You are on page 1of 12

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 110-S21

Tensile Resistance of Steel-Reinforced Anchorages:


Experimental Evaluation
by Jos Henriques, Jos Maria Raposo, Lus Simes da Silva, and Lus Costa Neves
One of the research topics related to composite steel-concrete
structures is the connection between steel and concrete members
namely, the design of the anchorages. Because the design of steelreinforced anchorages using the available methodologies (namely,
from the CEB Design Guide, CEN/TS 1992-4, and ACI 318-08) may
lead to excessively conservative results, experimental studies were
conducted at the Civil Engineering Department of the University of
Coimbra dealing with cast-in-place headed anchors. The aim of this
study is the evaluation of the effect of hanger reinforcement on the
behavior of steel-headed anchors embedded in concrete subjected
to tension loads. A total of 40 laboratory tests, divided into two
groups, were performed, dealing with plain concrete; hanger and
usual grid surface reinforcement; and the variation of the member
thickness, embedment depth, and proximity of the concrete member
edges. Some conclusions from the tests are analyzed and discussed.
Keywords: anchorage failure; hanger reinforcement; headed anchors
(fasteners); tension tests.

INTRODUCTION
The connections between steel and concrete have been the
subject of several studieswith notable achievements both
in the understanding of connection behavior and connection design.1-12 Different types of anchors may be used to
transfer shear and/or tension between structural members
and the correct assessment of their behavior in terms of stiffness and resistance is a key step for the characterization of
connections employing such anchors. With advancements
in the understanding of the failure mechanisms, a method
for the prediction of the concrete failure modes known as
the Concrete Capacity Design Method (CC Method) was
proposed by Fuchs et al.8 Farrow and Klingner7 verified the
adequacy of the method with experimental tests.
Based on experimental investigations, this paper contributes
to the understanding of the behavior of anchoragesusing
headed anchorssubjected to tension loading and reinforced
with steel hanger reinforcement bars. It is shown that the
presence of steel reinforcement in the concreteeither as
hooked bars (hanger reinforcement) or as a grid surface
reinforcementenhances the resistance and ductility of the
connection. In addition, the influence of the anchor embedment depth/member thickness ratio was also investigated.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The aim of this study is to properly understand the behavior
of headed anchors subjected to tension in the presence of
reinforcement designed to increase the anchor capacity.
Experimental tests were carried out with the objective of
obtaining data for the calibration of numerical13 and analytical models and the improvement of current design methods.
The performed tests enhanced the contribution of the hanger
reinforcement to improving the resistance and deformation
capacity of the anchorage in concrete. The comparison with
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

current design methods demonstrated that the use of this


type of reinforcement is conservatively taken into account.
DESIGN PROCEDURES
The first design code to incorporate a method for determining the strength of fasteners was ACI 349-7614 in
the United States. Later, the CC Method was adopted by
ACI 318-08.3 It was also incorporated in design-oriented
documents, such as the CEB Design Guide,1 the EOTA
code,15 the recent CEN/TS 1992-4,2 and the Hilti design
manual.16 It has also been incorporated in other design codes
worldwide, such as the German code (DIBt)17 and the Swiss
code (SIA 179).18 In the scope of the Eurocodes,19-21 the
design of fasteners has not yet been completely addressed.
In 1987, CEB created the working group Fastenings to
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures, which
produced the publication of a state-of-the-art report4 and the
design manual Design of Fastenings in Concrete,1 based
on the partial factors methodology. Recently, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) published the
technical specification Design of Fastenings for Use in
Concrete.2 These guides provide methods for the design of
anchors according to the CC Method, including anchorages
with hanger reinforcement.
Failure modes of tensioned headed anchors
The five possible failure modes in a nonreinforced
tensioned anchorage are illustrated in Fig. 1. These consist
of the following: 1) steel anchor failure (Fig. 1(a)) limited
by the steel resistance of the fastener; 2) pullout failure
(Fig. 1(b)) due to a progressive crushing of the concrete over
the anchor head; 3) concrete cone failure (Fig. 1(c)), where
the concrete cone-shaped failure surface propagates from
the head of the anchor; 4) blowout failure (Fig. 1(d)), which
involves the blowing out of the concrete surface adjacent to
the anchor head; and 5) splitting failure (Fig. 1(e)), characterized by the formation of cracks vertically along the length
of the anchor(s).
Concrete cone failure
The CC Method is based on a model corresponding to the
formation of a concrete cone with the shape of a pyramid
with a quadrangular base with an inclination from the
surface of approximately 35 degrees (ACI 349-7614 considers
45 degrees). The characteristic resistance (5% value fractile)
ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 2, March-April 2013.
MS No. S-2011-112.R2 received October 11, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2013, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be
published in the January-February 2014 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is
received by September 1, 2013.

