of sizes M6 to M16, made of galvanized steel and stainless steel for use in cracked and non-cracked concrete under Option 1. Until the beginning of 2001 altogether circa 30 ETAs for metal anchors were granted by 5 different European approval bodies for 12 manufacturers in all. They were mainly expansion anchors made of galvanized steel or stainless steel which were evaluated and approved for different fields of application (cracked and non-cracked concrete or non-cracked concrete only).

156

Paper115

7. Prospects
The adoption of ETAG 001 for Metal anchors for use in concrete has opened the possibility to grant European Technical Approvals which are automatically in force in all European countries and which are thus the basis for placing the first CE-marked construction products on the European market. The fact that so far a large number of European Technical Approvals have been granted by different European approval bodies is evidence for the broad acceptance of the Guideline.

References
[1] UEAtc Directive for Assessment of Anchor Bolts, UEAtc - European Union of Agrément / Union Européenne pour l'Agrément Technique dans la Construction, M.O.A.T. N° 42:1986, December 1986 [2] UEAtc Technical Guide on anchors for use in cracked and non-cracked concrete, UEAtc - European Union of Agrément / Union Européenne pour l'Agrément Technique dans la Construction, M.O.A.T. N° 49:1992, June 1992 [3] European Organisation for Technical Approvals - EOTA: www.eota.be [4] Council Directive of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (CPD), Official Journal of the European Communities N° L 40/12 of 11 February 1989 [5] Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik: www.dibt.de [6] Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete - ETAG 001, EOTA

157

BEHAVIOR OF MULTIPLE-ANCHOR FASTENINGS SUBJECTED TO COMBINED TENSION/SHEAR LOADS AND BENDING MOMENT
Longfei Li*, Rolf Eligehausen** *MKT Metall-Kunststoff-Technik GmbH & Co. KG, Germany ** Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
Multiple-anchor fastenings are commonly used to connect steel superstructures with concrete foundations both in highway and building constructions. A plastic design method may be used for multiple-anchor fastenings, if full redistribution of forces between anchors is possible. An analytical model was set up for exploring the behavior of multiple-anchor fastenings under combined tension/shear loads and bending moment. The correctness of the model was examined by comparisons between calculated and test results. A number of parametric studies was carried out with the analytical model. Based on the results of this study it will be discussed whether a plastic design method can be applied for typical post-installed metal anchors.

1. Introduction
In building and bridge constructions the loads acting on the superstructures are frequently transferred by multiple-anchor fastenings through the steel columns to concrete foundations. The ultimate loading capacity of the multiple-anchor fastenings can be increased by using ductile anchors if the anchors are decisive for the load capacity of the multiple-anchor fastenings. The behavior of ductile multiple-anchor steel to concrete connections was investigated in several tests /1/. A systematic parametric study was carried out for ductile multiple-anchor fastenings subjected to bending moment /2/. However, the results of this studies may not be valid for typical post-installed metal-anchors. Therefor an analytical model was set up in order to simulate realistically the load-bearing and deformation behavior of multiple-anchor fastenings under combined tension/shear loads

158

and bending moment /3/. The ultimate load capacity of multiple-anchor fastenings may be predicted with the analytical model which was verified by comparison with experimental results. A number of parametric studies was carried out with the analytical model. Based on the results of this study it will be discussed whether a plastic design method can be applied for typical post-installed metal anchors.

2. Description of the analytical model
2.1 Basic assumptions The following assumptions were made for a numerical simulation of the behavior of a multiple-anchor fastening shown in Fig. 2.1: 1) 2) 3) 4) Monotonically increasing load P with a constant angle α between oblique tension load P and vertical axis and a constant load eccentricity e. Rigid baseplate (The minor deformations of the baseplate are neglected). Constant coefficient of friction between baseplate and concrete. The load-displacement curves of individual anchors subjected to oblique tension (combined tension and shear loads) are known (e.g. determined by tests).

Fig. 2.1 Multiple-anchor fastening subjected to combined tension and shear load and bending moment ( N=P⋅cos α, V=P⋅sin α and M=P⋅e⋅sin α) 2.2 Material laws The load-displacement behavior of individual anchors subjected to combined tension and shear loads can be simulated by two families of curves with different load angles β based on the oblique loading tests /3,4/ (Fig. 2.2). For a mathematical description of the loaddisplacement relationships the curves are divided into four parts (Fig. 2.3), a plateau with zero stress representing the slip of the beseplate due to a gap between anchor and fixture, a non-linear ascending part approximated by the function σ=σ1⋅(δ/δ1)γ, a linear ascending part which simulates steel yielding or anchor pullout and a descending line which simulates steel

159

or concrete failure of the fastening. The tension and shear stresses are plotted against anchor tension and shear displacements respectively (Figs 2.2 and 2.3).

160

a) Normal stress-displacement b) Shear stress-displacement Fig. 2.2 Normal and shear component of the stress-displacement relationships

Fig. 2.3 Idealization of the load-displacement curve by mathematical functions For the load-displacement behavior of the concrete under local high compressive stresses which occur at the compressed side of the fixture a linear and dimensionless stress-displacement relationship was assumed in the analytical model based on theoretical /3/ and test results /5/ (Fig. 2.4). The coefficient B may be determined by tests. The diameter d was calculated back from the compressed area A.

σ

fc

= B⋅

s d

(2.1)

161

d=

4⋅ A

π
Stress σ
d d d d d

≈ 1.13 ⋅ A

(2.2)

for model

fc= 39 N/mm2

Relative penetration s/d [/]

Fig. 2.4 Load-displacement behavior of concrete under local high compressive stress in accordance with /5/ 2.3 Constitutive equations and their numerical solution For the multiple-anchor fastening shown in Fig. 2.5a we have the equilibrium and compatibility conditions shown in Fig. 2.5b,c with three degrees of freedom.

Fig. 2.5 Multiple-anchor fastening with equilibrium and compatibility conditions

162

If the normal displacement on the baseplate is entered as x1, the shear displacement as x2 and the anchor plate rotation as x3, the following three equations of equilibrium are obtained:

∑N =0

N( x1 , x 2 , x 3 ) = 0 V( x1 , x 2 , x 3 ) = 0 N( x1 , x 2 , x 3 ) = 0
(2.3)

∑V = 0 ∑M = 0

The modified Newtonian method of iteration was used to solve the nonlinear equation system /6/.

x
wherein:

(k +1)

= x(k) - ω ⋅ [F ′(x )(k) ] -1 ⋅ F(x )(k) k = 0,1,2, ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
 x1    x = x 2  x   3  N( x1 , x 2 , x3 )    F(x) = V( x1 , x 2 , x3 )   M( x , x , x ) 1 2 3  

(2.4)

(2.5)

 ∂N ∂  x1  ∂V F ′(x) = ∂  x1  ∂M ∂  x1
with, for example:

∂N ∂ x2 ∂V ∂ x2 ∂M ∂ x2

∂N  ∂ x3   ω1   ∂V   ω = ω 2  ∂ x3 ω    3 ∂M  ∂ x3  

(2.6)

∂N N( x1 + ∆ x1 , x 2 , x3 ) - N( x1 , x 2 , x3 ) = ∂ x1 ∆ x1

(2.7)

By an appropriate selection of the iteration constant ωk and ∆xi, the conditions of equilibrium with permissible tolerances ξN ≤ 1 N, ξV ≤ 1 N and ξM ≤ 10 Nmm, for one load step can be obtained after 5 to 10 iteration steps with a computer program /10/. In the computer program the anchor forces under combined tension and shear forces are determined by linear interpolation with the two families of the stress-displacement curves /3/. The calculation can be controlled by either the load, the normal displacement, the shear displacement or the rotation of the baseplate of the multiple-anchor fastening /3,10/.

163

The calculated results can be visualized by a plot program so that the correctness of the calculated results can be quickly checked graphically /10/.

3. Verification of the analytical model by tests
The M1 series of tests conducted in /1/ was calculated with the analytical model. Fig. 3.1 shows the dimensions of the multiple-anchor fastenings used for the tests. Failure was caused by steel rupture.

Fig. 3.1 Dimensions of the multiple-anchor steel to concrete connections using undercut anchors, Tests /1/ (1 inch = 25.4 mm) The load displacement-relationship of the anchor subjected to a centric tensile load was taken from the tests /7/, whereas the families of load-displacement curves of the anchor subjected to oblique tension were taken from the tests conducted in /4/. The tension/shear interaction of the anchor was calculated with the equation /9/:

(

N Nu

k

) +(

V Vu

k

) =1

(3.1)

with k = 2.0 and Vu = 0.6⋅Nu. The coefficient B (see equation 2.1) and the coefficient of friction µ were entered into the calculation with values of 0.00015 and 0.4.

164

Figs. 3.2 to 3.4 show comparisons between the calculated peak loads and the measured values as a function of the eccentricity e. In Fig. 3.5 the calculated maximum anchor displacements are compared with the test results. In Fig. 3.5 the diagonal line corresponds to a complete agreement between tests and calculation. The calculated peak loads correspond well with the measured values. Some of the calculated normal and shear displacements are too high and some too small. This is probably caused by the inaccuracy of the assumed loaddisplacement curves.

Fig. 3.2 Comparison between calculated and measured peak loads for test series 2M1

Fig. 3.3 Comparison between calculated and measured peak loads for test series 4M1

Fig. 3.4 Comparison between calculated and measured peak loads for test series 6M1

Fig. 3.5 Comparison between calculated and measured maximum anchor displacements

More calculations were carried out with the computer program to simulate the behavior of multiple steel-to-concrete connections tested in /11/. The calculated results agreed well with the experimental values.

165

4. Parametric Studies
4.1 General In case of combined tension and shear forces on an anchor the tensile loading capacity depends on the shear component of the load on the anchor (Equ. 3.1). If multiple-anchor fastening is subjected to combined tension and shear loads and bending moment, each row of anchors is loaded differently, depending on its geometrical and displacement conditions. In the following sections, the different stresses of the anchor rows are explained in detail by means of simulations for multiple-anchor fastenings. Fig. 4.1 shows the dimensions of the multiple-anchor fastening which was used for the simulation. The stress-displacement relationships of the anchor subjected to an oblique tension force were evaluated according to /4/ and /8/. The interaction was calculated according to Equ. (3.1) with k = 2.0 /9/.

Fig. 4.1 Dimensions of the multiple-anchor fastening for the parametric study 4.2 Influence of load eccentricity and load angle Fig. 4.2 shows the ultimate tension component of the ultimate load as a function of the shear component of the investigated multiple-anchor fastenings at different load eccentricities e. It can be seen that at e=0 the ultimate load of the fastening is exactly determined by the load interaction diagram of the individual anchors. At e≥76 mm (3 in), the ultimate tension and shear loads on the fastening have an approximately linear load interaction. Figs. 4.3 and 4.4 show the stress paths and the load-stress curves of different anchor rows at e=76 mm and α=75°. It is clearly visible that the anchors in different rows are stressed differently in normal and shear direction.

166

Fig. 4.2 Tension and shear load interaction diagram at ultimate loads of the fastenings, under centric tension failure is caused by concrete breakout

Fig. 4.3 Stress paths of the anchors at α=75° (e=76 mm or 3 in)

167

Fig. 4.4 Anchor stresses as a function of the load at α=75° (e=76 mm)

4.3 Influence of anchor ductility With the theory of elasticity, it is assumed that all anchors behave elastically and have a constant stiffness both in normal and shear direction. The ultimate load capacity of a multiple-anchor fastening is achieved when one anchor row has reached its oblique tension strength. With the theory of plasticity, it is assumed that the anchors are sufficiently ductile, so that full anchors in the tension zone of a multiple-anchor fastening can fully activate their oblique tension strength /3/. The conditions of the compatibility are neglected. Fig. 4.5 shows the ultimate loads on the fastening as a function of load eccentricity e. It was assumed that under tension and shear loads failure occurs by steel rupture. The calculation was done for different theories. It can be seen that the ultimate loads calculated on the basis of the actual material behavior correspond well with the values determined according to the theory of plasticity. This can be attributed to the ductile load-displacement curves used which allow a full redistribution of forces between anchors in the tension zone. The ultimate loads calculated according to the theory of elasticity are conservative, especially if the friction between baseplate and concrete is neglected. The contribution of friction on the ultimate load decreases with increasing eccentricity, because the shear load is reduced with increasing load eccentricity.

168

Fig. 4.5 Comparison of ultimate loads on the fastening according to different theories (ductile anchor behavior)

5. Conclusions
The behavior of multiple-anchor fastenings is determined by the load-deformation behavior of the individual fastening elements of the group. The load-displacement behavior is determined by the type of anchor and the failure model under tension and shear load. To determine the behavior of multiple anchor fastenings under arbitrary loading an analytical model is proposed. This model can be used to determine under which conditions a plastic analysis of a fastening is justified. The model shows that a plastic analysis is sufficient accurate if the anchors show a ductile steel failure.

6. Bibliography
/1/ Cook, R.A.; Klingner, R.E.: Behavior and design of ductile multiple-anchor steelto-concrete connections. Research Report 11263, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, March 1989 Balogh, T.; Eligehausen, R.; Klingner, R.E.: Parametric studies on the ductility of anchor groups. Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, University of Stuttgart, December 1992

/2/

169

/3/

Li, L.; Eligehausen, R.: Loadbearing Behavior of Multiple-Anchor Fastenings Subjected to Combined Tension/Shear and Bending Moment. Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, University of Stuttgart, 1994 Bozenhardt, A.; Hirth, W.; Opitz, V,: Dieterle, H.: Tragverhalten von nicht generell zugzonentauglichen Dübeln. Teil 4: Verhalten im unbewegten Parallelriß (∆w=0.4 mm) unter Schrägzugbelastung. Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, University of Stuttgart, February 1990. Lieberum, K.-H.: Lokal hohe Pressungen - Einfluß der Betonzusammensetzung und der Belastungsgeometrie auf das Last-Verformungsverhalten. Darmstädter Massivbau-Seminar, Vol. 5, Verankerungen in Beton. TH Darmstadt, 1990 Tönig, W.: Numerische Mathematik für Ingenieure und Physiker. Band I: Numerische Methode der Algebra. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1979 Collins, D.M.; Cook, R.A.; Klingner, R.E.: Load-Deflection Behavior of Cast-inPlace and Retrofit Anchors Subjected to Static, Fatigue, and Impact Tensile Loads. Research Report 1126-1, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, February 1989 Furche, J.: Zum Trag- und Verschiebungsverhalten von formschlüssigen Befestigungsmitteln bei zentrischem Zug. Dissertation, University of Stuttgart, May 1992 Rehm, G.; Eligehausen, R.; Mallee, R.: Befestigungstechnik. Betonkalender 1992, Berlin 1992 Li, L.: BDA: Programm zur Berechnung des Trag- und Verformungsverhaltens von Gruppenbefestigungen unter kombinierter Schrägzugund Momentenbeanspruchung. -Programmbeschreibung-. Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart, 1994 Lotze, D.: Bemessung von Gruppenbefestigungen nach der Plastizitätstheorie. Forschungsvorhaben Nr. Lo 561/1-1 der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), 1996

/4/

/5/

/6/

/7/

/8/

/9/ /10/

/11/

170

LOAD BEARING CAPACITY OF TORQUE-CONTROLLED EXPANSION ANCHORS
Longfei Li MKT Metall-Kunststoff-Technik GmbH & Co. KG, Germany

Abstract
The load bearing capacity of the torque-controlled expansion anchors depends on the internal and the external friction of the anchor. Especially for the re-expandable torquecontrolled expansion anchors which are suitable for use in cracked and non-cracked concrete, the coefficient of the internal friction must lie within a certain range, so that the anchors re-expand reliably and then resist the external loads efficiently. Unfortunately the coefficient of the internal friction can vary significantly depending on the materials as well as the speed of movement of friction surfaces. A test method to determine the internal and external frictional coefficient was introduced. The load bearing capacity of the torque-controlled expansion anchors was analyzed with the different values of the internal frictional coefficient.

1.

Introduction

Torque-controlled expansion anchors are widely used as post-installed systems to fix structural elements. Because of its simplicity of manufacture and easy installation they are often selected for anchoring of facades and banisters /1/. Torque-controlled expansion anchors are anchored in drilled holes by forced expansion which is achieved by a torque acting on the screw or thread. A tensile force applied to the anchor is transferred to the concrete by friction and some keying between expanded sleeve and the concrete. With increasing tensile load the anchor must expand reliably, so that it transfers the load to concrete safely. The safety of functioning as well as the load bearing capacity of the anchor depends on the internal (expansion sleeve/cone) and external (expansion sleeve/concrete) frictions. Higher external friction may be achieved by manufacture or by more tightening of the anchor

170

during installation. The internal friction is the main problem which must be solved during the development of new expansion anchors, especially for expansion anchors made of stainless steel. In this paper it was investigated to enlighten the bond friction between expansion sleeve and cone. The load bearing capacity of expansion anchors was estimated using the value of internal frictional coefficient with which the anchor expand reliably.

2. 2.1

General basis Conditions for reliable functioning of expansion anchor

The torque-controlled expansion anchors installed in drilled holes can only resist the tension load efficiently, if the expand-condition (2.1) is fulfilled /2/. (2.1) δ c>α +δ i Where δc is the external frictional angle, α is the expansion angle of cone and δi is the internal frictional angle (fig. 2.1). Fig. 2.1 gives the details about the relationships between the expansion pressure fexp, expansion force Fexp and the splitting force Fspl.

Expansion force : F exp = ∫ f exp dϕ Splitti ng force : F spl = ∫ f exp sin ϕ dϕ
Fig. 2.1 Internal forces of expansion anchor

171

2.2

Ultimate load of re-expandable expansion anchors

The load bearing capacity of expansion anchors with the failure type concrete-cone failure and steel failure are given in /3/. The concrete break-out load for an individual anchor in cracked concrete is reduced by approximately 40% in relation to the failure load in uncracked concrete. However, expansion anchors which are suitable for use in cracked and uncracked concrete have often the failure type pull-through because of the relative low internal frictional coefficient. The failure load can only be estimated by actual internal friction behavior of the anchor. According to the mathematical relations from fig. 2.1 and /3,4/ the failure load with the failure type pull-through can be calculated by equation (2.2) (fig. 2.2).

F u,m = F exp ,1 tan ( α + δ i ) + F exp ,2 tan δ i

(2.2)

Fig. 2.2 Expansion forces of the anchor

2.3

Test method to determine the internal and external frictional coefficient

The internal and external frictional coefficient of expansion anchors can be measured by means of FEP II – tests /2/(FEP II: replaced function test). For example, from the test results in fig. 2.3 an internal frictional angle of 7.1° is calculated by actual construction of MKT BZ M8 A4 at the tensile force of 5 kN.

172

Fig. 2.4 shows a test result for measuring the internal and external frictional coefficient. From these test results, the following important information can be determined about the anchor: 1. The value at point a determines the internal frictional coefficient at point a’ of the anchor. 2. The value at point b determines the external frictional coefficient of the anchor. 3. The distance between point a and b reflects the safety of the functioning.

Fig. 2.3 Example of test results from FEP II test /7/

Fig. 2.4 Example of test results to determine the internal and external frictional coeficient

173

/7/

2.4

Scatter of internal frictions

The coefficient of steel-to-steel frictions scatter very differently depending on the contact surfaces. For example, the roughness and hardness of the steel have a large effect on friction. Generally there is always an internal bond friction which makes re-expansion of the anchor less reliable. Fig. 2.5 shows a test result of a steel expansion anchor in which the coefficient of friction increases 18% after 10 minutes of installation.

Fig. 2.5 Bond friction between expansion sleeve and cone /7/ However, there was no internal bond friction observed with the MKT BZ A4 expansion anchor in which a special synthetic hose is installed between the expansion sleeve and the cone (fig. 2.6).

174

Fig. 2.6 Behavior of internal friction of MKT BZ M12 A4 /7/

2.5

Verification of the calculation assumptions for ultimate load

The ultimate loads with the failure type pull-through are calculated according to equation (2.2) by a numeric program /5/. A parabolic relative stress-displacement relationship of concrete is assumed on the basis of test results from /6/. Fig. 2.7 shows the 18 calculated ultimate loads compared with the values of average ultimate loads of five tests each /7,8/ in which the internal frictional angle was determined by FEP II tests /7/. The diagonal line shows the absolut agreement between calculation and test. The calculated ultimate loads agree well with the mean value of failure loads from tests.

Fig. 2.7 Comparisons of calculated ultimate loads with those from test /7,8/

3.

Load bearing capacity of re-expandable expansion anchors

The ultimate loads of torque-controlled expansion anchors which are suitable for use in cracked and uncracked concrete were calculated by the numerical program /5/ according to equation (2.2). The following assumptions were made in the calculation: 1. The 5%-fractile of external frictional coefficient is equal to 0.45. µc,5%=0.45, i.e. δc,5%=24.3°

2. The internal frictional coefficient scatters 20% with the normal distribution at n=∞. i.e. δi,m = 0.75 δi,95%

175

According to equation (2.1) results in following re-expand condition: δi,m < 0.75 (24.3°-α) Fig. 2.8 shows the calculated ultimate loads with different expansion angles of cone in uncracked concrete. The loading capacity decreases with increasing expansion angle, because the expansion force Fexp, 1 (fig.2.1) decreases propotionatly. Fig. 2.9 shows the estimated load bearing capacity of expansion bolt anchors of sizes from M8 to M16 with α=11°.

Fig. 2.8 Mean value of failure loads depending on the expansion angle of cone

Fig. 2.9 Load bearing capacity of bolt anchors (α=11°, δi,m=10°)

176

4.

Conclusions

The reliability of functioning as well as the load bearing capacity of torque-controlled expansion anchors depends on the internal and external frictions of the anchor. The coefficient of the internal and external frictions of the anchor can be measured exactly by FEP II tests. The loading capacity of expansion anchors in uncracked concrete was analyzed by a numerical program which was verified by tests. In accordance with the analysis the newly developed MKT stainless steel bolt anchors BZ A4 /1/ have achieved the optimum load bearing capacity.

5.
1.

References
European Technical Approval ETA-99/0010, MKT Bolzenanker A4, Torquecontrolled expansion anchor made of stainless steel of sizes M8, M10, M12 and M16 for use in concrete. Berlin, September 1999 Mayer, B.: Funktionsersatzprüfungen für die Beurteilung der Eignung von kraftkontrolliert spreizenden Dübel. Dissertation of University Stuttgart, 1990 Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.: Befestigungstechnik im Beton- und Mauerwerkbau. Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2000 Lehmann, R.: Tragverhalten von Metallspreizdübeln im ungerissenen und gerissenen Beton bei der Versagensart Herausziehen. Dissertation of University Stuttgart, 1994 Li. L.: Programm zur Berechnung der Durchzuglast von kraftkontrolliert Metallspreizdübeln.- Programmbeschreibung -. MKT Metall-Kunststoff-Technik GmbH & Co. KG, Weilerbach 2001, in preparation Lieberum, K.-H.: Das Tragverhalten von Beton Teilflächenbelastung. Dissertation of TH Darmstadt, 1987 bei extremer

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

MKT test documents: FEP II – test with BZ A4 M8 to M12; Pull-out test with MKT Bolzenanker B M20. MKT report-No. BAB 01/2000, Weilerbach 2000. Eligehausen, R.; Asmus, J.: Evaluation report for the assessment of the torque controlled bolt anchor MKT Z A4 M8 to M16 for anchoring in concrete in accordance with the ”Gudeline for European Technical Approval”, Option 1, Stuttgart, July 1999

8.

177

BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN OF ANCHORS CLOSE TO AN EDGE UNDER TORSION
R. Mallée Fischerwerke, Germany

Abstract
In order to investigate the behaviour of anchor groups close to an edge under torsion tests with pairs of injection anchors M12 parallel to a free structural component edge were carried out. The tests indicate that the anchor with the lowest loadbearing capacity is decisive for the capacity of the group. Based on these results a design method for anchor groups close to an edge under torsion is proposed.

1. Introduction
Anchors close to an edge under shear load fail due to concrete edge failure. Their loadbearing capacity can be calculated in accordance with the Concrete-CapacityMethod (CC-Method) /1,2/ taking into account all influencing parameters such as concrete strength, stiffness of the anchor, axial and edge spacings, dimensions of the structural component, angle between load and free edge and eccentricity of the load. The influence of the eccentricity is considered by a reduction factor ψec,V, which depends upon the distance eV between the shear load and the centre of gravity of the anchors. With groups of anchors parallel to the free edge the factor ψec,V may only be used, if all anchors of the group are loaded in the same direction (eV ≤ st/2, with st = spacing between the outermost anchors of the group). No assumption is available if the load direction within the group changes, e.g. with a group of two anchors under torsion, when one anchor is loaded perpendicular towards and the other away from the free edge. Based upon experimental research this paper outlines a proposal for the design of anchor groups close to an edge under torsion.

178

2. Behaviour of anchors close to an edge under shear load
Anchors close to an edge of a structural component may fail in consequence of concrete edge failure before the anchor’s steel capacity is exhausted. The angle between the failure crack and the edge is approximately 35° and the depth of the failure body on the side face of the structural component is about 1.5 times the edge distance of the anchor (Figure 1a) /1/. If a pair of anchors with an axial spacing s ≤ 3 ⋅ c1 (with c1 = edge distance) is installed close to an edge the concrete break-out bodies of the anchors can not develop completely, i.e. the bodies of adjacent anchors overlap each other (Figure 1b). This leads to a reduction of the surface of the break-out body and consequently to a reduction of the failure load.

a)

b)

Figure 1: Concrete edge failure a) Break-out body of a single anchor close to a free edge b) Break-out body of a pair of anchors close to a free edge If an eccentric load acts on a group the anchors are loaded to a different extent. An example is given in Figure 2a. It may be assumed that failure occurs when the most stressed anchor of the group fails. The effect of the eccentricity may be taken into account in analogy with /3/ by means of a reduction factor ψec,V.

ψ ec ,V =

1 1 + 2 ⋅ eV /( 3 ⋅ c1 )

(1)

Equation (1) is only valid if all anchors of the group are loaded either towards the edge or away from the edge. With acting torsion moments the load direction alters within a group. Figure 2b shows an example. Provided that the anchor loaded away from the edge has no effect on the behaviour of the anchor which is loaded perpendicular towards the free edge, it may again be assumed that the most stressed anchor is decisive for the loadbearing capacity of the group. Four test series with both, single anchors as well as pairs of anchors were carried out in order to investigate whether the two anchors of the groups influence each other. The test results are described in the following chapter.

179

V

MT

a)

b)

Figure 2: Pair of anchors close to a free edge a) Anchors loaded by shear forces with the same direction b) Anchors loaded by shear forces with different directions

3. Test results
Figure 3 shows the test set-up. A concrete block was introduced into a steel frame and fixed at the corners on four supports (steel plates or wedges). Two injection anchors M12 were installed with a specific edge V distance. The spacings between the anchors and the supports were sufficient to allow an Hydraulic press Concrete block unrestricted concrete edge failure. Shear forces were applied to the anchors by means of hydraulic presses in such a way that both anchors were loaded to the same extent, one perpendicular towards the edge and the other away from the edge. Thus a torsion moment was simulated. The loads were applied displacement controlled (5 mm / minute). V

Steel frame

Support

V

Figure 3: Test set-up

180

The concrete had a compressive strength of fcc = 36.1 N/mm2 (measured on cubes 200 x 200 x 200 mm3). To reduce a possible influence of stresses due to shrinkage of the concrete, relatively old (564 days) concrete blocks were used. In order to allow small edge distances injection anchors were used which do not create expansion forces during installation. A shear load perpendicular to the axis of an anchor creates compressive stresses in the concrete in the area of the mouth of the drilled hole. The resultant of these stresses (compare Figure 4, force A1 for anchor No. 1 and A2 for anchor No. 2) and the shear force due to the torsion moment have the same direction. For conditions of equilibrium compressive stresses occur close to the end of the anchor on the opposing side of the shear load. The resultants of these stresses are shown in Figure 4 (force B1 for anchor No. 1 and B2 for anchor No. 2). It may be assumed that the probability that the forces A1 and B2 or A2 and B1 respectively affect each other increases with decreasing axial spacing and embedment depth of the anchors.
Anchor No.1 Anchor No.2 Mt

A1 B1

A2

B2

Figure 4: Pair of anchors under torsion: reaction forces in the concrete

To investigate whether this has an influence, tests were carried out with two different embedment depths (hef = 50 mm and hef = 100 mm). This corresponds to a ratio of embedment depth and anchor diameter of 3.6 and 7.2 respectively. The axial spacings were varied between s = 50 mm and s = 200 mm. The edge distance was kept constant (c1 = 60 mm). For comparison two series of single anchors loaded perpendicularly towards the free edge were tested (series A and C). The test parameters and results are given in Table 1.

181

Table 1: Test parameters and results Test Type Embedment Test series of fixing depth hef No. [mm]
A Single 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Axial spacing s [mm]
0

Ultimate load Vu [kN]
14.9 14.7 14.9 12.0 15.6 13.4 12.7 13.4 12.5 15.1 16.9 18.1 21.2 19.3 19.3 17.6 14.7 18.3 20.0 21.0 16.6 18.1 16.1 19.3 21.0

Mean ultimate load [kN]
14.8 (v = 0.8%) 13.7 (v = 13.3%) 12.9 (v = 3.7%) 17.8 (v = 14.4%)

B

Pair

50

50

150

C

Single

100

0

D

Pair

100

50

18.7 (v = 5.2%) 17.7 (v = 15.3%) 18.6 (v = 12.0%) 18.8 (v = 13.2%)

100

150

200

The tests were stopped as soon as the anchor loaded perpendicularly towards the free edge failed in consequence of concrete edge failure. In the tests with small axial spacings (s = 50 mm) a failure crack was observed running from the anchor loaded towards the edge to the opposing side of the load of the second anchor (Figure 5a). With increasing axial spacing an independent break-out body developed (Figure 5b).

a)

b)

Figure 5: Failure cracks, hef = 100mm, a) spacing s = 50mm, b) spacing s = 100mm

182

4. Evaluation of the test results
In /4/ the following equation for the mean concrete edge failure load of single anchors loaded perpendicularly towards a free edge is given:

Vu = d nom ⋅ f cc ⋅ hef / d nom with: dnom: fcc: hef: c1:

(

)

0.2

1 ⋅ c1 .5 / 1000 [kN]

(2)

anchor diameter [mm] concrete cube compressive strength [N/mm2] embedment depth [mm] distance to the free edge [mm]

Equation (2) gives calculated failure loads for the tested single anchors of Vu = 13.5 kN (hef = 50 mm) and Vu = 15.5 kN (hef = 100 mm) which are approximately 9% and 13% lower than the mean measured values (test series A and C). A reason for this may be assumed in the relatively high age of the concrete blocks. The older the concrete, the lower the stresses due to shrinkage which normally affect the loadbearing capacity at concrete edge failure. Figures 6 and 7 show the measured ultimate loads as a function of the axial spacing s. Figure 6 is valid for anchors with an embedment depth of hef = 50 mm and Figure 7 for hef = 100 mm. The results of the tests with single anchors are plotted at a spacing s = 0.

Figure 6: Ultimate shear load Vu of pairs of anchors as a function of the axial spacing s, embedment depth hef = 50 mm

183

Figure 7: Ultimate shear load Vu of pairs of anchors as a function of the axial spacing s, embedment depth hef = 100 mm The failure loads of the anchors loaded perpendicularly towards the free edge and the ultimate loads of the single anchors are in the same range of scatter. It is obvious that the anchors of the group do not affected each other. A statistical analysis of all test gives the following results: hef = 50 mm: number of tests n: mean ultimate load Vu: standard deviation: s: coefficient of variation v: hef = 100 mm: number of tests n: mean ultimate load Vu: standard deviation: s: coefficient of variation v: 9 13.8 kN 1.27 kN 9.2 % 16 18.3 kN 2.04 kN 11.1 %

5. Conclusion
The test results indicate that with a pair of anchors parallel to a free edge under torsion the anchor with the lowest loadbearing capacity is decisive for the capacity of the group. The following proofs are required for the design:
( (1 V Sd1 ) ≤ V Rk ,)c / γ Mc

(3a) (3b)

V

(2) Sd

≤V

(2) Rk ,c

/ γ Mc

with:
( V Sd1 ) : design action of the shear load of anchor No. 1
( V Sd2 ) : design action of the shear load of anchor No. 2

184

(1 V Rk ,)c : design resistance at concrete edge failure for anchor No. 1 ( ) V Rk2,c : design resistance at concrete edge failure for anchor No. 2

γ Mc : partial safety factor for concrete edge failure
The corresponding characteristic resistance at concrete edge failure may be calculated using the following equation /5/ :
(1 2 o V Rk ,,c ) = V Rk ,c ⋅

Ac ,V Aco,V

⋅ψ s ,V ⋅ψ h ,V ⋅ψ α ,V ⋅ψ ucr ,V

(4)

For details regarding the parameters of equation (4) compare /5/. The anchor with the lowest ratio of design action and design resistance is decisive. This proposal is valid for anchors with a ratio of embedment depth and anchor diameter hef / dnom ≥ 4 and for axial spacings s ≥ 50 mm. For lower ratios and spacings further research is necessary.

6. References
1. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (1995): Das CC-Verfahren für die Berechnung der Betonausbruchlast von Verankerungen. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 1995, Heft 1, S. 6-9, Heft 2, S. 38-44, Heft 3, S. 73-76. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; Breen, J.E. (1995): Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastenings to Concrete. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92 (1995), No. 1, p. 73-94. Riemann, H. (1985): Das „erweiterte κ-Verfahren“ für Befestigungsmittel, Bemessung an Beispielen von Kopfbolzenverankerungen. Betonwerk + Fertigteil-Technik, 1985, Heft 12, S. 808-815. Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB) (1994): Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures. Bulletin d’Information No. 216, Lausanne, published by Thomas Telford, London, 1994. European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA) (1994): Guideline for European Technical Approval of Anchors (Metal Anchors) for Use in Concrete. Final Draft, Sept. 1994.

2.

3.

4.

5.

185

FIXINGS WITH ANCHORS: CONCERNING RELEVANT BASE PLATE THICKNESS
R. Mallée, F. Burkhardt Fischerwerke, Germany

Abstract
Based upon international guidelines, with groups of anchors the anchor forces are calculated in accordance with the theory of elasticity under the assumption that the steel plate of the attachment has a sufficient stiffness. No detailed information is given in the guidelines how to determine this stiffness. Based on tests and on non-linear Finite Element calculations taking into account realistic assumptions for the load displacement behaviour of anchors it is investigated which stiffness is needed to meet the requirements of the theory of elasticity.

1. Introduction
Anchors to be used in the countries of the European Community will need an European Technical Approval. The necessary tests to gain an approval are laid down in guidelines /1/. Special attention is drawn on the proper functioning of the anchors in cracked and non-cracked concrete taking into account the influence of parameters which are unavoidable on site, such as tolerances of the drill hole diameter, the intensity of cleaning of the holes as well as tolerances of the applied torque with torque controlled expansion anchors or the amount of expansion energy with displacement controlled expansion anchors. These relatively high requirements are responsible for the development of high quality post-installed anchors which allow to apply high loads to reinforced concrete structures. It is obvious that high loads require a proper design of the fixings in accordance with good engineering judgement. Design concepts are available which consider all influencing parameters such as direction of the load (tension, shear, combined tension and shear), axial spacings to adjacent anchors, the anchor’s edge spacings and the condition of the base material (cracked or non-cracked) /1,2/.

186

If bending moments act on a group of anchors special consideration must be given to the determination of the anchor forces. In accordance with the design guidelines the anchor forces of a group shall be calculated under the assumptions of the theory of elasticity. One of these assumptions is that the anchor plate does not deform under the design loads. I.e. a sufficient stiffness of the steel plate is required but no detailed information is given in the guidelines how to determine this stiffness. This paper outlines an appropriate proposal which is based upon theoretical and experimental research.

2. Anchor forces
2.1 Theory of elasticity According to the theory of elasticity the following assumptions are made: - The anchor plate does not deform under the design actions. The stiffness of all anchors of a group is equal and corresponds to the modulus of elasticity of the steel. In the zone of compression under the steel plate the anchors do not contribute to the transmission of the normal forces. The assumption that the steel plate does not deform under the design actions corresponds to the Bernoulli hypothesis of reinforced concrete. The anchor forces are calculated like the forces in the reinforcement. This is strictly speaking applicable only for rebars in concrete. Post-installed anchors show an elastic deformation between the area of undercut or expansion and the surface of the attachment. Additional displacement is caused by the elastic / plastic deformation of the highly stressed concrete. The displacement gives rise to a rotation of the steel plate and thus to a reduction of the compression zone under the plate and to an increase of the effective internal lever arm between the anchor forces and the compression force in the concrete. Thus assuming a stiff steel plate and neglecting the anchor’s displacement leads to more conservative results. According to the theory of elasticity the stresses in the state of serviceability are proportional to the strains. The anchor forces depend on the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of steel and concrete and can be calculated from the equilibrium of the forces and moments. 2.2 Finite element analysis The assumptions of the theory of elasticity allow an easy calculation of the anchor forces. Nevertheless it must be pointed out that some simplifications are made. It is assumed that the concrete stresses below the plate increase linearly from the neutral axis to the compressed edge of the plate. In reality even small deformations of the plate cause a redistribution of the stresses which leads to a reduction of the stresses below the corners of the plate. The forces and the bending moments are transferred to the steel plate by a profile which is normally not considered when calculating the anchor forces.

187

Finite Element analysis show peaks of bending stresses in the steel plate close to the corners of the profile which may lead to a limited plastic deformation of the plate and again may cause a redistribution of the concrete stresses. And last but not least the displacement of the anchors has a positive influence on the internal lever arm between the anchor forces and the concrete compressive force. To consider the influence of the parameters mentioned above non-linear Finite Element calculations were performed using the program Ansys. The base material was idealized by three dimensional elements where the concrete was supported on two lower edges. For the steel plate and for the profile welded to the plate three dimensional shell elements were used. Contact elements were placed between concrete and steel which allow to transmit compression but no tensile forces. Thus the steel plate is in contact with the concrete only where compressive stresses occur. The tensioned anchors were idealized using non-linear spring elements. The behaviour of these elements corresponds to the load displacement behaviour of the anchors. Anchors in the zone of compression below the steel plate are not considered. Using this Finite Element approach groups with four anchors loaded by a tensile force and both, uni-axial as well as bi-axial bending moments were investigated. For confirmation test were performed. The validity of the theoretical approach may be assumed if the calculated anchor forces correspond to the measured values. The results of this comparison will be discussed in Section 4.

3. Steel plate thickness
In actual computer programs for the design of anchors (e.g. /3/), the thickness of the steel plate is determined based on results of linear Finite Element calculations. On the one hand Finite Element analysis allows to determine the bending moments in the steel plate considering all influencing parameters such as size and thickness of the plate, size and position of the profile, type of loading (compression or tension load, uni-axial or bi-axial bending moments) as well as size and load displacement behaviour of the anchors. On the other hand a time-consuming non-linear approach is required if the entire system including the concrete and the contact between steel plate and base material is idealized. To simplify matters it is therefore proposed to support the steel plate on the welded profile and to apply the anchor and concrete forces as external loads. The advantage of using this is a reduced time for calculation for this linear approach instead of a more complex non-linear method. This however does not consider the influence of anchor displacement. The Finite Element analysis shows peaks of bending moments occurring in the corners of the welded profile (compare Fig. 1a), the size of which depends upon the size of the finite elements.

188

In the case of the design of the steel plate these moment peaks are not decisive, as in the relative small area of the peaks a plastic deformation of the steel without any large deformation of the plate itself can occur. For this reason it is proposed to use a mean value of the moment, calculated over the length 2 times the steel plate thickness t plus the profile’s wall thickness s (compare Fig. 1b) rather than the moment peak. The thickness of the plate may then be calculated from a bending proof using the mean bending moment and the characteristic steel strength.
2 t+s

s

s

a) b) Figure 1: Calculation of the mean bending moment in the steel plate a) Distribution of the bending moment b) Mean bending moment

4. Test results
In order to assess the results of the non-linear Finite Element analysis (Section 2.2) and the proposal for the calculation of the anchor plate thickness (Section 3) 7 tests were performed (compare table 1). Square and rectangular shaped steel plates were tested, the dimensions of which are given in Figures 2a and 2b.
440 400
240 200

a) Figure 2: Dimensions of the tested steel plates a) Square shaped steel plates b) Rectangular shaped steel plates

400

440
560 500

b)

189

The load was applied by a straight (uni-axial bending) or L-shaped steel beam (bi-axial bending) (Fig. 3). The test set-up allowed tension loads, compression loads could not be applied. The steel plate thickness of the square and the rectangular plate were 20 mm and 25 mm respectively and thus smaller than the theoretical values in accordance with Section 3 (27 mm and 26 mm respectively). The concrete had a cube strength of fcc,200 = 32.4 to 40.0 N/mm2. In 6 of the 7 tests a thin layer of levelling mortar was placed between plate and concrete to ensure a close contact to the concrete over the entire area of the steel plate. In one test the plate was placed directly on the concrete. a) The anchors (Zykon undercut anchors FZA 14 x 60 M10) were set and prestressed with the required torque. The torque was reduced to null after 10 minutes and subsequently the anchors were tightened again by hand without any tool. In one test, the torque was not reduced to determine the influence of the higher anchor stiffness. The anchor forces were measured using a load cell with an accuracy of ± 0.5 %. b) Figure 3: Test setup a) Uni-axial bending b) Bi-axial bending Table 1: Test parameters Test No. Figure No.

Bending

Levelling mortar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2a

uni-axial

2b 2a bi-axial

y n y y y y y

Thickness of steel plate [mm] 20

25 20

190

Anchor force F [kN] 45 test No. 3 40 35 FEM (test No. 3) 30 test No. 1+2 25 FEM (test No. 1) 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15

20

25

30 35 Tension load [kN]

Figure 4: Measured anchor force as a function of the applied tensin load (square shaped plate, uni-axial bending) Figure 4 shows the measured anchor forces as a function of the applied tension load for the tests with square steel plates (test no. 1 to 3) in comparison with the values found in the Finite Element analysis. The tests with non-prestressed anchors show a linear relationship between tension load and anchor force. It is obvious that the stiffness of the anchor plate was sufficient. The plate deformations are small and the influence of a nonlinearity may be neglected. The difference between the measured anchor forces and the Finite Element values are negligible. A prestressing force due to the applied tightening torque changes the behavior of an anchor. With no external load applied the anchor forces correspond to the prestressing force. Relatively low loads cause only a small increase in anchor force because the stiffness of the base material is significantly higher than the one of the anchors. With further increasing loads the anchor forces increase proportional to the tensile load and in the ultimate limit state correspond to the forces found in tests without prestressing. Again a good correspondence between measured and Finite Element values was found. Figure 5 shows the results found in tests with rectangular steel plates (test no. 4 and 5). The anchor forces are proportional to the external load and slightly lower than the values found in the Finite Element analysis. It may be assumed that the plate thickness is sufficient, no significant deformation of the plate occurred.

191

Anchor force F [kN] 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Tension load [kN] test No. 4 test No. 5 FEM

Figure 5: Measured anchor force as a function of the applied tensin load (rectangular shaped plate, uni-axial bending) Test no. 6 and 7 were performed under bi-axial bending. Figure 6 shows the test results. The measured forces in the most stressed anchor are slightly lower than the Finite Element values.
Anchor force F [kN] 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5 20 22,5 25 Tension load [kN] test FEM

Figure 6: Measured anchor force as a function of the applied tensin load (square shaped plate, bi-axial bending)

192

Based upon the test results and upon the comparison of measured and calculated values it may be assumed that the Finite Element model is suitable to describe the real behaviour of anchor groups under tension load and uni-axial or bi-axial bending with sufficient accuracy.

5. Parameter studies
Parameter studies were performed using the Finite Element model described in Section 2.2. The studies cover both, square as well as rectangular steel plates. The plates were fixed to the concrete by 4 Zykon undercut anchors FZA 18 x 80 M12 with axial spacings of sx = sy = 200 mm (square plates) and sx = 200 mm, sy = 500 mm (rectangular plates). Compression or tensile forces and uni-axial or bi-axial bending moments were applied using hollow profiles. The sizes of the profiles were varied. The ratio of the profile height or width and the corresponding axial spacing was chosen to k = 0.4 and k = 0.8. Additionally the ratio of the bending moments My / Mx and the eccentricity of the external load (e = Mx / N) were varied. The parameters are given in Table 2. Table 2: Parameters of the Finite Element analysis Series No. sx / s y sx sy [-] 1.0 [mm] 200 [mm] 200

k [-] 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.8

My / Mx [-] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.4

200

500

In order to reduce the number of calculations only the combination of normal force and bending moment giving the maximum permissible load in accordance with the European Technical Approval was investigated (Fperm = 12.3 kN). Non-cracked concrete was chosen because the permissible load and thus the load on the steel plate is higher than in cracked concrete. The corresponding displacement of the anchor was found from tests to ∆ = 0.3 mm. The thickness of the steel plate was calculated in accordance with Section 3. Figures 7 and 8 show the results found with square steel plates (series no. 1 to 4). Figure 7 is valid for uni-axial and figure 8 for bi-axial bending. The figures show the ratio of the anchor force according to the Finite Element analysis and the force according to the theory of elasticity as a function of the eccentricity of the external load. The results according to the theory of elasticity are slightly conservative.

193

Figure 7: Ratio of anchor forces according Figure 8: Ratio of anchor forces according to Finite Element analysis and to Finite Element analysis and to theory of elasticity as a to theory of elasticity as a function of the eccentricty function of the eccentricty (square shaped plate, uni-axial (square shaped plate, bi-axial bending) bending) Figures 9 and 10 show the results found with rectangular steel plates. The ratio of the anchor force according to the Finite Element analysis and the force according to the theory of elasticity is equal or slightly larger than 1. The difference between the anchor forces according to the Finite Element analysis and those found under the assumptions of the theory of elasticity is rather small (< 5 %) and may be neglected.

Figure 9: Ratio of anchor forces according Figure 10: to Finite Element analysis and to theory of elasticity as a function of the eccentricty (rectangular shaped plate, uniaxial bending)

Ratio of anchor forces according to Finite Element analysis and to theory of elasticity as a function of the eccentricty (rectangular shaped plate, biaxial bending)

194

In a further series the influence of the anchor displacement was investigated. A rectangular steel plate was chosen loaded by an uni-axial bending moment. The displacement varied between ∆ = 0 mm and ∆ = 0.6 mm. Figure 11 shows the results. A slight influence of the displacement was observed. The calculated anchor force decreases with increasing displacement because the displacement gives rise to a rotation of the steel plate and thus to a reduction of the compression zone under the plate and to an increase of the effective internal lever arm between the anchor forces and the compression force in the concrete.

Figure 11: Anchor force according to Finite Element analysis as a function of the anchor displacement

6. Conclusion
In actual computer programs for the design of anchors, the thickness of the steel plate is determined based on results of linear Finite Element calculations. A comparison with test results and with the results of non-linear Finite Element analysis taking into account realistic assumptions for the load displacement behaviour of the anchors shows that this thickness is sufficient to meet the requirements of the theory of elasicity. This is valid for plates under tension load and uni-axial or bi-axial bending. Further reaearch is necessary for plates under compression load.

7. References
1. European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA) (1994): Guideline for European Technical Approval of Anchors (Metal Anchors) for Use in Concrete. Final Draft, Sept. 1994. Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), Berlin (1993): Bemessungsverfahren für Dübel zur Verankerung im Beton (Design Concept for Anchors in Concrete). June 1993 (in German). fischer Fixing Systems: COMPUFIX, Program for the Design of Anchorages, Version 5.1, April 2001.

2.

3.

195

INSTALLATION VERIFICATION OF MECHANICAL AND ADHESIVE ANCHORS
Lee Mattis CEL Consulting, Oakland, USA

Abstract
In the United States building codes allow increased design loads for expansion anchors whose installation has been verified to be in accordance with the engineer's design and the manufacturer's recommendations. The verification process is called special inspection. Adhesive anchors require special inspection for all installations with no increase in design loads. This paper describes the background of the building code provisions and typical procedures used to verify proper installation of expansion and adhesive anchors in concrete.

1. Introduction
Independent inspection of certain construction activities where unique expertise or additional assurance of quality is deemed necessary is mandated in the US building codes. This inspection is called "special inspection". Special inspection is continuous observation of these construction activities. Concrete placement, masonry construction, structural welding and high strength bolting are common special inspections. These inspections are in addition to the normal progress inspections performed by municipal building inspectors. Special inspection of expansion and adhesive anchors is specified by ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. (ICBO ES) in evaluation reports for proprietary post-installed anchors. The basis for this is the building code requirement for special inspection of "Bolts installed in concrete" which permits higher design loads for cast-in-place anchor bolts when special inspection prior to and during the placement of concrete around the bolts is provided. The evaluation reports permit use of proprietary products such as post-installed concrete

196

anchors as alternatives to the generic items such as cast-in-place anchors in the building code.

2. Qualification of Special Inspectors
A special inspector is a specially qualified person with both inspection and practical experience in the construction operation requiring special inspection. The individual must submit his qualifications to the municipal building official for approval. Approval is sometimes done on a case by case, individual basis or is granted to local independent testing agencies who employ inspectors with the expertise. In many cases the approval is informal, based on previous experience with firms and individuals. Engineers may be qualified as special inspectors, however an engineering degree or license does not automatically qualify a person as a special inspector.

3. Employment of Special Inspectors
The owner of the construction project or the engineer or architect of record acting as the owner’s agent must employ the special inspector. Although not explicitly stated in the building code, the wording is such that the contractor cannot employ the special inspector. This would be a conflict of interest and not in accordance with the intent of special inspection as an independent evaluation.

4. Duties and Responsibilities of Special Inspectors
The special inspector observes the work for conformance with the approved design drawings, specifications and workmanship provisions of the building code, brings discrepancies to the immediate attention of the contractor and to the design authority and municipal building official if not corrected and submits periodic and final inspection reports to the municipal building official and project engineer or architect. The special inspector is considered an extension of the municipal building official's authority by virtue of the code requirements for progress inspections by the building official and special inspection. The City of Los Angeles formalizes the relationship with special inspectors in this regard, and they are called “deputy inspectors”.

5. Recognized Special Inspection Procedures
5.1. Expansion anchors When the design engineer specifies anchors installed with special inspection, ICBO ES evaluation reports permit use of twice the allowable tension loads than anchors installed without special inspection. To meet the requirements of continuous inspection, the special inspector must verify that the installation is in accordance with the requirements

197

of the approved plans, evaluation report and manufacturer’s installation instructions. This means that the special inspector must be present during all anchor installation, verifying the location of the anchor including any edge distance and spacing requirements, drill bit type and size, hole depth, hole cleaning technique (if applicable), anchor type, size, embedment and installation procedure. Proof loading of anchors is frequently specified, however this alone is not recognized as meeting special inspection requirements. Periodic (non-continuous) special inspection may be performed if specified on the project plans and approved by the municipal building official as provided for in the building codes. A program of post-installation visual inspection for location, size and embedment combined with torque or tension proof load testing is used in California hospital construction and could be considered as acceptable periodic inspection in other construction. A detailed written procedure was developed by the author working with the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), the state agency responsible for approving plans and observing construction, and has been in use for over ten years. The document is named Interpretation of Regulations IR 26-6. The procedure includes visual observation and proof loading or torque testing of the installed anchors and covers typical Wedge, Sleeve and Drop-In anchors. Torque testing is applicable for Wedge and Sleeve type anchors only. Torque test values found to be typical of installation torque recommendations for a majority of these anchors are specified. The torque test value must be achieved within one-half turn of the nut to account for torque relaxation. Torque testing is not applicable for Drop-In type anchors. Proof loading of a small percentage combined with verification of proper plug setting of a larger percentage is used for Drop-In anchors. Proof loading is applicable to all these anchor types. Proof load levels are high enough to detect improper installation but low enough to prevent any movement of a properly installed anchor. The acceptance criterion is that anchors must show no visible signs of movement during or after the proof loading. Test frequency is 50% for both torque and proof load testing. The basic philosophy of this procedure is to verify proper installation (setting) of the anchors which can be done after installation for these types of anchors. If the anchor is properly installed, it should perform in accordance with the manufacturer's load ratings. Design parameters such as size, quantity, location and embedment can be visually determined after installation. The ICBO ES requirement for a length identification symbol on the exposed ends of anchors recognized for multiple embedments makes it possible for the special inspector to determine the embedment of these anchors after installation.

198

5.2. Adhesive anchors ICBO ES evaluation reports require special inspection for all installations. The special inspector must verify that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the project plans, evaluation report and manufacturer’s instructions. This means verifying the location of the anchor, any edge distance and spacing requirements, drill bit type and size, hole depth, hole cleaning technique (very important), anchor type, size, embedment and installation procedure including adhesive expiration date and proper dispensing. Proof loading alone is not recognized as meeting special inspection requirements. While proof loading may be specified as a supplement, visual inspection of the anchor installation must still be provided since it is not possible to verify embedment and important installation procedures such as hole cleaning, mixing and adhesive dispensing after the anchors have been installed. Periodic special inspection is possible, however there are no established procedures like the OSHPD procedures for expansion anchors. A reasonable approach to periodic inspection for adhesive anchors is: • Initial inspection of installation of the first anchors • Proof loading to the lesser of 50% of expected adhesive ultimate bond strength or 80% of steel yield strength. Proof loading should be done after a minimum curing period specified by the manufacturer. Anchors should have no visible indications of movement during or after the application of the proof load. • For highly redundant applications such as rebar doweling for shotcrete or slab doweling, proof load a minimum random sampling of 5% of the anchors. The engineer or architect should consider higher sampling rates for installations with less redundancy or that are considered more critical. • Subsequent inspection of installation when there is an change of personnel performing the installation or use of a different product. The following is an example of a periodic inspection procedure used on an actual project: • Initial inspection is required for each different subcontractor. The inspector will verify location and configuration of the anchors based on the project plans including any edge distance and spacing requirements, drill bit type and size used, hole depth, hole cleaning technique, anchor type, size, embedment and installation procedure including adhesive expiration date and proper dispensing. • Subsequent inspection of installation will be required only when there is a change of personnel doing the installation. The general contractor shall call for such inspection

199

in the event of such a change, defined as any one or more persons drilling, preparing holes or installing anchors. • Initial inspection and proof load testing are required for the following. Anchor type and location, (drawing detail reference), test frequency and tension proof loads for each condition are: #4 Rebar Dowels at shotcrete walls (7/S1.2) - 5%/9000 lbs #4 Rebar Dowels at lower level ramps (5/S1.1) - No testing #5 Rebar Dowels at roof infill (2/S1.3) - 10%/14,000 lbs 3/4" Epoxy Rods at steel moment frames (1-7/S5.1) - 5%/20,000 lbs 1" Epoxy Rods at steel moment frames (9/S5.1) - 5%/28,000 lbs 1-1/4" Epoxy Rods at steel moment frames (8/S5.1) - 1 at each frame/50,000 lbs • Test loads are based on either 80% of steel yield or 50% of expected ultimate adhesive bond tension capacity, whichever is less, to avoid permanent distress. Anchors shall have no visible indications of movement during or after the application of the proof load.

6. Equipment and Calibration
6.1. Hydraulic Systems Hollow core rams with pressure gages are used when proof loading is part of the special inspection procedures. Each combination of ram and gage must be calibrated together as a system in a testing machine or other device that is traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It is not acceptable to calibrate the gage alone and calculate the load by multiplying gage pressure time the ram area. When testing anchor to ultimate failure, the load reactions from the bridging system should be at least two times the anchor embedment away from the anchor when testing anchors to ultimate failure. However when using the OSHPD procedure, it is permissible to have the reactions close to the anchor as long as the fixtures do not restrict the anchor from pulling out. The reason for this is that only the anchor installation is being verified using a relatively low proof load.

200

6.2. Torque Wrenches Torque wrenches are used when torque testing is part of the special inspection procedures. They must be calibrated by a standard traceable to NIST.

6.3. Other Torque bridges, levers and other custom devices must be carefully conceived and calibrated to insure that the required proof load is applied to the anchors. Torque bridges are particularly problematic since the calibration procedures in testing machines using rigid connections may not be valid for anchors that move when loaded (are less rigid than the calibration set up).

7. Conclusion
Good workmanship is important to any construction activity and in particular to the installation of post-installed concrete anchors. Special inspection and related testing procedures are mandated in the United States to provide assurance that anchor installations are done properly and to promote good workmanship for proprietary concrete anchor systems.

201

STEEL CAPACITY OF HEADED STUDS LOADED IN SHEAR
Neal S. Anderson, Donald F. Meinheit Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Northbrook, Illinois USA

Abstract
The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) sponsored a comprehensive research program to assess the shear capacity of headed stud group anchorages. This program was initiated in response to new provisions introduced into the ACI 318 Building Code. These new provisions are based on an extensive experimental database consisting mostly of post-installed anchor tests. Tests of headed stud anchorage groups loaded in shear, as used in precast construction, are not extensively reported in the literature. The test program, conducted by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE), examined headed stud connections loaded toward a free edge (de3), loaded toward a free edge (de3) near a corner, loaded parallel to one free edge (de1), loaded parallel to two free edges (de1 and de2), loaded away from a free edge (de4), and in-the-field of a member, such that edge distance was not a factor. The information reported herein addresses one aspect of the overall test program, the steel capacity failure mode.

1. Introduction
Headed stud anchorages are used throughout the concrete industry in both cast-in-place and precast construction. Welding studs to steel plates provides an economical structural connection by allowing larger variability in construction dimensions and tolerances. Commonly, studs in precast members are 75 to 200 mm long and found almost always in multi-stud group connections. The load capacities of these connection types are affected by stud spacings, edge distances, and member depth or thickness. This research work1 focused on anchorages and geometric conditions typically used in precast / prestressed members. The research concentrated on diameter, embedment depth, and number of welded headed studs on connection plate configurations commonly used in precast applications; the study excluded post-installed anchors.

202

Figure 1: PCI notation for anchorage geometry.1 In the United States, headed stud anchorage design usually followed procedures set forth in the PCI Handbook 2 or the nuclear structures code of ACI Committee 349.3 The Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) approach for anchorage to concrete has recently been approved as Chapter 23 of the upcoming 2002 version of the ACI 318 Building Code.4, 5 The work reported herein summarizes stud anchorage behavior when the connection is loaded in shear away from a free edge and in-the-field. These two conditions cause the ultimate capacity to be dictated by the stud steel. Referring to Figure 1, the overall research program tested anchorages toward, parallel, and away from a free edge. Several test series were repeated in both 152 and 406-mm thick specimens to evaluate member thickness effects. This paper is limited to defining the stud steel capacity in shear.

203

2. Literature Review
2.1 Push-off testing The welded, headed stud received research attention in the late 1950s and through the 1960s in concrete slab-steel beam composite construction.6-13 Testing to evaluate composite beam behavior utilized a push-off specimen, consisting of a wide flange beam section sandwiched between two concrete slabs. Headed studs were welded to both flanges of the beam in some prescribed spacing pattern and embedded into a thin concrete slab, representing the composite deck slab. Early push-off test results provide the design basis for headed stud groups loaded in pure shear. Push-off test failures were sometimes due to stud steel shear. The push-off specimen having one transverse stud row (one y-row) is viewed to be analogous to a headed stud anchorage located in-the-field of a member, away from all edge influences, and is relevant to this paper. When stud groups with multiple longitudinal rows were tested using the push-off specimen, the test results become more difficult to interpret because large y-spacings reduce anchor group efficiency due to shear lag effects; these tests were thus excluded from our analysis. Significant findings are summarized below. 2.2 Embedment depth and steel capacity The reviewed data indicates 1.0AsFut (see Eq. (1) notation) is a good predictor for a steel failure when the effective embedment depth / stud diameter (hef/d) exceeds about 4.5. This is slightly greater than the value of 4.2 identified by Driscoll and Slutter.12 A value reduced for tensile yield (Fy = 0.9 Fut), where Fy is the offset tensile yield stress, is not as good, although more conservative. Likewise, AsFut is a much better capacity predictor than using shear yield (Fvy = Fut von Mises-Hencky yield criteria.

3 ), where Fvy is the shear yield stress per the Huber-

Work performed by Ollgaard, Slutter, and Fisher13 at Lehigh University produced a longstanding prediction equation, independent of failure mode, basing individual stud strength on stud area, concrete compressive strength, and elastic modulus of the concrete. Studs with an hef/d of 3.26 and different types of lightweight and normalweight concrete were used. Failures were noted in both stud steel shear or by a concrete mechanism. Their final prediction equation used in composite beam design was:
Q u = 0.5A s f 'c E c ≤ A s Fut

(1)

where: Qu = Nominal shear stud connector strength embedded in a solid concrete slab (N) As = Effective cross-sectional area of a stud anchor (mm2) f’c = Cylinder compressive strength of concrete (MPa) [ = 0.8 x cube strength (fcc) ] Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa) Fut = Ultimate tensile strength of the stud steel (MPa)

204

When headed studs have hef/d < 4.5, a concrete pryout failure mechanism can occur. Pryout failure is a concrete breakout failure mode not associated with edge distance but a function of the headed stud “stiffness.” Eq. (1) predicts this failure mode well. 2.3 Lightweight aggregate concrete Our analysis of reported steel shear failures for headed studs embedded in lightweight concrete indicates test strengths less than a 1.0AsFut prediction. Lightweight aggregate concrete apparently provides an embedment environment whereby the stud induces greater concrete crushing, producing more stud bending deformation resulting in larger overall relative slip between the stud and concrete. The increased concrete deformation produces more bending in the stud and attachment weld, thereby making the failure mode appear to be one of combined shear and tension stress on the stud at the tension stressed region of the weld. In our analysis, this higher bending deformation combined with shear deformation reduces the headed stud capacity to a value lower than 1.0AsFut. 2.4 Connection plate thickness Minimum plate thickness research is limited to work by Goble at Case Western Reserve University, 10 where he focused on the minimum flange thickness required in light-gage steel in order to fully develop a welded stud connection. Goble determined the minimum flange thickness required must be greater than 0.37d to develop the stud weld. 2.5 Minimum slab thickness Steel stud failures in the push-off specimens were achieved in some relatively “thin” slabs ranging in thickness from 102 to 178 mm. We have concluded that slab thickness is not a variable influencing a stud steel shear failure.

3. Experimental Program
3.1 Background The literature search and analysis of existing headed stud and cast-in-place anchor bolt data was used to formulate an experimental program, conducted in the WJE structural laboratory. The program tested 312 plate configurations in shear and 16 push-off type specimens. The tests were typically conducted in slabs measuring 1.2 x 3.0 m, or 1.5 x 1.5 m with either a 152 or 406-mm thickness. Push-off specimen tests simulated shear loading conditions when an embedded anchor group is adjacent to two side edges. A total of 14 different combinations of plate size, stud spacing, stud embedment depth, and stud diameter were evaluated. Plate thickness and concrete compressive strength were not testing variables in the program. Headed stud diameters of 12.7 and 15.9 mm were tested in this program. Both tension and double shear guillotine tests were performed on the studs, “in-air,” in support of this work. Test specimen concrete was a commercially available 34.5 MPa, normal-weight concrete containing 19-mm limestone coarse aggregate. All slabs were cast with the anchorages

205

on the bottom of the form to ensure good concrete consolidation around the studs. Reinforcement, used only in the 152-mm thick slabs for handling purposes, was placed as not to interfere with the stud anchorage plates or provide anchorage confinement. All slabs were tested flat (horizontal) on the laboratory test floor. A specially fabricated channel pulling test rig had a welded shoe plate, which reacted on the back edge of the stud anchorage plate. This loading scheme was used to practically eliminate the eccentricity from the shear tests, which theoretically was one-half the plate thickness or 6.4 mm. All slab shear tests were instrumented with a load cell and two linear variable displacement transformers (LVDTs). 3.2 Individual stud tests For design, it is convenient to base the headed stud capacity on the tensile yield or strength values and relate the steel shear capacity to a fraction of either value. Steels used for manufacturing headed studs do not generally exhibit well defined yield point values. The headed stud steel shear strength was thus correlated to the measured stud tensile strength properties. WJE independently measured the geometry and tested the physical characteristics for the various steel heats in the project stock. Four different stud length and diameter configurations were received, manufactured from six different steel wire heats. Headed studs were tested for their tensile and shear strength properties, “in air.” The test fixture was similar to that suggested in the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1-2000 structural welding code.14 Double shear, guillotine tests were conducted on the middle third of the shank to determine the steel shear strength. A universal testing machine was adapted to tension test headed studs welded to a square plate. Tension test results for the various steel heats showed ultimate strengths of 536 to 563 MPa for the 12.7 mm diameter and 538 MPa for the 15.9 mm diameter studs. Each stud exhibited a roundhouse load-deformation curve, requiring the 0.2% offset determination of yield strength. The measured stud yield strength was approximately 80% of the tensile strength; the strength of each steel heat exceeded the AWS D1.1-2000 requirements shown below in Table 1. AWS Type B studs are headed, bent, or of other configuration. They are an essential component in composite beam design and construction, and constitute those most used in precast concrete construction. Table 1 – Minimum mechanical property requirements for headed studs (from AWS D1.1-200014) Property Tensile Strength ( min. ) Yield strength ( 0.2% offset ) Elongation ( min. % in 2 in. ) Reduction of area ( min. ) Type A 420 MPa 340 MPa 17% 50% Type B 450 MPa 350 MPa 20% 50%

206

The double shear, guillotine tests were conducted with a three plate fixture. Double shear tests showed ultimate strengths of 328 to 381 MPa for the 12.7-mm diameter and 352 MPa for the 15.9-mm diameter studs. These tests imply the shear strength would be about 65% of the tensile strength. Earlier reported push-off test results exhibited a shear strength that is better than what these “in-air” material test results imply. 3.2 Tests loading away from a free edge (de4) Shear load on anchorages directed away from a free edge is not commonly encountered in precast construction. However, special framing conditions may dictate use of this type of connection. In this study, 23 tests were conducted with the shear force directed away from the back free edge (refer to Figure 1). Two series had single studs and the third series had two headed studs oriented in one y-row. The two single stud anchorage series examined both 12.7 and 15.9 mm diameter studs. The two stud anchorage groups used 12.7-mm diameter studs, spaced 4.5d apart. All three series were tested in 406-mm thick specimens; hef/d for these tests were 5.34 and 5.93. For the 12.7-mm diameter single stud connection, five de4 distances (4d to 12d) were evaluated with two tests performed per edge distance. Eight tests failed due to steel stud failure, and two failed at the stud weld. After failure, only minor concrete damage was observed. Concrete crushing at the stud front was accompanied by hairline, transverse cracks (normal to the shear load) propagating 50 to 100 mm each side of the stud center. Seven tests were conducted with 15.9-mm diameter studs. Edge distances evaluated were 4d, 8d, and 12d, with three tests conducted at 4d. All tests failed in a steel shear mode, with no weld failures in this series. The two-stud anchorage tests used 12.7-mm diameter studs at nominal 4d, 8d, and 12d edge distances with six total tests. Two tests exhibited weld failures in one or both studs, while the other four tests failed by stud shearing through both stud shanks. From these tests, it was concluded that the de4 edge distance variable is not a factor causing concrete breakout of stud anchorages in shear. 3.3 Tests in-the-field Some anchorages used in precast concrete members are located at such large edge distances that all concrete breakout capacities exceed the capacity developed by the individual studs failing in steel shearing; these test series are classified as in-the-field tests. Six series were conducted to test two and four anchor connections, with an emphasis on evaluating x- and y-row spacing and embedment depth effects on capacity. These test series had 24 total tests in 406-mm thick test slab specimens using 12.7-mm diameter studs. The first two tests in a series used studs with an effective embedment depth (hef) of 67.7 mm; longer studs with hef = 124 mm were used for the second two tests. Based on the push-off testing review, steel stud failure can be achieved in relatively thin slabs. As such, we conclude slab thickness influence on the anchorage’s ability to develop steel failure was viewed to have little effect, especially with the 12.7-mm diameter studs used in this study.

207

For the 24 tests conducted in the six in-the-field test series, the test-to-predicted steel stud shear capacities ranged from 0.90 to 1.05, using AsFut as the calculation basis. When the short and long stud results are compared for all series, there is no discernable difference in the ultimate steel shear capacity due to stud length. For the x- or yspacings investigated, 4.5d and 7.0d in different combinations and loading orientations, stud spacing did not have a significant effect on the ultimate shear strength.

4. Steel Failure Analysis
4.1 Data review and proposed design equation Testing has shown that the steel stud failure mode typically occurred for back edge (de4) and in-the-field tests performed in 406-mm thick slabs. In all cases, steel failures were marked by two failure modes: a ductile, shear yielding-type stud failure, accompanied by appreciable lateral deformation, or a stud weld failure at the plate interface. When the corresponding failure area on the concrete slab specimen was observed, the still embedded studs had elliptical-shaped fracture surfaces with the major axis parallel to the load direction. The concrete in front of the stud was locally crushed, due to stud shank bearing; this concrete crushing also created a void (pocket) behind the stud. The second steel failure type experienced was the weld of the stud to the plate. Varying degrees of weld region porosity, confined within the shank diameter, marked the weld fracture surface. Weld porosity often ranged from 25 to 75% of the shank area. In this test program, the stud failures due to welding were a random occurrence, attributed to weld machine malfunctions and operator error. The steel shear failure database from this program is based on the de4 and in-the-field testing, and other tests (de1 and de3 testing), where the distance to a free edge was large enough to transition from a concrete to steel stud failure. Anchorage capacity governed by steel stud shank failure can be predicted by the number of studs in the group (n) times the stud area (As) multiplied by the ultimate stud tensile strength (Fut). Stud weld failures, however occurred at steel shear stresses less than the ultimate tensile strength. When the weld failure data are omitted from the population, the WJE database represents stud steel shear failures only; the number of tests is 80 with an average test-to-predicted ratio of 1.00. The sample standard deviation is 0.07, thus indicating the relative tightness of the data. A frequency distribution is plotted to the left in Figure 2. Given that the steel stud shank shear failures can be used as a database, the characteristic strength equation from a 5% fractile analysis (κ factor = 1.957) when the actual ultimate tensile strength is known, becomes: Vsteel = 0.86 nAsFut (using actual Fut) (2) However, actual tensile strength is generally not used in design. An analysis using the minimum design ultimate strength of 450 MPa from Table 1, shows the average test-to-

208

25 Prediction with Design Tensile Strength (450 MPa)

Frequency (or Number of Occurances)

20 Mean = 1.00

Actual Tensile Strength

15 Mean = 1.21

10

Shear Prediction Equation: Vs = nAsFut
5

0 0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Test-to-Predicted Capacity

Figure 2: Frequency distribution plot of steel stud failures. predicted ratio is 1.21 with a standard deviation of 0.10; the coefficient of variation is 7.8%. The 5% fractile characteristic prediction equation thus becomes: Vsteel = 1.0 nAsFut (using design minimum Fut) (3) From a probability standpoint, this indicates with 90% confidence that over 95% of the failure loads occur at a value represented by Eq. (3) above. Using the minimum design strength of 450 MPa and WJE data, no tests had test-to-predicted ratios less than 1.0. 4.2 Steel failure behavior The reason there is an apparent steel shear strength increase when the stud is embedded in normal-weight concrete, versus “in air” results, is related to stud weld metallurgy. In the stud welding process, the shielded arc weld melts the stud end creating a shallow weld pool beneath the stud. The stud gun then plunges the stud into the molten weld pool, holding the stud in position while the liquid metal solidifies. Although this process occurs very quickly, a heat-affected zone (HAZ) is created in the weldment. AWS defines the HAZ as that portion of the welded metal where the mechanical properties or microstructure have been influenced by the welding heat. The heat developed tends to heat-treat or temper the steel such that locally the steel’s strength and hardness will increase. This transformation hardening process is dependent on the initial material temperature after arcing, the cooling rate, and the final (ambient) temperature.15 Figure 3 shows a stud weld cross section submitted for metallurgical work, which had failed in a concrete breakout mode. The numbers represent locations where Rockwell B

209

Hardness tests were performed; the locations are shown in scale. The Rockwell B Hardness values were then converted to ultimate steel tensile strength.16 Table 2 shows the approximate tensile strength is greater in the HAZ than the nominal stud shank strength. The stud typically sheared off above the weld flash region in the parent stud material, corresponding to hardness locations 2, 9, and 14 in Figure 3. Tensile testing of this stud heat revealed an average ultimate tensile strength (Fut) of 538 MPa; on a relative basis, the indicated strength in the weld area is between 40 to 130 MPa higher. Table 2 - Rockwell B Hardness readings. Test Points 1 2 / 14 3 4 5 6 / 16 7 8 9 / 17 10 / 15 11 12 13 / 18 Rockwell B Hardness 90.1 93.7 91.8 95.1 101.5 99.5 89.9 85.0 87.7 102.3 106.5 92.3 82.1 Converted Fut (MPa) 606.8 667.4 634.3 703.3 841.2 795.0 603.3 544.7 588.1 856.7 986.0 630.2 515.1

Figure 3: Stud weld cross-section.1

5. Summary
Well-embedded studs are recommended to have a minimum effective embedmentto-diameter ratio (hef/d) of 4.5 to achieve steel stud failure. The minimum stud hef/d used in this study was 5.30, but the literature review justified a smaller hef/d. For steel failure in headed stud anchorage groups, this study shows the shear failure load is best predicted using the ultimate stud tensile strength. In normal weight concrete, Eq. (3) is recommended as the steel prediction equation (Vs) for headed studs with hef/d > 4.5. For lightweight concrete, see Reference 1 for background. Headed studs with an hef/d less than 4.5 will likely cause a pry out failure mode. The design ultimate capacity will be less than that predicted by 1.0AsFut. Again, Reference 1 provides a proposed characteristic equation for short, “stocky” studs.

