1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

DESIGN OF ANCHOR REINFORCEMENT FOR SEISMIC SHEAR LOADS Derek Petersen and Jian Zhao Biography: ACI student member Derek Petersen is a former graduate research assistant at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee where he received his MS degree in Civil/Structural Engineering. He is now working as a structural engineer with Osmose Railroad Services Inc. in Madison, WI. ACI member Jian Zhao is an assistant professor in UWM Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics. He received his PhD from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN and served as a post-doctoral researcher at Iowa State University, Ames, IA. He is a member of ACI Committees 355 (Anchorage to Concrete) and 447 (Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures-Joint ACI-ASCE). His research interests include behavior of reinforced concrete structures, concrete-steel connections, and earthquake engineering.

ABSTRACT Existing design codes recommend hairpins and surface reinforcement consisting of hooked bars encasing an edge reinforcement to improve the behavior of anchor connections in shear. Concrete breakout is assumed to occur before anchor reinforcement takes effect in the current design method. This paper presents an alternative design method for anchor shear reinforcement. The proposed anchor shear reinforcement consists of a group of closed stirrups proportioned to resist the code-specified anchor steel capacity in shear and placed within a distance from the anchor bolt equal to the front edge distance. Steel fracture was achieved in the tests of twenty 25-mm [1-in.] reinforced anchors with a front edge distance of 152 mm [6in.]. Meanwhile, the observed anchor capacities were smaller than the code-specified anchor steel capacity in shear


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

because concrete cover spalling caused combined bending and shear action in the anchor bolts. Rebars are needed along all concrete surfaces to minimize concrete damage in front of reinforced anchors for consistent seismic behavior in shear.

Keywords: Cast-in anchors; headed studs; anchor connections; anchor reinforcement; fastening to concrete; composite construction; and seismic design.

INTRODUCTION Concrete anchor connections are a critical component of load transfer between steel and concrete members affecting structural performance during earthquake events. Observations of damage in recent major earthquakes have raised concerns about the seismic performance of anchor connections.1-4 Cast-in-place anchors may experience steel fracture or concrete breakout failure when subjected to a shear force towards a free edge.5 The failure modes are mainly dependent upon the front edge distance, ca1, when the anchor bolt is placed in plain concrete. Concrete breakout cones such as the one shown in Fig. 1 vary in shape while an idealized breakout cone6 encased in the dashed lines is generally assumed in calculating the anchor breakout capacity. With the breakout cone partially formed, the anchor bolt may lose concrete support when subjected to reversed cyclic shear loads, leading to unreliable seismic performance. Building codes5 and design guidelines7,8 allow engineers to use steel reinforcement to increase the shear capacity of anchors placed near an edge. The recommended anchor shear reinforcement usually consists of horizontal hairpins that wrap around the anchor shaft or hooked bars along the direction of the shear force close to the top concrete surface as illustrated in Fig. 2. The existing design methods5,7,8 assume that the concrete breakout similar to that observed for


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

anchors in plain concrete occurs before steel reinforcement takes effect. With this assumption, the shear resistance of the anchor is exclusively provided by the anchor reinforcement. Anchor reinforcement in terms of hooked bars is required to be fully developed in the assumed breakout cone5 or the contribution from each bar is calculated according to its development length in the assumed breakout cone.7,8 The development length requirements limit the distance from the anchor bolt, within which the reinforcement can be deemed effective as illustrated in Fig. 2.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Significant efforts have been invested to testing anchors reinforced with hairpins. Laboratory tests of anchors reinforced with other types of reinforcement is scarce, especially for anchors under cyclic shear loading. This paper presents tests of cast-in-place anchors reinforced using closed stirrups under both monotonic and cyclic shear loading. Closed stirrups encasing bars placed at the corners and distributed along concrete surfaces can restrain concrete breakout such that the shear load is transferred to the structure through the confined concrete. A design method was proposed for anchor shear reinforcement based on the observed anchor behavior.

BACKGROUND Various types of anchors have been developed over the past 40 years. Numerous studies have been performed to develop the design method of anchors in plain concrete corresponding to various identified failure modes.6 The behavior of anchors and headed studs in plain concrete has been discussed at length,7,9-12 and the tests have been summarized in several databases.13-15 On the other hand, studies are limited on the performance of anchors with reinforcement. The existing studies on anchor shear reinforcement are reviewed and the available design methods


The No. The hairpins had a 120degree bend wrapping around the bolts 51 mm [2 in. Swirsky et al.17 through 12 monotonic tests and 16 cyclic tests of 19 mm [3/4 in.16 tested 24 cast-in-place anchors. Only six anchors were reported to fail with anchor shaft fracture.] below the top surface. and both tests stopped after concrete cracked and a large displacement was observed.and 2-in. under monotonic and cyclic loading. The behavior of anchor bolts reinforced with hairpins was further studied by Klingner et al. 5 hairpins. A No. 4 or No.] diameter A307 or A449 bolts reinforced with No.] diameter A307 bolts.and 51-mm [1.]. Two additional tests were conducted with two No. in part because the development length for the hairpins was 20db (db is the diameter of the hairpins).] away from the bolt. 5 hairpin with a 180-degree bend and a development length about 37db was placed 19 or 51 mm [3/4 or 2 in. Many tests were terminated after bond failure of hairpins was observed. 4 vertical stirrups placed 51 mm [2 in.] below the concrete surface. which is not sufficient. 5 hairpin provided sufficient shear 4 . Previous Studies The most investigated anchor reinforcement for resisting shear forces is horizontal hairpins that wrap around the anchor as illustrated in Fig. A capacity increase of 15 to 87 percent was observed at a displacement about 25 mm [1 in.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 summarized below. The use of stirrups is similar to the anchor reinforcement proposed in this paper. but unreliable under cyclic loading. 2. however the amount of the reinforcement was not sufficient. consisting of 25. Hairpins that were not in contact with the anchor shaft were found effective in monotonic tests. The tests showed that the most effective way to transfer anchor shear force to the hairpin is through the contact between the anchor shaft and the hairpin near the surface.