239

Jos Henriques is a PhD Student at the University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal,


where he received his civil engineering degree and his masters degree in structures.
His research interests include steel and composite structures.

yA,N: factor for effects resulting from the proximity of


other fasteners or the concrete free edges

Jos Maria Raposo is a Design Engineer at Struplano, Ltd., Coimbra, Portugal. He


received his civil engineering degree from the Instituto Superior Tcnico, Lisbon,
Portugal, and his masters degree in structures from the University of Coimbra.
Lus Simes da Silva is a Professor at the University of Coimbra and Head of the Steel
and Composite Construction Technologies Group of the Institute for Sustainability and
Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE). He received his civil engineering degree
from the University of Coimbra and his MSc and PhD from Imperial College London,
London, UK. His research interests include steel and composite structures.
Lus Costa Neves is an Assistant Professor at the University of Coimbra, where he
received his civil engineering degree, his masters degree in structures, and his PhD.
His research interests include steel and composite structures.

y A, N =

0
(NRk,c
)

of a headed anchor in tension


without the influence of
member edges or other adjacent fasteners, according to CEN/
TS 1992-4,2 is
N

0
Rk , c

1.5
ef

= k fck ,cube h

(N)

0
N Rk ,c = N Rk
, c y A, N y s , N y ec , N y re , N y ucr , N (N)

where the factors yi correspond to the following effects:

y s, N = 0.7 + 0.3

(2)

c
1
1.5hef

(4)

yec,N: factor accounting for the eccentricity en (mm)


between the resultant tensile force and the geometrical
centroid of the tension-loaded anchors. In the case of
eccentricity in two directions, the eccentricity factor
should be calculated for each direction and both factors
included in Eq. (2)
y ec , N =

(3)

Ac0, N

A0c,N = 9hef2 : area of the concrete cone base (at the surface)
corresponding to an individual fastener with a distance
to other fasteners or to the concrete free edges such that
these effects are negligible.
Ac,N: area of the concrete cone base considering closely
spaced anchors (superposition of cones) and/or concrete
member edges.
ys,N: factor accounting for the influence of proximate
edges. This factor is relevant only when c < 1.5hef,
where c (mm) is the smallest distance to the edges

(1)

The resistance was found to be a function of the embedment depth hef (mm) and the concrete compressive strength
fck,cube (N/mm2). The factor k varies as a function of the
concrete statecracked (8.5) or uncracked (11.9). In
ACI 318-08,3 the characteristic resistance is calculated using
the concrete compressive cylinder strength instead of the
cube strength and the factor k is equal to 10 independent of
the concrete state.
The other effects contributing to the resistance of the
0
connection are taken into account by multiplying N Rk,c
by a
2
series of factors yi. According to CEN/TS 1992-4, the resistance of an anchor or a group of anchors is given by

Ac , N

1
1+ 2

en
scr , n

(5)

scr,n (mm): characteristic anchor spacing representing


the minimum distance between anchors to form individual concrete cones (=3hef).
yre,N: factor accounting for a local blowout of the concrete
at the surface observed when hef < 100 mm (3.94 in.) and
the grid surface reinforcement is closely spaced

Fig. 1Failure modes in anchorages with headed anchors.


240

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

Fig. 2Failure modes for steel hanger reinforcement.

y re, N = 0.5 +

hef
200

(6)

yucr,N: factor accounting for the effect of the concrete


cracking within the anchorage zone. It equals 1.4 (1.25
according to ACI 318-083) for uncracked and 1.0 for
cracked concrete at the serviceability limit state.

Contribution from steel hanger reinforcement


Bode and Hanenkamp22 verified experimentally that
adding hanger reinforcement leads to a considerable gain in
strength and ductility. According to Rehm et al.,23 the most
efficient reinforcement layout is stirrups or hangers (Fig. 2)
close to the fastener, conveniently anchored, and involving
any grid surface reinforcement. The guides1,2 present a
methodology for the design of anchorages reinforced with
hook-shaped reinforcing bars known as hanger reinforcement (Fig. 2). However, recent studies10,11,24 point out the
fact that the contribution of this reinforcement is taken into
account too conservatively.
The presence of hanger reinforcement prevents or delays
the formation of a concrete cone, and therefore two new
modes of failure may become dominant: 1) yielding of
the steel hanger reinforcement (Fig. 2(a)); or 2) anchorage
failure of the hanger reinforcement (Fig. 2(b)). In the first
case, the steel yields after mobilizing the yield stress fsyk
(N/mm2), corresponding to a characteristic load value of
N Rk , shr = nshr Ashr fsyk (N)

(7)

where nshr is the number of vertical steel reinforcement bars;


and Ashr (mm2) is the cross-sectional area of each reinforcing
bar. In the second case, anchorage failure of the hanger
reinforcement occurs when, for the actual anchorage length,
the maximum bond of the hanger reinforcement is reached.
This bond resistance can be predicted using the following
expression given in CEN/TS 1992-42
N Rk , a = in=shr1

l1,hr ,i pdshr ,i fbk


a

(N)

(8)

where l1,hr,i (mm) is the anchorage length of reinforcing


bar i inside the assumed concrete cone, measured vertically from the cone surface to the end of the vertical part
of the reinforcing bar; dshr,i (mm) is the diameter of the
reinforcing bar i; fbk (N/mm2) is the characteristic bond
strength; and a is a factor that takes the effect of the shape
of the reinforcing bar and the concrete confinement within
the anchorage length into account. According to CEN/
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

TS 1992-42 for hooked bars, a should be taken equal to 0.7.