6. References
1. Anderson, N. S. and Meinheit, D. F., “Design Criteria for Headed Stud Groups in Shear: Part 1 – Steel Capacity and Back Edge Effects,” PCI Journal, V. 45, No. 5, September/October 2000, pp. 46-75.

210

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14. 15. 16.

PCI Design Handbook, Fifth Edition (PCI MNL 120-99), Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 1999. ACI Committee 349, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-97)," ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 4, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2000. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., and Breen, J. E., "Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete," ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, January-February 1995, pp. 73-94. Viest, I. M., “Investigation of Stud Shear Connectors for Composite Concrete and Steel T-Beams,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, V. 27, No. 8, April 1956, pp. 875-891. Baldwin, Jr., J. W., “Composite Bridge Stringers – Final Report,” Report 69-4, Missouri Cooperative Highway Research Program, Missouri State Highway Department and University of Missouri-Columbia, May 1970, 62 p. Buttry, K. E., “Behavior of Stud Shear Connectors in Lightweight and NormalWeight Concrete,” Report 68-6, Missouri Cooperative Highway Research Program, Missouri State Highway Department and University of Missouri-Columbia, August 1965, 45 p. Dallam, L. N., “Push-Out Tests of Stud and Channel Shear Connectors in NormalWeight and Lightweight Concrete Slabs,” Bulletin Series No. 66, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Missouri-Columbia, April 1968, 76 p. Goble, G. G., “Shear Strength of Thin Flange Composite Specimens,” Engineering Journal, AISC, V. 5, No. 2, April 1968, pp. 62-65. Chinn, J., “Pushout Tests on Lightweight Composite Slabs,” AISC Engineering Journal, V. 2 No. 4, October 1965, pp. 129-134. Driscoll, G. C. and Slutter, R. G., “Research on Composite Design at Lehigh University,” Proceedings, AISC National Engineering Conference (May 11-12, 1961), Minneapolis, MN, 1961, pp. 18-24. Ollgaard, J. G., Slutter, R. G., and Fisher, J. W., “Shear Strength of Stud Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete,” AISC Engineering Journal, V. 8, No. 2, April 1971, pp. 55-64. AWS, Structural Welding Code – Steel, AWS D1.1:2000, 17th Edition, American Welding Society, Miami, FL, 2000. Linnert, G. E., Welding Metallurgy – Carbon and Alloy Steels, Volume I – Fundamentals, Fourth Edition, American Welding Society, Miami, FL, 1994. ASTM, Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals (Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness, Rockwell Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, and Scleroscope Hardness) (ASTM E140-97e2), V. 3.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.

211

THE ANALYSIS OF FASTENER STRENGTH USING THE LIMIT STATE APPROACH
Jindrich J. Melcher, Marcela Karmazínová Inst. of Metal and Timber Structures, Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic

Abstract
In this paper a brief information about the results and statistical analysis of experimental research program directed to investigation of actual behaviour of the torque-controlled expansion POLYMAT anchors will be presented. Especially the problems of failure mechanism, ultimate and design strength, the influence of edge distance and anchor diameter will be discussed. Based on the test results and theoretical approaches the design formulas have been verified.

1. Introduction
The effectiveness and accurate placement together with the new easy techniques and technology are the most important advantages of the post-installed anchor systems increasingly used for the connection of other structural or constructional parts to hardened concrete and masonry supporting structures. In the new construction as well as in repair and strengthening works the anchor behaviour can be rather complicated considering the influence of concentrated loads, their different direction and especially the type of the failure mode depending on the way of the load transfer from anchor body into the concrete or masonry base. Thus the experimental verification together with statistical analysis of appropriate results should be an authority for the theoretical modeling and practical design procedures of the fastening systems. Recently a wide range of post-installed anchor systems have been developed. Wellknown producers in this area are HILTI, FISCHER, UPAT and SPIT, for example. The application of fastening systems to reinforced concrete and masonry, in general, is based on experimental and theoretical investigations and continuous work of international technical groups and committees - see [ 1 ], for example.

212

In this paper a brief information about analysis of results of the experimental research program directed to problems of actual behaviour of torque-controlled expansion anchors produced in our country will be presented.

2. Basic information on experimental research program
During 1998 - 2000 in the testing laboratory of the Institute of Metal and Timber Structures of the Civil Engineering Faculty at Brno University of Technology the experimental research program [ 2 ], [ 3 ] directed to the analysis of actual behaviour and design strength of expansion anchors to hardened concrete under tension loading has been conducted. The goal of this investigation was concentrated to the domestic torque-controlled fastenings of POLYMAT type and its comparison with results derived for other similar types of expansion anchors. Together 169 specimens under static action and 13 specimens under dynamic action have been tested. For the anchor bolts - see Fig. 1 - the steel grade of 5.6 and 8.8 (with nominal values of the bolt ultimate tensile strength fub = 500 MPa and fub = 800 MPa, respectively) and diameters of d = 8 mm, 12 mm and 16 mm have been used. The external diameter of anchor sleeve was D = 12 mm, 18 mm and 24 mm. The cube concrete strength of the specimen bodies was in the range of fcc = 22 MPa to fcc = 76 MPa. The effective anchor depth hef was in the range of 30 mm to 85 mm . Fig. 1 Expansion Anchor Scheme

3. Analysis of expansion anchor strength parameters
In this paper the test results of specimens under static tension action will be discussed. During the test process the failure mechanism and ultimate tensile strength of the tested specimens have been verified. Depending on basic parameters of fastening arrangement different types of failure mode can be established. Especially the anchor depth and concrete strength together with the bolt dimension and its strength are for the anchor behaviour decisive. Also the size of the edge distance influences significantly the fastening strength. Mainly the concrete-cone failure occurred, in some cases also the anchor extraction has been found. For the anchors placed closely to the edge of the test body the edge break out failure was typical mode appropriate to ultimate strength. In the frame of the information presented here the results covering the set of concretecone failures and edge break out failures are presented (altogether 76 and 31 test,

213

respectively). In Fig. 2 some typical examples of corresponding failure modes are shown. Additionally in 31 cases the bolt extraction and also in 31 cases the simple bolt rupture occurred.

Fig. 2 Examples of concrete-cone failure mode For the elaboration of the test results the calculation models based on large sets of test results according to published results - see Ref. [ 1 ], for example - will be used. For subsequent analysis directed to characteristic and design values of fastener strength the procedure based on the specified European document [ 4 ], [ 5 ] for design assisted by testing can be used. Concrete-cone failure mode According to the so called ψ-method [ 1 ] the mean value of the fastener strength for concrete-cone failure mode can be expressed by the format of Nu,m = k1 . hef1,5 . fcc0,5 , (1)

where fcc is the cube concrete strength, hef is the effective anchor depth and k1 = 13,5 is a coefficient derived from tests. In [ 6 ], [ 2 ] the corresponding general expression is presented in the form of Nu,m = k2 . hef2 . fcc0,5 . (2)

Based on the format of Eq. (1) and using the regression analysis of our test results the mean value of expansion anchor strength is given by Nu,m = 17 . hef1,5 . fcc0,5 and the appropriate value of characteristic strength is (3)

214

Nu,k = 10 . hef1,5 . fcc0,5

.

(4)

Similarly for the format of Eq. (2) the corresponding mean and characteristic anchor strengths are , (5) Nu,m = 2,2 . hef2 . fcc0,5 Nu,k = 1,3 . hef2 . fcc0,5 . (6)

150

150

Nu,test [kN]

Nu,test [kN]

100

100

50

50

0 0 50 100 150

0 0 50 100 150

Nu,m [k N]

Nu,m [k N]

Fig. 3 Relationship according to Eq. (3)

Fig. 4 Relationship according to Eq. (5)

20

20

Frequency [%]

Frequency [%]

15

15

10

10

5

5

0 0,2 0,5 0,8 1,1 1,4 0 0,2 0,5 0,8 1,1 1,4 1,7 2

Nu,test / Nu,m

Nu,test / Nu,m

Fig. 5 Distribution based on Eq. (3) Fig. 6 Distribution based on Eq. (5) In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 the test results and regression relationship between experimental (Nu,test) and theoretical (Nu,m ) strength values according to Eq. (3) and Eq. (5) are

215

1,7

2

presented. The corresponding distributions for the ratio of Nu,test / Nu,m are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. Using the procedure for design assisted by testing [ 4 ] the corresponding formulas for design strength are NRd = 6,50 . hef1,5 . fcc0,5 and NRd = 0,79 . hef2 . fcc0,5 , respectively.
100

(7) (8)

100

80

80

Nu [kN]

Nu [kN]

60

60

40

40

20

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

h ef [m m ] TESTS MEA N V A LUE ac . to ( 3) CHA R. V A LUE ac . to ( 4) DESIGN V A LUE ac . to ( 7)

h ef [m m ] TES TS MEA N V A L UE a c . to ( 5 ) CHA R. V A L UE a c . to ( 6 ) DES IG N V A L UE a c . to ( 8 )

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

The test results compared to the course of the mean, characteristic and design strengths are plotted as a function of effective anchor depth hef in Fig. 7 (for the relationships going out of the Eq. 3) and Fig. 8 (for the relationships going out of the Eq. 5). The values elaborated here are standardized for the concrete cube strength taken as fcc = 25 MPa. The influence of edge distance - edge break out failure mode

216

According to [ 1 ] for the anchor edge distance e ≥ 2 hef the concrete-cone failure mode is for the fastening strength decisive. Thus analyzing the influence of the edge distance the mean values of anchor strength according to Eq. (3) to the test results in the range of e ≤ 2 hef have been compared. The corresponding mean value of the strength of the anchor placed in the edge distance of "e" can be expressed by Nue,m = 0,5 (e / hef ) Nu,m . Using the Eq. (5) the appropriate results are practically identical.
1,5

(9)

Nu,test / Nu,m

1

0,5

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5

e / hef TESTS THEORY - MEAN VALUE ac.to (9)

Fig. 9

The influence of the anchor edge distance

The corresponding characteristic values based on test results and Eq. (9) are given by Nue,k = 0,6 Nue,m . The influence of anchor diameter The effective anchor depth is the decisive parameter for the value of fastening strength. Based on the analysis of test results also the influence of external sleeve diameter "D" can be verified. (10)

217

2

1,5

Nu,test / N u,m

1

0,5

0 0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

D / h ef TE S TS THE ORY - M E A N V A LUE ac .to (11)

Fig. 10
2

Test elaboration based on Eq. (3)

1,5

Nu,test / N u,m

1

0,5

0 0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

D / h ef TE S TS THE ORY - M E A N V A LUE ac .to (12)

Fig. 11 Test elaboration based on Eq. (5)

218

Analyzing the relationship between the fastening strength and ratio of D / hef the main value of expansion anchor strength can be expressed by NuD,m = (0,80 + 0,62 D / hef ) . Nu,m for Nu,m according to Eq. (3) and by NuD,m = (0,28 + 2,56 D / hef ) . Nu,m (12) (11)

for Nu,m according to Eq. (5) . The corresponding results plotted against the test strenth values are plotted in Fig. 10 and in Fig. 11.

4. Conclusions
For the POLYMAT type of torque-controlled expansion anchors the analysis of basic strength parameters has been presented in consideration of experimental research program and corresponding theoretical models. The statistical elaboration of test results is based on limit state design approach and on procedures derived for design assisted by testing. Especially the anchor strength, the influence of edge distance and anchor sleeve diameter have been analyzed. Acknowledgements : This paper has been elaborated under gratefully acknowledged support of projects MSM 261100007 and GAČR reg. No. 103/00/0758.

References
1. Eligehausen, R. (Editorial Chairman), 'Fastenings to Reinfoced Concrete and Masonry Structures', Bulletin d'information No. 206, CEB, Lausanne, 1991. 2. Karmazínová, M., 'Some Problems of Design of Expansion Anchors', Ph.D. Theses, Brno University of Technology, 1999. 3. Karmazínová,M.,'Loading Tests of Expansion Anchors', In: Proceedings of Seminar "Steel and Timber Structures - Brno '99", VUT - FAST, Brno, 1999, pp. 93 - 96. 4. ENV 1993-1-1:1992/A2:1998, Annex Z, 'Determination of Design Resistance from Tests', CEN, Brussels, 1998. 5. Karmazínová,M. - Melcher,J., 'To the Problem of Design Assisted by Testing', Proceedings of 19th Czech and Slovak Conference "Steel Structures and Bridges": held in Štrbské Pleso, C-PRESS Publisher, Košice, 2000, pp. 39 - 42. 6. VN 73 2615:1994, 'Directions for anchoring of steel structures', Firm Specification, VÍTKOVICE, 1994. 7. Karmazínová,M., 'To the Problem of Load-carrying Capacity of Expansion Anchors', In: Proceedings of the XI. International Conference of the Brno University of Technology, Part No. 7, VUT - FAST, Brno, 1999, pp. 91 - 94.

219

BEHAVIOR OF SHEAR ANCHORS IN CONCRETE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Hakki Muratli*, Richard E. Klingner**, and Herman L. Graves, III*** * Dallas, Texas, USA; former, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA. ** Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA. *** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., USA.

Abstract
The overall objective of this paper is to evaluate three different procedures for predicting the concrete breakout capacity of shear anchors under static and dynamic loading, and in uncracked and cracked concrete. A data base for shear anchors was developed, evaluated, and placed in the public domain. Observed capacities of shear anchors failing by concrete breakout were compared with the predictions of three methods: the 45-Degree Cone Method; the CC Method, and a variation of the CC Method, obtained by regression analysis. Each predictive method was then evaluated using Monte Carlo analyses to predict the probability of failure by concrete breakout, using the design framework of ACI 349-90 [1].

1. Introduction
The objective of this research was to provide the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with a comprehensive document that could be used to establish regulatory positions regarding fastening to concrete. Shear behavior of anchors under static and dynamic loading in uncracked and cracked concrete, and for cast-in-place, undercut, sleeve and expansion anchors, is evaluated using the design framework of ACI 349-90 [1], and three possible predictive equations for concrete breakout: 1) the CC Method; 2) the 45-Degree Cone Method; and 3) a variation on the CC Method, obtained by regression analysis. Available test data are evaluated and organized by failure mode, using descriptions and photographs presented by the original researchers. Each set of design provisions is evaluated [2] based on the criteria that:

220

1) An ideal design method should give ratios of observed to predicted capacity showing no systematic error (that is, no variation in ratios with changes in embedment depth), high precision (that is, little scatter of data). 2) An ideal design method should have acceptably low probabilities of failure in the overall design framework in which it is to be used.

2. Background
General information on anchor types and behavior is given in CEB [3]. The most widely known procedures for predicting shear breakout capacity are the CC Method and the 45-Degree Cone Method, described here. A variation on the CC Method, obtained by regression analysis, is described later. Shear Breakout Capacity by Concrete Capacity Method (CC Method) The CC Method [4] computes mean shear breakout capacity as:
0.5 Vno = 13 (d o f c )  l  c1.5  d  1 o  0.2

lb N

(1a) (1b)

0.5 Vno = 1.0 (d o f cc )  l  c1.5  d  1  o

0.2

where: do = l = = = fc c1

outside diameter of anchor (in. in US units, mm in SI units); activated load-bearing length of anchors, ≤ 8do; hef for anchors with a constant overall stiffness; 2do for torque-controlled expansion anchors with spacing sleeve separated from the expansion sleeve; = specified compressive strength of concrete; and = edge distance in the direction of load.

The above formula is for the mean rather than 5% fractile concrete breakout capacity in uncracked concrete, and is valid for a member with a thickness of at least 1.4 hef. For anchors in a thin structural member, or a narrow member, or affected by adjacent anchors, breakout capacity must be reduced based on the idealized model of a halfpyramid measuring 1.5c1 by 3c1 (Figure 1).

221

35 º

c1

35 º

1.5c1

3c1 FromTest Results

3c1 Simplified Model

Figure 1 In such cases,

Idealized breakout model for a single shear anchor, CC Method

Vn =

Av ψ 4ψ 5ψ 6 Vno A vo

(2)

where: Av = actual projected area at the side of concrete member; Avo = projected area of one fastener in thick member without influence of spacing and member width, idealizing the shape of the projected fracture cone as a half-pyramid with side length of 1.5c1 and 3c1; ψ4 = modification factor for shear strength to account for fastener groups that are loaded eccentrically; ψ5 = modification factor to consider the disturbance of symmetric stress distribution caused by a corner; = 1, if c2 ≥ 1.5 c1 =

0.7 + 0.3

c2 , if c2 ≤ 1.5 c1; 1.5c1

where: c1 = edge distance in loading direction; = greater of (c2,max/1.5, h/1.5) for anchors in a thin and narrow member with c2,max < 1.5c1 and h < 1.5c1; where: h = thickness of concrete member; c2 = edge distance perpendicular to loading direction. ψ6 = modification factor for shear strength to account for absence or control of cracking.

222

Shear Breakout Capacity by 45-Degree Cone Method By the 45-Degree Cone Method, a tensile stress of 4 f c′ is assumed to act on the surface of a half-cone with an inclination of 45 degrees to the concrete surface (Figure 2).

45 º

Figure 2

Breakout body assumed by 45-Degree Cone Method

Equilibrium in the direction of the applied shear leads to:
2 Vno = 2π f c′ c1

lb

(3a) (3b)

2 Vno = 0.48 f c′ c1 N

where c1 is the edge distance in loading direction. If the depth of the concrete member is smaller than the edge distance, or the spacing of anchors is smaller than 2c1, or the width of the concrete member is smaller than 2c1, the shear breakout capacity is modified as follows:

Vn =

Av Vno A vo

(4)

where: Av = actual projected area of semi-cone on the side of concrete member; Avo = projected area of one fastener in thick member without influence of spacing, and member width, idealizing the shape of projected fracture cone as a half2 cone with a diameter of c1, so that AVo = (π/2) c1 (Figure 3).

223

45 º h

2 πθ  c AV =  π − + sin θ  1   2 180

θ = 2 cos −1 

 h   c1 

Figure 3

Projected areas for shear anchors, 45-Degree Cone Method

Effects of Dynamic Shear Loading and Cracks on Shear Breakout Capacity In this research, predicted shear breakout capacities under static loading are proposed to be multiplied by a dynamic factor equal to 1.20 [5]. Predicted shear breakout capacities in uncracked concrete are proposed to be multiplied by a crack factor equal to 0.714 for cases involving cracked concrete.

3. Test data for shear anchors in concrete
An extensive search was conducted for data on single and multiple shear anchors, with and without edge effects, group effects, or cracks, and including dynamic as well as static loading: a) Only tests with concrete breakout failure were included.

b) Only tests on cast-in-place, expansion and undercut anchors were included. c) Tests are from the US and Europe. Some static shear tests in uncracked concrete from Germany are not included, because the mean ratios of observed to predicted capacities were about 0.859, about 20% lower than the rest of the data in this category (1.075), and the coefficient of variation was about 0.4, much higher than for the rest of the data. This difference could be explained by unreported information on the thickness of the concrete specimens for those tests.

d) Tests were sorted according to type of loading (static or dynamic) and condition of concrete before the test (cracked or uncracked). Only limited tests were available with dynamic loading. e) Most tests on multiple-anchor connections were excluded, because their resistance mechanisms and failure sequence are complex. Because it is normally not possible to measure the tensile and shear failure loads taken by each anchor, nor the friction between baseplate and concrete, it is difficult to decide how anchors share axial and shear load. As a consequence, it is difficult or impossible to distinguish those tests showing concrete breakout failure.

224

f)

The confining effect of baseplate and presence of reinforcement affect the type of failure and concrete breakout capacity. The compression on concrete from the baseplate around some anchors usually increases the concrete breakout capacity. In addition, reinforcement may also confine the concrete after cracking. Since these effects are not fully understood, tests with reinforcement in concrete were not included.

g) Out-of-plane eccentric loading is another factor that affects load-carrying mechanism and type of failure. The eccentricity changes the type and magnitude of the load taken by each anchor, and the friction between baseplate and concrete. Because these points are still under investigation, tests with out-of-plane eccentricity were not included. Shear Breakout Data for Single and Double Anchors in Uncracked Concrete under Static Loading Data in this category come from Klingner [6] (85 tests), Drillco [7] (5 tests), Hallowell [5] (5 tests), and Hilti1 (154 tests). Twenty-seven of these tests are in lightweight concrete, and the rest, in normal-weight concrete. The Klingner [6] and Hallowell [5] tests are on cast-in-place anchors; the Drillco [7] and Hilti1 tests are on undercut and expansion anchors respectively. Figure 4 shows the variation of ratio of observed to predicted capacity as a function of edge distance c1, based on the CC Method [4]. A linear regression is fitted to the data. In general, the ratio of observed to predicted capacity decreases with increasing edge distance. This systematic error suggests that the exponent applied to the edge distance c1 in the current equation is slightly high. The negative slope is also influenced by the low ratios for a few tests with edge distances greater than 250 mm.

225

Static Shear Loading - Single and Double Anchors Uncracked Concrete - CC Method
2.50 2.00 Vobs/Vpred 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Edge Distance (mm) Mean= 1.075 COV = 0.215 y=-0.0006x+1.1606

Figure 4

Ratios of observed to predicted concrete shear breakout capacities, uncracked concrete, CC Method

Figure 5 shows the same ratios for the 45-Degree Cone Method. Mean values in the two figures are almost the same, but the coefficient of variation is higher for the 45-Degree Cone Method. The negative slope of the best-fit line for the 45-Degree Cone Method is quite high, indicating significant systematic error. The outliers with mean values higher than 1.50 correspond to tests from Drillco [7], in which the tensile strength of concrete was higher than the value implied in the equations of the CC Method and the 45-Degree Cone Method. Similar information is presented in Reference 2 for dynamic loading, cracked concrete, and post-installed versus cast-in-place anchors.

226

Static Shear Loading - Single and Double Anchors Uncracked Concrete - 45-Degree Cone Method
3.00 2.50 Vobs/Vpred 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Edge Distance (mm) Mean= 1.073 COV = 0.339 y=-0.003x+1.5111

Figure 5

Ratios of observed to predicted concrete shear breakout capacities, uncracked concrete, 45-Degree Cone Method

Development of an Alternative Method based on Regression Analysis Because significant systematic error was observed in the preceding graphs of the ratios of observed to predicted shear breakout capacities as a function of edge distance, multivariate regression analysis was used with the data for single anchors in uncracked concrete, static loading, to attempt to improve the CC Method in this regard. Considering all data categories and slightly modifying the mathematically optimum values for design convenience, the following values were obtained for the parameters: α = 2.7; m1 = 0.1; m2 = 0.3; m3 = 0.5; and m4 = 1.4:
Vno = 2.7 ⋅ l 0.1 ⋅ d o
0 .3

⋅ fcc

0.5

⋅ c1

1.4

(5)

There is little difference between the alternative method as optimized using regression analysis, and the CC Method, except with respect to the exponent of the edge distance, c1. The regression formula has significantly lower systematic error than the CC Method, suggesting that the CC Method’s exponent of 1.5 should be reduced to 1.4. Similar results are obtained for the other conditions discussed above.

4. Probabilities of failure associated with each breakout formula
To evaluate the accuracy and suitability of the CC Method, the 45-Degree Cone Method and the alternative method as design approaches, the probabilities of concrete breakout failure under known loads and independent of load were computed. The probabilistic

227

evaluation is carried out assuming the ductile design framework and current load and understrength factors of ACI 349-90, Appendix B [1] (load factor = 1.7; φ = 0.85 for steel; φ = 0.65 for concrete). Assuming the exact forms of load and capacity distributions, the probabilities of failure are computed using FORM (First Order Reliability) analysis. These calculations are based on a normal distribution for all variables. The basic procedure is similar to that reported in Farrow [8, 9]. The results of these probabilistic analysis are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Probabilities of failure are consistent with observations made earlier based on evaluation of ratios of observed to predicted shear breakout capacities. The CC Method, with acceptable mean ratios and low systematic error, has lower probabilities of failure under known loads, and lower probabilities of brittle failure independent of load, than the 45Degree Cone Method, when both are used in the ductile design framework of ACI 34990, Appendix B [1]. Table 1 Probabilities of failure under known loads for different categories of shear anchors, ductile design approach CC METHOD ANCHOR CATEGORY single and double anchors, uncracked concrete, static shear loading single anchors, cracked concrete, static shear loading single anchors, uncracked concrete, dynamic shear loading single anchors, cracked concrete, dynamic shear loading Probability of Failure 2.665E-04 β 3.55 45-Degree CONE REGRESSION METHOD METHOD Probability Probability β β of Failure of Failure 1.138E-02 2.28 1.56E-04 3.77

3.275E-04

3.48

3.885E-04

3.42

--

--

7.567E-05

5.10

7.554E-05

5.39

--

--

8.620E-05

4.25

9.130E-05

4.16

--

--

228

Table 2

Probabilities of brittle failure independent of load for different categories of shear anchors, ductile design approach CC METHOD 45-Degree CONE REGRESSION METHOD METHOD Probability Probability of Brittle of Brittle β β Failure Failure 0.270 0.61 0.271 0.61

ANCHOR CATEGORY Probability of Brittle Failure single and double anchors, uncracked concrete, static 0.189 shear loading single anchors, cracked concrete, static shear 0.290 loading single anchors, uncracked concrete, dynamic shear 0.034 loading single anchors, cracked concrete, dynamic shear 0.011 loading

β

0.88

0.55

0.402

0.25

--

--

1.83

0.003

2.70

--

--

2.29

0.023

2.00

--

--

5. Conclusions
1) The ductile design approach in the draft proposal for ACI 349 [1] (including the CC Method) is safe and efficient for shear fasteners in concrete. 2) The CC Method is more reliable than the 45-Degree Cone Method as a design tool for shear breakout. It can be safely used for design of cast-in-place and postinstalled anchors for edge distances up to 250 mm. 3) The systematic error of the CC Method for shear breakout could be decreased by changing the exponent of edge distance from 1.5 to 1.4. 4) For dynamic loading, the capacity of cast-in-place anchors increases by 20% compared to static loading. 6) The concrete breakout capacity of post-installed anchors is 10% lower than that of cast-in-place anchors. Therefore, predicted breakout capacity should be based on anchor type. This can be done by adjusting the mean normalization constant k to 0.97 for the basic uncracked concrete case for post-installed anchors.

229

6. Acknowledgement and disclaimer
This paper presents partial results of a research program supported by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under Contract No. NRC-04-96-059. The technical contact is Herman L. Graves, III. Any conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and are not to be considered NRC policy or recommendations.

7. References
1) ACI 349 1990, ”Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures,” American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1990. 2) Muratli, Hakki, “Behavior of Shear Anchors in Concrete: Statistical Analysis and Design Recommendations,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, May 1998. 3) Comite’ Euro-International du Beton, Fastening to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures: State-of-the-Art-Report, bulletin D’Information Nos.206 and 207, August 1991. 4) Fuchs, Werner, Eligehausen, Rolf, and Breen, John E., “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 92, No. 1, January-February 1995, pp. 73-94. 5) Hallowell, Jennifer, “Tensile and Shear Behavior of Anchors in Uncracked and Cracked Concrete Under Static and Dynamic Loading,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, December 1996. 6) Klingner, R. E. and Mendonca, J. A., “Shear Capacity of Short Anchor Bolts and Welded Studs: A Literature Review,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings Vol. 79, No. 5, September-October 1982, pp. 339-349. 7) Arkansas Nuclear One Maxibolt Anchor Bolt Test Program, Entergy Operations, Inc. Arkansas Nuclear One Steam Electric Station, MCS Design, May 14, 1992. 8) Farrow, C. Ben and Klingner, R. E., “Tensile Capacity of Anchors with Partial or Overlapping Failure Surfaces: Evaluation of Existing Formulas on an LRFD Basis,” ACI Structures Journal, Vol. 92, No. 6, November-December 1995, pp. 698710. 9) Farrow, C. Ben, Frigui, Imed and Klingner, R. E., “Tensile Capacity of Single Anchors in Concrete: Evaluation of Existing Formulas on an LRFD Basis,” ACI Structures Journal, Vol. 93, No. 1, January-February 1996.

1

Personal communication, Peter Pusill-Wachtsmuth, Hilti AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein, 1997.

230

STUDY ON SHEAR TRANSFER OF JOINT STEEL BAR AND CONCRETE SHEAR KEY IN CONCRETE CONNECTIONS
Katsuhiko Nakano* and Yasuhiro Matsuzaki* *Dept. of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Science University of Tokyo, Japan

Abstract
Shear transfer across a definite interface must frequently be considered in the design of precast concrete connections. As the following various resistances in the effecting shear transfer strength are given: (1) Dowel action, (2) Shear-key, (3) Friction with axial force, (4) Adherence on the concrete surface. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the compound effects of the various resistance elements. Basic experiments on the interface shear transfer at the precast joint faces ware carried out. Ten panel type specimens with the same dimensions were tested. As a conclusion, the relation of the shear transfer mechanism and shear displacement behaviour in concrete connection is clarified. And the evaluation equation of the shear transfer strength with consideration to the shear displacement conformity is proposed.

1. Introduction
General design method for the precast-concrete building structures has not yet established, especially for the details of connections. The behaviour of precast concrete structures subjected to earthquakes may be greatly influenced by the resistances of various elements within precast-concrete connections. The factors influencing shear transfer strength are considered as following: (1) Characteristics of the shear interface, (2) Characteristics of the reinforcement, (3) Mechanical properties of the concrete, (4) Direct stress acting parallel and transverse to the shear interface. The shear resistances in concrete connections are assumed as following: (1) Dowel action of joint bars, (2) Direct shear resistance of concrete shear-key, (3) Friction with axial compressive force, (4) Adherence of the concrete surface. The concrete shear-key, friction and adherence show brittle failure, and the shear dis-

231

placement is tiny. Maximum dowel strength is associated with a certain amount of shear displacement along the interface. In design of shear transfer elements, deformation characteristics are also very important as well as the strength. We are based on the stress transfer mechanism in concrete connections, and think that it is necessary to systematize the designing method by the theoretical model. This research aims at the following: (1) Extraction and modelling of the shear transfer elements in the concrete connection, (2) Proposal of the additional method of the various resistances satisfied with the condition of the shear displacement, (3) Verification by the structural experiment.

2. Test Program
2.1 Specimens The list of specimen parameters is shown in Table 1. And the dimensions of specimens are shown Fig. 1. The specimens used for investigation of the shear transfer mechanism consisted of two concrete blocks. The dimensions and reinforcement details of all the specimens were identical: the width of 900 mm, the height of 1400 mm, the thickness of 225 mm with an interface of 860 mm × 225 mm at the height of 700mm from the base. The following parameters are investigated: 1. The kind of shear resistance in concrete connections [friction with axial force, dowel bar, shear-key, and compound of various elements] 2. Direct force acting transverse to the concrete interface [N = 0, 1500, -220 kN]. Combinations of parameters for all 10 specimens are given in Table 1. The joint steel bars are used 2-D22 ( φ = 22 mm, deformed bar). Table 1 List of specimen parameters No. Axial force Shear resistance (kN) Friction Dowel Sear-key RF01 Variable*1 Yes No No RF02 0 No No Yes RF03 1500 Yes No Yes RF04 0 No Yes No RF05 1500 Yes Yes No RF06 -220 No Yes No RF07 Variable*2 Yes Yes*3 No RF08 0 No Yes Yes RF09 1500 Yes Yes Yes RF10 -220 No Yes Yes
*1) 250,500,750,1000,1250,1500,1750,2000kN *2) positive loading: -220kN, Negative loading: 100, 750, 1500kN *3) High yield stress of joint bars

400
Shear -key Joint bar

300 300 400

90

30

30

Fig. 1 Dimensions of specimens

232

The shear-key is used in the central part of a concrete interface, and the height is hck = 30 mm, the length is Lck = 240 mm and the width is tck = 225 mm. Since the form ratio of a shear-key ( hck / Lck ) is 1/8, the shear-key shows compressive failure mode. The lower part in the Fig. 1 was cast first using steel form at the interface. The upper part was five days after then. The steel form was removed before connecting two concrete blocks and the interface was filled with grease. Thus, adherence of concrete surfaces was eliminated and shear force could be transferred by means of dowel bars, concrete shear-key, and friction with the axial force. Mechanical properties of concrete and joint steel bar are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Mechanical properties of materials Steel bar Ec Concrete σB ( D22 ) (kN/mm2) (N/mm2) Upper 31.1 281 Normal Lower 66.7 350 High Average 48.9 316

σy (N/mm2) 380 735

Es (kN/mm2) 180 198

σu (N/mm2) 592 897

Axial force

Shear displacement: δ sd= ( δ sd1+ δ sd2 )/2

15 15

30 15 15

30 30

+Q

-Q Specimen

δ sd1
Loading Joint bar

δ sd2

Strain gauges

Fig. 2 Loading Apparatus

Fig. 3 Measuring devices for dowel bars

2.2 Testing Arrangements The concrete interfaces of specimens were subjected to cyclic shear forces and constant axial forces, using the loading apparatus shown in Fig. 2. The loading direction was reversed at the horizontal displacement amplitudes of 3, 6, 9 mm, which was measured at the height of 30 mm from the concrete interface. The location of displacement gauges and strain gauges of dowel bars are shown in Fig. 3.

3. Test Results
3.1 Friction with Axial force The typical hysteresis relation of the shear force (Q) of the friction with axial force and the shear displacement ( δ sd) are shown in Fig. 4, and the relation of the frictional shear

233

force (Qf) and the axial force (N) are shown in Fig. 5. RF01 has been carried out to investigate the relation of friction and compressive axial force. It was measured on the compressive axial force level of eight stages [N = 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000 kN] using the same specimen. The friction with axial force can roughly be evaluated from the hysteresis loop as the following: (1) Qf can be estimated from the first positive maximum strengths of the specimens under different axial force levels, and the force is proportional to the axial force. (2) The friction with axial force under cyclic loading may be taken at the flat level in the reloading to the other direction until the original displacement. 3.2 Dowel Action The typical hysteresis relation of the shear force (Q) of a dowel action and the shear displacement ( δ sd) are shown in Fig. 6. RF04 was subjected to shear force and without axial force. Thus, the shear force could be transferred only by means of dowel action of the two deformed bars crossing the interface. The dowel action can roughly be evaluated from the hysteresis loop as the following: (1) Substantial stiffness decreases gradually. (2) The maximum shear displacement with cycling increases. (3) The pinching effect is very pronounced, and the area of hysteresis loops with cycling decreases.
300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300
200 150 100

RF01

Q(kN)

N= 500kN

Qf (kN) Friction coefficient
= 0.08

N= 1500kN -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6

δsd(mm)
9 12

50 0 0 500 1000 1500

N(kN)
2000

Fig. 4 Typical curves of mean values of Frictional force vs. Shear displacement
400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300

Fig. 5 Influence of Axial force on Frictional force
400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 calculation

RF04

Q (kN)
1 mm

calculation

RF02

Q (kN)
1 mm

δsd (mm)
-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12

δsd (mm)
-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12

Fig. 6 Typical curve of mean values of Dowel force vs. Shear displacement

Fig. 7 Typical curve of mean values of Direct shear force of shear-key vs. Shear displacement

234

400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -12 200 100 0 -100 -200

Q (kN)
RF04+0.08N RF05

calculation 1 mm

δsd (mm)
RF04+0.08N -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12

RF06

Q (kN)
1 mm

calculation

δsd (mm)
6 9
RF08

-12 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500

-9

-6

-3

0

3

12

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 -700 -12

Q (kN)
RF03

calculation

RF02+0.08N

1 mm

δsd (mm)

RF02+0.08N

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

Q (kN)
RF02+RF04 1 mm

calculation

δsd (mm)
RF02+RF04

-12 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

Q (kN)
RF10 1 mm

calculation RF02+RF06

RF02+RF06

δsd (mm)

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 -700 -800 -900 -12

Q (kN)
RF02+RF04+0.08N

RF09

1 mm

calculation
RF02+RF04+0.08N

δsd (mm)
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

Fig. 8 Hysteresis curves of mean values of Total force (dowel resistance or the shearkey resistance with axial force) vs. Shear displacement 3.3 Direct Shear Resistance of Concrete Shear-key The typical hysteresis relation of the shear force (Q) of a shear-key resistance and the shear displacement ( δ sd) are shown in Fig. 7. RF02 subjected to shear force and without axial force. Thus, the shear force could be transferred only by means of shear-key resis-

235

tance. RF02 showed compressive failure of shear-key. The stiffness of the hysteresis loop is high and the displacement of that is tiny until compressive failure of shear-key. The resistance after compressive failure is keeping. 3.4 Compound effect of shear resistances with different hysteresises The hystereris relations between the shear force and the shear displacement are shown in Fig. 8. The relations of the total shear force and shear displacement are shown with dotted lines. The total shear force combines each shear resistance at the same shear displacement Combination of dowel and shear-key RF08 is the combination of the shear-key and dowel action. And the hysteresis loop of RF08 is the compound hysteresis loop (RF02+RF04) of the shear-key (RF02) and the dowel action (RF04) shown with the dotted line. RF08 and RF02 showed compressive failure of the shear-key in the first positive and negative loading. The positive and negative shear capacities of (RF02+ RF04) are almost equal to the capacity of RF08. The enveloped curves of hysteresis loops between RF08 and (RF02+RF04) show almost equal behaviour. However, the pinching effect of RF08 is pronounced, and decreases the area of histeresis loop with cycling. Combination of dowel and friction RF05 and RF06 are the combination of the dowel action and the friction with axial force. RF05 was subjected to compressive axial force +1500kN, and RF06 was subjected to tensile axial force –220kN. Therefore, although the friction occurs in the interface of RF05, the friction does not occur in the interface of RF06. The hysteresis loop of RF05 is the compound hysteresis loop (RF01+ RF04) of the dowel action (RF04) and the friction with axial force (RF01) shown with the dotted line. The hysterisis loops between RF05 and (RF01+ RF04) show almost equal behaviour. However, the shear displacement occurred suddenly in the first loading of RF05, and the shear force was larger to that of (RF01+RF04). Combination of shear-key and friction RF03 and RF10 are the combination of the shear-key and the friction with axial force. RF03 was subjected to compressive axial force +1500kN, and RF10 was subjected to tensile axial force –220kN. Therefore, although the friction occurs in the interface of RF03, the friction does not occur in the interface of RF10. The hysteresis loop of RF03 is the compound hysteresis loop (RF01+ RF02) of the shear-key (RF02) and the friction with axial force (RF01) shown with the dotted line. RF03 and RF10 showed compressive failure of the shear-key in the first positive and negative loading. The positive and negative shear capacities of (RF01+ RF02) are larger than the capacity of RF03 by about 80%.

4. Discussion
4.1 Strain distribution of Joint bars Strain distributions of RF04, RF05 and RF06 to investigate the dowel action at the same shear displacement ( δ sd = 0.5 , 1 mm ) are shown in Fig. 9. The configurations of the front reverse sides are symmetrical to the loading direction, and the shear force is resisted due to bending of the joint bars locally. Also, those configurations are equal re-

236

gardless of the axial force levels subjected, but the strain levels with tensile force are different. The characteristics of such a strain distribution are similarly observed in RF08, RF09 and RF10 to investigate the compound effects of dowel action and shear-key resistance.
(mm) yield strain= 2114 (mm) yield strain= 2114

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -4000 -2000 0

strain (×10 ) 2000 4000 6000

-6

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -4000 -2000 0

Ο :RF04 ∆ :RF05 ◊ :RF06

Upper Concrete Lower Concrete
strain (×10 )
2000 4000 6000
-6

Fig. 9 Strain disributions of specimens to investigate the dowel action
Depth f dowel bar (mm)
U δsd U M ma

Depth of dowel bar (mm)

δ sd : shear displacement δ sd =L δ sd +U δ sd
Ul

Q

U lm

L lm L M max L δsd

Q

Anti-force of concrete

L l0

M oment curve

Shear displacement curve of Steel bar

100 calculation 90 80 RF04 70 +Q=132 kN 60 δsd=0.51 mm 50 40 30 20 10 δ sd (mm) 0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
-0.2 0

calculation RF05 +Q=265 kN δsd=0.51 mm

δ sd (mm)
0.2 0.4 0.6

Fig. 10 Dowel mechanism

Fig.11 Shear displacement of dowel bar

4.2 dowel mechanism Referring to the dowel mechanism shown in Fig. 10. The external shear force tends to produce slippage along the interface. It is thought that the dowel bar is subjected to bending moment from concrete for the anti-force. The anti-force per this unit length is expressed with Eq. 1. It assumes that the anti-force coefficient is fixed in the depth of concrete, and the basic equation to calculate the bending displacement of the dowel bar will be given by the Eq. 2.

p s (x) = k c ⋅ B ⋅ y E s Is d y + kc ⋅ B ⋅ y = 0 dx 4
4

(Eq. 1) (Eq. 2)

237

The variables are defined as: x : Depth of the dowel bar from the interface ( mm ), y : Horizontal displacement of the dowel bar in the depth x ( mm ), Es : Modulus of elasticity of the dowel bar ( N/mm2 ), Is : Geometrical moment of inertia ( mm4), ps(x) : Horizontal anti-force of the concrete in the depth x ( N/mm ), B : Diameter of the dowel bar ( mm ), kc : Coefficient of concrete ant-force ( N/m3 ) For the calculation of dowel strength, it is assumed that the dowel behaves like a horizontally loaded free-headed pile embedded in cohesive soil and that yielding of the bar and crushing of the concrete occur simultaneously. In the interface, the shear force of the opposite direction is loaded [ the absolute value ] mutually equally. Therefore, the dowel bar in depth 0 mm from the interface is subjected to a shear force (Q = -H ), and is not subjected to a bending moment ( M = 0 ). Moreover, when kc is assumed to be fixed, and a dowel bar is assumed to be an elastic material, and the theoretical solution of Eq. 2 is calculated, it can express with the following equations. H (Eq. 3) e −βx cos βx y= 3 2E s I s β H (Eq. 4) M = e −βx sin βx β

M max = −

π H −4 H e ⋅ sin = −0.3224 β β 4

π

(Eq. 5)

Where: k ⋅B , π 2π l m = , l0 = β=4 c 4β β 4E s I s Mmax : Maximum bending moment of the dowel bar (N • mm), lm : Depth of Mmax ( mm ), l0 : Depth of immobility In general, where the dowel is simultaneously subjected to a tensile stress σ s = α ⋅ σ y ( α ≤ 1.0 ), the plastic moment of the bar decreases.

6 Thus, the dowel strength is calculated by Eq. 7 ( Mmax = Mpl ). d3 ⋅ σy ⋅ 1− α2 2β ⋅ Q dwl = 6 0.3224

M pl =

d3 ⋅ σy 1− α2

(

)
)

(Eq. 6)

(

(Eq. 7)

Shear-displacement distributions of the dowel bars in the upper concrete of RF04 and RF05 are shown in Fig. 11. The calculations are integrated twice with the strain distributions shown in Fig.9. The calculations agree well with the measurements. Therefore, it is thought that the proposed dowel mechanism is appropriate.

238

4.3 Total method of various shearing resistance forces Monotonic hysterisis relations of per one dowel resistance (qdb) and shear displacement are shown in Fig. 12. The curves (RF04 and RF05) measured by the experiment are solid lines and the curve calculated from the Eq. 3 is shown by the dotted line. The dowel resistance of RF05 subtracts the calculated friction with axial force from the measured total shear force. The calculation evaluates the measurement of RF04 without axial force appropriate. The shear displacement of RF05 occurs suddenly, and the calculation evaluates the measurement of that a little more larger. This seems to be influenced by the adherence of concrete surface. Monotonic hysterisis relations of per one shear-key (qck) and shear displacement are shown in Fig.13. The shear-keys of RF03 and RF09 subtract the calculated frictions with axial force from the measured total shear forces, and also the shear-keys of RF08 and RF09 subtract the calculated dowel resistances from the measured total shear forces. The hysterisis curves of the shear-keys with the same axial force level show an almost equal. These figures lead to the following: (1) Total shear resistance can be evaluated as the sum total of each shear transfer element at the same shear displacement. (2) Dowel action is not influenced by compressive axial force. (3) Structural performance (resistance and stiffness) of shear-key increases by compressive axial force.
100 qdb(kN) 75 50 25 δsd (mm) 0 -0.5 0 -25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 -0.5 0 -200 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
RF04: N=0kN

800
RF05: N=1500kN

qck(kN) 600

RF03:N=1500kN

RF09:N=1500kN

400 200
RF02: N=0

calu lat io n

RF08: N=0

δsd (mm)

Fig. 12 Monotonic hysterisis curves of Dowel action

Fig. 13 Monotonic hysterisis curves of shear-key resistance

4.4 Evaluation equation of the shear resistance force in the interface Strength equations for design tools for shear transfer elements such as dowel action, shear-key, friction with axial force and adherence are given. In the design of shear transfer elements, deformation characteristics are also very important as well as the strength. An allowable limit of the shear displacement ( δ sd) should be proposed so that the effect of the shear displacement in concrete connections to structural response could be minimized during earthquake. We propose the limit of the shear displacement is 1 mm from the following: (1) The limit investigated by many structural experiments of BeamColumn-Joint, Column-to-Column Connection, Beam-to-Beam Connection, Beam-to-

239

Slab, Connection of a wall, etc. is 1 mm. (2) Experimental results in this research show the capacity of each shear transfer element is in full at the shear displacement 1 mm. We propose the strength equation (Qsr) for total shear resistance showing in Eq. 8. The total shear resistance (Qsr) is the sum total of the dowel bar (Qdwl), the shear-key (Qsky), the friction with compressive axial force (Qfrc), and the adherence (Qadh). However, the strength of dowel bar is the dowel resistance at shear displacement 1 mm. The shear resistance due to adherence is sometimes large to neglect. However the resistance is very sensible to the condition of the surface and subjects to change easily. Thus no value is shown for the strength due to adherence.

Q sr = Q dwl + Q sky + Q frc + (Q adh = 0) Q dwl = n s ⋅
Where

d3 ⋅ σy ⋅ 1 − α2 6

(

)⋅
3

(Eq. 8)

2β , Q sky = n c ⋅ γ ⋅ A p ⋅ σ B , Q frc = µ ⋅ N 0.3224

 4  ⋅ σ B , δ sd = 1 mm  α ⋅ σ y : Yield stress of joint steel bar with tensile axial force, Ec : Elastic modulus of concrete, κ : Configuration coefficient of stress-strain curve of concrete ( κ = 24 is recommended in this research ), nc : Number of shear-key, γ : Effective coefficient of axial force ( γ = 1 is recommended in this research ), Ap : Compressive Area of shear key (Ap= Wck × Hck, Wck : Width of shear-key, Hck : depth of sear-key ) σ B : Minimum compressive strength of concrete, µ : Coefficient friction ( µ = 0.08 is recommended in this research ), N : Axial force
We have shown the shear transfer strengths calculated by Eq.8 for Fig. 6 – Fig.8. The measured strengths of specimens with shear-keys with axial force are larger than the calculated strengths by about 90 %, and the rate increases of the other specimens are about 30%. The evaluation equation should be investigated further in detail, although there is no problem for the design of concrete connections.

E δ k ⋅B , k c = κ ⋅ c ⋅  sd β=4 c 4E s I s Es  2 ns : Number of joint steel bars,

5. Conclusions
Basic experiments with concrete connections were conducted on the shear transfer and the shear displacement behaviour in concrete connections under shear and axial force. The following conclusions may be drawn. (1) The shear transfer mechanism and shear displacement behaviour in concrete connections is clarified. And the shear transfer mechanism is verified by the structural experiments. (2) The shear transfer strength can be evaluated as the sum total of each shear transfer element at the same shear displacement. And the evaluation equation is proposed.

240

PERFORMANCE OF UNDERCUT ANCHORS IN COMPARISON TO CAST-IN-PLACE HEADED STUDS
Peter Pusill-Wachtsmuth Hilti AG, Principality of Liechtenstein

Abstract
Cast-in-place headed studs are world-wide used. In general there are no major concerns with their suitability and performance in concrete. In the meantime undercut anchors have been developed that show similar behaviour. In this paper only the performance under tension and shear is compared. It was not intended to discuss other differences such as costs, installation procedures or convenience in planning of an anchorage. The comparison shows that the performance characteristics of headed studs and undercut anchors are approximately the same. The main difference is the required member thickness. For the selected undercut system, HDA, it is shown that the required values of the approval document can be drastically reduced. So headed studs and the undercut anchors are comparable and competitive in their performance.

1. Introduction
Cast-in-place headed studs welded to a fixture are used to transfer a local acting force into the concrete. The dimensions of the studs and the design methods may differ in national regulations and standards. In general the design engineer has no doubts of a proper performance of the anchorage. In recent years post-installed anchors have been developed, which are intended to be used for the same application as headed studs. To create confidence in this new technique, it was necessary to run an approval procedure according national or international codes or guidelines. The approval documents give performance characteristics of the product and give help for the design of an anchorage. In the following the main performance characteristics of headed studs and undercut anchors are compared. Also the technical requirements of anchor configurations and the dimensions of the base material are discussed. The design concept for both systems is relatively complex. The more complex the design concept the closer the calculation can be to the real behaviour of the anchors. The complexity makes it difficult to give a

241

complete overview. To avoid any unfair comparison the basis on which the results are obtained must be clearly shown. Otherwise it is very easy to show the benefits of one system and to show the weakness of the other. The comparison is made only on performance characteristics and on the design. This report does not cover any other characteristics of headed studs and undercut anchors, which give help for the decision whether to choose the one or the other system. These may be cost reasons for the product and for the installation. It also may be advantages of post-installation versus cast-in-place and vice versa. These and all other characteristics must be discussed separately.

2. Headed Studs
The dimensions and tolerances of headed studs used for comparison with undercut anchors are standardised in ISO 13918 /1/. Also the material properties are given there. In general these studs fulfil the requirements of the design guide of CEB /2/. Only the thickness of the head is less than required, which is neglected in the following. Headed studs can be used without any prequalification tests if the proposed values for edge distance and spacing according to /2/ are accepted. Fig. 1: Headed studs according to EN ISO 13918

d2

d1

D

hef

Table 1: Headed studs according EN ISO 13918 10 13 16 19 22 Diameter of the stud (d1) mm Diameter of the head (d2) mm 19 25 32 32 35 Anchorage depth (hef) available in different length

25 40

242

3. Undercut Anchor
There are many undercut anchors on the market, which differ in the installation procedure, in dimensions and shape. The following comparison is based on one selected product, the Hilti HDA Anchor /3/. The comparison can be easily completed for other products. For the selected undercut anchor an European Technical Approval /3/ is available. So the anchor is prequalified according to the European rules. In the prequalification tests it is shown, that the anchor is not very sensitive to variations in installation compared to the written manufacturer’s instructions. Also the anchor is not sensitive to the largest crack width that may occur in reinforced concrete construction. In the prequlification tests it is shown that the anchor behaves properly under repeated loads and in concrete structures , where the crack width varies. It can be said, that a prequalified anchor will behave in a predictable and reliable manner. For applications according to the scope of the design guide /2/ there is no difference in reliability of headed studs or undercut anchors. Fig. 2: HDA Undercut anchor

Table 2: HDA Undercut anchor drill bit diameter anchorage length (d0) (hef) mm mm M 10 20 100 M12 22 125 M 16 30 190

4. Performance under tension loading
4.1 Performance without edge and spacing effects The calculation of the performance of headed studs is based on Bulletin d’Information No. 226 of CEB, ‘Design of fastenings in concrete‘, 1995 /2/. For the undercut anchor the data are based on the European Technical Approval ETA-99/0009, ‘Hilti HDA Anchor‘, 1999 /3/. For headed studs all sizes according to /1/ are included, for the

243

undercut anchor only the size M 12. The anchorage depth hef = 125 mm is chosen for all anchors considered in this analysis. This can be easily completed for other sizes of the undercut anchor. Table 3 shows the resistance for the different failure modes under tension loading in C 20, when there are no edge or spacing effects. For steel failure the values for headed studs are based on the yield strength and for undercut anchors on the ultimate strength. Also, the partial safety factors differ. So only the design resistance is comparable. For all other failure modes the partial safety factors are the same. Steel failure is not decisive for the headed studs or for the undercut anchor. Pull-out failure and concrete cone failure are separated for cracked and for non-cracked concrete. For pull-out failure of headed studs the design has to be done for the ultimate limit state and for the serviceability limit state. In /2/ an admissible pressure under the head of the studs is given for the serviceability limit state. This value is converted to a characteristic action and to a design action by using the partial safety factor of 1.0. The design action is equal to the design resistance, so this value is given in the table. The equations to calculate concrete cone resistance differ in the k-factor for headed studs (9.0) and undercut anchors (7.5) in /2/. In the approval procedure of the undercut anchor it was possible to show that the factor for headed studs can also be used for this product. Table 3: Comparison of design resistance of headed studs and undercut anchors Headed studs according EN ISO 13918 d1 mm 10 13 16 19 22 25 hef mm 125 125 125 125 125 125 Steel failure NRd,s kN 22.9 38.7 58.6 82.7 110.9 143.2 cracked concrete Pull out failure NRd,p kN C 20 17.1 29.8 50.3 43.4 48.5 63.8 Pull out failure, serviceability limit state NRd,p kN C 20 10.2 17.9 30.2 26.0 29.1 38.3 Concrete cone failure NRd,c° kN C 20 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3 non-cracked concrete Pull out failure NRd,p kN C 20 25.1 43.8 73.7 63.6 71.1 93.6 Pull out failure, serviceability limit state NRd,p kN C 20 16.4 28.7 48.3 41.7 46.6 61.3 Concrete cone failure NRd,c° kN C 20 43.8 43.8 43.8 43.8 43.8 43.8

HDA M 12 125 44.7

19.4 19.4 32.2

45.1 45.1 45.1

For the largest size of the headed studs, concrete cone design resistance is decisive in cracked concrete. For all other sizes it is the pull-out resistance in the serviceability limit state. Also, the pull-out design resistance is the smallest value for the undercut anchor.

244

The resistance of HDA M 12 can be compared with a headed stud size between diameter 13 or 16 mm. For all the larger diameters the design resistance of headed suds is larger than for the undercut anchor M 12, because the bearing area significantly increases. In case of non-cracked concrete, cone failure is decisive for the undercut anchor and for one medium and the two largest sizes of the headed studs. The value for the design resistance is the same. The small deviation for headed studs in comparison to the undercut anchor are linked to the differently rounded values in the equation for the calculation of the concrete resistance. For the two smallest sizes and a medium size of the headed studs pull out is decisive. The resistance is smaller than for concrete cone failure and therefore smaller than for the undercut anchor. In summary it can be said that in general, pull-out resistance is decisive in cracked concrete. The undercut anchor has the same performance as a headed stud with a diameter of more than 13 mm and less than 16 mm. For non-cracked concrete the undercut anchor behaves like headed studs with a diameter of more than 13 mm, when pull-out is not decisive. 4.2 Influence of edge and spacing effects In Table 4 the relevant edge distance, spacing and minimum member thickness are given for headed studs and the undercut anchor. The values for edge distance and spacing (ccr,N and scr,N) necessary to develop the characteristic tension resistance of a single anchor without spacing and edge effects in the case of concrete cone failure are the same for headed studs and the undercut anchor. As shown in Table 3 the concrete cone resistance is also the same. In all configurations of anchor groups up to the lower limit of minimum edge distance and spacing (cmin and smin) the design resistance for concrete cone failure of headed studs and the undercut anchor is the same. The main difference are the values of cmin and smin , which are in general lower for headed studs. That means headed studs can be used with smaller edge distances and spacing compared to undercut anchors. (In this case the design resistance has to be calculated for local blow-out failure, which is not done in Table 3 and 4. For comparison it is not necessary here, because undercut anchors are not allowed to be used with these small edge distances). The reason for the difference in cmin and smin is, that headed studs are not torqued, when they are welded to a fixture. Undercut anchors are torqued after installation to clamp the fixture to the concrete. For splitting, the edge distance and spacing ccr,sp and scr,sp are the same as ccr,N and scr,N in case of undercut anchors. That means, splitting failure is not decisive and can be neglected in the design of anchorages. For headed studs the values of ccr,sp and scr,sp are given in /2/. They are on the safe side. Smaller values are possible if an adequate performance is shown by prequalification tests. The biggest advantage for headed studs is the minimum member thickness. It is required that hmin is in minimum the length of the headed stud embedded in concrete plus the required concrete cover for reinforcement according to the reinforced concrete standards.

245

In Table 4 the minimum cover of 1.0 cm is chosen. For the undercut anchor the required minimum thickness is approximately 75% larger than for the headed studs according to /3/. The following section 5. is dealing with the minimum member thickness of undercut anchors, because the required values are a limitation for many applications. Table 4: Edge distance, spacing, member thickness of headed studs and undercut anchors Headed studs according EN ISO 13918 HDA M 12 d1 mm 10 13 16 19 22 25 hef mm 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 ccr,N mm 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 scr,N mm 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 cmin mm 30 39 48 57 66 75 100 smin mm 50 65 80 95 110 125 125 ccr,sp mm 250 250 250 250 250 250 190 scr,sp mm 500 500 500 500 500 500 375 hmin mm 142 143 143 145 145 147 250

5. Behaviour of undercut anchors in thin concrete members
The minimum member thickness for all post-installed anchors in their approvals and also in /2/ is based on the assumption hmin = 2 hef (or larger than 100 mm). The limitation is necessary to avoid splitting failure during installation or under loading. Splitting mainly occurs when anchors are situated close to an edge. For post-installed anchors ccr,sp and cmin are checked in tests. For ccr,sp pullout tests in tension are required where the anchor is situated in the corner of a concrete member with c1 = c2 = ccr,sp and the member thickness is 2 hef. It is required that the failure load is approximately equal to the failure load of an anchor without any edge and spacing effects. For evaluation of cmin a double anchor group is placed parallel to the edge with cmin and smin. The member thickness is 2 hef. The anchors are either torqued or loaded up to failure, which in most cases is splitting of the concrete. For post-installed anchors, where a torque moment is required, the torque at failure must have a defined safety margin in comparison to the required installation torque. When the anchors are loaded in tension, the failure load must be compared to the failure load calculated according to the design concept in /2/ or Annex C of /5/. In general, design for splitting is only necessary, when it is shown that the concrete is not cracked in the anchoring area and the higher resistance is used in the calculation. As stated before the minimum member thickness is fixed because of splitting failure. At present the same member thickness is required for cracked concrete. Here splitting is not decisive (the concrete is already cracked), but even here hmin = 2 hef has to be used. Of course this is on the safe side. In general the rule does not limit the applications, because

246

post-installed anchors are used with low anchorage depth. For undercut anchors, which can be compared with headed studs, the limitation is not acceptable. For an anchorage depth of 190 mm for the HDA M16 anchor, a member thickness of 380 mm is required. This is much more than usually available on a jobsite, especially for slabs and walls. Tests were performed with all sizes of the undercut anchor to assess reasonable member thickness, edge distance and spacing /4/. The test conditions met the requirements of the ETAG /5/. The minimum member thickness was chosen to avoid any damage at the opposite side of the concrete during drilling and setting. This was assessed for a member thickness equal to the anchorage depth plus two diameters of the drill bit. ccr,sp was chosen to be 1.5 hef and scr,sp to be 3 hef. These are the same values as for concrete cone failure, which ensures that splitting calculations in the design procedure are never decisive. cmin and smin were the same values as in the approval document. In a later step it seems to be possible to assess reduced values. But for now it was intended not to change too many parameters. Test parameters, results and evaluation are summarised in Table 5. In all cases, where only c1 and c2 are given, single anchor in the corner were loaded in tension. Where c1 and s are given, it was tension loading of a double anchor group parallel to the edge. The following failure modes were observed: splitting (Sp), concrete cone or edge failure (C) and steel failure (S). The evaluation is based on the fact that splitting is not decisive if the ultimate load in these tests is equal to or larger than the concrete cone resistance. The concrete cone resistance is calculated according to Equation (1), which is the basis for the evaluation of the characteristic resistance of the undercut anchor.

N u ,exp = 15.5

1000

1 ⋅ f c ⋅ hef.5

[kN]

(1)

Table 5: Test results of HDA undercut anchors in thin concrete members test HDA hef fc c1 c2 s h Fu fm Nu,exp Ac,N ψs,N kN M mm Mpa mm mm mm mm kN /A° 1.1 10 100 34.0 80 80 140 44.89 Sp 90.4 0.59 0.86 2 10 100 34.0 80 80 140 44.51 C 90.4 0.59 0.86 3 10 100 34.0 80 80 140 47.80 C 90.4 0.59 0.86 4 10 100 34.0 80 80 140 48.47 S 90.4 0.59 0.86 2.1 10 100 34.0 150 150 140 48.82 S 90.4 1.0 1.0 2 10 100 34.0 150 150 140 47.25 S 90.4 1.0 1.0 3 10 100 34.0 150 150 140 47.90 S 90.4 1.0 1.0 4 10 100 34.0 150 150 140 48.43 S 90.4 1.0 1.0 3.1 10 100 34.0 80 100 140 90.42 S 90.4 1.02 0.86 2 10 100 40.7 80 100 140 88.36 C 98.9 1.02 0.86 3 10 100 40.7 80 100 140 85.74 Sp 98.9 1.02 0.86

Nu,m 45.7 45.7 45.7 45.7 90.4 90.4 90.4 90.4 79.5 86.9 86.9

xi,j 0.98 0.97 1.05 >1.06

>1.14 1.02 0.99

247

test HDA M 4.1 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 5.1 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 6.1 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 7.1 12 2 12 3 12 8.1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 9.1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 10.1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 11.1 16 2 16 3 16

h hef fc c1 c2 s mm Mpa mm mm mm mm 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 100 100 100 100 190 190 190 190 100 100 100 100 190 190 190 150 150 150 150 285 285 285 285 150 150 150 150 285 285 285 100 100 100 100 190 190 190 190 125 125 125 125 375 375 375 150 150 150 150 285 285 285 285 150 190 190 190 570 570 570 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

Fu kN 70.08 69.12 72.60 69.62 73.20 73.84 73.18 73.03 119.28 121.54 114.12 112.96 149.67 149.19 150.82 131.31 135.31 138.37 136.12 138.49 135.19 132.87 135.48 241.28 255.25 263.19 269.47 267.92 267.02 271.77

fm Nu,exp Ac,N kN /A° C 126.7 0.59 C 126.7 0.59 C 126.7 0.59 C 126.7 0.59 S 126.7 1.0 S 126.7 1.0 S 126.7 1.0 S 126.7 1.0 C 126.7 1.02 C 126.7 1.02 C 126.7 1.02 Sp 126.7 1.02 S 126.7 2.0 S 126.7 2.0 S 126.7 2.0 S 242.5 0.58 S 242.5 0.58 S 242.5 0.58 S 242.5 0.58 S 242.5 1.0 S 242.5 1.0 S 242.5 1.0 S 242.5 1.0 C 242.5 0.96 C 242.5 1.02 Sp 242.5 1.02 S 242.5 1.02 S 242.5 2.0 S 242.5 2.0 S 242.5 2.0

ψs,N Nu,m 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.0 1.0 1.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 126.7 126.7 126.7 126.7 111.4 111.4 111.4 111.4 253.4 253.4 253.4 121.2 121.2 121.2 121.2 242.5 242.5 242.5 242.5 200.6 211.7 211.7 211.7 485.1 485.1 485.1

xi,j 1.09 1.08 1.13 1.09

1.07 1.09 1.02 1.01

1.08 1.12 1.14 1.12

1.20 1.21 1.24 1.27

In most cases Nu,exp has to be multiplied by the influencing factors Ac,N/A° and ψs,N according to /2/ or Annex C of /5/.. These factors take into account small edge distances and small spacing. The result is the expected mean ultimate load of the anchor or the anchor group Nu,m. xi,j is the ratio of the measured failure load and the mean expected value for concrete cone failure. In cases where steel failure occurred the ratio was not calculated. The resistance for steel failure is lower than the concrete cone resistance. The

248

ratio was calculated only in the two test series, where other failure modes were also observed. To show that the concrete cone resistance was reached in the tests the factor xi,j may scatter around the value of 1.0 with a coefficient of variation of 15%. Looking at the results it is obvious, that the requirement is fulfilled. In summary it can be said that even with the thin member thickness splitting is not decisive for HDA undercut anchors. All edge distances (ccr,N and cmin ) and spacing (scr,N and smin ) can be taken from the approval document for the calculation of the concrete cone resistance.

6. Performance under shear loading
For steel failure under shear loading without lever arm the design resistance VRd,s of the undercut anchor M12 is 24 kN. This is in between a headed stud of 10 mm diameter (17.2 kN) and a diameter of 13 mm (29.1 kN), calculated according to /2/. For the calculation it has to be taken into account that the material properties of headed studs are lower than for the undercut anchor. This also influences the partial safety factor. On the other hand a better factor in the equation for VRd,s (0.75 instead of 0.6) can be used for headed studs, because the resistance to shear forces is positively influenced by the studwelding process. As a result headed studs and the undercut anchor show approximately the same design resistance, when the diameter of the stud and the bolt are the same. For shear load with lever arm the same rules apply to both anchors. For pry-out failure, the same rules also have to be used for undercut anchors and headed studs. The pry-out resistance is based on the concrete cone resistance under tension. Because the concrete cone resistance is the same, the design resistance under pry-out is the same. For concrete edge failure the design is based on the same equations and on the same partial safety factors. The only difference might be the fitting factor lf in the equation for VRk,c°. The value for lf is given in the approval document for the undercut anchor and is 70% of the anchorage depth for M10 and M 12 and 50% for M16. For headed studs the design guide /2/ does not mention any values for lf. So it is assumed that the designer will take lf = hef. In the equation for VRk,c° the factor lf is covered by (lf/dnom) to the power of 0.2. So the difference in VRk,c° for headed studs and the undercut anchor is relatively small. In summary it can be said, that under shear loads headed studs and undercut anchors follow the same equations of /2/ or /5/ Annex C, when calculating the design resistances. The differences are only linked to steel strength, diameter of the stud or bolt and to the stiffness of the anchor (lf/dnom). For the chosen undercut anchor the differences in the design resistances for the different failure modes compared to headed studs are small.

249

7. References
1. 2. 3. 4. ISO 13918, ‘Welding – Studs and ceramic ferrules for arc stud welding‘, 1998 CEB Bulletin d’Information No. 226, ‘Design of fastenings in concrete‘, 1995 European Technical Approval ETA-99/0009, ‘Hilti HDA Anchor‘, 1999 Bautechnische Versuchsanstalt an der HTL Rankweil: ‘Prüfbericht über Zugversuche mit HDA-P M10, M 12 und M 16, ungerissener Beton C 20/25, Einzel- und Doppelbefestigungen in dünnen Platten‘ vom 30.3.2001 (only in German, not published) EOTA, ETAG No 001: ‘Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete‘, Brussels 1997

5.

250

SHEAR ANCHORING IN CONCRETE CLOSE TO THE EDGE
Norbert Randl* and Marcel John** *Hilti AG, Kaufering, Germany **Hilti AG, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein

Abstract
Since design rules for post-installed anchors are usually based on investigations in unreinforced concrete, the design resistance of fixings set close to the concrete edge and loaded in shear towards the edge is low. It is therefore necessary to consider the effective strength of the reinforced concrete edge. This paper first demonstrates that the current methods to take into account the strength of the concrete edge are insufficient in many cases and proposes different edge strengthening methods based on extensive laboratory testing. Finally a Eurocode 2 compatible design formula for cast-in hairpin reinforcement is derived.

1. Introduction
Limited space often requires the fixing of anchor plates like baseplates of steel columns, railings or lamp posts in the vicinity of the edge of the concrete foundation.Though in practice the concrete usually is reinforced, design rules for anchors are typically based on investigations in unreinforced concrete. The failure load of such fixings set close to the concrete edge and loaded in shear towards the edge is determined by a brittle concrete cone breaking out in front of the anchor. The shear resistance therefore reduces significantly with decreasing edge distance. If the edge distance is very small, splitting due to wedge forces must also be considered. Adhering to prescribed minimum edge distances will typically prevent this mode of failure. Fig. 1 Anchoring of guard rail

251

Extensive testing has shown that standard slab lateral reinforcement is usually not sufficient to significantly increase the shear resistance of anchors loaded towards the edge. Higher shear resistance can be activated, for example, by using elongated holes in the anchorage base plate for the anchors situated closest to the edge or by externally reinforcing the edge. If no external reinforcement is to be applied, cast-in additional Ushaped reinforcement in the concrete has been shown to be a very effective method to strengthen the edge [1], [2]. For this strengthening method, a design formula based on the Eurocode safety concept as described in [3] has been derived from test results. This allows the design engineer to plan post-installed anchorages closer to the concrete edge, and with higher resistance than would be possible with standard anchor design concepts.

