See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270588156

Behavior of anchors in cracked concrete under tension cycling at near-ultimate

loads

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · September 2008

CITATIONS READS

8 714

2 authors:

Matthew Hoehler Rolf Eligehausen

National Institute of Standards and Technology Universität Stuttgart
75 PUBLICATIONS   335 CITATIONS    339 PUBLICATIONS   2,060 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

National Fire Research Laboratory Metrology and Operations Project View project

Structural Fire Research Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew Hoehler on 09 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Title no. 105-S56

Behavior of Anchors in Cracked Concrete under Tension

Cycling at Near-Ultimate Loads
by Matthew S. Hoehler and Rolf Eligehausen

Experimental tests with post-installed anchors in cracked concrete The 10 Hz value is based on the required normalized
were performed to investigate anchor failure mechanisms associated response spectra for the testing of nonstructural equipment
with tension cycling at near-ultimate load levels. The test results according to AC156.4 Eibl and Keintzel5 showed that
challenge existing assumptions about the behavior of anchor bolts increased cycling rate does not negatively affect anchor
used to connect structural and nonstructural elements in the event
load-bearing capacity in the case of concrete cone failure. In
of an earthquake. Specifically, they demonstrate that the current
definition of ductility in anchor design guidelines must be the current tests, the influence of load cycling rate was
improved. The influence of the tension load cycling frequency and investigated for other anchor failure modes.
cycling pattern on anchor behavior are also discussed. Finally, the influence of the tension load cycling pattern on
anchor load-bearing behavior was investigated. Simulated
Keywords: anchor; crack; ductility; earthquake; fastener; tension; testing. seismic load cycling tests in existing anchor prequalification
guidelines make use of three load cycling patterns:
INTRODUCTION 1. Cycling at a constant load level followed by monotonic
During an earthquake, cast-in-place or post-installed loading to failure (DIBt)6 (Fig. 1(a));
anchors used to connect structural or nonstructural elements 2. Cycling at stepwise-decreasing load levels followed by
to a concrete structure will be subjected to combined tension monotonic loading to failure (ACI 355.2 and CSA-N287.2)3,7
and shear load cycling and possibly to the simultaneous (Fig. 1(b)); and
formation of cracks at the anchor location whose width 3. Cycling at stepwise-increasing load levels up to failure
changes (cycles) for the duration of strong motion. The (SEAOSC)8 (Fig. 1(c)).
magnitude of these cyclic actions and effects cannot be Silva9 found that headed bolts and undercut anchors tested
predicted with the degree of accuracy associated with in tension and shear according to the DIBt, ACI 355.2, and
nonseismic actions and effects. Therefore, the likelihood that SEAOSC methods yielded similar allowable design loads
the anchor design loads will be exceeded is higher than for although the loading patterns and testing procedures are
nonseismic situations. As a consequence, ductile steel failure quite different. He argues that although all of the methods
is encouraged in seismic anchor design guidelines, for example, yield similar design loads, a stepwise-increasing load
ACI 318,1 Appendix D, based on three assumptions:
1. Steel failure is associated with larger deformations than
other material failure;
2. Material hysteresis will occur during cycling; and
3. Load cycling behavior is predictable at high (near-
ultimate) load levels.
The objective of the present tests was to investigate the
behavior of post-installed anchor bolts in concrete with
various failure mechanisms when a low number of cycles
(approximately 30 cycles) were performed at load levels
between 50 and 100% of the average ultimate capacity. This
was done to check the three assumptions stated above and to
better understand the “reserve capacity” of various failure
mechanisms in the case of tension load cycling beyond the
design level.
The anchors were tested in a crack width of 0.8 mm
(0.03 in.). This crack width was determined to represent a
reasonable maximum crack width that anchors located just
outside of a plastic hinge in a flexural member could experience
during an earthquake.2 The influence of crack width cycling Fig. 1—Simulated seismic anchor loading (axial): (a) constant;
was neglected to isolate the anchor behavior arising from (b) stepwise-decreasing; and (c) stepwise-increasing.
load cycling.
Simulated seismic load cycling tests according to ACI 355.23
use load cycling frequencies between 0.1 Hz and 2 Hz. Load ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 5, September-October 2008.
MS No. S-2007-105 received January 22, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication
cycling frequencies up to about 10 Hz, however, are believed policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
to be realistic for the energetic oscillations of anchored making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-August
nonstructural components and systems during an earthquake. 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2009.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008 601


