Introduction

Connection design
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I

by Component Based
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM Finite Element Method
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case Lecture 3
Column base
Assessment III
Summary
 List of lectures

1) Beam to column moment connection

Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification 2) Joint of hollow to open section
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression 3) Column base
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II 4) Seismically qualified joints
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

2
 Aims and objectives

o Provide information on column base behaviour

Introduction
Anchor bolts o Introduce principles of Component Method (CM)
Classification
Assessment I
for column base design
Component meth.
In compression
o Introduce principles of Component Based Finite
In tensions Element Method (CBFEM) for column base
Assembly
Assessment II
o Provide an online training to students and
CBFEM
Validation engineers
Verification
Sensitivity study o Show the process of Validation & Verification
Benchmark case
Assessment III o Offer list of references relevant to the topic
Summary

3
Introduction Lecture 3
Anchor bolts
Classification

Column base
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification

František Wald, Marta Kuříková, Martin Vild

Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Lubomír Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
Assessment III
Summary
 Tutorial

o This lecture describes principles

Introduction of Finite Element Method of column base
Anchor bolts by applying the Component Based FEM (CBFEM).
Classification
Assessment I o On the analytical design by Component Method
Component meth. is shown
In compression the behaviour of base plate
In tensions
exposed to compression and bending
Assembly
Assessment II o Validation, Verification and Benchmark cases using
CBFEM
Component based Finite Element Method are presented.
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
o Material was prepared under the R&D project MERLION II supported by Technology
Summary Agency of the Czech Republic, project No TH02020301.

5
 Outline of the lecture

o Introduction
Introduction
o Anchor bolts
Anchor bolts
o Classification
Classification o Assessment I
Assessment I o Component method
Component meth. o Component in compression
In compression o Component in tension
In tensions
o Assembly of components
Assembly
o Assessment II
Assessment II
CBFEM
o Component Based Finite Eelement Method
Validation o Validation
Verification o Verification
Sensitivity study o Sensitivity study
Benchmark case o Benchmark case
Assessment III o Assessment III
Summary
o Summary

6
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Introduction
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II Lecture 3
CBFEM
Validation
Column base
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
 Introduction

o Steel structures are fixing to concrete

Introduction foundation/structure
Anchor bolts
by base plate/end plates, embedding and its
Classification
Assessment I combination.
Component meth.
In compression o The aim of this lecture are joints with base plate
In tensions
Assembly
fixed to concrete structure by anchor bolts.
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

8
 Introduction

o The same principles are used for

end plate fixed to concrete structure
Introduction
Anchor bolts
by anchor bolts.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
o The base plate is usually positioned on the concrete block
Assessment II by pickings or levelling nuts and fixed by grout. The erection
CBFEM has no substantial influence
Validation
to design resistance.
Verification
Sensitivity study
If the anchor bolts
Benchmark case are designed
Assessment III not embedded
Summary (during erection or use)
it takes into account
in design.
9
 Design resistance
of anchor bolt in tension
Anchor bolts are designed for its resistance in tension
Introduction
according to EN1992-4:2018 for all possible failure modes.
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
o Basic failure modes in tension are:
Component meth. • Steel failure of fastener
In compression
In tensions
• Concrete cone failure
Assembly • Pull-out failure of fastener
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Note: In structural steel column bases is asked the ductile steel

fastener´s failure mode, if structurally possible, compared to
anchoring of secondary structures. 10
 Distribution of forces between
anchor bolts in tension
o EN1992-4:2018 expects, that forces
between anchor bolts are distributed elastically.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
It meets the column base with one anchor bolt row.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
o Plastic analyses according to CEN/TR 17081:2018 is used
Assessment III
Summary
for distribution of bolt forces for more anchor bolt rows in
tension. In this case is asked to be the govern failure ductile,
e.g. the steel failure of fastener. The developed prying forces
are taken into account . 11
 Design resistance
of anchor bolt in shear
Anchor bolts for resistance in shear are designed
Introduction according to EN1992-4:2018 for all possible failure modes.
Anchor bolts Basic failure modes in shear are:
Classification
Assessment I o Steel failure of fastener
Component meth. o Concrete edge failure/Pry-out failure
In compression
In tensions o Pull-out failure of fastener
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

12
 Column base classification
To simplify global analyses are classified joints
in Ch. 5 of EN1993-1-8:2006 based on
Introduction
Anchor bolts o Best engineering practice
Classification
Assessment I o Actual influence of particular joint to current frame design,
Component meth.
which implicates recalculation.
In compression
In tensions o Simplified assumption of frame behaviour
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation According to initial joint bending stiffness
Verification are column bases classified
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case o Similar to beam-to-column joints
Assessment III
Summary
o Related to the column bending stiffness

13
 Column base classification
by bending stiffness
Limit between rigid and semi-rigid column bases
Introduction based on simplified assumption of frame behaviour.
Anchor bolts
Classification o For non-sway frames is derived from column resistance
Assessment I
for  o  0,5 Sj,ini  0
Component meth.
In compression for 0,5 <  o < 3,93 Sj,ini  7 (2 o - 1) E Ic / Lc
In tensions
and for  o  3,93 Sj,ini  48 E Ic / Lc
Assembly
Assessment II
where  o is relative slenderness for simple supported column
CBFEM
at both ends.
Validation
Verification Is valid for limited stiffness 12 E Ic / Lc
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
o For sway frames is derived from limiting sway
Assessment III Sj,ini  30 E Ic / Lc
Summary
The limit between pinned and semi-rigid is expected 0,5.