2. Unreinforced Concrete
The analytical determination of the ultimate load capacity is difficult as it depends on the behaviour of concrete under multiaxial stresses and has to consider the scatter in local concrete strength, size effects etc. Most equations for the prediction of failure loads have therefore been derived empirically, taking into account the observations from tests and are available only for the case without any retaining hanger reinforcement. Based on regression analyses of 147 tests Eligehausen and Fuchs propose the following equation for the calculation of the average ultimate failure load in unreinforced uncracked concrete [4, 5]:
 h 0 ,5 0 Vum ,c = k ⋅ d nom ⋅ f cc,5 ⋅  ef   d nom    
0 ,2

⋅ c1,5 1

(units: [N, mm])

(1)

with: dnom hef c1 fcc k

outside diameter of anchor anchorage depth [5] edge distance of anchor axis concrete cube strength constant factor (k = 1.0)

3. Effect of Standard Reinforcement
A concrete plate with reinforcement bars parallel to the edge and with ties along the edge shall be considered as having standard reinforcement. Reinforced concrete is typically assumed to be cracked concrete. To account for the cracks, the load bearing capacity of uncracked concrete has to be multiplied by a global factor of 0.7 [5]. In the presence of minimum edge reinforcement, this reduction can be partially compensated for by a factor of 1.2 or 1.4, depending on the density of the edge reinforcement [6]. This is only a very rough approximation, and tests have shown that, for smaller anchor

252

diameters, it may even be unsafe. Small diameter anchors have a low bending resistance and introduce the load right at the top of the concrete surface. Thus, the failure cone is pushed over the edge reinforcement (Fig. 2) [7]. With greater anchor diameters the edge ≈ reinforcement may support the shear load more effectively because the anchor is able to introduce the load farther away from the concrete surface. Figures 3 and 4 show test results with edge reinforcement of diameters 6 – 12 mm and welded wire meshes. Especially the test results with M16 anchors are somewhat higher than those expected in ≈ unreinforced concrete, nevertheless the effect is rather negligible. Fig. 2: Small anchors with edge reinforcement
Force Vu [kN] 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 25 50 75 100 c1 [mm] 125 Equ. (1) unreinforced series1 series2 Rk (steel failure) 150 175 200

Fig. 3 Tests with anchors HSL M12

Force Vu [kN] 120 100 80 60 Equ. (1) 40 20 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 c1 [mm] 150 175 200 225 250 unreinforced series1 series2 series3 Rk (steel failure)

Fig. 4 Tests with anchors HSL M16

253

4. Subsequent Constructive Measures
4.1 External Edge Support
column anchorage baseplate HSL HSL HAS with HIT-HY 150 or HVU failure cone

Fig. 5 Scheme of back anchorage

Fig. 6 Shear support

A steel bar reinforces the concrete edge by anchoring the concrete edge behind the expected failure cone. The support steel bar is designed according to the rules of steel construction, assuming a uniformely distributed load. The anchorage is composed of bonded anchors reaching behind the expected failure cone (Fig. 5). The shear anchors (HSL) developed a very high resistance and typically failed by yielding of the steel rod in shear (Fig. 6). 4.2 Use of Elongated Holes in Anchorage Baseplate If the anchorage baseplate has two or more rows of anchors, the holes for the anchors closest to the edge should be elongated, directed towards the edge. Thus, these anchors do not take any shear loads. The anchors of the row farther away can activate a bigger failure cone and, therefore, a higher load capacity.

5. Cast-In Hairpin Reinforcement
5.1 Research program A comprehensive test program was carried out at the laboratories of Hilti AG [7] and the Institute for Concrete Construction at the University of Innsbruck [8] in order to quantify the effect of cast-in hairpin reinforcement and to develop corresponding design rules. The U-shaped hairpins were set with an inclination of 5°- 10°. The following parameters have been varied: hairpins: - diameter ds [mm]: 12, 16 - diameter of bend resp. distance e of hairpin legs: e = 88 - 134 mm - concrete cover to front side (csv = 10 - 30 mm) and top surface (cso = 7 - 33 mm) anchors: - anchor type: expansion anchors HSL, bonded anchors HVU - anchor diameter d [mm]: 12, 16, 20

254

- edge distance c1: 55 - 150 mm - excentricity of anchor axis (in relation to axis of the hairpin) The concrete cube strength fcc was between 25 and 30 N/mm² for all tests. The loading was displacement controlled. A total of 62 tests with cast-in hairpin reinforcement and 14 tests without any reinforcement in the anchorage area were carried out. The load was introduced by a LINEAR POTENTIO M ETER steel plate parallel to the PTFE-LAYER concrete surface (Fig. 7). PTFE layers were put V ~10 30 c so between steel plate and c sv concrete in order to reduce friction. HAIRPIN
ANCHO R BO LT

Fig. 7 Test setup 5.2 Test results: Failure usually occurs by formation of a failure cone followed by pullout or breakage of the anchor. Typically, the maximum load is reached, when the failure cone starts to break out. The cracks start from the anchor and run towards the edge. Their inclination to the concrete edge is 30° 45° . Generally, the angle becomes smaller towards the edge (Fig. 8). Fig. 8 Concrete cone failure of specimen 12.2 (Dowel HVU 16, hairpin ø16) Some tests showed a second increase of the load after displacements of 10mm and more: One reason is the tensile capacity of the deformed, inclinded anchor (kinking effect) and the second is that anchors set very close to the edge touched the hairpin reinforcement. Four tests with bonded anchors yielded in shear failure of the anchor without formation of a concrete cone (steel failure). These tests have not been considered in the development of the design recommendation for the resistance at the concrete edge. The tests confirm that cast-in hairpin reinforcement can significantly increase the loadbearing capacity. Moreover, the post peak load behaviour becomes much more ductile. The most significant increase of up to 200% is observed if the edge distance is very small (Fig. 9). Due to the reinforcement, the first cracks appear at about 50% higher loads than in unreinforced concrete.

255

Test no. 5.1
V [kN]
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

V [kN]
50 45 40 35 30 25

Test no. 5.2
HSL 12, c1 = 65 mm, hairpin ø12, cso=11mm
40,8 kN ∇

HSL 12, c1 = 65 mm, unreinforced

12,9 kN ∇

20 15 10 5 0 0 2

st ∇ 1 crack

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

s [mm]

s [mm]

Fig. 9 Load-displacement curves for specimens without and with hairpin reinforcement The parameter most strongly influencing the peak load is the distance of the hairpin reinforcement from the concrete surface (cso), especially with small reinforcement diameters and with anchors set very close to the edge. While the peak load can be increased by a factor of 3 with a concrete cover of 10mm for 12mm diameter hairpins, the influence of the same reinforcement with a cover of 30mm is scarcely observable. The tests also show that the peak load increases with the diameter of the cast-in reinforcement. However, this increase is not directly proportional to the increase of the steel area. The effect of the hairpin reinforcement is independent of the exact position of the anchor between its legs. 5.3 Theoretical considerations and prediction of failure load Anchors subjected to shear loads experience bending, shear and with increasing lateral displacement also axial stresses. Small loads are directly introduced from the shaft into the surface concrete. The load-displacement curve is steep and shows a linear-elastic behaviour. The transmission of the shear force from the anchor bolt to the concrete takes place within a depth measured from the surface of 1 to 2 times the dowel diameter [9,10]. A hanger reinforcement makes sense only in this area, because the resulting compression strut then finds a support. Due to the locally high pressure in front of the bolt, the surface concrete plasticizes under increasing load and flexural stresses are generated in the anchor shaft. For anchors situated near the edge this finally leads to the formation of a concrete failure cone. Some of the tests have also been analysed by means of a 3-dimensional finite element modelling using non-linear material laws and a smeared crack approach. The computer simulation confirmed that the failure is due to cracking and crushing of the concrete in front of the anchor. Provided that the anchor has sufficient embedment length, this leads to the development of a plastic hinge. The hinge is closer to the surface if the hanger reinforcement has less concrete cover and thus significantly reduces the lever arm of the anchor. Moreover the calculations demonstrated that the hairpins remain elastic until the peak load is reached. The increase of the ultimate load is not proportional to the steel area because the

256

centerpoint of the support for the compression strut moves down with increasing hairpin diameter at constant concrete cover. The results of the tests in unreinforced concrete correspond well to formula (1). The best agreement is reached with a factor k = 1,0, the coefficient of variation results in a rather low value of 14 %. The cast-in reinforcement delays the formation of cracks starting from the anchor as well as their propagation. The additional energy required for crack growth corresponds to the possible increase of the load bearing capacity. Therefore, it is best represented by an additional term to equation (1). The effectiveness of the hanger reinforcement is about inversely proportional to the concrete cover and decreases with increasing distance between the anchor and the hairpin reinforcement bend. Moreover, the anchor stiffness, characterized by dowel diameter and embedment depth, has an influence on the loadbearing behaviour. The combination of all relevant parameters with respect to their effects leads to the following approach for the prediction of the failure load:
  2 d nom (2) Vum = Vum,c + κ ⋅ A s,h ⋅ f y ,h ⋅ 1 − f 1 (l proj , c1 , h ef ) ⋅    k ⋅ c + d  < Vum,s s   1 so with: κ ...... effectiveness factor taking into account that the c1 concrete will crush before the ultimate capacity csv of the hairpin is reached k1, 2 ... constants f1 ....... empirical function ds ..... nominal diameter of hairpin reinforcement e lproj hef .... anchorage length [5] dnom ... outside diameter of anchor lproj .... projective length: can be approximated in terms of the edge distance and the concrete cover ahead of the hairpin (Fig. 10): lproj ≈ 1,7 ⋅ (c1 - csv) ≤ e Fig. 10 Projective length As,h.... total cross section of both hairpin legs fy,h..... yield strength of hairpin steel

(

)

k

Steel failure due to a combination of shear and bending of the anchor shaft represents an upper bound on the shear capacity: Vum,s = α ⋅ As ⋅ fy with α ≈ 0,6 - 0,7 [5]. (AS = cross section and fy = yield strength of anchor) The formation of the concrete cone is considered as the failure criterion. This generally corresponds to the first peak load or the first horizontal branch of the load displacement curve. The systematic variation of the different parameters and the subsequent statistical evaluation finally leads to the following form of equation (2):
Vum = Vum ,c + 0,4 ⋅ A s,h ⋅ f y ,h
0  l proj0,5 ⋅ c1 ,5   d nom ⋅ ⋅ 1 − 0,5 ⋅    1,2 ⋅ c so + d s h ef   

   

1,5

(3)

257

Fig. 11 shows the comparison of predicted and observed failure loads for undercut anchors type HSL in function of the edge distance c1. Considering all specimens with introduced hairpin reinforcement except for the 4 tests with early shear failure of the dowels the average ratio of actual to predicted failure load is 1.05. With a coefficient of variation of 19 % and a factor of correlation of 89%, the scatter zone is within acceptable limits (Fig. 12).
HSL ø16 (Hairpin reinforcement ø12 and ø16)
V [kN]
120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210

Eq. (1) (unreinforced) Eq. (3), hairpin ø16, cso ≈ 9 mm Eq. (3), hairpin ø12, cso ≈ 11 mm Vks (steel failure) HSL 16, hairpin ø16, cso ≈ 9 mm HSL 16, hairpin ø12, cso ≈ 11 mm unreinforced

Edge distance [mm]

Fig. 11 Predicted (calculated) and observed failure loads in function of c1
Vexp 120,0
100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0

[kN]

Vcalc =Vexp

Fig. 12 Comparison of calculated and experimental results

Vcalc [kN]

258

5.4 Design formula and recommendations for execution For practical design purposes the transition from mean ultimate loads to characteristic values (fractiles) is required. The characteristic resistance is derived as the 5%-fractile of the mean value of strength with a confidence level of 90%. Admitting a log-normal distribution, the statistical evaluation of the tests conducted in reinforced concrete yields a global reduction factor ψ = 0,72. This corresponds to the factor of ψ = 0,7 proposed by Eligehausen in [4] for unreinforced concrete. The material properties are also considered by their lower fractile; this additional safety will not be used in the design formula. The design resistance is derived in accordance with the safety concept of MC 90 [3] and Eurocode 2 by applying appropriate partial safety factors. In unreinforced, cracked concrete, the design resistance is the mean ultimate load multiplied by ψ = 0,7 for the statistical evaluation of the 5%-fractile [4], multiplied again by 0,7 accounting for the effect of cracks [4, 5] and divided by the partial safety factor γMc [6]:

VRd ,c =

1 γ Mc

 h 0 0 ,5 ⋅ 0,5 ⋅ d nom ⋅ f ck,5 ⋅  ef d  nom

   

0 ,2

⋅ c1,5 1

(units: [N, mm])

(4)

with: fck ...... characteristic cylinder compressive strength of concrete γMc .... safety factor for system with normal installation safety: γMc = γ1⋅ γ2 = 1,8⋅1,2 = 2,2 [6]. According to equation (3) the shear load capacity with cast-in hairpin reinforcement becomes: 1,5 0  l proj 0,5 ⋅ c1 ,5    d nom 1 (5) ⋅  ⋅ 0,3 ⋅ A s,h ⋅ f yk ,h ⋅ 1 − 0,5 ⋅ VRd = VRd ,c +    1,2 ⋅ c so + d s  γ Ms h ef     (valid for fyk,h ≤ 600 N/mm², fck ≤ 40 N/mm², 4 dnom ≤ hef ≤ 8 dnom, dnom ≤ 25 mm) with: γMs = γ1⋅ γ2⋅ γ3 = 1,15 ⋅ 1,5 ⋅ 1,2 = 2,1 γ1 .... partial safety factor for steel in tension γ2 .... partial safety factor taking into account deviations in the height position of the reinforcement and uncertainties due to anchor installation γ3 .... partial safety factor accounting for scatter of failure loads and model uncertainties Eq. (5) is valid for single anchors and sufficient thickness of the concrete member (h > 1,5 c1) as well as an edge distance c2 perpendicular to the direction of the shear load measured from the axis of the anchor c2 > 1,5 c1. For execution special attention should be paid to the following aspects: The hairpin reinforcement should be anchored outside the assumed failure cone and consist of ribbed reinforcing bars with a diameter not larger than 16 mm. It should be

259

inclined with respect to the concrete cover. Thus the concrete cover of the hairpin legs is bigger than that of the bend, which improves the anchorage. Corrosion generally should not be relevant, since the baseplate of the fixed part is typically grouted over the bend of the hairpin reinforcement. If not, the reinforcement must be protected by galvanization, special coatings or the use of stainless steel. Sufficient bending radius will compensate for the positioning tolerances of the hairpin reinforcement and thus make sure that the anchors will be positioned within the hairpin.

6. Summary
After reviewing some alternative methods to most effectively utilize the concrete edge strength, the reader has been presented with a formula to design anchors under shear loads when hairpin reinforcement is present in the concrete. This formula is compatible with modern design concepts and has been adapted to Eurocode 2. Moreover it has been shown, that global design concepts do not always clearly represent the complex situation near a concrete edge. Therefore it is strongly recommended to use engineering judgement and well based design concepts in the planning of safety relevant fixings near a concrete edge.

7. References
1. Paschen, H., and Schönhoff, Th., ‘Untersuchungen über in Beton eingelassene Scherbolzen aus Betonstahl’, Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton 346 (Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1983) 105-147. 2. Klingner, R., Mendonca, J., and Malik, J., ‘Effect of reinforcing details on the shear resistance of anchor bolts under reversed cyclic loading’, Journal of the American Concrete Institute 79 (1) (1982) 3-12. 3. Comité Euro-International du Béton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (Thomas Telford, London, 1993) 437 pp. 4. Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R., Rehm, G., ‘Befestigungstechnik’, Betonkalender 1997, part 2, 609-753. 5. Comité Euro-International du Béton, ‘Fastenings to concrete and masonry structures’, Bulletín 216 (Thomas Telford, London, 1994) 249 pp. 6. Comité Euro-International du Béton, ‘Design of fastenings in concrete’, Bulletín 233 (Thomas Telford, London, 1997) 83 pp. 7. Hartmann, M., Silva, J., ‘Versuche zur Erhöhung der Tragfähigkeit von randnahen Ankern’ (HILTI AG Konzernforschung, Report No. A-IF6-8/97, 1999). 8. Fritsche, G., Wicke, M., ‘Versuche zur Prüfung von Metalldübeln’, Institut für Betonbau, Universität Innsbruck (Report No. 22, 1998). 9. Randl, N., Wicke, M., Schubübertragung zwischen Alt- und Neubeton, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 95 (8) (2000) 461-473. 10. Randl, N., Untersuchungen zur Kraftübertragung zwischen Alt- und Neubeton bei unterschiedlichen Fugenrauhigkeiten, Doctoral thesis (Universität Innsbruck, 1997) 369 pp.

260

BEHAVIOR OF TENSILE ANCHORS IN CONCRETE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Mansour Shirvani*, Richard E. Klingner**, and Herman L. Graves, III*** * Former, The University of Texas at Austin, USA. ** Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, USA. *** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., USA.

Abstract
The overall objective of this paper is to evaluate four different procedures for predicting the concrete breakout capacity of tensile anchors under static and dynamic loading, and in uncracked and cracked concrete. An existing public-domain data base of tensile anchors was evaluated and updated. Observed capacities of tensile anchors failing by concrete breakout were compared with the predictions of four methods: the 45-Degree Cone Method; the CC Method, and a variation on it; and a “Theoretical Method.” Each predictive method was then evaluated using Monte Carlo analyses to predict the probability of failure by concrete breakout, using the design framework of ACI 349-90, Appendix B “Steel Embedments.” [1]

1. Introduction
The objective of this research was to provide the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with a comprehensive document that could be used to establish regulatory positions regarding fastening to concrete. Tensile behavior of anchors under static and dynamic loading in uncracked and cracked concrete, and for cast-in-place, undercut, sleeve and expansion anchors, is evaluated using the design framework of ACI 349-90, and four possible predictive equations for concrete breakout: 1) the 45-Degree Cone Method; 2) the Concrete Capacity Method (CC Method), and a variation on that method; and 3) a “Theoretical Method” related to the CC Method. Available test data are evaluated and organized by failure mode, using descriptions and photographs presented by the original researchers. Each set of design provisions is evaluated based on the following criteria [2]:

261

1) An ideal design method should give ratios of observed to predicted capacity showing no systematic error (that is, no variation in ratios with changes in embedment depth), high precision (that is, little scatter of data). 2) An ideal design method should have acceptably low probabilities of failure in the overall design framework in which it is to be used.

2. Test Data for Tensile Anchors in Concrete
The public-domain data base used for this purpose is maintained by ACI Committees 349 and 355, and comes from many contributors, including Dr. Werner Fuchs (University of Stuttgart), Drilco Industries, Inc., Prof. Peter Carrato (Bucknell University), The University of Texas at Austin, Hilti AG, and various members of ACI Committees 349 and 355. The data base contains data for tensile breakout failures only.

3. Background
General information on anchor types and behavior is given in CEB (1991) [3]. Essential information is summarized here. Tensile Breakout Capacity by 45-Degree Cone Method The 45-Degree Cone Method assumes that a constant tensile stress of 4 f c′ acts on the projected area of a 45-degree cone radiating towards the free surface from the bearing edge of the anchor (Figure 1).
2hef+dh T

45º

dh

Figure 1

Tensile breakout cone as idealized by 45-degree Cone Method

262

For a single tensile anchor far from edges, the cone breakout capacity is determined by:
2 To = 4 fc′ π hef 1 + d h hef

(

2 To = 0.96 f c′ π hef 1 + d h hef

(

)

lb

(1a) (1b)

)

N

where: f c′ = specified concrete compressive cylinder strength (psi in US units, MPa in SI units); dh = diameter of anchor head (inch in US units, mm in SI units); and hef = effective embedment (inch in US units, mm in SI units). If the cone is affected by edges (c < hef) or by an adjacent concrete breakout cone, the breakout capacity is:

Tn =
where:

AN To ANo

(2)

AN = actual projected area of failure cone or cones; ANo = projected area of a single cone unaffected by edges =
2 π hef (1 + d h hef ) .

Tensile Breakout Capacity by Concrete Capacity Method (CC Method) The CC Method [4] computes the concrete breakout capacity of a single tensile anchor far from edges as: 1 (3) To = k fc′ hef.5 where: To = tensile breakout capacity; k = constant; for anchors in uncracked concrete the mean values originally proposed based on previous tests are: 35 for expansion and sleeve anchors, 39 for undercut and headed anchors, in US units; or 13.48 for expansion and sleeve anchors, 15 for undercut and headed anchors, in SI units; f′c = specified concrete compressive strength (6 × 12 cylinder) (inch in US units, MPa in SI units.); hef = effective embedment depth (inch in US unit, MPa in SI unit). In the CC Method, the breakout body is idealized as a pyramid with an inclination of about 35 degrees between the failure surface and the concrete member surface (Figure 2).

263

As a result, the base of the pyramid measures 3hef by 3hef. If the failure pyramid is affected by edges or by other concrete pyramids, the concrete capacity is calculated according the following equation:

Tn =
where:

AN ψ 2 Tno A No

(4)

ANo = projected area of a single anchor at the concrete surface without edge influences or adjacent-anchor effects, idealizing the failure cone as a pyramid with a base length of scr = 3hef (Ano = 9 hef2) (See Appendix A of Reference 2); AN = actual projected area at the concrete surface;
3hef 3hef

h

ef

35º

Figure 2

Tensile breakout body as idealized by CC Method

ψ2 = tuning factor to consider disturbance of the radially symmetric stress
distribution caused by an edge, = 1, if c1 ≥ 1.5hef; = 0.7 + 0.3

c1 , if c1 ≤ 1.5hef; 1.5hef

where: c1 = edge distance to the nearest edge. Tensile Breakout Capacity by “Theoretical Method” The “Theoretical Method” is based on linear elastic fracture mechanics, including the size effect [5]. Tensile breakout capacity is:

264

Nn =

k ⋅ f cc ⋅ h 2 ef  hef  1 +   50   
0.5

(5)

where : Nn fcc hef k

= = = =

predicted concrete tensile breakout capacity (kN) actual tested strength of a 200-mm concrete cube (MPa) effective embedment (mm) 2.75 for undercut and cast-in-place anchors, and 2.5 for expansion and sleeve anchors.

Tensile Breakout Capacity by the Variation on the CC Method As a result of previous work in ACI Committees 318 and 349 (Subcommittee 3), it has been proposed to modify the CC Method slightly, changing the exponent of the embedment depth from 1.5 to 1.67 for effective embedments of 250 mm (9.84 in) or greater, and changing the leading coefficient appropriately. Effects of Dynamic Tensile Loading and Cracks on Tensile Breakout Capacity In this research, predicted tensile breakout capacities under static loading were multiplied by a dynamic factor equal to 1.25 for undercut, cast-in-place, and sleeve anchors, and equal to 1.0 for expansion anchors [6, 7, 8]. Capacities in uncracked concrete were multiplied by a crack factor equal to 0.9 for undercut and cast-in-place anchors, equal to 0.7 for sleeve and expansion anchors [5, 7, 8, 9].

4. Statistical Evaluation of Database (static, uncracked)
The database for static testing on anchors in uncracked concrete comprises 1566 tests: a) Single tensile anchors, effective embedment ≤ 188 mm, no edge effects (1130 tests); b) Single tensile anchors, effective embedment > 188 mm, no edge effects (77 tests); c) Single tensile anchors, effective embedment ≤ 188 mm, edge effects (137 tests); d) Single tensile anchors, effective embedment > 188 mm, edge effects (33 tests); e) Tensile 2- and 4-anchor groups, effective embedment ≤ 188 mm, no edge effects (170 tests); and f) Tensile 4-anchor groups, effective embedment > 188 mm, no edge effects (19 tests). Means and coefficients of variation for ratios of observed to predicted capacity are shown in Table 1. All are for static loading in uncracked concrete.

265

Table 1

Mean and COV of ratios of observed to predicted capacity for each anchor category (static loading, uncracked concrete) CC METHOD 45-DEG CONE METHOD Mean COV 1.356 0.867 1.024 0.675 1.188 0.266 0.257 0.252 0.210 0.331 THEORETICA L METHOD Mean COV 0.999 0.929 1.054 1.014 1.057 0.231 0.192 0.286 0.244 0.225

ANCHOR CATEGORY Mean Single anchors, shallower embedments Single anchors, deeper embedments Single anchors, shallower embedments, edge effects Single anchors, deeper embedments, edge effects 2- and 4-anchor groups, shallower anchors, no edge effects 4-anchor groups, deeper embedments, no edge effects 0.981 1.110 1.032 1.203 1.081 COV 0.197 0.189 0.271 0.173 0.192

1.336

0.254

0.930

0.229

1.133

0.252

Examination of Table 1 shows that the CC Method and the Theoretical Method usually are more accurate than the 45-Degree Cone Method (mean values closer to unity), and have less scatter (smaller COV). Since the 45-Degree Cone Method generally gave a higher COV than both the CC and Theoretical Methods, it was decided to exclude it for analysis of other cases.

5. Probabilities of Failure associated with each Breakout Formula
Using the overall ratios of concrete breakout capacity, appropriately approximated by normal distributions (Appendix B of Reference 2), probabilities of failure were computed for an assumed statistical distribution of loads, and probabilities of brittle failure were computed independent of load, for single anchors designed according to each method for predicting concrete breakout capacity. This statistical evaluation was carried out using the Monte Carlo approach, and assuming the ductile design framework and the load and understrength factors of ACI 349-90, Appendix B [10, 11]. Probabilities of Failure under Known Loads, Static Loading, Uncracked Concrete Results of the statistical analyses are summarized in Table 2. Higher values of β indicate lower probabilities of failure.

266

Table 2

Probability of failure under known loads for different categories of tensile anchors, ductile design approach, static loading, uncracked concrete CC METHOD 45-DEG CONE METHOD Probability β of Failure 8.56E-04 1.99E-03 3.14 2.88 THEORETICA L METHOD Probability β of Failure 1.57E-04 5.10E-05 3.60 3.89

ANCHOR CATEGORY single anchors, shallower embedments single anchors, deeper embedments single anchors, shallower embedments, edge effects single anchors, deeper embedments, edge effects 2- and 4-anchor groups, shallower anchors, no edge effects 4-anchor groups, deeper embedments, no edge effects

Probability of Failure 5.46E-05 1.39E-05

β 3.87 4.19

1.92E-03

2.89

1.00E-03

3.09

2.92E-03

2.76

1.70E-06

4.65

9.87E-04

3.09

7.41E-04

3.18

2.23E-05

4.08

1.79E-03

2.91

2.53E-04

3.48

5.23E-04

3.28

5.08E-04

3.29

7.45E-04

3.18

Because the probability of failure associated with the 45-Degree Cone Method was consistently higher than that of the CC Method or the Theoretical Method, it is not investigated further here. Probabilities of Failure for Other Cases (Dynamic Loading, Cracked Concrete, or Both) For known loads, probabilities of failure with the CC Method and the Theoretical Method are given in Table 3. All results are for single anchors, shallow embedment, no edge effect). These results are somewhat different from those of Farrow et al. [10, 11], because the anchors were categorized differently in that work (edge distance / embedment, spacing / embedment), and because this work used a more extensive data base.

267

Table 3

Probability of failure under known loads for different cases of tensile anchors, ductile design approach, Category One ANCHOR CASE CC METHOD Probability of Failure β 7.20 5.20 5.48 2.95 5.53 4.49 THEORETICAL METHOD Probability β of Failure 6.47E-15 1.20E-08 3.80E-08 4.68E-04 9.07E-10 3.02E-07 7.70 5.58 5.38 3.31 6.01 4.94

dynamic loading, uncracked concrete, cast-in-place and undercut dynamic loading, uncracked concrete, expansion and sleeve static loading, cracked concrete, cast-inplace and undercut static loading, cracked concrete, expansion and sleeve dynamic loading, cracked concrete, caste-in-in-place and undercut dynamic loading, cracked concrete, expansion and sleeve

2.94E-13 9.78E-08 2.10E-08 1.60E-03 1.58E-08 3.62-06

Probabilities of Brittle Failure Independent of Load, Ductile Design Approach Probabilities of brittle failure independent of load are given in Table 4. Probabilities of Brittle Failure Independent of Load for Other Cases (Dynamic Loading, Cracked Concrete, or Both) Probabilities of brittle failure independent of load are given in Table 5.

268

Table 4

Probabilities of brittle failure independent of load for different categories of tensile anchors, ductile design approach, Static, Uncracked CC METHOD 45-DEG CONE METHOD
Probability of Brittle Failure β

ANCHOR CATEGORY single anchors, shallower embedments single anchors, deeper embedments single anchors, shallower embedments, edge effects single anchors, deeper embedments, edge effects 2- and 4-anchor groups, shallower anchors, no edge effects 4-anchor groups, deeper embedments, no edge effects Table 5

THEORETICAL METHOD
Probability of Brittle Failure β

Probability of Brittle Failure

β

0.178 0.088 0.206 0.0405 0.107

0.922 1.36 0.821 1.75 1.24

0.066 0.369 0.198 0.717 0.125

1.51 0.335 0.848 0.573 1.15

0.188 0.248 0.201 0.200 0.152

0.884 0.680 0.837 0.841 1.03

0.0621

1.54

0.273

0.603

0.129

1.13

Probability of brittle failure independent of load for different cases of tensile anchors, ductile design approach, Category One CC METHOD ANCHOR CASE Probability of Brittle Failure 7.16E-02 8.73E-02 1.19E-01 1.20E-01 5.89E-02 5.74E-02 β 1.46 1.36 1.18 1.17 1.56 1.61 THEORETICAL METHOD Probability of Brittle β Failure 1.03E-01 8.15E-02 1.33E-01 1.19E-01 6.61E-02 1.67E-01 1.26 1.40 1.11 1.18 1.51 0.97

dynamic loading, uncracked concrete, castin-place and undercut dynamic loading, uncracked concrete, expansion and sleeve static loading, cracked concrete, cast-inplace and undercut static loading, cracked concrete, expansion and sleeve dynamic loading, cracked concrete, castein-in-place and undercut dynamic loading, cracked concrete, expansion and sleeve

269

These probabilities of failure are independent of the assumed statistical distribution of the loads. The ductile failure criterion, which requires actual steel fracture before concrete breakout, is quite severe, and these computed probabilities of brittle failure are conservative (high). Results from Tables 4 and 5 imply that the CC Method generally gives lower probabilities of brittle failure than the 45-Degree Cone Method and the Theoretical Method. Probabilities of Failure for the Variation on the CC Method, Known Loads Probabilities of failure under known loads are presented in Table 6. The probabilities of failure are of course identical in Anchor Categories One, Three and Five, since the method is identical to the CC Method for shallower embedments, so the table includes only deep-embedment categories. Probabilities of failure are clearly higher for the variation in the CC Method. Table 6 Probability of failure under known loads for different categories of tensile anchors, ductile design approach, Static, Uncracked ANCHOR CATEGORY CC METHOD Probability of Failure 3.27E-05 1.70E-06 5.36E-04 β 4.51 4.65 3.27 VARIATION ON CC METHOD Probability β of Failure 4.89E-05 3.89 8.84E-08 6.78E-04 5.01 3.14

single anchors, deeper embedments single anchors, deeper embedments, edge effects 4-anchor groups, deeper embedments, no edge effects

6. Conclusions
1) The CC Method and the Theoretical Method have a generally lower probability of failure under known loads, than the 45-Degree Cone Method. These results are consistent with those of Farrow et al. [10, 11]. The lower probability of failure is particularly striking for deeper embedments. The CC Method has a generally lower probability of failure under known loads, than the Theoretical Method. 2) The CC Method has a generally lower probability of brittle failure independent of load, than the 45-Degree Cone Method and the Theoretical Method. 3) The Variation on the CC Method, which uses an exponent of (5/3) for the effective embedment at deeper embedments, has higher systematic error and higher probabilities of failure than the CC Method. It has no technical justification.

270

7. Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
This paper presents partial results of a research program supported by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under Contract No. NRC-04-96-059. The technical contact is Herman L. Graves, III. Any conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and are not to be considered NRC policy or recommendations.

8. References
1. 2. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures,” American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1990. Shirvani, Mansour, “Behavior of Tensile Anchors in Concrete: Statistical Analysis and Design Recommendations,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, May 1998. CEB, “Fastenings to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures: State-of-Art Report, Part 1,” Euro-International-Concrete Committee (CEB), August 1991. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen and R. and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, January-February, 1995, pp. 73-94. Eligehausen, R. and Ozbolt, J., “Influence of Crack Width on the Concrete Cone Failure Load,” Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, Z. P. Bazant, ed., Elsevier Applied Science, 1992, pp. 876-881. Rodriguez, M., “Behavior of Anchors in Uncracked Concrete under Static and Dynamic Loading,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1995. Hallowell, J. M., “Tensile and Shear Behavior of Anchors in Uncracked and Cracked Concrete under Static and Dynamic Loading,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1996. Zhang, Y. “Dynamic Behavior of Multiple Anchor Connections,” Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, May 1997. Eligehausen, R. and Balogh, T., “Behavior of Fasteners Loaded in Tension in Cracked Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 3, May-June, 1995, pp. 365-379.

3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. Farrow, C. Ben and Klingner, R. E., “Tensile Capacity of Anchors with Partial or Overlapping Failure Surfaces: Evaluation of Existing Formulas on an LRFD Basis,” ACI Structures Journal, Vol. 92, No. 6, November-December 1995, pp. 698710. 11. Farrow, C. Ben, Frigui, Imed and Klingner, R. E., “Tensile Capacity of Single Anchors in Concrete: Evaluation of Existing Formulas on an LRFD Basis,” ACI Structures Journal, Vol. 93, No. 1, January-February 1996.

271

PERFORMANCE OF SINGLE ANCHORS NEAR AN EDGE UNDER VARYING ANGLES OF LOADING
Richard E. Wollmershauser, Ute Nestler, and Vincent Smith HILTI, Inc., USA

Abstract
While the performance of anchors near an edge under shear loading perpendicular to the edge is well documented, especially under the concrete capacity design (CCD) method, virtually no published tests or reports are available to establish the influence concrete capacity of anchors at angles other than perpendicular. Single anchor tests on adhesive-bonded anchors have been performed at three edge distances and under angles of shear loading varying from 0 to 180 degrees from the perpendicular. Analysis is performed to develop influencing factors resulting from edge distances and angles of loading. A proposal is made for anchor influencing factors under these loading conditions for inclusion in the CCD method.

1. Introduction
The concrete shear capacity of an anchor near the edge of a concrete element when the loading is perpendicular to the edge is well documented. However, the capacity when the angle of loading varies from perpendicular is not well known. This paper presents the results of tests of adhesive-bonded anchors at three edge distances with loading angles varying from perpendicular to the edge through 180 degrees. Finite element analysis has been performed to correlate with the results, as well as to investigate the capacity with very stiff anchor rods. Finally, a recommendation is made for an angle influencing factor to account for the effects of loading angle in shear.

272

2. Current State of Knowledge
The CEB Design of Fastenings in Concrete1 provides the only known and widely available recommendation for the effect of loading angle on the shear capacity of an anchor near an edge and is based on very limited testing. It is assumed that there is no influence up to 55 degrees from the perpendicular toward the edge. The following is excerpted from ref. 1. The factor ψα,V takes into account the angle αV between the load applied, Vsd, and the direction perpendicular to the edge under consideration for the calculation of the concrete resistance of the concrete member (see Figure 1).

ψα,V = 1.0

for 0° < αV < 55° for 55° < αV < 90° for 90° < αV < 180°

ψα,V =

1 cos αV + 0.5 sin αV

ψα,V = 2.0

Fig. 1—Loading angle The above equations are known to be conservative.

3. Test Program with Adhesive-Bonded Anchors
A test program was performed with 12 mm (1/2-inch) adhesive-bonded anchors using threaded rods meeting ASTM A193 B7 with fut = 862 MPa (125 ksi) and fy = 724 MPa (105 ksi). The concrete compressive strength was approximately B25 (3,200 psi). The embedment depth, hef, was 108 mm (4-1/4 in.), with hef/do = 8.5. Three edge distances, c, were tested, 38 mm (1-1/2 in.), 63.5 mm (2-1/2 in.), and 90 mm (3-1/2 in.). The angle of shear loading varied in 30-degree increments from perpendicular to the edge (0 degrees) to away from the edge (180-degrees from the edge). A Teflon® sheet was placed between the concrete and the shear loading plate. See Figures 2 and 3 for the load

273

application. All testing was in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E488-962. Figures 2 and 3 depict the typical test setups. The load was applied by pushing toward the free edge. Edges were prepared by saw cutting into the slab at a depth sufficient to not influence the test results.

Fig. 2—Overall test setup

Fig. 3—Detailed shear loading

4. Test Results
Test results are given in Table 1 and Figure 4. Concrete edge breakout was the typical failure mode for all anchors loaded from 0o through 90o except at an edge distance of 90 mm, where the failure mode shifted to anchor steel. Beyond 90o the failure mode shifted to anchor steel. Figure 5 presents typical concrete edge breakout failure modes. Table 1—Shear test results
Angle of loading (o)

c = 38 mm
Vult (kN)

Adhesive-bonded anchors c = 63.5 mm
Vult (kN) Failure mode2

c = 90 mm
Vult (kN) Failure mode2

Failure mode2

1 2

0 10 5B 18 5B 30 12 5B 20 5B 60 18 5B 32 5B 90 31 5B 45 5B 120 42 5B 52 4D/1B 150 51 5B 52 5D 180 47 4B/1D 52 5D not tested B = concrete failure, D = anchor steel failure

30 34 44 52 --1 --1 --1

5B 5B 5B 5D ----

274

60

50

Failure Load [kN]

40

30

90 mm 63.5 mm

20 38 mm 10

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Angle [degrees]

Fig. 4—Shear capacity as a function of angle of loading

Fig. 5—Typical failure mode

5. Finite Element Analysis
5.1. The Model The Finite Element model of the numerical analysis is shown in Figure 6. It shows the anchor at an edge distance of 90 mm (3-½ inch). The adhesive ensuring the bonding between the anchor and concrete employs a mortar like behavior. A special material model describing this behavior is implemented in the Finite Element code. The same material model is used to describe the behavior of the concrete. It enables the observation of how cracks develop in the adhesive and concrete.

275

5.2. Crack Distribution Figure 7 shows the crack distribution when the load on the anchor is acting perpendicular to the edge. It can be seen that the cracks formed a cone like failure pattern towards the free edge. There is another crack zone forming parallel to the free edge.

Fig. 6— Finite element model

Legs of Cracked Concrete Cone

Perpendicular Load Direction Cracks perpendicular to Edge

Fig. 7—Crack distribution in concrete under load perpendicular to the edge The failure cone shape changes as the load direction changes from the perpendicular direction. The larger the load angle becomes the more the direction of the concrete failure cone turns accordingly, as illustrated by Figure 8. It shows the crack pattern with loads acting at angles of 30 and 60 degrees. At all angles less than 90 degrees the fastening fails due to concrete failure.

276

Notice that the perpendicular crack is fully developed at angles less than 90 degrees. At an angle of exactly 90 degrees it is still fully developed (see Figure 9).

30 degrees

60 degrees

Fig. 8—Crack distribution in concrete under loads acting at angles of 30 degrees and 60 degrees Load direction parallel to free Edge

Fig. 9—Crack distribution in concrete under load parallel to the edge If the load angle is greater than 90 degrees the cracks perpendicular to the free edge are not as fully developed than with smaller load angles. In fact, the anchor behavior is much like that of anchors without any edge influence (Figure 10). No breakage cone develops and the failure mode is steel failure. Anchors employing smaller edge distances behave similarly to the anchor at an edge distance of 90 mm. But the concrete failure occurs at smaller loads due to the fact that less amount of material resists the “crack growth”.

277

120 degrees

150 degrees 180 degrees

Fig. 10—Crack distribution in concrete under loads acting at angles of 120, 150 and 180 degrees 5.3. Failure Loads The failure loads from the simulation are shown in Table 2 and Figure 11. Table 2—Failure loads from simulation
Edge distance (mm) Angle of loading (o) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Failure load (kN) 13 17 20 29 49 49 49 20 25 30 43 49 49 49 34 35 40 49 49 49 49 Failure load (lb) 3,000 3,900 4,600 6,500 11,000 11,000 11,000 4,500 5,600 6,700 9,600 11,000 11,000 11,000 7,700 7,800 9,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000

38

63.5

90

278

60

Failure Load [kN]

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
90 mm 63.5 mm 38 mm

Angle [degrees]
Fig. 11—Failure loads 5.4. „Perfect Steel“ Rods The simulation with an edge distance of 38 mm has also been done with anchor rods using higher strength steel. That was done to minimize the influence of steel strength on the failure load results. Figure 12 shows the results of those simulations:
100 90

Failure Load [kN]

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30

'"Perfect' steel" Yield Stress 724 MPa

60

90

120

150

180

Angle [degrees]

Fig. 12— Failure loads employing very stiff anchor rods

279

6. Proposed Equations
There is no single equation that can describe the anchor behavior as a function of the angle of the applied load. The anchor behavior has been divided into two angle segments, from 0 to 90 degrees and for angles greater than 90 degrees. The two equations describing the anchor behavior have been obtained using regression analysis: 0° < αV < 90° 90° < αV < 180° F = 0.0012* αV2 + 0.0549*αV + 13.656 (kN) F = -0.0052*αV2 + 2.0623*αV - 113.76 (kN) (Eq. 1) (Eq. 2)

Figure 13 shows the equations compared with simulation.

100 90

Failure Load [kN]

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Equations '"Perfect' steel"

Angle [degrees]
Fig. 13—Comparison of equations and simulation

7. Summary and Recommendations
This paper has presented a limited test program of shear loading of anchors near the free edge at varying load angles. The suggested equations have been proposed to describe the behavior at angles from perpendicular to the free edge to 90 degrees and from 90 to 180 degrees. The equations have their limitations because they only describe the anchor behavior for a limited sample of anchors under a limited number of conditions. Further tests and simulations should be undertaken to investigate the sensitivity of the equation parameters towards variables such as anchor diameter, edge distance and concrete strength.

280

8.
1

References

Design of Fastenings in Concrete, Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB), Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London, Jan. 1997. 2 “Standard Test Method for Strength of Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements, ASTM E488-96,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, 1996.

281

THE PREQUALIFICATION OF ANCHORS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
Richard E. Wollmershauser HILTI, Inc., USA

Abstract
Anchor prequalification in the United States for fastening to concrete is undergoing significant change in order to meet new requirements of ACI 318 Concrete Building Code. In the past and up to the present, there have been limited requirements under the ICBO Uniform Building Code that apply only to the western portion of the United States that use this code. Manufacturers have generally published data based on ASTM E 488 testing requirements or the ICBO ES Acceptance Criteria AC01 or AC58. Testing has been limited to uncracked concrete. These requirements are briefly reviewed ACI 318 has approved a code addition based on the Concrete Capacity Design Method to be included in the year 2002 version that requires mechanical anchor prequalification. ACI Committee 355 Anchorage to Concrete has developed and approved a prequalification standard, ACI 355.2, that meets the new code requirements and is closely harmonized with the European Technical Approval Guideline 001. These prequalification requirements are discussed. The future prequalification requirements of bonded anchors are also included.

1. Introduction
The prequalification of post-installed anchors in the USA is currently on the midst of significant change from the past. The first anchor prequalification standard has been in use since July 1975, with others developed since then for adhesive-bonded anchors and unreinforced masonry applications. With the proposed adoption of design provisions for anchors in ACI 3181, significant developments are underway to enhance and harmonize anchor prequalification requirements. The key organizations are ACI2, ASTM3, and ICBO ES4.

282

2. The Past
2.1 Mechanical Anchors In August 1975, The International Conference of Building Officials Research Committee, later to become ICBO Evaluation Services, Inc., adopted what is believed to be the first anchor prequalification standard in the USA, Standard for Testing Expansion Anchors in Concrete under the Uniform Building Code5. This standard, which was developed by the Expansion Anchor Manufacturers Institute, later became known as Acceptance Criteria 01 (AC01)6. It contained very limited testing requirements, but allowed for approvals in normal-weight and lightweight concrete. Included were tension and shear tests with sample sizes of three for each tested condition. Edge and spacing tests were optional, with unconservative default requirements if testing was not performed. Allowable stress design capacities were prescribed using a safety factor of eight without special inspection of anchor installation and four with special inspection. This standard was reissued in April 1986 to bring into compliance with then current references. Recognizing the limitations of the standard, a group of representatives from manufacturers and testing laboratories developed an improved version of AC01 based on the European UEAtc M.O.A.T. 49 document7, but with significant differences that preclude direct equivalence. This version of AC01 was adopted in July of 1991 by ICBO ES, Inc. and included definitions, more detailed requirements for concrete, added masonry as a base material, prescribed more detailed testing procedures in accordance with ASTM E 488-908, and allowed the calculation of allowable loads based on a 5 percent fractile probability method. Table 1 gives a brief listing of the tests of AC01. All tests are in uncracked concrete. But more importantly, it introduced the concept of proper functioning (suitability requirements) as well as service condition requirements. The suitability tests included sensitivity to drilled-hole diameters (larger and smaller) and reduced setting torque of 0.2 Tinst. Further enhancements in 1993, 1997 and 1999 added technical corrections, seismic testing methods for tension and shear (as a result of the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake) and displacement requirements. The service condition tests evaluated single anchor tension and shear performance, edge and spacing performance, performance under groups, and combined tension and shear loading. However, the approvals issued under this criteria have been limited to uncracked concrete, since the criteria contains no testing provisions to demonstrate performance in cracks. A similar acceptance criteria for undercut anchors is under preparation and should be adopted within 2001. 2.2 Adhesive-Bonded Anchors Adhesive-bonded anchors remained without any specific criteria until January 1995, when ICBO ES adopted AC589 as developed and recommended by a group of anchor

283

manufacturers, later to become the Concrete Anchor Manufacturers Association10 (CAMA). This criterion used many of the tests from AC01, but deviated significantly in delineating suitability requirements in evaluating the performance of the many available Table 1—Tests Contained in AC01
Test Series Description of Tests
Proper Functioning 1, 2 Tension tests, Tolerance on drilled hole 3 Tension tests, intensity of expansion Service Conditions – Tension 4, 5, 6 Tension tests, single anchors 7, 8, 9, 10 Establish critical and minimum edge distances 11, 12 Anchor group tests critical and minimum spacing Service Conditions – Shear 13 Single anchors 14, 15, 16, 17 Establish critical and minimum edge distances 18, 19 Group of two anchors, critical and minimum edge distance Service Conditions – Oblique Loading 20, 21 Single anchors, under combined shear and tension loading at critical edge distance Seismic Tests 22 Simulated seismic tension tests 23 Simulated seismic shear tests

Test Parameters
Large hole, small hole Reduced setting torque Low-, medium-, and high-strength concrete Low-, and high-strength concrete Low-strength concrete

Low-strength concrete Low-, high-strength concrete Low-strength concrete with minimum spacing Low- and high-strength concrete

Mid-strength concrete Mid-strength concrete

adhesives. These suitability requirements included the following six requirements. For each of those not performed, specific restrictions were included in the evaluation report. • • • • • • Fire resistance (optional) Creep under sustained loading (optional) In-service temperature (mandatory) Sensitivity to moisture in the drilled hole (optional) Freezing and thawing (optional) Seismic resistance (optional)

The service condition tests evaluated single anchor tension and shear performance, edge and spacing performance, performance under groups, and combined tension and shear loading. Again, the approvals issued under this criteria have been limited to uncracked concrete, since there have been no testing provisions to demonstrate performance in cracks. Technical enhancements were made in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Table 2 gives the specific tests of AC58, all being performed in uncracked concrete. 2.3 ACI and ASTM Activities In 1991, ACI Committee 318, voted to begin the preparation of design provisions for anchorage to concrete, based on the then newly developed Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Method11. Committee 318 further requested that ASTM Subcommittee E 6.1312

284

began work on a required testing program that would prequalify post-installed mechanical anchors in concrete, meeting the design requirements of the draft ACI anchorage provisions. The ASTM drafts were based on the work for mechanical anchors that had been developed in the UEAtc, and which was later transferred to EOTA and became ETAG 00113. Table 2—Tests Contained in AC58
Test Series Description of Tests
Service Conditions – Tension 1, 2, 3 Single anchors 4, 5, 6, 7 Establish critical and minimum edge distances 8, 9 Group of two anchors, critical and minimum spacing 10, 11 Group of four anchors, critical and minimum spacing Service Conditions – Shear 12 Single anchors 13, 14 Establish critical and minimum edge distances Service Conditions – Oblique Loading 15 Single anchors, combined tension and shear loading at critical edge distance Suitability Requirements 16 Fire resistive 17 Creep 18 In-service temperature 19 Dampness 20 Freezing and thawing resistance 21, 22 Simulated seismic tension and shear tests

Test Parameters
Low-, medium-, and high-strength concrete Low- and high-strength concrete Low-strength concrete Low-strength concrete

Low-strength concrete Low-strength concrete Low-strength concrete

3,000 psi concrete 3,000 psi concrete 3,000 psi concrete 3,000 psi concrete 4,500 psi concrete 3,000 psi concrete

Progress was slow in ASTM. Then in 1997, ACI Committees 318 and 355 recommended that ACI Committee 355 take over the preparation of the standard, so that the testing standard and the code provisions could be completed for the 1999 version of the ACI 318 Code. While many drafts and ballots were prepared by ACI 355, the deadline for inclusion into the 1999 version was missed. Committee 355 did complete work in early 2000, and an ACI provisional standard, ACI 355.2-0014 was approved in July 2000, to be required by reference in ACI 318-02.

3. The Present
3.1 Status as of Mid-2001 The most widely accepted anchor approvals in the United Stated currently are those issued by ICBO ES, as previously discussed. While they are issued for use under the Uniform Building Code, their applicability has been at times informally accepted for use under other building codes by design engineers because of their reliance on formally adopted acceptance criteria. The limitation of exclusion from use in tension zones limits their use. There is a growing understanding in the United Stated among designers,

285

especially in higher seismic zones, that anchors need to be prequalified for use in concrete that is prone to cracking. Enter the newly developing ACI code and standard. 3.2 ACI Activities With the completion of balloting and approval of ACI 355.2-00, as a provisional standard, processing is continuing toward a full standard by conducting a 90-day public comment period, with resolution of comments expected in the fall of 2001. This standard covers only post-installed mechanical anchors, which include undercut, torquecontrolled expansion and displacement-controlled expansion anchors. This standard becomes effective when it is called into use under ACI 318-02 as implemented in the IBC 2003. Thus, for practical purposes, this new prequalification standard will only become effective with the adoption of the IBC 2003 by governmental jurisdictions in the year 2003 and after, unless adopted by an approval entity for use before then. 3.3 What is ACI 355.2-00? Simply stated, it is a post-installed mechanical anchor prequalification standard containing both test methods and acceptance criteria that apply to both compression and tension zones of concrete structures. It also contains a Commentary that provides explanations for many of the sections of the standard that need further clarification to be easily understood. It applies to undercut, torque-controlled, and deformation-controlled expansion anchors. A qualified and experienced testing laboratory under the direction of a registered professional engineer performs tests, and a report is issued if the anchor system meets all the requirements. Data for the anchor system is published and is used for design under ACI 318 Appendix D. No approval agency oversees or issues an evaluation report, which is a significant departure from current procedures. All of the included tests, with the exception of the seismic tests, are identical to those of the ETAG 001, Parts 1 through 4. While not all of the tests from the ETAG 001 were used, those that were included were written so that the test methods were essentially the same. Why? Because the design requirements that both ACI 355.2-00 and ETAG 001 are tested against are almost identical and are based on the CCD Method. ACI 318 Appendix D is generally the same as ETAG Part C. Let’s look at the specifics of ACI 355.2-00. ACI 355.2-00 provides for the prequalification of anchors in either uncracked concrete, or both uncracked and cracked concrete. Specific test programs are delineated for each, giving reference tests, reliability (suitability) tests, and service condition tests. Depending on the results of the reliability tests and their relationship to reference tests, an anchor category, 1, 2, or 3, is established that is used by ACI 318 Appendix D for establishing strength reduction factors (φ) applied to the resistance calculations. These tests are summarized in the following Table 3.

286

All tests for uncracked concrete prequalification are performed in uncracked concrete, while most of the tests for prequalification for both uncracked and cracked concrete are performed in cracks, as shown below. As of the writing of this paper, no anchor systems have been tested and qualified according to ACI 355.2-00 in the United States due to the short time the standard has been available. Table 3—Anchor Prequalification Tests in ACI 355.2-00
Tests for uncracked concrete Reference Tests
1. Tension tests in low strength uncracked concrete 2. Tension tests in high strength uncracked concrete ---

Tests for uncracked and cracked concrete
1. Tension tests in low strength uncracked concrete 2. Tension tests in high strength uncracked concrete 3. Tension tests in low strength concrete in 0.012 in. (0.3 mm) cracks 4. Tension tests in high strength concrete in 0.012 in. (0.3 mm) cracks 5. Tension tests for sensitivity to reduced installation effort in 0.012 in. (0.3 mm) cracks 6. Tension tests for sensitivity to crack width and large drilled hole diameter in 0.020 in. (0.5 mm) cracks 7. Tension tests for sensitivity to crack width and small drilled hole diameter in 0.020 in. (0.5 mm) cracks 8. Tension test in crack whose width is being cycled between 0.004 and 0.012 in. (0.1 and 0.3 mm) 9. Tension tests in corner to verify concrete capacity edge requirement of 1.5 hef in uncracked concrete 10. Minimum edge and spacing to preclude concrete splitting upon installation, uncracked concrete 11. Shear capacity of steel in uncracked concrete (can calculate for standard threaded sections) 12. Seismic tension tests in 0.020 in. (0.5 mm) cracks 13. Seismic shear tests in 0.020 in. (0.5 mm) cracks

Reliability Tests
3. Tension tests for sensitivity to reduced installation effort in uncracked concrete 4. Tension tests for sensitivity to large drilled hole diameter 5. Tension tests for sensitivity to small drilled hole diameter 6. Tension test under repeated load application in uncracked concrete – 10,000 cycles

Service-condition tests
7. Tension tests in corner to verify concrete capacity edge requirement of 1.5 hef in uncracked concrete 8. Minimum edge and spacing to preclude concrete splitting upon installation, uncracked concrete 9. Shear capacity of steel in uncracked concrete (can calculate for standard threaded sections) ---

3.4 ASTM Activities Since ACI 355.2-00 does not include adhesive-bonded anchors, a project has begun in ASTM Subcommittee E 6.13 to develop a companion standard for their prequalification. A task group has met twice and developed a list of tests that should be included. Thus, we move toward the future.

287

4. The Future
4.1 ACI Activities In order to fully implemented ACI 355.2-00, Appendix D will undergo further processing to become part of ACI 318-02 by reference, and ACI 318-02 subsequently part of the IBC 2003 by reference. These activities have been set in motion and it is expected that within two years, there will be a nation-wide prequalification standard for mechanical anchors for both uncracked concrete and cracked and uncracked concrete. ACI 318 Subcommittee B15 has initiated the development of code provisions for the design of adhesive-bonded anchors, to be added in a future code revision (possibly 2005 or 2008). Testing has taken place at the University of Stuttgart and the University of Florida to support analyses leading to such design proposals. Design proposals have been proposed at a working level in fib SAG 416 and work continues to finalize specific design methods as an extension of the CCD Method. 4.2 ASTM Activities The ACI code provisions are expected to require a standard for the prequalification of adhesive-bonded anchors, similar to ACI 355.2-00 for mechanical anchors. This activity has been initiated in ASTM Subcommittee E6.13 by a joint ASTM-CAMA task group. A first draft is expected in late 2001 with adoption to follow in accordance with ASTM standards development procedures of balloting and development of consensus on a final document. The final adoption date will determine which ACI 318 code (2005, 2008 or later) will include adhesive-bonded anchors.

5. Summary
In the past and continuing into the near future, the ICBO ES acceptance criteria for mechanical (AC01) and adhesive (AC58) anchors will remain the primary post-installed anchor prequalification methods in the United States. Because of changing code requirements in ACI and the IBC, it is expected that within 2 years ACI 355.2-00 will become the primary post-installed mechanical anchor prequalification standard for both cracked and uncracked concrete. For adhesive-bonded anchors, AC58 will remain the only functioning prequalification standard for adhesive-bonded anchors for the next several years, but with limitations to uncracked concrete zones. If parity is to be maintained with mechanical anchors, the issue of performance in cracked concrete will need to be addressed. Activities are under way to develop code provisions and an anchor prequalification standard for adhesive-bonded anchors, possibly covering the cracked concrete issue. However, it is expected to take several years before full implementation is achieved.

288

6. References
ACI 318-99, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-99/ACI 318R-99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 1999. 2 American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan. 3 American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohochen, Pennsylvania. 4 International Conference of Building Officials Evaluation Service, Inc., Whittier, California, USA. 5 “Uniform Building Code, 1997,” International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier. 6 “Acceptance Criteria for Expansion Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements, AC01,” ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc, Whittier, January 2001. 7 European Union of Agrément, “UEAtc Technical Guide on Anchors for Use in Cracked and Non-cracked Concrete, M.O.A.T. No. 49, 1992,” 8 “Standard Test Methods for Strength of Anchors in Concrete and Masonry,” ASTM E 488, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. 9 “Acceptance Criteria for Adhesive Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements, AC58,” ICBO, Evaluation Services, Inc., Whittier, California, January 2001. 10 CAMA, Concrete Anchor Manufacturers Association, St. Charles, MO. 11 Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., and Breen, J., “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastenings to Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 73-94. 12 Subcommittee E 6.13 Performance of Connections in Building Construction, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 13 European Technical Approval Guideline 001, Edition 1997, European Organization for Technical Approvals, Brussels. 14 “Evaluating the Performance of Post-Installed Mechanical Fasteners in Concrete (ACI 355.2-00) and Commentary (ACI 355.2R-00),” July 7, 2000, ACI, Farmington Mills, Michigan. 15 ACI Subcommittee 318-B, Reinforcement and Development, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan. 16 fib SAG 4, Fastenings to Structural Concrete and Masonry, Fedération Internationale du Béton, Lausanne.
1

289

ON THE RATIO OF PLATE THICKNESS TO STUD DIAMETER FOR STEEL CONCRETE STUD SHEAR CONNECTORS
Howard D Wright, Anwar Elbadawy, Roy Cairns University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Abstract
Stud shear connection between concrete slabs and steel beams are common in composite construction. Current design guidance for slab to beam flange composite beams merely places a limit on steel plate thickness in relation to stud diameter. This paper shows the behaviour of the connection when studs are welded to relatively thin steel plates. Tests are currently made on Double skin composite (DSC) elements. DSC system comprises steel-concrete-steel sandwich elements that consist of a layer of un-reinforced concrete, sandwiched between two layers of thin steel plates. These in turn are connected to the concrete by welded shear stud connectors. Shear studs are used to transfer slip shear between the outer steel skins and concrete core. Four series of push-out tests are presented in this paper to investigate the behaviour of the shear studs when welded to thin steel plates. The plate thickness to stud diameter ratio was 1:3. Micro-concrete with maximum aggregate size smaller than 2.41 mm was used. The properties of the microconcrete are described. The micro-concrete core is pushed through the plates in direct shear in series 1,2 and 3 but in series 4 the compression force is applied to the steel plates simulating direct compression on this element. Failure modes are defined for each of the series of tests. The studies show that failure occurred by yielding for all shears stud connectors in series 1, 2 and 3 buckling failure of the steel plate in series four.

1. Introduction
Stud shear connection between concrete slabs and steel beams is common in composite construction. It is normally assumed that the relatively complex behaviour of the connector under load is independent of the plate to which it is attached as long as the plate is of a certain thickness. The behaviour of the connection when studs are welded to relatively thin plates will be discussed in this paper. Double skin composite (DSC) elements, are basically steel-concrete-steel sandwich elements that consist of a layer of normally un-reinforced concrete, sandwiched between two layers of thin steel plates.

290

These in turn are connected to the concrete by welded shear stud connectors. Several experimental and analytical studies have been carried out to understand the behaviour of the Double skin composite element (1,2,3,4). The main conclusion from these studies was that DSC elements could generally be designed in accordance with normal reinforced concrete practice but satisfying the following criteria; (a) Yielding of the tension steel plate. (b) Yielding or buckling of the compression plate. (c) Shear failure of the stud connectors. (d) Crushing of the concrete in compression. (e) Shear failure of the concrete. (f) Pull out failure of connectors. Of these, (b), (c), (e) and (f) are specific to DSC. Those criteria specific to DSC are influenced by the thickness of the steel plate, spacing of shear stud and the stud diameter. An experimental study on DSC elements has been reported in reference (5). This work is extended in this paper to include additional tests on plate buckling. The main aim is to investigate the behaviour of shear studs when welded to thin steel plates and the ratio of plate thickness to stud diameter. The experimental study involves push tests consisting of two thin steel plates connected together to a core of concrete by shear stud connectors. The plate thickness to stud diameter ratio was 1/3. The concrete core was pushed through the plates in direct shear in series 1, 2 and 3 and compression force applied to the steel plates in series 4, allowing the behaviour of the plate to stud connection to be observed without the need for full panel bending tests. In these tests it has been decided to investigate arrangements where the plate thickness to stud diameter is low.

2. Test program:
Twelve model push-out tests were fabricated each consisting of two 2mm steel plates connected together by a 50mm thick core of concrete and shear stud connectors. Microconcrete was used the mix used being established by Hossain (6). Table (1) show the properties of the micro-concrete control mix. Table 1: Micro-concrete properties Cylinder Splitting Cube Strength fc' Strength fs Strength (N/mm2) fcu(N/mm2) (N/mm2) 28.0 19.55 1.13

Density γ (Kg/m3) 2400

Modulus of Rupture fb (N/mm2) 4.51

Ec (KN/mm2) 14.55

The twelve models are classified in four series and identified in the text as POT1 to POT12. A typical push-out test model is shown in the figure (1) and full details of each model are given in table (2).

291

In summary: Four test series were carried out as follows: 1-Three models with three studs connectors in one column (1x3) with spacing 100mm. 2-Three models with six studs connectors in two-columns (2x3) with spacing 150mm in two directions. 3-Three models with six studs connectors in two-columns (2x3) with spacing 200mm in two directions. 4- Three models with six studs connectors in two-columns (2x3) with spacing 150mm in two directions and 5 mm reduce from top and bottom of the concrete core.

Elevation

Section

Figure 1: Geometry of Push-out test model Table 2: Detail models of push-out test No Stud Spacing End spacing mm Series Specimen Of Horizontal Vertical Top & Lift & Studs mm mm Bottom Right POT1 1x3 100 100 50 1 POT2 1x3 100 100 50 POT3 1x3 100 100 50 POT4 2x3 150 150 75 75 2 POT5 2x3 150 150 75 75 POT6 2x3 150 150 75 75 POT7 2x3 200 200 100 100 3 POT8 2x3 200 200 100 100 POT9 2x3 200 200 100 100 POT10 2x3 150 150 75 75 4 POT11 2x3 150 150 75 75 POT12 2x3 150 150 75 75 In series 1, 2 and 3, The perimeter of the plates was stiffened with additional steel frame members using a sufficient number of bolts. The models were tested by applying uniformly compressive force over the breadth of the top surface of micro-concrete core

292

to push it through the plates in direct shear. But in series 4, the model was tested by applying uniformly compressive force over the breadth of the top surface of steel plates to push it around the concrete core. The steel plates in this series were constructed without a frame to observe the local buckling.

3. Material properties:
The properties of all materials used in the push-out tests were determined as follows: 3.1 Steel plates: the properties of the steel plates were determined from tensile tests on random samples taken from each batch of steel. A summary of the steel plates tensile test results shown in the table (3). 3.2 Stud connectors: the properties of the stud connectors were determined from tensile tests on three specimens cut at random from the studs material. A summary of the studs' tensile test results shown in the table (4). 3.3 Micro-concrete: the micro-concrete consisted of Ordinary Portland Cement, seadredged sand of 2.41-mm maximum size. A summary of the results is given in table (1). The properties of micro-concrete in each individual series of models were determined from at lest three tests on 100-mm cubes and three tests of 200 mm long by 100-mm diameter cylinders (for split cylinder tensile test and crush cylinder test). A summary of the test results on micro-concrete is shown in the table (5). The models were cast vertically and in stages. The models were covered with polythene and the micro-concrete was then allowed to cure in air until testing commenced. Table 3: Steel plate properties Thickness 0.2%Proof stress (mm) (N/mm2)

Ultimate stress (N/mm2)

Es (KN/mm2) 195 Es (KN/mm2)

1.93 315 393 Table 4: Stud connector properties Diameter 0.2%Proof stress Ultimate stress (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

6.22 360 517 196 Table 5: Properties of micro-concrete in push-out test Cube Cylinder Splitting Series strength strength strength Remark (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) Series Series Series Series 1 2 3 4 25.33 24.33 29.75 N/A 20.31 18.72 22.73 N/A 2.53 1.69 1.85 N/A 7 days 7 days 12-28 days N/A

293

4. Test procedure and instrumentation:
4.1 (series 1, 2 & 3) The compressive force was applied to the top of micro-concrete core of model by means of a 250 KN actuator using deflection control mode. Instrumentation of the model is shown in Figure (2). The movement of the microconcrete core relative to the steel plate was measured by two dial gauges, which were attached to concrete core at 5 cm from the bottom level of concrete core. One was attached on each face. The load slip values were simultaneously recorded and printed.

Figure 2: Model instrumentation

Figure 2: Model instrumentation 4.2 (series 4) The compressive force was applied to the top surface of the steel plates of model by means of a 250 KN actuator using deflection control mode. Five strain gauges were fixed to each steel plate between shear studs in the top half of the specimen. The load strain values were simultaneously recorded and printed.

5. Loading and test observation:
At the start of each test the initial dial and strain gauges reading were recorded. The compressive force was applied to the model by increasing increment loads gradually until the failure load. The slip between steel plates and micro-concrete core was recorded at each increment load until end of the test. Figure (4) shows the typical load-slip relationship of the push-out tests for series 1, 2 and 3. Same procedures were used in series 4 and figure (5) shows the typical load-strain relationship. The observation on the tests is as follows: 5.1 Series 1 (Specimen POT1, POT2 and POT3) During the test cracking noises were heard at loads between 10-14 KN, 22-28 KN and 37-38 KN. All specimens cracked vertical in the middle of concrete core and separated through the studs. The specimens

294

failed at a compressive load of 37.0 KN, 39.6 KN and 37.0 KN for specimen POT1, POT2 and POT3 respectively. In specimen POT1 it was noted that a part of concrete core touched one of the dial gauges following lateral movement. In specimen POT3 the micro-concrete core started cracking in the middle of concrete core from the top and separated through the studs in an inclined crack above the dial gauges. Stud yielding occurred in all the specimens. 5.2 Series 2 (Specimen POT4, POT5 and POT6) During the test cracking noises were heard at loads between 15-18 KN, 44-56 KN and 95-107 KN. All specimens were cracked vertical in the two lines in concrete core and separated through the studs. The specimens failed at a compressive load of 95.0 KN, 107.0 KN and 101.0 KN for specimen POT4, POT5 and POT6 respectively. Stud yielding failure occurred in all the specimens. Push-out Test
120

100

80 Loads KN

Series 1 60 Series 2 Series 3

40

20

0 -1 0 1 2 3 Slip mm 4 5 6 7

Figure 3: Typical load-slip of the push-out tests series 1, 2 and 3
Stress-Strain Relationship 70 60 D.G.1 50 40 30 20 10 0 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 Strain 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 D.G.2 D.G.3 D.G.4 D.G.5 D.G.6 D.G.7 D.G.8 D.G.9 D.G.10 Stress

Figure (4) Stress-Strain for specimen POT 11 in series 4

295

5.3 Series 3 (Specimen POT7, POT8 and POT9) During the test low noises were heard throughout and a high cracking noise at failure. None of the specimens were found to have cracking in the concrete core. The specimens failed at a compressive load of 107.7 KN, 77.0 KN and 86.0 KN for specimen POT7, POT8 and POT9 respectively. Stud yielding failure occurred in all the specimens. This led to separation of the stud connectors from the steel plates. 5.4 Series 4 (Specimen POT10, POT11 and POT12) During the test low noises were heard throughout and a high buckling noise at failure. None of the specimens were found to have cracking in the concrete core. The specimens failed at a compressive load of 100.0 KN, 80.0 KN and 95.0 KN for specimen POT10, POT11 and POT12 respectively. Local buckling failure occurred in all specimens. Stud yielding occurred for most of the studs, connected with to the buckling steel plate.

6. Theoretical study
The behaviour of the DSC system is reported in many studies. This paper concentrates on the behaviour of the shear studs when welded to thin steel plates. The arrangement and the properties of shear stud connectors could be carried out using BS 5950 pt 3(7) or EC 4(8). The following is a comparison between the these push-out tests and these Codes and other studies: 6.1 Stud/plate ratio: The BS 5950(7) put the limit of the ratio between shear stud diameter to steel plate thickness as not greater than 2.5 also EC 4(8) put the same ratio with stud diameter not a minimum criteria of the be less than steel plate thickness. Obeid (9) showed that the best ratio between stud diameter to steel plate thickness equal 3 this was derive from a study of 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 mm shear studs connectors welded to thin steel plates. In this paper a value of 3 has been taken. 6.2 Steel plate buckling and shear studs spacing: The ratio of the centre to centre distance between stud shear connectors Sc to plate thickness tsc is limited in BS 5950(7) by the maximum spacing between stud being 600 mm or 4 times the concrete core thickness and the minimum spacing not be less than the 5 time the stud diameter. The limitation in EC 4(8) is stated as maximum stud spacing to plate thickness ratio of 40. Wright (10) showed that this ratio must not be less than 67.5 for stud layouts where platebuckling mode is likely and 40 for stud layouts where a column-buckling mode is likely. Wright (10) described a method of evaluated this ratio when the compression plate was in contact with a rigid medium (as in the case of DSC elements). The limit reduced to the 37.71 in plastic, 47.12 in compact and 51.91 in semi-compact case. In this paper this ratio is 50 in series 1, 75 in series 2 and 100 in series 3. During the tests in series 1, 2 and 3 the local buckling was not noted but this was due to the fact that these tests are in direct shear with no compression in the plates. But local bucking did occur in series 4 because the compression force was applied to the steel plates directly. Wright(11) showed local stability of plate by calculate the plate stiffness D = (t3De)/12 where De = E/(1-ν2)

296

which is plate material stiffness. Wright (10) showed that the stress in these plates can calculated from this equation Sc/t = √(D π2/3σ). Table (6) show the stresses and the strain in the plates at the buckling for the specimens POT 10, POT 11 and POT 12. This table also shows the stresses calculated by used the material linearity (Hook’s law). By using these stresses the theoretical buckle ½ wave Stheory may be evaluated. This suggests a buckle spacing bigger than the actual spacing between the stud connectors Sc. This may be due to the fact that the stud connectors stretch allowing the wave buckling length to increase as shown in the figure (5). It should be noted that the direction of the load is not always perpendicular to the stud panel layout the yield lines may be diagonal to the edges. In this case the ratio must be checked with the diagonal spacing between shear studs. Stheory

Sc

Steel plate

Shear stud Before buckling After buckling

Figure (5) The spacing between shear stud Table 6: Comparison for the stresses and strain series 4 Specimen Experimental Analytical Averg. Strain Stress Stress Averg. N/mm2 Stress N/mm2 Stress POT10 66.7 0.00032 62.4 61.11 65.18 POT11 50.0 0.00029 56.5 N/mm2 0.00039 N/mm2 POT12 66.7 76.7 Spacing Sc Stheory mm mm 150 173.6 150 182.5 150 156.6

6.3 Shear stud connector capacity: Many previous studies (1,2,3,4) showed that the strength and stiffness of stud connectors in DSC elements is significantly less than determined from push-out shear tests. Therefore, the design resistances of studs attached to the compression and tension plates are limited in the some Codes and studies. In BS 5950(7), the capacities of shear connectors are taken as 80 % and 60 % from its characteristic resistance when attached to the compression and tension steel plates respectively. The values of the characteristic resistance of shear studs from 13 mm to 25 mm are tabulated. EC 4(8) limits the characteristic resistance by the lesser of: PRd=0.29αd2 (fckEc) 0.5 / γv or PRd=0.8fu πd2/4γv. Roberts(4) used the same equations. Wright (3) used similar equations but limits the design resistances of shear stud in the tension zone to 50 % of the characteristic resistance of shear studs. Obeid (9) showed that the characteristic resistance of 6-mm shear stud is 7.27 KN in tension and 6.3 KN in

297

shear (experimental). In the tests reported in this paper the characteristic resistance of 6 mm shear stud is between 6.17 to 6.59 KN in series 1, 7.92 to 8.917 KN in series 2, 6.42 to 8.975 in series 3 and 6.67 to 8.33 KN in series 4.