ACI member Matthew S. Hoehler is Director of Research for Hilti North America,
Tulsa, OK. He received his BS in civil engineering from Princeton University, Princeton,
NJ; his MSc in civil engineering from the University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley,
CA; and his doctorate at the Institute of Construction Materials, Universität Stuttgart,
Stuttgart, Germany.
Rolf Eligehausen, FACI, is Professor and Head of the Department of Fastening
Technology at the Institute of Construction Materials. He is a member of ACI
Committees 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures; 355, Anchorage to Concrete; and 408,
Bond and Development of Reinforcement. His research interests include research and
testing of anchor technology.
(SEAOSC style test) is preferable because it provides additional
information about the stiffness of the anchor throughout the
entire loading range, whereas the pass/fail style ACI 355.2
and DIBt tests provide only limited information about the
cycling response at near-ultimate load levels.
The work performed by Silva9 is extended in this paper to
other anchor types for the case of tension load cycling.
Because it has been shown that small tension load cycles
performed subsequent to larger load cycles do not have a
significant influence on anchor behavior10; in the present
investigation, only DIBt and SEAOSC-style loading patterns
are investigated.
Fig. 2—Modified expansion anchor (not to scale).
Fig. 3—Anchorage component (units in mm [in.]).
Table 1—Investigated anchors
Effective embedment hef ,
Anchor type Size, mm (in.) mm (in.)
Expansion anchor (sleeve-type) M12 (0.47) 80 (3.15)
Expansion anchor (bolt-type) M16 (0.63) 95* (3.74)
Screw anchor d0 = 12 (0.47) 64 (2.52)
Modified expansion anchor M12 (0.47) 80 (3.15)
*
Actual hef = recommended hef + 10 mm (0.39 in.).
602
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The results demonstrate that anchors exhibiting failure
modes other than anchor steel failure can perform reliably
during tension load cycling at near-ultimate levels. The work
also provides data to help improve existing prequalification
methods for anchors used to resist seismic loads.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Three types of commercially available post-installed
anchors and one modified anchor were tested. The anchors
were selected to produce distinctly different failure modes
(concrete cone, pullthrough, pullout, and steel failure). The
tests were performed on anchors set in cracks having widths
representative of earthquake conditions. The anchors were
subjected to monotonic and cyclic tension loads.
Investigated anchors
The relevant parameters of the investigated anchors are
summarized in Table 1. Both unmodified and modified
expansion anchors were tested. The unmodified anchors
were installed according to the manufacturers’ recommenda-
tions, except where the effective embedment depth hef was
increased to achieve a desired failure mode (Table 1). The
installation torque on the expansion anchors was reduced to
50% of the recommended installation value immediately
prior to testing to simulate the preload relaxation that would
be expected under field conditions. The screw anchors were
tested with the full recommended installation torque because
backing off of full torque can affect the engagement of the
threads in the concrete leading to artificially large scatter of
results. All of the unmodified anchors have been qualified in
accordance with ETAG 00111 for use in uncracked and
cracked concrete conditions. It should be noted that ACI 318,1
Appendix D, and ACI 355.23 currently do not include
provisions for screw anchors.
To promote steel failures under tension loading, some of
the tested expansion anchors were modified as shown in Fig. 2.
The diameter of the ISO 898 Grade 8.8 threaded rod was
reduced from 12 to 5.5 mm (0.47 to 0.22 in.) over a length of
approximately 40 mm (1.57 in.). The modifications were
predicated on the seismic provisions in ACI 318,1 Appendix D,
which require that the characteristic steel failure load in
tension be less than 86% of the calculated characteristic
concrete breakout strength of a superior post-installed
anchor installed without supplementary reinforcement.12 It
should be noted that although the modified anchors met the
ductility requirements in ACI 318,1 modifying an anchor
that has been previously tested and approved for use
necessarily voids the data associated with that product and is
not recommended.
Anchorage components
The tests were conducted in reinforced concrete slabs
(1635 x 1550 x 260 mm [64 x 61 x 10 in.]) made of normal-
strength concrete (Fig. 3). The slabs were designed to allow
for the formation and control of static line cracks using steel
splitting wedges driven into sleeves placed in preformed
holes in the slab. The reinforcement ratio perpendicular to
the cracks was approximately 0.8%, which is slightly less
than the recommend value of 1% for test members used for
anchor qualification in cracked concrete.13 The reinforcement
was placed symmetrically near the top and bottom surfaces
of the test member to provide an almost uniform crack width
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008
throughout the test member. Details on this method of crack
formation are provided by Eligehausen et al.13
All concrete specimens were fabricated in accordance with
DIN 104514 and DIN 1048.15 The average concrete cube
(150 mm [6 in.]) compressive strength for the members at the
time of testing varied from fcc,150 = 22.5 N/mm2 (3.3 ksi) to
fcc,150 = 31.5 N/mm2 (4.6 ksi). The relation between concrete
cylinder (152 x 305 mm [6 x 12 in.]) and cube strength is
fc ≈ 0.80 fcc,150.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Performance of various failure mechanisms
The failure modes of the investigated anchors are depicted
in Fig. 6.
Figure 7 shows typical load-displacement curves for the
investigated unmodified anchors under tension load cycling
between 2 kN (0.45 kip) and 50 or 90% of the mean ultimate
static tension capacity Nu,m. The average monotonic curve
for three to five test replicates is shown for comparison. The