14
 Column base classification
by bending stiffness
Below are shown the limits between rigid, semi-rigid column
Introduction
and pinned column bases
Anchor bolts based on simplified assumption of frame behaviour.
Classification
Assessment I Mj / Mpl,Rd
Component meth.
1,0 Rigid
In compression
In tensions
0,8
Assembly S j,ini,c,n = 30 E I c / L c
Assessment II
0,6
CBFEM
Validation 0,4 S j,ini,c,s = 12 E I / L c  o = 1 ,36
Verification
Sensitivity study 0,2 Semirigid
Benchmark case
Pinned
Assessment III 0
Summary 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 Rotation, 

The limits assure accuracy in design of frame

5% for resistance and 20% for serviceability. 15
 Classification of column base
in non-sway frame
Below is shown the influence of bending stiffness of two column bases
to the column buckling length on example of column HEB200.
Introduction On the vertical axes is parameter of buckling length β; β = 0,7 for rigid
Anchor bolts column base and β = 1,0 for pin one. On the horizontal axes is the relative
Classification slenderness of base plate to column in logarithmic scale. The points represent
Assessment I influence of the real column bases on buckling length.
Component meth. t = 12 mm
In compression a 1 = b1 = 280 mm
In tensions a = b = 500 mm
Assembly
h = 1000 mm
Fcr.pin M 24 -420
Assessment II  = S j,ini,pin = 7 100 kNm / rad
Fcr,res
CBFEM t = 40 mm
1
Validation a 1 = b1 = 420 mm
Verification a = b = 500 mm
0,9 h = 1000 mm
Sensitivity study
M 24 -420
Benchmark case S j,ini,pin S j,ini,stif = 74 800 kNm / rad
0,8
Assessment III
Summary S j,ini,stif
0,7

0,6 _
0,0001 0,01 1,00 100,0 log S 16
 Classification of column base
in sway frame
Below is shown the influence of bending stiffness of column bases in
sway portal frame.
Introduction On the vertical axes is parameter of sway ys/yp; ys/yp = 0,33 for rigid column
Anchor bolts base and ys/yp = 1,0 for pin one. On the horizontal axes is the relative
Classification slenderness of base plate to column in logarithmic scale. The points represent
Assessment I influence of the real column bases on buckling length of columns.
Component meth. 115 kN 115 kN
In compression 5 kN
In tensions y
HE 200 B
Assembly yS / yP
Assessment II HE 200 B 4m
CBFEM 1,0
Validation
0,8
Verification 5m
Sensitivity study 0,6
Benchmark case S j,ini,pin
0,4
Assessment III
Summary
S j,ini,stif
0,2
0
0,01 100
log S
0,0001 1 17
 Assessment I

o What are the basic failure modes of anchor bolts in tension?

Introduction
o What should be the failure mode of anchor bolt in case of
Anchor bolts
Classification
plastic distribution of forces in column base with more bolt
Assessment I rows?
Component meth.
In compression
o What are the basic failure modes of anchor bolts in shear?
In tensions
o What is the reason of classification of joints by bending
Assembly
Assessment II
stiffness?
CBFEM
o What principles are used for classification of joints by
Validation
Verification
bending stiffness?
Sensitivity study
o For what accuracy was derived the limit between rigid and
Benchmark case
Assessment III
semi-rigid column bases for simplified assumption of frame
Summary behaviour?

18
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Component method
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II Lecture 3
CBFEM
Validation
Column base
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
 Component method
for column bases
o In the first step of component method is the joint
Introduction divided into components.
Anchor bolts
Classification Anchor bolts in tension
Assessment I and base plate in bending

Component meth.
In compression
In tensions Concrete block in compression
and base plate in bending
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Anchor bolts in shear
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Column web in shear

20
 Component base plate in bending
and concrete block in compression
o Base plate is flexible under rigid flange/web plates
Introduction
and is taken into account in design by
Anchor bolts
Classification o Effective rigid area under the flexible plate Aeff.
Assessment I
o Concrete block occurs in spatial stress
Component meth.
In compression and is taken into account in design by
In tensions
Assembly
o Concrete design strength in joint fjd.
Assessment II
CBFEM FSd FRd
Validation Column flange
Verification

tw
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
c c
Assessment III
Summary
t
L
Base plate fj
21
 Concrete design strength in joint fjd

Concrete design strength in joint fjd is derived

Introduction from the concrete resistance to concentrated force FRd,u.
Anchor bolts
Ac1
Classification  j Ac0 f cd
Assessment I  j FRdu Ac0 Ac1 3,0 Ac0 f cd
Component meth. f jd     j f cd   3,0 f cd
In compression
bef lef Ac0 Ac0 Ac0
In tensions
Assembly
where
Assessment II
CBFEM j is joint coefficient due to
Validation
lower quality of grout Load axes
Verification
Sensitivity study compared to concrete
Benchmark case
and is taken 2/3
Assessment III
Summary fcd is concrete
compressive strength
h
22
 Concrete resistance
to concentrated force FRd,u
Concrete resistance to concentrated force FRd,u is taken as
Introduction
homogenous force FRd,u on the loaded area Ac0. It is limited
Anchor bolts by geometry of concrete block.
Classification Area
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression Note:
In tensions In spatial stress
Assembly is failure mode
Assessment II crushing
of concrete Load axes
CBFEM
Validation under
Verification
the base plate.
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Area h 23
 Concrete resistance
to concentrated force FRd,u
Concrete resistance to concentrated force FRd,u
Introduction is calculated from geometry of concrete block as
Anchor bolts
Ac1 Area
FRd,u  Ac0 fcd  3,0 Ac0 fcd
Classification
Assessment I
Ac0
Component meth.
In compression Ac0 = b1 d1
In tensions Load axes
Assembly Ac1 = b2 d2
Assessment II
CBFEM h  b2 – b 1 ; h  d2 – d1
Validation
Verification
3  b1  b2 and 3  d1  d2
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case where Area h
Assessment III
fcd is concrete compressive strength
Summary
Ac0 is area of crushing of the concrete
Cl. 6.7(2) in EN 1992-1-1
24
 Effective flexible plate
on the concrete block
Effective flexible plate on the concrete block,
Introduction
where is reached the concrete design strength in joint fjd,
Anchor bolts is limited by elastic deformation of the base plate.
Classification From this assumption is calculated effective width c
Assessment I round the column´s flanges/webs as
Component meth.
In compression
fy
In tensions
c t
Assembly 3 f jd  M0
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study where
Benchmark case
t is the plate thickness
Assessment III
Summary
fy is the base plate yield strength
fjd is the design bearing strength of the joint
M0 is the partial safety factor for concrete
25
 Effective area under the base plate