Table 7: Comparison with various codes of practice and research studies Data BS 5950 EC 4 Previous Push-Out pt.3 Studies Test Stud/plate ratio Stud spacing Min. Max. Stud spacing/plate thickness Min. Max. Stud capacity ≤ 2.5 ≤ 2.5 & tsc< d 11.41 mm 150 mm ≤ 40 37.71 (Wright) 4.67 KN (Concrete) 9.05 KN (Stud) 4.67 KN (Min) 4.67 KN (Roberts) 7.27 KN (Tension) 6.3 KN (Shear) (Obeid) 3(Obeid) 3 100 mm 150 mm 200 mm 50,75,100m m 70.71, 106.1, 141.4 mm 6.17-6.59 7.92-8.92 6.42-8.98 6.67-8.33 (KN)

Remark

30 mm 200 mm Sc>30 Sc≤200
Tabulated not given for 6 mm stud

40(Wright)

Series 1 Series 2,4 Series 3 Longitudinal spacing Diagonal spacing Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 4

Table 7 shows comparison between the results of push-out tests with the Codes and other research work.

7. Conclusions
The aim of this paper has been to investigate the behaviour of the connection when studs are welded to relatively thin plates. Push-out tests have been used to establish the behaviour of this connection. The failure modes observed include yielding failure for shear stud connectors in all specimens, linear cracking for the concrete core in series 1&2 and yielding failure for all shear stud connectors and pull out for most in series 3. This for concentrated shear force on the connection of stud with the steel plate and increase the bond stresses between steel plates and large concrete core in series 3. Buckling failure in series 4.

298

8. References:
1-Oduyemi T.O.S. & Wright H.D., An Experimental Investigation into the Behaviour of Double-Skin Sandwich Beams, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol.14, pp.197-220, (1989) 2-Wright H.D., Oduyemi T.O.S. & Evans H.R., The Experimental Behaviour of Double Skin Composite Elements, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 19, pp. 97110, (1991) 3-Wright H.D., Oduyemi T.O.S. & Evans H.R., The Design of Double Skin Composite Elements, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 19, pp. 111-132 (1991) 4-Roberts T.M., Edwards D.N. & Narayanan R., Testing and Analysis of Steel-ConcreteSteel Sandwich Beams, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 257-279, (1996) 5-Wright H.D., El-badawy A. & Cairns R., Shear Connection between Concrete and Thin Steel Plates in Double Skin Composite Construction, Third International Conference on Thin-Walled Structures, Cracow, Poland, 5-7 june 2001. 6-Hossain, K.M.A., In-plane shear behaviour of composite walling with profiled steel sheeting, Ph.D., (1995) 7-BS 5950 Part 3.1, The Structural Use of Steelwork in Building, Design in Composite Construction, Code of Practice for Design of Composite Beams, British Standards Institution, London, (1990) 8-European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), Eurocode 4 Part 1.1, Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures, General rules and rules for buildings, DD ENV 1-1 (1994) 9-Obeid G. A., Stud welding and its application to ceiling supports, M. Sc., Cardiff, University of Wales, (1986) 10-Wright H.D., Buckling of plates in contact with a rigid medium, Journal of the Institution of Structural Engineers, Vol. 71 No.12, pp. 209-215, (1993) 11-Wright H.D., Local stability of filled and encased steel sections, Journal of Structural Engineers, pp. 1382-1388, October (1995)

299

INCORPORATION OF THE SIZE EFFECT AND OTHER FACTORS IN STRENGTH DESIGN OF CONCRETE FASTENINGS, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CEB DESIGN GUIDE
V.I. Yagust and D.Z. Yankelevsky National Building Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology,Haifa, Israel

Abstract
The paper shows that the method adopted in the CEB Design Guide (hereinafter "DG") [1] for strength design of fastening in concrete - overlooks a number of important factors. In strength design for cone failure or local blow-out failure of the concrete, in distinction to DG allowance should be made for the size effect which - as know - determines the transition from the pseudoplastic to the brittle mode with increase of the height of the failure cone. The errors resulting from this omission are estimated. Allowance is also obligatory for the critical stress intensity factor K1c , which should replace the square root of concrete compressive strength ( f c ) resorted to in DG. It is shown that use of the latter for different concretes also makes for errors. On the basis of experimental data, formulas incorporating the two factors were obtained for different element geometries - including the case ( not discussed in DG) of a flat element loaded in its plane of symmetry. The above circumstances should be taken into consideration in revising the Guide.

1. Introduction
New design methods of anchoring in concrete using the CEB Design Guide [1] have replaced the old ones. The old estimation method of cone failure strength using the concrete tensile strength fct assumed in fact pseudoplastic failure (PPF). Yet it was found, that anchoring failure is attended by stable crack development [2,3,4]. Therefore, the new estimate is based on linear fracture mechanics (LEFM) by assuming brittle fracture and based on the fracture toughness KIC in the calculations. In fact, many experiments have shown that either one of the mentioned failure modes occurs, or an intermediate

300

mode, depending on the characteristic length D* in the problem, i.e. a size effect is present [5,6,7], on which the pseudoplastic failure mode changes smoothly to a brittle one as D increases. The size effect is neglected in the current DG [1] on the assumption that LEFM is applicable for all values of D; during which KIC is replaced by f c (up to a constant factor). The following discussion sheds light on the consequences of these assumptions.

2. Size effect considerations
2.1. It is well known [5,6,7] that the scopes of applicability of LEFM and of the PPF model depend on the types of problems and the material properties. In each cone failure or local blow-out failure problems these ranges are determined by the unique ratio between the crack length l at the moment of fracture (or the D dimension, which is related to l ) and the size of the fracture process zone (FPZ) behind the crack end. The limiting value d of the FPZ depending on the maximal aggregate dimension a, is evaluated in the Barenblatt-Dugdale-Panasyuk's fracture model [8,9,10] by the expression
π K  d =  IC  ,  
8  f ct 
2

(1)

obtained for l » d and in the absence of a stress gradient in the crack continuation line caused by external loads acting out the crack [2,6]. The D/d ratio in a specific problem defines the application limit of the LEFM and PPF models for that problem. Therefore experimental data should be processed as a function of D/d. The obtained curves in dimensionless coordinates are independent on the maximal aggregate size a or other material properties. These results can also be obtained by direct application of the two-parametric Barenblatt-Dugdale-Panasyuk's fracture model [6]. 2.2. The test data on a cone failure problem under tension were processed as the function N N (a three-dimensional problem [2,3,11-20]) or (plane problem 1.5 0.5 K IC h ef K IC h ef h where the force N acts in the symmetry plane of a flat element with a thickness h [2,3,20]) of the ratio hef /d. It was found that for large values of this ratio the above functions are stationary (Fig.1a,2a). It therefore follows that the failure load N is 0.5 1.5 proportional to K h ef or to K hef h in the mentioned problems respectively, IC IC

*The characteristic length D here is either the anchorage depth hef in a cone failure problem under tension, or the distance c or c1 between the anchor and the edge of the concrete element in problems of a cone failure under shear or a local blow-out failure under tension respectively.

301

a

b

Fig.1. Experimental results and approximation of size effect on ratio N/(K1Chef1.5) (a) and N/(fcthef2) (b) for 3-dimensional elements

302

a

b

Fig.2. Experimental results and approximation of size on ratio N/(K1Chef0.5h) (a) and N/(fcthefh) (b) for 2-dimensional elements

303

LEFM can be applied, as was in fact done in the DG (with replacing KIC by

f c ).

However, when the hef/d ratio is lower than 0.6 to 1 (3-dimensional problem) or than 3 to 4 (plane problem), the values of these functions become lower, i.e. LEFM can not be applied and the value of N given by LEFM should be reduced. This circumstance was not taken into account in the DG, and the anchoring strength for low hef /d values, as determined according to the DG is higher than the one found in testing. The replacement of KIC by fct and d using equation (1) results in different expressions for hef /d the failure load as a function of fct, hef, h, hef /d, corresponding to the tests at any and resembling the expression for the Bazant's size effect [21]: 2 5.5 f ct hef (2) N= 0.5 1 − 0.5(hef / d ) + 2.05hef / d (three-dimensional problem, Fig.1b), 1.4 fct hef h (3) N= 0.5 1 − 0.3(hef / d ) + 0.49hef / d (plane problem, Fig.2b). When hef /d → 0, (2) and (3) give the pseudoplastic failure load for the considered 2 problems as N = 5.5 f ct hef and N =1.4 fcthefh respectively.
1.5 When hef /d → ∞, we obtain N for these problems at brittle failure as N = 2.4 K h ef IC
0.5 and N = 1 .25 K h ef h respectively. IC It should be noted that the obtained curves are independent of the value of a or any other material properties. It is assumed that the washer diameter is much smaller than the depth of anchorage and may be neglected.

2.3. By a similar method for processing the test results, one can obtain formulae for the failure load in cone failure under shear loading for any value of c0/d (c0 = c - ds /d, ds is the anchor diameter). For example, in the three-dimensional case we have: 2 2.2 f ct c0 , (4) Q= 0.3 1 − 0.9(c0 / d ) + 2.82c0 / d in the plane case (the anchor is set along the width h of the concrete element) we have: 0.73 f ct hc0 (5) Q=
1 − 0.72(c0 / d ) + 0.64c0 / d
0.2

Figs. 2,4 in [20] show the test results and their approximations by formulae (4), (5) here. These expressions neglect the effect of the length of the shear force lever arm, since it is assumed that it is small compared to the anchor diameter. 2.4. The inclusion of different possible failure modes (mainly PPF and intermediate failure) is necessary for calculating the local blow-out failure load of concrete as well. For example, the corresponding formula (6) for a stretched anchor with a washer at its end in crack-free concrete is (Fig.3):

304

100

Nds0.25/(fctc1(dh+0.35a)1.25)

19(1-0.1(c1/d)0.4+0.5c1/d)0.5

10 0.1 1 10

c1/d

Fig.3. Experimental results and approximation of size effect in case of local blow-out failure in tension

1 − 0.1(c1 / d ) where dh is the washer diameter, N is the axial tension force in the anchor [ 3 ].
0.4

N=

19 f ct c1 (d h + 0.35a )

ds−0.25 , + 0.5c1 / d
1.25

(6)

2.5. The considered types of loads and corresponding failures indicate the limited nature of the application ranges of the PPF and LEFM models. Neglect of the scale effect and consideration of all possible cases as the brittle case may introduce errors for small D/d that may make , for instance, in cone failure problems under tension to 40% and higher. As an example, let us consider an anchor with a washer at its end, which is fixed during placing concrete into plain crack-free concrete C20 with a = 20 mm. The distance between the anchor and the edge of the concrete element is assumed large. The characteristic resistance NRk,c of the stretched anchor on cone failure of the concrete needs be determined. The depth of anchorage is 20 or 4 cm in a three-dimensional problem and 80 or 10 cm in a plane problem (the anchor is set in the symmetry plane of a 10 cm thick concrete element). The data and calculated results for NRk,c are given in Table 1. The calculation was made according to formulae (2) and (3) (column 1). NRk,c was also calculated using LEFM by assuming its applicability for any anchorage depth (column 2). In Table 1 the characteristic values KICk and fctk for concrete, which are required for calculating NRk,c, are based on the variation coefficient of 0.18. The mean value of KIC for concrete with a = 20 mm was found by the empirical formula according to tests [2]:

305

0.148 fc0.64 K IC =  2 − 0.00028 fc + 0.04 fc + 0.39 Here KIC is in MPa⋅m 0.5, fc in MPa.

fc ≤ 35 MPa 35 < fc ≤ 60 MPa

(7)

Table 1 a mm K1Ck MPa.m0.5 fctk MPa d cm Dimension of problem 3-dimensional 20 0.61 1.3 8.6 2-dimensional hef cm 20 4 80 4 NRk,c , kN 1 123.1 8.7 66 15.9 2 126.5 11.3 66.7 23.6 Diff. % 3 30 1 48

Table 1 clearly shows that for deep anchorage LEFM-based calculations approach those obtained from (2) and (3), and correspond to the experiments (Fig.1,2). However, for low-depth anchorage LEFM-based calculations overestimate the anchorage strength.

3. Replacement of the KIC value by

fc

3.1. Use of LEFM for calculating cone-failure strength (under tension and shear) and local blow-out failure strength (under tension) assumes that the failure load is proportional to the KIC of the anchoring concrete. KIC is replaces in the formulae of the DG [1] by f c and no by other material parameters. However, KIC is not proportional to
f c , as evident from (7), even for a constant maximal aggregate dimension a. In

addition, it is well known [2,22], that the value KIC is also dependent on a. Thus, for a = 20 mm KIC is found from (7), and for a = 5 mm from equation (8) [2]:
K IC = 0.224 f c0.4
0.5

f c ≤ 60 MPa

(8)

Here KIC is in MPa⋅m , fc in MPa. The ratio between the KIC values for concrete of the same compression strength, but with aggregate of different maximal dimensions 20 mm and 5 mm, is not equal to 1 as differentiated from the DG, but may vary from 1.45 for C20 concrete to 1.55 for C50 concrete. The error introduced in the replacement of KIC by f c causes overestimation of the anchoring strength for a < 20 mm, since the formulae of the DG were determined in tests at a = 20 mm. In brittle failure (at high D/d) this overestimation may reach 50% when an aggregate with a maximal dimension of 5 mm is used for mixing of the concrete.

306

3.2. As an example, let us consider an anchor with a washer at its end, fixed during placing concrete in a depth of 15 cm into a plain crack-free C40 concrete element. The edge of the element is far from the anchor. Let us find the characteristic resistance NRk,c for the stretched anchor in cone failure of the concrete when using an aggregate with a = 20 mm or with a = 5 mm. The data for the two types of concrete and the calculated results are given in Table 2. Table 2 a mm 5 20

K1Ck MPa.m0.5 0.52 0.82

fctk MPa 2.1 2.1

d cm 2.4 6.0

NRk,c KN 70.8 108.7

It is clear that the ratio between the characteristic cone failure resistances in the concrete with a = 20 mm and with a = 5 mm is in fact 1.53 (as opposed to 1 according to [1]).

4. Conclusions
In revising the DG we consider it necessary to take the following circumstances into account: 1. To avoid errors, the characteristic anchoring resistance should be determined using the presented formulae, which correspond to the experiments and take into account of the size effect, i.e. of pseudoplastic, brittle and intermediate types of anchoring cone failure under tension and shear, as well as local blow-out failure under tension in relation to the value of D/d. 2. The proposed expressions also take into account of the influence of the value of the maximal aggregate dimension on the failure load value in brittle failure of the aboveenumerated modes. 3. The DG should also include the case of anchoring along the symmetry plane of a flat concrete element. 4. In order to refine the numeric coefficients in the proposed formulae, additional testing is needed for certain limiting values of D/d in addition to the existing data: a) axial tension (cone failure, plane problem, anchor in the symmetry plane of the flat element) - hef /d ≤ 0.8; b) axial tension (local blow-out failure) - c1/d ≥ 3; c) shear (cone failure, 3-dimensional problem) - c/d ≤ 0.2; d) shear (cone failure, plane problem, anchor along the width of the element) c/d ≤ 1.2. 5. Testing is also needed for the other cases not considered in the DG and in the paper (for example, the anchor under shear set in the symmetry plane of a flat concrete element).

307

References
1. 2. 'Design of Fastenings in Concrete, Design Guide', ( CEB, 1997) 83. Yagust, V.I. 'Resistance to development of crack in concrete structures taking into account the influence of material macrostructure', D.Sc. thesis ( NIIZhB, Moscow, 1982 ) 24 ( in Russian ). Shapiro, G.I. and Yagust, V.I. 'Strength of plane concrete element under concentrated load, in 'Investigation of Bearing Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Structures of Multistory Precast Buildings', eds. G.N.Lvov and J.M. Strugatsky ( MNIITEP, Moscow, 1980 ) 74-111 (in Russian). 'Fastenings to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures', Bulletin d'formation, N206 ( CEB, 1991) 486. Entov, V.M. and Yagust, V.I. , 'Experimental investigation of the laws governing qusi-static development of macrocracks in concrete', Mechanics Solids ( translation from Russian), 10 (4) (1975) 87-95. Yagust, V.I., 'Application of the model of Leonov-Panasuk-Dugdale for evaluation of crack development in concrete structures', in 'Strength Investigations of Bearing Structures of Multistory Precast Buildings', eds. G.N.Lvov and J.M.Strugatsky ( MNIITEP, Moscow, 1983 ) 66-84 ( in Russian ). Bazant, Z.P. and Planas J., 'Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials, ( 1997) 597. Barenblatt, G.I., 'The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture', Advances in Appl. Mech., 7 (1962 ) 55-129. Dugdale, D.S., 'Yielding of steel sheets containing slits', J. of Mech. and Phys. of Solids, V.8 (1960) 100-108. Panasyuk,V.V., 'The Limit Equilibrium of the Brittle Solids with Cracks',(Kiev,1968) (in Russian ). Eligehausen, R. and Sawade, G., 'A fracture mechanics based description of the pull-out behavior of headed studs embedded in concrete', in 'Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures. From Theory to Application', ed. L. Elfgren (London, 1989) 281-299. Skramtaev,B.G. and Wolf,I.V. 'Control of the Concrete Strength', (Moscow, 1939) (in Russian). Kononov, I.A. 'The embedment depth determination', in 'Vibration Application in Building ', ed. I.J. Petrov (Moscow, 1962) 31-65 ( in Russian ). Sattler,K., 'Betractung über neuere Verdübelungen in Verbundbau', Der Bauingenieur, 37 (1) (1962)1-8 (in German). Lukojanov, U.N., 'The experimental study of behavior concrete in anchor fastenings ', in 'Design and Construction of Industrial Buildings and Constructions', ed. V.G. Desjatov (Moscow, 1964) 18-27 ( in Russian ). Nizhnikovsky,G.S., 'The new type of anchor bolt joining', 'Express Information', 149 (Moscow, 1964) ( in Russian ).

3.

4. 5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

308

17. Holmjansky,M.M., 'The Laying Details of Precast Reinforced Concrete Structure (Moscow, 1968) 208 ( in Russian). 18. Tchujko,P.A., 'The study of concrete strength by method of cone failure and shear failure', in 'The Interbranch Problems of Building. Home Experience', ed. D.A. Korshunov (CINIS, Moscow, 1972) (in Russian). 19. Zhao,G., 'Tragverhalten von randfernen Kopfbolzenverankerungen bei Betonbruch', in 'Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, H.454 (1995) 98 (in German). 20. Yagust, V.I. and Yankelevsky, D.Z., 'Strength of a concrete element under the action of concentrated tensile or shear force', in 'Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structure', V. 2, Proc. of the Sec. Intern. Conf. on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (FRAMCOS 2), Zurich, Switzerland, Juli 25-28,1995 (1995) 1361-1368. 21. Bazant, Z.P., 'Size effect of blunt fracture: concrete, rock, metal'. J. of Eng. Mech., 110 (4) (1984) 518-535. 22. 'CEB-FIP Model Code 1990', CEB, Bulletin d'information N203 (1991).

309

CORROSION BEHAVIOR OF MATERIALS IN FIXING APPLICATIONS
Norbert Arnold Fischerwerke, Artur Fischer GmbH & Co. KG, Waldachtal, Germany

Abstract
To ensure the durability of fixing elements besides an appropriate design, the use of suitable materials must be considered. Due to economical reasons it is necessary to choose the material, which meets the specific needs of each application best. According to general experience increasing corrosive potentials of specific environments require materials of higher resistance to these conditions. This is normally associated with higher costs. According to increasing corrosion resistance, appropriate corrosion protection comprises zinc-based coatings for unalloyed steels, stainless steels and highly corrosion resistant special alloys. Comparative results of laboratory as well as outdoor exposure tests are presented and the application of these materials in approved fixing elements is discussed.

1. Introduction
In most applications fixings are expected to function during the whole life time of the building. In Europe this means a period of 50 years. Due to the difficulties of predicting the corrosion behaviour of materials for 50 years in advance, one approach of achieving save fixing elements is to accept materials only, which show practically no interaction with the expected corrosive media. This is the case in Germany and the range of validity of the „European Technical Approval“ for anchors. As a consequence two main groups of base materials are created:

313

1. Low alloyed surface-protected steel for indoor applications, which needs a corrosion resistance (through non-permanent protective layers) mainly for storage, transportation and installation purposes. 2. Highly alloyed stainless steel (with permanent corrosion resistance) for environments with high corrosion potential. A second approach for outside applications is to use protective coatings, which proved to be durable through long-time experience under defined environmental conditions. The most widely used protection-systems of this type are thick layers of zinc on low alloyed steel.

2. Corrosion protection for fixings in building applications
2.1 Non-permanent protection Table 1 displays a summary of the most widely used non-permanent protection systems: Table 1. Non-permanent protective coatings Type Typical layer thickness [mm] Zinc, electro plated, blue passivated 5 – 15 Zinc, electro plated, yellow passivated 5 - 15 Zinc, organic binder (Dacromet 320) 1 – 3 Zinc, organic binder (Delta tone) 1–3 Zinc, hot dip galvanized 20 - 100 In the field of fixings, only hot dip galvanized steel is used for outside applications. Without further protection the other zinc-systems are used for indoor applications only. 2.2 Permanent corrosion resistance As fixing elements have to display their full performance during the whole lifetime of the building a reduction in the mechanical properties due to corrosion is not acceptable. This usually means that only stainless steels or even metalls with higher corrosion resistance (e. g. Ni- or Ti-alloys) are suitable for outside applications. The most widely used type of stainless steel belongs to the Cr/Ni-Type (e. g. 1.4301, BS 304) or the Cr/Ni/Mo-type (e. g. 1.4401, BS 316). Germany has probably the most detailed regulations for the use of stainless steels. The field of applications for these alloys is regulated by „Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung“ 1) .

3. Corrosion behaviour of fixing elements
To determine the long time corrosion behaviour of a protective coating several shorttime tests are common. None of these can give an exact forecast of the behaviour under the expected practical conditions. Nevertheless, testing different corrosive systems under

314

identical conditions can supply us with information about differences to expect in real life properties. 3.1 Corrosion behaviour of non-permanent protection-systems All coatings were tested in a salt spray box according to DIN 50 021. Anchor-bolts with a diameter of 12 mm and an app. length of 10 cm were used as test-specimens. The coatings were applied under industrial condition. The corrosion resistance of the various system was measured by determining the percentage of specimen-surface covered by red rust. Three test-series were conducted. The details are summarized in table 2. To determine the effect of mounting on the corrosion behaviour of the bolts, one series (3) was conducted, where the specimens were mounted, demounted (by splitting the concrete slab) and then exposed in the salt spray box. Table 2: Coatings tested according DIN 50 21. Series Specimen- Coating type No 1 1 none 1 2 Zinc, electro plated , yellow passivated 1 3 Zinc, electro plated, blue passivated 1 4 Dacromet ® 320 1 5 Delta Tone ® 2 6 Zinc, hot dip galvanized 2 7 Zinc, mechanically plated (McDermid) 2 8 Zinc, mechanically plated (sheradized acc. BS 4921) 2 9 Zinc, mechanically plated (sheradized acc. BS 4921 + passivation treatment) 3 10 Zinc, hot dip galvanized 3 11 Zinc, mechanically plated (McDermid) 3 12 Zinc, hot dip galvanized 3 a) 13 Zinc, hot dip galvanized, demounted 3 a) 14 Zinc, hot dip galvanized, demounted 3 a) 15 Zinc, hot dip galvanized, demounted

Thickness [µm] 5-7 5-7 1,2 - 2,2 1,0 - 2,2 40 - 50 40 - 50 30 - 40 30 - 40 55 - 60 55 - 60 50 - 55 55 - 60 55 - 60 50 - 55

315

The results of the corrosion-tests are displayed in the according figures 1 - 4.
Figure 1: Test results of series 1

100

roh galvanisch verzinkt
Red rust [%]

Delta Tone einfach
50

Delta Tone zweifach Dacromet gvz, blau

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time [d]

Figure 2: Test results of series 2
100

Red rust [%]

6
50

7

8

9

0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Time [d]

316

Fig. 3: Test results of series 3
100

Red rest [%]

10 50 11 12

0 5 6 7 8 9 Time [d] 10 11 12 13 14

Figure 4 Test results of series 3 a)
100

13
Red rust [%]

50

14 15

0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Time [d]

317

3.2 Permanently corrosion-resistant fixing elements 3.2.1 Standard-Applications Outdoor exposures of different stainless steels for long periods proved that stainless steels of the Cr/Ni/Mo-type showed no substantial corrosion 2). As a consequence they are now the standard alloys for fixing elements in outdoor applications. 3.2.2 Highly corrosive enviroments Practical experience also showed that in certain applications, especially indoor swimming-pools and road-tunnels, failure of fixing elements could occur due to stress corrosion cracking. Under these conditions even some highly alloyed steels showed severe corrosion attack 5) (table 3). Table 3. Pitting corrosion of different stainless steels (depth in µm). Material-no. short-name (Werkstoff-Nr.) 1.4301 1.4401 (1.4571) 1.4462 1.4529 1.4565 X 5 CrNi 18 10 X 5 CrNiMo 17 12 2 X 2 CrNiMoN 22 5 3 X 1 NiCrMoCuN 25 20 6 X 3 CrNiMnMoNbN 23 17 5 3 Field research 4) Lab research 5) (2 years) (5.5 days) 50 55 30 0 55 43 27 0

As a consequence the stainless steel 1.4529 has become the standard-material for these applications

4. Application examples
4.1 Indoor applications Electro plated blue or yellow passivated zinc is usual. Other thin zinc protections layers are used in exceptions only (e. g. 6). 4.2 Outdoor applications 4.2.1 Facade fixings according to German approval In case of approved plastic anchors with a completley closed plug-sleeve, steelscrews protected by electro plated zinc in combination with an additional protections of the head of the screw by a thick protective coating is sufficient. 4.2.1.1 Facade fixings in aerated concrete Due to a lack of experience about corrosion effects in that material, screws protected by electro plated zinc in combination with the higher corrosionresistant yellow passivation (compared to the blue one) is mandatory.

318

4.2.2 Standard atmospheres According to European guidelines for urban and industrial applications 1.4401 (1.4571) is suitable. 4.2.3 Road tunnels Typical examples are the „Engelberg-Tunnel“ (2.4 km long, opened in 2000) or the 4th tube of the „Elbtunnel“ (2,5 km long, opening planned for 2003) where all anchors used were made from 1.4529. 4.2.4 Extreme corrosion resistance Flue gas desulfuration is an example where even highly alloyed steels show strong corrosion. In this application titanium is the suitable material.

5.

References

1) Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung Z-30.3-6, Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik. 2 ) Ergang, R., Rockel, M. B., Werkstoffe und Korrosion 26, 36 – 41 (1975) 3) Hütterer, H., Schadgaskorrosion von Werkstoffen in der Befestigungstechnik, Diplomarbeit, FH Konstanz 1994 4) Übeleis, A. Felder, G. Nock, R., Einflüsse von Schadstoffen auf die Beständigkeit metallischer Werkstoffe in exponierten Bauwerken, Vortrag anläßlich der 23. Jahrestagung der GUS, Finztal, 1994 5) Arnold, N. Gümpel, P. Heitz, T. W., Materials and Corrosion 50, 140 – 145 (1999) 6) Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung Z-21.1-971, Deutsche Institut für Bautechnik

319

BEHAVIOUR OF POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS IN CASE OF FIRE
Konrad Bergmeister, Anton Rieder Institute of Structural Engineering, Vienna, Austria

Abstract
Due to the loss of strength of concrete and steel at high temperatures the load capacity of anchors in case of fire is expected to be reduced. Especially in tunnels post-installed anchors are commonly used to fix heavy equipment like ventilators, which must not fall down and injure or even kill escaping people or firemen in case of an accident with releated break-out of fire. The failure mode of expansion or undercut anchors depends primarily on the embedment depth: for small embedment depths concrete spalling will be decisive, steel failure usually is the consequence of large embedment depths. Another important feature is the effect of cracked concrete (w = 0.3 mm). In an experimental setup in a real motorway tunnel the behaviour of expansion and bonded anchors is tested in cracked and uncracked concrete during a fire. For this purpose an axial load is applied and the temperature in different depths and the displacement of the anchors are measured continuosly.

1. Introduction
The most important variable in questions of fire protection is the temperature propagation. Due to the fact that evolution of fire is a highly instationary process the temperature is a function of space and time. Theoretically it can be calculated by solution of the partial differential equation which describes the conservation of energy and in cartesian coordinates has the following form:

∂  ∂T  ∂  ∂  ∂  ∂  ∂T λ  +  λ  +  λ  + q = ρc  ∂y  ∂z ∂x  ∂x  ∂y  ∂t  ∂z  

(1)

320

λ ρ
c q T t

heat conductivity [W/(mK)] density [kg/m3] specific heat capacity [J/(kgK)] heat source or heat sink [W/m3] temperature [K] time [sec]

The speed how fast the temperature rises in an element is governed by the temperature conductivity term λ/(ρc). The time and / or space dependance of all this parameters makes it impossible to give an analytical solution for eq. 1, therefore numeric nonlinear approximation procedures are necessary. One of the main problems in modelling material behaviour at high temperatures is the heat transfer from the fire szenario to the structural part because it strongly dependends on convection and ventilation conditions, surface roughness, geometry and temperature. For this purpose experimental data are non-available. It is of interest how the anchor influences the heat transfer in the concrete. Due to the high temperature conductivity of steel it is heated much faster then concrete and this affects the load capacity of the system steel to concrete. In case of fire following failure modes of post-installed anchors in tension can be observed: 1. Steel failure The yield strength of steel decreases with increasing temperature. This leads to a critical temperature Tcrit at a certain stress level. For a structural steel for example the residual strength at 500°C is about 60% of the strength at room temperature. 2. Pull-out failure Due to the opening of cracks in the concrete at high temperatures the friction between expansion sleeve and concrete and hence the ultimate load capacity decrease. For expansion and undercut anchors suitable in the cracked tensile concrete zone this effect should not appear. Bonded anchors usually exhibit failure of the chemical mortar at elevated temperatures. 3. Pull-through failure In case of poor concrete quality and / or opening of cracks the steel cone slides through the expansion sleeve without any concrete breakout. This is not only a consequence of high temperatures, but it can be observed also at room temperature and in cracked concrete.

321

4. Concrete cone failure Concrete exhibits the quartz-inverison (α-quartz → β-quartz) at a temperature of 573°C and has to be evaluated as a completely destroyed zone. With increasing time this zone expands in the inside of the structural part and the anchor is pulled out with the concrete cone. For bonded anchors this failure mode can be observed only for small embedment depths. 5. Concrete spalling At moisture contents ≥ 2 mass-% explosive spalling can arise due to the expansion of water vapour in the pores: if the porosity is very low the vapour cannot expand and the tensile strenght of the concrete is exceeded. This effect can be favourished close to an anchor due to the higher heat input through the steel. For the evaluation of a structural part in case of fire the full developed burning is decisive. Reproducable laboratory fire tests are guaranteed by use of a standardized temperature vs. time curve (T-ISO 834) which can be described by following equation:

ϑ − ϑ0 = 345 lg(8t + 1)
whereas ϑ is the temperature at time t and ϑ0 is the temperature at the t = 0.

(2)

During the fire test a constant axial load is applied on the anchor. By determining the time the anchor can bear the load it is possible to assign a fire resistance duration. However, in natural fires the temperature development can be quite different from the standardized curve described by eq. 2. For this purpose the thermic and mechanical behaviour of post-installed anchors in a natural fire has been investigated.

2. Experimental setup
The experimental setup is shown in fig. 1. A kind of “minitunnel” is build up with two concrete walls (200x200x30 cm) on both sides and four slabs (80x80x30 cm) as ceiling, all of them of the strength class C50/60. The temperature evolution and distribution on the surface of the expansion anchors is measured by thermoelements of type K placed in a notch during the fire test (fig. 2). The isolation material is glass silk and resists a permanent temperature of 700°C. For the determination of the temperature in the chemical mortar of the bonded anchors there are used standard thread rods without fixing element and with a notch in axial direction. Bonded anchors and expansion anchors of different shape are installed in cracked and uncracked concrete (see table 1). Through a lever-arm a constant axial load (fig. 3) of 10 kN is applied on three bonded anchors of the shape M12 and the displacement of the anchors is measured through a hole from the back side of the slab via potentiometric displacement transducers (fig. 4).

322

T 4 tfix T 3 T 2 T 1

Fig. 1 and 2: Experimental setup and tempeature measurement anchor material Embedment depth [mm] Torque [Nm] Crack [mm] width Bonded M10 1.4529 60 20 0.3 unloaded 20 Bonded M12 1.4529 80 40 0.3 axial 10 kN 30 Bonded M16 1.4529 125 50 0.3 unloaded 35 Expansion M8 1.4401 45 20 0 unloaded 30 Expansion M12 1.4401 70 60 0 unloaded 30 Expansion M16 1.4401 85 110 0 unloaded 25

Load [kN] tfix [mm]

Table 1: Tested anchors

323

Fig. 3: Axial load

Fig. 4: Displacement transducer

3. Results
3.1 Temperature A typical evolution of temperature on the surface of an expansion anchor in different depths is shown in fig. 5. On the fixing element (25 mm) the temperature raises up to 800 °C and drops very fast due to the low heat capacity of the steel. The constant temperature level at 100 °C in 50 and 100 mm depth is caused by a phase change of the pore water. As expected, in the concrete the maximum temperature is reached later than on the surface.
expansion anchor M16 900 800 temperature [°C] 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0:00 0:05 0:10 0:15 0:20 0:25 0:30 0:35 0:40 0:45 0:50 0:55 1:00 100 mm 50 mm 0 mm fixing element

tim e [h:m in]

Fig. 5: Temperature evolution

324

In one of the slabs on the ceiling was measured the temperature in different depths inside the concrete. The results and a comparison with the temperature on the surface of the expansion anchor after 15 and 30 min is shown in fig. 6 and 7. It demonstrates very clearly the high temperature conductivity of the steel. Close to the surface the anchors are cooled down quickly. The difference between the various shapes of anchors is small.
600 500

temperature after 15 min
concrete expansion anchor M16

450 400

temperature after 30 min
concrete expansion anchor M16 expansion anchor M12 expansion anchor M8

tem perature [°C ]

temperature [°C]
100

350 300 250 200 150 100 50

400 expansion anchor M12 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 expansion anchor M8

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

depth [mm]

depth [mm]

Fig. 6: Temperature distribution after 15 min

Fig. 7 Temperature distribution after 30 min

In fig. 8-11 are shown the average temperatures in different depths and after different times on the surface of the expansion anchors and of the bonded anchor M16 (without fixing element). On the fixing element the maximum temperature is reached between 10 and 15 minutes, in the concrete it is reached after 25 – 30 minutes. With increasing depth the maximum temperature is reached at later points of time. Under the protection of the fixing element the temperatures on the concrete surface are lower (fig. 9) than without fixing element ( fig. 8) for the same diameter of the anchor.
bonded anchor M16 600
te m p e ra tu re [°C ] 800
5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min 25 min 30 min

expansion anchor M16
5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min 25 min 30 min

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

te m p e ra tu re [°C ]

500 400 300 200 100 0 0 60 depth [mm]

120

-25

0 depth [mm]

50

100

Fig. 8: Temperature distribution bonded anchor M16

Fig. 9: Temperature distribution expansion anchor M16

325

700 600 tem p eratu re [°C ] 500 400 300 200 100 0 -30

expansion anchor M12
5 min

600 500 te m p e ra tu re [°C ] 400 300 200 100 0
10 min 15 min 20 min 25 min 30 min

expansion anchor M8
5 min 10 min 15 min 20 min 25 min 30 min

0

depth [mm]

40

80

-30

0

depth [mm]

25

50

Fig. 10: Temperature distribution expansion anchor M12

Fig. 11: Temperature distribution expansion anchor M8

3.2 Expansion anchor under axial loading in uncracked concrete After the fire test the residual load capacity was determined by a pullout test in uncracked concrete of the strength class C50/60. It is important to know this value for the assessment of the reliabilty of the system after a fire szenario and for future sanitation. The tests were performed displacement controlled with a servohydraulic testing machine at a speed of 0.08 mm/sec. For the present the comparison of the ultimate mean loads for the different shapes in the axial tension test in concrete with (Fu,m) and without (Fu,m,ref) fire exposure is shown in fig. 12. After the fire test the concrete surface was full of cracks mainly close to the anchors. The cracks propagated in radial direction and their width varied between 0.2 and 0.4 mm. This may be interpreted as a first indication of spalling. The expansion anchor exhibited mainly pull-throughfailure, in one case splitting failure.
50 45 40 Fu,m/Fu,m,ref [%] 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 45 70 heff [mm] 85

Ultimate axial load expansion anchor

Fig. 12: Relative ultimate axial load of expansion anchor in uncracked concrete

326

3.3 Bonded anchor under axial loading in cracked concrete The displacement of the bonded anchor of the shape M12 during the axial loading and the corresponding temperatures in different depths are shown in fig. 13.
1200 1000 temperature [°C] 800 600 400 200 0 0:00 0:10 0:20 0:30 0:40 0:50 1:00 1:10 1:20

bonded anchor M12 axial

1,2 Displacement [mm] 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0

80 mm 40 mm 0 mm fixing element anchor 1 anchor 2 anchor 3

time [h:min]

Fig. 13: Displacement and temperature during constant axial loading in cracked concrete Very interesting is the high temperature peak in the first 5 minutes even in 80 mm. It could be possible that there was some air included in the mortar which fovourished the heat transport at the beginning of the test and that a succeeding chemical reaction stopped the enormous heat transfer. To clear this phenomenon further investigations are necessary. The displacements after 90 min were 0.8 mm, 1.04 mm and 0.7 mm respectively. The creep of the chemical mortar is primarily a time dependent process. The first anchor displacement can be observed 10 minutes after the beginning of the fire test, whereas the maximum temperature in 40 mm depth is reached already in 15 minutes. The ultimate axial load in the pull-out test in cracked concrete after the fire is shown in fig. 14 in percent of the ultimate load in cracked concrete of the strength class C50/60 which has not been subjected to high temperatures. The crack width was the same as during the fire test (0.3 mm). The shapes M10 and M12 exhibited concrete cone breakout and the shape M16 pull-through failure. The spalling was more pronounced around the thread rods without fixing element (about 34 mm in fig. 15) than close to the anchors with fixing element. Hence the fixing element has a positiv influence by preventing concrete spalling close to the anchor.

327

Ultimate axial load bonded anchor
100 90 F u,m /Fu ,m ,ref [% ] 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 80 heff [mm] 125

Fig. 14: Relative ultimate axial load of bonded anchor in cracked concrete

Fig. 15: Concrete spalling near a thread rod

An explanation for the relatively high ultimate load of the shape M12 (heff = 80 mm) may be the shielding effect of the mineral wool which was wrapped around the lever-arm in order to protect the steel from high temperatures.

4. Conclusions
In a natural fire test the temperature distribution and evolution has been measured on the surface of expansion and bonded anchors. The displacement behaviour of axial loaded bonded anchors in cracks was investigated. After the fire test the residual ultimate axial load was determined and compared with the ultimate load in concrete which has not been subjected to high temperatures. The expansion anchors exhibit a larger decrease of the residual load capacity than the bonded anchors.

5. References
1. 2. Kordina, K., Meyer-Ottens, C., ’Beton Brandschutz Handbuch’ (1999) Wiesholzer, J., ’Berechnung der Temperaturverläufe von Befestigungsdetails infolge Brand mittels FEM-Programm’, Diplomarbeit, University of Innsbruck (1987) Nausse, P., ’Prüfung und Beurteilung des Brandverhaltens von Dübeln’, IBKBaufachtagung 153, Hannover (14./15.10.1992)

3.

328

DURABILITY OF GALVANIZED, POST-INSTALLED FASTENERS TO CONCRETE
K. Menzel*, B. Hagmayer** * Otto Graf Institut, University of Stuttgart, Germany ** Schlaich, Bergemann u. Partner, Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
The paper discusses the mechanisms of zinc corrosion in contact with concrete with special emphasis on post-installed fasteners. Experimental results on the influence of cement type,carbonation, galvanic effects and results of exposure tests up to ten years are presented. Compared to corrosion of galvanized reinforcement embedded in concrete and galvanized metalwork exposed to the atmospere, differences in mechanism and type of corrosive attack are found. In case of weathered concrete, even hot dip galvanizing does not assure corrosion protection for more than ten years because of localized attack due to galvanic effects at the interface concrete/atmosphere.

1. Corrosion of zinc and galvanized steel
Zinc is known as a cheap and reliable protective plating for wheathered steel components of any kind. With the exception of extreme industrial atmosphere (containing high amounts of sulfur dioxide) zinc suffers uniform corrosion at relatively low rates about one to seven micrometers/year (fig.1 [1-3]). Embedded in concrete, galvanized reinforcement resists chloride induced corrosion much better than bare steel [5]. In a first stage, up to one week,being exposed to a highly alcaline electrolyte, corrosion rates are high because hydrogen evolution is the dominating cathodic reaction. Passivation, followed by deposition of salt layers reduces the corrosion rate drastically later on (fig. 1 [4,5]). As to fasteners, installed in drilled holes after hardening of the concrete, not much information is available. The few sources on related subjects (e.g cavity wall ties [6] and facades [7](see fig.1) report corrosion rates in a range of 1 to 12 µm/year without further explication. It was the aim of the study presented here, to understand the specific of post installed, galvanized fasteners in concrete with regard to corrosion and life-time of the protective coating.

329

Fig. 1: Corrosion rates of zinc

2. Experimental
Samples were designed as close as possible to reality, using cylindrical concrete blocks of 100 mm diameter with drilled holes, where galvanized rods (∅ 12x100 mm) were introduced (fig.2). Two types of cement (portland and slag cement) were used. One set of samples was carbonated in an atmosphere of 1% CO2 after drilling the hole. The steel rods were either electroplated and chromated (zinc cover 3-4 µm) or hot dip galvanized (50-60µm zinc). As an additional parameter, some of the samples were sealed at the interface concrete/atmospere with natural rubber and a galvanized washer. To study galvanic effects, caused by the vicinity of carbonated and alcaline concrete, special samples with two rods were used (fig.3). Samples were exposed on a roof in Stuttgart for ten years. Corrosion potential was measured by means of a calomel electrode.More details on the experimental setup are given in [8].

330

Fig.2: samples with hot-dip galvanized steel rods (section, treated with phenolphtaleine to mark alcaline concrete ) after ten years of outdoor exposure

3. Results
During the first stage of exposure, when the corrosion potential was regularily measured, potentials of –800 to –100 mV (SCE) were recorded. The potential drop in a range where hydrogen evolution is thermodynamically possible (as known from fresh concrete and galvanized reinforcement) was not observed (fig.4).In the course of exposure potentials tend to steadily increase, until „iron-like“ behavior is observed (fig.5). The increase is earlier for electroplated samples. It is interesting to note, that the differences regarding the parameters carbonated/not carbonated, sealed/open or type of cement are much smaller than expected. Evaluation after ten years of exposure gives the pictures presented in fig.6 to 8). In all cases, corrosion attack is pronounced about 1 to 2 cm from the outer end of the borehole. An experimental galvanic couple, consisting of identical samples in alcaline and carbonated boreholes subjected to wet/dry-cycles produces maximum current densities of 3,6 µA/cm² corresponding to about 50µm/year corrosion loss of zinc (fig.3). After 10 years of exposure, the percentage of still zinc covered surface is found to be in the range of 35 to 90 % for hot dip galvanized samples and of only 0 to 30 % for electroplated samples (fig.9). Electroplated samples in slag cement are heavily corroded (fig.8 below). About 30% of the samples of this type already caused spalling of the concrete cylinder whereas the outer (atmospheric) end is only slightly stained without significant loss of material.

331

Fig.3: Current density of a galvanic element (carbonated/alcaline) during wet-dry cycles

Fig.4: Corrosion potentials of galvanized steel

332

Fig.5: Corrosion potential of post-installed galvanized fasteners vs. Time

Fig. 6

333

Fig.7

334

Fig. 8

Fig.9: Percentage of still zinc covered area after ten years outdoor exposure

335

Fig. 10: Average corrosion loss after ten years exposure (calculated from total weight loss)

4. Discussion
The mechanisms of corrosion of galvanized fasteners to concrete do not compare directly to corrosion in concrete and atmospheric corrosion. Specific effects have to be taken into account: • • Contact to concrete of different pH (alcaline-carbonated) with the effect of additional corrosion loss due to galvanic elements Crevices within the borehole with high humidity and depletion of carbon dioxide (CO2 is consumed by the carbonation reaction) hindering the formation of protective carbonate layers as known from atmospheric corrosion.

These effects lead to local differences in corrosion rate, which will be highest at the outer end of the borehole. Zinc dissolution can be estimated to a rate of 2,5 µm/year (fig. 10) in the average and more than 50 µm/year locally. After consumption of the zinc layer cathodic protection of bare steel by surrounding zinc is given to a certain extent. Newertheless steel corrosion should not be neglected after a period of about ten years exposure for hot dip galvanized and one year for electroplated fasteners in wheathered concrete.

336

5. References
1. Korrosionsverhalten von feuerverzinktem Stahl ; Beratung Feuerverzinken, Hagen (1983) 2. Nürnberger, U.: Korrosion und Korrosionsschutz im Bauwesen; Bauverlag Wiesbaden (1995) 3. Menzel, K.: Korrosionsschutz in der Befestigungstechnik; VDI Berichte 653 , Düsseldorf (1988) 4. Rauen, A.: Deutsche Verzinkertagung, München (1971) 5. Andrade, M.C., Macias, A.: Galvanized Reinforcements in Concrete; Surface Coatings-2 Elsevier Applied Science ISBN 1 85166 194 8 6. Moore, J.F.A.: Building Research Current Paper 3 (1981), U.K. 7. Hermann, P.: Korrosion (Dresden) 14, (1983) 1 8. Menzel, K.: Zur Korrosion von verzinktem Stahl in Kontakt mit Beton; Stuttgart,Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, (1992) 1

337

DURABILITY OF STAINLESS STEEL CONNECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO CORROSION
Ulf Nürnberger Otto-Graf-Institute, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
In structural engineering connection elements for ventilated curtain walls and suspended ceilings are more and more made of stainless steel due to reasons of corrosion protection. A special approval process regulates the use of the steel grade in Germany. The permitted stainless steels for substructures, connectors, fastenings, hangers and anchorage devices are defined in dependence of environmental conditions and installation. Normally austenitic Cr-Ni-(Mo)-steels are applied. The use of hardened martensitic steels for self-drilling screws and concrete screws should be desirable but such fasteners are not sufficient sure. In strong acid and/or chloride containing environment (see-atmosphere, de-icing salt) connection elements might be endangered by pitting corrosion, crevice corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, if these products are made of unsuited alloys. In the contribution the corrosion situations are described in detail. Further typical corrosion damages are discussed if unsuited stainless steel products are applied.

1. Introduction
During the last decades pollution has eminently increased in urban agglomerations, industrial areas and traffic structures. Because of this fact, the corrosion exposure of metallic structural elements with a security risk is growing in constructional engineering. Mechanical connection elements between steel and concrete, e. g. in claddings for external walls that are ventilated at the rear and comply with DIN 18516 [1], in suspended ceilings in special climates (humid premises, indoor swimming-pools) or in flat roofs, are also affected. Due to corrosion, connection elements can undergo an impairment of their functionality as well as a security risk for the whole construction. In the past, steel fastenings, that are galvanized and plastic coated, have been particularly affected in the exterior. Corrosion could especially be explained by high chloride pollution of the atmosphere and the building materials and/or contact with moist

338

building materials during failures [2-5]. At contact with moist, neutrally reacting building materials (e. g. heat insulation, wood), corrosion–protective films can not develop and corrosion–promoting aeration cells become effective [6]. Additional serious corrosion damages occurred in indoor swimming-pools in connection elements, that consisted of stainless steel [6,7]. The use of unsuitable steel grades in an aggressive atmosphere was responsible for these damages (v. paragraph 2). Because of the above–mentioned correlation, high-quality stainless steels have been subsequently tested in regard to an application in structurally critical climates [8-10] and have also been increasingly used for steel connections, fastenings, substructures, hangers and anchorage devices in structural elements outdoors [11]. The adequate steel grades are regulated in a special approval (paragraph 5) depending on corrosion exposure and installation conditions.

2. Corrosion problems pointed out exemplary in claddings for external walls that are ventilated at the rear
Under critical exposure conditions various corrosion processes are possible in mechanical connection elements as well as adjacent metallic structural elements. This is illustrated in fig. 1 at the example of a ventilated curtain wall. Table 1 quotes the structural elements resp. the building materials of the cladding for external walls as well Table 1: Structural elements in an external ventilated curtain wall mark structural type of construction material element 1 cladding moulded metal sheet, ceramics, nature stone, fiber plate cement, high pressure laminated plate, aluminium alloy, copper, titan zinc, galvanized and/or coated steel, stainless steel 2 fastening screw, rivet, cramp, aluminium alloy, copper alloy, element hook stainless steel 3 connection screw, rivet element 4 substructure profile (load-bearing aluminium alloy, copper alloy, rail) galvanized and/or coated steel, stainless steel, wood 5 anchorage post-installed fastener, stainless steel, plastic sleeve plus device anchor rail, concrete galvanized screw screw 6 insulation mat mineral fiber, glass fiber, styrofoam

339

Fig. 1: Situation of claddings for external walls that are ventilated at the rear as fastening elements, connection elements and anchorage devices, that have to be put in. With the help of constructive measures (construction of external walls) as well as the choice of suitable building materials, it has to be secured that damaging influences in case of an attack of water and especially aqueous, acidulous and/or chloride-enriched media do not lead to an impairing corrosion. On principal, stainless steel can be used for all metallic structural elements and it can also get into contact with different structural metals.

3. Exposure conditions for connection elements [6,12]
Corrosion in the open atmosphere increases depending on rising humidity and temperature as well as concentration of gaseous and/or solid contamination in the air. Therefore, corrosion exposure of structural elements in the open air is distinguished by

340

• •

Climatic zones (dry, temperate, warm-humid climate). The type of atmosphere, that is characterised through local environmental conditions: inland atmosphere, as a rule, is not very aggressive, at all. Urban atmospheres and especially industrial atmospheres can, above all, be more or less bad polluted with dirt and sulphur-dioxide or whirled-up de-icing salt. Sea atmospheres are, depending on the distance to the shore, polluted with variable contents of chloride aerosols. Micro-climate at the interface between structural element and environment, which is of the greatest influence for the expected corrosion exposure. It is specified by the type of atmosphere, constructive influences (heat-leaks, crevices) and the position of the structural element in regard to its environment. Above all, a micro-climate is influenced by humidity, temperature, short-falls of the dew-point as well as duration of local moistening, even in combination with polluting agents and contamination as well as air flows.

Special applications, where the corrosion exposure and the above-mentioned classification differ, do exist: Interior work The external surfaces of structural elements and connectors inside buildings do not duly get in contact with aqueous corrosion media. A corrosive exposure only takes place, if water, moistness of structural elements or other polluting agents are affecting because of failures. Road tunnel In road tunnels, fastening elements of steel are exposed to an enhanced relative humidity, a high portion of dust, soot, abrasion of car tire and chloride salts out of deicing salts and acid gas such as SO2, HCl and NOx (as a consequence of diesel vehicles). Because of the lack of detergent rain, a concentration of polluting agents occurs. Since, in addition, the tunnel wall and the metallic components, that are fastened to it, usually have lower temperatures than the surrounding air, suitable conditions are given for the formation of water of condensation. Under the exposure of water of condensation a water film, that is acidulous and rich in chloride ions, exists on the metallic components and, because of dirt depositions, the basic requirements for crevice corrosion are given, too. In particularly adverse cases, the corrosion conditions are thus comparable to those in indoor swimming-pools. Indoor swimming-pools In the swimming-pool atmosphere very thin electrolyte films generate because of the content of water vapour in the indoor air and, depending on aeration and structural conditions, water of condensation develops after the short-fall of the dew-point. Further, salts and dusts, that, among others, have contents of MgCl2, CaCl2 and especially NaCl, settle down. Because of their hygroscopic character, these salts do already generate saturated salt-solutions in the typical relative atmospheric humidity of “dry“ interiors.

341

A further characteristic of corrosivity of the atmosphere in indoor swimming-pools results from the disinfection treatment of the bath-water. The chlorinated gas process is applied to most times. Chlorine, that is in the hall’s air, can - in reaction with water build hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hypochloric acid (HOCl) in the films, that are rich in neutral salt, according to the reaction Cl2 + H2O → HCl + HOCl As a matter of fact, the latter one is the disinfectant, because of its strong oxidation effect. In water it disintegrates into hydrochloric acid and oxygen according to 2HOCl → 2HCl + O2 This way, an acidulous and saline electrolyte with a high concentration of chloride ions develops on the surface of the structural element. Polluting agents accumulate on surfaces of structural elements, that are not cleaned and washed around by water. Characteristics of connection elements Connection elements often are not accessible. They are, e. g. behind walls or at covered ceilings, not within reach for inspections and maintenance. In addition, connection elements can, at least, be partially in contact with mineral building materials, insulation or wood. Then, with regard to corrosion exposure, the before-mentioned conditions, especially the micro-climate, are of importance for those zones that come into contact with air. The corrosive exposure, that e. g. has to be expected in claddings for external walls that are ventilated at the rear according to DIN 18516, part 1 [1], results from atmospheric influences (relative atmospheric humidity, access of acidulous gases and chloride aerosols) in close connection with structural parameters of the wall construction and chemical influences from (moist) building materials. In walls and façades, that meet the technical standards concerning humidity (proof of protection against interior condensation and absence of dew-water in the area that is ventilated at the rear [13]) or comply with the standards mentioned in [1] (incurring moisture has to be eliminated because of ventilation at the rear), it can be assumed in case of flawless protection against outdoor weathering (joints have to be formed that way, that no rain can ooze in from outside) that in normal case the corrosion exposure is less than it is in outdoor weathering. Formation of condensate only occurs short-time, e. g. as a result of the heatleak effect of fastening components. Though, corroding polluting agents, especially chlorides (from some building materials or aerosols), can concentrate, because they can not be washed off by the rain. First of all, at connection elements that get into contact with building materials, it is of importance, whether they contain in their pores and (inner) cavities the free water that is necessary for corrosion [6,14]. Furthermore, in the case of stainless steels, conditions that inhibit or destroy passivity have to exist. In all cases of corrosion, there is a complicating effect, if water dissolves ingredients from the building material, that are aggressive against steel, or eases the transport of polluting agents from the environment to the building material.

342

A corrosion influence of materials in connection with stainless steels can only be expected, if these materials contain a sufficient concentration of chloride ions and/or acids in addition to water. Chlorides can only get into normal concrete in high concentration, if there is a direct impact with sea-water or water containing de-icing salt [6]. Normally, a such exposure of connection elements and building material with chlorine water does not happen in practical operation. In moist wood, in contrast, acetic acid, which is able to attack stainless steels, too, can be released depending on the type of wood because of hydrolysis at increased temperatures [6]. In special cases chemicals for wood protection can also contain chlorides. Moist insulation is not only conducive to general corrosion. Because of their electrolytic conductivity, they can also promote the formation of elements between structural elements in the insulation (e. g. of galvanized or non-galvanized, unalloyed steel) and more precious components. So-called foreign cathodes are e. g. steel in concrete, copper materials and stainless steels, if they are conductively connected to the steel elements in the insulation, that are effective as anodes. In most cases, insulation is free of corrosionpromoting components, which could be dissolved due to an access of water. In moist and nearly neutral building materials with open pores, the corrosion exposure of structural metals is normally higher than e. g. in the atmosphere behind a wall, that is ventilated at the rear. The opposite reaction rather is the case, if there is a contact with alkaline mineral building materials.

4. Steel grades and types of corrosion [6]
High alloyed steels, which in contrast to unalloyed steels do not show general corrosion and noticeable rust formation in normal environmental conditions (atmosphere, humidity) and in aqueous, nearly neutral to alkaline solutions, are called stainless steels. Basic requirement for the before-said reaction is a minimum concentration of that steel on particular alloying elements and the existence of an oxidising agent (e. g. oxygen) in the surrounding medium. This causes a passivation of the surface. "Passivity" describes a condition that produces a strong inhibition of the reaction of resolving iron after forming a passive layer on the surface. Chromium, in particular, is an element that tends to passivation. This property is transmitted on iron resp. steel through alloying: General corrosion decreases in corrosion-promoting media contrary to the content of chromium (fig. 2). The content of chromium that causes passivity when exceeded depends on the attacking agent. The content of chromium in water and in the atmosphere should at least be 12 M.-%. For particular types of corrosion, e. g. pitting corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, the existence of a passive layer is a necessary requirement. Because of that, passive steels are resistant against general corrosion, but are sensitive to local corrosion in presence of specific media (e. g. chloride ions) in case of an insufficient content of alloy. First of all,

343

Fig. 2: Corrosion of chromium steel in industrial air (referring to Binder and Brown) the specific standards for stainless steels concerning alloy result from the particular corrosion exposures (e. g. attack of chloride ions or acids) and such resistivity as may be required against pitting corrosion, crevice corrosion and stress corrosion cracking. A special state of structure is generated through the selection of the alloying elements and their concentration. Therefore, stainless steels are classified according to their structure. For metallic connection elements and adjacent structural elements, ferritic, austenitic, ferritic-austenitic and martensitic steels can be used. However, ferritic and martensitic steels are only used for screws exceptionally. The use of austenites is predominant. They are used in different strength levels from a solution-annealed to a cold deformed state. In common conditions, that prevail in construction engineering (attack of light acid to alkaline aqueous media), ferritic steels with about 11 to 17 % of chromium have a sufficient resistivity against general corrosion. With an addition of a sufficient content of chromium and molybdenum up to about 2 %, resistivity against pitting corrosion can be achieved as well. Besides, ferrites have a high resistivity to stress corrosion cracking in an environment containing chlorides. Above all, if you assume comparable contents of chromium, the reaction of ferritic steels towards crevice corrosion is much more adverse than it is e. g. at austenitic steels. Austenitic steels have at least 17 to 18 M.-% of chromium and 10 to 12 M.-% of nickel. These steels are especially used because of their positive corrosion properties and their superior workability in comparison with other stainless steels. In case of a proper content of alloy, they have got a high resistivity to general corrosion, pitting corrosion and crevice corrosion, but are sensitive to stress corrosion cracking in their typical compound with about 10 M.-% of nickel. The resistance to pitting corrosion, crevice corrosion and

344

stress corrosion cracking can be improved with an addition of molybdenum. Ferritic-austenitic steels have a binary structure of ferrite and austenite. The typical range of their chemical analysis is 22 to 28 M.-% of chromium, 4 to 8 M.-% of nickel. Molybdenum can be added in order to improve the corrosion resistivity. These steels combine good properties of ferritic steels (high yield strength) and austenitc steels (good ductility, improved corrosion properties). Martensitic steels with an analysis comparable to ferritic steels, but an enhanced content of carbon, are distinguished from all other stainless steels by a substantially higher hardness resp. strength. Because of that, especially the usual carbon martensites are very sensitive to hydrogen-assisted stress corrosion cracking [15]. However, through a limitation of the content of carbon to a max. of 0.05 M.-% and the addition of up to 5 % of nickel, the reaction towards stress corrosion cracking of these “soft martensites” can be improved very much. Assuming a comparable content of chromium and molybdenum and an equal surface quality, these materials can be classified similar to ferritic steels in regard of corrosion. The above-mentioned steel grades are basically chosen considering their resistivity in the attacking medium, but particular technological characteristics are aimed at with regard to processing and application, as well. For economic reasons, the concentration of alloy should not be incongruously high, but likewise not too low considering the intended application conditions, so as to achieve the necessary resistivity in the attacking medium. The reaction of stainless steels with respect to general corrosion, pitting corrosion and stress corrosion cracking has to be considered (fig. 3). They can only be attacked in acid through more or less regular general corrosion. The lower the pH-value and the higher the temperature, the more difficult it is to achieve a passivation here. Under such conditions the steels must have higher contents of particular alloying elements in order to reduce a corrosion wastage or to achieve passivity. It is important, that - at atmospheric corrosion - the corrosion rate in the active state decreases very much, if there is an increasing pH-value. Corrosion resistivity generally exists above pH 4. Therefore, in weakly acidulous media, thus as well in an usual atmosphere and more than ever in concrete, chromium steels with > 12 M.-% of chromium and all higher alloyed steels are passive (fig. 2). In case of pitting corrosion an interaction between chloride ions and the passive layer develops, in which the passive layer is locally interrupted and a pit expansion occurs after the depassivation. Crevice corrosion is an intensified pitting corrosion running down in crevices. Crevice corrosion occurs whenever structural elements are in more or less narrow contact with each other and crevices develop (fig. 1). On this occasion, it can come to a concentration of chloride ions below corrosion products in the crevice and to a decline of the pH-value as a result of a hydrolysis of the corrosion products. Because of that, corrosion in crevices already occurs at even lower corrosion exposure than pitting

345

Fig. 3: Types of corrosion (schematically) corrosion occurs in areas, that are free of crevices. Corrosion endangering towards pitting corrosion and crevice corrosion decreases depending on declining content of chloride, declining temperature and rising pH-value. Acid chloride enriched media are therefore particularly critical. Because of that, stainless steels are basically more resistant in concrete construction with a pH-value of about 8 to 13 than e. g. in atmospheric weather conditions. As a result, the standards for reinforced steels and e. g. anchorage devices in matters of concrete are normally lower than for structural elements in the open atmosphere. Fig. 4 gives a general view of the corrosion behaviour of stainless steel reinforcement that are admitted in Germany at the moment [6,16]. This situation would be analogously transferable to post-installed fasteners and anchor rails. Corrosion resistivity in media that generate pitting corrosion further depends on the quality of the steel surfaces. Improvement ensues around the following order: scaled - raw grinded blasted - fine grinded - pickled - polished. Pitting corrosion and crevice corrosion is especially influenced in means of material by the alloying elements chromium, nickel, molybdenum and further nitrogen. Without influence of the steel grade, resistivity can be roughly estimated with the “pitting resistance equivalent number” W = 1 % Cr + 3,3 % Mo + 15 % N . Improvement of resistivity to chloride-assisted local corrosion depends on a rising “pitting resistance equivalent number”. Nickel improves the corrosion reaction under conditions of crevice corrosion, as it raises the resistivity to acid. Weld joints are, above all, more exposed to the danger of pitting corrosion than similar nonwelded steels, because oxide films (temper colours) or scale layers have developed in the weld joint area during the welding, because of incomplete or lacking gas metal arc. At an increasing thickness, these layers restrain passivation. steels are sufficiently secured against stress corrosion cracking all the time. Resistivity of stainless steels to chlorine-assisted stress corrosion cracking decreases in the following order: ferritic chromium steels, ferritic-austenitic steels, austenitic chromiumnickel(molybdenum) steels. Above all, this can be explained with the influence of the content of nickel on the sensitivity of steels, containing a high portion of chromium, to

346

Fig. 4: Corrosion of stainless steel reinforcement (overview) [16] stress corrosion cracking. A minimum resistivity exists at about 10 M.-% of nickel. From this minimum on, resistivity decreases depending on rising or declining content of nickel. In martensitic stainless steels, the reaction towards hydrogen-assisted stress corrosion cracking is decisive (see above). Stainless steel can cause galvanic corrosion in another less precious metal (steel, aluminium, zinc). Basic requirements are: both metals are connected to be electrically conductive and are located in a well-conducting electrolyte. However, there are normally no electrolyte films in atmospheric corrosion conditions. Being so-called „pure“ water, rain or dew, in addition, have a very slight conductivity. Not until salts or gases, that develop acid, dissolve in the electrolyte and e. g. an aqueous solution remains at the contact area (e. g. in crevices) for a longer period, is a certain galvanic corrosion possible.

5. Definition of the grades of resistance according to the approval of the German building supervisory board
Reduction of the cross section, pitting corrosion and stress corrosion cracking are of importance for the technical corrosion resistivity of connection elements. Table 2 gives a general view of the admitted steels as well as the classification according to the grades of resistance [17]. The quality of the steels increases depending on the rising grade of resistance.

347

In normal case, connecting agents in structural elements in the outdoors should be classified in the third grade of resistance. In many cases, e. g. behind walls, connecting agents are not accessible to inspections and maintenance and a moderate exposure with chloride and sulphur-dioxide from industry, traffic and sea atmosphere is often inevitable. A concentration of polluting agents has to be excluded, otherwise the use of steels of the fourth grade of resistance is necessary. Because of damages, special regulations have been adopted for structural elements in indoor swimming-pool atmosphere. For fastening elements without regular cleaning (e. g. hangers for ceilings) and for anchorage devices the regulations mentioned in table 3 have been adopted with particularly high standards for the steels. Today, structural elements and connecting agents, e. g. in ventilated curtain walls, are mainly made of the materials 1.4301 (A2) and 1.4401 (A4) and therefore only comply with the second resp. third grade of resistance. Steels of higher valence (e. g. 1.4529) are merely already used for anchorage devices (post-installed fasteners), which even have to comply with much higher demands.

6. Review and preview
The development of stainless steels for the field of construction as well as for mechanic connectors has been very much influenced by damages in indoor swimming-pools due to stress corrosion cracking over the last ten years. In 1985 the grave crash of a reinforced concrete roof, that was hung on hangers of stainless steel 1.4301 became public [6]. On the occasion of this accident, examinations of important construction elements have been conducted in many other indoor swimming-pools in Switzerland, Germany, England and the U.S. and additional examples for stress corrosion cracking were found [6,7,12]. The materials containing molybdenum (e. g. 1.4401) indeed proved to be more resistant, but stress corrosion cracking was detected there, as well. Analysis of the damages and results of the research [8-10] finally lead to the conclusion, that only those higher alloyed materials mentioned in table 3 are sufficiently secure under these critical environmental conditions. Present and future efforts are aimed at the creation of self drilling screws for steel substrates (e. g. for the connection of coverings and substructure) and concrete screws made of very high strength martensitic steels. Self drilling screws are screws that drill their pilot hole in the steel themselves during the mounting. Concrete screws are special screws made to be anchored in concrete. They are screwed into a prepared hole in the concrete. In both cases cold deformed austenitic steels are used at present, as well. Since they can not yet be screwed into hard substrates (steel, concrete) in the required way, e. g. a tip of screw of a hardenable unalloyed steel is butt welded. There are efforts to completely produce the above-mentioned fastenings resp. anchors of a martensitic steel of high hardness. However, the corrosion resistivity of such materials is limited.

348

Martensitic steels proved to be susceptible to crevice corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, especially in case of an attack of chlorine electrolytes [15]. Table 2: Classification of the steel grades for structural elements and connection elements according to strength levels and grades of resistance against corrosion [17] material symbol strength level grade of corrosion exposure, resistance typical applications 1.4003 X2Cr 11 S235, S275 indoor exposure S460 I 1.4016 X6Cr 17 S235 1.4318 1.4567 X2CrNiN 18-7 X3CrNiCu 18-9 S355, S460 II S235, S275, S355, S460 S235, S275, S355, S460 S235, S275, S355, S460 S235, S275, S355, S460 S235, S275, S355, S460, S690 S235, S275, S355, S460, S690 S275 S460,S690 IV 1.4539 X1NiCrMoCuN 25-20-5 X1NiCrMoCuN 25-20-7 X3CrNiMnMoNbN 23-17-5-3 X1CrNiMoCuN 20-18-7 S235, S275, S355 S275, S355, S460, S690 S460 S275,S355 accessible constructions without appreciable contents of chloride and sulphur-dioxide

1.4301 1.4541 1.4401

X5CrNi 18-10 X6CrNiTi 18-10 X5CrNiMo 17-12-2

III

1.4404

X2CrNiMo 17-13-2

non-accessible constructions with moderate chlorideand sulphur dioxide exposure

1.4571

X6CrNiMoTi 17-12-2

1.4439 1.4462

X2CrNiMoN 17-13-5 X2CrNiMoN 22-5-3

1.4529 1.4565 1.4547

constructions with high corrosion exposure by chloride and sulphur dioxide (also in cases of concentration of polluting agents, e. g. elements in seawater and road tunnels)

349

Table 3: Structural elements in indoor swimming-pool atmosphere without regular cleaning domestic water chloride enriched water (e. g. saline water) (Cl¯ ≤ 250 mg/l) 1.4539 (X1NiCrMoCu 25-20-5) 1.4565 (X2CrNiMnMoNbN 23-17-5-3) 1.4529 (X1NiCrMoCuN 25-20-7) 1.4547 (X1CrNiMoCuN 20-18-7)

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. DIN 18516, Teil 1, 'Außenwandbekleidungen, hinterlüftet; Anforderungen, Prüfgrundsätze' (1990) Rehm, G., Lehmann, R. and Nürnberger, U., 'Korrosion der Befestigungselemente bei vorgehängten Fassaden', (FMPA BW, Stuttgart, 1980) Menzel, K., 'Korrosion von Befestigungselementen hinter vorgehängten Fassaden.' VDI-Seminar 'Befestigungstechnik im Ingenieurbau' (Stuttgart, 1987) Wieland, H., 'Korrosion von Befestigern in nicht belüfteten Flachdächern' (SFS Stadler, Heerbrugg/Switzerland, 1992) Nürnberger, U., 'Korrosionsverhalten von Wellplattenbefestigern im Dachbereich.' Bericht 33-19947 (FMPA BW, Stuttgart, 1996) Nürnberger, U., 'Korrosion und Korrosionsschutz im Bauwesen' (Bauverlag, Wiesbaden, 1995) Nürnberger, U., 'Spannungsrißkorrosion an Bauteilen aus nichtrostendem Stahl in Schwimmbadhallen', Stahl und Eisen 110 (1990) 142-148 Haselmair, H. Übleis, H. and Böhni, H. 'Corrosion-resistant materials for fastenings in road tunnels - field test in the Mont Blanc Tunnels' Structural Engineering Internat. (1992) Arlt, N., Busch, H., Grimme, D., Hirschfeld, D., Michel, E., Beck, G. S. and Stellfeld, I., 'Stress corrosion cracking behaviour of stainless steels with respect to their use in architecture', Steel research 64 (1993), part 1: 'Corrosion in active state', 461-465, part 2: 'Corrosion in the passive state', 526-533 Arnold, N., Gümpel, P. and Heitz, T. W. 'Chloride induced corrosion on stainless steels at indoor swimming pools atmospheres. Part 3: Influence of a real indoor swimming pool atmosphere', Materials and Corrosion 50 (1999) 140-145 Informationsstelle Edelstahl Rostfrei, Dokumentation 843, 'Edelstahl Rostfrei in der Verbindungstechnik am Bau' (Düsseldorf, 1999) Mietz J., 'Problemlösungen für Bauteile und Verbindungselemente im Ingenieurbau' in: 'Nichtrostende Stähle in der Bautechnik Korrosionsbeständigkeit als Kriterium für innovative Anwendungen', GfKORRJahrestagung 2000, 69-89 Liersch, K., 'Belüftete Dach- und Wandkonstruktionen' (Bauverlag, Wiesbaden, 1981)

9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

350

14.

15.

16. 17.