In Eq. (8), the contribution of the bond and hook is considered simultaneously; however, the hook effect is independent of the bond conditions and the anchorage length of
the reinforcing bar l1,hr,i; therefore, as proposed by Kuhlmann and Imminger,9 these two effects should be treated as
summed contributions.
In ACI 318-08,3 the anchorage resistance of the hanger
reinforcement is not evaluated; however, the hanger
reinforcement may be considered effective if it developed on
both sides of the breakout surface, accomplishing the detail
requirements given in the code.
The characteristic bond strength, according to CEN/TS
1992-4,2 is obtained using the characteristic tensile resistance fctk (N/mm2) as follows
fbk = 2.25h1 h2 fctk (N/mm 2 )

(9)

where h1 and h2 are factors that take into account the bond
conditions and the diameter of the reinforcing bars, respectively. In all test specimens, both factors are equal to 1, as the
bond conditions are assumed good and the diameter of the
hanger reinforcement bars is smaller than 32 mm (1.26 in.).
Effect of concrete member thickness h
The concrete member thickness h (mm) could affect the
resistance to splitting failure. This failure mode may be
disregarded if: 1) anchors are installed with edge distances
greater than characteristic edge distances (ccr,sp [mm]); and
2) confining reinforcement is provided to control crack
widths to 0.3 mm (0.012 in.). According to CEN/TS 19924,2 the resistance to splitting failure is determined similarly
to Eq. (2) with inclusion of the factor yh,N.
y h,N

h
=
hmin

2 /3

2hef

hmin

2 /3

(10)

where hmin is the minimum concrete member thickness equal


to the sum of embedment depth hef (mm), the anchor head
thickness th (mm), and the required concrete cover according
to national regulations (ca [mm]).
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Description of test specimens
The experimental work performed consisted of two groups
of tests on tensioned headed anchors, tested in different
periods and divided into five series each. The first group
(G1) considered a total of 25 specimens, while in the second
(G2), 15 specimens were tested. The test specimens geom241

Fig. 3Definition of test variables of each group.

Fig. 4Geometry of concrete blocks.


Table 1Material properties of Groups G1 and G2
Reinforcement (including
hanger reinforcement)

Concrete
2

fcm,cub, N/mm
(ksi)

fctm, N/mm
(ksi)

Ecm, N/mm
(ksi) 103

G1S1

29.5
(4.23)

2.29
(0.33)

30.38
(4.41)

G1S2

30.59
(4.44)

2.40
(0.35)

31.00
(4.50)

G1S3

46.68
(6.77)

3.43
(0.50)

34.13
(4.95)

G1S4

29.51
(4.28)

2.32
(0.48)

30.80
(4.47)

G1S5

25.77
(3.74)

2.04
(0.44)

29.91
(4.34)

G2S6 to
G2S10

24.68
(3.58)

1.96
(0.28)

28.85
(4.18)

Test series

242

Headed anchors
2

Anchor plate

fsyk, N/mm
(ksi)

Es, N/mm
(ksi) 103

fsyk, N/mm
(ksi)

Es, N/mm
(ksi) 103

fsyk, N/mm2
(ksi)

Es, N/mm2
(ksi) 103

500
(72.52)

210
(30.46)

640
(92.82)

210
(30.46)

651
(94.42)

218.88
(31.75)

1008.33
(146.25)

213.31
(30.94)

355
(51.49)

210
(30.46)

etry is schematically represented in Fig. 3 and 4, and the


material properties are given in Table 1.
In all tests, design resistances associated with the following
failure modes were considered: 1) steel anchor failure;
2) pullout failure; 3) steel hanger reinforcement bar failure;
4) anchorage failure of the steel hanger reinforcement; and
5) concrete cone failuretheoretical because this mode is
prevented by the presence of reinforcement. Note that the
failure modes are listed such that the associated predicted
resistance decreases from 1 to 5.
Experimental tests in Group G1The 25 tested specimens
of this group were divided into five series (S1 to S5), where
the geometrical propertiesvaried between each test series
consisted of the embedded depth hef of the headed anchor,

the number of anchors, and the edge distance c. Within each


test series, a subdivision into five types of specimens (N1 to
N5) was performed, varying the use of hanger reinforcement,
the diameter of the hanger reinforcement dshr, and the use
of top grid surface reinforcement. Table 2 summarizes all
geometrical properties. In all test series except S4, only one
anchor was installed. In Test Series S4, two anchors spaced
at 200 mm (7.87 in.) were used. In Test Series S5, a rectangular block was considered to analyze the edge effect. Both
S4 and S5 are particular cases of Test Series S2; therefore,
the latter is used as a reference in the analysis of the results.
For all test specimens, the ratio of the anchor embedment
depth hef to member thickness h was set at 0.5 to avoid any
influence of the member thickness on the concrete failure
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

Table 2Geometric properties of Group G1


Series

hef, mm (in.)

d, mm (in.)

dh, mm (in.)

th, mm (in.)

c, mm (in.)

s, mm (in.)

G1S1

150 (5.90)

25 (0.98)

45 (1.77)

20 (0.79)

625 (24.61)

300 (11.81) 1250 (49.21) 520 (20.39)

77 (3.03)

G1S2

200 (7.87)

30 (1.18)

60 (2.36)

25 (0.98)

625 (24.61)

400 (15.75) 1250 (49.21) 520 (20.39)

130 (5.12)

G1S3

260 (10.24)

40 (1.57)

75 (2.95)

35 (1.38)

625 (24.61)

520 (20.47) 1250 (49.21) 520 (20.39)

195 (7.68)

G1S4

200 (7.87)

30 (1.18)

60 (2.36)

25 (0.98)

525 (20.67)

200 (7.87)

400 (15.75) 1250 (49.21) 520 (20.39)

130 (5.12)

200 (7.87)

30 (1.18)

60 (2.36)

25 (0.98)

200 (7.87)

400 (15.75) 1250 (49.21) 400 (15.75)

130 (5.12)

G1S5

beq, mm (in.) lhex, mm (in.) l1,hr, mm (in.)

Type

Hanger reinforcement?

No. of legs

dshr, mm (in.)

Top surface reinforcement?

dsr, mm (in.)

#sr, mm (in.)