The effective area of design contact under the base plate

is created around the column´s web and flanges
Introduction
Anchor bolts
by the T-stub effective width c
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
c c
Verification c c

Sensitivity study leff leff leff leff

Benchmark case c c c c

Assessment III c c c c

c c c c
beff beff
Summary beff beff

Into account is taken only real the projection of the physical

length of the basic joint component represented by the T-stub.
 Stiffness of component concrete
in compression and base plate in bending
Stiffness coefficient of concrete in compression under base
Introduction
plate is taken as deformation of elastic hemisphere
Anchor bolts
Classification F Ec aeq,el L Ec aeq,el L
kc   
E 1,5  0,85 E
Assessment I
Component meth.
1,275 E
In compression
In tensions
where aeq,el is effective width of T-stub
Assembly L is the flange/web length
Assessment II
CBFEM
Effective T-stub width aeq,el in elastic stage may be assumed
Validation as
Verification
Sensitivity study aeq,el  t w + 2,5 t  aeq,st =
Benchmark case
Assessment III fy
= tw + 2 c = tw + 2 t
3 f jd  M0
Summary

27
 Comparison to experiments

On the graph is compared the prediction of stiffness of

component concrete in compression and base plate in bending.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
On the vertical axes is the applied force and on horizontal
Classification axes the deformation.
Assessment I
Component meth.
1800 Force, kN F
In compression
In tensions 1600 tw L
t
Assembly 1400 Calculated strength
Assessment II
1200 Experiment d
CBFEM
Concrete and grout
Validation 1000
Concrete
Verification
800
Sensitivity study Prediction based on local and global deformation,
Benchmark case
600
Assessment III 400
Summary
200 Prediction based on local deformation only

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 Deformation, mm
 Influence of grout
to column base resistance
o Grout with higher strength than concrete block
Introduction
may be taken into account to improve resistance.
Anchor bolts
o Grout with lower strength than concrete block
Classification
Assessment I
behaves under base plate as liquid
Component meth. and is taken into account by joint reduction factor βj.
In compression j = 2 / 3
In tensions
Assembly f c.g  0,2 f c
Assessment II t g  0,2 min (a ; b)
CBFEM
t g  0,2 min (a ; b)
Validation
Verification tg
Sensitivity study t tg
Benchmark case
Assessment III
tg
Summary
o tg
h 45
o
45
 Component anchor bolts in tension
and base plate in bending
T-stub created by the base plate, column flange/web
Introduction
and anchor bolts behaves differently compared
Anchor bolts to the T-stub created by end plate, beam flange/web and bolts
Classification in the bolted end plate connection because
Assessment I
o Base plate is thicker
Component meth.
In compression o Anchor bolt free length is longer
In tensions
Assembly
Column flange F
Assessment II FRd,1-2
CBFEM e m
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case t
Assessment III
B B
 eff
Summary

Base plate

30
 When the prying force
may not develop?
The base plate contact to concrete block depends on ration between
bolt tensile stiffness and base plate bending stiffness.
Introduction
Anchor bolts Prying forces may develop if
8,82 ∙ 𝑚3 ∙ 𝐴s
Classification
where 𝐿b ≤
Assessment I 𝐿eff 𝑡 3
Component meth. Lb is the anchor bolt elongation length, taken equal to the grip length
In compression
(total thickness of material and washers), plus half the sum of the
In tensions
height of the anchor bolt head and the height of the nut, or the
Assembly
anchor bolt length, taken equal to the sum of 8 times the nominal
Assessment II
CBFEM
anchor bolt diameter, the grout layer, the plate thickness, the washer
Validation
and half the height of the nut,
Verification
A is the tensile stress area of the anchor bolt F
s
Sensitivity study b = p n
Benchmark case t is the base palte thickness
Assessment III m n
Summary
Leff is the T stub effective lenght
p b

Q=0 Q=0 31
 Failure mode 1-2 without prying

The failure mode 1-2 is derived to avoid contact of the base

Introduction
plate to the concrete surface.
Anchor bolts
Design resistance for failure mode 1–2 is governed by plate
Classification
failure 2M
FT,12,Rd  pl,1,Rd
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
m
In tensions where m is the lever arm of the anchor bolt.
Assembly
Mpl,1,Rd  0,25  ef f tf /  M0
2
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation is the plastic moment resistance of the base plate
Verification
Sensitivity study
with
Benchmark case
ℓeff is the effective length of the T-stub and
Assessment III
Summary teff is the base plate thickness.