Nürnberger, U., 'Korrosion der Baumetalle im Kontakt mit mineralischen Baustoffen' in: ibausil, Tagungsbericht - Band 1 (Bauhaus-Universität, Weimar, 2000) 1019-1027 Nürnberger, U. 'Hochfeste nichtrostende Stähle - Alternative für Zugglieder im Ingenieurbau und Blechschrauben für den Dach- und Wandbereich' in: 'Nichtrostende Stähle in der Bautechnik - Korrosionsbeständigkeit als Kriterium für innovative Anwendungen', GfKORR-Jahrestagung 2000, 91-118 Nürnberger, U., 'Stainless Steel in Concrete', EFC Publications, Number 18 (The Institute of Materials, London, 1996) Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung Z-30.3-6 'Bauteile und Verbindungselemente aus nichtrostenden Stählen' (Berlin, 25.09.1998)

351

FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL ANCHORS IN CONCRETE
Michael Reick Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
With the increasing use of fasteners in the field of civil-engineering the need to estimate the fire resistance of these connections is obvious. Different test procedures for fire tests and no commonly accepted rules to design fasteners for this use show the problems in present. Scientific work to estimate the different failure modes known from tests with ambient temperature has been missing so far. To investigate the fire resistance of fasteners several numerical simulations were performed. Programs have been developed to calculate temperature fields for fasteners in concrete and to calculate stress-strain relationships in concrete slabs in bending and under fire load. Qualified non-linear finite element programs have been extended to calculate concrete cone failure in case of fire. To check the numerical simulations several large scale fire tests with fasteners installed in loaded concrete slabs were done.

1. Introduction
In fire tests from various manufactures for their specific products, mainly steel failure was observed. But the test methods used did not consider the worst circumstances for concrete cone failure and pullout. Therefore theses failure modes had to be examined in detail using scientific methods. Also the influence of the test setup on the steel temperature of the fastener had to be investigated to clear the comparability of the various test results and the obtained differences. The fire resistance of steel anchors in concrete under tensile loading has been an research project at the Institute of Construction Materials for the past 6 years. During this period, a lot of numerical calculations and large scale fire tests have been performed. This article gives a brief introduction in the basic results.

352

The results are documented in detail in different working papers of the Institute of Construction Materials as well as in Reick (2001).

2. Calculation of temperature fields
The temperature field of concrete structures under fire attack is known for special geometric shapes by measurements during fire tests and by numerical simulation. For fasteners under ISO fire load up to 90 minutes no published calculations are known so far. To obtain more than just a few calculations it seemed to be better to develop a special computer program (using the finite difference method) instead of working with a commonly available program. Besides the well known equations of thermodynamic, the special circumstances to obtain ISO fire loading had to be referred in the program code. Also the non-linear thermal properties of concrete had to be implemented. For the temperature field in a concrete body around a metallic fastener, axis symmetry can be used. In a parameter study up to 150 different shapes of fasteners have been calculated. The results showed that the geometry of the metallic parts has a very big influence on the temperature field in the steel and in the surrounding concrete. The steel temperature is of great interest to judge steel failure and the concrete temperature influences the concrete cone capacity. For the steel temperature a comparison for a bolt diameter of 4 mm and 20 mm shows the influence very clear. Using an embedment depth of 50 mm, a steel length subjected to fire of 30 mm and comparing in a distance of 21 mm from the concrete surface, the calculated temperatures after 30 (90) minutes are 4 mm diameter: 764 °C (981 °C) 20 mm diameter: 618 °C (923 °C). Figure 2.1 shows the decrease of steel temperature for the above mentioned conditions from 4 to 20 mm steel diameter. Comparing the reduced tensile strength of steel at these temperatures, remaining relative tensile capacity of the steel bars compared to ambient temperature are 4 mm diameter: 15 % (4,4 %) 20 mm diameter: 43 % (5,5 %)

353

temperatur [°C]
1000 981 °C 908 °C 900 60 min. 824 °C 800 763 °C 30 min.

21 mm below concrete surface
923 °C

fire duration
90 min.

700

618 °C 600

500 0 4 8 12 16 20 24

diameter of fastener [mm]

Figure 2.1: Influence of diameter of fastener on steel temperature 21 mm below the concrete surface (most relevant location for steel failure)

These calculations show that the steel geometry has a dominant influence (especially for short duration of fire attack) on the remaining tensile capacity of the metallic fasteners.

3. Calculation of concrete cone failure under fire load
Having calculated the temperature field around a fastener, the concrete cone capacity of the heated concrete body was calculated using the nonlinear finite element program MASA (Ozbolt 1998 and 1999). To simulate the fire load it was necessary to extend the program with several subroutines. First it was necessary to calculate the concrete temperature. This must be a function of (a) distance form the heated surface, (b) distance from the fasteners symmetry axis and (c) embedment depth of the fastener. With this subroutine the results form chapter 2 are considered. Second some subroutines were programmed to calculate the concrete properties as a function of temperature. Figure 3.1 shows the calculated relative concrete cone capacities as a function of the embedment depth. The results of a calculation from the author in 1995 using a former version of the program MASA are shown as well.

354

relative concrete cone capacity [%]

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 embedment depth [mm] 150 200

Microplane (1995) MASA (1999)

Figure 3.1: Calculated relative concrete cone capacity as a function of embedment depth (after 90 min. ISO fire)

4. Stress and Strain in a concrete slab in fire
During a fire the temperature in a concrete slab increases non linear. The concrete fibres next to the heated surface try to expand according to the free thermal strain and develop compressive stress on the heated side of the slab. Figure 4.1 shows in a qualitative manner the strain and stress distribution over the height of a loaded concrete slab in fire. Using the equations and material properties from EC 2 part 1-2 (DIN V ENV 1992-1-2) a program was developed to calculate the stress and strain distribution for numerous cases. The results of a parameter study are illustrated in Reick 2001. A variation of the height and the steel ratio in the cross section of the concrete slab has been calculated. This showed that at 90 % of the design bending moment according to EC 2 for a slab height of 20 cm and a steel ration of 15 cm2/m a tensile strain of 10 O/OO at a distance of 55 mm from the heated surface must be expected.

355

pos. strain

neg. strain

compression tensile stress stress

Figure 4.1: Strain and stress distribution in a loaded concrete slab with a fire loading from the lower side

This result is rather serious because internal cracks in the embedment zone of fasteners can have severe influence on the pullout capacity of anchors.

5. Fire tests
In the research project an overall of 11 large scale fire tests with concrete slabs loaded with 70 to 90 % of the design bending moment according to Eurocode 2 were done. In these tests 56 fasteners have been tested in fire and additional 24 fasteners have been installed to measure steel temperatures. The test results are presented in detail in Reick 2001. In these large scale fire tests it has been shown, that concrete cone and pullout failure can be achieved under special circumstances. These failure modes should be considered for the development of an overall testing procedure for fire resistance of fasteners. Pullout failure was observed when the deflection of the concrete slab was increasing faster shortly before failure of the concrete slab. Fasteners with less capacity to react to opening cracks show pullout up to 10 mm for embedment depths of 50 mm. This is an important result also for fastening groups. The concrete cone failure loads at 90 minutes fire for an embedment depth of 40 mm showed relative values of more than 40 % compared to ambient temperature. This is better than the calculated results according to chapter 3. Only a fastener group using four anchors (embedment depth of 50 mm) showed less than 30 % relative capacity at only 75 minutes in fire.

356

The temperature measurements have been made to check the calculations according to chapter 2. These measurements demonstrated how much the steel parts used for loading the fasteners influence the temperature in the anchor. This seems very reasonable and corresponds to the knowledge about the profile factor in steel construction for fire resistance. In some cases a big influence of water from the concrete appearing at cracks in the concrete slab could be observed.

6. Summary
In this short article only some important results from a 6 years research program are presented. The main conclusions for the different failure modes can be summarised as follow: Steel failure: It is the most important failure mode and the test results from companies can be used to estimate steel failure loads for new fasteners only very conservative. According to numerous calculations about temperature fields and measurements of temperatures during fire tests the geometry of fastener and anchor plate as well as the test setup have a major influence on the steel temperature. Concrete cone failure: Test results and finite element calculations are achieved showing that this failure mode can be important for anchors with a small embedment depth and for anchor groups. Regarding these theoretical and experimental results rules to design and test anchors for fire resistance are presented in Reick 2001.

7. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the following companies: Fischerwerke, Hilti and Würth. The support is very much appreciated.

8. References
1. 2. 3. 4. Reick, Michael (2001): Brandverhalten von Befestigungen in Beton bei zentrischer Zugebeanspruchung, Dissertation in Vorbereitung, 2001. Ozbolt, Josko (1998): MASA – Macroscopic Space Analysis. Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Stuttgart, 1998. Ozbolt, Josko (1999): Nonlocal fracture analysis – stress relaxation method. Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Stuttgart, 1999. DIN V ENV 1992-1-2: Eurocode 2 Planung von Stahlbeton- und Spannbetontragwerken, Teil 1-2 Allgemeine Regeln – Tragwerksbemessung für den Brandfall, Vornorm, 1997.

357

ANCHORING WITH BONDED FASTENERS
Ronald A. Cook and Robert C. Konz Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, USA

Abstract
Bonded fasteners have been used extensively during the past twenty years. In most cases, the estimated strength of these anchors has been determined from information provided in manufacturers literature and has not been based on rational design models. During the past several years, research in the US, Europe, and Japan has led to a better understanding of the behavior of bonded fasteners. The results of this research has led to the development of rational design models for determining strength and to proposed product approval test procedures that can be used to ensure that bonded anchor products will perform as intended by the designer. This paper presents an overview of the stateof-the-art in bonded fasteners. Basic bonded fastener behavior, design models, and factors influencing bond strength are discussed.

1. Introduction
Bonded fasteners can be divided into two distinct areas: adhesive bonded fasteners and grouted fasteners. An adhesive fastener is a reinforcing bar or threaded rod inserted into a drilled hole in hardened concrete with a structural adhesive acting as a bonding agent between the concrete and the steel. Typically, the hole diameter is only about 10 to 25% larger than the diameter of the reinforcing bar or threaded rod. Structural adhesives for this type of anchor are available prepackaged in glass capsules or foil packets, in dualcartridge injection systems, or as two-component systems requiring user proportioning. A grouted fastener may be a headed bolt, threaded rod with or without a nut at the embedded end, or deformed reinforcing bar with or without end anchorage installed in a pre-formed or drilled hole with a cementitious or filled polymer based grout. Grouted fasteners are typically installed in holes at least one and one-half times the diameter of the fastener. Figure 1 shows typical adhesive and grouted fasteners.

361

hef

Adhesive

Un-headed Grouted

Headed Grouted

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of adhesive and grouted fasteners

2. Bonded Fastener Systems
Figure 2 shows the general types of bonded fastener systems available. Adhesive and grouted fastener systems are typically composed of organic polymers or inorganic cementitious materials. In some cases, hybrid systems utilizing both organic and inorganic materials are available. The primary difference between the adhesive and grouted systems is the introduction of a filler material (e.g., fine sand) into the bond mixture.
Bonded Fasteners

Adhesive Fasteners

Grouted Fasteners

Capsule & Foil Type

Injection Type

Manually Mixed Inorganic Compounds

Organic Compounds

Organic Compounds

Inorganic Compounds

Organic Compounds

Epoxy Polyester Vinylester

Epoxy Polyester Vinylester

Cementitious others

Epoxy Polyester others

Cementitious others

Figure 2. Types of bonded fastener systems

362

3. Behavior of Bonded Fasteners
Tests of adhesive fasteners have shown failure modes as indicated in Figure 3. For shallow embedments, the failure mode appears to be the same as that of headed cast-inplace and mechanical fasteners. For deeper installations (the type typically used in practice), embedment failure results in a shallow concrete cone with a bond failure below the shallow cone. Given the thin bond line between the fastener and the concrete, it is very difficult to determine which of the three center failure modes shown in Figure 3 actually occurred. For very deep embedments, steel failure will occur as shown on the far right of Figure 3.

concrete cone

adh./conc. interface

steel/adh. interface

adh./conc. and steel/adh. interface

steel

Figure 3. Failure modes of adhesive bonded fasteners Un-headed grouted fasteners typically fail at the grout/steel interface. The left diagram in Figure 4 shows the typical failure mode of un-headed grouted fasteners (i.e., a shallow cone with a bond failure at the grout/steel interface). Headed grouted fasteners eliminate the possibility of bond failure at the grout/steel interface due to the anchor head and force the bond failure to the grout/concrete bond line (with a shallow cone) for low bond strength grouts or result in a full concrete cone failure for high bond strength grouts (as shown in the right diagram of Figure 4. Test reports on the behavior of adhesive fasteners have been collected in Europe, in the USA and in Japan. From 38 reports, a database containing the results of 2929 tests has been established. The database contains tensile and shear load testing in uncracked and cracked concrete with single fasteners, groups of two fasteners and groups of four fasteners. The database contains tests carried out with threaded rods, insert sleeves and rebars. Finally, the database contains tests with epoxies, vinyl esters, unsaturated polyesters, hybrid adhesives and inorganic adhesives. A database for grouted fasteners is also being developed. Currently there are over 400 single grouted fasteners tests available using both polymer and cementitious grouts. Both the adhesive anchor

363

database and grouted fastener database are being maintained for ACI 355 by Ronald A. Cook, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611.

Un-headed Bond Failure

Headed Bond Failure

Headed Cone Failure

Figure 4. Failure modes of unheaded and headed grouted fasteners (excluding steel failure)

4. Design of Bonded Fasteners
Several design models have been presented for adhesive fasteners over the last several years These are summarized in Cook et al (1998)1 and Kunz et al (1998)2. A wide variation of possible models for single fastener strength were evaluated in Cook et al (1998)1. These models included: • • • • • Concrete cone models Bond models Bond models neglecting the shallow concrete cone Combined concrete cone models and bond models Bond models considering bond failure at two interfaces

The results of the Cook et al (1998)1 paper indicate that a simple model based on a uniform bond stress fits the test data from the international database best. The expression for determining the mean strength of single fasteners in tension is given by Eqn. 1.
N bond = τ π d he

(1)

Terms in Eqn. 1 and other equations are given in the “Notation” section at the end of the paper.

364

Although each individual product has a unique mean bond stress (τ), it is possible to normalize all products to a unique bond stress value. Figure 5 shows a comparison of Eqn. 1 with 888 single anchor tests of products in the international data base normalized to 10 MPa. Figure 5 also shows a comparison of a nominal strength of 0.67 of the mean strength compared to the test data. Note that the final design strength will also include an appropriate capacity reduction factor, φ.

700

600

500 Uniform Bond Model (mean)

Load (kN)

400

300

200 5% fractile, V=0.20 (0.67 mean) 100

0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
2

50000

60000

70000

Bond Area (mm )

Figure 5. Comparison of measured loads with the uniform bond model As an additional verification of the uniform bond stress model, non-linear computer analyses were performed (McVay, et al 1996)3. A typical result is shown in Figure 6. As shown by Figure 6, as the load increases (curves moving from left to right) the bond stress distribution changes from what might be expected in elastic analysis to a nearly uniform bond distribution at failure. Both the database and the non-linear finite element analysis indicate that a uniform bond stress model is appropriate for adhesive fasteners.

365

0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 0 4 8 12 16 20

Bond Stress (MPa)

Figure 6. Bond stress distribution versus normalized depth with increasing load The strength of grouted fasteners depends on whether or not the fastener is headed. Detailed test results and design recommendations for grouted fasteners are presented in another paper in these symposium proceedings. The information provided here is only intended to provide a brief summary of the results presented in that paper. For unheaded fasteners, bond failure typically occurs at the grout/steel interface and Eqn. 1 provides the basis for determining the mean strength of the fastening. For headed grouted fasteners, two failure modes are possible. For low bond strength grouts, bond failure at the grout/concrete interface may occur. Tests have shown that this failure mode can best be represented by a uniform bond stress model calculated using the grout/concrete bond strength of the product (τ0) applied to the bonded area at the grout/concrete interface. This is given by Eqn. 2:
N bond ,d 0 = τ 0 π d 0 he

(2)

For higher bond strength grouts, a full concrete breakout failure occurs and the mean concrete breakout strength developed by Fuchs et al (1995)4 is appropriate. This is given by Eqn. 3:
N cone = 16.7
1 f c he .5

(3)

The predicted mean strength of a headed bonded fastener is determined by the lower value of Eqn. 2 and Eqn. 3. Although grout/concrete bond failure is typically not observed in tests of unheaded fasteners using engineered grouts, it may be prudent to base the strength of these

366

fasteners on the smaller of the bond strength determined at the grout/steel interface (Eqn. 1) and the bond strength determined at the grout/concrete interface (Eqn. 2). Eqns 1-3 provide predictions for the mean strength of bonded fasteners. For design purposes, these strengths must be reduced. For Load and Resistance Factor Design, the determination of design strength from behavioral models which represent mean strengths is typically based on establishing a nominal strength (some lower bound fractile of the mean strength) and then applying a capacity reduction factor (φ) to limit the probability of failure. In current US and European design standards, the nominal strength is commonly taken as the lower 5% fractile of the test data. The 5% fractile represents the value where it would be expected that 95% of the tests performed would exceed the specified nominal strength. The determination of the 5% fractile depends on the number of tests available and the scatter of the test results. The scatter of the test results is typically expressed as the coefficient of variation (V) which is defined as the standard deviation of the test results divided by the mean. This leads to the following for nominal bond strengths:

τ ' = τ (1 - α V)
' τ 0 = τ 0 (1 - α V)

(4) (5)

The selection of the α factor depends on the number of tests available. The selection of an appropriate capacity reduction factor (φ) for bond can be based on detailed studies of probability of failure and/or on what φ factors are used for similar failure modes in existing building codes. Bond failure can be compared to shear-friction since it involves slip along an interface. In ACI 318, the φ factor for shear-friction and shear is 0.85. A capacity reduction factor (φ) for bond of 0.85 is recommended for designs controlled by bond failure. Various behavioral models for both edge effects and group effects for bonded fasteners are being studied in both the US and Europe. Proposals for modification factors for edge effects and group effects for bonded fasteners are presented in other papers in these symposium proceedings.

5. Factors Influencing the Strength of Bonded Fasteners
The evaluation of both the mean bond stress (τ and τ0 ) and design bond stress (τ’ and τ’0) must be based on product approval tests that include the effects of installation and in-service conditions. As noted in Cook et al (2001)5, there are significant differences

367

between adhesive products. Basic tests for mean bond stress in clean, dry holes at room temperature indicate that the mean bond stress can range from 2 MPa to 20 MPa for adhesives and 7 MPa to 21 MPa for grouts as shown for 20 adhesives and 9 grouts in Figure 7. The coefficient of variation for these tests can vary between 0.05 and 0.25. In many cases, products that exhibit high bond stress in clean, dry holes at room temperature are inadequate under typical installation and in-service conditions such as damp holes and elevated temperatures. It is mandatory that designers require product testing for expected in-service and installation conditions prior to the final design.

Average Uniform Bond Stress, [MPa]

25

Adhesive τ mean = 12.7 MPa
19.6 18.2

Grouted τ mean = 17.9 MPa
21.0 20.0 20.3 20.9 19.8 8

16.1

15.9

17.1

17.7

15.6

15.3

12.4

11.4

12.3

15

13.9

11.2

10 5.5

10.0

11.2

11.4

14.5

3.1

5

0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

Product

Figure 7. Bond stress variation for adhesive and grout products The following provides examples of the factors influencing bond strength that need to be considered for product approval tests of bonded fastener products: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Concrete mix (equal concrete strength does not ensure equal results) Temperature effects Damp hole Improperly cleaned hole Curing time Freeze-thaw effects Installation direction (vertical down, horizontal, overhead) Creep (normal and elevated temperatures) Mix proportioning (primarily manually-mixed products) Fire resistance Wet (submerged) hole Maximum torque Repeated load

368

2.3

7.3

15.9

17.8

17.8

• • • •

Seismic load Environmental effects (chemicals) Cracked concrete (static cracks and moving cracks) Other possible tests: • Age of concrete • Oil presence (compressed air cleanout of holes) • Capsules driven rather than drilled • Hammer installed capsules installed upside-down • Hole size • Hole drilling • Radiation

As can be observed from the above list, a product approval standard for bonded fasteners must be quite comprehensive to ensure reliable performance of products.

6. Status of Design and Product Approval Standards
Design models for bonded fasteners are currently being finalized in the United States and Europe. Many of these design recommendations are presented in the symposium proceedings. Product approval standards are also underway with the European Organization for Technical Approvals leading the way with Part Five of the ETAG No 001 standard. In the United States, the American Society for Testing and Materials Committee E06.13 is currently developing draft product approval standards.

Notation:
d d0 fc he Nbond Nbond,d0 V α = = = = = = = = = = = = = outside diameter of fastener [mm] drilled hole diameter of fastener [mm] concrete strength, measured on 150 by 300 mm cylinders [MPa] embedment depth [mm] mean strength of the fastener as controlled by bond strength mean strength of the fastener as controlled by grout/concrete bond strength coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) a statistically determined coefficient based on the tolerance limit and confidence to be used for design capacity reduction factor (0.85 is recommended for bond failure) mean uniform bond stress for adhesive fasteners (MPa) mean uniform bond stress for headed bonded fasteners (MPa) nominal uniform bond stress (MPa) at the fastener/adhesive interface nominal uniform bond stress (MPa) at the grout/concrete interface

φ τ τ0 τ‘ τ 0‘

369

References:
1. Cook, R. A., Kunz, J., Fuchs, W., and Konz, R., “Behavior and Design of Single Adhesive Anchors Under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, ACI, V. 95, No. 1, January-February 1998, pp. 9-26. Kunz, J., Cook, R. A., Fuchs, W. and Spieth, H, “Tragverhalten und Bemessung von chemischen Befestigungen (Load Bearing Behavior and Design of Adhesive Anchors),” Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 93 (1998), H.1, S. 15-19, H. 2, S. 44-49. McVay, M., Cook, R. A., and Krishnamurthy, K., "Behavior of Chemically Bonded Anchors," Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 119, No. 9, September, 1993, pp. 2744-2762. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., Breen, J. E., "Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete," ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, V. 92, No. 1, January-February 1995, pp. 73-94. Cook, R. A., and Konz, R., “Factors Influencing the Bond Strength of Adhesive Anchors,” ACI Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, V. 98, No. 1, January-February 2001, pp. 76-86.

2.

3.

4.

5.

370

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF BONDED ANCHORS IN THE LOW STRENGTH REINFORCED CONCRETE
Tomoaki Akiyama*, Yasutoshi Yamamoto**, Shigekatsu Ichihashi*** and Taichi Katagiri**** *Building Research & Engineering Department, Tokyo Soil Research. Co., Ltd., Japan **Dept. of Architecture, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Japan ***Dept. of Architecture Nippon Institute of Technology, Japan ****Zen Design Office, Japan

Abstract
With existing RC buildings, in extreme cases, compressive strength is even less than 1/3 of design characteristic. No useful documents showing range of shear/pull-out loads for post-install anchors are available when anchoring at connections between new and existing concrete to retrofit such the buildings. From this background, planned research about anchoring with the object of seismic retrofit for low strength concrete buildings. Defined, as low strength concrete is one whose compressive strength is 13.5MPa or less as per seismic diagnosis guideline. Used, as test parameters are compressive strength, anchor rod diameter/embedment, and edge distance. Tested group shear and single shear/pull-out. Also, from tests this time, shear and pull-out strength equations of post-install bonded anchors used for low strength concrete were proposed. These equations, on seismic reinforcement of low strength concrete buildings, concerning design of post-install bonded anchors, useful equations were proposed.

1. Introduction
With existing RC buildings, compressive strength is even less than 1/3 of standards one. No useful documents for behaviors in concrete blocks and post-install anchors on shear/pull-out force have been available when anchoring at connections between new and existing concrete to retrofit such the buildings. From this background, planned research about anchoring with the object of seismic retrofit for low strength concrete buildings. Defined, as low strength concrete is one whose compressive strength is 13.5MPa or less as per seismic diagnosis guideline. Used as test parameters are compressive strength, anchor rod diameter/embedment, and edge distance. There were tests for group shear and single shear/pull-out. Also, from tests, at this time, shear and pull-out strength formulas of post-install bonded anchors used for low strength concrete were proposed. These formulas, on seismic reinforcement of low strength concrete buildings, concerning design of post-install bonded anchors, useful formulas were

371

proposed and retrofit design guideline’s formulas and test values were compared. 2. Outline of the tests (1) Concept for tests The testing plans were made to reflect the results from tests into the actual design as soon as possible with considering the present situation that the quick working for the reinforcement on buildings to resist against earthquakes would be needed. Especially, bonded post-install anchors were taken into consideration as the method of construction to resist against earthquakes with the steel frames and many embedded anchors. (2) Kinds of tests and summary for tests (a) Shear tests on the group anchor The part of connections between new and existing concrete to retrofit was made to tests relationship with strength and displacement and investigate the behaviors at cracks in the brace with steel frames. (b) Shear/pull-out tests on the single anchor Single anchor shear/pull-out tests were performed to investigate basic behaviors between strength and displacement and crack ones. The number of concrete blocks on which the anchor was embedded, were saved with tests at both sides. (3) Parameters were decided as followings. (a) Compressive strength in the concrete blocks: Ordinary concrete, 5.0MPa, 10.0MPa and 15.0MPa. (b) Post-install anchors: D16, D19 and D22. (D means “deformed rods”) (c) Edge distances: Distance(c) is equal to 200mm in shear force tests, and 300mm in pull-out tests. It was the standard types and distance(c) is equal to 100mm in all eccentric types. Two types for effective embedded length of anchors: 7da and 10da (da; anchor diameter). However, there was one kind of 7da for group shear test. (4) Configurations of specimens (a) Shear test with group anchors The standard specimen with edge distance as 200mm, and the eccentric specimen with edge distance as 100mm are showed in Fig. 1. There were 15 specimens as all cases in Table 1. There was one additional specimen for each concrete strength that had strain gauges to investigate behaviors in the anchor at the center of the concrete blocks and in the concrete around this anchor. (b) Shear test with a single anchor The detail bar arrangement is showed in Fig.2. There were 108 specimens for all in Table 2. (c) Pull-out test with a single anchor The bar arrangement is the same for the case of shear test.

372

Steal Flame Mortar

Table1 All case of Group Anchors Specimens
C o n crete Q u a liti e s A n ch o r D i a m e te r (m m ) D19 5 D22 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 D19 Fc 10 D22 D19 Fc 15 S ta n d a r d 2 E c c e n tric 1 3 E d g e D is ta n c e T o ta l

Fc

Skeleton Concrete

a)Side Section

b)Standard

c) Eccentric

Fig.1 Group Shear Test Specimens

Table2 All case of Single Anchor Specimens
NCV Q6

b) Side elevation

c) Section 
&

3. Equipment for loading and method of measurement 3.1 The case for test on group anchors with shear force The equipment for loading is showed in Fig.3. It was the real object to apply the horizontal force only along the surface between the concrete block and the filler mortar with a steel member. However, self-loading from equipments about 0.1MPa was also applied as lateral force. Without this influence, shear force (Q) and displacement ( ) in the horizontal direction were measured. Displacement ( ) would be measured able to separate into the slip displacement ( SM) at the boundary part on the steel member and the filler mortar, and the slip one( MC) among the filler mortar and the concrete block. The five cyclic loadings were basically applied. 3.2 Test on the single anchor with shear force We developed the special equipment with an oil jack showed in Fig.4 to apply the shear

373            

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F  

& 

& 

E (

However, difference between shear tests is the embedded positions. The number of specimens is 108 same as shear test cases in Table 2.      

+F 

Fig.2 Single Shear&Pull-out Test Specimens                   

+F 

a) Floor Plan  

cirtneccE dradnatS dedebmE retemaiD seitilauQ ecnatsiD egdE evitceffE rohcnA etercnoC      

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F 

+F  

& 

& 

& 

& 

& 

&  

E (

'

(M

a)

D22

E(

e c af r u S t uo-ll u P

ec afr u S rae h S

Fig.3 Apparatus for Group Shear Test

Tension Rod Test Anchor

Load Cell

Skeleton Concrete

Shear Block Test Anchor Support

Teflon

Displacement Meter

Skeleton Concrete

Fig.4 Apparatus for Single Shear Test

Fig.5 Apparatus for Single Pull-out Test

3.3 Test on single anchor with pull-out force The loading equipment showed in Fig.5 was used in this test. The monotonic pull-out loading was applied for an anchor. It would be possible to give influence for the measured strength in the case of the corn type failure with interference between the each failure, as anchors put in nearly every 300mm. By this reason, tests were performed at first time for the left anchor, and next for the right anchor. Lastly, the center anchor was applied with pull-out force. Please reference the diagram in Fig.8. The quantity of the relative displacement ( ) by pull-out force between the concrete block and the anchor was measured.

4. Materials
4.1 Concrete (1) Mixing plan for the low strength concrete Three types of specimens were made as 5MPa, 10MPa, and 15MPa for the compressive strength after 4 weeks from making them such as standard curing. Specimens with lower strength were made by reduction of quantity of cement with keeping the same quantity of water. As water-cement ratio for the lower strength concrete are larger, rock

374

M EC , E KN WCT F[* * %N NG % F CQ.

' 

*%    2&% TG VG / V PGOG E CN RU K& 

*%    2&% TG VG / V PGOG E CN RU K& 

*%   2& % TGV G/ VP GOG ECN RU K&

T GN NQ4 N GT TC$

nemicepS 

   F C QN F C QN    * %  2&% TG VG / V PGO GE CNR UK& * % N NG % F CQ.

kcaJ ciluardyH 

force in the exact direction coincided with the edge line of the concrete block. The value of loading was measured with the load cell. The relative horizontal displacement between concrete block and an anchor was measured at each loading steps. The loading was performed as monotonic load in each step.

powder was installed instead of cement. Ratio of water/(cement + rock powder) was keeping as the same value (=0.66). As the results, slump values were almost same such as about 18cm for every strength concrete. Specimens were made of ready mixed concrete. (2) Test results Compressive strength on the three types of concrete were curing standard and sealed. Test results are showed in Table 3. Compressive strengths of concrete in sealed curing were used in the analysis for shear test and pull-out test.
Table3 Test Results of Concrete with Age

Table4 Test Results of Rebars

4.2 Filling mortar without contraction Pre-Mix type mortar without contraction was used to fill another parts of specimens. Compressive strength from test results are showed in Table 3. 4.3 Steel bars and anchors Material characteristics for the steel bars and anchors are showed in Table 4. All steel bars were standardized steel at the Japanese Industrial Standard G 3112 and SD345, without steel bars for the wire net (D6). 5. Results from test 5.1 Shear test on the group of anchors Relation between shear force (Q) and displacement ( ), and crack diagram in the concrete block on two standard specimens, QG-C05-19S and QG-C15-19S are showed in Fig.6. There is not much difference in two specimens, though maximum strength (Qmax) is larger with the compressive strength. The number of cracks at the concrete blocks decreased in the concrete block with stronger compressive strength. However, the number of crack at filler mortar increased in the model of the concrete block with the stronger compressive strength. With comparing two specimens by putting anchors in the eccentric lines, QG-C05-19E and QG-C15-19E, loading values increased on according to the larger displacements. The number of cracks in the concrete blocks increased in the eccentric models. There were many cracks on the surface of the

375

* *
* *

*

concrete block in C05 model with lower concrete strength, as many cracks on the filler mortar in the C15 model were able to see, by the reason that loading values were larger than C05 model. 5.2 Shear test on a single anchor

Relation between shear force (Q) and displacement ( ), and crack diagram in the concrete block on two standard a) QG7-C5-19E b) QG7-C15-19E specimens, Q7-C05-19S and Fig.6 Q- Curve & Clacks of Group Shear Test QG-C15-19S are showed in Fig.7. Initial stiffness for both specimens with different compressive strength were almost same in the Qcurve, as there was the polyethylene sheet under the block for working shear force. Loading values were increased with accord to increase on the displacement. The maximum shear strength (Qmax) in the C15 model was about twice as much as the value in C05. The number of crack decreased in accordance with higher compressive strength in the concrete block. However, the zone with the compression failure in the concrete block was enlarged with the higher compressive strength. The maximum shear strength (Qmax) was larger in the concrete block with the higher compressive strength from the results in the cases of eccentric anchors. There were not influences with the difference between initial stiffness. The slip displacement in the case of eccentric model was small with compare to the case of central anchor model and, also there were not toughness in the lower concrete and the maximum shear strength (Qmax) was also small. There was a a) Q7-C05-19E tendency that failure in the edge distance was severe on the concrete blocks with low compressive strength.
b) Q7-C15-19E

Fig.7 Q-

Curve & Clacks of Single Shear Test

5.3 Pull-out test with a single anchor Relation between pull-out forces (T) and displacements ( ) with those force and the diagrams for cracks are showed at the cases of T7-C05-19S and T7-C15-19S that had the distances from edges to the center of anchors as 300mm in Fig.8. There was not much difference at the initial stiffness for the compressive strength. However, the maximum pulled-out force in the concrete block with the larger compressive strength was about twice as high as the other pulled-out force. There is better capacity to correspondence to large displacement for concrete blocks with the higher compressive strength than the lower one; there is much difference for the ability to absorb the total

*

*

*

*

*

*
* * * * * * * *

*

*
) )

376

a) T7-C5-19E

energy between them. The cracks are spread out in the entire concrete block with the lower compressive strength. It is clear that there are much influences with the compressive strength. There were same behaviors in the case of eccentric models with embedded anchors a part from the edge of concrete block as 100mm (C).

However, there was much influence with edge distance even in the larger Fig.8 P- Curve & Clacks of Single Pull-out Test compressive strength model. Cracks concentrated on the surface of the concrete block in spite of the compressive strength.
b) T7-C15-19E

6. Investigation for experimental results

With the results from serial of tests, we propose the formulas for shear strength and also pull-out strength on the post-install bonded anchors in the concrete block with low compressive strength. In this paper, our proposed formulas were induced by using the values in the case of only one kind failure mode that means the mode with failure of concrete, as the compressive strength of concrete ( B) would be smaller than equal to 15MPa. There were the cases that the anchors had been yielded before concrete blocks had been crashed in cases of D16 or D19 were used. In these formulas, there were not considerations about those, as those problems would be exceptions. This is the difference between the old and new formulas.
6.1 Induction of the formula for shear strength The relations between the compressive strength of the concrete ( B) and the unit shear strength of the group anchor testing ( mg) and a single anchor testing ( ms) from the testing results are showed in Fig.9.a. mg > ms are understood if the same B was used in the concrete block. The difference in the results between the group anchor testing and a single anchor testing would be hypothesized by the fact that though there are large resistance on the boundary among the concrete block and filler mortars, there are not resistance between the equipment to perform the shear force and the concrete block with the polyethylene. With considering the tensile yielding strength y of SD345 used as anchors, formulas for group anchor testing and a single anchor testing were induced without falling down the experimental data by the bearing strength line paralleled to two regression lines as showed in Fig.9a. Group anchor testing : mg = {0.602 + 0.019 B} y ------(1) Single anchor testing : ms = {0.205 + 0.036 B} y ------(2)

* *

* *
377

* *

* *

* *

* *

It is remarks : mg, ms y y : tensile yielding strength Factors ( 1) was evaluated by using the results in Fig.9 b and by the hypothesis that the bearing shear strength was fallen down like a line with thickening the diameter of anchors as followings. 1 = 0.84 – 0.05(da-22) ------(3) It is the fact that the bearing shear strength would be generally larger with big edge distance. However, influence with edge distance (C) would be smaller with needing 100mm at edge distance (C) in Fig.9c. By these reasons, Factors ( 2) was decided as followings. 0.15 ------(4) 2 = 0.85(C/100) However, 2 is smaller than equal to 1.0. Unit of C is “mm”. 3 is evaluated as standard value “1.0” at 7da as putting length (le), and “1.15” at a) b) - mg & ms Relationship 10da by inspecting the B- mg & ms Relationship diagram in Fig.9d. By considering these parameters, shear strength (QA) is evaluated as followings.
c) Cmg & ms

Relationship

b) le-

Fig.9 Influence of Parameter

Aa ------(5) 1 2 3 ms Aa ------(6) Aa: Section area for anchors Those formulas were evaluated by only using maximum bearing shear strength without considering the displacements. It is necessary to take the caution that the result (QA) would be dangerous side, when D22 and compressive strength ( B) in the concrete block is smaller than and equal to 10MPa.
1 2 3 mg

For the group anchors : QA = For a single anchor : QA =

6.2 Strength for pull-out force on a single anchor Similarly, some formulas were evaluated with results by pull-out test for a single anchor .The basic raw formula was evaluated with the low limit from a regression line in Fig.10a by the results for the standard specimens as followings. t =10.0 B+63.7-------(7) Factors ( 1) was evaluated by the regression lines in Fig.10b. Factors ( 1) are 1.16 for D16, 1.00 for D19, and 0.94 for D22. Factors ( 2) was decided with the result in Fig.11a as followings.

*

*

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

* *

mg & ms

Relationship

378

a)

B-

t

Relationship (All Specimens)

Fig.10 Influence of

t

b) &

-

t

Relationship

= 0.85(C/100)0.15 -----(8) 3 is evaluated as standard value “1.0” at 7da as embedded length (le), and “1.15” at 10da by inspecting the diagram in Fig.11b. Lastly, the maximum bearing pulling-out strength
2

a) C-

t

Relationship

b) le-

t Relationship

Fig.11 Influence of C & le

7. Comparison every bearing strength with the testing results
7.1 Relation between the proposed formulas and the test results The basic formulas for shear strength, and for pull-out strength, formulas for them with amendment by the influence factors, and the results from the test are showed together from Fig.12a to Fig.12c. The tensile yielded strength for anchors were hypothesized as 350MPa (correspond to SD345) to evaluate the bearing strength for the shear and pull-out strength. And also, the standard strength for design of concrete was used as B, and Young’s Modulus for concrete was showed as followings. : Weight of concrete per unit value Ec = 2.1 104 ( /2.3)1.5 ( B/20)
* * * *

a) Shearing stress of Group Shear Test

b) Shearing stress of Single Shear Test

c) Pulling-out stress of Group Shear Test

Fig.12 Comparison of Design - Results

7.2 Investigation for calculated data and test results All test results are larger than calculated results in Fig.12a. It would be reason that large strengths on the tests were influenced with the values of y on anchors. These values were from 375 377 MPa. The test strengths were bigger than calculated data by about 1.07(375/350). However, as mg that concrete strengths were smaller, reserved power was small. It will be necessary to check it carefully. ms , that means shear stress for a

379

* *

* *

* * * *

* * * * * **

*

+

* *

* * * *

b

*

*
* *

(TA) is expressed as followings. TA= 1 2 3 t Aa-(9) t : Tensile yielding stress for anchors Aa: Section area for anchors

single anchor, is coincided the test results almost in Fig 12b. It is clear there are no reserved power scarcely among calculated data and test results. In checking data in Fig.12c, pull-out strength with calculation is almost proportional to the testing results. There are some lower calculated values than the testing results. It is the case the lower compressive strength of concrete (5MPa) was used by anchors with D22. It is necessary to take care for using calculated values. 7.3 Treatment for safety faction It is important to evaluate the safety factor for the proposal formulas in order to work effectively for the actual design. It would be real to decrease the proposed formulas with taking about 1.33 for safety factor, though calculated formulas would be safer than testing values. There is basically reserved strength at the yielding stress in anchor with comparing to design values for this reason. It would be a idea to multiply bearing shear strength mg by 0.8 still more in the case that slope by relative member displacement would be limited as 1/250.

8. Conclusion
There was sufficient bearing strength for the cases of the putting anchors in the low strength concrete block, when the results from testing were corresponding with the design formulas in the guideline recommended by the agency. However, proposed formulas were issued with considering many parameters in the concrete blocks that anchors were put in, by referencing to the ACI318. There were narrow variations in the formulas for strength with considering diameter of anchors, embedded length, and the edge distance. In the case of the lower concrete strength, B 15MPa, applicability on the proposed formulas is better than the formulas used to now. The better results were gotten. It is urgent to reinforce the concrete building with low strength. There would be many cases that bonded post-install anchors would be used to reinforce these buildings. It is one main object to investigate definitely the efficient values to design. From now, still the meaningful study must be performed with the simulation by using Finite Element Method.

9. Reference
1. 2. 3. 4. JBDPA / Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, ‘Guideline for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings’, 1990, 62 JBDPA / Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, ‘Guideline for Seismic Retrofitting Design of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings’, 1990, 198 Ronald. A. Cook, Bonded Anchors in the US, ‘Testing of Bonded Anchors’, SCFT Workshop, Shaan, Principality of Liechtenstein, 1999 YAMAMOTO.Y. et al, ‘Load Carrying Capacity of Bonded Anchor at Low Strength Concrete Members’, Proceedings of Japan Concrete Institute vol.22, No.1, 2000, 553-558

380

BEHAVIOR OF GROUTED ANCHORS
Ronald A. Cook, Noel A. Zamora, and Robert C. Konz Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, USA

Abstract
An experimental research program was undertaken at the University of Florida with funding from the Concrete Research Council and various grout manufacturers to determine the behavior of grouted anchors and to develop rational design procedures for grouted anchor installations. For purposes of this research, a grouted anchor was defined as an anchor (headed or un-headed) installed into a hole in hardened concrete with a structural grout (cementitious or polymer). Grouted anchors typically have hole diameters that range from 150-300% larger than the anchor diameter. This is different from adhesive anchors, which typically use a polymer material with an unheaded anchor installed in a hole diameter only 10-25% larger than the anchor diameter. This paper presents the results of this research, including 229 tests of both headed and un-headed anchors installed using six cementitious and three polymer grouts. The results indicate that the behavior of unheaded grouted anchors is similar to that of adhesive anchors while the behavior of headed grouted anchors is similar to that of castin-place headed anchors. For some grout products, a bond failure at the grout/concrete interface is possible and needs to be considered.

1. Introduction
Post-installed bonded anchors can be classified as adhesive or grouted depending on the bonding agent, anchor type, and hole dimensions. These types of anchors can be installed with or without a head at the embedded end (Fig. 1). Adhesive anchors are installed using an unheaded threaded rod or a reinforcing bar inserted in a predrilled hole that is 10-25% larger than the anchor diameter using a polymer-based bonding agent including epoxies, polyesters, vinylesters, and hybrid systems. A grouted anchor is a threaded rod, stud, or reinforcing bar installed using structural grout as the bonding

381

agent. Grouted anchors are typically installed with a cementitious or polymer grout in a predrilled hole having a diameter range of 150-300% larger than the diameter of the fastener. Cementitious grouts are primarily composed of fine aggregates and portland cement. Polymer grouts are similar to adhesive anchors but with a fine aggregate component.

d

d

Grout

hef

Grout

hef

d0

d0

Unheaded Anchor

Headed Anchor

Fig. 1-Headed and unheaded grouted anchors

2. Grouted Anchors
Grouted anchors can be distinguished from adhesive anchors by a larger hole-to-anchor diameter ratio that can accommodate a headed anchor, which ultimately affects the load transfer mechanism. Headed anchors transfer the load to the grout primarily by bearing on the anchor head. Unheaded anchors installed with threaded rod take advantage of mechanical interlock between the threads and the grout. In both cases, the load is transferred from the anchor to the grout and the grout then transfers the load to the concrete resulting in one of three potential failure modes (Fig. 2). Unheaded grouted anchors were expected to exhibit a failure mode similar to adhesive anchors; bond failure at the steel/grout interface with a secondary, shallow concrete cone. Headed anchors were expected to exhibit either bond or cone failure modes depending on the concrete strength, embedment depth, and grout/concrete bond strength. An obvious fourth failure mode, yielding and fracture of the steel anchor rod, is excluded from this discussion.

382

Unheaded Bond Failure

Headed Bond Failure

Headed Cone Failure

Fig. 2-Potential failure modes for grouted anchors

3. Behavioral Models
The behavior of grouted anchors was expected to be similar to either cast-in-place headed anchors or post-installed adhesive anchors depending on the anchor configuration (headed or unheaded) and material properties. The following presents a general discussion of appropriate behavioral models. 3.1. Concrete Capacity Design Method (CCD) The CCD model evolved from a series of concrete cone models that were developed for fasteners that were observed to have full concrete cones at failure. These behavioral models assumed that the concrete failed in tension and that a full concrete cone formed from the embedded end of the anchor to the top of the concrete. There are several versions of the concrete cone model, but the CCD method is widely accepted. The CCD method evolved from the Kappa-method and predicts the ultimate load of an anchor loaded in tension or in shear1. This method was developed for cast-in-place headed anchors and post-installed mechanical anchors installed in uncracked concrete that developed a full concrete cone at failure. The CCD equation used to predict the tensile capacity of a single anchor installed in uncracked concrete is as follows:
′ ef N cone = k f c h1.5

(1)

Where: Ncone f ’c hef k

= = = =

mean tensile strength of concrete cone, N. concrete compressive strength (150mm x 300mm cylinders), N/mm2. effective embedment length, mm. 16.7, for cast-in-situ headed studs and headed anchors.

3.2. Uniform Bond Stress Model The uniform bond stress model was developed to predict the failure loads of adhesive anchors in uncracked concrete by assuming a uniform bond stress throughout the

383

embedment length of the anchor system2,3. This model assumes that the failure surface could occur either at the steel/adhesive or adhesive/concrete interface. Because the holeto-anchor diameter ratio for adhesive anchors is close to unity, however, the nominal anchor diameter can be used. Cook, et al.2,3 showed that for adhesive anchors the uniform bond stress is product dependent and its value, τ, must be determined experimentally. Grouted anchors can also develop failure surfaces at the steel/grout or grout/concrete interface but the hole-to-anchor diameter ratio is generally larger than 1.5. Therefore, the bond strength of each product should be evaluated at both potential failure surfaces. The uniform bond stress model equation is as follows:
N bond = τ π d h ef

(2) (3)

N bond,do = τ o π d o h ef

Where: Nbond Nbond,do τ τ0 d d0 hef

= = = = = = =

mean tensile strength for a steel/grout failure, N. mean tensile strength for a grout/concrete failure, N. uniform bond stress at the steel/grout interface, MPa. uniform bond stress at the grout/concrete interface, MPa. diameter of the anchor, mm. diameter of the hole, mm. effective embedment length, mm.

4. Experimental Program
The objective of this test program was to determine the strength and behavior of grouted anchors. The investigation included parameters typically encountered during design and installation including binding agent (cementitious or polymer), anchor configuration (headed or unheaded), anchor and hole diameters, embedment depth, and concrete strength. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM E 488 with test matrices shown in Tables 1 and 2.

5. Test Results for Unheaded Anchors
5.1. General Behavior As hypothesized, the observed failure mode for unheaded anchors was a bond failure located at the steel/grout interface with a secondary shallow cone. From all the test series evaluated in this test program, only one test series (four anchors) exhibited a failure mode at a location other than at the steel/grout interface. This series was installed with product CE and produced a failure mode at the grout/concrete interface. Two other test series were performed using the same product, but they developed a steel/grout failure mode. The only difference between these tests series was the dimensions of the anchor system. Therefore, transition from one failure mode to another can be explained

384

by observing that the anchors in the test series exhibiting bond failure at the grout/concrete interface were installed using large diameter anchors. This allowed the anchor system to develop the ultimate bond strength of the grout/concrete interface before it could develop a steel/grout failure mode. Table 1: Test matrix for unheaded anchors.
Product CA CB CC CD CE CF PA PB PC n 25 12 15 15 14 5 15 15 5 15.9 15.9 19.1 15.9 15.9 19.1 15.9 15.9 19.1 d (mm) hef (mm) d0 (mm)
Series 2 Series 3

f 'c at test (MPa)
Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 1

19.1 19.1 25.4 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1

25.4 25.4 12.7 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 -

102 102 127 102 102 127 102 102 127

127 127 178 127 127 152 152 127

172 178 76 178 178 178 178 -

50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8

50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8

50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 50.8 -

35.6 35.6 34.1 39.9 34.4 38.0 33.9 35.6 33.9 35.9 37.8

35.6 33.4 34.1 39.9 35.8 34.4 34.5 33.9 37.8

50.8 31.0 33.4 35.8 33.6 34.5 34.4 -

Note:

Products starting with the letter “C” are cementitious grouts Products starting with the letter “P” are polymer grouts

Table 2: Test matrix for headed anchors.
Product CA CB CC CD CF PA PB PC n
Series 1

d (mm)

hef (mm) 127 152 127 127 127 114 127 127

d0 (mm)

f 'c at test (MPa) 35.7 32.7 35.7 33.4 31.0 31.2 59.2 30.9 27.8 27.4 27.8 27.4 63.7 50.1 49.8 32.3 32.1 31.0 35.8 59.2 27.8 27.4 36.9

Series 2 Series 3 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

25 15 15 15 13 10 5 10

19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 15.9 19.1 19.1 19.1

19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1

25.4 25.4 25.4 19.1 19.1 -

127 127 127 114 102 127 127 127

178 178 178 127 127 -

50.8 50.8 50.8 38.1 50.8 50.8 50.8 38.1

38.1 50.8 50.8 38.1 38.1 50.8 38.1

50.8 50.8 50.8 38.1 50.8 -

32.6 32.3 32.1 31.0 35.8 35.8 -

Note:

Products starting with the letter “C” are cementitious grouts Products starting with the letter “P” are polymer grouts

5.2. Product Variability and Anchor Strength Table 3 provides a summary of the steel/grout bond stress (τ) and coefficient of variation for the products tested with unheaded anchors. For the entire unheaded data set, the

385

mean bond stress was 18.4 MPa with a coefficient of variation of 0.27. As shown in Table 3, the variation between all products is greater than that within any individual product. This indicates that the unheaded bond strength is product dependent. Table 3- Steel/Grout Bond Stress and Coefficient of Variation for Unheaded Anchors
Product Avg. Bond Stress (MPa) Coefficient of Variation CA 20.5 0.11 CB 21.8 0.18 CC 7.3 0.22 CD 21.1 0.08 CE 21.6 0.09 CF 15.9 0.20 PA 17.8 0.06 PB 19.4 0.09 PC 17.8 0.13

5.3. Behavioral Model Comparison Figure 3 illustrates the observed failure loads for all data sets as a function of bonded area. Failure loads shown in Fig. 3 were normalized to the mean steel/concrete bond stress (τ) of 18.4 MPa by multiplying actual failure loads by the factor 18.4/τproduct. The solid line shown in this figure represents the mean value for the uniform bond stress model based on the bonded area and τ = 18.4 MPa. Figure 3 shows a linear relationship, indicating that the uniform bond stress model is appropriate for unheaded grouted anchors. Also shown in Figure 3 is a 5% fractile boundary based on a coefficient of variation of 0.20 and a large database. Figure 3 indicates that out of the 121 anchors tested, only 2 anchors (1.6%) fall below this 5% fractile boundary line.
350

300

N = τ π d h ef
Uniform Bond Stress Model τ = 18.4 MPa (mean)

250

Load (KN)

200

150

100 Uniform Bond Stress Model 5% fractile, 90% confidence, COV = 0.20, Value = 0.67 mean

50

0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
2

12000

14000

16000

Bond Area (mm )

Fig. 3- Unheaded grouted anchor test results compared to the uniform bond stress model for adhesive anchors

386

6.

Test Results for Headed Anchors

6.1. General Behavior Headed grouted anchors were expected to develop either a bond failure at the grout/concrete interface or tensile failure leading to the development of a full concrete cone. A total of nine different products were tested and included six cementitious grouts and three polymer grouts. Test results showed that out of the 108 tests included in the headed grouted anchor test program, 61 (56 %) anchors developed a bond failure at the grout/concrete interface and 47 (44 %) anchors developed a concrete tensile failure that resulted in a full concrete cone. This confirms the assumption that headed grouted anchors can develop either a concrete cone failure mode or a bond failure at the grout/concrete interface depending on the properties of the grout and the dimensions of the anchor system. 6.2. Product Variability and Anchor Strength The strength of a headed grouted anchor system is dependent on the grout/concrete bond strength and the concrete cone breakout capacity of the concrete. Therefore, headed anchors that produced a bond failure were analyzed separately from those that developed a concrete cone. Table 4 illustrates the average bond strength and corresponding coefficient of variation calculated for the different products that exhibited bond failure at the grout/concrete interface. For all eight products tested with headed anchors and exhibiting grout/concrete bond failure, the mean grout/concrete bond stress was 8.1 MPa with a coefficient of variation of 0.30. This indicates that the variation between all products is greater than that within any individual product. Therefore, there is enough evidence to indicate that the unheaded bond strength is product dependent. Table 4- Grout/Concrete Bond Stress and Coefficient of Variation for Headed Anchors
Product Avg. Bond Stress (MPa) Coefficient of Variation CA 10.2 0.12 CB 7.8 0.15 CC 4.8 0.12 CD 9.1 0.21 CF 8.4 0.24 PA 7.9 0.10 PB 7.7 0.06 PC 11.1 0.07

The other failure mode observed in headed grouted anchors was a full concrete cone failure. As indicated by Eqn. 1, the capacity of this failure mechanism depends on the strength of the concrete and embedment length of the anchor. As shown in Table 2, the compressive strength of the concrete for the headed anchor tests ranged from 27.4 MPa to 63.7 MPa and the embedment length ranged from 102 mm to 178 mm. 6.3. Behavioral Models Comparison The presence of two failure mechanisms in headed grouted anchor systems requires the use of two different behavioral models to predict behavior. For grouted anchors that exhibited a concrete cone breakout, the failure loads were compared to the CCD method (Eqn. 1). Anchors that exhibited a grout/concrete bond failure were compared to the uniform bond stress model for failure at the grout/concrete interface (Eqn. 3). The results of these comparisons are presented in Figures 4 and 5.

387

Figure 4 shows a graph of the tensile failure load versus bonded area for all headed anchors that developed a bond failure at the grout/concrete interface. In Figure 4, actual failure loads were normalized to τ0 = 8.3 MPa, which is the mean value for τ0 for all tests that exhibited grout/concrete bond failure. Figure 4 shows a linear relationship, indicating that the uniform bond stress model for failure at the grout/concrete interface (Eqn. 3) is appropriate for headed grouted anchors that exhibit grout/concrete bond failure. Also shown in Figure 4 is a 5% fractile boundary based on a coefficient of variation of 0.20 and a large database. Figure 4 shows that out of the 59 anchors that exhibited the grout/concrete failure mode, only 2 anchors (3.3%) fall below this 5% fractile boundary. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the headed grouted anchor tests that were observed to develop a full concrete cone breakout failure to the CCD method (Eqn. 1 as represented by the solid line in Figure 5). As shown by Figure 5, the test data typically fall above the solid line indicating a conservative model. It is believed that the conservative results indicate that the threaded rod used in the majority of the headed anchor tests may have contributed to the increased capacity due to a combination of thread/grout interlock and bearing at the head of the anchor. A dashed line representing the 5% fractile associated with the CCD method is also shown in Figure 5.
350

300

N pred. = τ π d h ef 0 0

Uniform Bond Stress Model τ0 = 8.3 MPa (mean)

250

Load (KN)

200

150

100 Uniform Bond Stress Model 5% fractile, 90% confidence, COV = 0.20, Value = 0.67 mean

50

0 0 200 400 600 800
2

1000

1200

1400

Bond Area (mm )

Fig. 4- Headed grouted anchor tests exhibiting grout/concrete bond failure compared to the uniform bond stress model for grout/concrete bond failure

388

300

Concrete Capacity Design Model
250

N no

= 16.7 f c′ h 1.5 ef

200

Ntest (KN)

150

100

50

Concrete Capacity Design Method 5% fractile, 90% confidence, COV = 0.20, Value = 0.67 Mean

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Npred. (KN)

Fig. 5- Headed grouted anchor tests exhibiting concrete cone failure compared to the CCD method

7. Conclusions
The behavior of grouted anchors is dependent on the product and whether or not the anchor is unheaded or headed. For most engineered grout products, the behavior of unheaded grouted anchors can be predicted by the uniform bond stress model recommended for adhesive anchors (Eqn 2). This model is based on a product’s bond strength (τ) at the steel/concrete interface. For products with a low grout/concrete bond stress (τ0), bond failure may occur at the grout/concrete interface (Eqn. 3). In general, product approval tests need to be developed to establish both the grout product’s steel/grout bond strength (τ) and grout/concrete bond strength (τ0). The controlling embedment strength can then be determined as the smaller of the strength controlled by steel/grout bond failure (Eqn. 2) and grout/concrete bond failure (Eqn. 3). For headed grouted anchors, bond failure at the steel/grout interface is precluded by the presence of the anchor head. For headed grouted anchors, embedment failure can occur by bond failure at the grout/concrete interface (Eqn. 3) or more likely by a full concrete cone breakout failure as occurs with cast-in-place headed anchors (Eqn. 1). For headed grouted anchors, the controlling embedment strength should be determined as the smaller of that determined by grout/concrete bond strength (Eqn. 3) or concrete cone breakout strength (Eqn. 1).

389

References:
1. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen; R.; and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, January-February 1995, pp. 73-94. Cook, R. A.; Kunz, J.; Fuchs, W.; and Konz, R. C., “Behavior and Design of Single Adhesive Anchors under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 1, January-February 1998. Kunz, J., Cook, R. A., Fuchs, W. and Spieth, H, “Tragverhalten und Bemessung von chemischen Befestigungen (Load Bearing Behavior and Design of Adhesive Anchors),” Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 93 (1998), H.1, S. 15-19, H. 2, S. 44-49.

2.

3.

390

LONG TIME LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY OF BONDED ANCHORS
Lennart Elfgren*, Georg Danielsson**, Ingvar Holm**, and Gunnar Söderlind*** *Division of Structural Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden **Testlab, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden ***Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Borås, Sweden

Abstract
Bonded anchor bolts with diameters of 16 and 20 mm have been tested with constant static loads for up to 15 years indoors and outdoors. Creep deformations were measured for different load levels. Some of the remaining bolts have been tested to failure and the load carrying capacities were compared to design recommendations. For indoor conditions the design recommendations were quite satisfactory. For outdoor conditions the concrete quality is of importance and the remaining capacity of vital anchors ought to be checked regularly.

1. Background
Bonded or adhesive anchors with polymeric resins were developed for rock strengthening in Germany around 1955 and were further developed for use in concrete structures during the sixties, Klöker (1984), Schuerman et al (1970). In this paper results are given from a long time test series that were started in 1984. The first results from the tests have earlier been presented by Elfgren et al (1988, 1993).

2. Adhesives
The resin used in the tests is an unsaturated polyester with the name of Leguval K27, Bayer (1981). It is made of diols and dicarbolic acids. The acids are unsaturated, that is they have double bonds between some of their coal atoms which make them very reactive. This is a prerequisite for the curing (cross-linking) later in the process. The reaction between the diols and the dicarboxylic acids is a polycondensation in which a polyester and water is formed. The polyester contains long chains of molecules and it is initially very viscous, that is it can be hard and brittle.

391

In order to adopt the polyester to further processing, it is dissolved in a liquid as monomeric styrene, which is also unsaturated and has reactive cross-linking agents. During curing, the unsaturated, reactive groups of the cross-linking agent (the styrene) react with those of the polyester. In this reaction the molecules of the cross-linking agents are incorporated as connecting links between the polyester chains resulting in steric cross-linking. To start the curing process the formation of radicals is necessary. Radicals are highly reactive molecule fragments which stimulate the cross-linking. Organic peroxides are used as donors and their mode of action is set off by adding an accelerator (initiator). Tertiary amines are particularly effective as accelerators with benzoyl peroxide. During curing the unsaturated polyester resin shrinks 6-8 % by volume (chemical shrinkage). It is brought about by the chemical linkage which takes place between the individual molecules during curing. The linkage process causes the chains to draw closer together. By adding a filler of ballast, the shrinkage can be greatly reduced as in the case with adhesive resins where quartz fragments and glass are added. The proportion of resin to quartz may usually vary from 1:1.5 to 1:4. The cured Leguval K27 resin without filler or ballast has the following mechanical properties according to the producer: Tensile strength Elongation at rupture Compression yield strength Modulus of elasticity Shear modulus Poissons ratio Thermal expansion frt εru frc Er G νr α 50 Mpa 2% 160 Mpa 4 Gpa 1.5 Gpa 0.33 1.5 10-4

For most bonded anchors the resin is delivered in glass cartridges (glass phials). There are two systems. In one system the radical donor (benzoyl peroxide) is stored as a powder in an inner glass phial. The phial is placed in an outer phial together with the resin, quartz sand and an initiator (tertiary amines). We have tested two products with this system (Anchors of type B and E). In the other system the quartz sand and the radical donor are stored in the inner glass phial whereas the resin and the initiator are stored in the outer phial. We have tested one product with this system (Anchor type A). To start the curing, the glass cartridge is placed in a hole drilled into the concrete, see Figure 1. An anchor rod is then mounted to a rotary drill hammer. The rod is driven into the hole. The cartridge is then crushed, the components of the resin are mixed with each other by the rotating rod and the curing starts. Curing time varies from 10 to 20 minutes at room temperature and up to several hours at –5oC.

392

Figure 1. Bonded anchor of capsule-type, Eligehausen (1994) Resins with improved properties have been developed successively, e.g. epoxy acrylats and vinyl esters, Ammann (1991), Eligehausen (1994), Zavliaris & Speare (1992).

3. Materials
The concrete used in the tests had mix and strength properties according to Table 1. The compression strength was determined on 150 mm cubes. The tensile strength was determined by splitting tests on the same size of cubes according to Swedish Concrete Standard (1978). The steel in the bolts had a yield stress of 240 or 400 MPa.

4. Long time tests
The concrete was cast in foundations of the dimensions 0.40 x 0.75 x 0.75 m provided with transport reinforcement of 12 mm Ks 400 (fyk ≥ 400 Mpa). The top 200 mm of the foundations were reinforced only along the edges. Bonded anchors of dimension 16 and 20 mm were used of Type A, B and E. The anchors were tested under the following environmental conditions:

393

Table 1. Concrete mix and properties Long time tests Luleå 210 1050 950 10 0.8 0.81

Cement, kg Gravel 0-8 mm, kg Stone 8-16 mm, kg Silica, kg Water reducer, kg Water-cement ratio Compression/tensile strength fcc/fct, Mpa/Mpa 100 days 150 days 269 days

Borås 255 1245 620 0.82

37/3.0 40/3.5 32/2.9

Figure 2. Test arrangement for long time outdoor tests in Luleå. The loads are applied by means of lever arms (approximately 1 to 10) loaded by concrete blocks.

394

I O S W

12 anchors were placed indoors with approximately constant temperature and humidity (20oC, RH 30-40 %). 4 anchors were placed outdoors in Luleå in order to check the influence of varying temperatures and humidities. 6 anchors were placed indoors but had an additive (salt) of 2 % Pozzolith 122 He to the cement in the foundation blocks. 2 indoor anchors had a 10 mm layer of water on the top of the foundation around the anchor.

The resin had an age of 24 hours or more when tests were started.

Figure 3. Creep tests with M16 anchors of types A and B loaded with 15 kN under different environmental conditions.

395

Figure 4. Creep tests with M16 anchors of types A, B and H loaded with 45 kN. Results for anchors of type H are quoted from Rankweil (1980).

5. Test results
Some of the test results are summarized in Table 3 and in Figures 3-5. In Figure 5, photos of six indoor anchors are showed loaded to failure due to storage shortage after 13.5 years. They all had Fult >70 kN. The numbers in the photos refer to the following anchors No 1 = I 15 A1, No 2 = I 15 A2, No 3 = I 45 A1, No 4 = I 45 A2, No 5 = W 45 A, and No 6 = W 15 A. Out of the original program of 26 anchors 12 anchors are still loaded after 15 years (5 with 15 kN, whereof one outdoors; 3 with 30 kN; and 4 with 45 kN).

396

6. Analysis and conclusions
Design methods for bonded anchors are given in Eligehausen (1994). Fracture mechanics methods are discussed in Elfgren et al (1989, 1991). A general state of the art of bond of reinforcement in concrete is given in Tepfers (2000). Table 3. Summary of test results for long time loading
Test No Load F (kN) Mean stress τ (MPa) 2.25 2.21 2.12 2.12 2.35 2.48 2.19 2.12 2.12 4.24 4.24 4.24 3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 6.18 5.86 6.37 6.37 6.37 6.37 6.37 6.62 6.14 5.64 1 year def. (mm) 0.14 0.33 0.22 0.35 0.24 0.72 0.25 1.71 0.52 0.83 0.99 0.58 0.43 0.47 0.62 0.79 0.80 3 years def. (mm) 0.15 0.35 0.26 0.37 0.32 0.80 0.30 0.10 0.12 2.10 0.54 0.96 0.70 0.95 1.00 7 years def. (mm) 0.13 0.34 0.26 0.38 0.46 1.00 0.33 0.10 0.15 2.15 0.54 1.02 1.06 (a) 0.62 (a) 0.47 (a) 0.54 (a) 0.75 1.04 1.02 14 yrs. def. (mm) 0.13 0.33 0.55 1.10 0.33 0.72 1.06 1.00 Load / Age at failure (kN / days) 79 / 4960 (b) 72 / 4960 (c) 15? / 5700 (d) 60 / 4960 (e) 72 / 4690 (b) 77 / 4690 (c) 45 / 42 (c) 45 / 96 (c) 45 / 35 (c) 45 / 79 (c) 45 / 2 (c) 45 / 235 (c) 45 / 284 (c) 114 / 4690 (c)

I 15 A1 I 15 A2 I 15 B1 I 15 B2 O 15 A1 O 15 A2 W 15 A S 15 B1 S 15 B2 I 30 B1 I 30 B2 I 30 B3

15.9 M16 15.6 M16 15.0 M16 15.0 M16 16.6 M16 17.5 M16 15.5 M16 15.0 M16 15.0 M16 30.0 M16 30.0 M16 30.0 M16

I 45 E1 45.0 M20 I 45 E2 45.0 M20 S 45 E1 45.0 M20 S 45 E2 45.0 M20 I 45 A1 43.7 M16 I 45 A2 41.4 M16 I 45 B1 45.0 M16 I 45 B2 45.0 M16 I 45 B3 45.0 M16 S 45 B1 45.0 M16 S 45 B2 45.0 M16 O 45 A1 46.8 M16 O 45 A2 43.4 M16 W 45 A 39.9 M16 (a) After 5.75 years

(b) Bolt failure in steel thread above concrete surface (c) Bolt drawn out of hole (d) Bolt drawn out of hole. It may have been caused by an accidental overload (e) Bolt failed by corrosion at the concrete surface

397

Figure 5. Test of remaining load-carrying capacity of bolts after 13.5 years with constant load (Fult =79, 72, 72, 77, 114, and 60 kN respectively for Nos 1 to 6).

398

Normal design loads for static conditions (15 kN for M16 anchors) and indoor storage have not shown any deformation increase during the last eleven years. The two anchors that were stored outdoors show on the other hand a continuous increase in deformation (about 0.05 mm/year during the first years and then gradually slowing down to 0.01 0.02 mm/year). One bolt stored outdoors (O15A1), failed after 15 years. Unfortunately it is not clear if the bolt failed through an accidental overload or if it was only the long time and the climate that caused the failure. The companion bolt (O15A2) is still going strong after 16 years. It should be born in mind that the concrete that the anchors are installed in is not freeze-thaw resistant as it has a high water-cement ratio and contains no air-treatment. The daily and annual temperature changes with freeze-thaw cycles can here lead to a gradual break down of the concrete and a slow pull-out of the anchor. The load level is about one fourth of the bearing capacity in short time loading and the friction can alone, under favorable conditions, stand up to this load, even if the adhesion has completely broken down. Higher load levels (30 kN for M16 anchors) and indoor storage have caused considerable deformations but no failures. Still higher load levels, equal to three times the normal static design load (45 kN for M16 anchors), caused failure in seven out of 14 anchors after 2-284 days. Three of the remaining seven anchors were tested to failure after 13.5 years and had then loadcarrying capacities of 72, 77 and 114 kN respectively. Tests reported by Ammann (1991) and Eligehausen (1994) indicate that newly developed epoxy accrylate resins have better resistance to water saturation and freezethaw cycles than the unsaturated polyesters discussed here. Tests reported by Håkansson et al (1981) indicate that so called non-shrinkage grouts, used for anchors grouted in holes and recesses, usually have higher shrinkage and creep than ordinary concrete made of portland cement. To sum up, it can be said that the bonded anchors tested here have shown good long time properties. However, it must be emphasized that the concrete properties and the environmental conditions are of vital importance. Exposure of bonded anchors to water and to outdoor temperature variations and freeze-thaw cycles may increase deformations considerably. For that reason caution should be exercised in the design of anchors and high quality freeze-thaw resistant concrete and a regular (e g at five years intervals) checking of the remaining load-carrying capacity might be prescribed for vital anchors subjected to outdoor climate.

399

7. Acknowledgements
The research program has been sponsored by the Swedish Council for Building Research; Luleå University of Technology; SP, the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute in Borås; and by producers of bonded anchors. In the preparation of the program guidance has been given by Krister Cederwall, Kent Gylltoft and Lennart Ågårdh. The program was planned and directed by Lennart Elfgren and Anders Eriksson. The following persons have made substantial contributions to various phases of the program during the 10 years it has been running: Roger Anneling, Stig-Ola Granlund, Ingvar Holm and Gunnar Söderlind. The tests of the remaining load-carrying capacity of the bolts in Luleå were carried out by Georg Danielsson.

8. References
Ammann, Walter J (1991) Static and dynamic long-term behavior of anchors. Paper SP 130-8 in “Anchors in Concrete – Design and Behavior” (Edited by George A Senkiw and Harry B Lancelot III), Special Publication SP-130, American Concrete Institute, Detroit 1991, pp 205-220. Bayer (1981) Leguval – Unsaturated polyester resins. Bayer AG, KL Division, D5090 Leverkusen. Order No KL 43016e, Edition 6.81, 40 pp and Leguval K27. Unsaturated polyester resin (UP Resin), Order No KL 43123e, Ed 1.12.1975, 10 pp. Elfgren, Lennart; Anneling, Roger; Eriksson, Anders and Granlund, Stig-Ola (1988) Adhesive anchors. Tests with cyclic and long-time loads. Swedish National Testing Institute, Technical Report SP-RAPP 1987:39, Borås 1988, 87+25 pp (ISBN 91-7848080-9). Elfgren, Lennart, Editor (1989) Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures. From theory to applications. A RILEM Report. Chapman and Hall, London 1989, 407 pp (ISBN 0 412-30680-8). Elfgren, Lennart and Shah, Surendra P, Editors (1991) Analysis of Concrete Structures by Fracture Mechanics. Proceedings of the International RILEM Workshop dedicated to Professor Arne Hillerborg. Chapman and Hall, London 1991, 305 pp (ISBN 0-412369870-x). Elfgren, Lennart and Söderlind, Gunnar (1993) Bonded anchors subjected to long time and cyclic loads. Fracture and Damage of Concrete and Rock – FDCR-2. Edited by H. R. Rossmanith, E&FN Spon, London 1993, ISBN 0 419 18470 8, pp 513-526.