Test setup and procedures

The anchors were loaded using a servo-hydraulic cylinder
with a load capacity of 50 kN (11.2 kip) and the setup in Fig. 4.
All tests were performed on single anchors with anchor
spacing and edge distances reasonably selected for the
desired failure modes to avoid influence from adjacent
anchors or edges of the test specimen. The I-beams
supporting the load cylinder were located at a clear distance
of at least 1.5hef from the anchor (unconfined test). The anchor
load was measured by a calibrated load cell. The anchor
displacement was measured at the top of the anchor and
transmitted by a wire over a bearing to a calibrated linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT).
The anchors were installed in a hairline crack in the
anchorage component. The crack was opened by Δw = 0.8 mm
(0.03 in.) after installation of the anchors, but before anchor
loading. Crack width was monitored, but not controlled,
during anchor loading.
In the monotonic tension tests, the load was applied by
controlling the servo-hydraulic cylinder displacement. Peak
loads were usually achieved in 1 to 3 minutes.
For the tests with load cycling as shown in Fig. 5(a), 30 cycles
between 50, 90, or 100% of the mean (static) ultimate failure Fig. 5—Investigated load cycling histories: (a) constant;
load Nu,m from the monotonic tests and 2 kN (0.45 kip) were and (b) stepwise-increasing.
performed at a frequency of 0.5 Hz under load control. The
tension load cycling tests to 90% Nu,m were also conducted
at a cycling frequency of 5 Hz. If no failure occurred during
the load cycling, the anchor was subsequently loaded to
failure to determine the residual strength. The reference
(static) failure loads are shown together with the associated
cyclic load data in the following sections.
For the stepwise-increasing load cycling tests, five load
cycles (0.5 Hz) were performed at each of the levels in Fig. 5(b)
so a total of 30 cycles had been performed after completing
the cycling at 90% Nu,m. The cycles at 100% Nu,m were
continued until failure occurred.

Fig. 6—Failure modes: (a) sleeve-type expansion anchor

(concrete cone); (b) bolt-type expansion anchor (pullthrough);
(c) screw anchor (pullout/concrete cone); and (d) modified
Fig. 4—Loading setup for tension tests in static line cracks. expansion anchor (steel failure).