] edge distance and a 635-mm [25-in. Most tests were terminated before a peak load was observed due to the limited stroke of the loading device. however most tests were terminated before anchor fracture was achieved likely because a capacity drop was observed during the tests. Three layers of No.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 resistance compared to the anchor steel capacity. The reinforcement was proportioned to carry the shear capacity of anchor steel. Recently. Schmidt19 conducted tests on five types of anchors with hooked reinforcing bars. Hairpins touching anchor shafts and reinforcing bars distributed near the top surface as illustrated in Fig.] from the anchor bolt with a 152-mm [6-in. Similar conclusions were made by Ramm and Greiner21 based on their tests of anchors reinforced with five types of reinforcement. In Europe as documented by Schmidt.18 conducted 10 tests of 64 mm [2. Randl and John22 observed a capacity increase of 300 percent in their tests of post-installed anchor bolts with hairpins. The contribution from each reinforcing bar included the bearing force of the bent leg and the bond force of the straight part within the breakout cone.] diameter anchor bolts with a 381-mm [15in. 8 hooked bars dispersed within 381 mm [15 in. The unfinished tests were not able to fully demonstrate the effectiveness of the various anchor reinforcement designs. which simulated the rebars in an existing concrete element.] embedment depth reinforced with U-shaped hairpins and hooked reinforcing bars.] spacing. 8 hairpins were used in some specimens. It was concluded that the thickness of concrete cover affected the effectiveness of hairpins as anchor shear reinforcement. 2 were found most effective. 6 hairpins and No. which can be obtained from the summation of the contributions from all reinforcing bars bridging the assumed 35-degree breakout crack. A model was proposed for determining the shear capacity of reinforced anchors. Schmidt’s equation for the capacity of reinforced anchors in shear is a 5 .5 in.19 Paschen and Schönhoff20 examined ten types of anchor reinforcement layouts. Lee et al. resulting in a combination of No.

less than 55 degrees).25 have indicated that reinforcing bars placed closer to the anchor are more effective. This is achieved by either increasing the design force5 or reducing the effectiveness of anchor reinforcement based on their relative vertical locations. most existing design methods require the reinforcement to provide more resistance than the anchor steel capacity in shear. which might have not indicated the final failure of the specimens.5ca1) as illustrated in Fig. many of Schmidt’s tests were terminated after the spalling of the concrete cover.7.23 who clearly defined the assumption that a concrete cone must form before steel reinforcement takes effect.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 refined version of the equation proposed by Fuchs and Eligehausen. such as that proposed by Schmidt.8 require the anchor reinforcement to be within a distance equal to half of the front edge distance (0. the existing design guidelines5.17. However. 2. On the other hand. tests18. Such requirements leave a small window of applicability for practical implementations of the anchor reinforcement. Note that many design methods that focused on the capacity calculation for anchors with a known configuration of anchor reinforcement. Hairpins are deemed effective as anchor shear reinforcement because they can be placed close to the anchor shaft using a small bending radius on the hairpin..g. Existing Design Recommendations The methods for proportioning anchor shear reinforcement are summarized in Table 1. In summary.24 Strut-and-tie models permit large size reinforcing bars located at a large distance from the anchor bolt as anchor reinforcement as long as the angle between the concrete strut and the applied shear force is small (e.7.23.18 The transfer of shear load to surface reinforcement shown in Fig. 2 is usually visualized using a strut-and-tie model (STM). As a result.8 Note that there are few tests with such over-designed reinforcement.19 were not included in Table 1. Often time the front 6 . and many such tests were terminated before a true ultimate load was achieved.

3. With the concrete confined around the anchor. it is expected that the concrete will restrain the anchor shaft and provide shear resistance. which in turn increases the concrete breakout capacity such that the anchor reinforcement may be no longer needed. where the breakout crack in concrete may initiate under a shear load. within which the anchor reinforcement is deemed effective. 2) a proper design force for proportioning the anchor reinforcement. The goal of the proposed design for anchor shear reinforcement is to prevent concrete breakout using closely spaced stirrups placed parallel to the plane of the applied shear force and the anchor. The stirrups should be proportioned using the anchor steel capacity in shear as specified by the equation in the last row of Table 1.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 edge distance needs to be increased to accommodate the anchor reinforcement. The stirrups can be distributed within a distance of ca1 as shown in Fig.]. Anchor reinforcement design for shear in this study considered the following four aspects: 1) an effective reinforcement layout that restrains concrete breakout failure. such as those in ACI 318-11. The rest of the required stirrups should be placed with a center-oncenter spacing of 51 mm [2 in.] to 76 mm [3 in. Two stirrups should be placed next to the anchor shaft. Note that the horizontal legs of the closed stirrups are used as anchor shear reinforcement while the vertical legs close to the anchor shaft24 7 . 3) a reasonable distance on each side of anchor bolt. The nominal yield strength of reinforcing steel should be used in the calculation. and 4) an accurate estimation of shear capacity of reinforced anchors. are satisfied. 3 for anchors with both unlimited and limited side edge distances. PROPOSED ANCHOR SHEAR REINFORMENT DESIGN The proposed anchor reinforcement is shown in Fig. A smaller spacing may be used provided that the clear spacing requirements.