400

Eligehausen, Rolf, Editor (1994): Fastenings to concrete and masonry structures. State of the art report. Comité Euro-International du Béton, CEB Bulletin 216. Thomas Telford, London 1994, 249 pp. ISBN 0 7277 1937 8. Håkanson, Mats; Johansson, Håkan E; Broms, Carl Erik and Elfgren, Lennart (1981) Ingjutningsbruk. Tidsberoende egenskaper (Time dependent properties of grouts for anchor bolts. In Swedish. Summary in English). Division of Structural Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Technical Report 1981:47T, Luleå 1981, 41 pp. Klöker, Werner (1984) 30 Jahre Reaktionsharzmörtel, -beton und –kunststein auf Basis ungestättiger Polyesterharze (Reaction resin mortar, reaction resin concrete and artificial stone based on unsaturated polyester resins – 30 years experience. In German). Fourth International Congress on Polymers in Concrete, 19-21 September 1984, Proceedings ICPIC ’84 (Edited by Herbert Schultz), Technische Hochschule Darmstadt 1984, pp 1119. Rankweil (1980) Long-time performance of HILTI HVA adhesive anchors. Test reports issued by Höhere Technische Bundes-, Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt, Rankweil, Austria. Size M12 No 186/78, Nov 1978, 15+15 pp; Size M20, No 170/79, July 1979, 16+24 pp; Size M16, No 52/80, April 1980, 5+26 pp (In German); Size M8, No 143/80, June 1980, 15+20 pp (In German). Schuerman, Fritz; Jankowski, Alfons and Novotny, Rudolf (1979) Die Weiterentwicklung des Klebeankers (Further development of adhesive anchors. In German). Glückauf (Essen), 26 Nov 1970, pp1145-1151. Swedish Concrete Standard (1978) Concrete testing – Hardened concrete – Cube strength. SS 13 72 10, 3 pp and SS 13 72 13, 3 pp. Swedish Steel Standard (1976) Skruvförbandsnorm St BK-N3 (Code for bolted connections. In Swedish). Statens Stålbyggnadskommitté, Svensk Byggtjänst, Stockholm 1976, 80 pp. Tepfers, Ralejs, Editor (2000): Bond of reinforcement in concrete. State-of-art report prepared by Task Group Bond Models. Féderation internationale du béton, fib, Bulletin No 10, Lusanne 2000, 427 pp. ISBN 2-88394-050-9. Zavliaris, K D and Speare, P R S (1992) The behaviour of adhesive anchorages installed in concrete. In “Proceedings from the International Conference Bond in Concrete – From research to practise”, Riga, Latvia, October 15-17, 1992 (Edited by A Skudra and R Tepfers), Technical University, Riga LV-1658, Latvia 1992, pp 11-1 to 10.

401

TRANSMISSION OF SHEAR LOADS WITH POST-INSTALLED REBARS
Kunz Jakob Hilti AG, Corporate Research, Liechtenstein

Abstract
Often concrete ceilings are cast against roughened walls. Design methods and specifications for anchorage and splice lengths from literature and different construction standards have been compared. The examples of the connection with post-installed reinforcement of a bending slab to a wall and a short slab to a wall (here shear is outweighing) have been designed according to the standards requiring the minimum anchorage and splice lengths and tests have been performed. These investigations show that shear connections with post-installed reinforcement bars can be designed as connections with cast-in bars and that it is important to specify sufficient constructive reinforcement to limit the opening of cracks in the joints.

1. Introduction
Concrete structures which consist of two or more parts cast at different moments can be designed as monolithic bodies if the internal tensile, compressive and especially shear forces can be transmitted across the joints. One possible way to ensure the force transfer is to install reinforcement bars into drilled holes by means of a bonding agent. In this case it is important that the connecting reinforcement is either fully anchored in both concrete parts or connected to the cast-in reinforcement by lap splices respectively. This paper deals with the transmission of shear forces across the joints. Structural design codes treat this problem with different methods, for example the shear friction model, the anchor model or the truss model normally used for monolithic concrete. The anchorage and splice lengths also differ from one code to another, which has a strong influence on the required drilling depth for the post-installed connecting reinforcement.

402

After a brief review of the design models used by different codes, two slabs with anchorage at the support and splices in the third points have been designed according to the codes, which required minimum anchorage and splice lengths for each case. Full scale test specimens were cast according to the design and tested at the designed working load as well as up to failure. The goal was to compare design and reality for the case of minimum joint reinforcement. Crack development and ultimate loads were observed.

2. Design Models
A clear design basis is the truss model based on the classic truss analogy of Mörsch. There the flow of forces within a reinforced concrete part is approximated by a truss, where the compression beam and the inclined compression struts are allocated to the concrete, while the tensile strut and tensile tape are built by the reinforcement bars and the stirrups (figure 1a). At casting in parts a rough joint is required, which makes possible the forming of an inclined compression strut over the joint. The stress field model is a refinement of the truss model. It models the expected cracks and stress distribution within reinforced concrete more accurately (figure 1b). Also here a rough joint is presupposed. Strut and tie models and stress field analysis are generally used in european standards.
tensile strut compression beam

rough joint

inclined compression strut

tension chord

rough joint

figure 1a) truss model

b) stress field model

In countries more influenced by American standards, the transmission of shear loads at joints is represented by the shear-friction model. The transmission of shear loads is achieved by roughening (working like a keying) and the dowel action of the reinforcement bars. There the displacement in the rough joint causes an opening (figure 2a). The shear friction reinforcement works against this opening of the crack and increases the friction through that. The formula shows the design of the needed reinforcement area. Shear friction models can be applied to different surface types. At smooth or insufficiently roughened concrete joint only the dowel action of the reinforcement bars penetrating the joint can be used for design; they can be considered as shear studs and work by bending, shearing and buckling of the bars (figure 2b).

403

shear / friction reinforcement A vf works against opening of the crack and increases the friction through that A vf = (V d / (0.75 µf) - N d) / f y

bending

shearing

buckling

2• M 4• db • As • f y Vd = = l 3•π •l

Vd =

As • f y 3

Vd = As • f y • cos α

figure 2a) shear-friction model

b) working principles of shear studs

The application area of the design models can be classified in dependence from the surface of joint: from rough joints with roughness greater or equal 5mm from top to bottom of roughness (amplitude) to smooth joint with roughness smaller than 2mm. The truss model and the stress field model is used at rough joint, the model referring to the dowel action at smooth joint. Only the shear-friction model covers the entire range. Recently, a model taking into account bending, shearing and buckling of the anchor as well as shear-friction has been developed by Randl [1] (figure 2b) and is now implemented in engineering design guidelines [2]. Since this paper compares the approaches of different concrete structural design codes, the mentioned concept is not considered further here.

3. Bending Slab
The first example considered was a bending slab with a length of 5m and a thickness of 20cm (figure 3). The supports and the middle part were prefabricated elements. The parts adjacent to the supports were cast in place and the connections to the support or to the middle part respectively were carried out with post-installed reinforcement.
175 500 150 175

F
smooth joint upper reinforcement cast in place 20 rough joint 50 100 support 50 150 200

F
cast in place rough joint no upper reinforcement

prefabricated

100

rough joint

150

support

figure 3: geometry of the bending slab

404

The left support had a smooth joint and an upper and lower reinforcement, the right support has a rough joint and only a lower reinforcement. The joints between the prefabricated part and the cast-in parts is roughened and has a lower reinforcement. a) Design The slab was designed for a working load of F=2x10kN (cf. figure 3) according to DIN 1045. The concrete quality was C20/25. The connecting reinforcement to the supports and the splices to the middle part were designed according to the following 8 standards, which use different design models: German Code DIN 1045, Austrian Code ÖNORM B 4200, Swiss Code SIA 162, British Standard BS 8110, Norwegian Standard NS 3473 E, Eurocode 2 with design according to truss models and American Standard ACI 318-89 and New Zealand Standard NZS 3101 with design according to shear-friction models. Figure 4 shows the anchorage and splice lengths for bars 6 to 16mm nominal diameter according to the mentioned codes. It should be mentioned that the Austrian code ÖNORM B4200 has been replaced in the meantime by prescriptions similar to Eurocode 2 (ÖNORM B4700). Nevertheless, figure 4 shows that there is a large discrepancy between the different code prescriptions.
slab of C20/25, spacing of rebars 10-times rebar diameter
DIN 1045
120 100

EC2

ÖN-B4200

SIA 162

ACI 318 100 90

NZS 3101

BS 8110

NS 3473 E

anchoring length [cm]

splice length [cm]

80 70 60 50 40 30 20

80 60 40 20 0 6 mm

10 0 6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 12 mm rebar diameter 14 mm

8 mm

10 mm

12 mm

14 mm

16 mm

rebar diameter

figure 4a) anchorage lengths

4b) splice lengths

Since NZS 3101 generally yields the smallest values (figure 4), the anchorages and splices have been designed according to this code. The bottom reinforcement was carried out with reinforcement bars diameter 10mm with a spacing of 10mm. Only 40% of the bars were anchored to the supports and the anchorage length was 12cm for the smooth joint and 8cm for the rough joint. All bars were spliced to the middle prefabricated slab, and the splice length was 36cm. The differences in the standards are mainly caused by more or less rough simplifications of the formulae.

405

b) Test The load on the slab was introduced by a hydraulic cylinder and distributed to the two introduction points by a system of steel beams weighing 4kN in total. Therefore, the load acting on the slab is always the load displayed in figure 5 plus 4kN for the load distribution system. First, both forces were increased 5-times from F = 2x2 kN to service load F = 2x10 kN, held and decreased to 2x2kN again. The cracks appearing at service load were measured and recorded. Then the load was increased and stopped every 10kN in order to observe the appearing cracks. This procedure was continued until failure was reached. The maximum load of 92kN (88kN piston force plus 4kN dead load of the load introduction parts) reached in the test corresponds to 4,6-times the calculated service load of 2-times 10kN.
piston force [kN]
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

displacement [mm]

figure 5: load-displacement curve of bending slab Figure 5 shows that the load displacement behavior between no load and the service load is stiff and that a softening occurs with loads higher than about 1.5 times service load. In figure 6a the results of the crack measurements after the fifth loading to service load of 2 F = 20kN are shown. A means the front side, B the back side of the slab. At service load only cracks in the area of the 4 joints were obeyed. In the smooth joint with upper reinforcement the cracks were in the range of the expected 0.3mm which are usually allowed by the codes for structures not exposed to rain. However, in the rough joint, without upper reinforcement, the cracks of 0.5mm are too wide. This underlines the importance of a constructive upper reinforcement for the limitation and distribution of cracks.

406

Figure 6b shows the cracks at 4,3-times service load, that is 86kN, that is shortly before failure. At the slab joints the crack widths remain small, at the support joints they become large. In spite of the large cracks at the supports, the slab still behaved as a bending slab and finally failed by yielding of the lower (bending) reinforcement (figure 7).
A: crack, width = 0.30mm / length = 160mm A: crack 0.5mm / 170mm B: crack, width = 0.35mm / length = 150mm B: crack 0.55mm / 180mm smooth joint upper reinforcement rough joint no upper reinforcement

A: crack, width = 6mm / length = 180mm B: crack, width = 6mm / length = 180mm smooth joint upper reinforcement

A: crack 8mm / 190mm B: crack 8mm / 190mm

rough joint no upper reinforcement

front side A: crack 0.1mm / 100mm back side B: crack 0.1mm / 100mm

A: crack 0.15mm / 130mm B: crack 0.15mm / 130mm

front side A: crack 0.40mm / 140mm back side B: crack 0.35mm / 120mm

A: crack 0.50mm / 150mm B: crack 0.45mm / 140mm

figure 6a) cracks at service load

b) cracks before failure

figure 7: shear slab after failure

4. Shear Slab
For a short where the load is predominately shear slab on both sides anchored at the support, the design according to the 8 above mentioned standards was also performed. Between two stiff, prefabricated supports a one-span slab of 2m length and 1m breadth was cast. The lower reinforcement is spliced at the supports, the splice reinforcement bars are anchored into the supports by adhesive bond (figure 8).
200 25 150 25

F
smooth joint upper reinforcement cast in place 20 100 50 100 support 50

F
rough joint upper reinforcement

support

figure 8: geometry of shear slab

407

The slab itself was designed according to DIN1045 for a service load of 2x30kN. The lower slab reinforcement consisted of bars of a diameter of 6mm with a spacing of 15cm. The connecting reinforcement at the supports was designed according to the shear / friction model of ACI 318-89 respectively NZS 3101. 6 bars with diameter 6mm were also used on each side. The anchorage length was 14cm for the smooth joint and 11cm for the rough joint. The splice length in the slab was 22cm. During the test the forces were increased 5-times from 2x2kN to the calculated service load of 2x30kN, held for 10 minutes and again decreased. The reached maximum load of 351.7kN (338kN piston force plus 13.7kN dead load of the load introduction parts) is 5.9-times the service load of 2x30kN. At maximum load a crack appeared in 40cm distance from the left support and the force decreased to 210kN. Short time after that the slab sheared down at the smooth support on the left side. The load-displacement curve (figure 9) clearly shows the brittle shear failure. Therefore it seems logical that the reached safety factor of 5.9 is higher than that reached with the bending slab.
piston force [KN]
320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

entire force 2 F = piston force + 13.7 kN dead load of load introduction parts

service load

displacement [mm]

figure 9: load-displacement curve of shear slab Figure 10 shows the results of the crack measurements after 5-times loading to the service load of 60kN. A means the front side, B is the back side of the slab. With maximum 0,05mm the cracks are much smaller than the allowed value of 0,3mm in this case.
front side A: crack, width = 0.03mm / length = 130mm back side B: crack, width = 0.05mm / length = 50mm smooth joint rough joint

A: crack 0.05mm / 90mm B: crack 0.03mm / 30mm

figure 10: cracks in shear slab at service load

408

Figure 11 shows the specimen after shear failure of the reinforcement at the left side support. Even just before failure, at a total load of 340kN, only very little cracking could be observed. The crack openings were 0.6mm at the smooth joint (left side, where failure occurred) and 0.1mm at the rough joint. Only one additional crack appeared 30cm from the left side support shortly before failure. Its opening was 0.5mm. As seen in the loaddisplacement diagram (figure 9), the failure was brittle without any prior announcement by excessive deformations.

figure 11: shear slab after failure

5. Conclusions
In many applications the use of post-installed reinforcement can substantially simplify the construction of shear connections between concrete elements. The reasons may for example be that the connecting reinforcement can be placed exactly where it is required, that installation in the part which is first cast was forgotten, that reinforcement bars sticking out of a wall or slab are not desired or that the connection has to be made in a renovation of the structure, i.e. that it was not planned from the beginning. Two possible applications are shown in figure 12.

figure 12a: connection to diaphragm wall

b: widening of a bridge slab

409

The investigations presented here lead to the conclusion, that for simplifying the work on construction site the transmission of shear loads can be done with post-installed reinforcement bars bonded in with a suitable mortar. The common design rules from the applicable codes can be used, because the post-installed bars work like cast-in. In order to avoid excessive cracks in the joints, sufficient constructive reinforcement bars limiting and distributing the cracks should be installed.

References
1. 2. Randl, N.: Untersuchungen zur Kraftübertragung zwischen Neu- und Altbeton bei unterschiedlichen Fugenrauhigkeiten. Dissertation. Univeristät Innsbruck, 1997. Connections for Concrete Overlays. Hilti Fastening Technology Manual B2.3. issue 7/97.

410

DESIGN OF ANCHORAGES WITH BONDED ANCHORS UNDER TENSION LOAD
Bernhard Lehr, Rolf Eligehausen Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
Bonded anchor systems (anchors bonded into concrete with the aid of chemical and nonchemical components) have been used for about thirty years. Their load bearing behavior and design have been intensively studied during the past years. To investigate the behavior of bonded anchors about 1200 tension tests with single anchors and about 350 tests with anchor groups have been performed at the Universtiy of Stuttgart to check the influence of main parameters on the failure load. Finite elemente analysis were caried out to study the load behavior of anchor groups. In this article the finite elemente simulations on anchor groups are presented. Furthermore the results of group tests and tests near the edge are shown and compaired with the finete elemente simulations. Based on the numerical and experimental results a design model for anchor groups and anchors near the edge is proposed.

1. Introduction
Modern fastening technique is increadingly employed for the transfer of concentrated loads into concrete structures. Cast-in-place-systems (which are placed in the formwork before casting the concrete) and post-installed-systems (which are installed in hardened concrete) are common. Recently bonded anchors are often employed. The load diplacement behavior of single anchors were investigated by Meszaros [1]. Several influences on the load capacity of chemical anchors (drill-hole-cleaning, wet concrete, product, concrete compression strength, cracked concrete) were tested.

411

In order to understand the group effect of quadruple fastenings with bonded anchors an extensive numerical investigation and a series of experiments were performed. The studied specimens were adhesive anchors of the injection type based on resin mortar anchored in a concrete block and subjected to tensile loading. Quadruple anchor groups were considered. The geometry of these anchor groups is given in Fig. 1. Furthermore numerous tests with anchor groups with bonded anchors and bonded anchors at the edge were performed.

Figure 1 - Geometry of quadruple group anchors

2. Numerical simulation of quadruple anchor groups
Totally 32 cases were calculated. The anchors diameters were 8mm, 12 mm and 20 mm. The analyzed cases are listed in Table 1 in which the calculated failure loads and failure modes are given. The embedment depth was variant from 48 to 240 mm (from 4d to 20d) and the spacing between anchors from 48 to 240 mm (from 0,2 hef to 2,5 hef). In addition calculations of single anchors were performed. The total depth of the specimen was hef + 188 mm, which corresponds to the value used in the experiments. The three dimensional numerical analysis were performed with the program MASA [2] [3]. Due to symmetry, only a quarter of the specimen is simulated. The simulated system includes the steel anchors, the adhesive mortar and the concrete block. The steel anchor

412

is assumed as a linear elastic material with Young´s modulus E = 210000 N/mm2 and Poisson´s ration v = 0.3. The adhesive mortar is simulated by a special interface model with shear strength of 16 N/mm2, Young´s modulus E = 2000 N/mm2 and Poisson´s ration v = 0. Table 1 - Numerical studies and failure of quadruple anchor groups
Anchor diameter d [mm] 8 Embedment depth hef [mm] 96 144 hef / d [ -- ] 12 18 Spacing s [mm] 96 48 96 144 216 160 48 96 144 192 48 96 144 192 240 48 96 144 216 48 96 144 192 48 96 144 240 96 144 180 216 240 s / hef [ -- ] 1,0 0,33 0,67 1,0 1,5 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,5 2,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 0,33 0,66 1,0 1,5 0,25 0,5 0,75 1,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 1,0 0,67 1,0 1,33 1,50 1,67 Failure

12

160 48

20 4

96

8

144

12

192

16

240

20

20

144

7,2

CCB CC FPO B B B CC CC CC CCB CC CCB CCB B B CC CCB FPO B CCB FPO FPO B CCB FPO B B CC FPO B B B

413

The concrete is modeled by the microplane model and the material parameters are taken from the average data of the experiments [2] with Young´s modulus E = 30000 N/mm2, Poisson´s ration v = 0.2, tension strength ft = 2.4N/mm2, compression strength fc = 23 N/mm2 and fracture energy Gf = 0.1 N/mm2. The load was applied at the top end of the steel anchor. Displacement control was used in order to get the post peak loaddisplacement curve. A fixed boundary condition, corresponding to support lines in experiments, is applied on the no-symmetry edges at the loaded side of the specimen (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2 - Finite element mesh with boundary conditions
Concrete cone failure ( CC) Pullout failure ( PO)

Concrete cone and bond failure ( CCB)

False pullout failure ( FPO )

Figure 3 - Failure modes observed in the numerical analysis In the calculations four types of failure modes were obtained which are shown in Figure 3 and listed in Table 1 as concrete cone failure (CC), bond failure (B), combined concrete cone and bond failure (CCB) and false pullout failure (FPO). The false pullout

414

failure is characterized by cracks which initiated at the end of the anchors, propagated towards each other and connected at peak load. Because the concrete around the outside of the anchors is strong enough to carry the applied load the final failure mode is a bond failure, which looks like a pullout failure but the loading capacity is much smaller than with a real pullout failure. Therefore this type of failure is called “false pullout failure”. A stress analysis at the interface between mortar and concrete around the anchor perimeters revealed that the shear stresses at the part of the perimeter towards the neighboring anchors are much smaller than the shear stresses at the opposite side of the anchor. This can be explained by the crack between the anchors which does not allow to transfer tensile force into the bottom part of the specimen. Another reason for the lower shear stresses at the perimeter between anchors is tensile stresses occurring in the concrete between anchors which reduce the shear strength. These smaller shear stresses at peak load at the perimeter towards neighboring anchors explain the reduced failure load in case of pullout failure, which was observed in many experiments [2]. In order to study the group effect the calculated results are presented in Fig. 4. Plotted is the ration between calculated failure loads of groups and 4 times the calculated failure loads of single anchor with the same embedment depth as a function of the spacing. The group effect can be clearly observed. In the case of spacing s = 0 the failure load of the group should be the failure load of a single anchor. When the spacing is s = 4 d, the failure load of the group is 2.5 times the failure load of the single anchor. With s = 16 d the load capacity of four single anchors is available. With the critical spacings scr1 and scr2 like shown in Fig. 5 a model from FE-calculation is found.
Nu,group / N u,single [ -- ] 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 s/d [ -- ] M12-hef = 240mm M12-hef = 192mm M12-hef = 144mm M12-hef = 96mm M12-hef = 48mm Nu,group / N u,single [ -- ] 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 s/d [ -- ] M20 M12 M8

Figure 4 - Ratio between the failure load of an anchor group and a single anchor about the ration spacing to diameter from FE analysis

415

Nu,group / Nu,single [ -- ] 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0 4

s cr1

s cr2

4•N

u,single

8

12

16

20

24 s /d [ -- ]

Figure 5 - Model for the influence of spacing of quadruple fastenings with bonded anchors according to results of FE calculations

3. Experimental studies
To control the FE analysis a lot of experiments with quadruple fastenings were performed. Varied was the anchor diameter (d = 8 / 12 / 16 / 24 mm), the embedment depth (hef from 4 d to 16 d) and the spacing (s from 0.33 to 4 d). Tests were carried out in concrete with compression strength fcc ~ 25 N/mm2 and fcc ~ 55 N/mm2. Two injection mortars were used. Single anchors with the same embedment depth like the quadruple fastenings were tested too normally in the same slabs. In Fig. 6 the relation between the failure load for the quadruple fastenings and the single anchors (meanvalues) is plotted about the relation between the spacing and the embedment depth s / hef and about the relation between the spacing and the diameter d / hef. In Fig. 6 is to recognize, that with s = 16 d the critical spacing is found. At this spacing the failure loads of quadruple fastening are equal to four times the failure load of single anchors.
Nu4 / 4 • N uE [ -- ] 4,0 mortar HH Nu4 / 4 • N uE [ -- ] 4,0 mortar SP

3,0

3,0

2,0 hef = 192mm hef = 144mm hef = 96mm hef = 48mm 0 4 8 12 16 20 24

2,0 hef = 144mm hef = 120mm hef = 96mm hef = 48mm 0 4 8 12 16 20 24

1,0

1,0

0,0 s / d [ -- ]

0,0 s / d [ -- ]

416

Figure 6 - Ratio between the failure load of an anchor group and a single anchor about the ration spacing to diameter from experiments

4. Model for the design of bonded anchors in non-cracked concrete
Design models are given by Eligehausen, Mallée, Rehm [3], Cook [4] and others. At the University of Stuttgart the following design model has been developed to calculate the failure loads of fastenings with bonded anchors under centric tension loads. The model is valid for fastenings with single anchors and anchor groups far away from edges, at the edge and in a corner. The member thickness must be h ≥ 2hef to prevent splitting failure. A 0 N u = ψ s, N • c ,N • N u (1) 0 Ac ,N
0 N u, m = τ u,m • π • d • hef

(2)

with

τu,m
d hef Ac,N
0 Ac ,N

= = = =

= = = = =

ψ s,N c cr,N
scr, N

mean value of bond strength from tests anchor diameter embedment depth actual projected area at the concrete surface assuming the fracture surface of the individual anchors (examples see Fig. 8) projected area of one anchor not affected by edges or overlapping stress cones at the concrete surface 2 2 scr, N = (16d) 0, 7 + 0,3 (c / c cr, N ) < 1,0 8d 16d

This design model produces a good agreement of calculated failure loads with results of tests. In Fig. 6 the measured failure loads of quadruple fastenings with bonded anchors are plotted as a function of the calculated failure loads. A similar level of agreement between test and calculation has been found in other cases (double fastenings, fastenings at the edge).

417

Nu,test [kN] 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Nu,calc [kN] X = 10,2 V = 23,6% n = 271 scr,N = 16d

Figure 7 - Comparison of test results with predicted capacities for four-anchor-groups If the diameter of the anchors is large and the bond strength of the mortar is high, the failure loads predicted according Eq. (1) will be higher than predicted according to the CC-method [6] (see Fig. 7). Quadruple tests with bonded anchors with diameter d = 24 mm are carried out. The bond strength was 12 N/mm2 (mortar HH) and 20 N/mm2 (mortar ED).

418

16d

single anchor: 16d o Ac,N = (16d)2

8d 8d

single anchor at the edge : Ac,N = (c+8d) •16d c Š 8d

c

8d double fastening at the edge : Ac,N = (c+s1 +8d) • 16d s Š 16d c Š 8d 8d

8d 8d

c

s1

8d

quadruple fastening at the edge : Ac,N = (c+s1 +8d) • (16d +s2) s Š 16d c Š 8d

s2 8d

c

s1

8d

Figure 8 - Design model for bonded anchors

419

Nu [kN] 1600 headed anchor 1200 bonded anchor

800 d = 20 mm 400

τ u = 16 N/mm2
hef = 240 mm

0 0 200 400 600 800 s [mm]

Figure 9 - Comparison of predicted capacities for anchor-group with for anchors In Fig. 10 the failure loads of the tests with anchors M24 are plotted. It can be recognized, that the failure loads of these tests are lower than the failure loads according Eq. (1). Therefore concrete cone failure must be checked. If the concrete cone failure load predicted by the CC-method is lower than the calculated value according Eq. (1) and (2), this load will be correct.

Nu [kN] 2000 1600 1200 800 400 0 0 bondedanchors

8d = 192

16d = 384 τu = 20 N/mm2 headed anchors

3hef = 864

τu = 12 N/mm2 mortar ED mortar HH 250 500 d = 24 mm hef = 288 mm = 12d f CC = 30 N/mm2 750 1000 s [mm]

420

Figure 10 - Failure loads of quadruple fastenings with bonded anchors, d = 24 mm, hef = 12d = 288 mm The failure load with fastenings of bonded anchors must be limited by the concrete cone failure load of headed anchors calculated according to the CC-method (Eq. (3)).
N u, m N u,conc
= min (Nu,bond ; N u, conc ) = N u,conc according to CC − methode for headed anchors

(3)

5. Acknowledgement
The primary funding for this research was provided by fischerwerke, Upat and Hilti. The support of these manufactures is very appreciated. Special thanks are also according to Yijun Li who spent many hours in preparing the FE calculations.

6. Conclusions
In order to find a model for calculating the average failure loads of fastenings with bonded anchors FE-analysis and tests were done. Using the uniformed bond model to calculate the failure load of single anchors and the critical spacing scr = 16d a good agreement between tests and calculations could found. However, the failure load of fastenings with bonded anchors must be limited by the concrete failure load calculated according CC-method for headed anchors.

7. References
[1] [2] MESZAROS, J., Tragverhalten von Verbunddübeln im ungerissenen und gerissenen Beton, Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Germany, 2001 OZBOLT, J., LI, Y.-J., KOZAR, I., Microplane model for concrete with relaxed kinematic constraint, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38, 2683-2711, (2001) OZBOLT, J., and BAZANT, Z.P., “Numerical Smeared Fracture Analysis: Nonlocal Microcrack Interaction Approach”, IJNME, 39(4), p. 635-661, 1996. ELIGEHAUSEN, R., MALLEE, R., Befestigungstechnik im Beton- und Mauerwerksbau , Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 1997. COOK, R., Behavior of Chemical Bonded Anchors, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 9, September 1993 FUCHS, W. ELIGEHAUSEN, R., Das CC-Verfahren für die Berechnung der Betonausbruchlast von Verankerungen, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 90 (1995), H. 1, S. 6 - 9; H.2, S. 38 - 44; H.3, S. 73 - 76. LEHR, B., Tragverhalten von Gruppenbefestigungen und Befestigungen am Bauteilrand mit Verbunddübeln unter zentrischer Belastung, Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Germany, 2001

[3] [4] [5] [6]

[7]

421

LOAD BEARING BEHAVIOR AND DESIGN OF SINGLE ADHESIVE ANCHORS
Juraj Meszaros, Rolf Eligehausen Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
In the present paper the results of tests investigating the load bearing behavior of chemical anchors used for fastenings to concrete are presented and discussed. The loaddisplacement behavior of this class of anchors depends on the properties of the base material, as well as on the installation procedures. To study the influence of the installation procedures and the material parameters on load-displacement behavior, nearly 2000 tests with single fastenings were performed at the University of Stuttgart. Stress distribution along the anchor rod was determined by experimental tests, as well as by FE analysis. To investigate the failure mechanism of bonded anchors, axisymmetric FE models were developed. Numerical analysis was carried out using a nonlocal mixed formulation of the microplane model for concrete.

1.

Introduction

Adhesive anchor systems composed of chemical and non-chemical components are increasingly employed as fastenings to concrete. The bond behavior is sensitive to a number of factors including the chemical components in the adhesive mortar and the different boundary conditions created by the installation procedures. To investigate the behavior of bonded anchors, about 2000 tension tests with single anchors were performed at the University of Stuttgart. The sensitivity of the anchor behavior to the concrete strength, the cleaning of the drill hole and the humidity of the concrete has been studied. Furthermore, the geometric parameters of anchors and the influence of concrete cracking on the load-displacement behavior have been investigated. To better understand the failure mechanism of bonded anchors, Finite Element (FE) analysis with varied anchor geometry (embedment depth, anchor diameter), concrete

422

confinement (confined and unconfined) and concrete strength (low and high) has been performed. The bond stress along the anchor length was determined from the difference of the axial loads. In a 2D-analysis a nonlocal microplane model was used. The top of the anchor was loaded by described displacements. The applied microplane material model [2] is a general macroscopical material model for friction-cohesive, quasi-brittle materials. The model is macroscopical, i.e. it does not model the material on the microstructural level. To prevent a localization of damage thus creating a zero volume element, the model was coupled with a so called localization limiting procedure (nonlocal concept). In the present paper a small part of the numerical and experimental results for a single adhesive fastener are presented and discussed.

2.

Numerical analysis

2.1 Investigated parameters and material properties The aim of the FE analysis was to study the failure mechanism of bonded anchors. Furthermore, the influence of the geometric characteristics of the anchors, as well as the influence of the concrete strength on the ultimate load, was investigate. The investigated parameters were as follows: Load-bearing behavior • • failure mechanism bond stress anchor rod along the • • • • load-displacement behavior • Influence factors embedment depth hef anchor diameter da confining of the tension loads concrete strength

The study was carried out for an axisymmetric concrete element. The specimen was loaded by controlling the axial displacement on the small load transfer zone on the top of the anchor rod. The analysis was performed using four node quadralateral elements with four integration points. The region close to the bond zone where load transfer occured was modeled with a finer mesh with. The size of the elements increased moving away from the load transfer zone. In addition to the concrete constitutive law, a governing parameter in the nonlocal analysis is the so-called characteristic length [3]. In

423

the present study the characteristic length was set to lch = 5 mm. For the C20/25 and C45/55 concrete member the following material properties were used:

Material properties Uniaxial tensile strength Uniaxial compressive strength Fracture energy Modulus of elasticity Poisson’s ratio ft fc GF E ν MPa MPa N/mm MPa -

Concrete C20/25 2.4 23.0 0.15 30000 0.15

Concrete C45/55 3.8 45.1 0.12 36000 0.20

Table 1: Material properties of concrete members

2.2 Numerical results For the bonded fastenings in unconfined concrete, two different failure modes were obtained. Failure of bonded anchors with embedment depth hef/d= 4 occured by a concrete cone failure (Fig. 1). Bonded anchors with embedment depth hef/d≥ 8 failed by a combination of concrete cone failure and anchor pull-out (Fig. 2). In calculations with confined concrete, share failure in the bond layer and in the first concrete element layer was observed [4]. In the middle of the anchor embedment depth, nearly constant bond stress for the confined anchors was obtained (Fig. 3). For the anchors in unconfined concrete a slight increase in the bond stress along the anchor length occured. The calculated loaddisplacement curves show nearly the same behavior as the experimental results (Fig. 4).

424

Output Set: masa2 v48w070 Contour: Avrg.E11 stra.

0.15 0.125 0.1 0.075 0.05 0.025 0. Y Z X

Figure 1- Failure of M12 bonded anchors hef / d= 4

OutputSet:masa2v144w060 Contour:Avrg.E11stra.

0.15 0.125 0.1 0.075 0.05 0.025 0. Y Z X

Figure 2- Failure of M12 bonded anchors hef / d= 12

425

30
M12 /144-B25-confined [N/mm²]
(Concrete Element: h= 400 mm, b= 600 mm)

25
hef= 144 [mm]
0.40Fu 0.812Fu

20 15 10 5 0 0.0

1.0Fu 0.89Fu (post-peak)

Bond Stress

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Normalized depth hef /d [-]

Figure 3- Stress distribution along the normalized depth

280
hef/d= 32

240 Load F [kN] 200 160 120 80 40 0 0 2 4 6

hef/d= 24 hef/d= 16 hef/d= 12 hef/d= 8 hef/d= 4 B25 M12 confined

8

10

Displacement s [mm]

Figure 4- Load-Displacement curves

426

To determine the influence of confined and unconfined concrete on the failure load, calculations with anchors of different embedment depths were carried out. The anchor diameter and the concrete strength, as well as the member geometry, were kept constant. In Figure 5 the relationships between the ultimate bond strength (τ= Nu / π·d·hef) for confined and unconfined calculations is plotted as a function of the relative embedment depth. As expected, when the normalized embedment depth increases, the relative bond strength between confined and unconfined anchors approach 0.90 to 0.95. The results of FE analyse shows practically no Influence of the anchor length on the ultimate bond strength. In contrast to this increasing anchor diameter leads to the decrease of the ultimate bond strength (Fig. 6). In the Figure 7 the influence of the concrete strength on the ultimate bond strength is plotted. Concrete with uniaxial compressive strengths fc = 23 MPa and fc = 45.1 MPa, were used. Influence of the concrete strength on the ultimate load of bonded anchors is low.

1,5

τu,unconfined / τu,confined [-]

1,0
y = 0,7962x0,0493 y = 0,7683x0,0578

0,5
M12, B25 M12, B55

0,0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
hef / d [-]

Figure 5- Relationship between confined and unconfined bearing of the tension loads for M12 bonded anchors as a function of relative embedment depth.

427

24
hef/d=4 hef/d=8

20

hef/d=12 y = 31,423x-0,3167

τu [N/mm 2]

16 12
B25 unconfined

8 4 8 12 16 20
Anchor diameter [mm]

Figure 6- Influence of the anchor diameter on the ultimate bond strength

1,4
y = 0,3706x0,3166

τu / τu (fc=23 N/mm2) [-]

...für hef/d=4 ...für hef/d=8 ...für hef/d=24

1,2

y = 0,5849x0,1711
y = 0,8188x0,0637

1,0
M12, hef=48 mm M12, hef=96 mm M12, hef=144 mm M12, hef=192 mm M12, hef=288 mm M12, hef=384 mm

0,8
unconfined

0,6
23
fc [N/mm ]
2

45

Figure 7- Influence of the concrete strength on the ultimate bond strength

428

3.

Influence of installation procedure

3.1 Influence of drill-hole cleaning Adhesive anchors transfer load from a steel rod through an adhesive layer, into the concrete along the bonded surface. The bond strength between the adhesive and concrete surface can be adversely influenced by a number of factors. In particular the drill hole cleaning or a wet drill-hole surface can influence the bond capacity of chemical anchors. To study the influence of installation related factors, approximately 400 tests with single anchors in uncracked concrete were performed. Figure 8 shows the ratios of the bond strength in an uncleaned hole to the average values for well-cleaned holes for various adhesive products [4]. Capsule-type bonded anchors (product 1) and injection-type bonded anchors (product 2, 3 and 4) were used. The figure shows that capsule-type bonded anchors installed by hammering and rotation are less sensitive to drill hole cleaning than injection type bonded anchors. The bond strength variation can be explained by the following observation. During the installation of capsule-type bonded anchors, the drill dust along the wall of uncleaned drill hole is mixed into the mortar. During the installation of injection-type bonded anchors, however, the loose concrete particles along the surface of the drill hole can build a boundary with decreased bond strength. A load reduction of about 20% to 60% compare to the well-cleaned holes was observed for injection-type anchors. In the experimental investigations of Cook and Konz [5] for 20 different adhesive products applied to an uncleaned holes, the average relative bond strength were about 71% of their respective baselines. The average coefficient of variation of was about 20 %. 3.2 Influence of wet concrete Anchors installed in “wet concrete” (i.e. concrete saturated with water prior to hole boring) or installed in “damp holes” (i.e. holes bored prior to concrete wetting) show for most products a significant decrease in capacity compared to installation in dry concrete. For anchors installed in “completely submarged conditions” (i.e. under water installation) a larger reduction of the capacity was observed. The influence of wet concrete on the bond strength, however, is product dependent. After investigations by Cook and Konz [5] for twenty different products installed in damp holes, the average relative bond strengths were 77% of their respective baselines, with an average coefficient of variation of 23%. Figure 9 shows the bond strength of bonded anchors installed a the concrete that was stored for 7 days under water compared to the capacity measured in dry concrete [4]. In the tests, capsule-type bonded anchors with vinylester based mortar (product 1) and injection-type anchors (product 2 to 5) were used. The bond strength in wet concrete was reduced by as much as 60% compared to the dry hole strength. In improperly cleaned, wet drill holes, a further reduction of the bond strength must be expected.

429

1,2 [-] 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 1 2 Product 3 4

τu,uncleaned / τu,cleaned τu,wet / τu,dry [-]

Figure 8- Relation between bond strength of bonded anchors installed in cleaned and uncleaned drill holes, after [4]

1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 1 2 3 Product 4 5

Figure 9- Relation between bond strength of bonded anchors installed in wet and dry concrete, after [4]

430

4.

Design of single bonded anchors

Present design models for bonded anchors are given by Eligehausen, Malée, Rehm [1], Cook et al. [6] and others. Based on the results of theoretical and experimental investigations, a design model with a constant distribution of bond stress along the embedment depth (uniform bond model) to calculate failure loads of fastenings with bonded anchors under centric loads has been developed. Mean values of bond strength τu take the characteristic mortar behavior into consideration. A design model for fastenings with anchor groups far away from edges, at an edge and in a corner is given in [7]. This design model is valid for embedment depths from 8d ≤ hef ≤ 12d. To prevent splitting failure, the member thickness must be h ≥ 2hef. The failure load of single bonded anchors far away from edges can be calculated by the Eq. (1).

N u0 = τ u ⋅ π ⋅ d ⋅ hef
where τ u= d= hef= mean value of bonded strength anchor diameter embedment depth

(1)

This design model for single bonded anchors shows a good agreement of calculated failure loads with experimental results (Fig. 10).
140 120 100 Nu,test [kN] 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Nu,calc [kN]
M8, M12, M16 hef/d= 4 to 12 unconfined
HH,SP,UU,WW

n= 345 x= 0,98 V= 16,4 % Nu,calc= τu*π*d*hef τu= f(d, fcc ,System)

Figure 10- Failure loads of tests with single bonded anchors versus calculated failure loads according to Eq.(1), after [4].

431

5.

Conclusions

The present paper deals with the behavior of single bonded anchors. Results from numerical analyses are presented to help illustrate the failure mechanism of bonded anchors. In the numerical analyses, the influence of different anchor geometries and concrete strengths on the failure load has been investigated. The results shows practically no influence of the anchor length on the ultimate bond strength. With increasing anchor diameter, a decrease of the ultimate bond strength was observed. Additionally the influence of the concrete strength on the ultimate load is small. This has also been show by experimental tests. The influence of external factors, such as drill-hole cleaning and wet concrete, on the load-bearing behavior, is discussed. These influences shown to be product dependent. In a particular for injection-type bonded anchors, a significant reduction of the bond strength can be expected. Based on the results of theoretical and experimental investigations, a design model with constant distribution of bond stress along the embedment depth is presented. The calculated failure loads for single bonded anchors according to the presented design model are shown to be in good agreement with experimental studies.

6.

Acknowledgement

The primary funding for this research was provided by the fischerwerke, Hilti, Upat. The support of these manufacturers is very much appreciated. Special thanks are also accorded to Matthew Hoehler who reviewed the paper.

7.
1. 2. 3. 4.

References
Eligehausen, R., MaléeE, R., Rehm, G., “Befestigungstechnik, Betonkalender 1997 ”, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 1997. Bazant; Z.P., “Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock and Metal”, JEM, ASCE, 110(4), p. 518-535, 1984. Ozbolt, J., and Bazant, Z.P., “Numerical Smeared Fracture Analysis: Nonlocal Microcrack Interaction Approach”, IJNME, 39(4), p. 635-661, 1996. Meszaros, J., “Tragverhalten von Einzelverbunddübeln unter zentrischer Kurzzeitbelastung”, Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 2001. Cook, R.A. and Konz, R.C., “Factors Influencing Bond Strength of Adhesive Anchors”, ACI Structural Journal, Jan.-Feb. 2001, p. 76-86, 2001. Cook, R.A., Kunz, J., Fuchs, W. and Konz, R.C., “Behavior and Design of Single Adhesive Anchors under Tensile Load in Uncracked Concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1998, p. 5-26, 1998. Lehr, B., “Tragverhalten von Gruppenbefestigungen und Befestigungen am Bauteilrand mit Verbundankern unter zentrischer Belastung”, Dissertation, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universität Stuttgart, 2001.

5. 6.

7.

432

REBAR ANCHORAGE IN CONCRETE WITH INJECTIONS ADHESIVE
Martin Reuter*, Thomas Greppmeir*, Fritz Münger** *Hilti Deutschland GmbH, Germany **Hilti Corporation, Liechtenstein

Abstract
Subsequently installed reinforcement bar connections with injection adhesive have at all times been applied, although design rules and installation have not been clearly regulated in any way until recently. This status basically changed through the issue of the first general construction supervisory authority approval No. Z-21.8-1648 on 7th February 2000, for subsequently installed reinforcement bar connections with an injection adhesive [1]. This paper describes the regulations of the first approval by the Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik, Berlin, for the subsequently installed reinforcement bar connections with injection adhesive and demonstrates the requirements of the planning civil engineer, the jobsite personnel and the companies in theory and practice.

1. Introduction
For many years, i.e. post-installed rebar connections have been made to in-place concrete components for restoration and renovation work, extensions to existing buildings and to strengthen reinforced-concrete structures. Parts cast in when concreting (inserts) call for careful prior planning before the concrete is poured, i.e. socket joints, rebar screw connections [3, 4, 5 and 6]. To date, the design of rebar connections post installed with construction adhesive, including their spacing, edge distance and installation (hole cleaning and filling), has been specified solely in manufacturers‘ instructions and with different quality levels, even though such connections are subject to construction authority supervision in many cases. This situation changed fundamentally when the first general construction supervisory authority approvals were granted for rebar connections post installed with injection adhesive [1, 7]. These approvals define examples of applications in reinforced concrete construction. In addition, anchoring close to component edges is possible using sleeve /

433

socket joints or rebar screw connections. In this case, the tensile loads are transferred to the existing reinforcement (overlap joint) or the base material (anchorage) via the bond. In the first case, even heavy steel structures can be joined to concrete base material close to the edge.

2. First general construction supervisory authority approval Z-21.8-1648
This approval [1] was granted in February 2000 and was granted new in November 2000 due to the extension of the rebar diameters 20 and 25 mm [2]. It provides the first rulings on how to design rebar connections post installed with construction adhesive in Germany. The rulings given in reinforced-concrete standards apply, i.e. those in DIN 1045 [8] and EC 2 [9]. Further details about the loadbearing behaviour of rebars post installed with adhesive were published in [10] and [11]. Reinforcing steel of the BSt 500S grade, as per DIN 488-1:1984-09 [12], may be used as well as steel with a general construction supervisory authority approval, for example stainless-steel rebars [13 and 14] or rebars with a subsequently cut thread [3, 4], with rolled thread [5] or with internal thread connections [6]. Furthermore, the approval particularly stipulates the min. concrete coverage, the min. rebar spacing, the min. and max. anchorage depths and the passive fire prevention measures to be observed.
tensile load [kN] 200 lv = 30ds = 600 mm

160

lv = 15ds = 300 mm

120 lv = 10ds = 200 mm 80 diameter ds = 20 mm concrete C20/25 BSt 500S, fyk,nom = 500 N/mm2 ⇒ lb = 95 cm 5 10 15 20 Displacement [mm]

40

0

Fig.1: Load-displacement-diagram of rebars ds = 20mm installed with HIT-HY 150 The connections must be designed by an experienced structural designer who must produce verifiable calculations and work execution drawings / plans for the construction site. The approval stipulates that certified companies must post install the rebars with adhesive. These companies must have trained, skilled construction site personnel and the

434

equipment necessary for post installing rebars with adhesive. This paper explains the rulings in the approval [1, 2] on making a post-installed rebar connection with injection adhesive and provides information about the requirements to be met by the designers, skilled construction site personnel and work execution companies. 2.1 Minimum concrete coverage and drilling the rebar hole The engineer responsible must design rebar connections post-installed with adhesive like cast-in rebars according to valid reinforced-concrete standards. In addition, the approval specifies the min. concrete coverage. The concrete coverage is necessary to ensure that there is sufficient concrete around the rebar to take up bond stresses resulting from the interplay of forces at the rebar ribs, and also to protect the rebar from corrosion and heat in the event of a fire. Also, the min. concrete coverage specified in this approval ensures that no concrete spalling takes place due to impacts, shockwaves, etc. set up when producing the rebar holes. Basically, the approval covers the hammer drilling and pneumatic drilling methods of producing rebar holes. Impacts, shockwaves, etc. of various strengths are caused by the different drilling methods by their very definition. This leads to the basic figure of 30 mm as the min. concrete coverage for hammer drilling and 50 mm for pneumatic drilling. In order to observe the specified concrete coverage at the end of the hole too, the predetermined dimension amounts to 6% or 8% of the depth drilled, depending on the drilling method. If a drilling aid is used, the dimension predetermined for both drilling methods may be reduced to 2% of the hole depth. The drilling aid is a device intended to ensure that the hole is drilled parallel to the building component surface or edge.

Fig. 2: Using of the drilling aid for holes near to the concrete edge

435

This means that the min. concrete coverage must be 9 cm at the entrance of a hole one metre deep produced by hammer drilling. This figure reduces to 5 cm if a drilling aid is used.
with drilling aid cmin = 3 cm + 0,02 ⋅ lv cmin = 3 cm + 0,02 ⋅ 100cm cmin = 5 cm
100cm

without drilling aid cmin = 3 cm + 0,06 ⋅ lv cmin = 3 cm + 0,06 ⋅ 100cm cmin = 9 cm
100cm

5 cm 3 cm 3 cm 9 cm

Fig.3: Edge distance of rebar to be bonded in, ds = 20mm, rotary hammer drilling 2.2 Minimum rebar spacing and anchorage depths The distance between rebars post installed with adhesive must be greater than 5 ds and at least 50 mm according to [1, 2]. If not, there will be a risk of the holes overlapping and of the adhesive seeping away into an other hole when it is injected. The min. anchorage depths are given on principle in applicable reinforced-concrete standards. Furthermore, the diameter-related min. values in these standards are multiplied by a factor of 1.5, as given in [1, 2]. Taking into account the stipulations in DIN 1045 [8] and in EC 2 [9], results in the actually required anchorage depths, which are, in fact, far greater than the anchorage depths of metal anchors.

Fig. 4: Differences between anchor theority and reinforced concrete theority

436

2.3 Maximum anchorage depths The max. anchorage depths are limited by the adhesive dispensers. According to [1, 2], different dispensers are available for injecting HIT-HY 150 adhesive, i.e. a manual MD2000 dispenser, a battery-powered BD2000 dispenser and a pneumatic P5000HY dispenser. The max. anchorage depths given in [1, 2] are shown in fig. 5 according to their dispensing capacities. During actual use, it soon becomes clear that users very quickly comes up against limits when using the MD2000 manual dispenser. The dispenser powered by a 9.6-volt battery is much more suitable here because it enables effortless, speedy injection of the adhesive, independent of compressed air or power lines, while ensuring a constant quality of the adhesive, even after work breaks. The 330-ml foil cartridge used has the advantage of leaving a far smaller amount of waste after dispensing the adhesive compared to hard cartridges. Use of the pneumatic P5000HY dispenser and 1100-ml jumbo cartridge becomes meaningful when anchorage depths are very large and many fastenings have to be made.
slapdiameter ds 8 mm 10 mm 12 mm 14 mm 16 mm 20 mm 25 mm drilling diameter d0 hammer drilling pneumatic drilling MD 2000 P3000HY Maximum anchorage depth lv dispensers BD 2000 P5000HY

12 mm 14 mm 16 mm 18 mm 20 mm 25 mm 26 mm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 32 mm 70 cm

100 cm 100 cm 115 cm 130 cm 150 cm 200 cm 200 cm

Fig. 5: Maximum anchorage depths limited by dispensers 2.4 Passive fire prevention If passive fire prevention requirements have to be met, the approval covers two cases, namely rebar connections at right angles to the surface exposed to fire and those parallel to it.

3. Design of rebar connections with a computer program
In the course of planning rebar connections, the structural engineers responsible produce verifiable designs and drawings for the construction site (forming and rebar layout drawings). Suitable software supports this design work in accordance with [1, 2]. It implements the rules and regulations of reinforced-concrete standards and the approval [1, 2] in practical reinforced-concrete construction for rebar anchoring and rebar overlap joints.

437

4. Notes on installing rebars with adhesive
A key prerequisite for proper functioning of an injection adhesive is the micro-keying action between hole wall and injection adhesive. Consequently, cleaning the entire drilled hole and injecting the adhesive without bubbles are of major importance. Fig. 6 shows the exact cleaning process in accordance with [1, 2]. How to clean the rebar hole is dealt with in depth when training jobsite personnel. If the cleaning process is “forgotten“ - which must be regarded as pure negligence - the same effect takes place after injection and curing of the adhesive in the hole as when intentionally spreading flour on a baking tray - no bond results. Fig. 7 shows a hole being cleaned with a compressed-air lance on a construction site at Mannheim, Germany. The very considerable amount of drilling dust removed can be clearly seen.
Blow out hole 3 times
using compressed-air lance from bottom of hole. Use oil-free compressed-air ≥ 6 bar

Brush out hole 3 times
using round brush with spindels

Blow out 3 times as a check
using compressed-air lance from bottom of hole. Use oil-free comoressed-air ≥ 6 bar

Fig. 6: Cleaning of the drilled hole

Fig.7: Hole cleaning on a jobsite using a compressed-air-lance

During a subsequent operation, HIT-HY 150 adhesive is injected, without air inclusions, into the cleaned hole from the bottom upwards using a pressure build-up plug specially developed for this purpose (fig. 8). Owing to the back pressure set up at the plug endface during injection, the mixer extension is gently but noticeably pushed out of the hole. Prior to injection, a mark on the mixer extension is made to ensure that sufficient adhesive is injected into the hole. Immediately after sufficient adhesive has been injected, the rebar is pushed into its hole. When the time for use / pot life, which is defined in [1, 2], has expired, the injection adhesive begins to cure from the bottom of the hole upwards. It is impossible to push the rebar into partially cured adhesive. In view of this, it is recommended that two people inject the adhesive, especially when temperatures are high, to ensure that the work progresses quickly and smoothly. During the mentioned installer training, a time limit is set for injecting the adhesive and a cartridge is also changed during this injection work. Criteria for correct rebar installation are that the anchorage depth mark previously applied to the rebar aligns with the hole entrance and that some adhesive emerges from the hole entrance after rebar insertion.

438

Fig. 8: Injection from the bottom of the cleaned hole without air inclusions The individual parts, including drilling aid, required for rebar installation are contained in a clearly set out, so-called rebar box . The installation steps are recorded in an installation report . As a result, jobsite personnel carrying out the work can describe and record the execution of the rebar connections, and have this signed by the site manager. If the installation report is archived in construction files, everyone responsible has proof at hand that the rebars were post installed with adhesive in compliance with the approval.

5. Certified companies
Companies entrusted with this work according to [1, 2] require verification of their suitability for making rebar connections post installed with adhesive from an independent testing / inspection authority. Trained, skilled construction site personnel are required for this purpose. Suitable training courses have been carried out throughout the country since March 2000.

Fig.9: Rebar installer training: injection into plexiglas tube

Fig. 10: Certification for installer and company

439

Hilti engineers responsible for the training, to quote, are “Extremely competent and can communicate the subject matter very well” [15]. After successfully completing this oneday training course, participant receives a certificate with an unrestricted duration of validity from an independent testing authority, for example the Universities of Stuttgart and Dortmund and the Darmstadt Technical University. The company concerned must prove they have the tools required for rebar installation and define a qualified manager as well as a site manager. If these prerequisites can be fulfilled, the company fills out an application form. The independent testing authority, which also certified the company‘s installers, provides formal recognition. Since the approvals [1, 2 and 7] were granted, as a result, only certified companies with trained personnel have been the contacts where rebar connections post installed with adhesive subject to construction authority supervision are concerned.

6. Typical application example
An example of implementing this pioneering achievement in reinforced-concrete construction is the new construction of a diaphragm roof covering for the ice rink of the Bundesleistungszentrum at Grefrath near Düsseldorf, Germany (fig. 11). Here, the inserts responsible for taking up, i.e. anchoring, bending moments acting on the column bases were wrongly installed. This would have resulted in the bases not being able to take up the imposed bending moments to a sufficient degree. To solve this problem, rebars of BSt 500S, ds = 25 mm, with an anchorage depth lv = 1.0 m were anchored in the existing foundation and the steel columns fastened via a turned-on thread.

Fig. 11: Diaphragm roof covering on bending-resistant round steel columns

440

Apart of that the rebar anchorage with injection adhesive was extensively used on the new Düsseldorf airport jobsite (airport 2000 plus).

7. Summary
The present method of post installing rebar connections was developed primarily to join concrete building components. The basic idea is to smoothly tie up various well considered steps in planning and work execution. After due engineering consideration, this method can also be applied to the connection of steel structures with concrete components. In this case though, attention must be paid to the peculiarities of shear force transfer and the transfer of tensile forces to the concrete. Bearing in mind the ever increasing attention that is being paid to renovating and repairing existing buildings, the approvals [1, 2 and 7] provide consulting engineers and the construction industry generally with an aid that permits rebars to be anchored reliably and in compliance with construction supervision.

Reference literature
[1] DIBt approval Z-21.8-1648, issued 07.02.2000, valid until 28.02.2005: Reinforcement connection with HIT-HY 150 Hilti injection adhesive [2] DIBt approval Z-21.8-1648, issued 22.11.2000, valid until 28.02.2005: Reinforcement connection with HIT-HY 150 Hilti injection adhesive [3] DIBt approval Z-1.5-81, issued 25.03.1997, valid until 30.04.2002: Coupling connection of reinforcing steel BSt 500S, nominal diameter: 12.0 to 28.0 mm “Reinforcement connection PH“ [4] DIBt approval Z-1.5-103, issued 01.08.1997, valid until 31.07.2002: Mechanical connection of reinforcing steel BSt 500S, nominal diameter: 12 to 28 mm, by means of threaded coupling “Reinforcement screw connection HBS“ [5] DIBt approval Z-1.5-76, issued 24.04.1997, valid until 30.04.2002: Threaded coupling connections and anchorage of reinforcing steel with threadlike ribs BSt 500S-GEWI diameter: 12.0 to 32.0 mm [6] DIBt approval Z-1.5-96, issued 26.01.1998, valid until 31.01.2003: Mechanical connection of reinforcing steel BSt 500S by means of threaded sleeves and coupling bolts, diameter: 8 to 32 mm „PFEIFER reinforcement screw connections PH“ [7] DIBt approval Z-16.8-1647, issued 17.08.2000, valid until 31.08.2005: Reinforcement connection with UPAT UPM 44 adhesive [8] DIN 1045:1988-07, Concrete and reinforced-concrete; design and execution [9] DIN V ENV 1992-1-1:1992-06 (EC 2), Planning of reinforced-concrete and prestressed-concrete structures [10] Eligehausen, R.; Spieth, H.; Sippel,T.: Reinforcing bars secured with adhesive, loadbearing behaviour and design. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 94 (1999), Heft 12, page 512 - 523, Ernst & Sohn Verlag

441

[11] Eligehausen, R.; Spieth, H.: Reinforcing bars secured with adhesive, loadbearing behaviour and design. Der Prüfingenieur 04/2000, page 14 - 28, Bundesvereinigung der Prüfingenieure für Bautechnik e.V., 20095 Hamburg [12] DIN 488-1:1984-09, Reinforcing steel - grades, properties, characteristics [13] DIBt approval Z-1.6-IV NR1: Stainless, cold-formed, ribbed reinforcing steel in coils BSt 500 NR (IV NR), nominal diameter: 6.0-8.0-10.0-12.0-14.0 mm [14] DIBt approval Z-1.4-80, issued 05.06.1997, valid until 30.06.2002: Stainless, cold-formed, ribbed reinforcing steel BSt 500 NR, nominal diameter: 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm [15] Lieberum, K.H.; Trägler, K.-D.: Evaluation report no. 127.3.00 dated 20.04.2000 about the rebar installer training course held on 18.04.2000 at Munich (not published)

442

INVESTIGATIONS ON BONDING BEHAVIOUR OF TIE REINFORCEMENTS IN HISTORIC MASONRY
Michael Raupach, Jeanette Brockmann, Axel Dominik, Michael Schürholz Institut für Bauforschung Aachen, RWTH Aachen, Germany

Abstract
The masonry of historic buildings usually has been built in several layers. Damage often results from the fact that the masonry structure is no longer able to absorb the shear stress and transverse tensile stress which occurs in the masonry. In such cases, tie reinforcement can be installed as a repair measure in conjunction with mortar injection. As tie reinforcement involves interfering with the historic structure in an irreversible manner, bond testing has been carried out by means of pull-out tests on two types of bond specimens (tie anchor/injection material and tie anchor/injection material/natural stone), with the aim of minimising interference with the historic structure by selecting the smallest possible drill hole diameter. A mortar which is compatible with the surrounding material in many historic buildings was used for the experiments. The tie anchors took the form of threaded rods with and without screwed-on nuts and ribbed steel reinforcing rods (in each case in stainless steel). Greywacke, Obernkirchen sandstone and Weibern tuff were employed for the pull-out tests with natural stone specimens. The test results show that the type of stone can have a substantial influence on the properties of the injection mortar and thus on the quality of the bond between the tie anchor and the mortar. It is also evident that a reduction in the customary drill hole diameter and subsequent reduced interference with the existing building structure is possible under certain conditions.

443

1. Introduction
The exterior masonry of historic buildings usually consists of several layers. It often comprises an ashlar facade layer, an interior layer and a filling between these two layers, consisting of rubble and mortar, for example. The interior layer in conjunction with the filling is frequently referred to as the "back-up masonry". The internal filling of such masonry may incorporate large cavities as a result of poor workmanship and/or leaching out of the mortar. The bond between the facade masonry and the "back-up masonry" and the bond within the "back-up masonry" itself is often no longer adequate and may compromise the stability of the facade and of the entire masonry. The inadequate bond in the "back-up masonry" itself can lead to "sagging" of the masonry and ultimately to its collapse. The example in Figure 1 shows the structure of typical historic multi-layer masonry. In order to anchor facade masonry ("facing shell") to the "back-up masonry" or to absorb the tensile stress which is present in the masonry and to restore the bond, repair work is generally carried out by means of tie reinforcement of the masonry in conjunction with mortar injection.
Outer shell Filling Inner shell

Natural stone plug

Injection mortar

Figure 1: Cross-section through multi-layer historic masonry after repair by means of tie reinforcement Tie reinforcement in conjunction with mortar injection constitutes a consolidation measure which, when carried out correctly, is able to prevent or markedly reduce progressive damage to historic masonry as a result of stress and structural deficiencies. Due consideration must also be accorded to the fact that tie reinforcement involves the introduction of substantial quantities of foreign materials such as steel and injected mortar into the historic structure, however, whereby these materials must be compatible with the existing structure. Drilling of

444

the holes which are required for tie reinforcement also always entails a significant loss of historic material. Such attendant damage is irreversible. To date, it has often been customary to use steel reinforcing rods as tie anchors. For reasons of corrosion protection, this has necessitated all-round encasement in a 20 mm coating of cement paste, which in turn has led to drilled holes with a diameter of 50 mm and more. Follow-up examinations /incl. 1/ have shown that the injection often failed to guarantee adequate corrosion protection. Today, it is thus recommendable to use tie anchors made of stainless steel. A comprehensive study of relevant literature has revealed a lack of research into tie reinforcement, in addition to which neither standards nor guidelines exist.

2. Objective
The aim of the investigations was to expand the current extent of knowledge with regard to tie reinforcement measures. Information is to be obtained on the suitability for tie reinforcement applications of materials whose compatibility with historic structures has already been verified on various buildings. The conducted investigations serve to establish ways of reducing the extent to which historic structures are interfered with as a result of tie reinforcement. In this context, it is to be ascertained whether it is possible to reduce the drill hole diameters which are customary to date while at the same time maintaining a sufficiently strong bond between the tie anchor and the surrounding material. In practice, the use of tie anchors made of reinforcing steel has been predominant to date, with cement suspensions serving as the injection material. Anchoring elements made of stainless steel and screwed-on nuts were to be examined to ascertain their suitability in combination with a given injection mortar. The effects of different types of natural stone on the properties of the injection mortar and thus on the quality of bond also received due consideration.

3. Investigation programme
3.1 General In order to obtain information on the bonding behaviour between the tie anchor and the surrounding material, pull-out tests were carried out. These represent an empirical method which is also applied in reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry. The bond between various types of tie anchors and the injection mortar, which was not bonded with the surrounding material and thus was not subject to any changes in its properties as a result of the surrounding material, was to be investigated on the bond specimen consisting of the tie and injection material.

445

The above-stated bond specimens consisting of stainless steel reinforcing rods and threaded stainless steel rods were employed as anchor variants. It was to be examined whether an improvement in bond quality is possible by varying the number of nuts and the spacing between the nuts. The influence of the rod diameter was to be determined by means of pullout tests with stainless steel reinforcing rods of 6 mm and 12 mm in diameter. Pull-out tests were carried out on the bond specimen consisting of tie/injection material/natural stone in order to assess the anchorage of the tie anchors in the ashlar shell of a historic masonry structure. As the stone properties can have a substantial influence on the mortar properties and thus on the bond quality (see e.g. /2/), the tests were performed with three different types of natural stone. The key stone properties affecting the mortar properties, such as capillary water absorption and pore radius distribution, were determined for each type of stone. As the manner in which the diameter of the drilled hole affects the supporting effect of tie anchors is of interest, holes of three different diameters (25, 41 and 51 mm) were drilled in the natural stone specimens. The suitability of various types of anchor for use as anchoring elements in the area of ashlar facing was investigated with the aid of bond specimens consisting of tie anchor/injection material/natural stone. As in the experiments on the tie/injection material bond specimens, stainless ripped steels and threaded stainless steel rods were employed. In order to determine the possible influence of nuts screwed onto the threaded rods, threaded rods were used without nuts, with one nut and with two nuts. As the mortar properties can have a substantial influence on the quality of the bond between the tie anchor and the injection mortar and on the properties of the mortar in conjunction with natural stone, they were also determined both for mortar bonded and non bonded with the respective natural stones.

446

Pull-out tests

on composite specimen tie/ injection material/natural stone
Greywacke Obernkirchen sandstone Weibern tuff

on composite specimen tie/injection material

Key stone properties

Drilled hole diameter, dB
dB = 25 mm dB = 41 mm dB = 51 mm

Reinforcing elements
ripped rod dS = 6 mm threaded rod dS = 6 mm without nuts with Threaded rod dS = 6 mm Different nut spacing ripped rod

nuts

d S = 6 mm d S = 12 mm

Variation in no. of nuts

Figure 2: Test plan for the investigations 3.2 Materials 3.2.1 Tie anchors Steel rods ribbed of stainless steel (material reference number 1.4571 with an modulus of elasticity of about 166 MN/m²) were used exclusively as tie anchors for the experiments described below, in the form of stainless steel reinforcing rods and threaded rods with and without screwed-on nuts.

447

3.2.2 Natural stones For each of the examined natural stones the capillary water absorption and pore radius distribution were determined. The pore radius distribution was determined by means of highpressure mercury porosimetry. The capillary water absorption of the natural stones was determined on the basis of DIN 52617, 05.81. Following determination of the capillary water absorption, the specimens were stored fully submerged in water, so as to determine the water absorption under atmospheric pressure in accordance with DIN 52103, 10.88. The properties of the three natural stones differ substantially in some instances. The greywacke stone possesses only very minimal capillary-active pore content, resulting in a correspondingly low level of capillary water absorption. The Oberkirchen sandstone possesses a markedly higher level of capillary-active pore content, resulting in a water absorption level four times higher than that of the greywacke. The Weibern tuff possesses by far the largest capillary-active pore content. The capillary water absorption level here is around 20 times higher than that of the greywacke stone. In comparison to the Obernkirchen sandstone, the tuff stone possesses a substantially higher proportion of capillary-active pores of small diameter, resulting in a markedly higher suction capacity for the tuff stone. Table 1 shows a summary of the investigated properties of the three natural stone types. Table 1: Properties of the different natural stones (mean values), natural stone type, apparent density (air dry), ρl, water absorption under atmospheric pressure, Wm,a, coefficient of capillary water absorption, ω, and total porosity, P Natural stone type 1 Greywacke Obernkirchen sandstone Weibern tuff ρl kg/dm³ 2 2.56 2.15 1.25 Wm,a M.-% 3 1.47 5.46 28.43 ω kg/m²h0,5 4 0.28 2.59 19.74 P Vol.-% 5 2.0 15.8 40.3

On the basis of the classification of capillary water absorption according to Klopfer /3/, at ω=0.28 kg/m²h0,5 the greywacke may be regarded as a water-repellent building material, while the Oberkirchen sandstone and the Weibern tuff are to be regarded as highly absorbent building materials. 3.2.3 Injection mortar An injection mortar should be used whose compression strength and modulus of elasticity are adapted to the properties of the surrounding material, e.g. the existing mortar /4/. Higher compression strength is required when using the injection mortar to produce the bond

448

between tie anchor and surrounding masonry in tie reinforcing operations, however, because the absorbable bond stress increases as the compression strength of the mortar rises. A modification of a commercially available mortar was employed in the planned tests. The following characteristics were determined on the mortar:
-

Tensile bending strength after 28 d: Compression strength after 28 d: Shrinkage rate after 28 d: Water absorption:

1 N/mm² 3.5 N/mm² -2.4 mm/m 39.8 % by mass

The compression strength of the mortar as tested on a two-stone bond specimen, was as follows:
-

Greywacke: Obernkirchen sandstone Weibern tuff

5.4 N/mm² 5.1 N/mm² 8.6 N/mm²

The investigations on the injection mortar are described in detail in /5/. A comparison of the compression strength values obtained here with those determined on the standard prisms (ßD,N=3.5 N/mm²) shows that the compression strength of the mortar attains greater values in conjunction with all three stone types. A value corresponding to approx. 1.5 times the standard value is attained for mortar bonded with greywacke and Obernkirchen sandstone, rising to almost 2.5 times with the Weibern tuff. In due consideration of the results of pull-out tests on reinforced masonry and reinforced concrete such as those conducted by Barlet /6/, Schießl/ Schwarzkopf /7/ and Rehm /8/, which reveal rising compression strength on the part of the mortar to be accompanied by an increase in the absorbable bond stress, the substantially greater joint compression strength of the drill hole suspension when bonded with the Weibern tuff would be expected to result in greater bond stress in the pull-out tests than applies with the other stone types.

4. Pull-out tests for tie/injection material
The bonding behaviour between tie anchors and injection mortar was to be investigated by means of pull-out tests on anchors from mortar cubes, on the basis of the RILEM/CEB/FIP recommendations. The following changes were carried out with regard to the recommendations:
-

The edge length of all mortar cubes was 200 mm, irrespective of the diameter of the anchor elements. The bond length was set at lv=200 mm.

449

The anchor rods were secured in horizontal position in the centre of the formwork such that they protruded out of the concrete cube by approximately 15 mm on either side. The formwork was filled with the injection mortar according to standard practice by carefully pouring from above at right-angles to the reinforcing element. Figure 3 shows an overview of the produced test specimens.
Filling direction

F

6

F

6

50 mm 4 25 4 25 4 25 4 25 4 30

50 mm 4

50

4

50

4 38

F

6

F

6

50 mm 4

75

4

67

50 mm 4

100

4 42

F Ripped rods ∅ 6mm und 12 mm

6

F Threaded rods ∅ 6mm

6

200 mm

200 mm

Figure 3: Overview of produced test specimens The pull-out tests to retrieve the anchor rods from the injection mortar produced the following results:

450

-

The maximum pull-out forces stood at approx. 5-6 kN for the threaded rods with and without nuts, while for the ripped rod they were below 4 kN. A doubling of the rod diameter from 6 to 12 mm resulted approximately in a two-fold increase in the maximum absorbable pull-out force.

-

The threaded rods with screwed-on nuts provide the highest pull-out forces, irrespective of the number of nuts. Although the threaded rods without nuts attain a comparable maximum pull-out resistance, at a very low level of attendant slippage failure of these rods abruptly ensues after reaching this maximum. By screwing on nuts, failure of the rods is heralded by increasing slippage, while a high load level is maintained (see fig. 4). The ripped rods sustain substantial forces under the given conditions only after a certain degree of slippage (approx. 0.5 mm). This means that such rods can be deployed where such measured deformations are not of vital importance to the load-bearing behaviour of a building. Although the rod does not fail abruptly when bonded with the mortar, as is the case with threaded rods without nuts, a rapid decrease in strength is nevertheless observable, in combination with increasing slippage.

Figure 4: Bond failure in test specimens with threaded rods and screwed-on nuts

5. Pull-out tests for tie/injection material/stone
After production, the test specimens were covered with a moist jute tarpaulin and a layer of PE foil for 7 days. The test specimens were subsequently stored in a room climate of 20°C/65% rel. humidity for a further 21 days. The pull-out tests were conducted 28 days after production of the test specimens. The loading rate was selected to be 50 N/sec. As in the pull-out tests on the tie anchor/injection mortar test

451

specimen, the deformations of the tie anchor were measured both on the load side and on the side facing away from the load, by means of inductive displacement sensors.