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008 603

investigated anchors underwent load cycling at levels up to
90% Nu,m without premature failure or excessive slip. This is
in part attributable to the rather low scatter of the failure
loads (coefficient of variation [COV] ≤ 11%). Anchors
exhibiting greater scatter in peak load might be expected to
perform less favorably during cycling at this load level. The
strength subsequent to cycling was in several cases slightly
greater than the mean reference strength (Fig. 8). This may be
the result of compaction of the concrete around the point of
load transfer during the load cycling; however, this was not
verified by testing.
Typical load-displacement curves for all of the investigated
anchors under load cycling at (or near) 100% of the ultimate
load are shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 7—Typical load-displacement curves for investigated
unmodified anchors in wide cracks (Δw = 0.8 mm [0.03 in.]) at
various levels of tension load cycling (monotonic curves
shown for comparison): (a) expansion anchor (sleeve-type);
(b) expansion anchor (bolt-type); and (c) screw anchor.
604
In the case of concrete cone breakout, failure was likely
initiated by repeated opening of the cracks that formed at the
end of the expansion sleeve (Fig. 6(a)). The relatively long
peak load plateau exhibited by the investigated sleeve-type
expansion anchors (Fig. 9(a)) indicates that the anchor
expansion elements may have slipped or that the expansion
cone was pulled into the expansion elements (follow-up
expansion) prior to complete failure of the concrete cone.
From the test results it was not possible to determine which
of these two possibilities occurred. The relatively good
cyclic performance at ultimate load, however, indicates that
follow-up expansion, rather than slip, occurred. Nevertheless,
concrete cone breakout is an undesirable failure mode during
load cycling because the high stress gradient at the crack tip
Fig. 8—Ultimate loads for investigated unmodified anchors
in wide cracks (Δw = 0.8 mm [0.03 in.]) at various levels of
tension load cycling (solid symbol = mean): (a) expansion
anchor (sleeve-type); (b) expansion anchor (bolt-type);
and (c) screw anchor.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008
can quickly lead to propagation of the crack and (fatigue)
failure of the concrete.
In the case of pullthrough (Fig. 6(b)), failure occurred
when the expansion cone slipped past the expansion
elements and could no longer provide follow-up expansion.
For the investigated bolt-type expansion anchor, the
behavior strongly depended on whether the cycling took
place on the ascending or descending branch of the load-
displacement curve. If load cycling took place on the
ascending curve, the 30 cycles were resisted without difficulty.
If the cycling took place just after the peak load, failure
occurred after fewer than 10 cycles (Fig. 9(b)).
In the case of combined pullout and concrete cone failure
of the screw anchors (Fig. 6(c)), failure occurred when the
consoles between the screw threads were sheared off. It is
suspected that the amount of displacement that the investigated
anchor could undergo during cycling (Fig. 9(c)) was rather
small due to the small anchor thread spacing.
All of the investigated unmodified anchors failed during
tension load cycling roughly when the load-displacement
curve transected the descending branch of the monotonic
envelope (Fig. 9(a) to (c)).
The tests with the modified anchors, which failed by
rupture of the anchor steel (Fig. 6(d)), showed that 30 tension
load cycles to 100% Nu,m were easily resisted and residual
deformation capacity was still present (Fig. 9(d)). Initiation
of low-cycle fatigue failure in steel, however, depends
significantly on the stress range and peak stress relative to
the yield value. Therefore, the aforementioned findings must
be applied with caution. The discrepancy between the
ascending branches of the monotonic and cyclic load curves
can be attributed to anchor slip in the monotonically loaded
specimen caused primarily by the large crack width.
Figures 9(a) to (d) and the test data support the assumption
that steel failure can be predicted with the highest level of
Fig. 9—Typical load-displacement curves for investigated anchors in wide cracks (Δw = 0.8 mm [0.03 in.])
for tension cycling at 100% Nu,m (monotonic curves shown for comparison): (a) expansion anchor
(sleeve-type); (b) expansion anchor (bolt-type); (c) screw anchor; and (d) modified expansion anchor.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008
accuracy of the investigated anchor failure modes. These
figures also illustrate that hysteretic behavior is nearly
nonexistent for the investigated anchors under tension load
cycling independent of the failure mode.
A comparison of the monotonic load-displacement curves
of the unmodified (Fig. 9(a)) and modified (Fig. 9(d)) expansion
anchor demonstrates that the goal of achieving large
displacements through material ductility can only be met in
the tension case if the length over which yielding occurs is
greatly increased. Moreover, this uniform yielding length
must be available to the anchor in its installed condition. In
the present tests, the length of the reduced section (40 mm
[1.57 in.]) over which plastic straining of the bolt occurred
was not sufficient to achieve even the same displacement at
peak load associated with concrete cone failure (12 mm
[0.47 in.]). Just to match that displacement, the length over
which plastic strains occur must be increased to about 15 times
the unmodified anchor diameter if a uniform strain at peak
load of 5% in the steel is assumed. To ensure large axial
deformation capacity for anchors used to resist seismic
loads, it is necessary to specify a strain length over which
plastic strain can occur in the anchor’s installed condition in
addition to limits on required material strain. This is presently
not done in ACI 318,1 Appendix D. Given the geometric
limitations of many post-installed anchors and practical
considerations for anchor embedment depth, it is questionable
whether sufficient deformation capacity could be achieved
by plastic deformation alone in the absence of other sources
of deformation. Additionally, large deformation capacity of an
individual anchor, regardless of the failure mode, does not
ensure ductile behavior of an anchor group having the same
embedment. A group of anchors that exhibits ductile
failure when tested individually may exhibit brittle concrete
cone failure with relatively small displacements when the
group is located close to an edge of the concrete member.
605
 The test results also demonstrate that failure modes other
than steel failure (especially pullthrough) might be acceptable if
it can be demonstrated that the anchor functions reliably in all
relevant loading and damage states, that is, exhibits a sufficiently
low coefficient of variation on the failure load and displacement
and exhibits a sufficiently long plateau at peak load.