N1

No

No

No

Yes

10 (0.394)

150 (5.90)

N2
N3
N4

10 (0.394)
Yes

4
12 (0.472)

N5
*

h, mm (in.)

No

Yes

10 (0.394)

150 (5.90)

Concrete block is rectangular.

Table 3Geometric properties of Group G2


Series

d; dh, mm (in.)

th, mm (in.)

c; s, mm (in.)

b; l, mm (in.)

tap; bap; lap, mm (in.)

hef, mm (in.)

h, mm (in.)

150 (5.91)

300 (11.81)

200 (7.87)

300 (11.81)

240 (9.44)

300 (11.81)

G2S9

160 (6.29)

200 (7.87)

G2S10

200 (7.87)

250 (9.84)

Top surface reinforcement?

dsr, mm (in.)

#sr, mm (in.)

Yes

12 (0.472)

150 (5.90)

G2S6
G2S7
G2S8

22 (0.87); 35 (1.38)

10 (0.39)

370 (14.57);
110 (4.33)

850 (33.46);
1200 (47.24)

Type

Hanger reinforcement?

No. of legs

dshr, mm (in.)

shr

N6

No

N7

Yes

N8

Yes

10 (0.394)

modes.4 The minimum anchor embedment depth hef was


taken as 150 mm (5.91 in.) because, according to the CEB
Design Guide,1 this is the minimum value allowing the efficiency of the hanger reinforcement. The disposition of the
hanger reinforcement consisted of two hooked reinforcement bars (four legs) (Fig. 3(a)). In the test specimens of
Test Series S5, the hanger reinforcement was disposed in the
longitudinal direction of the concrete block. The concrete
cover for all types of reinforcement was 30 mm (1.81 in.). In
Test Series S5, the concrete block geometry was rectangular
(similar to Fig. 4(b)), adopting an edge distance c smaller
than the cone radius at the surface (1.5hef) in one direction.
In all other test series, the concrete block geometry was
hexagonal (Fig. 4(a)) with edge distances higher than this
value. Fastener diameters d were chosen so as to prevent
their failure, and their head diameters dh were selected to
avoid pullout failure.
Experimental tests in Group G2The 15 tested specimens of this group were divided into five series (S6 to S10),
where the geometrical propertiesvaried between each
test seriesconsisted of the embedded depth hef and the
member thickness h. Within each test series, a subdivision
into three types of specimens (N6 to N8) was performed,
varying the use of hanger reinforcement and the distance of
the hanger reinforcement to the anchors. Table 3 summarizes
all geometrical properties. Test Series S6 is a reference, as it
represents the case where the member thickness should not
affect the resistance.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

0.0

20 (0.79); 100 (3.94);


200 (7.87)

0.75hef

In all test series, two closely spaced anchors welded to


a plate were used (Fig. 3(b)). The ratio between member
embedment depth hef and member thickness h was varied.
The concrete block geometry was rectangular (Fig. 4(b))
and in the transverse direction (smaller dimension), the edge
distance c was greater than 1.5hef. The hanger reinforcement
used consisted of eight legs installed parallel to the transverse direction (Fig. 3(b)). The concrete cover for all types
of reinforcement was 30 mm (1.81 in.). The anchor shaft and
head diameters (d and dh) were chosen to avoid anchor steel
failure and pullout failure, respectively.
Test layout and instrumentation
A steel structure with a square shape composed of four
beams of the HE 140 B cross section was used to anchor the
specimens to a reaction slab, incorporating four prestressed
high-strength steel bars. The distance between the highstrength steel bars axis was 1 m (39.37 in.). The anchorages
were tensioned by a hydraulic jack with a maximum stroke
of 300 mm (11.81 in.) connected through a set of bars and
plates to a 100 ton (220 kip) load cell. In all tests, an initial
load step up to 5 tons (11 kips) with complete discharge with
load control was applied to eliminate any slack, then the test
continued with displacement control at a speed of 0.02 mm/s
(7.87 104 in./s)increased at later stages up to 0.10 mm/s
(3.94 103 in./s). Linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) were used to evaluate the displacements directly
on the fastener and the concrete surface. In some tests, strain
243

Fig. 5Failure modes in Test Group G1.

Fig. 6Summary of force-deformation curves obtained in Test Group G1.

Fig. 7Summary of force-deformation curves obtained in Test Group G2.


gauges were placed on the steel reinforcing bars, both on the
hanger and grid surface steel reinforcement. More detailed
information on the experimental procedure may be found in
Reference 10.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All tests with steel hanger reinforcement failure involved
the anchorage of the steel hanger reinforcement, followed
by the formation of a concrete cone (Fig. 5(a)). The presence of hanger reinforcement leads to an initial crushing of
the concrete at the head of the anchor. The concrete cone is
then formed at a smaller embedment depth and the anchorage
length of the hanger reinforcement is reduced. Subsequently,
anchorage failure of the hanger reinforcement occurs and a
smaller concrete cone is observed. Specimens without hanger
reinforcement (Types N1 or N6) were associated with a pure
concrete cone failure (Fig. 5(b)). In Group G2, due to the
geometry of the concrete block and because of the higher
ratio hef /h, a transverse crack was observed before failure.
244