Therefore the corner bars and crack-controlling bars need to be fully developed at both sides of the anchor bolt.] and 76 mm [3 in. indicated that a minimum embedment depth of 6db was needed to develop a No. 3.23. where the stirrups are fully developed at both sides of a shear crack through the interaction between the closed stirrups and longitudinal bars at all four corners. 4 stirrup through the interaction.5 in. in which both legs of No. The development length requirements for the horizontal legs of the closed stirrups are satisfied similar to the transverse reinforcement in a flexural member.] in concrete were loaded in tension. 3 may be needed. Crack-controlling bars were not provided in the tests and the splitting cracks were observed as presented below. and a 90-degree bend as shown in dashed lines in Fig. Bars at all four corners of the closed stirrups (referred to as corner bars hereafter) restrain splitting cracks as well as other bars distributed along the concrete surfaces (referred to as crackcontrolling bars hereafter). Design of reinforced anchors should also satisfy other edge distance requirements. the depth of the stirrups should be large enough such that the vertical legs are fully developed for the tension load.8 of ACI 318-11. 4 U-shaped bars embedded 38 mm [1. such as those in Section D. This requirement results in a minimum edge distance of 8db plus the concrete cover. For this purpose. The selection of corner bars may follow the common practices in selecting longitudinal corner bars for reinforced concrete beams. Crack-controlling bars are therefore recommended as shown in Fig.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 may be used as anchor tension reinforcement as shown in Phase III tests of this study. Therefore.5. and the determination of these bars can be based on the well-recognized strut-and-tie models. such as those specified in Section 11. 3.6 of ACI 318-11.24 8 . the length of horizontal legs of the vertical closed stirrups should be at least 8db on both sides of the anchor as shown in Fig.26 Meanwhile rebar pullout tests.

similar to all other anchor tests in the study.6 Mpa [4000 psi] was used.27 The anchor shear reinforcement was proportioned to carry the maximum capacity of the anchor bolts in shear: 68 kN [15. The dimensions of the test blocks containing four anchors each are illustrated in Fig.] diameter anchors consisting of an ASTM A193 Grade B7 threaded rod (fy=724 MPa [105 ksi] and fut=1069 MPa [131 ksi]) and a heavy hex nut welded to the end.] diameter ASTM F1554 Grade 55 anchors (fy=434 MPa [63 ksi] and fut=524 MPa [76 ksi]) were conducted with two tests each under monotonic shear and cyclic shear loading. Anchors in Type 25-150-150H specimens had two limited side edge distances equal to 1. which focused on the behavior and design of cast-in-place anchors under simulated seismic loads.] cylinders tested throughout the anchor test period showed an average compressive strength of 24. Another four tests using 19 mm [3/4 in. Another block similar to that for Type 25-150-150 specimens was used for Type 25-150-150SG specimens. 4.]. The width and depth of the test blocks were selected such that the spacing between the anchors was larger than two times their front edge distances.3 kips] for the 19-mm [3/4-in.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Specimens EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION This group of experimental tests is part of a research program.5 times their front edge distance.].3 MPa [3525 psi]. and cylinder tests using three batches of three 100×200 mm [4×8 in. All anchors had an embedment depth of 152 mm [6 in. Ready-mixed concrete with a targeted strength of 27. Strain gages were installed on the reinforcing bars of the two anchors in this block. One block was prepared for Type 19-150-100 specimens.27 Sixteen tests were conducted using 25 mm [1 in.] anchors and 209kN [47 kips] for 9 . and two blocks for Type 25-150-150 and Type 25-150-150H specimens. The height of the blocks was 432 mm [17 in.

the planned tension tests were not performed because the concrete blocks were not sufficient for the large tension load that would be carried by the reinforced anchors. An MTS Model 244. Using the nominal yield strength of Grade 60 steel. All reinforcing bars were placed with a cover of 38 mm [1. Test Setup The loading frame. The additional stirrups did not affect the shear behavior of the anchors because they were placed behind the anchor bolts. 4 bars with a spacing of 51-mm [2-in. which were roughly 250 mm [10 in. 4 and four No.] anchors. 4 to host two more strain gages. 4.] behind the test anchor was used to fix the test block to the strong floor. the vertical legs of which were intended to be anchor tension reinforcement. the required anchor reinforcement was found as 164 mm2 [0. However.] anchors.] spacing. 5. Two additional No.] anchors was provided using four No. a tie-down rod 381 mm [15 in. 3 J-hooks were added besides the outmost bars in Type 25-150150SG specimens as shown in Fig. One straight bar was provided at each corner of the closed stirrups. and 503 mm2 [0. 245-kN [55-kip] actuator was used to apply shear 10 . 4 bars were provided for Type 19-150-100 specimens as shown in Fig. two No. 3 bars for Type 25-150-150H specimens with a spacing of 76-mm [3-in.].1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the 25-mm [1-in. Instead of a self-balanced load frame. and eight No. 3 bars for Type 25-150-150SG specimens with a 51-mm [2-in. Therefore two No.25 in.]. actuator placement.31. and instrumentation setup used for the tests are shown in Fig. the concrete block was wedged against the strong floor to minimize the slip of the test block under cyclic loads as shown in Fig.] away from the anchor bolt. The required anchor reinforcement for 25-mm [1-in.78 in.2] for the 19-mm [3/4-in. in which case one additional corner bar was provided along the top surface. In addition.5 in.2] for the 25-mm [1-in.] anchors. 5. Note that some specimens had several narrow stirrups placed behind the anchors.] for Type 25-150150 specimens.