Influence of load cycling frequency

The mean ultimate loads and anchor displacements during
30 load cycles for tests with unmodified anchors cycled at
either 0.5 Hz or 5 Hz to 90% Nu,m are summarized in Table 2.
Two series of (static) reference tests were performed for each
anchor type to eliminate the influence of the concrete age
(strength increase). In all tests, the anchors failed as in the
previous sections (refer to Fig. 6).
The ratios Nu,m /Nu,m(Static) in Table 2 indicate that
increasing the cycling frequency from 0.5 Hz to 5 Hz did not
negatively affect the residual anchor strength, relative to the
static value, regardless of the failure mode. Rather, the
increased load cycling frequency led to a decrease in the
amount of slip during cycling (δ30/δ30(0.5 Hz)). The smaller
displacements at higher load cycling frequency are believed
to be a consequence of the shorter test duration and resulting
smaller inelastic deformation of concrete.

Influence of load cycling pattern

Fig. 10—Typical load-displacement curves for investigated
modified anchors in wide cracks (Δw = 0.8 mm [0.03 in.]) for
SEAOSC-style tension load cycling (monotonic curves
shown for comparison): (a) expansion anchor (sleeve-
type); (b) expansion anchor (bolt-type); and (c) screw anchor.
The influence of the tension load cycling pattern on anchor
load-bearing behavior was investigated by comparing the
results for cycling to a constant load level of 90% of the ultimate
value Nu,m (Fig. 5(a)) with a stepwise-increasing load
cycling pattern (Fig. 5(b)). In both cases, the load cycling
frequency was 0.5 Hz.
There were two notable differences between the
SEAOSC8 and DIBt6 anchor prequalification tests and the
tests performed in the present investigation. First, in the
present investigation, all tests were performed in a crack
width of Δw = 0.8 mm (0.03 in.). Second, both load cycling
patterns were chosen such that 30 cycles were completed at
the end of load cycling at 90% Nu,m.
Typical load-displacement curves for the investigated
unmodified anchors subjected to the stepwise-increasing
(SEAOSC style) load pattern are shown in Fig. 10. The
failure modes for the anchors were as illustrated in Fig. 6.
Figure 10 shows that for all of the anchors, the load-
displacement curves during stepwise-increasing load
cycling with five cycles per step tended to follow the