Figure 5: Test device for pull-out tests A load-distributing metal plate was placed on the test specimen, in order to eliminate additional deformation components, such as might occur as a result of compressive strain on the natural stone under the legs of the test device. The standard bond stress, τm, is determined at a slippage, x2, of 0.1 mm, in accordance with /9/. For comparative purposes, the mean bond stress levels at x2=0.5 mm and at x2=1.0 mm are also specified. Three different failure modes were determined in the course of the pull-out tests. 1 Failure mode I: Failure in the injection mortar/natural stone bond zone (only occurred at Weibern tuff with drill hole ∅ 25 mm) Failure in the tie anchor/injection mortar bond zone (occurred at nearly all specimens with Oberkirchen Sandstone and some with Greywacke) Combined failure mode consisting of failure modes I and II (occurred at nearly all specimens with Weibern tuff and Greywacke)

2 Failure mode II:

3 Failure mode III:

452

Ancher Slippage mm ∅ 25 ∅ 41 ∅ 51 ∅ 25 ∅ 41 ∅ 51 ∅ 25 ∅ 41 ∅ 51 0,21 0,51 0,90 0,00 0,19 0,34 0,03 0,27 0,30 0,1

no nut 0,5 1 0,1

1 nut 0,5 1 0,1 N/mm² Greywacke

2 nuts 0,5 1 0,1

ripped 0,5 1

0,32 0,48 0,74 0,00 0,20 0,33 0,06 0,11 0,26

0,22 0,42 0,58 0,00 0,22 0,41 0,10 0,10 0,23

0,48 0,53 1,19 0,02 0,32 0,16 0,12 0,05 0,28

0,51 0,61 1,16 0,03 0,37 0,15 0,23 0,16 0,25

0,45 0,61 0,75 0,11 0,51 0,15 0,27 0,28 0,21

0,21 0,78 0,88 0,21 0,18 0,31 0,12 0,17 0,33

0,40 0,71 0,92 0,18 0,18 0,35 0,14 0,29 0,24

0,44 0,63 0,88 0,33 0,41 0,55 0,20 0,34 0,22

1,38 1,37 1,38 0,18 0,45 0,42 0,20 0,11 0,04

1,74 1,62 1,63 0,27 0,51 0,33 0,33 0,21 0,16

1,67 1,59 1,57 0,45 0,73 0,35 0,49 0,30 0,24

Oberkirchen Sandstone

Weibern tuff

Table 2: Bond stress measured at the specimens tie/injection material/stone

6. Discussion of the results
It is evident that the surrounding material in contact with the mortar can have a substantial influence on the quality of the bond between tie anchor and mortar and between mortar and stone. The correlation between an increase in the compression strength of concrete or mortar and an attendant rise in absorbable bond stress which has been established in tests in the fields of reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry does not apply to the tests conducted here. Although the lowest joint compression strength was determined in the test specimens made of greywacke, the attained bond stress levels are substantially higher than those for the test specimens consisting of Obernkirchen sandstone and Weibern tuff. Despite the fact that the joint compression strength is markedly higher in some instances, no absorbable pull-out forces or bond stress levels which would be adequate in practice are attainable with the Oberkirchen sandstone or the Weibern tuff, irrespective of the drill hole diameter and the type of tie anchor. A reduction in the drill hole diameter which is predominantly used in practice at present and an attendant reduction in the scope of interference with the historic structure while maintaining sufficiently large pull-out resistance appears to be possible for greywacke only, using ripped rods. When using threaded rods with screwed-on nuts it must be considered in each individual case whether the drill hole diameter can be reduced at the expense of reduced load-bearing capacity.

453

When threaded rods are to be employed in practice, with regard to the load-deformation behaviour it appears expedient to screw on nuts, as deformation-induced failure will then be indicated beforehand, whereas threaded rods without nuts fail abruptly, without prior warning. As the tests did not reveal the number of nuts to have any influence, it is recommended to screw on one nut in the area of end anchorages and 4 nuts per metre of length over the entire length of the tie anchor. No optimum spacing between the nuts was ascertainable. The theoretically most favourable nut spacing would appear to be smaller than the smallest spacing selected in the tests. Investigations into a further reduction of the nut spacing will not be expedient until the factory production of such rods is in prospect, as screwing on nuts at such a minimal spacing is very work-intensive. It would appear expedient to develop a tie anchor with idealised rib spacing, which could be used in conjunction with a "low-strength" bonding mortar for tie reinforcement applications. In the tests in which bond stress levels which permit practical application were attained, the ripped rods proved the most effective type of tie anchor, on account of their favourable surface structure and the attendant superior load transfer between tie anchor and injection mortar.

7. Outlook
As the failure of the bond between mortar and stone prevented the absorption of large pullout forces in a large proportion of the tests, particularly with regard to the test specimens consisting of greywacke, it should be investigated whether the bond between stone and mortar can be improved by roughening the walls of the drill hole. The investigations with the given materials in conjunction with the study of the relevant literature underline the fact that no sound findings which would enable generally valid conclusions are available on the load-bearing behaviour of tie anchors in masonry. It is thus imperative to carry out preliminary tests on the building concerned in each individual case. The mortar property should be adapted to the specific applications concerned, particularly as tests on injection mortars which are commonly used in practice have shown that there is no such thing as a "shrinkage-free" mortar. The ideal mortar should be capable of sustaining deformations, guaranteeing an adequate bond between the mortar and the surrounding material and, where applicable, between tie anchor and mortar, while maintaining compatibility with the existing building structure. Investigations aimed at researching the bonding behaviour of reinforcing elements with various modules of elasticity adapted to historic building structures would be expedient.

454

8. References
1. Maus, H.: Injiziertes und bewehrtes altes Mauerwerk: Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit und Dauerhaftigkeit der Instandsetzungsmaßnahmen. In: Arbeitshefte des Sonderforschungsbereiches 315 “Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer Bauwerke“, Heft 32, Karlsruhe, Technische Hochschule, Diss., 1995 Stein, Chr.: Verfugmörtelentwicklung für drei Natursteinarten (Postaer und Cottaer Sandstein sowie Zwickauer Kohle-Sandstein). Aachen, Technische Hochschule, Fachbereich 3, Diplomarbeit, 1993 Klopfer, H.: Feuchte. – In: Lehrbuch der Bauphysik; Schall, Wärme, Feuchte, Licht, Brand, Klima. Stuttgart, Teubner-Verlag, 3. neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, 1994 Haberland, D.; Debilius, V.: Untersuchungen zur Sicherung von historischem Mauerwerk durch Vernadelung. Berlin: Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton, 1988. – In: Beiträge zum 20. Forschungskolloquium des Deutschen Ausschusses für Stahlbeton am 24. Und 25. März 1988 an der Universität und Gesamthochschule Kassel, S. 45-50, 1988 Schürholz, M.: Zur Tragfähigkeit von historischem Natursteinmauerwerk durch Vernadelung – Verbunduntersuchungen. Increasing load-carrying capacity of historical masonry through tie reinforcement - bond investigations. Aachen, Technische Hochschule, Fachbereich 3, Institut für Bauforschung, Diplomarbeit, 1999. - (unveröffentlicht) Barlet, U.: Verbund zwischen Stahl und Mörtel im bewehrten Mauerwerk. München, Technische Universität, Diss., 1989 Schießl, P; Schwarzkopf, U.: Verbundverhalten von feuerverzinkten Betonrippenstählen in Mauerwerk. In: Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik 51 (1985), Nr. 11, S. 735-740, 1985 Rehm, G.: Über die Grundlagen des Verbundes zwischen Stahl und Beton. – In: Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Ausschusses für Stahlbeton (1961), Nr. 138, Berlin, Ernst & Sohn, 1961 Meyer, U.: Zur Rißbreitenbeschränkung durch Lagerfugenbewehrung in Mauerwerkbauteilen. In: Aachener Beiträge zur Bauforschung (1996), Nr. 6, Technische Hochschule Aachen, Diss., 1996

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

455

ACTUAL TRENDS IN CHEMICAL FIXINGS: FROM CAPSULE TO INJECTION SYSTEMS
Joachim Schätzle fischerwerke Artur Fischer GmbH & Co. KG, Germany

Abstract
This paper compares the applications and properties of chemical fixings based on glass capsule systems and injection systems. Glass capsule systems have been on the market for nearly 40 years. They have been continuously improved during that time and have reached a very high performance level. The younger injection systems, initially used only in minor applications, have reached meanwhile the same performance. Due to their higher flexibility they replace more and more capsule systems.

1. Historical background
Chemical fixings, so called bonded anchors are well known and established on the market for a long time. The first product, which was already introduced in 1962, was based on a glass capsule system. In a cylindrical drill-hole a threaded rod has to be installed by an impact drilling machine with an impact rotational process. Since 1962 several new generations of capsule type anchors have been introduced on the market with improved properties: Second generation capsule anchors: The unsaturated polyester resins used in the first generation capsule anchors have been replaced by vinyl ester resins. Long-term tests of unsaturated polyester type bonded anchors have shown considerable loss of bond strength in wet concrete due to an alkaline attack (Saponification) on to the ester linkage1). Vinyl esters are very insensitive against saponification.

456

Third generation capsule anchors: In generation 1 and 2, the solvent styrene is used as a reactive thinner. Meanwhile styrene is suspected of being cancerogenic. As a consequence some manufactures have replaced styrene against other reactive thinners which are not harmful. Fourth generation capsule anchors: Bonded anchors of generation 1-3 are suitable for non-cracked concrete. They are not approved to be used in cracked concrete. In a crack of 0.3 mm width the loss of pull-put load is in the range of 50 % 2) In 1993 the first capsule bonded anchors approved for cracked concrete appeared on the market. These torque-controlled bonded anchors are installed in cylindrical holes, the load transfer is realized by mechanical interlock of cones in the bonding mortar. Currently products from all the 4 generations are offered on the market.

2. Bonded anchors based on injection systems
The components used for injection systems as well as their chemical reactions are very similar to those of capsule systems. Today injection systems equivalent to all 4 generations of capsule systems are available. For a long time the only approved application for injection systems was the use in hollow bricks. In solid materials considerable problems arose in cases where the drillhole was not cleaned properly. In regions with high security levels and corresponding approval restrictions injection systems have been applied only in minor applications or in perforated bricks and hollow blocks. Meanwhile the situation has changed. Some new formulations with improved properties are on the market. As a consequence more and more applications, where traditionally capsule type anchors were used, are now realized with injection systems. Furthermore new fields have been found, where capsules systems were not suitable. In the following chapter some of these improvements of injection systems are described and the advantages of both types of bonded anchors in different applications are compared.

457

3. New developments of injection systems
3.1 Behavior in not perfectly cleaned drill-holes In solid anchoring bases first generation injection systems suffered from poor adhesion in not properly cleaned drill-holes. In the case of capsule systems, drill-hole cleaning is not very essential, because the friction of the broken glass and of the quartz sand cleans the concrete surface during the rotational setting process of the anchors. Due to this fact, the traditional injection systems, based on polyester or vinylester resins are not approved in Germany for the anchorage in concrete. In the case of new developed injection systems, so called hybrid systems, the loss of adhesion, due to not properly cleaned drill-holes is considerably reduced. In the following figure the relative bond strength of a vinylester and a hybrid injection system are compared. The values are normalized to 100 under cleaned conditions.

Influence of Hole Cleaning method

Hybridsystem Vinylester resin

120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Cleaned (2xblow Uncleaned (ETA- Uncleaned (2xblow out) out, 2xbrush, Regulation) (1xblow out, 1xbrush, 2xblow out) 2xblow out)

458

Hybrid systems are characterized by a four-component reactive system: In the first chamber the organic resin is mixed with cement, the second chamber contains an admixture of the organic hardener (peroxide) with water, the hardener of the cement. Due to the organic part, quick hardening, with a high end-load is achieved. The inorganic part, cement and water, improves among other things, the adhesion to the drillhole. First products with approvals for rebar applications are on the market. 3.2. Behavior at high temperature In the case of injection systems based on unsaturated polyester, the failure load is continuously reduced with increasing temperature. At 100° C the bond strength is reduced to about 20 % of initial value. In the case of pure organic vinylester systems, the reduction is less than 50 %. Due to the cement content of hybrid systems, their temperature resistance is further improved. 3.3 Rebar applications For the connection of rebars hammer capsules are applied. As the drill-hole is often very deep, several capsules have to be applied in one application. Due to the strong forces, which are necessary to break the glass and to set the rebar, a high pressure at the end of a drill-hole can destroy the concrete cover. The ratio length / diameter of the drill hole which can be realized is often below technical requirements. There are less restrictions for the new hybrid injection systems due to the lower pressure during the setting of the rebar. Consequently first approvals in Germany for rebar applications were issued for hybrid injection systems. Up to now there are no hammer capsule products approved in Germany. 3.4 Behavior in cracked concrete Up to the beginning of 2001 only capsule based bonded anchors were approved for the application in cracked concrete. Since March 2001, the first injection system is DIBtapproved for cracked concrete. Especially remarkable of this system is the low installation safety factor of γ2= 1.0 which allows the realization of high permissible loads. Another advantage of this injection system is the high flexibility. One cartridge type can be used for all anchor sizes, whereas in the case of capsule systems, for each anchor size a separate capsule is necessary.

459

3.5 Other applications of injection systems Apart from the possible applications of capsule systems, injection systems can be used in a while range of additional applications. In perforated bricks and hollow blocks they can be used in connection with injection anchor sleeves due to the thixotropic behavior of the mortar. This effect can not be realized with capsule systems. In nearly all other anchoring bases injection systems have found applications among them a lot there capsule systems are prohibited.

4. References
1. 2. Eligehausen, R. and Mallée, R., ‘Befestigungstechnik im Beton- und Mauerwerkbau’, (Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2000). Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R. and Rehm, G., ‘Befestigungen mit Verbundankern‘, Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik 1984, 686-692.

460

PERFORMANCE OF BONDED ANCHORS IN DEPENDENCE OF INSTALLATION CONDITIONS, STATE OF CURE - DEFORMATION BEHAVIOR AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES
G.W. Ehrenstein, A. Tome Lehrstuhl für Kunststofftechnik, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.

Abstract
At the moment many manufactures of bonded anchors are changing the resin base from unsaturated polyester (UP) with styrene content to styrene-free reaction resins. The longterm creep behaviour at static or dynamic loads, especially after installation conditions which negatively influence the curing is not completely known yet. In this paper the creep behaviour of two different commercially available bonded anchors (capsule systems) for use in concrete are examined under normal conditions and at elevated temperatures for different installation conditions and different static loads.

1. Introduction
Bonded anchors based on reaction resin, i. e. high filled duroplastic resin mortars, have played a major role in civil engineering for more than 20 years. They are used for highstrength anchoring in concrete and masonry. The first form of chemical anchoring was cementitious grounting of anchor bolts. This method is still used today. Since the middle 1970’s chemical anchoring in high-strength conditions using epoxies, nowadays unsaturated polyester, vinylester (epoxymethacrylates) or vinylesterurethanes (urethanmethacrylates) has become an increasingly popular method of anchoring. 1.1. Installation of bonded anchors There are different installation techniques for bonded anchors: • Capsule placed in the hole and anchor driven in mechanically either by machine or by hammer, Fig. 1a. • Bonding material injected or poured into the hole, the anchor inserted manually or mechanically, Fig. 1b. • Anchor inserted into the hole and bonding material introduced into the hole via the anchor or around the anchor.

461

Popular anchoring devices today are the glass/plastic capsule method or prepacked injection systems with coaxial or side by side cartridges.

Resin

Filler Hardener

Capsule placed in the hole Anchor driven in by machine

Capsule

e.g. Concrete

a)

Bonded material injected in the hole Anchor rod inserted manually

Anchor Sleeve e.g. Masonry

b)

Fig. 1:

Installation techniques for bonded anchors

Regardless of the installation techniques the installation of bonded anchors is divided into the following steps: 1. Mixing of the components resin, hardener and filler or inserting the ready-to-cure mortar into the hole (the order depends on the installation technique, e.g. capsule system or injection system). 2. Inserting the anchor rod within the working time. 3. Curing the resin mortar. 4. Applicating the load after expiration of the recommended curing time according to the manufacturers instructions. 1.2. Problems of installation and curing conditions A striking feature of composite anchors based on reaction resins is that, in contrast to other anchor materials, they are manufactured yet when the attachment is being done.

462

Due to the chemical reaction the curing of resin mortars depends on the installation and curing conditions e.g. the environmental conditions and surrounding temperature. Earlier experiments showed that the curing reaction can be negatively influenced by low temperatures or wet conditions (e.g. water-filled hole), /1, 2/. This effect is measurable e.g. as lower glass transition temperatures in dynamic torsion-pendulum-tests. The degree of cure can affect numerous properties of the bonded anchors. An uncomplete degree of cure can lead to higher creep-displacements and lower chemical resistance and ageing behaviour /2/. Bonded anchors are often subjected to changing temperatures. In Western Europe temperatures between -5 °C and +40 °C in concrete or masonry are expected. In special applications the surrounding temperature can be more than 80 °C to 100 °C. So the precise knowledge of processing technique and the influence of environmental conditions (temperature, water) on the curing behaviour are necessary for a constant quality of the applicated bonded anchors.

2. Experimental
2.1. Testing the curing behaviour and degree of cure of resin mortars Three test procedures for checking the reactivity and the degree of cure of resin mortars have be proved to be useful /1/. • The temperature measuring while installing and curing the resin mortar is used to get statements on the resin reactivity, on the influence of surrounding temperatures, of concrete or components of the bonded anchor (capsule, anchor rod, concrete) and on the different curing behaviour at different places in the hole. • The dynamic torsion-pendulum-test (DMA) is used to measure the glass transition temperature and the mechanical behaviour by interpreting the temperature dependent stiffness and mechanical damping. In addition different degrees of cure and the influence of e.g. water/moisture on the mechanical behaviour can be distinguished. • The differential scannig calorimetry (DSC) is used to determine the degree of cure by evaluating the reaction enthalpy. This analyses leads to very exact results for resins and other polymeric materials without water content. In case of a water/moisture content the resolution of the measurement (exothermic peak) is negatively affected by the endothermic peak of the water and therefore not recommended. 2.2. Testing the mechanical behaviour The mechanical behaviour of bonded anchors is usually determined by short-time pullout tests, long-term creep-tests and dynamic tests e.g. with the hysteresis method. In addition the installation safety under critical conditions must be verified by tests. To evaluate the dependence of the mechanical behaviour on the curing conditions these tests must be carried out under different installing and surrounding conditions.

463

3. Experimental
3.1. Glass transition temperature The glass transition temperatures Tg were measured with specially manufactured specimens (rectangular shape) made from the content of the capsule. The curing conditions were kept equal as far as possible to the installation conditions. The measurement was done by DMA MK III in bending mode with a heating rate of 2 °C/min and a frequency of 10 Hz. The glass transition temperature Tg was taken as half height of the modulus step. Again, we only discuss the relative differences not the absolute values of the glass transition temperature in dependence of the „installing conditions“. 3.2. Materials and concrete Two different commercially available bonded anchors (capsule systems) for use in concrete were used for the tests. The one bonded anchor (specimen B) is based on unsaturated polyester with styrene-content, the other bonded anchor (specimen A) is a newly developed styrene-free system based on vinylester-methacrylates. In Germany the allowed characteristic load of bonded anchors size M12 is 7 kN in concrete B15 and 12 kN for a higher compressive strength of concrete. The tests were carried out in concrete B25 with a compressive strength of 21 MPa and a gross density of 2.2 kg/m3 (size 200 x 200 x 200 mm). 3.3. Test Procedure The anchors were installed and cured as specified by the manufacturer. The examined installation conditions are „normal condition“ (23 °C, reference), „low temperature“ (-5 °C) and „wet condition“ (water-filled hole, 23 °C). The specimens „low temperature“ were annealed at 23 °C for 12 h after expiration of the recommended curing time at – 5 °C. In a force test unit with heating cabinet the static loads (12 kN, 18 kN and 24 kN) were applied at normal conditions (23 °C/50% r.m.) and at elevated temperatures (40 °C, 60 °C and 80 °C) while the creep-displacement was measured. Depending on the characteristic load the chosen static loads while creeping are up to a factor of 3 to the allowed characteristic load. 3.4. Evaluation The characterization of the creep behaviour of bonded anchors in dependence of installing conditions, applied static loads and surrounding temperature was carried out in comparison with „normal conditions“ (installing condition 23 °C) at each tested surrounding temperature and applied static loads. The rating only refers to the differences in the creep behaviour of bonded anchors which are installed under „normal condition“ to critical conditions e.g. „low temperature“ and „wet condition“. Regarding the large creep-displacements at the beginning and the following increase a measuring time of 50 h was chosen. The data-points were extrapolated to larger time-ranges with the Findley-approximation. Then we can discuss the principal influence of the installing

464

condition at ambient temperature and at elevated temperatures. We cannot rate the absolute creep-displacements, because the test results are single-experiment data, so that there is no statistical exclusion.

4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Glass transition temperatures / loss in stiffness The glass transition temperatures Tg depend on the installation conditions, table 1. The estimated Tg for specimen A are in the range above 85 °C, for specimen B about 30 °C below. The very low Tg of specimen B under „wet condition“ might be due to the effects to the preparation a specially manufactured specimen with a water content of 10% in weigth. The loss in stiffness can be characterized at one hand by the temperature T50% at which 50% of the stiffness at –100 °C occur. On the other hand, the relative stiffness E* at ambient temperature (25 °C) refered to the stiffness at –100 °C characterizes the residual relative stiffness at ambient temperature. Specimen A (sytrene free) shows a significant decrease of T50% as well as E* under critical installation conditions (wet and low temperature). Therefore the temperature dependent stiffness of the resin seems to be reduced. Specimen B (styrene containing) is susceptible to "wet conditions", low temperatures seems not to affect the stiffness very critical. Altogether, the loss in stiffness as discussed for T50% and E* is more distinctive at specimen B (styrene containing) than specimen A (styrene free). These effects are strongly determined by the chosen resin mortar and should not be generalized. "normal conditions"
Tg

"wet conditions"
Tg

"low temperature"
Tg

90 °C 85 °C Specimen A 95 °C (styrene free) Specimen B 50 °C 42 °C 72% -10 °C -10 °C 14% 50 °C 46 °C 75% (styrene containing) Table 1: Glass transition temperature and loss in stiffness of the examined resin mortars. Tg: glass transition temperature in °C (DMTA); T50%: temperature at 50%stiffness decrease refer to –100 °C; E*: relative stiffness at 25 °C refer to stiffness at –100 °C Additionally to table 1, the DMA-curves of both reaction resins are illustrated in Figure 2. In the relevant temperature range (–5 °C up to +40 °C) Specimen B shows a more distinctive decrease in stiffness than specimen A.

loss in stiffness E* T50% 70 °C 75%

loss in stiffness E* T50% 9 °C 45%

loss in stiffness E* T50% 25 °C 48%

465

Fig. 2: DMTA-curves for the different state of cure of specimen A, top, and B, bottom 4.2. Creep-behaviour in dependence of the installing conditions The left side of Figure 3 shows the creep-displacement as function of time of specimen A (styrene-free resin mortar) for the examined installation conditions at 23 °C and 80 °C testing temperature (static load 24 kN). The creep-displacements are especially under „wet condition“ but also under „low temperature“ significant bigger than under „normal condition“. In addition the creep-speed, which correlates with the gradient of the creepcurve, is much higher. This effect is at a surrounding temperature of 80 °C, lower figure,

466

much stronger than at ambient temperature, upper figure. The estimated glass transition temperatures of specimen A are in the range above 80 °C, that means at surrounding temperatures of 80 °C the glass transition temperatures were not exceeded but almost reached. For the high temperature the „wet condition“ leads to creep-displacements up to 5 mm in the first 5 hours. The measured creep-displacements do not exceed the critical values under ambient temperature and at 80 °C for „normal condition“ and „low temperature“ for static loads up to a factor of 3 referring to the characteristic load. In comparison the creep-displacement of specimen B (styrene content resin mortar) at testing temperature 23 °C is more critical at installing condition „low temperature“, figure 3 right. At „wet condition“ the creep displacement is even less critical than „normal condition“. This is not in advance with the low glass transition temperature found in DMA measurements and has to be investigated further. At testing temperature 80 °C (glass transition temperatures are exceeded 30 °C) the applied load of 24 kN leads to creep-displacements up to 5 mm in the first hour. This bonded anchor is much overloaded at these surrounding conditions for all installation conditions.
2
Creep Displacement [mm]
23oC Specimen A- M12 F = 24 kN Concrete C20 "Wet Condition" 23oC/Water/40min "Low Temperature" -5oC/Dry/5h "Normal Condition" 23oC/Dry/20min

5 4
Creep Displacement [mm]

1.5

23oC Specimen B - M12 F = 24 kN Conctrete C20

3 2 1 0
"Low Temperature" -5oC/Dry/5h "Normal Condition" 23oC/Dry/20min "Wet Condition" 23oC/Water/40min

1

0.5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0 10 20 30 40 50 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Time [h]

Time [h]
80oC Specimen A - M12 F = 24 kN Concrete C20

2

5
Creep Displacement [mm]

Creep Displacement [mm]

1.5

4 3 2 1 0

"Low Temperature" -5oC/Dry/5h "Wet Condition" 23oC/Water/40min "Normal Condition" 23oC/Dry/20min

1

"Wet Condition" 23oC/Water/40min "Low Temperature" -5oC/Dry/5h

0.5
"Normal Condition" 23oC/Dry/20min

0

80oC Specimen B - M12 F = 24 kN Concrete C20

0 10 20 30 40 50 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0

0.5

1 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Time [h]

Time [h]

Fig. 3:

Creep-displacement of Specimen A (left) and Specimen B (right) for different installing condition at ambient temperature (top) at elevated Temperature (bottom)

467

4.3. Dependence of the applied load at elevated temperatures Figure 4, left, shows the dependence of the creep-displacement for different applied loads for bonded anchors which are all installed under „normal condition“ and tested at 80 °C. Specimen A shows a minor influence between the creep-displacement at applied loads up to 18 kN, although the creep speed (curve gradient) seems to be smaller for an applied load of 12 kN. An applied load of 24 kN leads to larger creep-displacements and creep-speeds. Specimen A is even for applied loads of 12 kN overloaded at 80 °C. 4.4. Dependence of the surrounding temperature With a reduction of the surrounding temperature the creep-displacement and the creepspeed can be reduced rapidly even for high applied loads (24 kN), especially in the range of 60 to 40 °C for specimen A, figure 4 right. The closer the surrounding temperature gets to the range of glass transition temperature the stronger are the creep displacements. Specimen B as already shown in figure 3 is overloaded for that kind of applied load at temperatures above ambient temperature.
2
Creep Displacement [mm]
80 oC Specimen A - M12 "Normal Condition" 23oC/Dry/20min Concrete C20

2
Creep Displacement [mm]

1.5

1.5

24 kN Specimen A - M12 "Normal Condition" 23oC/Dry/20min Concrete C20

1
18 KN

24 kN

1

80oC 60oC

0.5
12 kN

0.5
40oC 23oC

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Time [h]

Time [h]

Fig. 4:

Creep-displacements of specimen A for different load levels (left) and different surrounding temperatures (right).

5. Conclusions
It was shown, that the installation condition influence the creep behaviour of the examined bonded anchors. At surrounding temperatures of 23 °C the creep displacement of the installation conditions „low temperature“ and „wet condition“ exceed the creep displacement under normal conditions by a factor of up to 3. The styrene-containing bonded anchor (specimen B) is more sensitive to the installation conditions than the styrene-free system (specimen A). Its creep behaviour increases strongly at elevated temperatures. This effect correlates with the measured glass transition temperatures. While the creep-displacement of specimen A close below its estimated glass transition temperatures is stronger than at ambient temperatures, the creep-displacement of specimen B about 30 °C above its glass transition temperature is rapidly increased. Specimen B is much overloaded at that kind of temperatures even for reduced static loads.

468

Therefore the long-term temperature should not exceed about 40 °C for the examined styrene-containing (specimen B) and not exceed about 80 °C for the styrene-free bonded anchors (specimen A). Otherwise the load has to be reduced significantly. If these results are transferable to other available bonded anchors with styrene-free or styrenecontaining needs to be characterized in further examinations.

6. References
Journal article: Bittmann, E., Tome, A., Ehrenstein, G.W. Aushärtung und Tauglichkeit von Verbundmörtelsystemen für Dübel // Bauingenieur 72 (1997), P. 433 - 437 Book: Bittmann, E., Ehrenstein, G.W. Duroplaste - Aushärtung, Prüfung, Eigenschaften // Carl Hanser Verlag, München 1997 Paper in proceedings: Letsch, R. On the behavour of deformation of epoxy-resin mortars at steady and nonsteady temperatures // ICPIC ‘84 „Polymere in Beton“, September 1984, Darmstadt

469

STUDY ON THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE NEW CAPSULE TYPED BONDED ANCHOR
Masayuki YONETANI*, Akira FUKUOKA*, Yasuhiro MATSUZAKI** *Asahikasei Corporation ,Japan **Science University of Tokyo, Japan

Abstract
In Japan, after Hanshin earthquake disaster in 1995, the post-installed bonded capsule anchor is used widely, specially to reinforce against the earthquake. And that reliability and durability have been recognized . To show more performance of anchor, we found the relation of resin composition and the anchor tensile strength. And moreover, we attained the capsule composition which is satisfied that resin performance. We consider the safety in use, and developed the newtype bonded capsule anchor. We report the excellent performance of this anchor. Moreover, we developed high speed and low noise diamond core drill , and we checked also about the performance when this drill bores.

1. Examination of Resin
Detailed examination was performed about the composition of resin in development of the new-type capsule anchor. Optimum composition of resin was considered, we use the epoxy acrylate resin (vinyl ester resin) which has strong durability of resistance to concrete alkali as the base polymer. In this examination, we could get especially interesting knowledge there is the big correlation of the the physical properties (share strength ) of the resin hardening thing and tensile strength of the bonded anchor. It found out that this share strength was high correlation with the molecular structure of base resin and the structure of the reactive monomer, concentration and the viscosity. Based on the above mentioned result, we attained completing optimum composition of a reactive monomer, a polymerization prohibition agent, a catalyst, etc.

470

2.Development of the new-type capsule anchor
The conventional bonded anchor took double glass tube structure, the hardener in inner tube ,resin and aggregate were enclosed with the outside glass tube. And resin contained the ingredient of which we are anxious about toxicity and inflammability, such as styrene. The following subjects occurred in this capsule. (1) Badness of handling and danger by using glass tube (2) Dispersin in the tensile strength due to un-uniformity hardening by inclination of hardening agent (3) Danger and harmful by using styrene monomer In order to solve these subject, the following measures attained us to the development of new-type capsule anchor. (1) film foil type (2) 1 chamber structure where hardening agent was distributed in resin (3) Adoption of resin which contain the high molecule weight monomer The structure of the new-type capsule anchor is shown in Fig. 1.
a.【resin】 viscous ○ c.【hardening agent】

d.【vessel】 plastic film ● b.【aggregate】 [expressio

HP-10~
AR CHEMICAL

HP-○ ○
ASAHIKASEI

L HP-22~
AR CHEMICAL

HP-○ ○
ASAHIKASEI

L

Fig. 1 Structure of the new-type capsule anchor

471

3.The basic performance of the new-type capsule anchor
The basic performance of the new-type capsule anchor developed this time is shown below. (1) Tensile strength (Fig. 2) (2) Inbedding Resistance (Fig. 3) (3) Inflammability (Fig. 4) The performance which was excellent also in which performance as compared with the conventional glass pipe type was shown.

Tensile strength (KN)

M10

M12

M16

M20

M22

bolt size

Fig. 2. Tensile strength

Inbedding time×load Inbedding resistance

M16 M30 従来タイ (ガラ プ ス 135 720 600 ニュタイ ー プ (フィ 117 ル 610
800 400 200 M16 M30 0 Past type

M24

350 M10 M12 M16M20M22 M24 300 従来タイ (ガラ 96 164 ## プ 38 57 ス 311.3 250 ー 47 プ (フィ ル 313 ニュ タイ 71 122 217 ## 200 150 100 50 0

Past type (glass tube) New-type (film foil)

Past type
(glass tube)

Explosion 80℃

New-type

Burn 90℃

(film foil)

(glass tube)
New-type

Fig. 4.Inflammability

bolt size

(film foil)

Fig. 3. Inbedding Resistance

472

4. Evaluation on the actual use conditions
The evaluation results on the actual use conditions are worked up too. The tendency of the performance was the same as that of the conventional glass tube type. An example is shown below. ①Relation with concrete compression strength (Fig.5) ②Relation with bore hole depth (Fig.6)

14
Tensile strength(ton)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0

96 5.18 6.07

249 7.96 8

354 9.92 10.34

477 11.7 12.2

200 400 600 Concrete compression strength(kg/cm2)

Past type (glass tube) New-type (film foil)

Fig.5

Relation with concrete compression strength

15
Tensile strength (ton)

70 異形鋼 棒 4.3 5

100

10 M ボル 5 0 50

130 (標準 ) 6.5 10.8 break 11.2 8.7

160 14.4 M 11.9 bolt
D bar

100 150 bore hole depth(mm)

200

Fig.6 Relation with bore hole depth

473

5. Combination with Boring Machine 5.1 Introduction of SS Drill The boring becomes the very important element in the bonded anchor to stable precisely and to make it show that performance. Although the hammer drill has generally been conventionally used for anchor construction, the hammer drill is not applicable to boring, while recent years are, since noise and vibration are large. Conventional diamond core drill which are low noise and low vibration on the other hand, had a slow boring speed, its working efficiency was very bad. Now, we succeeded in the development of SS drill with low noise, low vibration ,in addition , with a quick boring speed. Boring speed and noise is shown in Fig. 7. The following development has attained this performance. (1) Adoption of small direct current motor (2) Adoption of durable super thin edge bit

120 100

’ S
80

DR I

100
TIME MAXMUM NOISE

90
NOISE(dB/3m)

TIME BORING

SUMMARY OF 80 STANDAR (d/ REVOLUTIONS p NOISE b3 TIME (r 60 BOREHOLMINIMU (s NO MAXMU NOON CATALOG e 5×63 SS φ 220 65 70 16 ## - - φ5 Haen 20 78.0 81 ## ## ## 1100 70 kk 2×80 40 STAND B+BTEC 20 79 83 74 ## ## - φ 2×81 5 φ HIT 220 80 86 45 ## ## 2400 60 LI 5×80 20 ×64 0 SS φ 201 71 73 20 HANDY LT 210D HII 0×79 79 80 28 φ 0 50 φ 2×615 5 SS SONOR 10 76 80 53 HANDY ITACHI 2DH H φ 2×79 - 5 0 84 89 52 ## ## 370
Fig. 7. Boring time and noise of SS drill
SS HAKKEN B+BTEC HILTI HAMMER DRILL DRILL

474

5.2 Ttensile strength of new-type capsule Anchor in SS Drill Boring The tensile strength of new-type capsule anchor when SS drill borings was checked. Although it was thought that the bond strength of the bonded anchor became low, since the unevenness of hole wall was small ,when a core drill generally bored. It was contrary to anticipation and bond strength was the value with the biggest case of SS drill boring.(Fig. 8)

Tensile strength(ton)

機種 25 D1 D2 項目 D1 D1 D2 SSドリル 5 9 13 11 21 平均 20 R 2 0 0 4 1 平均4 ハンマードリル 9 12 10 19 15 R 0 1 3 3 0
10 5 0
D2 D2 D1 D1 D1

SS drill Hammer drill

D bar size

Fig. 8. Comparison of anchorman adhesion intensity 5.3 The Feature of SS Drill Boring Wall The following points have been checked from the observation result of hole wall bored with SS drill. (1) although the boring wall in SS drill has small unevenness , the aggregate part of concrete put up inside the hole. It is presumed, since a bit was a thin edge and this avoided the aggregate part. (2) although unevenness of hole wall bored by the conventional core drill or hammer drill is large, protrusion is not specialization of aggregate and cement part cannot be performed. This is persumed to appear in the result with high bond tensile . Moreover, boring in SS drill is excellent in the degree of true circle, and linearity, and it was checked that the uniform hole is bored. It is thought that it was connected with the result which this makes reduce the variation in the hardening situation of adhesives, i.e., the variation of tensile strength.

475

6. Conclusion
The relation of resin composition and anchor strength was newly found out this time. Based on the result, it succeeded in development of the new-type capsule anchor. The capsule anchor is the bonded anchor new capsule type which also considered the safety on use further, and has checked the performance which was excellent in each performance. Moreover, it checked about the newly developed diamond core drill, and the original feature of the high speed and low noise has been checked.Furthermore, it has checked that it demonstrated the performance which was excellent also in respect of tensile strength , when boring using this core drill bores the new type capsule anchor.

476

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN STEEL AND CONCRETE
James O. Jirsa Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Expanded Abstract
The poor performance of many structures in recent earthquakes has resulted in the development of an important new area of structural design—the repair and strengthening of structures. The designer is often faced with meeting conditions that do not need to be considered in the design of new structures. These may include: • performance required by the owner or occupant may not be well defined • the condition of the structure must be assessed if there has been earthquake or other damage to the system • construction options may be limited by the need to maintain occupancy or to avoid interference with neighboring structures • time to completion may a prime factor • modifications to the structure must not lead to new zones of weakness or create operational problems in the use of the structure For concrete structures, these constraints often lead to the selection of steel elements to achieve the changes needed for meeting the performance requirements of the rehabilitated structure. Steel elements attached to concrete require connections between the two materials that will permit the modified element to reach desired strength, deform sufficiently to allow inelastic response of the element and/or structure, and be constructed economically. Because concrete and steel have very different stiffness characteristics, it is imperative that the designer consider those differences in evaluating local, as well as global response of the rehabilitated element or structure.

479

The purpose of the paper is to identify several rehabilitation systems that involve the use of steel attached to concrete: • addition of steel bracing to concrete frames that have low lateral capacity and/or ductility • jacketing of elements to improve shear capacity or confinement in columns or beams that have inadequate confinement or splice details • addition of steel straps to provide additional tension capacity in beams or to transfer shear forces between elements. In each case, the connection between the concrete and the steel must be carefully detailed to ensure that the desired performance is achieved. Slip between the steel element and the concrete must be minimized. Anchors used for connecting steel elements to the concrete must be anchored adequately and the shear stiffness and strength of the connector must be evaluated. In the presentation, the use of various strengthening techniques will be described using field examples. Laboratory tests used to assess the performance of the strengthening elements and to provide design guidance will be discussed.

480

TESTS ON CONNECTORS FOR SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF CONCRETE AND MASONRY STRUCTURES IN MEXICO
Sergio M. Alcocer*, Leonardo Flores** *Director for Research, National Center for Disaster Prevention and Research Professor, Inst. of Engineering, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México **Researcher, Structural Engineering and Geotechnical Area, National Center for Disaster Prevention, Mexico

Abstract
The performance of inexpensive fasteners to connect reinforced concrete or mortar jacketings to existing masonry walls subjected to earthquake-type loading is discussed. The experimental variables were the type of masonry, amount of steel mesh reinforcement, the wall jacket material, as well as the type, amount and distribution of fasteners. Results clearly indicated that wall jacketing is an excellent option for improving earthquake performance and for avoiding total or partial collapse of brittle construction, provided that fasteners are properly designed and installed.

1. Introduction
Mexico is located in one of the most active seismic zones in the world. An assessment of earthquake damage over the past 20 years indicates that yearly average losses amount for 305 people killed and 230 million US dollars in direct and indirect damages (Bitrán, 2000). This study indicates that the housing sector, with both urban and rural construction, and the telephone facilities outstand as two of the most hardly hit sectors in the economy. One of the determining factors for the large seismic risk of housing and phone facilities has been its high vulnerability. Indeed, Mexico has a vast inventory of existing structures that were designed and constructed using codes and material standards that pre-date current stringent requirements for seismic resistant construction. Moreover, a large portion of those structures, particularly houses in rural areas, was informally built, that is without the intervention of engineers or architects, and using local, typically weak, materials. Adobe housing is a prime example of rural construction. Wall jacketing is one of the rehabilitation techniques most often used to improve earthquake performance. Wall jacketing consists of a mortar or concrete cover reinforced

481

with a steel welded wire mesh (SWWM) or a “chicken wire” mesh that is attached to the existing walls. For this scheme to work it is indispensable that earthquake-induced shear forces be transferred to the jacket by means of fasteners, shear keys or a combination thereof. Aimed at understanding the role of connectors in wall jacketing and to develop analysis, design and construction recommendations, three experimental programs were undertaken at the National Center for Disaster Prevention, CENAPRED. A complete discussion of the experimental data can be found elsewhere (Alcocer et al. 1996; Alarcón & Alcocer 1999; Flores et al. 1999). In each program, large-scale specimens were built and tested under a constant vertical axial load and cyclic lateral loads. In all cases, the cost of fastening technology was kept as low as possible. This was especially the case for the application to low cost housing, both for rural and urban structures.

2. Wall Jacketing of Adobe Housing
Adobe construction in Mexico is typically found in small villages, mainly in the countryside. Adobe houses are commonly one-story buildings, with a rectangular plan of 4x8 m. The structural system consists of perimeter load-bearing walls, 3-m high and 300-to-600-mm thick. Walls are made of adobe blocks joined by mud mortar. Although roof systems vary, a typical roof consists of timber trusses that support shingles and clay tiles. Earthquake damage of this type of construction may be generally attributed to the low tensile strength of adobe masonry, aging and lack of maintenance. The most common damage patterns in this type of construction are schematically shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Damage patterns in Mexican adobe houses

482

Previous studies on rehabilitation schemes of Mexican adobe houses (Hernandez 1979) have indicated that the construction of a perimeter tensile chord on top of the walls or jacketing a wall with a mortar cover reinforced with a gage 14 wire (1,9-mm diameter) were viable options for reducing the likelihood of collapse. To further evaluate the efficiency of connectors and mesh size on wall jacketing, three full-scale adobe loadbearing walls were built and tested. The control specimen, A1, was an unreinforced adobe wall. After tested, A1 was repaired with a “chicken wire” mesh covered with mortar, and was retested (specimen A1R). Specimens A2 and A3, of similar geometry to A1, were strengthened without prior damage by means of a mortar jacket. In A2, jacket reinforcement consisted of SWWM’s made of gage-10 wire (3,43-mm diameter) with nominal yield stress of fy = 490 MPa and equally spaced at 150 mm in orthogonal directions. In wall A3, a “chicken wire” mesh was used. “Chicken wire” mesh is made of gage-20 wire spaced at 50 mm, fy = 640 MPa. In all cases, commercially available galvanized steel staples were used for fastening the jacket SWWM’s. Staples are made of gage-9 wire (3,76-mm diameter), with fy = 390 MPa, and were installed at 300-mm spacing (10 staples/m²). Staples used were 38-mm long. Cover mortar had a 1½:4½ volume ratio of portland cement and sand. Mortar jackets were, on the average, 30-mm thick and were hand-placed on both wall faces. Strengthening guidelines have recommended fastening the SWWM’s on both wall faces by means of steel cross ties placed through the wall thickness in holes perforated with hand drills (UNDP 1983). Such holes are thereafter filled with some epoxy or cementbased mortars. This recommendation is suitable for urban adobe construction, where drill hammers and trained labor are readily available. Due to the limited applicability of this fastening technology in Mexican rural houses, a simple and inexpensive solution, yet technically sound, was searched for. Steel staples were then found to be easy to install (just by hammering into the adobe wall) and very inexpensive (0.16 USD a piece). The evaluation of its technical feasibility was part of the study. The measured axial compressive strength of adobe blocks was fp* = 2,65 MPa; the compressive strength of adobe prisms was fm* = 0,62 MPa; and the diagonal compressive strength of adobe walls obtained was vm* = 0,03 MPa. The dimensions of the specimens were 2,5? 2,5? 0,35 m. Walls were constructed according to the local practice in the Mexican state of Michoacán. The horizontal reinforcement ratios, ph, of specimens A1R, A2 and A3, based on adobe wall area, were 0,007%, 0,035% and 0,007%, respectively. In one face of all rehabilitated walls, the SWWM was fastened directly in contact with the adobe wall and then covered with mortar. On the other face, the SWWM was fastened after a first 10-mm mortar cover was placed on the wall; the mesh was then finally covered with mortar until it reached the final 30-mm thickness. Specimens were tested under a constant vertical stress of 0,07 MPa. Final crack patterns and hysteresis loops are shown in Fig. 2. In A1, one inclined shear crack following the mortar joints controlled the behavior. Hysteresis loops were quite

483

stable and with good energy dissipation capacity. Strength was reached at over 0,4% drift ratio, for a corresponding shear stress of 0,034 MPa. After repair, A1R was retested. Failure mode was changed to sliding of the wall as a rigid body. This occurred at a shear stress of 0,05 MPa (based on adobe area) that in turn, corresponded to a static friction modulus of 0,76. To fail the specimen, horizontal and vertical loads were then monotonically applied to simulate a large diagonal compression test. Strength was reached at a diagonal stress of 0,2 MPa (six times the original strength).

Figure 2. Crack patterns and hysteretic behavior of adobe walls Similarly to A1R, specimens A2 and A3 were initially tested under cyclic loads. Prior to sliding of the walls, specimens were then tested monotonically through a diagonal compression load. Measured strengths were equivalent to diagonal stresses of 0,28 and 0,27 MPa, respectively (based on the adobe area only). Strengths attained corresponded to large cracks on the mortar and the yielding of SWWM’s. A more uniform distribution of cracks was observed in wall faces where a first mortar cover was placed prior to fastening the SWWM. In both faces, staples remained anchored to the wall, even in locations close to the large diagonal cracks.

484

3. Wall Jacketing of Hand-Made Clay Brick Masonry
Clay brick masonry has been the most popular construction material in urban areas in Mexico. Typically, the structural system consists of load-bearing walls confined through vertical and horizontal RC tie-columns and bond-beams. Such system has performed excellently under very intense earthquakes only when adequately spaced, detailed and built confinement elements existed, as well as when sufficient lateral strength and stiffness were available. However, it is quite usual to find houses of this material where current requirements for seismic resistance are not fulfilled. For such cases, wall jacketing is one rehabilitation technique suitable for improving its lateral strength, stiffness and toughness. To better understand the resistance mechanisms and to develop design and construction guides, one two-story, three-dimensional confined masonry structure was repaired. Also, a series of four full-scale isolated confined masonry walls were tested. Specimens were built with hand-made burnt clay bricks joined with a portland cement mortar. Specimen dimensions, reinforcement details and mechanical properties of materials are presented in Fig. 3. All specimens were designed to fail in shear.

Figure 3. Characteristics of clay brick walls Specimen 3D was firstly tested by applying lateral displacements controlled by drift angle. Consistent with actual damage patterns observed after earthquakes, distress was concentrated in the ground story walls. Therefore, only such walls were repaired.

485

Crushed and spalled tie-column concrete was removed and replaced by concrete with similar mechanical characteristics. Largest masonry cracks were filled with mortar and brick debris. Finally, the exterior side of the walls was jacketed with a mortar and a SWWM. The specimen was retested using the same displacement history (Alcocer et al. 1996). Common steel nails for timber construction, 50-mm long and made of gage-10 wire were used to fasten the SWWM’s. Fasteners were placed by carefully hammering them into the wall, of the grid intersections. The nail head was then bent around the wire intersection to secure the mesh in position. Fastener density was 9/m². The meshes were placed in the mid-thickness of the mortar cover, so that a 7-mm spacer was used between the wall and the mesh. This has been a typical fastening technology used in Mexican practice. In the isolated wall series, M0 was the control specimen. M1 to M3 were undamaged confined masonry walls strengthened with wall jackets on both faces, in which the horizontal reinforcement ratios were 0,072, 0,147 and 0,211%, respectively. In M1 and M2, with meshes made of gages-10 (3,43 mm) and -6 (4,88 mm) wire respectively, same fasteners in 3DR were used. However, no spacers were provided, so that the mesh was placed against the masonry wall. The amount of fasteners was different in the two faces, namely 5 and 11/m². For M3, where a steel mesh with a 6,35 mm wire diameter was used, Hilti ZF-51 fasteners were installed. This 51-mm long nail made of gage-10 wire was used in combination with a 36-mm diameter metal washer also supplied by Hilti. Fasteners were powder driven at the intersection of vertical and horizontal mesh wires with the DXE72 tool. The washer was intended to clamp the vertical and horizontal wires at the intersection. Again, no spacers were used. During construction it became evident that this fastening technology was installed faster and is more reliable than the typical hand-driven nails. The speed of installation offset the higher cost of the Hilti-type fasteners as compared to the inexpensive nails. Final crack patterns and hysteresis loops are shown in Fig. 4. Jacketed specimens exhibited a very uniform distribution of cracks and increased strength as compared to those in the control specimens (3D and M0). At same drift levels, crack widths in jacketed specimens were smaller than those recorded in control structures. In 3DR, at drifts to 0,46%, it became apparent that fasteners had been pulled out. This was attributed to the increased shear flexibility of the nail-spacer system and the reduced anchorage length of the nail into the masonry, when compared to the same nail without spacer used in M1 and M2. M1 failed after fracture of SWWM horizontal wires that led to shearing off the lower ends of the tie-columns.

4. Wall Jacketing of Concrete Masonry Infills
In the aftermath of the 1985 Mexico City earthquakes, the country’s telephone infrastructure was severely damaged. The two buildings that handled international and domestic long distances suffered structural and equipment damage, rendering to a total loss of the country's capability of long distance service (Teléfonos 1988). To improve

486

system redundancy and reduce building vulnerability, the company has carried out a very successful strategy of rehabilitation of their most critical facilities. One of the techniques used to improve performance has been the addition of new RC walls attached to both the existing RC frame and concrete masonry unit (CMU) infills at the perimeter of the building. Note that infills and perimeter frames are flush so that, for concrete placement, they would act as forms for one side of the new wall. To achieve a positive shear transfer and monolithic behavior between the new and existing elements, dowel bars have been used; however, detailing, number and distribution varied depending upon the design office and the contractor. Some required epoxied dowels in both the masonry infill and the RC frame; others only in the frame. In some cases, dowels in the walls were just epoxied at the mortar joints, whereas in other instances the dowels passed through the walls and were welded to small 6,4-mm thick steel plates inside the building. This variety of solutions had, evidently, very different costs.

Figure 4. Final crack patterns and hysteresis curves of jacketed clay brick walls To assess the effectiveness of this upgrading scheme, as well as the performance of different solutions for fastening, four specimens were built and tested (Fig. 5). Structures

487

represented 1:1.3 scaled models of a one bay of a prototype building. T0 was the control specimen. In the strengthened (undamaged) specimen TP, epoxied dowel bars were placed in the perimeter RC frame, whereas in TD, dowel bars were distributed both in the frame and in the infilled masonry wall. Preliminary studies on isolated small specimens indicated that dowels with welded steel plates on the back of the wall performed as well as epoxied dowel bars placed in the mortar joint and embedded 80 mm into the wall thickness (Flores et al. 1999). Moreover, the latter solution was evidently more cost-effective. A two-component commercial epoxy resin was used to install the dowel bars. In TH, Hilti ZF-72 powder driven fasteners with a 25-mm spacer were installed. The spacers, made of a steel square tube, were provided to locate the SWWM in the mid-thickness of the concrete jacket. In the design of fasteners of all structures tested, it was assumed that transfer of forces between the existing and new elements would be developed through shear friction.

Figure 5. Characteristics of RC frames infilled with CMU’s Final crack patterns and hysteresis loops are shown in Fig. 6. Damage in T0 was controlled by shear-compression of the masonry infill. Specimens TP and TD showed a very similar behavior in terms of their uniform crack distribution and hysteretic curves. Failure was triggered by shear—compression cracking and crushing of the infill. Analysis of strain gage data indicated that strains in the dowel bars on the masonry infill were negligible, thus suggesting that their participation in transferring forces was minimal. Indeed, shear transfer was accomplished through shear friction between the wall and the RC frame (where dowels were actually strained), and by means of bond between CMU’s and the RC jacket (Flores et al. 1999). Fasteners in TH did not perform as intended, since at drifts to 0,4%, it was apparent that the anchorage was lost and that further shear transfer was impaired. Substandard performance was a combination of the excessive shear flexibility of the fastener due to the spacer, as well as of its reduced anchorage depth. During installation, part of the energy released by the powder charge was rebound due to the elastic deformation of the spacer, thus leaving the remainder energy to actually drive the fastener into the infill.

488

Figure 6. Final crack patterns and hysteresis curves of jacketed concrete masonry infills

5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the observations made during the tests, and on the analysis of the instrumentation, the following conclusions and recommendations regarding the design and installation of fasteners were developed. Recommendations are applicable to existing structures with similar material characteristics as those reported herein. Wall jacketing proved to be a technically viable option for improving earthquake performance of existing structures. Its cyclic behavior strongly depends on the ability to transfer forces between new and existing elements through an adequately designed and installed fastening technology. For adobe rehabilitation, steel staples, 38-mm long, made of gage-9 wire and hammered into the adobe wall, proved to be a strong and stiff fastening system. Prior to the installation of the staples, it is recommended to place a 10-mm thick mortar cover on the adobe wall. Final mortar thickness should be of the order of 25-to-30 mm. In clay brick masonry, for light gage meshes (up to 4,11-mm wire diameter), 50-mm long steel nails driven into the wall can be used as fasteners. However, powder-driven

489

connectors are most cost-effective and reliable. Nine connectors per m² are recommended. In clay brick construction, SWWM’s should be installed directly against the masonry wall without using spacers. The addition of a new RC wall connected to existing infilled RC frames through epoxied dowel bars performed satisfactorily. Moreover, it was found that dowel bars located uniformly on the masonry infill do not significantly participate in the shear transfer mechanism, since most shear is taken by dowels on the frame and bond between the new concrete and the existing infill. To connect a new RC wall, it is recommended to design the fasteners using a “capacity design approach”. Therefore, epoxied dowel bars should have strength, based on a shear friction model, of 1.5 times the maximum shear force expected to be resisted by the jacketed wall.

References
1. Bitrán, D., 'Características e Impacto Socioeconómico de los Principales Desastres Ocurridos en México en el Periodo 1980-1999', Centro Nacional para la Prevención de Desastres, Mexico, September 2000. 2. Alcocer, S.M., Ruiz, J., Pineda, J.A. and Zepeda, J.A., 'Retrofitting of Confined Masonry Walls with Welded Wire Mesh', Proceedings of the Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, June 1996, paper no. 1471. 3. Alarcón, P. and Alcocer S.M., 'Ensayes Experimentales sobre Rehabilitación de Estructuras de Adobe', (in Spanish) Proceedings, XII Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica, Morelia, Mich., Mexico, Vol. I, (1999) 209-217. 4. Flores, L.E., Marcelino, J., Lazalde, G. and Alcocer, S.M., 'Evaluación experimental del desempeño de marcos con bloque hueco de concreto reforzado con malla electrosoldada y recubrimiento de concreto', Centro Nacional para la Prevención de Desastres, Mexico, IEG/03/99, October 1999. 5. Hernández, O., Meli, R. and Padilla M., 'Refuerzo de vivienda rural en zonas sísmicas'; Institute of Engineering, UNAM, Mexico, (1979) 45 pp. 6. UNDP/UNIDO, 'Repair and strengthening of reinforcing concrete, tone and brick masonry buildings', RER/79/015, Building Construction under Seismic Conditions in the Balkan Regions Vol. 5, ONU, Industrial Development Programme, Viena, Austria, (1983). 7. Teléfonos de México, 'Reto Sísmico: Incrementar la Seguridad y Mantener el Servicio de las Centrales Telefónicas', México, (1988) 290 pp.

Acknowledgements
The participation of J. Pineda, A. Otálora, P. Alarcón, J. Marcelino, G. Lazalde, P. Olmos and C. Olmos is gratefully acknowledged. The support of CENAPRED, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo and Teléfonos de México is recognized.

490

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ANCHORAGE FOR POWER-PLANTS
Peter J. Carrato, William F. Brittle Bechtel Power Corporation, USA

Abstract
Fossil fueled power-plant projects provide many design and construction challenges for connection of steel to concrete. Heavily loaded anchorages are required to support building structures and hold down machinery and equipment. Column bases for coal fired boiler support structures can transmit loads in the order of 4000 kN of tension and 2000 kN of shear. This magnitude of tension load requires groups of high strength bolts 100mm and larger in diameter. Shear loads are resisted using hot rolled structural shapes or heavy plate (up to 50mm thick) as shear lugs. Power-plant equipment such as turbo-generators, condensers, stacks, fans and pumps require precision placement of anchor bolts and shear lugs, often in the vicinity of congested reinforcing steel and embedded pipe and conduit. Construction consideration for column bases and equipment foundations often have a significant impact on the structural design.

1. Introduction
Construction of a power generating facility involves a variety of applications of anchorage to concrete. Literally truckloads of anchor bolts are used in the construction of these facilities as can be seen in Figure 1. This paper describes some of the wide variety of connection to concrete found in a typical, natural gas fired power plant.

Figure 1 - Truckload of bolts

491

Special emphasis is given to seismic resistant applications from projects being constructed in Taiwan, Turkey and California, as well as, high precision anchorage of turbine generator sets. In a fossil fuel fired power plant, most connections to concrete are made in cast in place foundations. These connections can be categorized into those that support structures and those that anchor equipment. Structural support include typical column base plates for turbine halls (Figure 2), pipe racks, water treatment buildings, etc, and more exotic bases, some of which allowing for thermal expansion at columns that support heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) boilers (Figure 3). Anchoring of tanks for fuel, water, and chemicals presents a unique structural application due to the large numbers of bolts required for a single foundation. Figure 4 shows a template used to set a stack. Figure 2 Turbine Hall

Figure 3 HSRG

Figure 4 Stack

Equipment anchorage is characterized by the need to resist dynamic loads using precisely located fasteners. Rotating equipment such as turbine generators, pumps and fans may require pre-loading anchor bolts to meet requirements given by their

492

manufacturer. Non-rotating equipment like condensers and valves can present unique applications due to transient or operating conditions.

2. Machinery Foundation – Turbine Generators
The turbine generators (T/G) are those pieces of equipment, which turn mechanical energy into electricity. It is often the most expensive component part of a power plant. As such, the anchorage of this equipment is given special attention. Anchoring devices used for turbine generators include not only those to secure the equipment in its final locations, but also those required to precisely position the machine. It is common to see anchor bolts 100 mm in diameter that must be placed with tolerances as tight as ± 3 mm to ± 1 mm. Critical design considerations for these applications include a variety of static and dynamic loads. The most significant design loads are those due to postulated machine malfunctions. Specifically the loss of a turbine blade or the short circuit of a generator can produce anchor bolt loads as high as 500 kN. The structural design of T/G anchorage also requires careful consideration of the thermal growth experienced by the machine as it heats up during normal operation. It is common for the temperature of the turbine casing to increase by 200 °C as the machine goes from cold shut down to full operation. Some of the larger loads transferred to a T/G foundation are those associated with aligning the machines. The shafts of the turbine and generator must be in perfect alignment. Embedded structural steel profiles (hot rolled shapes) called jacking posts are used as reaction points for hydraulic jacks used to position the machines in a horizontal plane as shown in Figure 5. Jacking post forces are often as high as 150 kN.

Figure 5 Jacking Posts

A number of different techniques are used for vertical alignment. These include grout pads and shims, jacking bolts and shims, and patented positioning devices. The choice of vertical alignment method depends on weight of the machine and the experience of the contractor performing

Figure 6 Grout Pad

493

the installation. In the grout pad method (Figure 6), small pillars of grout are formed on which shims may be set, if needed, to achieve the final vertical position of the machine. The base plate is then set. Jacking bolts are threaded into the base plate and thus allow the plated Figure 7 Jacking Bolt position to be adjusted by turning the bolt. This is illustrated in Figure 7. Once the final location is achieved, the plate is shimmed and then grouted. Patented positioning devices consist of small screw or hydraulic jacks that are placed in a pocket in the concrete foundation. After the jacks have positioned the machine the device is grouted in place. Figure 8 shows a Fixator brand of positioning devices being used to set a generator. To position and anchor a T/G set while allowing for thermal growth, requires a wide variety of anchoring devices. Jacking posts, positioning devices and anchor bolts have already been mentioned. In addition to these fasteners, sole plates, center line guides, and stop blocks are also used. A sole plate is an embedded bearing plate on which the machine rests and/or slides during thermal growth. Center line guides are positioned along the shaft of the machine and control the direction of thermal expansion. Stop blocks are Figure 8 Positioning Device employed to limit the extent of thermal growth. These steel blocks are precisely positioned at the end of sole plates and restrain the machine after a predetermined amount of movement. Holding down a turbine or generator often requires 20 or more anchor bolts. To accurately cast this number of bolts into a concrete foundation typically requires one of two possible construction methods. Either the bolts must be designed so that their position may be adjusted after the concrete has set or the entire bolt group must be placed using a template that assures their precise location. Use of through bolts or an adjustable sleeve, will allow bolt positions to be adjusted after placing concrete. For

494

elevated concrete decks, through bolts in oversized holes are recommended. When access to the underside of the slab is not available then an adjustable sleeve and pocket arrangement may be used. Both of these applications, shown in Figure 9; allow the bolts to be tensioned after setting the machine. When the anchor bolts are not to be preloaded after setting the machine a template may be used to position the bolt group. Templates are typically made from structural steel. The template should be fully welded or bolted together before drilling holes for the anchor bolts. The holes should only be 2 mm larger than the diameter of the bolts. Templates should be firmly supported preferably from existing concrete. It is not advisable to support a template from concrete formwork or rebar as the forms or rebar may shift during placement and consolidation of the Figure 9 Bolt Sleeves concrete. Templates are intended to fix the location of the top of the anchor bolts. For long bolts the lower portion of the bolt should be tied to the reinforcing steel thus assuring that the bolts will plumb.

3. Structural Anchors
Structural anchors in power generating facilities present many challenges ranging from fastening a one half horse power pump to a 200 mm thick concrete pad to anchoring a column carrying 5000 kN of force to a 2 meter thick slab. Each of these various applications has its own unique concerns with designing the anchorage, positioning the bolts, installing the base plate and grouting the final assembly. By far, the most interesting designs are those associated with a combination large shear and uplift forces. In high seismic zones such as those found in Turkey, Taiwan and California large lateral loads must be transmitted from the superstructure to the foundation. Often these high lateral seismic loads can produce overturning moments on the structure that create uplift

495

at these anchorage points. Connections such as these that must resist both uplift and large lateral forces are the most challenging to design. In these cases, an arrangement of anchor bolts designed to resist tension only and shear lugs designed to resist lateral loads is required.

Figure 10 Small Shear Lug

Figures 10 and 11 show column base plates designed for such loads. Figure 10 shows a shear lug consisting a single 18 mm thick plate that is designed to resist moderate levels of lateral load (75 to 10 kN).

Figure 11 shows an H shaped shear lug made of 50 mm thick plates. This lug is designed to resist significant levels of shear, up to 400 kN

Figure 11 Large Shear Lug

496

Another practical way to resist large lateral loads is to embed the lower portion of the column shaft into a pocket in the foundation. This method, shown in Figure 12, works well in thick mat foundations such as those often used in power plant structures. There is little reference material that can be used to design a shear lug such as that shown in Figure 11. The design process should specifically consider the following 1) the strength of the lug, 2) the stiffness of the lug relative to the surrounding concrete and 3) the Figure 12 Column Pocket connection of the lug to the base plate. Of these three items connection of the lug to the base plate is the least understood and has the greatest impact on the cost of the anchorage. There are two design approaches used for this welded connection. The simplest and most straight forward considers the weld to take only the shear load transferred from the base plate to the lug. This results in very economical connection typically using a fillet weld. The other design approach is to assume that the bearing pressure applied to the face of the lug results in a bending moment on the weld of the lug to the base plate. This assumption invariably leads to a full penetration weld of the lug to the base plate. Such a weld applied to a 50 mm thick lug may increase the cost of the column-base plate assembly by as much as 50%. A well documented, definitive design method for large capacity shear lugs would be beneficial to design engineers.

4. Conclusion
Design and construction of power plant facilities provide a wide variety of connections between steel and concrete. This paper has discussed a number of applications associated with anchoring structures and equipment. It is important to recognize that construction issues greatly influence the final design in many cases. Precision placement of anchor bolts and shear lugs, as well as provisions for grouting the final installation often require more engineering activity than the structural design of the connection.

497

DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF SINGLE AND DOUBLE NEAREDGE ANCHORS LOADED IN SHEAR
Jennifer Hallowell Gross*, Richard E. Klingner**, and Herman L. Graves, III*** * Cagley, Harman & Associates, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, USA., Former The University of Texas at Austin. ** Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. *** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., USA.

Abstract
Under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a research program was carried out on the dynamic behavior of anchors (fasteners) in concrete. In this paper, the dynamic response of single and double near-edge anchors loaded in shear is described. Hairpin reinforcement significantly increases the ductility of near-edge anchors loaded in shear. For the anchor diameters, spacings, and edge distances of this research program, behavior of double anchor connections could be approximated by combining the load-displacement behavior of each anchor, evaluated independently.

1. Objectives and Scope
Under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a research program was carried out on the dynamic behavior of anchors in concrete. The research program comprised four tasks: 1) 2) 3) 4) Static and Dynamic Behavior of Single Tensile Anchors (250 tests); Static and Dynamic Behavior of Multiple Tensile Anchors (179 tests); Static and Dynamic Behavior of Near-Edge Anchors (150 tests); and Static and Dynamic Behavior of Multiple-Anchor Connections (16 tests).

In this paper, dealing primarily with Task 3, the behavior of single and multiple shear anchors is described. Complete results are given in References 1 and 2.

498

2. Anchors, Test Setups and Procedures
Based on surveys of existing anchors in nuclear applications, the tests described here involved cast-in-place anchors, one wedge-type expansion anchor (referred to here as “Expansion Anchor II”), with some tests on one undercut anchor (“UC Anchor 1”). Based on current use in nuclear applications, it was decided to test anchors ranging in diameter from 3/8 to 1 in. (9.2 to 25.4 mm), with emphasis on 3/4 in. (19.1 mm) diameter. The tests of Task 3 involved anchors with a diameter of 3/4 in. (19.1 mm). The Cast-in-Place (CIP) anchors tested in Task 3 were A325 bolts, shown in Figure 1. The Expansion Anchor II (EAII) tested in this study is shown in Figure 2. The Undercut Anchor 1 (UC1) tested throughout this study is conventionally opening, and is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 1

Typical cast-in-place anchor (A325 bolt) tested in Task 3 of this study
wedge dimple wedge mandrel (cone) D1 D2 lc D

Figure 2
threaded shank

Key dimensions of EAII
expansion sleeve cone

extension sleeve

D1 lef lc

Figure 3

Key dimensions of UC1

An important objective of Task 3 was to determine the influence of dynamic loading on anchor capacity as governed by concrete breakout. To ensure breakout failure, 4 in. (100 mm) embedment was chosen, which is representative of the manufacturer’s standard or minimum embedment.

499

D2

D

Single-anchor connections were tested at an edge distance of 4 in. (100 mm). Doubleanchor connections were composed of a front anchor with a 4 in. (100 mm) edge distance, and a back anchor with a 12 in. (300 mm) edge distance. The spacing between the two anchors was 8 in. (200 mm), twice the embedment depth. Some tests were conducted with a U-shaped #6 (19 mm) reinforcing bar, referred to as a “hairpin,” restraining the anchor [3]. The hairpin was placed directly against the anchor in some tests (“close hairpin”), and at 1-1/4 in. (32 mm) from the anchor in other tests (“far hairpin”). The target concrete compressive strength for this testing program was 4700 lb/in.2 (32.4 MPa), with a permissible tolerance of ±500 lb/in.2 (±3.45 MPa) at the time of testing. The concrete used a local river-gravel aggregate. Specimens for Task 3 were cast in blocks of dimensions 87 in. x 30 in. x 14 in. (2.21 m x 0.36 m x 0.76 m) with reinforcement located at mid-depth. The test setup for Task 3 is shown in Figure 4. Tests on single anchors used the loading shoe of Figure 5; on double anchors, the loading shoe of Figure 6. As shown in Figure 6, the anchors to be tested were inserted through the hole or holes in the shoe. The shank of the anchor was surrounded by a hardened steel insert, and the anchor was tightened by a nut placed in a recessed hole in the baseplate. For CIP anchors, the critical shear plane passed through the unthreaded portion of the anchor shank. For post-installed anchors, the critical shear plane passed through the anchor threads, and did not include the anchor sleeve.
Test Frame Hydraulic Ram Load Cell Nut

Concrete Block

Threaded Rod

Figure 4

Setup for shear tests of Task 3
9-1/2”

17-1/2”

1-1/4”

1-1/8” 1-1/4” 4” 2-1/8”

2”

1-1/8” 4” 8” 2-1/8”

2”

Figure 5 Loading shoe for singleanchor shear tests

Figure 6 Loading plate for double-anchor shear tests

500

Horizontal movement of the loading shoe was equivalent to the horizontal movement of the anchor. A linear potentiometer placed against the shoe measured the displacement of the anchor. The crack opening was measured with two direct-current differential transformers (DCDT’s), placed behind the anchor and on the side of the block. The DCDT’s were attached to a steel plate glued to the surface on the concrete and reacted against a steel angle that was also glued to the surface of the concrete on the opposite side of the crack. Tests were conducted under static and dynamic loading. Static loading involved monotonically increasing loads to failure in two to four minutes. For dynamic testing, to ensure anchor failure, a ramp loading was used, with a rise time of about 0.1 seconds, corresponding to that of typical earthquake response of mounted equipment. For tests in cracked concrete, using post-installed anchors, 0.3 mm cracks were initiated using hardened steel wedges and splitting tubes. For cast-in-place anchors, sheet-steel crack initiators were used. Anchors were tightened to the torque specified by the manufacturer. To simulate the reduction of prestressing force in anchors in service due to concrete relaxation, anchors were first fully torqued, then released after about 5 minutes to allow the relaxation to take place, and finally torqued again, but up to only 50% of the specified values.

3. Test Results
Behavior of Single-Anchor Connections under Shear Loading For CIP anchors, Figure 7 shows the effects of dynamic loading, cracked concrete, and far hairpins (supplementary U-shaped reinforcement placed 1-1/4 in. or 32 mm clear from the anchor) on the concrete breakout capacity of single CIP anchors loaded in shear. Under dynamic loading, the breakout capacity of CIP anchors is higher than under static loading, other conditions being the same. The increase in capacity is approximately 20% for CIP anchors, regardless of whether hairpins are used, and regardless of whether the concrete is cracked or not. Cracked concrete reduces the breakout capacity of CIP anchors by about 18%, compared with the corresponding uncracked cases. Anchors with far hairpins retain more of their original capacity. This is because the concrete between the anchor and the far hairpin is well confined, reducing the effect of cracking. In addition, the reduction in capacity due to cracked concrete is lower for dynamic loading than for static loading. This is because the additional crack opening is generally lower under dynamic loading than under static loading. Figure 8 shows the effects of dynamic loading and far hairpins on the concrete breakout capacity of EAII and UC1 anchors. For EAII, the increase in breakout capacity due to dynamic loading is 20%, similar to that for CIP anchors. UC1 has an increase in capacity of only 12%. The breakout capacity of these post-installed anchors with a far hairpin is lower than the breakout capacity of CIP anchors with a far hairpin, possibly

501

because EAII is not as stiff as the CIP anchor. In a few cases, the concrete cracked during installation of UC1, reducing breakout capacity. Increases in breakout capacity due to hairpins, and decreases in breakout capacity due to cracked concrete, were similar to those observed for CIP anchors. Figure 9 shows the effect of those same factors on ultimate capacity, taken here as the highest load recorded up to a maximum displacement of 1.2 in. (30 mm). Ultimate failure of CIP single-anchor connections with no hairpin occurred at concrete cone breakout. Connections with hairpins withstood significant additional load after concrete cone breakout. The ultimate load is approximately the same for each test type. Anchors restrained by a hairpin bent around the hairpin until the anchor displaced more than 1.2 in. (30 mm), or until load-carrying capacity was reduced because the anchor either fractured, or deformed excessively. Capacity of anchors with hairpins depends on the strength of the anchor steel rather than the strength of the concrete. Therefore, the ultimate capacity is essentially independent of loading rate and cracking of concrete.
Effect of Loading Rate and Cracked Concrete on Concrete Cone Breakout Load of Cast-in-Place Anchor Loaded in Shear
20.0
15.2 13.9 12.6 12.0 14.7 15.6

89.0

Maximum Load (kips)

12.0
8.8

11.2 9.6 7.2 10.8 10.4

53.4

Maximum Load (kN)

16.0

71.2

No Hairpin Close Hairpin Far Hairpin

8.0

35.6

4.0

17.8

0.0 CIP Static Uncracked CIP Dynamic Uncracked CIP Static Cracked CIP Dynamic Cracked

0.0

Test Type

Figure 7

Effect of loading rate and cracked concrete on concrete cone breakout load of CIP single-anchor connections loaded in shear

502

Effect of Loading Rate on Concrete Cone Breakout Load of Expansion Anchor II and Undercut Anchor 1 Loaded in Shear
12.0
10.3 9.2 9.6

53.4

Maximum Load (kips)

7.9

Maximum Load (kN)

9.0

40.0

6.0

26.7

EAII Far Hairpin UC1 Far Hairpin

3.0

13.3

0.0 Static Uncracked Dynamic Uncracked

0.0

Test Type

Figure 8

Effect of loading rate on concrete cone breakout load of EAII and UC1 single-anchor connections loaded in shear

The ultimate capacity of EAII and UC1 with a far hairpin are shown in Figure 10. The dynamic capacity of EAII is 14% higher than the static capacity, because the anchor tended to pull out as it displaced under static loading, but not under dynamic loading. As with CIP anchors with hairpins, the ultimate capacity of UC1 depends on the anchor steel, and is not significantly affected by loading rate.