32
 Graphical representation
of the failure mode 1-2
of the T-stub of anchor bolts in tension and base plate in bending
The difference between failure mode 1 and 2 and failure mode
1-2 is shown on the diagram below, where on vertical axes is
Introduction
Anchor bolts
acting force F divided by the anchor bolts resistance and on
Classification horizontal axes is T-stub bending resistance of base plate
Assessment I divided by the anchor bolts resistance.
Component meth.
F / 
B T,Rd
In compression
1,0
In tensions Failure mode 2
Failure mode 3
Assembly
0,8
Assessment II
Tvar
Failure
CBFEM
0,6 porušení
mode 1 1
Validation
Verification Failure mode 1-2
0,4
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III 0,2
Summary 4  eff m pl,Rd /  B T,Rd
0,0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
Bt.Rd is anchor bolt tensile resistance
mpl,Rd is base plate bending resistance of unique length 33
 Anchor bolt effective length Leff

Anchor bolt effective length Leff consists of bolt free length Lbf
Introduction and free embedded length Lbe .
Anchor bolts
Leff = Lbf + Lbe
Classification
Assessment I Leff ≈ 8 d
Component meth.
In compression
where d is anchor bolt diameter.
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
L bf L
CBFEM b
Validation L be
Verification
Sensitivity study d
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
 Effective length of T-stub
is different in case of prying/no prying

E.g. for base plate with bolts inside the flanges

Introduction
is the effective length
Anchor bolts
o in prying case
Classification

 1  2  m  4 m  1,25 e 
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions 2  2  m
Assembly e m
Assessment II
CBFEM o in no prying case

1  2  m  4 m  1,25 e
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case 2  4  m
Assessment III
Summary

35
 Stiffness
is different in case of no prying

The stiffness coefficient for plate without prying

Introduction
is derived the stiffness coefficient
Anchor bolts for plate as
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
0,425  ef f t 3
In compression kp 
In tensions m3
Assembly F
Assessment II and for anchor bolt as
CBFEM
Validation m n
Verification As
Sensitivity study kb  2,0
Benchmark case Lb
Assessment III Q=0 Q=0
Summary

where t is the base plate thickness

36
 Comparison to experiments

The model of anchor bolt in tension is validated against the

Introduction
experiment in Figure below and
Anchor bolts the good prediction of the resistance
Classification and stiffness of the current models is shown.
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression Force, kN
In tensions 180 40

Assembly 160
Assessment II Experiment W13/98
140
CBFEM Experiment W14/97 24 - 355
120 315 365
Prediction
Validation 5
100 P6 - 40 x 50 40
Verification
80 50
Sensitivity study 10
60 10
Benchmark case 6
40 5
Assessment III P10 - 95 x 95
Summary 20
0
95 95
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6
Deformation, mm
 Comparison to experiments

The model of the T-stub of component anchor bolt in tension

Introduction
and base plate in bending is validated against the experiment in
Anchor bolts Figures below and
Classification the good prediction of the resistance
Assessment I and stiffness of the current component model is shown.
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
350 Force, kN 350 Force, kN
Assembly
Assessment II 300 300 W97-12
CBFEM
250 Simplified prediction 250
Validation Experiment
Verification 200
200
Sensitivity study m = 32
Complex calculation 150 Complex calculation m = 67
Benchmark case 150
Assessment III Simplified prediction
100
100
Summary
50
50
W97-02 Deformation, mm
Deformation, mm 0
0 0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8 38
 Bending resistance

The calculation of the column base resistance is based on the

plastic equilibrium of forces on the cross section created by
Introduction
Anchor bolts
anchor bolts in tension and part of the concrete under base plate
Classification in compression.
Assessment I
M Ed NEd zc Activated part
Component meth.   Ft,pl,Rd of affective area
In compression z z
In tensions
M Ed NEd z t
Assembly   Fc,pl,Rd
Assessment II z z Affective area
CBFEM MEd
Validation
Then, the column base Axis of compressed part
Verification moment resistance MRd NEd
Neutral axis
Sensitivity study is
Benchmark case
Assessment III Ft,pl,Rd Fc,pl,Rd
Summary  Ft,Rd  z  NEd  zc 
M Rd  min   zt zc
F
 c,Rd  z  N Ed  z t
z

39
 Interaction diagram

Moment – normal force interaction diagram describes

Introduction
the design resistance of base plate by changing the
Anchor bolts eccentricity of loading with significant point at changes of
Classification
effective area.
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
M1 , N 1
In tensions M
Assembly
Assessment II M 2, N 2
CBFEM
Validation
M N=0
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Tension Compression
Summary

Ft.Rd 0 N N
M=0
40
 Bending stiffness

The column base bending stiffness is derived on simplified

Introduction
model with acting compression force under column flange and
Anchor bolts tension force in centre of bolt row from the component
Classification deformation for two cases
Assessment I
Component meth.
o Bolts are activated
In compression
In tensions
o Bolts are not activated
Assembly
Assessment II
MEd MEd
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
NEd NEd
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case  
Assessment III
 t,l  c,r
Summary c,l  c,r
zt,l zc,r zc,l zc,r
z z
41
 History of loading

The column base bending stiffness depends on history

Introduction
of loading. It is higher, if the column base is first loaded by
Anchor bolts compression and then by bending compared to, if it is loaded by
Classification reverse. M
Moment
Rd
Assessment I Non-proportional loading
Component meth. Proportional loading
In compression
Nonlinear part of the curve
In tensions
Plastification of one component
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Anchor bolts in tension and one flange in compression

Validation
e0 NSd
Verification S j.ini
Sensitivity study 0 Rotation
Benchmark case Non-proportional
Assessment III Moment loading
Summary Proportional
loading
Column base
resistance

0 Normal force 42
 Comparison to experiment

On Figures below is validated the model of the column

Introduction base against the experiment to show the good prediction
Anchor bolts of the resistance and stiffness of the current component
Classification
model.
Assessment I
Component meth. Components Assembly
In compression Force, kN Moment, kNm
In tensions
200 80
Assembly Ekb
Assessment II 100 Experiment
CBFEM Anchor bolt
0 60 W7-4.20-prop
Validation 0,5
200 Force, kN M
Verification N
Sensitivity study 100 E k p 40 Prediction HE 160 B
Benchmark case Base plate
0
Assessment III
0,5 t = 20
20 h = 500
Summary 200 E k c Force, kN
100
0,5 Concrete
0 0
Deformation,  , mm
0 10 Rotation, mrad 43
 Comparison to experiment