Table 2—Anchor strength after, and displacement during, 30 load cycles at 0.5 Hz or 5 Hz
Mean displacement
No. of Mean ultimate load Coefficient during 30 cycles δ30, Coefficient
Anchor type Type of loading tests Nu,m, kN (kip) of variation, % Nu,m /Nu,m(Static) mm (in.) of variation, % δ30/δ30(0.5 Hz)
Static 5 33.32 (7.49) 11.0 1 — — —
Expansion Cycling 0.5 Hz 1 34.31* (7.71) — 1.03 1.75 (0.069) — 1
anchor
(sleeve-type) Static 3 29.75 (6.69) 2.6 1 — — —
Cycling 5 Hz 2 32.10* (7.22) 8.0 1.08 1.36 (0.054) 1.87 0.78
Static 5 31.61 (7.11) 5.0 1 — — —
Expansion Cycling 0.5 Hz 3 33.97* (7.64) 1.8 1.07 1.43 (0.056) 11.1 1
anchor
(bolt-type) Static 5 28.46 (6.40) 6.1 1 — — —
Cycling 5 Hz 2 28.86* (6.49) 1.7 1.01 0.90 (0.035) 2.3 0.63
Static 5 21.50 (4.83) 6.0 1 — — —
Cycling 0.5 Hz 2 24.74* (5.56) 1.3 1.15 0.58 (0.023) 48.8 1
Screw anchor
Static 3 13.26 (2.98) 11.0 1 — — —
Cycling 5 Hz 3 16.95* (3.81) 8.6 1.28 0.33 (0.013) 22.1 0.57
*
Residual strength after 30 tension load cycles.

606 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Table 3—Anchor displacement at Nmid after 30 tension load cycles in tests using the DIBt- and SEAOSC-style
loading patterns (cycling frequency = 0.5 Hz)
DIBt-style test displacement, mm (in.) SEAOSC-style test displacement, mm (in.)
Test Test Test Coefficient Test Test Test Coefficient
Anchor type No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Mean of variation, % No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Mean of variation, %
Expansion anchor 7.39 7.39 8.57 5.05 6.81
(sleeve-type) (0.29) —* —† (0.29)
— —† (0.34) (0.20) (0.27)
36.6

Expansion anchor 6.05 5.40 5.83 5.76 5.8

6.95 6.51 4.79 6.08 18.8
(bolt-type) (0.24) (0.21) (0.23) (0.23) (0.27) (0.26) (0.19) (0.24)
1.77 0.96 1.36 0.92 0.95 0.88 0.92
Screw anchor —‡ (0.07) (0.04) (0.05)
41.8
(0.04) (0.04) (0.03) (0.04)
4.0
*Failureoccurred during cycling at 90% N u,m after nine cycles.
†
Large slip occurred at the start of loading that invalidated the results.
‡Anchor failed before the start of load cycling (90% N
u,m exceeded anchor capacity).

Table 4—Ultimate anchor strength from monotonic reference tests (static) and residual anchor strengths in
tests using the DIBt- and SEAOSC-style loading patterns (cycling frequency = 0.5 Hz)
Static DIBt-style test strengths, kN (kip) SEAOSC-style test displacement, mm (in.)
kN (kip) Test Test Test Coefficient Test Test Test Coefficient
Anchor type Mean No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Mean of variation, % No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Mean of variation, %
Expansion anchor 33.32 34.31 34.31 32.98 32.98 32.98
(sleeve-type) (7.49) (7.71) —* —† (7.71)
— —† (7.41) (7.41) (7.41)
0.0