This was to prevent early anchor fracture under reversed loads and to observe the cyclic behavior over a full displacement range. 0.28-in. The test anchors were inserted through a standard 3mm [1/8-in.32.64./min] while the load rate was increased to 10 mm/min [0.08.4 in.4 in. To minimize the friction between the loading plate and the concrete top surface. the cyclic displacement steps for each 3-cycle group were chosen as 2. 5. Hence. The nut fixing the loading plate to the anchor bolt was first hand tightened. and 32-mm [0.08 in. and 1. 8.] cycles in order to reduce test time.] oversized hole in the loading plate. Loading Protocol Monotonic shear tests were performed first to determine the typical actuator displacement at failure. Cyclic tests following loading pattern C2 in Fig.16 in. 16. 0. 5 with equal peak displacements in both directions of shear loading were conducted for two 11 .2 kips] was applied to the loading plate by an MTS Model 244. a net tension force of 0. and a steel sleeve shim was inserted between the anchor and the hole to eliminate the clearance and to prevent damage to the loading plate.12. Most reversed cyclic shear tests were conducted following the loading pattern C1 shown in Fig.16 in. and then loosened 1/8 of a turn to allow slight vertical movement of the loading plate when the 0. in which the maximum displacement was set as 4 mm [0.28 in. 16.16.41. 0. 5.32. and the tests indicated a failure displacement around 35 mm [1. 0. and 32 mm [0.8 kN [0. 0.] as shown in Fig./min] for the 8.8-kN [0. 3.].] when the shear loading was applied opposite to the front edge.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 loading to the anchor bolt through a loading plate.] was kept at 2 mm/min [0. 489-kN [110-kip] actuator. The loading rate for the displacement cycles at or below 4 mm [0. and 1.64.2-kip] tension force was applied at the beginning of a test. which was used for applying tension loads in other tests. The actuator body was braced against the floor to eliminate the downward motion of actuator swivel head and the rotation of the loading plate. 4 (failure displacements for typical unreinforced anchors).

] in the rest of Fig. 6. the load versus displacement behavior for a 19-mm [3/4-n. The displacements of the load plate were actually used as the anchor displacement because the anchor shaft just above the concrete surface was not assessable. hence the actual anchor displacements were smaller than the above target displacements. 5.] anchor with a front edge distance of 100 mm [4 in. Instrumentation String pots (Celesco PT510DC) and linear variable differential transformers (LVDT’s) (Trans-tek Model 245) were used to measure the anchor displacements as illustrated in Fig. 6a and the result of another anchor with a front edge distance of 150 mm [6 in. therefore the load values for the unreinforced anchors were normalized using a factor of in Fig.] in plain concrete is shown in Fig. 6 for the reinforced anchors subjected to monotonic shear along with selected images of failed specimens. For comparison purpose. 6.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Type 25-150-150H specimens.3 MPa [3525 psi]. Note that the control of actuator was based upon the actuator piston motion instead of anchor displacement. The sampling frequency was 5 Hz and the collected data was filtered using an inhouse program with a cutoff frequency of 0. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Behavior of Anchors under Monotonic Loading The load versus displacement behavior is shown in Fig.1 Hz. In General the reinforced anchors failed 12 . An IO Tech DaqBook 2000 was used to collect data from all sensors as well as the force and displacement outputs from the actuators. The unreinforced anchors were tested with a concrete strength of 39 MPa [5656 psi] while the reinforced anchor tests had a concrete strength of 24. The observed anchor behavior is discussed below.

6b through 6d. Another contributing factor is that the 25-mm [1-in. The load-displacement behavior of 19-mm [3/4-in. 1. The 25-mm [1-in.] anchors had a larger bending stiffness such that a small displacement was needed to mobilize their load carrying capacities. the anchor shaft in bending was not able to resist the same amount of load until a larger displacement was applied. The failure loads for the reinforced anchors increased by about 100 percent and the displacements corresponding to the peak loads increased more than six times compared with that of the unreinforced anchors. the crack propagated around the corner of the stirrups (see the inserted figure in Fig. 7a though the fracture may have started from a flexural crack.] anchors failed at loads lower than 13 . The shear load did not drop noticeably after concrete cover spalled in the tests of 25-mm [1in.17. Such post-spalling load drop has been observed in other tests of anchors reinforced with hairpins. 6a).] anchors mobilized deeper concrete such that the loss of bearing support from the cover concrete was immediately resisted by lower concrete restrained by the anchor reinforcement.] thick concrete cover in front of the anchor caused a small capacity loss for the 19-mm [3/4-in. Rather than propagating vertically along the anchor shaft as observed in the tests of unreinforced anchors as represented by Fig. Because the 19-mm [3/4-in. The loss of the 38-mm [1.5-in. 6a. similar to that suggested by Randl and John22 (roughly 2da deep).] anchor only mobilize the top concrete before cracking. 6a) before a crack was observed at the top surface at a load about 45 kN [10 kips]. The 25-mm [1-in.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 by anchor shaft fracture while the unreinforced anchors with similar edge distances failed by concrete breakout.] anchors as shown in Fig.] anchors in reinforced concrete did not show much difference from that in plain concrete (Fig.] anchors as shown in Figs.18 The failure load exceeded the code-specified anchor shear capacity because the failure was caused by the fracture of anchor shaft largely under tension as shown in Fig.