On Figure below is validated the model of the column base

Introduction
proportionally loaded by moment and normal force with the
Anchor bolts bolt steel failure mode against the experiment to show the
Classification good prediction of the resistance and stiffness of the current
Assessment I component model.
Component meth.
In compression
Moment, kNm Moment, kNm
In tensions 80 W7-4.20-prop 80
W7-4.20-prop
Assembly HE 160 B- 480 70
60
Assessment II 4 M 24- 4.6- 420 60
P 20- 300 x 220 50
CBFEM 40 30 x 330 x 250 40
550 x 550 x 550
Validation 30
20 Model 20
Verification
Experiment 10 Normal f orce, kN
Sensitivity study
0 0
Benchmark case 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Rotation, mrad 0 500 1000
Assessment III
Summary

44
 Comparison to experiment

On Figure below is validated the model of the column

Introduction base non-proportionally loaded by moment and normal
Anchor bolts force with the concrete cone failure mode against the
Classification
Assessment I
experiment to show the good prediction of the
Component meth. resistance and stiffness of the current component
In compression model.
In tensions
Assembly
HE 220 B - 900
Assessment II
Moment, kNm 2 M 20 - 10.9 - 320 160 Moment, kNm S220-190
CBFEM 140 P 20 - 280 x 280 140
120 30 x 250 x 250 120
Validation S220-190 1200 x 600 x 600
100 100
Verification
80 80
Sensitivity study 60 60
Benchmark case 40 Model 40
20 Experiment 20
Assessment III
0 0
Summary 0 5 10 15 20 Rotationí, mrad
0 500 1000 Normal f orce síla, kN

45
 Sensitivity study

Figure below shows the sensitivity of the bending moment

resistance and the bending stiffness of the column base
Introduction
Anchor bolts
proportionally loaded by normal force with eccentricity.
Classification From base plate thickness are governing anchor bolts.
Assessment I
Component meth.
400 kN M
Rd
In compression
HE 160 B M 20 - 10.9
In tensions Moment, kNm
Assembly 120 t = 30 t
Assessment II 25
CBFEM 100
Validation
80 20
Verification
Sensitivity study 60
Benchmark case
40 15
Assessment III
10
Summary
20
0 Rotation, mrad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 46
 Assessment II

o What are the basic components on base plate?

Introduction
o What are the major question in design of component
Anchor bolts
Classification
in compression?
Assessment I
o What is the reason for introducing the joint coefficient?
Component meth.
In compression o What is the reason of limiting the effective width of the base
In tensions
plate?
Assembly
Assessment II o What is the reason, that prying may in case of Failure mode
CBFEM
1-2 not develop?
Validation
Verification o How is simplified the model of acting compression force
Sensitivity study
for prediction of the column base stiffness?
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

47
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Component Based FEM
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II Lecture 3
CBFEM
Validation
Column base
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
 Concept of Component Based Finite Element Method
for column bases

o Steel part of column base, column base, column, base plate

Introduction and stiffeners are simulated by shell models.
Anchor bolts Resistance is limited by 5% of plastic strain.
Classification
Assessment I o Concrete block is taken as component with elastic-plastic
Component meth. surface.
In compression
In tensions o Anchor bolts/welds are modelled as components.
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Stress in Plastic strain

concrete in column 49
 Component
concrete in compression
For resistance is considered the part of the concrete block
Introduction under effective area Aeff only using overlap c,
Anchor bolts where the base plate deforms in its elastic stage,
Classification
Assessment I
following the engineering assumption formulated
Component meth. in EN1993-1-8:2006.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

50
 Component anchor bolt in tension

o The resistance
Introduction
of the anchor bolt in tension Vertical force in anchor bolt, kN
Anchor bolts is taken from concrete
Classification components resistance Ft,Rd
Assessment I and from the steel one. Ft,el kt
Component meth.
In compression
o Maximum allowed plastic
In tensions strain for anchor bolts εmpb Fc,Ed
Assembly is taken as 25 %
Assessment II
of elongation till fracture. k
CBFEM
Validation o The stiffness in tension uel ut,Rd
Verification is calculated as
Sensitivity study
k = E As/Lb, Vertical deformation, mm
Benchmark case
Assessment III
where
Summary
As is tensile area of anchor bolt and
Lb is the distance between the
centers of the head and the bolt nut.
51
 Component anchor bolt in shear

o The resistance of anchor bolt in shear is calculated

Introduction according to EN1992-4:2018 and EN1993-1-8:2006.
Anchor bolts o Stiffness of anchor bolt in shear includes
Classification
bearing of concrete and
Assessment I
Component meth.
bending of bolt.
In compression
Shear force in anchor bolt, kN
In tensions
Assembly
Ft,Rd
Assessment II
Ft,el kt
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Fc,Ed
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III k
Summary

uel ut,Rd

Horizontal deformation, mm 52
 Normal force and bending
moment interaction diagram
o The cross section under base plate consists
of anchor bolts and contact to concrete.
Introduction
Anchor bolts o The significant points on interaction diagram
Classification reflects changes of geometry of compressed part. Point -1
Assessment I
o The cross section exposed to normal force and
Component meth.
In compression
bending behaves like concrete column cross Point 0

In tensions section of effective contact area.