503

Effect of Loading Rate and Cracked Concrete on Ultimate Load of Cast-in-Place Anchor Loaded in Shear
30.0
24.1 22.9 21.4 18.0 16.1 22.1 18.0

133.4

25.0

111.2

Maximum Load (kips)

20.0
17.3

89.0

Maximum Load (kN)

No Hairpin Close Hairpin Far Hairpin

15.0
11.2 8.8 7.2 10.4

66.7

10.0

44.5

5.0

22.2

0.0 CIP Static Uncracked CIP Dynamic Uncracked CIP Static Cracked CIP Dynamic Cracked

0.0

Test Type

Figure 9

Effect of loading rate and cracked concrete on ultimate load of CIP single-anchor connections loaded in shear

The ultimate capacity of these post-installed anchors with a far hairpin is lower than the ultimate capacity of CIP anchors with a far hairpin. This is partially due to the lower stiffness of EAII, to cracking at installation of UC1, and to differences in the load transfer mechanism of each anchor. As shown in Figure 11, hairpins increase the failure displacement of near-edge CIP anchors loaded in shear by a factor between 9.5 and 14.3 for close hairpins, and between 7.5 and 13.1 for far hairpins. The largest increases in failure displacement occur for dynamic loading in uncracked concrete; the smallest, for dynamic loading in cracked concrete. Similar increases are observed for post-installed anchors. Behavior of Double-Anchor Connections under Shear Loading The objective of the double-anchor tests was to compare single- and double-anchor tests and thereby assess the extent of load sharing as well as the interaction of the two anchors. To achieve this objective, a conceptual model was developed and compared with actual test results.

504

Effect of Loading Rate on Ultimate Load of Expansion Anchor II and Undercut Anchor 1 Loaded in Shear
18.0
14.8 15.1

80.1 66.7 53.4
8.6 9.8

15.0

Maximum Load (kips)

12.0

Maximum Load (kN)

9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 Static Uncracked Dynamic Uncracked

40.0 26.7 13.3 0.0

EAII Far Hairpin UC1 Far Hairpin

Test Type

Figure 10

Effect of loading rate on ultimate load of EAII and UC1 singleanchor connections loaded in shear
Effect of Hairpin on Displacement at Ultimate Load of Cast-in-Place Anchor Loaded in Shear

16.00 14.35 13.40 13.15 13.13 11.96

Displacement Normalized by No Hairpin

12.00 9.46 8.00 8.91 7.47 Static Uncracked Dynamic Uncracked Static Cracked Dynamic Cracked 4.00 1.001.001.001.00 0.00 No Hairpin Close Hairpin Far Hairpin

Hairpin Type

Figure 11

Effect of hairpin on displacement at ultimate load of CIP singleanchor connections loaded in shear

The conceptual model is based on the hypothesis that the two anchors are far enough from each other that each behaves individually, and the response of the double-anchor

505

connection is therefore equal to the sum of the responses of each anchor. The model assumes a rigid baseplate, so that the displacements of the two anchors and the baseplate are all equal to each other. Figure 12 shows the load-displacement results from (A) shear tests on a single near-edge anchor, (B) shear tests on a single back anchor, (C) the summation of those two single anchor tests, and (D) shear tests on a double-anchor connection. All are for anchors under static loading with a close hairpin in uncracked concrete. The summation (C) of the curves for the single-anchor behavior and the back anchor behavior is generally close to (D) the curve for the double-anchor connection. The curve for the double-anchor connection is shifted to the right slightly compared to the curve for the summation of the two anchors because the baseplate slipped during the double-anchor test. In all cases, the results for the summation of the responses of the near-edge single-anchor connection and the back anchor are quite close to the response of the double-anchor connections. Slight differences exist due to differences in slip of the baseplate; as seen in Figure 12, however, the curves have the same slope, and the change in curvature (which is used to determine the concrete cone breakout load) occurs at essentially the same load. It can be confidently concluded that for 3/4 in. (19 mm) diameter anchors spaced at 8 in. (200 mm), the shear behavior of a connection with two anchors will be equal to the summation of the behavior of each individual anchor. For anchors located closer to each other than 8 in. (200 mm) and diameters greater than 3/4 in. (19 mm), this conclusion may not hold.
Evaluation of Double-Anchor Model for Anchors Loaded in Shear Static Loading, Close Hairpin, Uncracked Concrete
Displacement (mm) 0.0 60.0 50.0 Load (kips) 40.0 30.0
(B) Back (C) Summation of SingleAnchor and Back Anchor (D) Double-Anchor Connection (5SCR5706)

5.1

10.2

15.2

20.3

25.4 266.9 222.4 Load (kN) 177.9 133.4 89.0

20.0 10.0 0.0 0.00 Slip of Double-Anchor Connection 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
(A) Single-Anchor Connection (1SCR5706)

44.5 0.0

1.00

Displacement (in.)

Figure 12

Evaluation of double-anchor model for anchors loaded in shear for the case of static loading, close hairpin, uncracked concrete

506

4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Single Near-Edge Anchors Loaded in Shear 1. In uncracked concrete, all anchors show an increase in concrete breakout capacity under dynamic loading as compared to static. Increases range from 20% for CIP and EAII anchors, to 12% for UC1 anchors. 2. All anchors show a decrease in concrete breakout capacity due to cracking, as compared to the uncracked case. The decrease is 18% for CIP anchors, and similar for post-installed anchors. For all anchors, far hairpins (spaced 1-1/4 in. or 32 mm clear from the anchor) increase concrete breakout capacity by 30% to 40%. Similar increases were observed for CIP anchors with close hairpins (placed directly against the anchor). While similar increases would probably have been observed for post-installed anchors as well, it is generally not possible to install close hairpins around postinstalled anchors. Ultimate capacity, evaluated at a displacement of 1.2 in. (30 mm), is obviously increased for all anchors by hairpin reinforcement. Dynamic loading and cracked concrete have essentially no effect on ultimate capacity, which depends on a failure mechanism involving the restrained anchor only. Hairpin reinforcement confers significant ductility. For CIP anchors with a close hairpin the displacement at ultimate failure is increased by 9.5 to 14.3 times over the ultimate displacement with no hairpin. CIP anchors with a far hairpin have a slightly lower increase of 7.5 to 13.1 times. Similar results were obtained for postinstalled anchors with a far hairpin.

3.

4.

5.

Double-Anchor Connections Loaded in Shear The behavior of a double anchor connection consisting of 3/4 in. (19 mm) diameter CIP anchors embedded 4 in. (100 mm) with the front anchor at a 4 in. (100 mm) edge distance and the back anchor at a 12 in. (300 mm) edge distance can be determined by superimposing the load-displacement behaviors of each anchor. This conclusion is specific to this test program and may not hold for larger anchors, smaller embedments, or closer spacing.

5. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
This paper presents partial results of a research program supported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NUREG/CR-5434, “Anchor Bolt Behavior and Strength during Earthquakes”). The technical contact is Herman L Graves, III, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. The conclusions in this paper are those of the authors only, and are not NRC policy or recommendations.

507

6. References
1. Hallowell 1996: Hallowell, J. M., “Tensile and Shear Behavior of Anchors in Uncracked and Cracked Concrete under Static and Dynamic Loading,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1996. Klingner et al. 1998: Klingner, R. E., Hallowell, J. M., Lotze, D., Park, H-G., Rodriguez, M. and Zhang, Y-G., Anchor Bolt Behavior and Strength during Earthquakes, report prepared for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-5434), August 1998. Malik et al. 1982: Malik, J. B., Mendonca, J. A., and Klingner, R. E., “Effect of Reinforcing Details on the Shear Resistance of Short Anchor Bolts under Reversed Cyclic Loading,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings Vol. 79, No. 1, January-February 1982, pp. 3-11.

2.

3.

508

POST-INSTALLED REBAR CONNECTIONS UNDER SEISMIC LOADING
Isabelle Hofacker and Rolf Eligehausen Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
This paper presents results of monotonic and cyclic tests with post-installed reinforcing bars performed at the research laboratory of the University Stuttgart. The main objective was to study the behavior of post-installed rebar connections in uncracked concrete under cyclic loading. Varied was the type of mortar and the peak displacements during reversed cyclic loading between constant displacements. The results show that the behavior of post-installed rebars under cyclic loading depends on the failure mode under monotonic loading. If pullout is caused by a bond failure between mortar and bar, the cyclic behavior of post-installed rebars is much the same as for cast-in-place rebars. On the contrary if pullout is caused by a bond failure between mortar and concrete then the bond behavior of post-installed rebars under reversed cyclic excitations maybe rather poor. In the paper the tests and the evaluation of the results are presented.

1. Introduction
1.1. General The requirements in earthquake resistant structures usually lead to the need for large seismic energy input absorption and dissipation through large but controllable inelastic deformations of the structure. To meet these requirements, the sources of potential structural brittle failure must be eliminated and degradation of stiffness and strength under repeated loadings must be minimized or delayed long enough to allow sufficient energy to dissipate through stable hysteric behavior. In reinforced concrete, one of the sources of brittle failure is the sudden loss of bond between reinforcing bars and concrete in anchorage zones, which has been the cause of severe damage to, and even collapse of, many structures during recent strong earthquakes. Even if no anchorage failure occur, the hysteric behavior of reinforced concrete structures, subjected to severe seismic excitations, is highly dependent on the

509

interaction between steel and concrete (bond-stress-relationship) [2]. Therefore the behavior of cast-in place rebars under seismic excitations has been studied extensively [1] and design recommendations have been formulated in codes of practice. In practise many structures have to be strengthened to increase their seismic resistance. This is often done by deformed reinforcing bars, which are bonded by a special mortar into a predrilled hole. Previous investigations with post-installed rebars in pull-out tests and overlap splices under monotonic loading have shown that the bond behavior of post-installed rebars is much the same as that of cast-in rebars provided the injection mortar is suitable [3], [4]. This statement is valid for the failure modes pullout and splitting. In contrast, the behavior of post-installed rebars under cyclic loading representing seismic excitations is not known. However, this knowledge is needed so that postinstalled rebars can safely be used in structures in seismic active areas. Therefore pullout tests have been carried out to study the cyclic behavior of post-installed rebars. Varied were the type of injection mortar (product A and product B) and the peak displacement during reversed cyclic loading (smin=± 0.2 mm to smax=± 2.0 mm (product B) and smin=± 0.2 mm to smax=± 4.0 mm (product A)).

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Test Specimen Pullout tests were performed with deformed reinforced bars (ds= 20 mm, fy= 900 MPa) installed in a concrete slab (h= 400 mm). The embedment depth was hef = 10ds. In the tests the tested rebars were produced from one lot. To avoid concrete splitting large edge distances (c≥ 250 mm) and spacing (s≥ 500 mm) were used. Two concrete slabs were made having a concrete compressive strength of about fcc~ 30 MPa (measured on cubes with a side length of 200 mm). 2.2. Injection Systems Two types of injection systems were used in the tests. Product A is a hybrid system which employs styrene-free vinylester and cement as binding material. For the cleaning of the holes newly developed special equipment was used. First the hole was cleaned 3 times by compressed air using a special lance. Then the hole was brushed 3 times by a special steel wire brush which was installed in the drilling machine. Afterwards the hole was again air lanced 3 times with compressed air.

510

Figure 1. Cleaning process

Product B uses unsaturated polyester as binding material. The hole was also cleaned by 3 times blowing, 3 times brushing and 3 times blowing. However the blowing was done using a hand pump and the brushing was done by hand with a steel wire brush. With both products the components of the mortar (binding material, hardener, supplement) are separately preserved. While injecting the mortar the components are automatically mixed in the mixing nozzle.

2.3. Rebar installation Holes (d0= 25 mm) were drilled by rotary hammer drilling. After cleaning them carefully according to manufacturers recommendations (see Section 2.2) the mortar was injected using an injection tool, the holes were filled from the bottom of the hole up to about 2/3 of the embedment depth. Afterwards the rebars were installed under slight turning with the required embedment depth. All tests were performed 3 hours after rebar installation. The curing time was larger than the curing time required by the manufacturer. The temperature of the specimen was about 19° C. Different methods were used to install the rebar in concrete. All specimen tested in monotonic loading were installed in a hole with a depth of h0= 200 mm (Figure 2).

511

The results of the cyclic tests should be compared with the results of tests described in [1]. In these tests a contact pressure at the bar end under compression loading was excluded. To achieve the same condition in the cyclic tests with post-installed rebars, the hole was first Figure 2. Test specimen Figure 3. Test specimen (cyclic drilled through the entire depth of the (monotonic loading) loading) slab. After cleaning the hole a wire sleeve (length 80 mm) with the closed end first was installed from the lower end of the slab (Figure 3). Then the hole was injected with mortar and the bar was installed. In this way the correct embedment depth (hef =200 mm) was ensured and no contact pressure could build up. After the tests the wire sleeve, which could easily be removed from the hole, showed indentations resulting from the displacements of the rebar under cyclic compression loading. 2.4. Experimental Setup and Testing Procedure Each specimen was attached to a specially designed testing apparatus and was loaded by a hydraulic servo-controlled cylinder. The tests were run under displacement control by subjecting the free end of the bar to the force needed to induce the desired displacement. The displacement was simultaneously measured on either side of the load application using two LVDTs; the average of the two displacements was used to control the loading. It was necessary to prestress the loading frame to the ground to apply a compressive load to the test specimen during cyclic loading (see Figure 4). No upwards movement of the test setup was observed during the tests. For monotonic tests, the specimens were tested in tension so no prestressing was applied. In all other respects the testing apparatus for monotonic and cyclic tests was the same.

512

Figure 4. Test setup 2.5. Test Program The program for the monotonic tests is given in Table 1. Besides post-installed rebars cast-in place rebars were tested for comparison. The program for cyclic tests is given in Table 2. Only tests with post-installed rebars were performed. Five identical tests were carried out in each test series to account for the inevitable scatter of results. The main parameters studied in the tests are as follows: (1) Type of mortar. Two different types of mortar were used with the corresponding cleaning method. (2) Loading history in the cyclic loading tests. The main parameters were the peak displacement values ∆s between the peak values of displacement between which the specimen was cyclically loaded (∆s1=±0.2 mm, ∆s2=±0.4 mm, ∆s3=±0.8 mm, ∆s4=±2.0 mm and ∆s5=±4.0 mm (only product A)). The number of cycles was 10. After cyclic loading a monotonic tension test was performed.

Series A
Type Product/ Cleaning Method Number of Tests Post-Installed Rebar Product A/ Machine Cleaning 5

Series B
Post-Installed Rebar Product B/ Hand Cleaning 5

Series C
Cast-In-Place Rebar 5

Table 1. Test program for tests in monotonic loading

513

Series A
Type Product/ Cleaning Method Peak Slip ∆s [mm] Number of Cycles Number of Tests Post-Installed Rebar Product A/ Machine Cleaning 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.0 4.0 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5

Series B
Post-Installed Rebar Product B/ Hand Cleaning 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.0 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5

Table 2. Test program for tests with reverse cyclic loading

3. Experimental Results
For reason of clarity only the averaged bond stress-displacement curves are given in the following diagrams. Each series was averaged by a computer program named Origin. The bond strength τ was calculated according to Equation (1):

τ=

N π ⋅ d s ⋅ h ef

[N/mm2]

(1)

N = measured load [N] ds = bar diameter (ds = 20 mm) hef = embedded length (hef = 200 mm) 3.1. Monotonic Loading The test results for monotonic loading are plotted in Figure 5. It shows the average bond stress-displacement curves of post-installed rebars using product A, product B and of cast-in-place rebars. In the pullout tests with rebars τ [N/mm2] post-installed with product A the 16 bond failure occurred in the post-installed bar (Product A) interface between rebar and 12 mortar. In contrast to that rebars post-installed with product B 8 failed in the interface between cast-in-place bar mortar and concrete. 4 The bond stress-displacement post-installed bar (Product B) curve of the cast-in place rebar is similar to that of the rebar post0 s [mm] installed with product A. The 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 rebar post-installed with product A reached an approximately 15% higher maximum bond Figure 5. Bond stress–displacement diagram for cast-in-place rebars and post-installed rebars in stress. The stiffness of the ascending monotonic loading.

514

branch decreased gradually from its initial large value to zero when approaching the maximum bond resistance at a displacement value of approximately 1.4 mm (cast-inplace rebar) and 2.0 mm (post-installed rebar). After passing τmax, the bond resistance decreased slowly and almost linearly until it levelled off at a slip of s≈ 11 to 12 mm. This value is almost identical to the clear distance between the lugs of the bars used in the tests. The bond behavior of rebars post-installed with product B is significantly different from those of rebars post-installed with product A and of cast-in-place rebars. The initial stiffness of the bond stress-displacement relationship of rebars post-installed with product B is the same as that of the other bars. However, with product B at a rather low bond stress and corresponding small displacement the stiffness of the bond stressdisplacement and the bond strength is reached at very large displacement values (s~15 to 18 mm). The bond strength is about 60% or 45% lower than for rebars post-installed with product A or for cast-in rebars. The bond behavior of the rebars post-installed with product B can be explained as follows. The adhesion between mortar and wall of the hole overcomes at low bond stress values and the load transfer at larger displacement values is mainly due to friction because of pulling rebar with mortar through the hole with relatively rough wall. 3.2. Cyclic Loading The influence of reversed loading on the local bond stress-slip relationship of cast-in rebars has been studied intensively in [1]. These results are compared with the results of the present tests. The results of the cyclic loading tests with post-installed rebars are plotted in Figure 6a)6e) (product A) and Figure 8a)-8d) (using product B). In these bond stress-displacement diagrams, the first and the 10th cycle and the curves valid for loading to failure after 10 load reversals are plotted. Each Figure is valid for one peak displacement during reversed cyclic loading. Figure 7 (product A) and Figure 9 (product B) show the bond stress-displacement curves after cycling 10 times for all peak slip values. In all diagrams, the corresponding bond stress-displacement relationship for monotonic loadings are shown for comparison.

515

τ [N/mm ] 16 12 8 4 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -4 -8 -12 -16 0 1 2

2

τ [N/mm ] 16

2

monotonic 0,4 mm

0,2 mm monotonic

12 8 4 0 s [mm] 0 1 2 3 4 5

s [mm] 3 4 5

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

-4 -8

-12

Post-Installed Bar (Product A)

-16

Post-Installed Bar (Product A)

a) Product A, ∆s=±0.2 mm
τ [N/mm ] 16 12 8 4 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -4 -8 -12 -16 0 1 2 3 4 5 s [mm]
2

b) Product A, ∆s=±0.4 mm
monotonic
τ [N/mm ] 16
2

monotonic

12

0,8 mm

8 4 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -4 -8 0 1 2 3 4 5

2,0 mm
s [mm]

Post-Installed Bar (Product A)

-12 -16

Post-Installed Bar (Product A)

c) Product A, ∆s=±0.8 mm
τ [N/mm ] 16
2

d) Product A, ∆s=±2.0 mm
monotonic
τ [N/mm ] 16
2

12 8 4 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -4 -8 -12 -16 0 1 2 3 4 12

0,2 mm monotonic 0,4 mm

Post-Installed Bar (Product A)

4,0 mm s [mm] 5

8

0,8 mm

4

2,0 mm 4,0 mm

Post-Installed Bar (Product A)

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

s [mm]

e) Product A, ∆s=±4.0 mm Figure 6a)-e). Bond stress-displacement Figure 7. Bond stress-displacement relationship for monotonic and reversed relationship for monotonic loading after 10 cyclic loading (product A). Only the first load reversals (product A). and the 10th cycle with subsequent loading to failure are shown.

516

τ [N/mm2] 8 6 4 2 0 -3 -2 -1 -2 0 -4 -6 -8 Post-Installed Bar (Product B) 1 2 3 monotonic s [mm] -3 -2 -1 0,2 mm

τ [N/mm2] 8 6 4 2 0 -2 0 -4 -6 -8 Post-Installed Bar (Product B) 1 2 3 0,4 mm monotonic s [mm]

a) Product B, ∆s=±0.2 mm
τ [N/mm ] 8
2

b) Product B, ∆s=±0.4 mm
τ [N/mm2] 8 6 monotonic 0,8 mm s [mm] 4 2 0 -3 -2 -1 -2 0 -4 1 2 monotonic 2,0 mm s [mm] 3

6 4 2 0 -3 -2 -1 -2 0 -4 -6 -8 Post-Installed Bar (Product B) 1 2 3

-6 -8

Post-Installed Bar (Product B)

c) Product B, ∆s=±0.8 mm

d) Product B, ∆s=±2.0 mm

Figure 8a)-d). Bond stress-displacement relationship for monotonic and reversed cyclic loading (product B). Only the first and the 10th cycle with subsequent loading to failure are shown.
τ [N/mm2] 8

0,2 mm 6 monotonic 0,4 mm 4 2,0 mm 2 Post-Installed Bar (Product B) s [mm] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0,8 mm

0

Figure 9. Bond stress-displacement relationship for monotonic loading after 10 load reversals (product B).

517

Note the different scale for the bond stresses in Figure 8a)-8d) compared to Figure 6a)6e) for the bond strength which is ±8 N/mm2 (vertical axis) and ±3 N/mm2 (horizontal axis). If cyclic loading is performed between small peak displacement values (∆s≤±0.4 mm) the bond stress-displacement curves of post-installed rebars reach the monotonic envelope for displacement values larger than the peak displacement during previous cycling. If the rebars are cycled between peak displacement values ∆s≥±0.8 mm than the monotonic envelope is not reached again. This behavior is valid for rebars post-installed with product A and product B.

In Figure 12 and Figure 13 the bond stresses after n=2 to 10 cycles at peak slip value related to the bond stress when reaching smax at the first cycle (see Figure 11) are plotted as a number of Figure 11. Graphics load cycles. Figure 12 shows the results using product A, Figure 13 those for product B. For comparison Figure 10 shows the corresponding results for cast-in rebars according to [1]. For rebars post-installed with product A the bond Figure 10. Deterioration of bond deterioration during reversed cyclic loading is resistance at peak slip as a much the same as for cast-in-place rebars function of number of cycles (compare Figure 12 with Figure 10) if cyclic is done between approximately the same values ∆s. (ds=25.4 mm, fcc~ 30 MPa)[1] In contrast to that the bond deterioration of rebars post-installed with product B is much more pronounced than that for cast-in-place rebars (compare Figure 13 with Figure 10).

518

Post-Installed Bar (Product A)
1

Post-Installed Bar (Product B) smax [mm] 0,2 0,4 0,8
1

τ(n)/τ(n=1) [N/mm ]

0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Cycles n [-] 9

τ(n)/τ(n=1) [N/mm ]

2

2

0,8

smax [mm]
0,6 0,4 0,2 0

2,0 4,0
10

0,2 0,4 0,8 2,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Cycles n [-] 9 10

Figure 12. Deterioration of bond Figure 13. Deterioration of bond resistance at peak slip as a function of resistance at peak slip as a function of number of cycles (product A) number of cycles (product B) The different bond behavior during monotonic and cyclic loading of the bars installed with product A and product B can be explained as follows. Rebars installed with product A overcome the bond resistance at the interface between rebar and mortar. Therefore these rebars behave similar to cast-in-place rebars. The higher bond strength of post-installed rebars is caused by the higher compressive strength of the mortar compared to the compressive strength of the concrete. The failure of bars installed with product B occurs at the interface between mortar and concrete. After overcoming the adhesion strength at relatively small slip values (s~±0.2 mm), the load transfer is dominated by friction between mortar and concrete. This friction is reduced significantly by cyclic loading. The bond resistance of rebars post-installed with product B at small displacement values is rather low and the relatively low bond strength is reached at displacement values which in general can not be used in reinforced concrete structures. Furthermore the bond deterioration during cyclic loading is much more pronounced than for cast-in-place rebars. Therefore this product is not well suited for post-installed rebars under monotonic and cyclic loading.

4. Conclusions
From the results obtained in this study, the following main observations can be made for the local bond behavior of post-installed rebars under monotonic and cyclic loading. The results show that the behavior of mortared-in bars under cyclic loading depends on the failure mode under monotonic loading. According to the test results the bond failure of deformed rebars post-installed with product A failed by overcoming the bond strength at the interface between rebar and mortar (shearing of the mortar between the lugs). Therefore the bond behavior during monotonic and cyclic loading is very similar to the bond behavior of cast-in-place rebars. On the contrary to that rebars post-installed with product B failed at the interface

519

between mortar and wall of the hole at relatively low bond stress values and corresponding low displacements. The bond behavior of these rebars under monotonic and cyclic loading was much inferior to the bond behavior of cast-in-place rebars. Therefore product B should not be used to post-installed rebars subjected to monotonic or cyclic loading. Many post-installed rebars may fail by a combination of a bond failure at the interface between rebar and mortar over a part of the embedment length and mortar and concrete over the rest of the bond length. The behavior of these rebars under monotonic loading and cyclic loading will lay in between the two extremes shown above. This behavior should be investigated in tests. The mode of failure of post-installed rebars might change with rebar diameter. Therefore with a given injection mortar, the influence of the diameter on the bond behavior should be checked by tests. In the tests described above failure occurred by pullout of the rebars. In many applications rebars will be installed with a small concrete cover and they might fail by a splitting failure. The behavior of post-installed rebars under cyclic loading in case of splitting failure should also be investigated.

5. Acknowledgement
Funding for this work was made available through the Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany. Special thanks to E. Schiebelbein and F. Stockert for their encouragement in data preparation. Thanks to M. Hoehler for improving the English.

6. References
[1] Eligehausen, R.; Popov, E.P.; Bertero V.V.: Local Bond Stress-Slip Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitations, Report No. UCB/EERC-83/23, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, 1983. Popov, E.P.: Mechanical Characteristics and Bond of Reinforcing Steel under Seismic Loading, Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Building Construction, University of California, Berkeley, 1977. Eligehausen, R.; Spieth, H.A.: Anschlüsse mit nachträglich eingemörtelten Bewehrungsstäben. Der Prüfingenieur. April 2000. Eligehausen, R.; Spieth, H.A., Sippel, T.M: Eingemörtelte Bewehrungsstäbe – Tragverhalten und Bemessung. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 94 (1999), Heft 12.

[2]

[3]

[4]

520

AN EVALUATION OF TENSILE CAPACITY OF ANCHOR SYSTEM IN NPPS BY ACTUAL MODEL TESTS
Jang Jung-Bum, Woo Sang-Kyun, Suh Yong-Pyo, and Lee Jong-Rim Nuclear Power Laboratory, Korea Electric Power Research Institute, KEPCO, Korea

Abstract
The design of anchor system for fastening the equipments and piping systems, etc. to concrete structure has based on the ACI 349 code in Korean NPPs. But, CCD method of CEB code which was processed in Europe shows that anchor system design according to ACI 349 code has some of overestimated effects in the evaluation of tensile and shear capacity of the real anchor system. Also, according to US NRC SRP published in 1996, US NRC recommended that the anchor system should be designed by test results for each case until ACI 349 code will be newly revised. Moreover, Korean nuclear regulatory institute, KINS asks to follow the requirements of US NRC SRP for design of anchor system in NPPs. Therefore, in order to accurately evaluate both behavior and tensile capacity of anchor system used in Korean NPPs, actual model tests are carried out in this study. 60 test specimens with cast-in-place headed anchor system which is installed in uncracked and plain concrete test specimens, are manufactured for these actual model tests. From the results of this study, the discrepancies between the test results and these two design methods, ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code, are assessed and applicability of ACI 349 code for design of anchor system are evaluated.

1. Introduction
The design of anchor system for fastening the equipments and piping systems, etc. to concrete structure has based on the ACI 349 code in Korean NPPs. But, CCD method of CEB code which was processed in Europe shows that anchor system design according to ACI 349 code has some of overestimated effects in the evaluation of tensile and shear capacity of the real anchor system. This discrepancy between ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code is due to the differences of their assumptions. That is, both ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB

521

code assume differently for the inclination angle between the failure surface and concrete surface and concrete failure shape, etc. Also, a lot of papers related to this subject represent new movement to make some amendment to ACI 349 code or new design code based on CCD method of CEB code. According to US NRC SRP published in 1996, US NRC recognized that ACI 349 code has a some problems in design of anchor system and recommended that the design of anchor system should be performed by test results for each case until ACI 349 code will be newly revised. Moreover, Korean nuclear regulatory institute, KINS asks to follow the requirements of US NRC SRP for design of anchor system in NPPs. Therefore, in order to accurately evaluate both behavior and tensile capacity of anchor system used in Korean NPPs, KEPRI carried out the actual model tests with cast-inplace anchor system, most used in Korean NPPs. The discrepancies between the test results and these two design methods, ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code, will be assessed and applicability of ACI 349 code for design of anchor system will be evaluated in this paper.

2. Design Codes for Anchor System
The major differences between CCD method of CEB code and ACI 349 code are as follows : ( a ) under tensile load, the inclination angle between the failure surface and concrete surface is 45 degree for ACI 349 code and 35 degree for CCD method of CEB code, ( b ) concrete tensile capacity is proportional to 2.0 power of embedment depth of anchor bolt for ACI 349 code and 1.5 power for CCD method of CEB code, and ( c ) the concrete failure shape is idealized by cone for ACI 349 code and pyramid for CCD method of CEB code. Due to above major differences between ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code, the prediction of concrete cone failure load is different each other. According to test results for anchor system, CCD method of CEB code well agrees with test results than ACI 349 code and ACI 349 code is shown the non-conservative design for some cases.

2.1 ACI 349 Code
Under tensile load, ACI 349 code assumes that uniform tensile stress of 4φ

f c acts

on the projected area of the concrete failure cone as shown in figure 1 and the inclination angle for calculating projected area shall be 45 degree. Also, in order to avoid the reduction of concrete cone failure load, the concrete member thickness is assumed sufficiently large. For a single anchor without edge influences or over-lapping failure volume, concrete cone failure load is calculated from Eq. ( 1 )

N no = (4φ f c ) AN 0 , lb

(1)

522

where

φ

is capacity reduction factor and AN 0 is projected area of a single anchor

without any limitations and is given by Eq. ( 2 ).
2 AN 0 = πhef (1 +

du ) hef

(2)

with f c = Concrete compressive strength

d u = Diameter of anchor head hef = Effective embedment depth of anchor bolt
For anchor system with edge influences ( c < hef ) or affected by other concrete breakout cones (

s < 2hef ), the concrete cone failure load is calculated from Eq. ( 3 )
(3)

Nn =

AN d 2 4φ f c πhef ( 1 + u ),lb AN 0 hef

where c is edge distance from anchor bolt to the nearest concrete edge and s is a distance between a neighboring anchor bolts. AN is actual projected area of stress cones radiating from anchor head. Effective area shall be limited by over-lapping failure volume, bearing area of anchor heads, and overall thickness of concrete member

2.2 CCD Method of CEB Code
Under tensile load, the concrete failure load of a single anchor is calculated assuming an inclination angle between the failure surface and concrete surface of about 35 degree as shown in figure 2. For a single anchor in uncracked concrete without edge influences or over-lapping failure volume under tensile load, the concrete failure load N n 0 is given by Eq. ( 4 )
2 − N n 0 = k1 f c k 2 hef k 3 hef0.5 , lb

(4)

where

k1 , k 2 , k 3 are calibration factors, with

k nc = k1k 2 k 3 N n 0 = k nc
1 f c hef.5 , lb

(5)

523

with

k nc = 35 for post-installed anchor system k nc = 40 for cast-in-place anchor system
In Eq. ( 4 ), the factor

k1 f c represents the nominal concrete tensile stress at failure
2 −0.5

over the concrete failure area, given by k 2 hef , and the factor k3hef

represents the so-

called size effect. For anchor system with edge influences or affected by other concrete breakout cones, the concrete failure load is calculated from Eq. ( 6 ).

AN 1 ψ 2 knc f c hef.5 AN 0 A N n = N ψ 2 N n0 AN 0 Nn =

(6) (7)

where ψ 2 is tuning factor to consider disturbance of the radial symmetric stress distribution caused by an edge, valid for anchors located away from edges and is given by Eq. ( 8 ).

ψ2 =1

if c ≥ 1.5hef

( 8.a ) if c ≤ 1.5hef ( 8.b )

ψ 2 = 0 .7 + 0 .3

c 1.5hef

3. Tensile Capacity Evaluation Tests
The objectives of this study are to identify the causes of discrepancies between ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code and to evaluate the applicability of ACI 349 code for design of anchor system through the tensile capacity evaluation tests. This test plan intended for the cast-in-place anchor system which was most prevailed in Korean NPPs. 60 test specimens with cast-in-place headed anchors which are installed in uncracked and plain concrete test specimens, are manufactured for this actual model tests.

3.1 Test Variables
In order to compare tensile capacities of anchor system estimated by two design procedures, ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code, with test results according to the various test variables, 5 test variables are considered. That is, these test variables are diameter of anchor bolt, embedment depth of anchor bolt, concrete compressive strength,

524

edge influence by distance between anchor system and concrete edge, and over-lapping failure volume by interaction of neighboring anchor systems. The detailed descriptions of these test variables are as follows. [1] Loading condition Anchor system is generally designed by tensile and shear load but these tests are carried out under tensile load. 100 tonf-capacity actuator is used to apply tensile load to test specimens and tensile load is gradually increased by displacement control so that displacement of anchor system occurs 0.5 mm/min. [2] Diameter of anchor bolt Diameter of anchor bolt is selected so that concrete brittle failure is occurred at test specimens under tensile load. The selected diameters of anchor bolts are cast-in-place headed anchors of 3/4, 9/8, 13/8, and 2 in. with ASTM A193 Gr B7. [3] Embedment depth of anchor bolt Referring to the existing test results related to the anchor system, both ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code are shown the conservative design for anchor system under about 8 in. in embedment depth of anchor bolt. But, both design codes are shown the different results for anchor system from about 8 in. up in embedment depth of anchor bolt. Therefore, this study considers the 2, 4, 8, 12, and 14 in. as embedment depth of anchor bolt. [4] Concrete compressive strength Concrete compressive strength has an less influence on concrete failure load of anchor system than the other test variables and most concrete buildings of Korean NPPs have been designed with concrete compressive strength of 4,500 psi excluding containment building. Therefore, constant concrete compressive strength of 4,500 psi is used for manufacturing the test specimens for this study. [5] Edge influence In order to examine the reduction of concrete failure load due to edge influence by distance between anchor system and concrete edge, this test variable is considered. The distances between anchor system and concrete edge are 2, 4, 6, and 7 in. with a half of embedment depth of anchor bolt so that edge influence affects the concrete failure load. [6] Over-lapping failure volume In case of anchor systems for equipments and piping system, etc. installed at NPPs, the distances between neighboring anchor bolts are very short and concrete failure load is reduced due to over-lapping failure volume by interaction of neighboring anchor bolts. In order to examine the reduction of concrete failure load due to over-lapping failure volume, anchor system which 4 anchor bolts act as single anchor system is considered and the distance between neighboring anchor bolts is determined so that it affects the concrete failure load.

525

3.2 Test Specimens
According to ASTM E488-96, test specimens are manufactured so that the minimum clearances between supports of test specimens are equal to or greater than 4.0 hef. Also, the test specimens are at least 2.0 hef in thickness so long as the depth is suitable for normal installation of the anchor system and does not result in premature failure at either the structural member or anchor system. Table 1 shows the test specimens manufactured for this study. The minimum of 5 tests per test number of table 1 are carried out in accordance with ASTM E488-96 and 5 test results are averaged for determining the tensile capacity of anchor systems. Figures 3 and 4 show the test specimen and view which actual model test is being carried out with 100 tonf-capacity actuator.

3.3 Test Results
In case of single anchor system without over-lapping failure volume, both ACI 349 code and CCD method of CEB code are shown the conservative results in comparison with test results as shown in Figure 5(a). However, in case of multiple anchor system with over-lapping failure volume, ACI 349 code overestimated and CCD method of CEB code underestimated with test results as shown in Figure 5(b). This is probably due to the fact that their assumptions like inclination angle and concrete failure shape are different each other. That is to say, in case that over-lapping failure volume happened in anchor system, concrete failure load predicted by CCD method of CEB code is smaller than ACI 349 code because over-lapping failure volume by CCD method of CEB code is larger than ACI 349 code. Moreover, these facts are revealed in test results for examination of edge influence as shown in Figure 6. In case that concrete failure load is reduced due to edge influence by distance between anchor system and concrete edge, CCD method of CEB code well agrees with test results than ACI 349 code. Therefore, in case that anchor system for fastening the equipments and piping systems, etc. will be designed at NPPs, CCD method of CEB code turned out reasonable than ACI 349 code through this study. Figure 7 is shown the typical concrete failure shape.

526

Table 1. Test specimens for tensile capacity evaluation of anchor system Embedment depth of anchor bolt ( in. ) 2 4 8 12 14 Tensile load 4 8 12 4 8 12 14 Summation Single anchor Edge point Multiple anchor Single anchor Center point Overlapping failure volume

Loading No. condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Edge influence

No. of test specimen 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 60

Remarks

Direct embedment type

4. Conclusions
In order to accurately evaluate both behavior and tensile capacity of cast-in-place headed anchor system which is most used in Korean NPPs, actual model tests are carried out. These actual model tests are carried out for the tensile capacity evaluation of CIP anchor system as first stage of overall test plan and tests related to the shear capacity evaluation in uncracked and plain concrete, tensile and shear capacity evaluation in cracked and plain concrete will be carried out near the future as second stage. As a result of this study, CCD method of CEB code well agrees with test results than ACI 349 code and especially ACI 349 code gives the underestimated results in case of anchor systems with over-lapping failure volume and influence of edge distance. Therefore, in case that anchor system for fastening the equipments and piping systems, etc. will be designed at NPPs, CCD method of CEB code turned out reasonable than ACI 349 code.

527

References
[1] Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., and Breen, J.E.,“ Concrete Capacity Design ( CCD ) Approach for Fastening to Concrete, “ ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 73 – 94, 1995. [2] Eligehausen, R. and Balogh, T.,“ Behavior of Fasteners Loaded in Tension in Cracked Reinforced Concrete,“ ACI structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 3, 1995. [3] Hallowell, J.M.,“ Tensile and Shear Behavior of Anchors in Uncracked and Cracked Concrete under Static and Dynamic Loading,“ University of Texas at Austin, 1996. [4] Primavera, E.J., Pinelli, J.P., and Kalajian, E.H.,“ Tensile Behavior of Cast-In-Place and Undercut Anchors in High Strength Concrete,“ ACI Structural Journal, 1997. [5] ASTM E 488-96, “ Standard Test Methods for Strength of Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements,“ 1996.

Figure 1. Concrete failure shape by ACI 349 code

Figure 2. Concrete failure shape by CCD method of CEB code

Figure 3. Test specimen with CIP anchor system

528

Figure 4. Actual model test by 100 tonf-capacity actuator

100

100

90

Test Results ACI 349 Code CCD Method of CEB Code

90

Test Results ACI 349 Code CCD Method of CEB Code

80

80

Concrete Failure Load ( tonf )

70

Concrete Failure Load ( tonf )
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Embedment Depth of Anchor bolt ( in. )

Embedment Depth of Anchor bolt ( in. )

( a ) Single anchor systems

( b ) Multiple anchor systems

Figure 5. Concrete failure loads by actual model test

529

100

90

Test Results ACI 349 Code CCD Method of CEB Code

80

Concrete Failure Load ( tonf )

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance between Concrete Edge and Anchor system ( in. )

Figure 6. Concrete failure loads by actual model test – edge influence

Figure 7. Typical concrete failure shape under tensile load

530

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF SRC COLUMN - RC BEAM JOINT UNDER MONOTONIC AND CYCLIC LOAD
Sang-Hoon Lee, Young-Kyu Ju, Sung-Chul Chun and Dae-Young Kim Daewoo Institute of Construction Technology, South Korea

Abstract
SRC column–RC beam joint is frequently used for the construction of underground structure in the Top-Down construction method. Various types of joint details have been proposed and implemented for the anchorage of the reinforcing bars. The types can be classified by anchoring methods as follows: (1) passing through type; (2) wing plate type; and (3) H-beam bracket type. Although these types are widely used in Korea, the structural performance is not clearly understood. For each type of joint, the structural characteristics such as strength, stiffness, energy dissipation capacity, stiffness degradation, and ductility under monotonic and cyclic loads were tested. The test results showed that the passing through type has the best structural performance. By advancing the passing through type, the wide beam type specimens were experimentally investigated for the field application. The wide beam type uses a number of reinforcing bars that are placed at the edge of the slab not to intersect a steel column without changing its sectional shape. It is concluded that the wide beam type is adequate in the SRC column-RC beam joint not only for its structural capacities, but also for its economic merits.

1. Introduction
General The Top-Down method is frequently used at a downtown construction site, because it requires less construction space than other methods. Also, this method reduces construction time, noise and vibration, and prevents unequal settlement of the surrounding ground. Since its invention by Mr. Arup in 1936, characteristics, construction procedure and several details of this method have been studied to promote the construction efficiency. As one of these efforts, when deciding structural type, the composite structure is mostly preferred.1)

531

In Japan, since the early recognition of the necessity of the composite structure, several beam-column joint types have been developed. Focused joint types are SRC columnSRC beam, RC column-steel beam, and SRC column-steel beam. When using SRC column-RC beam joint type, the passing through type is preferred, because of the safety from the earthquake. The reinforcing bar is anchored by making a hole at the steel column and passing through the column. SRC column-RC beam joint is usually adopted for the underground structures in Korea. However, its beam cannot maintain the continuity because of the construction characteristics. The various joint types, such as the passing through type, the wing plate type, the bracket type, and the coupler type have been proposed and implemented to settle this problem.2) In spite of frequent usage of these types, there were not comprehensive experimental bases of their structural behaviors. Research Scope In this study, the passing through type, the wing plate type, and the H-beam bracket type were considered. Although the coupler type is known for its best reliability of anchorage of the reinforcing bar, it was not considered, because it can be implemented immediately if its welding condition is proved to be good enough. First of all, the monotonic and cyclic loading experiments were conducted for each joint type to investigate the structural behaviors. Then, additional monotonic tests were performed to efficiently develop the type that showed the best performance. Special attentions were paid to investigate the efficiency of placing the tensile reinforcing bars within the effective beam width. For the field application, the wide beam type was explored by experiment.

2. Comparative Experiment
Monotonic and cyclic loading tests were performed to investigate the structural capacities of three types as follows; (1) passing through type, (2) wing plate type, and (3) H-beam bracket type. Specimens were designed as the interior joint of the underground structure whose clear length of span was 790cm. The same materials were used for all specimens. The measured properties of the materials are as follows: (1) uni-axial compressive strength of the concrete (28day) was 254 kgf/cm2, (2) average uni-axial tensile strengths of the re-bars were 4,147 kgf/cm2 (D10) and 3,999 kgf/cm2 (D22), and (3) average uni-axial tensile strengths of H-beam and plate were 3,813.5 kgf/cm2 and 3,024.67 kgf/cm2, respectively.

2.1 Monotonic Loading Test
General Three different types were designed and tested under the monotonic load.3, 4, 5, 6) The seismic design was not considered. The flexural failure criteria were expected to all of the specimens. Fig. 1 shows the dimensions and the details of each specimen. As shown in Fig.2, a static actuator was bound by the reaction frame to apply load to the top

532

φ

(a) Passing through type

(b) Wing plate type

(c) H-beam bracket type

[Fig. 1] Dimensions and Reinforcement Details (Units in mm) of the column. The ends of the beam were supported by hinge and the ends were free to rotate only. Several transducers were placed to measure the displacement of the column and the rotation of the beam against the column. Test Results The results showed that the passing through type and the wing plate type have the satisfactory structural performances. As Table 1 presents, their ultimate strengths exceeded the design strengths by about 20% and their ductility factors also satisfy the required value of ordinary reinforced concrete structure, which is 4.0. However, the bracket type specimen did not surpass either the yield design strength or the ultimate strength. Fig. 3 shows the load-displacement relations and Fig. 4 presents the observed cracks of the specimens.

2.2 Cyclic Loading Test
General Reverse cyclic loading tests were conducted to investigate the behavior of the interior beam-column joint for each type. The details of the passing through type and the Hbeam bracket type are shown in Fig. 5(a) and 5(b). The only differences from the specimen of the monotonic loading test are the length of the column and the reinforcing

533

35 Passing through type 30

Pn=25.4t
25

Load (Tonf)

Wing plate type 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 H-beam bracket type

Displacement (mm)

[Fig.2] Loading Method [Table 1] Monotonic Loading Test Results
Specimen Type Passing Through Wing Plate H-Bracket Yield Strength Design (ton) 24.76 24.76 25.78 Test (ton) 23.80 24.51 21.34 Ratio (T/D) 0.96 0.99 0.83

[Fig. 3] Load-Displacement Relations

Ultimate Strength Design (ton) 25.38 25.38 27.11 Test (ton) 31.06 30.15 24.11 Ratio (T/D) 1.22 1.19 0.89

Displacement Ductility Factor 7.87 5.34 1.86

Curvature Ductility Factor 8.47 6.17 1.47

(a) Passing through type

(b) H-beam bracket type

[Fig 4] Observed Cracks of Specimens bars of the beam due to seismic resistance.3, 4, 5, 6) Fig. 6 shows test setup. The column was tied to the reaction frame and was allowed to rotate only. Constant axial load (150tonf), which was about 25% of the design axial strength of the column, was applied to the top end of the column during the test. In all tests, a sinusoidal displacement control wave form consisting of completely reversed cycles at the amplitude of 1δ, 2δ, 4δ, 6δ, 8δ, where δ is the displacement when the

534

tensile reinforcing bar started yielding. Fig. 7 shows the detail of the location of the transducers to measure the displacements of the loading points and the rotation of the beam against the column. Prefabricated angle set was used to fix all the transducers. This angle set was attached to the specimen at the supporting point, but using ball bearings, was not affected by the movement of the specimen.

(a) Passing through type

(b) H-beam bracket type

[Fig. 5] Dimensions and Reinforcement Details

[Fig. 6] Test setup

[Fig. 7] Measuring points

Test results
The measured hysteresis loops of equivalent interstory shear force(V) versus equivalent interstory drift(δ), which can be obtained using equation (1), are shown in Fig. 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c).

V =
Where,

P1l1 + P2 l 2 δ + δ B2 , δ = B1 × lc l1 + l 2 lc

(1)

P1and P2 : loads applied to both beams

535

l1, l2 : distance from the center of the column to the loading point lc : distance from upper supporting point to lower point of the column δB1, δB2 : displacements at the loading point of each beam The external work curve of each specimen versus cumulative displacement is shown in Fig. 8(d). Table 2 shows the equivalent inter-story shear force and energy dissipation capacity. The passing through type and the wing plate type surpassed the design strength by 14% and 27%, respectively. However, H-beam bracket type did not reach its design strength due to the premature shear failure of concrete, which resulted from the bond failure between steel and concrete. Therefore, the test was interrupted as soon as the shear failure occurred.
20
20

4δ Vne Vye

Equivalent Interstory Shear Force (tonf)

6δ Vne Vye

Equivalent Interstory Shear Force (tonf)

15 10 5 0 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 -5 -10 -Vye -Vne -6δ -4δ -2δ -15 - 1δ -20 0 25 50 75 100

15 10 5 0 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 -5 -10 -15
-4δ -2δ -1δ -20

125

150

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

-Vye -Vne

Equivalent Interstory Drift (mm)

Equivalent Interstory Drift (mm)

(a) Passing through type
8,000
20
1δ 2δ 3δ

(b) Wing plate type
7,000 External Work (Ton.mm)
Vne

Wing Plate type

Equivalent Interstory Shear Force (tonf)

15 10 5 0 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 -5 -10
-Vne -3δ -2δ -1δ

6,000 5,000 4,000
H-beam bracket type Passing through type

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

-15 -20

Equivalent Interstory Drift (mm)

Cumulative Displacement (mm)

(c) H-beam bracket type

(d) Energy dissipation curve

[Fig. 8] Cyclic Loading Test Results The passing through type specimen showed a stable behavior until 4δ. However, the deformations due to bond slippage at the panel zone became very significant, and pinching and severe degradation of stiffness were observed in the hysteresis loops at the second cycle of the 4δ. The wing plate type specimen also showed a stable behavior. Pinching and degradation of stiffness did not occur until 4δ. Because the welded area between the wing plate and the flange of the H-beam was torn out, the test was stopped at the first cycle of 6δ. In the case of the H-beam bracket type, inverse shear crack was observed during the first cycle of the loading. Several inverse shear cracks occurred as the test continued. Finally, it caused the specimen to fail.

536

[Table 2] Cyclic Loading Test Results
Specimen Type Passing Through Wing Plate H-Beam Bracket Yield Equivalent InterStory Shear Force Analysis Experiment (tonf) (tonf) 13.02 -13.02 13.02 -13.02 17.39 -17.39 12.68 -13.07 12.96 -13.04 16.10 -15.89 Ultimate Equivalent Inter-Story Shear Force Analysis Experiment VA/VE (tonf) (tonf) 13.45 -13.45 13.45 -13.45 17.39 -17.39 15.23 -15.48 17.04 -17.08 16.10 -16.99 1.13 1.15 1.27 1.27 0.93 0.98 Dissipated Energy (tonf-mm) 6,081 7,058 3,254

3. Monotonic Loading Test for Wide-beam Sectional Specimens
General The passing through type specimen and the wing plate type specimen satisfied the required structural performance. However, there were some problems to be solved for the field application. In case of passing through type, the thickness of the steel was the significant factor. As the thickness of column steel increased, it was difficult to make holes in thick flange and it made the passing through type less efficient for field application. In case of wing plate type, the tensile reinforcing bars of the slab were arranged in double layers and welded on and below the wing plate. It was difficult to weld the bar below the wing plate while easy to do on the plate. Therefore, additional tests for wide beam type were performed to implement these types efficiently for the field application. Special attentions were paid to investigate the efficiency of placing the tensile reinforcing bars. Five different specimens were constructed, as shown in Fig. 9, based on Chapter 10.6.6 of ACI 318-99.7) The SRC1 specimen used the reinforcing bars that were placed in two layers and welded on the wing plate for their anchorage. The design of SRC2 specimen was similar to that of the wide-beam. Only two reinforcing bars were placed in the beam and bypassed the steel column. The others were placed in the slab within the effective width of beam. Since the compressive area of the beam, which was affected by the negative moment, satisfied the required design moments, the modification of the sectional shape was not necessary. The detail of SRC3 specimen was similar to that of the SRC2, except the anchorage of the two reinforcing bars in the beam, which were welded on the wing plate. RC1 and RC2 specimens, shown in Figs. 9(c) and 9(d), were also tested to compare with SRC series specimens. During the test, the same value of the load was applied until it reached the ultimate strength. Strain gauges were attached to the reinforcing bars to evaluate the strain distributions. They were attached at the critical section that was 30cm away from the center of the column.

537

Test results As shown in Fig. 11, behaviors of all the specimens were similar until they reached the yielding strength. Fig. 12 shows the strain distribution of reinforcing bars of RC1, RC2, SRC1 and SRC2 at each loading step. Since there were only two reinforcing bars in the beam section of the SRC2, the strain increment at each loading step was larger than those of the RC series. This phenomenon could be corrected by modifying the placement of reinforcing bars.

(a) SRC1

(b) SRC2

(c) RC1

(d) RC2

[Fig. 9] Dimensions and details of the specimens
35

S R C -2
30 25

R C -2 S R C -1 R C -1

S R C -3

Load (tonf)

20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30

40

50

60

70

Displacement (mm)

[Fig.10] Testing setup

[Fig.11] Load-displacement relations

538

3000 2500 2000

3000

2500

25 tonf

25 tonf 20 tonf 15 tonf
Strain

2000

Strain

20 tonf
1500

1500 1000 500 0
-40 -30 -2 0 - 10 0 10

15 tonf
1000

10 tonf
10 tonf
500

0

20

30

40

-40

- 30

- 20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Distance from the center (cm)

Distance from the center (cm)

(a) RC1
3000

(b) RC2
3000 2500 2000

2500

2000

25 tonf

25 tonf 20 tonf 15 tonf 10 tonf

Strain

Strain

1500

20 tonf 15 tonf 10 tonf

1500 1000 500 0

1000

500

0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance from the center (cm)

Distance from the center (cm)

(c) SRC1 [Fig.12] Strain distributions [Table 4] Monotonic Loading Test Results Yield Strength Specimen Type Analysis(tonf) Experiment(tonf) SRC1 SRC2 SRC3 RC1 RC2 26.18 27.77 27.77 26.35 27.93 26.58 24.09 25.42 27.00 28.58

(d) SRC2

Ratio(E/A) 1.02 0.87 0.92 1.02 1.02

Experimental Ultimate Strength 27.858 30.476 28.897 29.785 28.615

(a) RC1

(b) RC2 [Fig. 13] Observed cracks of the beam

(c) SRC1

539

Testing results are presented in table 4. The yield strengths of SRC2 and SRC3 were lower than the analytical value, because the experimental yield strength was evaluated when at least one of the reinforcing bars reached its yielding strain. Fig. 13 shows the cracks of the beam when the test was finished. All the cracks showed typical flexural failure mode regardless of the specimen type. The cracks of the slab of all the specimens also showed similar failure trend.

4. Conclusions
In this study, monotonic and cyclic loading test were conducted to investigate the structural behavior of the several SRC column-RC beam joint types which are frequently used in the Top-Down construction method such as the passing through type, the wing plate type, and H-beam bracket type. Advanced joints for the field application, where the most of reinforcing bars were placed in the slab within the effective width of the beam, were also tested under the monotonic load. The following conclusions were made: (1) The passing through type and the wing plate type showed the satisfactory structural performance to be implemented as SRC column-RC beam joint type. Both types surpassed their analytical strengths and the required ductility. (2) When using the wide beam type, it is recommended that all the reinforcing bars bypass H-beam of the column through the slab except for the minimum number of reinforcing bars, which can be anchored to the wing plate by welding. (3) When the tensile reinforcing bars of the beam are placed within the slab, the bars work as both beam and the slab, and this method is expected to reduce the construction cost.

References
1. Daewoo Institute of Construction Technology, ‘The Development of Beam-Column Joint in Top-Down Construction Method’, DEP-009-2000, Technical Report, (2000). 2. Kim, J. H., ‘Design of Pre-constructed SRC Column-RC Beam Joint of Underground Structure Under Top Down Method’, Journal of Korean Society of Steel Construction 10(3) (June 1998) 142-150. 3. Kim, D. H., ‘Standard for Structural Calculation of Steel Reinforced Concrete Structures’ (January 1999). 4. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), ‘Manual of Steel Construction – Load & Resistance Factor Design’ (1994). 5. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), ‘Manual of Steel Construction – Allowable Stress Design’ (1989). 6. American Welding Society, ‘ANSI/AWS D1.4-92; Structural Welding CodeReinforced Steel’ (1992). 7. ACI Committee 318, ‘Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI31899) and Commentary (ACI318R-99)’ (1999) 114.

540

DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF TENSILE ANCHORS TO CONCRETE
Milton Rodriguez1, Dieter Lotze2, Jennifer Hallowell Gross3, Yong-gang Zhang4, Richard E. Klingner5 and Herman L. Graves, III6 1 The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA. 2 Halfen GmbH & Co., Wiernsheim, Germany. Former, The University of Texas at Austin. 3 Cagley, Harman & Associates, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, USA. Former, The University of Texas at Austin. 4 Han-Padron Associates, Houston, Texas, USA. Former, The University of Texas at Austin. 5 Phil M. Ferguson, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 6 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA.

Abstract
Under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a research program was carried out on the dynamic behavior of anchors (fasteners) to concrete. In this paper, the behavior of single and multiple tensile anchors is described. Under seismic loading, the tensile capacities of most anchors tested in this study were at least as high as under quasi-static loading. As a result, most anchors tested in this study, if designed for ductile behavior under quasi-static loading, would behave in a ductile manner under seismic-type loading as well. The above conclusions are not true for wedge-type expansion anchors. These tend to pull out and pull through under dynamic loading and should be evaluated individually to determine their seismic adequacy. The above conclusions are also not true for grouted anchors installed in cored holes. These tend to pull out in cracked concrete.

1. Introduction
Under the sponsorship of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a research program has recently been completed, whose objective was to obtain technical information to determine how the seismic behavior and strength of anchors (cast-in-place, expansion, and undercut) and their supporting concrete differ from the static behavior. As discussed in References 1 and 2, the research program comprised four tasks: 1) 2) 3) 4) Static and Dynamic Behavior of Single Tensile Anchors (250 tests); Static and Dynamic Behavior of Multiple Tensile Anchors (179 tests); Static and Dynamic Behavior of Near-Edge Anchors (150 tests); and Static and Dynamic Behavior of Multiple-Anchor Connections (16 tests).

541

2. Background
The behavior of anchors (fasteners) to concrete is discussed at length in References 2 and 3. Most tests on connections have been conducted under quasi-static, monotonic loading. A few studies have investigated the effects on connections of impact loading, seismic loading or reversed loading [4, 5, 6, 7]. In most such studies, the objective was to investigate the effects of some sort of dynamic loading to low load levels, on the anchor’s subsequent load-displacement behavior to failure under monotonic load [6, 7]. Only a few investigations [8] have addressed the influence of loading rate on the entire load-displacement behavior of anchors. Relatively few tests had been conducted in cracked concrete or in high-moment regions [4, 6, 8, 9, 10].

3. Anchors, Test Setups and Procedures
Based on use of existing anchors in nuclear applications, the testing program originally emphasized one wedge-type expansion anchor (referred to here as “Expansion Anchor”), with some tests on one undercut anchor (“UC Anchor 1”), and other tests on anchors in one type of cementitious grout (“Grouted Anchor”). As the testing progressed, other anchors were added: a variant on the expansion anchor (“Expansion Anchor II”); another undercut anchor (“UC Anchor 2”); and a heavy-duty sleeve-type single-cone expansion anchor (“Sleeve Anchor”). Anchors ranged in diameter from 3/8 to 1 in. (9.2 to 25.4 mm), with emphasis on 3/4 in. (19.1 mm) diameter. The Cast-in-Place (CIP) anchors tested in Task 1 were A325 bolts, shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Typical cast-in-place anchor (A325 bolt) tested in Tasks 1 and 3 of this study

The Grouted Anchors were A325 hex-head bolts, 3/4 in. (19 mm) diameter by 6 in. (152 mm) long. No washers were placed at the heads since the bearing area already meets the minimum requirement of ACI 349 Appendix B [11]. The Expansion Anchor II (EAII), shown in Figure 2, is a wedge-type expansion anchor.
wedge dimple wedge mandrel (cone) D1 D2 lc D

Figure 2

Key dimensions of Expansion Anchor II

542

The Expansion Anchor (EA) tested in Task 1 of this study is an earlier version of Expansion Anchor II. It was used extensively in some existing nuclear power plants, and is no longer produced. Its dimensions are generally similar to those of EAII. Samples of EA were obtained from the manufacturer. The Sleeve Anchor tested throughout this study is a single-cone, sleeve-type expansion anchor with follow-up expansion capability, shown in Figure 3.
spacer sleeve plastic crushable leg expansion sleeve structurally funished surface cone

D1 lef lc

Figure 3

Key dimensions of Sleeve Anchor

The Undercut Anchor 1 (UC1) tested throughout this study is a conventionally opening undercut anchor, consisting of a threaded rod with a steel cone at one end and an expansion sleeve (Figure 4).
threaded shank extension sleeve expansion sleeve cone

D1

lef

lc

Figure 4

Key dimensions of Undercut Anchor 1

Undercut Anchor 2, tested in Task 1 of this study, is an inverted-opening undercut anchor (Figure 5).
threaded shank extension sleeve cone expansion sleeve

D

lef

lc

Figure 5

Key dimensions of Undercut Anchor 2

543

D2

D

D2

D

Because the failure mode of deeply embedded anchors is governed by steel yield and fracture, and is well understood, the primary objective of this testing was to examine the influence of dynamic loading on anchor capacity as governed by concrete breakout, pullout or pull-through. The embedments were shallow, either the manufacturer’s standard embedment, or the minimum recommended embedment. The target concrete compressive strength for this testing program was 4700 lb/in.2 (32.4 MPa), with a permissible tolerance of ±500 lb/in.2 (±3.45 MPa) at the time of testing. Three types of aggregate were used: a porous limestone; a river gravel; and a local granite. The test setup used for some tests of Task 1 (single tensile anchors in uncracked and cracked concrete) is shown in Figure 6.
Nut Load Cell Hydraulic Ram Steel Plate Beam (Back-to-Back Channels) Anchor Loading Shoe Threaded Rod

Reaction Ring

Concrete Block

Figure 6

Test setup for Task 1

The typical test specimen, shown in Figure 7, was a concrete block 39.5 in. (1.00 m) wide, 24 in. (0.60 m) deep, and 87.5 in. (2.20 m) long. Seven #6 (32 mm) longitudinal reinforcing bars were placed in the middle of each block to provide safety when the block was moved. This reinforcement was placed at the mid-height of the block to permit testing anchors on both the top and bottom surfaces, without interfering with anchor behavior.

544

39.5 in

Lifting loop

24 in

Reinforcement 7-#6

Figure 7

Typical specimen for Task 1

A specimen used for Task 1 tests in cracked concrete is shown in Figure 8. Tension tests on single anchors were conducted on concrete slabs 54 in. (1372 mm) wide by 74 in. (1880 mm) long by 10 in. (254 mm) thick. The configurations of reinforcing bars in specimens were designed differently for tests on the two sizes of anchors, to use specimens most efficiently.
6 in. 24 in.

87

.5

in

Plan View

Elevation Reinforcement Wedge Tubes Anchors

Figure 8

Specimen used for tests in cracked concrete

For Task 2, anchors were loaded through a stiff baseplate accommodating two anchors. Quasi-static tests were run using a one-way actuator supplied by an electric pump. Dynamic tests were run using a servo-controller under load control, using a ramp loading, selected to ensure anchor failure. The rise time of this load (about 0.1 sec) was set to correspond to that of typical earthquake response of mounted equipment.

545

6 in.

16 in.

6 in.

16 in.

For tests in cracked concrete with post-installed anchors, hammer-driven wedges and split bearing tubes of high-strength steel were used to crack the concrete specimens and to widen the crack to the desired width. For tests on cast-in-place anchors, which had to be placed in position before casting, a piece of thin steel sheet was placed directly in the plane of the anchor, to force the crack to form there. Anchors were tightened to the torque specified by the manufacturer. To simulate the reduction of preload due to concrete relaxation, anchors were first fully torqued, then released after about 5 minutes to allow relaxation, and finally torqued again, but up to only 50% of the specified value.

4. Test Results
Results for Single-Anchor Tension Tests Results for single-anchor tension tests are presented in terms of normalized tensile capacity, k:
k= Pn h
1.5 ef

fc

(1)

where: k Pn fc hef = = = = coefficient (normalized tensile capacity) observed tensile capacity, lb tested concrete compressive strength, lb/in.2 effective embedment, in.

The effective embedment was measured from the concrete surface to the end of the expansion sleeve or to the point of the clip in contact with the concrete (Table 1). Results are given in Reference 2, and are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Each value is the mean of at least 5 replicates, and is associated with coefficients of variation of 5% to 8%. Results are normalized by √fc′ to a reference concrete strength of 4700 lb/in.2 (32.4 MPa).

546

Table 1

Embedment and effective embedment used for each anchor Embedment in. (mm) 4.00 (102) 3.25 4.75 2.25 3.25 4.00 4.75 2.25 4.00 4.00 2.25 4.00 4.00 (83) (121) (57) (83) (102) (121) (57) (102) (102) (57) (102) (102) Effective Embedment in. (mm) 4.00 (102) 2.44 3.94 1.94 2.69 3.44 4.19 2.25 4.00 4.00 2.25 4.00 4.00 (120) (100) (49) (68) (87) (106) (57) (102) (102) (57) (102) (102)

Anchor and Diameter CIP Anchor, 0.75 in. (19 mm) Expansion Anchor, 0.75 in. (19 mm) Expansion Anchor II, 0.375 in. (9.5 mm) Expansion Anchor II, 0.75 in. (19 mm)

UC Anchor 1, 0.375 in. (9.5 mm) UC Anchor 1, 0.75 in. (19 mm) UC Anchor 2, 0.75 in. (19 mm) Sleeve Anchor, 0.375 in. (9.5 mm) Sleeve Anchor, 0.75 in. (19 mm) Grouted Anchor, 0.75 in. (19 mm)

Table 2

Mean normalization coefficients for tensile anchors in various conditions obtained here for CC Method Load Type and Concrete Condition

Anchor Type

Static Uncracked 41.6 41.2 37.2 39.4 43.7 37.4 44.3 36.7

Dynamic Uncracked 53.9 57.0 44.4 49.0 53.6 38.7 55.1 37.8

Static Cracked 36.2 24.5 35.6 41.7 28.5 29.9 35.3 29.7

Dynamic Cracked 52.3 15.5 41.1 46.2 45.2 29.7 39.5 28.0

Cast-In-Place Grouted UC1, 3/8 in. (10 mm) UC1, 3/4 in. (19 mm) UC2, 3/4 in. (19 mm) Sleeve, 10 mm Sleeve, 20 mm EA II

547

Table 3

Ratios of tensile breakout capacities (static, cracked; dynamic, uncracked; and dynamic, cracked) to static tensile breakout capacities in uncracked concrete. Load Type and Concrete Condition

Anchor Type

Static Cracked/ Static Uncracked 0.87 0.59 0.96 1.06 0.65 0.80 0.80 0.81

Dynamic Uncracked/Static Uncracked 1.30 1.38 1.19 1.24 1.23 1.03 1.23 1.03

Dynamic Cracked/Static Uncracked 1.26 0.38 1.10 1.17 1.03 0.79 0.89 0.76

Cast-In-Place Grouted UC1, 3/8 in. (10 mm) UC1, 3/4 in. (19 mm) UC2, 3/4 in. (19 mm) Sleeve, 10 mm Sleeve, 20 mm EA II

Results for Multiple-Anchor Tension Tests In Figure 9, capacities of two-anchor attachments [1] are compared as a function of the relative anchor spacing (s / hef), with capacities predicted by the CC Method [12]. Calculated dynamic capacity is taken as 1.25 times the static capacity. In dynamic tests, the increase in capacity with relative anchor spacing, is nearly parallel to the calculated values. This implies that the critical anchor spacing and the critical edge distance are no smaller under dynamic load than under static load.

548

260.00

240.00

220.00

200.00 Failure Load Fu [kN]

180.00

160.00

140.00

Sleeve Anchor Static UC1 Static Sleeve Anchor Dynamic UC1 Dynamic Calculated Static Calculated Dynamic

120.00

100.00

80.00 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Relative Spacing: s / hef 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 9

Static and dynamic tensile capacities depending on relative anchor spacing

5. Conclusions
1) Tensile breakout capacities are well described by the CC Method. Appropriate dynamic capacity ratios (Table 3) should be used for dynamic loading. 2) Under dynamic loads, effects of anchor spacing and edge distance are about the same for dynamic as for static loading, and are well predicted by the CC Method. 3) Anchors with dynamic capacity ratios greater than 1.0, designed for ductile behavior in uncracked concrete under static loading, will probably still behave in a ductile manner in cracked concrete under dynamic loading.

6. Acknowledgment and Disclaimer
This paper presents partial results of a research program supported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NUREG/CR-5434, “Anchor Bolt Behavior and Strength during Earthquakes”). The technical contact is Herman L Graves, III, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. The conclusions in this paper are those of the authors only, and are not NRC policy or recommendations.

549

7. References
1) Rodriguez, M., “Behavior of Anchors in Uncracked Concrete under Static and Dynamic Loading,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1995. 2) Klingner, R. E., Hallowell, J. M., Lotze, D., Park, H-G., Rodriguez, M. and Zhang, Y-G., “Anchor Bolt Behavior and Strength during Earthquakes,” report prepared for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-5434), August 1998. 3) “Fastenings to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures: State-of-Art Report, Part 1,” Euro-International Concrete Committee (CEB), August 1991. 4) Cannon, R. W., “Expansion Anchor Performance in Cracked Concrete,” ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 78, No. 6, November-December 1981, pp. 471-479. 5) Malik, J. B., Mendonca, J. A., and Klingner, R. E., “Effect of Reinforcing Details on the Shear Resistance of Short Anchor Bolts under Reversed Cyclic Loading,” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings Vol. 79, No. 1, January-February 1982, pp. 3-11. 6) Copley, J. D. and E. G. Burdette, “Behavior of Steel-to-Concrete Anchorage in High Moment Regions,” ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 82, No. 2, March-April 1985, pp. 180-187. 7) Collins, D., R. E. Klingner and D. Polyzois, “Load-Deflection Behavior of Cast-in Place and Retrofit Concrete Anchors Subjected to Static, Fatigue, and Impact Tensile Loads,” Research Report CTR 1126-1, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, February 1989. 8) Eibl, J. and E. Keintzel, “Zur Beanspruchung von Befestigungsmitteln bei dynamischen Lasten,” Forschungsbericht T2169, Institut für Massivbau und Baustofftechnologie, Universität Karlsruhe, 1989. 9) Eligehausen, R., W. Fuchs, and B. Mayer, “Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fastenings under Tension,” Betonwerk und Fertigteil-Technik, No. 12, 1987, pp. 826-832. 10) Eligehausen, R. and T. Balogh, “Behavior of Fasteners Loaded in Tension in Cracked Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 365-379. 11) “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures,” ACI349-90), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1990. 12) Fuchs, W., R. Eligehausen and J. E. Breen, “Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, January-February 1995, pp. 73-94.

550

TEST METHODS FOR SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS
John F. Silva Hilti, Inc., USA

Abstract
The qualification of post-installed anchors for use in seismic environments in the U.S. has been addressed independently by a number of different groups, including ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc., the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC), ACI, and the telecommunications industry. Some of these methods have been derived from approaches developed in the nuclear industry to account for a variety of possible events (earthquake, explosion, impact). The primary focus of most of the test methods current and proposed is the response of the installed anchor to external cyclic loading, tension and shear. With the exception of the NEBS criteria, which consists of shake-table testing, strain rate effects are not taken into account. Two methods, the Provisional Test Method developed by ACI Committee 355 and the German nuclear standard developed by the Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), explicitly consider damage to the concrete in the form of a static crack passing through the anchor location. The SEAOSC criteria provides a comparison of the postinstalled anchor with an “equivalent” cast-in-place headed anchor, and results in loaddisplacement information (stiffness degradation, total slip) for cyclic loading throughout the entire load range (to failure). Results are presented for one anchor tested to three of these criteria: ICBO ES AC01 Method 2, SEAOSC, and the German nuclear standard. Conclusions are drawn regarding the effectiveness of the respective test methods.

1. Earthquakes and Their Effect on Anchor Performance
Strong ground motion associated with earthquakes can be defined in terms of strain rate & (10-5 < ε < 10-2) , number of cycles (typically N < 30) and displacement (from several centimeters to a meter or more). Previous studies indicate that the strain rates associated with earthquakes are not a significant factor, positive or negative, for anchor behavior. At sub-yield load levels, cycling shear loads can lead to stiffness loss; pulsing tension

551

loads are generally less significant. At load levels at or near ultimate, stiffness degradation is more significant. Displa