] diameter anchors.7 in. The fractured 25-mm [1-in. especially after the surface crack formed.5ca1 in Type 25150-150SG and 0.] behind the assumed breakout crack line on the inside face of the stirrups. Meanwhile outside bars. The anchor reinforcement consisted of eight No. also developed significant strains. the flexural cracking reduced the cross sectional area. Anchor steel failure was achieved in all 25-mm [1-in. The effective distance was verified by the measured strains in the reinforcing bars in Type 25-150-150SG specimens as shown in Fig. the measured strains indicated that none of the Grade 60 bars yielded at the peak load. 8.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the code-specified anchor steel capacity in shear. More importantly. reinforcing bars must be evenly distributed with a small spacing in order for outside bars to be mobilized.3ca2 in Type 25-150-150H. hence the shear capacity of reinforced anchors may not be calculated as the summation of the 14 . 8 indicate the assumed breakout crack at the concrete surface and the strain gages were installed 25 mm [1 in. In addition. such as 0.] anchors: anchor shaft cracked under a bending moment and the rest of the anchor shaft then fractured in shear. For example. 7c showed a different failure mode from that of 19-mm [3/4-in. For the sheardominant failure mode. 3 J-hooks.] and two additional No. 3 stirrups at a spacing of 51 mm [2 in.] from the anchor bolt. larger strains were observed in the bars closer to the anchor bolt.] anchors in Fig. However. Note that the gage positions relative to a crack should be considered to interpret the measured strains. indicating that reinforcing bars placed outside the code-specified effective distance. can be effective as anchor shear reinforcement. smaller strains measured by the gages on outsider bars may have been due to the fact that the gages were away from the actual crack. the strains by Gage 2N may have been affected by the crack passing the gage location as shown in Fig. The thin dashed lines in Fig. as indicated by Gages 4S and 4N located 170 mm [6. thus leading to a lower ultimate shear capacity. 8. In general.

2) crack-controlling bars should be provided along both the top and front surfaces of concrete. Anchors in Type 25-150-150H specimens had lower ultimate capacity as shown in Fig. This failure mode occurred when a short portion of the anchor bolt was exposed and a lever arm developed in the anchors after cover concrete spalled.. 3 can be effective in improving the post-spalling behavior and the capacity of reinforced anchors in shear: 1) corner bars should be fully developed. The effect of lever arms in anchor bolts is recognized in existing design codes.8 For example.. Finite element analyses indicated that the anchor capacity controlled by shear fracture can be affected by anchor diameter and concrete cover depth. ACI 318-11 stipulates that the design capacity of anchor connections having grout leveling pads should be reduced by a factor of 0.28 It is thus envisioned that the following measures as illustrated in Fig. and 3) a separate bar can be placed right in front of the anchor bolt to alleviate the large local compressive stress in concrete. but does not consider the thickness of the grout pads. the tie-down rods on the back and the steel wedging tube at the bottom in this case) through the concrete confined by the closed stirrups. This might have been due to the poor confinement of concrete in front of the anchor bolt: additional splitting cracks were observed and deeper concrete crushed in these tests.5.g. The shear force was actually transferred to the supports (e. Such capacity reduction considers the combined bending and shear in the anchor shaft. leading to a longer portion of exposed and unsupported anchor bolts (e. up to 0. Anchor Shear Capacity Most anchor bolts in this group of tests failed by shear fracture of a reduced anchor shaft cross section as shown by the typical fractured sections in Fig.5da larger than those in Type 25-150-150 specimens). 6c.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 yield forces of the anchor reinforcement. which is similar to the 15 .8 for the anchor steel strength in shear. 7.g.

The statistical analysis of the limited data in Fig.25 was defined as the distance between the bottom face of a base plate and the lowest solid concrete surface.30 which are usually used to predict future occurrences based on the existing observed data. The measured anchor capacities were normalized by the design capacity of anchor bolts in shear specified in ACI 318-11. Considering the aforementioned reasons for the low observed capacities in this study. 9.73 was obtained using a descriptive statistic analysis of the twenty two collected data points. This equation was found not applicable for predicting the capacity of the anchors in this study likely due to the fact that the anchor failure was controlled by shear fracture. The exposed depth of the anchors in other tests16. This might have been due to the fact that friction between the load plate and the concrete surface was minimized as previously described in the test setup section.12 proposed an equation for predicting the strength of an exposed anchor assuming that the anchor fails by pure bending.12 by considering the contributions from flexural. Eligehausen et al. and the lateral support to the actual anchor shaft from partially damaged concrete was not considered. 9 did not follow the procedures of predictive inference.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 exposed length at the ultimate load. However the equation was based on double shear tests and finite element analyses of threaded rods. Instead. it is proposed that the shear strength of reinforced anchors can be estimated as 75 percent of the code specified steel capacity for anchors 16 . The anchor steel capacity observed in this study is low compared with other available tests.28 improved the equation by Eligehausen et al. the equation may provide lower-bound estimates of the actual anchor capacities. shear and tensile resistance of an exposed anchor shaft to the shear capacity of exposed anchors. Lin et al. The capacity of anchor bolts with a lever arm was instead examined using the test data available in the literature as shown in Fig. Therefore. a 5-percentile value of 0.29.