Figures 6 and 7 summarize the results of both groups of


tests in terms of force-displacement curves. These curves
compare different test series and types. Tables 4 and 5 present
the maximum loads obtained in Test Groups G1 and G2,
respectively. Independent of the test group, series, and type,
the following is common: the initial stiffness is similar;
the onset of the radial cracks (Fig. 5(a)) corresponds to the
maximum force achieved in the force-displacement curve;
during the descending branch, radial cracks develop up to
the formation of circumferential cracking involving the
formation of the concrete cone (Fig. 5(b)); and, at this stage,
the load stabilizes and the remaining resistance is provided
by the friction between surfaces in the cracks and the grid
surface reinforcement (when available). The influence of the
test variables is discussed in the following.
Embedment depth hef
In both groups of tests, with the increase of the embedment depth hef, an increase of the load capacity was verified.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

For Group G1, by comparing Test Series S2 with S1 and


S3 with S1, the increase was, on average, approximately
46% and 161%, respectively. In Group G2, by comparing
Test Series S7 with S6 and S8 with S6, the load capacity was
increased by approximately 29% and 74%, respectively.
Edge effect
In Test Series S5 of Group G1, the reduction of the edge
distance produced a reduction of load capacity of approximately 10% for the test specimen without hanger reinforcement (Type N1). When hanger reinforcement was used without
grid surface reinforcement, an increase was observed. Again,
the presence of hanger reinforcement modifies the failure
mechanism to an anchorage failure of the hanger reinforcement, which is not affected by the edge distance.
Group effect
In Test Group G1 (Test Series S4), the use of two anchors
with a spacing smaller than 3hef demonstrates that the
Table 4Maximum anchorage resistance obtained
in tests of Test Group G1, kN (kips)
Test series
Test type

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

N1

173.00
(38.89)

268.50
(60.36)

463.50
(104.20)

299.30
(67.29)

159.10
(35.77)

N2

186.40
(41.90)

266.60
(59.93)

476.60
(107.14)

298.50
(67.11)

204.70
(46.02)

N3

240.10
(53.98)

337.50
(75.87)

587.80
(132.14)

299.20
(67.26)

228.80
(51.43)

N4

186.10
(41.84)

284.90
(64.05)

539.40
(121.62)

273.80
(61.55)

209.60
(47.12)

N5

256.80
(57.73)

349.40
(78.55)

636.30
(143.05)

408.30
(91.79)

256.40
(57.64)

Table 5Maximum anchorage resistance obtained


in tests of Test Group G2, kN (kips)
Test series
Test type

S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

N6

144.64
(32.52)

189.90
(42.69)

291.84
(65.61)

147.81
(33.23)

243.56
(54.75)

N7

226.18
(50.85)

246.86
(55.50)

322.76
(72.56)

177.83
(39.98)

227.33
(51.10)

N8

161.43
(36.29)

234.46
(52.71)

284.53
(63.96)

172.78
(38.84)

284.94
(64.06)

increase in load capacity is not directly proportional to the


number of anchors, confirming the effect of the superposition stress fields. Because the same amount of reinforcement was used in specimens with one and two anchors, the
increase in load capacity demonstrates that, although the
failure mechanism involves anchorage failure of the hanger
reinforcement, the concrete breakout resistance contributes
to the final resistance.
Hanger reinforcement
The average increase of resistance due to the contribution
of the hanger reinforcement is higher in Test Group G2, as
eight legs are used instead of four (30 to 10%). Additionally, an increase in deformation capacity is also noticed
in the force-displacement curves (Fig. 6 and 7). A higher
displacement of the anchors is observed because the tensile
strain is controlled by a compressive force arising between
the anchor head and the steel hanger reinforcement that
produces a compressive strain (Fig. 8(a)). Experimentally,
this compression was observed by comparing the relative
displacements between the concrete surface near the anchor
and the anchor itself in reinforced tests (Fig. 8(b)). This
effect may be significant and may lead to the onset of some
pullout failure, as observed in some tests.
Position of hanger reinforcement
In Test Group G2, the results show that the smaller the
distance from the anchors to the hanger reinforcement, the
higher the resistance of the anchorage. The average increase
of load capacity in test Type N7 is approximately 30%, while
in Type N8, it is approximately 13%.
Grid surface reinforcement
Test Group G1 demonstrates that grid surface reinforcement increases the efficiency of the hanger reinforcement.
The average increase of resistance, from test Type N1 to
Types N3 and N5, was approximately 44% and 61%, respectively. Without grid surface reinforcement, the increase was
much smaller8% and 11% (Types N2 to N1 and N4 to N1,
respectively). The activation of the grid surface reinforcement is noted in the force-displacement curve as the load
capacity recovers after the first peak (refer to Fig. 6(a))
(Test Specimens S3N3 and S3N5). This is due to the fact
that the grid surface reinforcement needs some displacement
to be mobilized and to start to contribute to the overall resistance. The increase of ductility is also observed.

Fig. 8Effect of presence of hanger reinforcement on anchorage response.


ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

245

Table 6Prediction loads for Test Group G1


NRk,c, kN (kips)
NRm,shr, kN (kips)

NRm,a, kN (kips)

min(NRm,shr, NRm,a)/Nu,test

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

N1

165.25 (37.15)

260.62 (58.59)

477.20 (107.28)

341.31 (76.73)

143.53 (32.27)

N2 and N3

157.08 (35.31)

157.08 (35.31)

157.08 (35.31)

157.08 (35.31)

157.08 (35.31)

N4 and N5

226.19 (50.85)

226.19 (50.85)

226.19 (50.85)

226.19 (50.85)

226.19 (50.85)

N2 and N3

71.22 (16.01)

126.02 (28.33)

270.16 (60.73)

121.82 (27.39)

107.12 (24.08)

N4 and N5

85.47 (19.21)

151.23 (33.00)

324.19 (72.88)

146.19 (32.86)