Expansion anchor 31.61 34.61 33.41 33.88 33.97 1.8 33.33 33.27 32.12 32,91 2.1
(bolt-type) (7.11) (7.78) (7.51) (7.62) (7.64) (7.49) (7.48) (7.22) (7.40)
21.50 24.51 24.96 24.74 21.02 21.05 21.00 21.02
Screw anchor
(4.83) —‡ (5.51) (5.61) (5.56)
1.3
(4.73) (4.73) (4.72) (4.73)
0.1
*Failure
occurred during cycling at 90% N u,m after nine cycles.
†Large
slip occurred at the start of loading that invalidated the results.
‡
Anchor failed before the start of load cycling (90% Nu,m exceeded anchor capacity).

monotonic envelopes. A comparison with Fig. 7 shows that
this was also true for constant load level cycling (DIBt style).
Table 3 shows anchor displacements recorded at Nmid =
(Nmax – Nmin)/2 + Nmin after 30 load cycles. The data show
that the type of test (DIBt or SEAOSC style) had little effect
on the anchor displacement after 30 load cycles in spite of
the fact that in the SEAOSC style tests, several of the cycles
were performed at lower load levels. Furthermore, the
residual strength of the investigated anchors was not affected
by the manner of cycling (Table 4). The gaps in the data in
the tables indicate that the tested anchors were performing at
their limit in the Δw = 0.8 mm (0.03 in.) cracks.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn from the results
presented in this paper:
• The investigated anchors failing by concrete cone breakout,
pullthrough, and pullout performed unexpectedly well
for tension load cycling at near-ultimate load levels in
Δw = 0.8 mm (0.03 in.) wide cracks. Although the
results cannot be generalized to other proprietary
anchors of these types, they indicate that anchor failure
modes other than steel failure should possibly be
allowed for seismic design in predominantly tensile
loaded applications;
• The requirements for ductile steel failure of anchors in
ACI 318,1 Appendix D, do not achieve the intended
goal of large anchor deformations. These requirements
must be coupled with a specified strain length in tension
for the anchor in its installed condition. Further
investigation on this subject is necessary;
• Increasing tension load cycling frequency from 0.5 Hz
to 5 Hz did not negatively affect the residual strengths
of the investigated anchors. This was independent of the
anchor failure mode. In fact, increasing the load cycling
frequency typically reduced the anchor displace-
ment during cycling. Therefore, restricting the load
cycling frequency in anchor prequalification tests to a
single value, for example, to 1 Hz rather than the currently
used range of 0.5 Hz to 2 Hz, would likely produce more
consistent test results; and
• The investigated anchors yielded similar displacement
behavior and residual strength when subjected to
stepwise-increasing tension load cycling to failure or
cycling at a fraction of the ultimate load with subsequent
monotonic loading to failure. As pointed out by Silva,9
stepwise-increasing load cycling to failure is nevertheless
preferable for simulated seismic load tests for anchors
because it allows the calculation of stiffness throughout
the entire anchor load cycling range. According to ACI
355.2,3 anchors that should resist seismic loads must be
prequalified by stepwise-decreasing tension and shear
load cycling tests in cracked concrete (Δw = 0.5 mm
[0.02 in.]) where the maximum load cycling level is
0.5Nu,m. The test results presented in this paper and the
experience gained from approval tests demonstrate that
such cyclic tension tests do not provide very meaningful
results. If cyclic tension tests for anchor are performed,
they should use stepwise-increasing load cycling to
failure. Alternately, in light of the fact that none of the
investigated tension load cycling produced a load-
displacement envelope that deviated significantly from
the monotonic envelope, it is plausible that simulated
seismic tension load cycling tests for anchors could be
eliminated from seismic anchor prequalification tests.
Extensive further study involving a range of anchor
types would be required to justify this approach, however.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008 607