4 in.] anchors. The monotonic curve was closely followed by cyclic curves until a displacement of 10 mm [0.17. The difference in the observed loads at this displacement may have been due to variations in the specimens such as the actual edge distances and cover depths. beyond which the cyclic loads were lower than that of the monotonic test. the anchor steel failure in shear needs further study. An average capacity reduction of 28 percent was observed in the cyclic shear capacity for 19-mm [3/4-in. It is envisioned that as more data points become available in future tests with the recommended anchor shear reinforcement shown in Fig. displacement-controlled loading33 was used in this study though many cyclic tests of anchors have been conducted with load-controlled loading. This is slightly lower than the reduction factor in ACI 318-11 because of two data points observed in specimens with limited side edge distances (Type 25-150-150H).31 Therefore. the statistical importance of these two data points can be reduced.]. Beyond this limit.]. 3.] anchors subject to Type C1 cyclic shear loading is plotted in Fig.32 The load versus displacement behavior of two 19-mm [3/4-in.16.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 without a lever arm. Behavior of Anchors under Cyclic Loading Seismic actions on structural components are mostly simulated in laboratories using quasistatic cyclic tests with reversed loading. 10a. This was because the displaced cover concrete during the first cycle of each three-cycle group was not able to recover. indicating the concrete cover spalling. The first three displacement cycles did not see significant degradation in loads with successive cycles to the same displacement while the degradation was obvious at the larger-displacement cycles. Using the suggested capacity reduction for exposed anchors should be limited to those with an exposed length less than three times the anchor diameter (3da). leading to reduced restraint to the anchor shaft in the successive cycles.16 in. This reduction 17 . The slope of the cyclic curves again had a sudden change at a displacement around 2 mm [0.

Hence.] anchors were higher than the proposed capacity of exposed anchors under monotonic loading because of the monotonic failure mode. the tests of two Type 25-150-150H anchors with fully reversed cyclic loading (Type C2 in Fig. 10c. An average capacity drop of 6.8 percent was observed for Type 25-150-150H anchors with limited side edge distance as shown in Fig. The behavior of Type 25-150-150 specimens are compared in Fig. Finally. Note that the poor confinement conditions can be improved by crack-controlling bars recommended in Fig. In this group of three cyclic tests.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 was partly attributed to the change of failure modes as shown by the fractured shape of anchor in Figs. Note that the reduced cyclic shear capacities of 19-mm [3/4-in.] cover crushed likely due to poor confinement conditions as indicated by splitting cracks. The ultimate load capacities were on average 5 percent lower than the code-specified anchor steel capacity as shown in Fig.5-in. The load degradations during the successive two cycles was again due to the irreversible crushing of concrete cover in front of the anchors. 10d. 10b. The larger exposed length led to a larger moment under the same shear load and thus a lower shear capacity. 3. 5) ended with anchor fractured under a shear load applied opposite to the front edge. it is reasonable to ignore the reduction of steel capacities for reinforced anchors in cyclic shear considering that the monotonic capacity of reinforced anchors has already been reduced by 25 percent as proposed above. 7a and 7b: the anchor failure was controlled by the shear fracture under cyclic loading while the tensile fracture controlled the anchor failure in the monotonic test. a bar placed just in front of the anchor shaft can help distribute the localized high compressive stresses such that the exposed length of the anchors would not be affected by the cyclic loading. concrete deeper than the 38-mm [1. No capacity drop was observed in the tests of Type 25-150-150 specimens. 18 . In addition. The monotonic loaddisplacement curve nicely envelopes the cyclic curves represented by the first loading cycle in each three-cycle group.

In addition. With a goal to prevent concrete breakout and to confine concrete in front of an anchor bolt. Although large capacity reductions were observed in 19 . The full anchor steel capacity in shear was not achieved because the exposed anchors were subjected to a combination of shear.2 of ACI 31811 for corner bars in beams. concrete breakout was prevented and anchor shaft fracture was observed in all the tests of single anchors in this study. Cover concrete in front of the anchor bolts spalled. An analysis of the test results of exposed anchors in the literature indicated that a reduction factor of 0. With the proposed anchor shear reinforcement. corner bars. bending. can be used to determine the shear capacity of reinforced anchors.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CONCLUSIONS A design method for anchor shear reinforcement was proposed and verified using experimental tests of single cast-in-place anchors. which is comparable to other displacement-controlled cyclic tests. which is slightly lower than that in ACI 318-11 on anchors with a grout pad. quasi-static cyclic tests of the reinforced anchors in shear showed insignificant capacity reduction.6.75. the proposed anchor shear reinforcement consisted of closely spaced stirrups. The horizontal legs close to the concrete surface of the closed stirrups were proportioned to carry a force equal to the code-specified anchor steel capacity in shear. causing the top portion of the anchor shaft close to the concrete surface to become exposed. and tension at failure.5. the selection of corner bars should follow the practices specified in Section 11. Although not specifically tested in the study. and crack-controlling bars may be determined following the wellrecognized strut-and-tie models. The needed reinforcement was provided by closely spaced small size stirrups distributed within a distance from the anchor equal to its front edge distance. and crack-controlling bars distributed along all concrete faces.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Dr. 0724097. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study reported in this paper is from a project supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. The authors also thank the colleagues in ACI Committee 355 for their valuable inputs. Any opinions.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 load-controlled cyclic tests in the literature. who served as the program director for this grant. no further capacity reduction was recommended in this study for reinforced anchors subjected to cyclic shear loading. findings. Joy Pauschke. and recommendations or conclusions expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. 20 .

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 u NOTATION = area of anchor reinforcement = effective cross-sectional area of anchor in shear and tension ca1 = front edge distance of anchor ca 2 = side edge distance of anchor d a = anchor diameter d b = reinforcement diameter = distance from shear force to surface reinforcement = design bond strength of anchor reinforcement in breakout cone f c ' = concrete compressive strength f y = yield strength of anchor steel Fys = yield strength of steel reinforcement f uta = ultimate tensile strength of anchor steel = development length of hooked bar in breakout cone = circumference of reinforcing bar Vsd = Design shear capacity of anchor Vs = Actual shear capacity of exposed anchor = vertical reinforcement position = stress in anchor reinforcement 21 .