125.54 (28.90)

N2

0.38

0.47

0.33

0.41

0.52

N3

0.30

0.37

0.27

0.41

0.47

N4

0.46

0.53

0.42

0.53

0.61

N5

0.33

0.43

0.36

0.36

0.50

Table 7Prediction loads for Test Group G2


S6

S7

S8

S9

S10

NRk,c, kN (kips)

N6

96.54 (21.70)

141.33 (31.77)

180.99 (40.69)

105.05 (23.62)

141.33 (31.77)

NRm,shr, kN (kips)

N7 and N8

409.03 (91.95)

409.03 (91.95)

409.03 (91.95)

409.03 (91.95)

409.03 (91.95)

N7

158.34 (35.60)

237.50 (53.39)

308.76 (69.41)

182.09 (40.93)

245.45 (55.17)

N8

71.25 (16.02)

102.92 (23.14)

158.34 (35.59)

79.17 (17.80)

110.84 (24.92)

N7

0.70

0.96

0.96

1.02

1.08

N8

0.44

0.44

0.56

0.46

0.39

NRm,a, kN (kips)

min(NRm,shr, NRm,a)/Nu,test

Embedment-depth-to-member-thickness ratio hef /h


The comparison between Test Series S7 and S10
(Group G2) demonstrates that the higher the ratio hef /h, the
higher the resistance of anchorage. This may be justified by
the fact that the bottom grid surface reinforcement is activated to a higher level in the case of a higher hef /h ratio.
However, the limited number of tests does not allow for
conclusive results.
COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Resistance assessment
In this section, the performed comparison uses the analytical formulation proposed by CEN/TS 1992-4.2 The failure
loads, as governed by yielding of the hanger reinforcement
(Eq. (7)) and anchorage failure of the hanger reinforcement (Eq. (8)), were computed using the mean values of the
material properties instead of the characteristic values (refer
to Table 1).
Tables 6 and 7 present the analytical predictions and the
ratio between the Min(NRm,shr, NRm,a) and the test result Nu. It
is observed that the analytical values are clearly smaller than
the experimental ones; however, for Specimens S9N7 and
S10N7 of Group G2, this was not the case. The result of
Specimen S10N7 is justified by an invalid test result as the
loading system failed. Note that for Test Group G2, the
predictions were calculated considering the cracked state of
the concrete, as a transverse crack formed well before the
failure load.
As far as the steel hanger reinforcement failure is
concerned, it may be concluded that the available analytical
formulations1,2,7 are quite conservative because the total
resistance of the system is not exclusively provided by the
steel in tension Min(NRm,shr, NRm,a). A summed contribution of the concrete in tension and the hanger reinforcement
exists but is not accounted for in the calculations.
246

Influence of test parameters on


experimental results
In Test Group G1, the concrete resistance obtained for
each test series was different (Table 1). To have an equivalent
comparison, the experimental results were normalized with
respect to the concrete resistance fcm (N/mm2) of the reference test series (S2). The normalization varied according to
the use of hanger reinforcement. Without hanger reinforcement, the prediction of the resistance has the proportion Nu
~ fcm0.5. This leads to the normalized resistance as follows
f

N u = N u cm , S 2
fcm

1/ 2

(N)

(11)

When using hanger reinforcement, the results are expected


to be governed by the anchorage of the hanger reinforcement.
Thus, according to Eq. (8) and (9), the resistance depends on
mean bond strength fbm (N/mm2) and mean tensile strength
fctm (N/mm2) which, according to CEN/TS 1992-4,2 has the
proportion fctm~fcm2/3.
f

N u = N u cm , S 2
fcm

2 /3

(N)

(12)

For Test Group G2, no normalization is performed on the


experimental results.
Effect of embedment depth hefThe variation of hef
results in a change in the anchorage length l1,hr,i (Eq. (8));
therefore, the resistance of both types of test specimens
with and without hanger reinforcementis expected to be
affected. Figure 9(a) shows the ratios of normalized resistances (Nu,Si/Nu,S2 or S6) as a function of the ratio between
embedment depths (hef,Si/hef,S2 or S6)1.5. The power 1.5 is
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

Fig. 9Effect of anchorage embedment depth hef.


used, as in Eq. (1), the resistance is proportional to hef1.5.
The ratios were separately calculated for each group of
tests. The results show a linear correlation between resistance and hef1.5. A worse approximation was obtained for the
tests of Group G2, which may be justified by the fact that
the ratio between embedment depth hef and member thickness h was varied simultaneously. For the tests with hanger
reinforcement, failure was linked to the anchorage failure of
the hanger reinforcement. Therefore, according to Eq. (8),
the resistance follows a linear variation with l1,i. Figure 9(b)
illustrates the ratio between resistances as a function of the
ratio between anchorage lengths (l1,hr,Si/l1,hr,S2 or S6). A similar
trend is observed as for the embedment depth hef.
Effect of proximity of other headed anchors and concrete
member free edgesUsing the variable y = yA,Nys,N, the
influence of both effects is analyzed simultaneously. The
normalized values of the failure loads Nu,Si/Nu,S2 should
follow the normalized variable ySi/yS2. Figure 10 presents
the evolution of the normalized resistance and normalized
variable for all types of specimens in Test Series S2, S4, and
S5 of Test Group G1. For the unreinforced tests (Type N1),
Fig. 10 shows a reasonable agreement with the concrete
capacity method (where NRk,c ~ yi). According to the CEB
Design Guide1 and CEN/TS 1992-4,2 the failure load
involving the steel hanger reinforcement does not depend on
the effects accounted for in the factor y as long as the failure
load of the concrete cone NRk,c is lower than the failure load
of the anchorage of the steel hanger reinforcement NRd,a.
This should correspond to ratios Nu,Si/Nu,S2 equal to 1. As
shown in Fig. 10, the results from the tests show that Nu,Si/
Nu,S2 increase with y, suggesting that even when failure is
linked to the hanger reinforcement, the shape of the concrete
cone affects the resistance of the anchorage.
Effect of hanger reinforcementThe values presented in
Tables 6 and 7 show that, for the majority of the cases, the
ratios between the analytical predictions and test results are
clearly smaller than 1. According to the guides,1-3 the hanger
reinforcement to be used in an anchorage should at least
resist the pure concrete cone load capacity. Consequently, in
the cases where this condition is not guaranteed, the hanger
reinforcement is considered ineffective. However, these
experimental investigations demonstrate that even in the
cases of low hanger reinforcement resistanceeither limited
by anchorage or steel failurethere is a combined contribution (hanger reinforcement and concrete) to the anchorage
resistance, which increases its load capacity in comparison
to the cases with a pure concrete cone.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