Assembly
Bending moment MRd [kNm]

180
Assessment II Point 1
2 160
CBFEM
3 1 140
Validation
120 Point 2
Verification
Sensitivity study 100

Benchmark case 80
Point 3
Assessment III 60
Summary 40
0
20 Point 4
4 0 -1
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500
Normal force NRd [kN] 53
 Experiments for validation

o For validation were prepared two experiments

in uniaxial and two in biaxial bending at TU Brno.
Introduction
Anchor bolts o The experimental set ups is presented below.
Classification
Transverse beam Joints 1, 2bending
Uniaxial
Assessment I
Loading cylinder and dynamometer 880
Component meth. Threaded rods pinned at the end
In compression Fv Column HEB 240

In tensions Fh Fh
z

1000
330
Assembly
y
2035

Assessment II
440
CBFEM 1500

Validation
2020

Joints 3, bending
Biaxial 4
1830

Verification 880

Sensitivity study Stabilizing beams

100
0
Benchmark case

330
485

Base plate Fh
Assessment III
20

26,56
Summary y

°
30
250

Grout 0
z 44
400

00
15
Shear lug Concrete pad
Bolts anchored to the ground
Anchor rods
54
 Experiment´s general data

o Column HEB 240

Introduction o Concrete block 1000x1200x9000 C20/25
Anchor bolts o Base plate 330x440x20 S235
Classification
Assessment I o Anchor bolts 4 x M20
Component meth.
o Grout 30 mm
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Bending of set up
Assessment III
Summary
in biaxial bending

55
 Behaviour of base plate
in case of uniaxial bending

Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation Deformed base plate
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Set up in uniaxial bending

56
 FE prediction of column
base behaviour in uniaxial bending

o Figure below shows

the equivalent stresses
Introduction
Anchor bolts
in base plate and in concrete
Classification calculated by CBFEM.
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

57
 Validation of models
to experiments in uniaxial bending

Bending moment My [kNm]

200 o Figure left shows
180 on moment rotation
Introduction
diagram a good prediction
Anchor bolts 160
capacity
Classification 140 of resistance of both
Assessment I
Component meth.
120 Component (CM) and
In compression 100 Component Based FE
In tensions model (CBFEM).
80 CM
Assembly
60 CBFEM o CBFEM compared
Assessment II
Exp_1 to CM predicts higher
CBFEM 40
Validation Exp_2 resistance. It includes real
20 space stress in concrete.
Verification
0
Sensitivity study
o The bending stiffness
Benchmark case 0 20 40
of experiments is lower
Assessment III Rotation 𝜙 [mrad] compared to prediction.
Summary

o The predictive model shows compared to experiments

the safety due to conservative proposal of anchor bolt.
58
 Validation of CBFE model
to experiment in uniaxial bending
200 o Figure left shows
Force in anchor Ft [kN]
Introduction 180
on anchor force –
Anchor bolts bending moment
Classification 160 B3+B4 diagram a good
Assessment I
Component meth.
140 1_B3 prediction capacity
In compression
of Component Based
120 1_B4
In tensions Finite Element Model.
Assembly 100 2_B3
Assessment II o The predicted bolt
80 2_B4
CBFEM force is conservatively
Validation 60 higher compared to
Verification
measured ones on
Sensitivity study 40
Benchmark case
both experiments.
20
Assessment III
Summary 0
0 50 100 150
Bending moment My [kNm]
59
 FEA model for column
base in biaxial bending
o Figure below shows
Introduction
the equivalent stresses
Anchor bolts in base plate and in concrete
Classification in Component Based FE model
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

60
 Validation of model
to experiments in biaxial bending
200 o Figure left shows on
Bending moment M [kN]
moment rotation
Introduction 180
Anchor bolts
diagram a good
Classification 160 prediction capacity
Assessment I
140 of resistance
Component meth.
of Component Based
In compression 120
In tensions
FE model.
100
Assembly
o The bending stiffness
Assessment II
80 of experiments is lower
CBFEM CBFEM
Validation 60 compared to prediction.
Verification Exp_3
Sensitivity study 40 o The predictive model
Exp_4 shows compared to
Benchmark case
20
Assessment III experiments
Summary 0 the safety due to a
0 50 100 conservative proposal
Deformation δh [mm]
of anchor bolt.
61
 Validation of CBFE model
to experiment in uniaxial bending

Force in anchor Ft [kN]

200 o Figure left shows on
B3
Introduction the anchor forces –
B4
Anchor bolts bending diagram a
Classification 3_B3 good prediction
150
Assessment I 3_B4 capacity of
Component meth.
4_B3 Component Based FE
In compression
4_B4 model for the most
In tensions
Assembly 100 loaded anchor bolt.
Assessment II
CBFEM o The predicted bolt
Validation force is conservatively
Verification 50
higher compared to
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
the measured ones.
Assessment III
Summary 0
0 50 100 150
Bending moment M [kNm]
62
 Verification
column base for SHS 160
o In following example, the column from square hollow section
Introduction SHS 150x16 is connected to concrete block with the area
Anchor bolts dimensions 𝑎′ = 750 mm, 𝑏′ = 750 mm and height ℎ =
Classification 800 mm from concrete grade C20/25 by the base plate 𝑎 =
Assessment I
350 mm; 𝑏 = 350 mm; 𝑡 = 20 mm from steel S420. Anchor
Component meth.
In compression
bolts are designed 4 x M20, As = 245 mm2 with head
In tensions diameter a = 60 mm from steel 8.8 with offset at top 50 mm
Assembly and left -20 mm. Grout has the thickness of 30 mm.
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

63
 Bending moment - normal
force interaction diagram
o The resistance of column base predicted by
CBFEM is compared to CM on moment –
Introduction normal force interaction diagram for base plate
Anchor bolts 10 mm in Figure below.
Classification

Bending moment [kNm]