Ministry of Economic Affairs. Testing and Analysis Research on Steel Column Base Plate Connections in High-Seismic Zones. W. 8. 22 . Vol. “Northridge Earthquake: Lifeline Performance and Post-Earthquake Response. 2005.. China. 7.. Filiatrault. pp. Gaithersburg. NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory. 1. Federation Internationale du Beton (fib).. MD. “Synthesis of Design. H.” Thomas Telford Service Ltd. R. A. Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB). MN. M... 3. 4. London.” A Report to U. 23. and DeVall... 1996. Taipei. Eligehausen. “Concrete capacity design approach for fastening to concrete. Tremblay. and Breen.L. 1995. Hajjar.” Special Activity Groups (SAG) 4 report.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 REFERENCES 1.73-94.” Structural Engineering Report No. 5. American Concrete Institute. Lee.S. D.. “Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures. Grauvilardell. 1997.” ACI Structural Journal. 2008. “Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures: State of the Art Report. R. Minneapolis. ST-04-02. Michigan. Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (ASCE).. Obtained from Dr.. M. Bruneau. 6. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Fuchs... Prion. Nakashima.727-756. G. Vol. “Seismic Design of Steel Buildings Lessons from Japan Earthquake. J. R. J.” Energy Commission. “Earthquake Disaster Management of Energy Supply System of APEC Member Economies. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11). J. 2002.” Farmington Hills. 92. pp... University of Minnesota.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2. 2011. No. R. Department of Commerce. and Dexter. 1997. Eligehausen.

92. 1. “Behavior of Shear Anchors in Concrete: Statistical Analysis and Design Recommendations. Stoker... Pallarés.” MS Thesis. Mallée. “Straight Talk about Anchorage to Concrete. Anderson.” ACI Journal. 1-11. 2009. and Meinheit. N. "Shear Behavior of Headed Anchors with Large Diameters and Deep Embedment.. Cannon. Dusel. "Lateral Resistance of Anchor Bolts Installed in Concrete. 1-7. 1982. 5. 1995. J.. and Nordlin. pp. University of Texas at Austin. CA. 13. H.. No. R. R.. R. and Malik J. Austin. E. 1998. G. R. 108.. 15. R. Vol. Vol. Park. N. 12.." ACI Structural Journal.. 23 .. 5.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research. No. California Department of Transportation.” ACI Structural Journal. Doerr. Cook. FHWA-CA-ST-4167-77-12. and Suh. No. Sacramento. Crozier. “Effect of Reinforcing Details on the Shear Resistance of Anchor Bolts under Reversed Cyclic Loading. L. Germany. “Straight Talk about Anchorage to Concrete... Berlin. 2006. R. and Silva.. 79. D.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 9. TX. 10. J. 1. Cannon. 46-75.. Part I: Shear. Mendonca. R." Report No. and Hajjar... TX.. Vol. 2000." Research Report No.. Part II. 198-212. pp. 92. 34-41. K. 181 pp. 45. Vol.. J. University of Texas at Austin. 471-479. No. “Design Criteria for Headed Stud Groups in Shear: Part I – Steel Capacity and Back Edge Effects. “Anchorage in Concrete Construction. Lee.” ACI Structural Journal. 17. 14. pp. 16. Muratli. "Design Guide for Steel-To-Concrete Connections. 18.. Part I. pp. Vol. 11. Vol.. Klingner. “Headed Steel Stud Anchors in Composite Structures.” PCI Journal. pp. Eligehausen. Center for Transportation Research.. pp. Y. J. 1978. 1989. 6. 1126-4. 2010. J. and Klingner. Swirsky. R. 66. No.” Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn. 1995. W.

Widianto. 20. 23. Paschen. 24. 38. pp.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19. Ramm. (In Schmid 2010). pp. FL. Farmington Hills. 2001. Verlag Ernst & Sohn. 1986. Nakashima. 27.” Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen.. W. 21. “Mechanical Characteristics of Exposed Portions of Anchor Bolts Subjected to Shearing Forces” Summaries of technical papers of Annual Report. 22. Vol.. “Zur Tragfähigkeit von Kopfbolzenbefestigungen unter Querzugbeanspruchung am Rand. Teil II. Milwaukee. S.. M. T.” Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. K. and Eligehausen. “Examples of Anchor Design ACI 318-11 Appendix D. 2011. “Shear Anchoring in Concrete Close to the Edge. Michigan. “Untersuchungen über in Beton eingelassene Scherbolzen aus Betonstahl. 26. “Structural Behavior and Design of Anchor near the Edge with Hanger Steel under Shear. and Patel. WI. 349-352..” Proceedings of the 2010 Structures Congress.. D. Verankerungen mit Rückhängebewehrung. 2500-2511. “Design of Anchor Reinforcement in Concrete Pedestals. Owen. Orlando. W. 1998.” PhD Thesis. Architectural Institute of Japan. 20. N. 2010.. “Seismic Behavior and Design of Cast-in-Place Anchors in Plain and Reinforced Concrete.” International Symposium on Connections between Steel and Concrete.” Fachgebiet Massivbau und Baukonstruktion.” MS Thesis. Editor: R. University of Wisconsin. Universität Kaiserslautern. Bericht Nr. and Schönhoff. R.” Report of ACI Committee 355. University of Stuttgart. U. 25. Schmid. Germany. 2011. 1983 (In Schmid 2010). 2010. (In Schmid 2010). American Concrete Institute.. 251-260. C. Randl. and John. Petersen. and Greiner. J... H. “Gutachten zur Bemessung von Kopfbolzenveran-kerungen. 1993. Fuchs. Heft 346. pp. Eligehausen. 24 .