Fig. 10Effect of factor y on test specimens of Test Group G1.

Fig. 11Effect of steel hanger reinforcement diameter on


different series of Test Group G1 (Specimens N2vsN4 and
N3vsN5). (Note: 1 mm = 0.03937 in.)
In Test Group G1, the diameter of the hanger reinforcement was varied and its influence is shown in Fig. 11,
where the chart presents the ratio between the test results of
different diameters. From these results, it may be concluded
that there is an increase of the failure load with the increase
of dshr, but at a smaller rate than d12/d10 (1.20). This is most
likely due to the fact that the steel hanger reinforcement and
its anchorage are not the only contributions for the overall
resistance, with contribution from other components inde247

Fig. 12Effect of providing grid surface reinforcement on test specimens of Test Group G1.

Fig. 13Influence of parameters only varied in Test Group G2.


pendent of dshr, such as the concrete cone resistance and grid
surface reinforcement.
Effect of grid surface reinforcementFigure 12(a) shows
the relative increase of resistance verified in Test Group G1.
Only Test Series S1 to S3 are used. The values are normalized
to the specimens with hanger reinforcement and without grid
surface reinforcement (Types N2 and N4). It can be observed
that there is always a resistance increaseup to 38%and
the relative gain is more significant for smaller embedment
depths. Figure 12(b) shows the absolute resistances. Here,
contrary to the relative values, for higher embedment depth,
the absolute resistance gains are higher as well. This result
may be justified by the fact that with higher embedment
depth hef, the larger the concrete cone and, therefore, the
greater the percentage of grid surface reinforcement mobilized to take the transversal component of the applied load,
which develops upon the formation of the concrete cone.
Effect of position of hanger reinforcementThe position of the hanger reinforcement affects the resistance
to anchorage failure as the anchorage length l1,hr,i used in
Eq. (8) decreases with the increase of the distance between
the anchorage and hanger reinforcement. In Test Group G2,
test Type N8 considered the installation distant from the
anchors; in all other test specimens with hanger reinforcement (Groups G1 and G2), this was installed adjacent to
the anchor (refer to Fig. 4(b) and Table 3). In Fig. 13(a),
the relative increase of resistance is shown as (Nu,i/Nu,N6).
Although the hanger reinforcement is installed distant from
the anchor (smaller anchorage length), an increase of resistance is still obtained. According to the current approach,
the anchorage failure defines the failure load and, therefore,
the resistance should be equivalent to the concrete cone, as
248

hanger reinforcement is only activated upon the formation of


the concrete cone.
Effect of embedment-depth-to-member-thickness ratio
hef/hThis parameter is taken into account by adding the
factor presented in Eq. (9) to Eq. (2). The evaluation of the
test results with this factor is compared in Fig. 13(b) for
Test Group G2. To isolate the variable hef /h, the test values
were normalized using Test Series S6 and the proportion
hef1.5 as follows.
hef , S 6
N u, Si = N u, Si

hef , si

1.5

(N)

(13)

The ratio of resistances (Nu,Si/Nu,S6) does not follow the


same trend as the ratio of factors (yh,si/yh,S6), which indicates that the specimens resistance is not significantly influenced by the hef /h ratio. In fact, according to the CEB Design
Guide1 and CEN/TS 1992-4,2 this factor may be disregarded
if the amount of reinforcement in the concrete member takes
the splitting forces generated by the anchorage in tension
into account. In addition, the limited number of tests and the
fact that this variable was not completely isolated within all
tests limit the conclusions.
FURTHER RESEARCH
In the future, more accurate analytical formulas to
account for the resistance of the hanger reinforcement and
the correct interaction between relevant components are
required. To fulfill this objective, some additional tests
could be performed, considering the variation from the
anchor to the steel reinforcement, as performed in Test
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