80
Assessment I -1070; 68
Component meth. -913; 64
70
In compression CM -1 070; 62
-756; 62
In tensions 60
CBFEM
Assembly -913; 62
50
Assessment II
CBFEM -756; 55
40
Validation
Verification 30
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case 20
Assessment III 0; 14
10
Summary -1 947; 0 -1788; 0 73; 0
0 80; 0
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500
Normal force [kN]
64
 Significant points
on the bending moment – normal force interaction diagram

o The equivalent stresses at the edge of the thin base plate

(10 mm) loaded in pure tension show the plate contact and
Introduction
Anchor bolts
possible development of prying forces.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Pure tension Pure bending 65

 Significant points
on the bending moment – normal force interaction diagram

o The equivalent stresses and the design effective area

of the contact of base plate to concrete block.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Flange in compression Half of cross section

in compression 66
 Significant points
on the bending moment – normal force interaction diagram

o The equivalent stresses and the design effective area

of the contact of base plate to concrete block.
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

Webs in compression Pure compresion

67
 Verification
for pure compression
o The resistance of column base predicted by CBFEM is compared
to resistance predicted by CM in case of pure compression in
Introduction Figure below.
Anchor bolts o The graph shows similar prediction capability of both methods.
Classification
Assessment I -4000
CBFEM [kN]

Component meth.
In compression -3500
In tensions
-3000
Assembly
Assessment II -2500
CBFEM
-2000
Validation
Verification -1500
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case -1000
Assessment III
-500
Summary
0
0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000
Component Method [kN]
68
 Verification
for pure bending
o The resistance of column base predicted by CBFEM is compared to
resistance predicted by CM in case of pure bending in Figure below.
Introduction o The graph shows similar prediction capability of both methods.
Anchor bolts CBFEM predicts a bit higher resistance due to taking into account
Classification prying forces.
Assessment I
50
CBFEM [kNm]

Component meth.
In compression
In tensions 40
Assembly
Assessment II 30
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
20
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case 10
Assessment III
Summary
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Component Method [kNm]
69
 Sensitivity study
base plate thickness; 10; 20; 30 mm
o The resistance of column base predicted by CBFEM is compared
to CM on moment – normal force interaction diagram for base
Introduction plates 10 mm, 20 and 30 mm in Figure below.
Anchor bolts 200

Bending moment, MRd [kNm]

Classification An_10
180
Assessment I An_20 CM
Component meth. 160 An_30
In compression
140 IC_10
In tensions
IC_20 CBFEM
Assembly
120
Assessment II IC_30
CBFEM 100
Validation
80
Verification
Sensitivity study 60
Benchmark case
40
Assessment III
Summary 20

0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000
Normal force, NRd [kN] 70
 Open section column
loaded in compression
Inputs
Introduction
o Column, cross section HEB 240, steel S235
Anchor bolts o Base plate, thickness 20 mm, offsets top 100 mm, left 45 mm,
Classification steel S235
Assessment I
o Concrete block, concrete C20/25, offset 335 mm, depth 800 mm,
Component meth.
In compression
grout thickness 30 mm, grout quality C20/25
In tensions o Anchor bolt, M20 8.8
Assembly
Assessment II Output
CBFEM o Axial force resistance Fj.Rd = -1744,2 kN
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

71
 Hollow section column
loaded in compression and bending
Inputs
Introduction
o Column cross section: SHS 150/16, steel S460
Anchor bolts o Base plate: thickness 20 mm, offsets at top 100 mm, on left 100
Classification mm, welds 8 mm, steel S460
Assessment I
o Anchor bolts: M20 8.8., anchoring length 400 mm, offsets top
Component meth.
In compression
layers 50 mm, left layers -20 mm, shear plane in thread
In tensions o Foundation block: concrete C20/25, offset 200 mm, depth 800 mm,
Assembly shear force transferred by friction
Assessment II
o Grout thickness 30 mm
CBFEM
Validation o Loading
Verification
o Axial force N = -913 kN
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case o Bending moment My = 62,1 kNm
Assessment III
Summary

72
 Hollow section column
loaded in compression and bending
Outputs
Introduction
o Plate 𝜀 = 0,3 %;
Anchor bolts o Anchor bolts 99,7 % (𝑁𝐸𝑑 = 30,3 kN ≤ 𝑁𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 30,4 kN
Classification (critical component concrete cone breakout)
Assessment I
Component meth.
o Welds 57,7 %
In compression
(𝜎𝐸𝑑 = 239.9 MPa ≤ 𝜎𝑅𝑑 = 416 MPa)
In tensions o Concrete block 83,0 %
Assembly (𝜎 = 33,4 MPa ≤ 𝑓𝑗𝑑 = 40 MPa)
Assessment II
MNm
CBFEM o Secant rotational stiffness 𝑆𝑗𝑠 = 7,4
rad
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

73
 Assessment III

o How is limited in CBFEM the resistance of base plate?

Introduction
o How is modelled in CBFEM for column base design the
Anchor bolts
Classification
concrete block?
Assessment I
o Which part under base plate is considered in roe resistance?
Component meth.
In compression o How is limited the design of anchor bolts?
In tensions
Assembly o What is difference between design of column base and
Assessment II concrete column in compression?
CBFEM
Validation o What is the reason for higher resistance of column base in
Verification tension with base plate in failure mode 1-2?
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

74
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Summary
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Lecture 3
Column base
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
 Summary

Introduction o The column bases are designed with plastic

Anchor bolts distribution of forces under base plate.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth. o Concrete in compression under the base plate
In compression is designed taking into account its spatial stress.
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II o The homogenous stress under the flexible base plate
CBFEM is expected for elastically deformed base plate.
Validation
Verification
Sensitivity study o Column bases are often exposed to interaction of
Benchmark case normal force and bending moments.
Assessment III
Summary