 NOTATION Power Plants and Nuclear Technology Installations, Guideline for
c = anchor edge distance Evaluating Fastenings for Granting Permission in Individual Cases
d0 = drill hole diameter According to the Regulations of the Federal States of Germany), DIBt,
fc = concrete cylinder (152 x 305 mm [6 x 12 in.]) compressive strength Berlin, Germany, 1998, 13 pp. (in German)
fcc,150 = concrete cube (150 mm [6 in.]) compressive strength 7. CSA-N287.2, “Material Requirements for Concrete Containment
hef = effective embedment depth of anchor Structures for CANDU Nuclear Power Plants (Reaffirmed 2003),” Canadian
N = anchor axial load Standards Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, 63 pp.
Nmax = maximum axial cycling load 8. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, “Standard
Nmid = (Nmax – Nmin)/2 + Nmin Method of Cyclic Load Test for Anchors in Concrete or Grouted Masonry,”
Nmin = minimum axial cycling load SEAOSC, Whittier, CA, 1997, 6 pp.
Nu,m = mean ultimate axial load 9. Silva, J. F., “Test Methods for Seismic Qualification of Post-Installed
s = anchor spacing Anchors,” International Symposium on Connections between Steel and
Δw = crack opening Concrete, RILEM Proceedings PRO 21, V. 1, 2001, pp. 551-563.
δ = anchor displacement 10. Lieberum and Weigler, Belastungsprüfungen an Liebig-Einspan-
δ30 = anchor displacement during 30 load cycles nankern Ultra-Plus M16, verankert in kreuzartig gerissenen Beton-
probekörpern bei stoßartiger und statischer Belastung (Testing of Liebig
REFERENCES Anchors Ultra-Plus M16 Anchored in Intersecting Cracks under Impact
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural and Static Loads), Institute für Massivbau, Technische Hochschule
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05),” American Darmstadt, 1984. (in German)
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp. 11. European Organization of Technical Approvals, “ETAG 001: Guideline
2. Hoehler, M. S., “Behavior and Testing of Fastenings to Concrete for for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete,
Use in Seismic Applications,” PhD dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Parts 1-6,” EOTA, Brussels, Belgium, 1997, 206 pp.
Stuttgart, Germany, 2006, 261 pp. 12. Eligehausen, R., and Hoehler, M. S., “Reassessment of Seismic
3. ACI Committee 355, “Qualification of Post-Installed Mechanical Ductility Criteria for Fastenings Based on New Experimental Data,”
Anchors in Concrete (ACI 355.2-04) and Commentary (355.2R-04),” Conference Proceedings of the 2nd fib International Congress, Naples,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2004, 31 pp. Italy, June 5-8, 2006, 11 pp.
4. International Code Council Evaluation Service, Inc., “AC156— 13. Eligehausen, R.; Mattis, L.; Wollmershauser, R.; and Hoehler, M. S.,
Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Qualification by Shake-Table Testing of “Testing Anchors in Cracked Concrete – Guidance for Testing Laboratories:
Nonstructural Components and Systems,” ICC-ES, Whittier, CA, 2004, How to Generate Cracks,” Concrete International, V. 26, No. 7, July 2004,
10 pp. pp. 66-71.
5. Eibl, J., and Keintzel, E., Zur Beanspruchung von Befestigungsmitteln 14. DIN 1045, Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton: Teil 2
bei dynamischen Lasten (On the Dynamic Loading of Fastenings), Institut Festlegung, Eigenschaften, Herstellung und Konformität (Concrete,
für Massivbau und Baustofftechnologie, Universität Karlsruhe, 1989, Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures: Part 2,
169 pp. (in German) Regulation, Properties, Production and Conformity), Deutsches Institut für
6. Deutsches Institute für Bautechnik, Verwendung von Dübeln in Normung, Berlin, Germany, 2001, 48 pp. (in German)
Kernkraftwerken und kerntechnischen Anlagen, Leitfaden zur Beurteilung 15. DIN 1048, Prüfverfahren für Beton (Test Methods for Concrete),
von Dübelbefestigungen bei der Erteilung von Zustimmungen im Einzelfall Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin, Germany, 1991, 148 pp. (in
nach den Landesbauordnung der Bundesländer (Use of Anchors in Nuclear German)

608 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

View publication stats