Group G2. Due to the limitations often related to experimental research, numerical work should also be performed,
providing a better comprehension of the phenomena and a
larger amount of results.
CONCLUSIONS
The performed experimental tests demonstrated that the
behavior of reinforced anchorages is governed by a dependent set of components and variables: concrete tensile resistance, bond of the steel hanger reinforcement in the concrete
cone, the hook effect of the hanger reinforcement, the position of the hanger reinforcement, and the confining effect of
the grid surface reinforcement. From the comparison of the
test results with the analytical predictions (according to the
design guides1-3), it was concluded that the current methods
that take into account the use of steel hanger reinforcement
are quite conservative.
The presented results revealed that the evaluation of the
resistance of a reinforced anchorage cannot rely only on the
capacity of the steel hanger reinforcement or its anchorage
capacity, as is currently done. The contribution of the
concrete resistance is clear and should be taken into account.
It was also found that the steel hanger reinforcement
provides a resistance enhancement when not associated with
grid surface reinforcement and when its resistance is smaller
than the pure concrete cone. Thus, in a future improvement
of the current model, a summed contribution of concrete and
hanger reinforcement should be considered.
Also, the test results suggest that the hook effect is independent of the embedment depth or anchorage length l1,hr;
therefore, the expression proposed by the guides1,2 for
computing NRk,a seems inadequate because it considers this
effect by multiplying the resistance value by a factor and
not adding it to the resistance. This is in agreement with the
study performed by Kuhlmann and Imminger,9 which stated
that these effects should be considered independently.
Regarding the concrete member thickness, the limited
number of results did not allow for the attainment of
conclusive answers; however, the test results indicate that
the member thickness effect is minimized by the concrete
member reinforcement.
REFERENCES

1. Comit Euro-International du Bton (CEB), Design of Fastenings in


Concrete, Thomas Telford, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1997, 92 pp.
2. CEN/TS 1992-4, CEN Technical Specification (TS): Design of
Fastenings for Use in Concrete, Final Draft, European Organization for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2009, 166 pp.
3. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
4. Comit Euro-International du Bton (CEB), Fastenings to Concrete
and Masonry Structures, State of the Art Report, Thomas Telford, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1994, 83 pp.
5. Eligehausen, R.; Hofacker, I.; and Lettow, S., Fastenings Technique
Current Status and Future Trends, International Symposium on Connec-

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013

tions between Steel and Concrete, R. Eligehausen, ed., Stuttgart, Germany,


2001, pp. 11-27.
6. Eligehausen, R.; Male, R.; and Silva, J. F., Anchorage in Concrete
Construction, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 2006, 391 pp.
7. Farrow, C. B., and Klingner, R. E., Tensile Capacity of Anchors with
Partial or Overlapping Failure Surfaces: Evaluation of Existing Formulas
on an LRFD Basis, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1995,
pp. 698-710.
8. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; and Breen, J. E., Concrete Capacity
Design: Approach for Fastenings to Concrete, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 73-94.
9. Kuhlmann, U., and Imminger, T., Ankerplatten und Einbaudetails
zur Kraftberleitung im Stahlbau, Schlussbericht, Forschungsvorhaben
im Auftrag des Deutschen Ausschusses fr Stahlbau (DASt), Institut fr
Konstruktion und Entwurf, Stahl, Holz und Verbundbau, Universitt Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2003, 187 pp. (in German)
10. Raposo, J. M., Reforo com armaduras em ligaes com chumbadouros de cabea traco, Tese de Mestrado, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 2006, 217 pp.
(in Portuguese)
11. Rlle, L., Konzentrierte Lasteinleitung mittels Kopfbolzendbel in
Stahlbetonsttzen. Diplomarbeit, Institut fr Konstruktion und Entwurf,
Universitt Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2003, 137 pp. (in German)
12. Stark, J., and Hordijk, D. A., Where Structural Steel and Concrete
Meet. International, International Symposium on Connections between
Steel and Concrete, R. Eligehausen, ed., Stuttgart, Germany, 2001, pp. 1-11.
13. Raposo, J. M.; Neves, L. F. C.; and Simes da Silva, L., Comportamento de chumbadouros traco ancorados em peas de beto, Actas da
Conferncia Mtodos Numricos en Ingeniera 2005, J. L. Prez Aparcio,
J. C. S, R. Delgado, R. Gallego, J. Martins, M. Pasadas, and A. R. Ferran,
eds., SEMNI-APMTAC, Granada, Spain, 2005, 17 pp. (in Portuguese)
14. ACI Committee 349, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1976, 72 pp.
15. European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), Guideline
for European Technical Approval of Anchors (Metal Anchors) for Use in
Concrete, Brussels, Belgium, 1994, 166 pp.
16. Hilti Corporation, Fastening Technology Manual, Schaan, Liechtenstein, 2005, 384 pp.
17. DIBt, Bemessungsverfahren fr Dbel zur Verankerung in Beton,
Deutsches Institut fr Bautechnik, Berlin, Germany, 1993. (in German)
18. SIA 179, Befestigungen in Beton und Mauerwerk, Schweizerischer Ingenieur und Architekten-Verein, Zrich, Switzerland, 1998, 64 pp.
(in German)
19. EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete StructuresPart 1.1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp.
20. EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel StructuresPart 1.1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 91 pp.
21. EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete
StructuresPart 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 118 pp.
22. Bode, H., and Hanenkamp, W., Zur Tragfhigkeit von Kopfbolzen
bei Zugbeanspruchung (Bearing Capacity of Headed Studs under Tension),
Bauingenieur, V. 60, 1985, pp. 361-367. (in German)
23. Rehm, G.; Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K.; and Eligehausen, R., Fritz-Leonhardt-Kolloquium. Forschungskolloquium des Deutschen Ausschusses fr
Stahlbeton, Beton und Stahlbetonbau, No. 6 and 7, 1985, pp. 156-161 and
190-194.
24. Nogueira, J. B., Estudo do comportamento de chumbadouros prinstatalados de cabea submetidos traco, Tese de Mestrado, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal,
2010, 103 pp. (in Portuguese)

249

NOTES:

250

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013