76
 Summary

Introduction o If more anchor bolts rows are activated,

Anchor bolts only the steel failure of anchor bolt is allowed
Classification
Assessment I
to ensure the ductile failure.
Component meth.
In compression o In Component Method limits the prying
In tensions
Assembly
of anchor bolts failure mode 1-2.
Assessment II
CBFEM o In CBFEM are taken into account prying forces.
Validation
Verification
if it decides on the bearing capacity and
Sensitivity study the anchoring to concrete is strong enough,
Benchmark case
the predicted resistance may be higher.
Assessment III
Summary

77
 What is the major reason for using
CBFEM for column bases?
o Generally loaded complex column base
Introduction
is very difficult to design by Component Method.
Anchor bolts o The example of design by CBFEM is shown below.
Classification
Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification Strain
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III o Resistance limited
Summary by anchor bolt failure
o Strain 3,4 %
o Prying forces
Foot print Stress are taken into account 78
Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification

Thank your for attention

Assessment I
Component meth.
In compression
In tensions
Assembly
Assessment II
CBFEM
Validation
Verification

URL: steel.fsv.cvut.cz
Sensitivity study
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary
František Wald, Martin Vild, Marta Kuříková,
Luboš Šabatka, Jaromír Kabeláč, Drahoš Kojala
 Notes to users of the lecture
o Subject Design of column bases of steel structures.
Introduction
o Lecture duration 60 mins
Anchor bolts o Keywords Civil Engineering, Structural design, Steel
Classification structure, Column base, Steel to concrete connection, Joint,
Assessment I Component Method, Component based Finite Element
Component meth. Method, Anchor bolts, Eurocode.
In compression
In tensions
o Aspects to be discussed Design of anchor bolts, Reasons
Assembly
and methods of classification, Principles of CM, Components
Assessment II
in column base for CM, Components in column base for
CBFEM
CBFEM, Principles of CBFEM, Spatial stresses in concrete
Validation
block, Model of stress distribution under the base plate.
Verification o Further reading relevant documents in references and
Sensitivity study relevant European design standards, Eurocodes including
Benchmark case National Annexes.
Assessment III
Summary
o Preparation for tutorial exercise see examples in References.

80
 Sources

Introduction
Anchor bolts
Classification Bajer M., Vild M., Barnat J., Holomek J., Influence of Selected Parameters on
Assessment I
Design Optimisation of Anchor Joint, in Steel, Space and Composite
Component meth.
Structures, Singapore, 2014,149–158.
In compression Kuhlman U., Krimpmann M., Hofmann J., Wald F., et al, Design of steel-to-
In tensions concrete joints, Design manual II, ECCS Brussels, 2013.
Assembly Steenhuis M., Wald F., Sokol Z., Stark J.W.B., Concrete in Compression and
Assessment II Base Plate in Bending, Heron, 2008, 53, 1/2, 51-68.
CBFEM
Wald F. et al, Benchmark cases for advanced design of structural steel
Validation
connections, Česká technika ČVUT, 2016.
Verification
Sensitivity study
Wald F., Gödrich L., Šabatka L., Kabeláč J., Navrátil J., Component Based
Benchmark case
Finite Element Model of Structural Connections, in Steel, Space and
Assessment III
Composite Structures, Singapore, 2014, 337-344.
Summary Wald F., Sokol Z., Steenhuis M., Jaspart, J.P., Component Method for Steel
Column Bases, Heron, 53, 2008, 3-20.
Wald F., Sokol, Z., Jaspart J.P., Base Plate in Bending and Anchor Bolts in
Tension, Heron, 2008, 53, 1/2, 21-50. 81
 Standards

CEN/TR 17081:2018 Design of fastenings for use in concrete - Plastic design of

fastenings with headed and post-installed fasteners, CEN, Brussels, 2018,
Introduction ready for release.
Anchor bolts
EN1992-1-1:2006, Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1,
Classification
General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Assessment I
Component meth. EN1992-4:2018 Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures – Part 4: Design of
In compression fastenings for use in concrete , CEN, Brussels, 2018, ready for release.
In tensions EN1993-1-8:2006, Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1-8, Design of
Assembly joints, CEN, Brussels, 2006.
Assessment II EN1994-1-1:2010, Eurocode 4, Design of composite steel and concrete
CBFEM structures, Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, 2010.
Validation
ETAG 001: 2010, Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors
Verification
for Use in Concrete – Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages, Brussels,
Sensitivity study
EOTA, 2010.
Benchmark case
Assessment III
Summary

82
 The standards related to anchor bolts
o Till the end of last century were anchor bolts designed according to
experimental results summarised in design tables.
Introduction o Majority or current standards for anchorages to concrete are based on
Anchor bolts failure mode method, Concrete capacity design method, developed by prof.
Classification R. Eligehausen and his students at University of Stuttgart, see Eligehausen
Assessment I R., Mallée R., Silva J. F., Anchorage in concrete construction, Ernst &
Component meth. Sohn, 2006.
In compression o Currently is used in Europe for design Annex C in ETAG 001:2010 Metal
In tensions anchors for use in concrete, https://www.eota.eu/en-GB/content/etags-
Assembly used-as-ead/26/.
Assessment II o Prestandard prEN 1992-4 was published in 2010 and valid for three years.
CBFEM In 2018 is expected to be published EN 1992-4:2018, which will replace
Validation Annex C in ETAG 001.
Verification o American and Canadian standards are nearly identical. American standard
Sensitivity study ACI 318 used to contain anchorage design in Annex D. In the version from
Benchmark case the year 2014 is described in Ch.17. Canadian standard A23.3 contains
Assessment III anchorage design in Annex D.
Summary o Australian standard SA TS 101:2015 is fully compatible with ETAG,
http://www.aefac.org.au.

83