D. Lin. and Tian... 29. S. R.” Hilti Technical Services Bulletin. Civjan. 33. and Eligehausen. “Behavior of Fasteners under Monotonic or Cyclic Shear Displacements.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 28.. Geisser. “Simulation and Design of Exposed Anchor Bolts in Shear. 25 . 30. pp. R.” ACI Special Publication SP130. 1993... (in print). 15 pp. Wollmershauser. Vol.. American Society for Testing and Materials. Chapman & Hall.. Oklahoma. 1992. NY. “Anchor Performance and the 5 percent Fractile. and Singh. S. Predictive Inference: An Introduction. pp. Petersen.” Journal of Structural Engineering.” West Conshohocken. “Standard Test Methods for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Vertical Elements of the Lateral Force Resisting Systems for Buildings. 32. Tulsa. 2010. P. 11. J.” International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Multiscale Mechanics. 2003. E. Z.1466–1474. No. 1997. Inc. Zhao. E. Y. 129. Hilti. “Behavior of Shear Studs Subjected to Fully Reversed Cyclic Loading. 31. New York.. 265 pp. Vintzelou. 180-204. PA.

7–Typical fractured shape of anchor bolts Fig. 5–Experimental test setup Fig. 1–Concrete breakout failure under shear Fig. 3–Proposed anchor shear reinforcement layout Fig.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 List of Tables: TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Summary of design equations for anchor shear reinforcement Table 2 Summary of reinforced anchor tests in shear List of Figures: Fig. 9–Capacity of anchor bolt with a lever arm Fig. 4–Configurations of anchor specimens Fig. 6–Monotonic shear test results of reinforced anchors Fig. 10– Cyclic behavior of reinforced anchor bolts 26 . 8–Strains in anchor shear reinforcement (25-150-150SG1) Fig. 2–Schematics of existing anchor shear reinforcement Fig.

5ca1 Closed stirrups Proposed on both sides within ca1 : area of anchor reinforcement. : stress in anchor reinforcement.5ca1 or 0. ties and J-hooks Bars within 0. : ultimate strength of anchor. : design bond strength. : design shear force. : distance from shear to reinforcement. : reinforcement position. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stirrups.5ca1 Bars within 0. *: see Chapter 12 of ACI 318-11 for details. .3ca2 Widianto et al. : effective cross-sectional area of anchor. (1983) CEB (1997) ACI 318 (2008) Table 1 Summary of design equations for anchor shear reinforcement Design equation for given load Development in cone Not needed Not needed Considered in capacity calculation * Not considered in Strut-and-tie model Considered in capacity calculation Actual shear capacity (Vs) Design based on equivalent tension Notes Hairpins Hairpins Bars within 0. : modification factor.1 Reference Shipp and Haninger (1983) Klingner et al. u: circumference of reinforcing bar. . : edge distances of anchor. (2010) Fib design guide (to be published) reduced for not fully developed bars 27 . : yield strength of reinforcement. : development length of hooked bar in breakout cone.

0 6 C1 38.) (in.35 1.) Type (kips) 0.19 0.0 6 M 34.4 mm.0 6 M 39. 1 kip = 4.0 6 C2 -42.71 1.79* 1.0 6 C2 -47. 28 .0 6 M 33.75 4 C1 16. = 25.33 2 3 4 5 6 Note: 1 in.47 0.77 1.45 kN.0 6 C1 31.1 Table 2 Summary of reinforced anchor tests in shear Specimen ID 9132010 9132010_2 9172010 9202010 9282010 9292010 9302010 10042010 10052010 10062010 10062010_2 10072010 10082010 10082010_2 10122010 10132010 10142010 10292010 11192010 Block Type H H H H H H H H SG SG da ca1 Load Peak load (in.13 1.75 4 C1 15.71 1.18 1.62 1.0 6 M 38.0 6 C1 33.0 6 C1 34.75 4 M 22. *: anchor fracture occurred when shear was applied opposite to front edge.0 6 C1 35.0 6 M 36.0 6 M 44.50 1.88 1.75 4 M 22.92 1.0 6 M 39.69 0.68* 1.0 6 C1 33.11 1.40 1.40 1.

] 102 mm 152 mm [6 in.] 35º ca1: [4 in.Top surface 152 mm [6 in.] Idealized breakout cone 1 2 3 Front surface Fig. 1–Concrete breakout failure under shear 29 .

2–Schematics of existing anchor shear reinforcement 30 .3ca2  0.5ca1 1 2 3 Fig. ld  l dh  ld  0.

3–Proposed anchor shear reinforcement layout 31 . 8db  8db  min ca1. ca2   8db  ca1  8db 1 2 3 4 Fig.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Fig. 4–Configurations of anchor specimens 32 .

5–Experimental test setup 33 .1 2 3 4 Fig.

1 2 3 4 Fig. 6–Monotonic shear test results of reinforced anchors 34 .

19-150-100-monotonic 19-150-100-cyclic 1 a ) ) b 2 3 4 25-150-150-monotonic c 25-150-150-cyclic d ) ) Fig. 7–Typical fractured shape of anchor bolts 35 .

8–Strains in anchor shear reinforcement (25-150-150SG1) 36 .1 2 3 4 Fig.

1 2 3 4 Fig. 9–Capacity of anchor bolt with a lever arm 37 .

1 2 3 4 5 Fig. 10–Cyclic behavior of reinforced anchor bolts 38 .