Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A user-friendly, highly transparent model for the design of post-installed specified installation torque is applied. Thereby, one cone or
steel anchors or cast-in-place headed studs or bolts, termed the concrete two cones, according to the type of anchor, is/are drawn into
capacity design (CCD) approach, is presented. This approach is compared
to the well-known provisions of ACI 349-85. The use of both methods to
the expanding sleeve or segments. Torque-controlled an-
predict the concrete failure load offastenings in uncracked concrete under chors should expand further under load. Deformation-con-
monotonic loading for important applications is compared. Variables trolled anchors [(Fig. l(c)] are expanded by driving the cone
included single anchors away from and close to the edge, anchor groups, into the sleeve [drop-in anchor, Fig. l(c 1)] or onto the cone
tension loading, and shear loading. A data bank including approximately
[Fig. l(c 2) (self-drilling anchor) and Fig. l(c 3) (steel an-
1200 European and American tests was evaluated. The comparison shows
that the CCD method can accurately predict the concrete failure load of chor)] through a specified displacement. Deformation-con-
fastenings for the full range of investigated applications. On the other trolled anchors cannot expand further under load.
hand, depending on the application in question, the predictions of ACJ 349 Undercut anchors are anchors with parts that spread and
are sometimes unconservative and sometimes conservative. The CCD mechanically interlock with the concrete base material. Af-
method is more user-friendly for design. Based on this, the CCD method is
recommended as the basis for the design offastenings. ter production of the cylindrical hole by drilling, the under-
cutting is produced in a second operation before installation
Keywords: anchors (fasteners); concretes; failure; fasteners; loads of the anchor [Fig. l(d 1) through l(d 3)] or during installation
(forces); shear tests; structural design; studs; tension tests. of the anchor [Fig. l(d4 ) and l(d5)]. Much lower expansion
forces are produced during installation and loading than with
The demand for more flexibility in the planning, design, expansion anchors. In fact, certain undercut anchors can act
and strengthening of concrete structures has resulted in an virtually identically to cast-in anchors if the angle and diam-
increased use of metallic anchoring systems. Currently em- eter at the undercut are within certain limits.
ployed are cast-in situ anchors such as headed studs The operating principle of adhesive anchors [Fig. 1(e)] de-
[Fig. l(a)] or headed bolts and fastening systems to be in- pends on gluing together a threaded rod and the wall of the
stalled in hardened concrete, such as torque-controlled ex- drilled hole with reacting resins. The load is transferred to
pansion anchors [Fig. l(b)], deformation-controlled expan- the concrete base material by chemical bonding. Adhesive
sion anchors [Fig. l(c)], undercut anchors [Fig. l(d)], and anchors are not covered in this paper.
adhesive anchors [Fig. l(e)].
Cast-in situ elements are fastened to the formwork and BEHAVIOR UNDER TENSION LOADING
cast into the concrete. A common example is a plate with Under tension loading, fastening systems can experience
welded-on headed studs [Fig. l(a)], which produces me- four different types of failures (Fig. 2), each with very differ-
chanical interlocking with the concrete. ent load-deformation patterns, as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 is
Post-installed anchors can be fastened in almost any posi- valid for anchors with relatively low remaining prestressing
tion desired in hardened concrete by installing them in a hole
drilled after concrete curing. A distinction is drawn between
metal expansion anchors, undercut anchors, and bonded an- *ACI Committee 318 has endorsed early publication of this paper which serves as
background to upcoming code revisions.
chors, according to their principles of operation. ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. I, January-February 1995.
Received Feb. 2, 1994, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright
Expansion anchors produce expansion forces and thereby © 1995, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
(frictional) holding forces in the concrete base material. copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discu~
sion will be published in the November-December 1995 ACI Structural Journal1f
With torque-controlled expansion anchors [Fig. l(b)], a received by July I, 1995.
n-
Karlsruhe and PhD from the University of Stuttgart, Germany. After a postdoctoral expansiont
sleeve ·
fellowship at the University of Texas at Austin, he joined Hilti. He has conducted [
research and written extensively on topics related to techniques for fastening to con- e xpons ion cutter
crete. He is a member of ACI 355, Anchorage to Concrete. ~sleeve
cone cone
ACI member Rolf Eligehausen is a Professor and Department Head for fastening
technique at the Institute for Building Materials, University of Stuttgart. He studied I I
at the University of Braunschweig and obtained his PhD from the University of Stut- 0 0 0
tgart in I979. After 2 years of research work at the University of California at Berke-
ley, he returned to the University of Stuttgart and was appointed to the rank of 0
ACI honorary member John E. Breen holds the Nasser I. Al-Rashid Chair in Civil
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He began research work in fasten-
ing to concrete in I963. He is a member and former chairman of ACI 318, Building
Code, and is former chairman of the ACJ Technical Activities Committee. He is an
Fig. l(c)- Fastening systems: deformation-controlled
associate member of ACI Committee 355, Anchorage to Concrete. expansion anchor (upper sketches show assembled
anchors; lower sketches show anchor mechanism actions)
0 0
"0
·u·. T.
<>
a o
..
..
Q
..
D
.. 0
co
..
Q
...
: '""'
0 0
. cutting
pin
d4 l ds l
anti expansion
sleeve Fig. l(d) -Fastening systems: undercut anchors (left-side
rot at ion
sketches show hole shape; right-side sketches show
cone installed anchors)
T T
G G G
fixture
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 mortar
0 0
~------~
a) /
D
!...crete break out (brittle)
I
pull-through
-
b - - - - - - - - , o r pull-out
' ',•1
<(
0
X
1// /
/ ', '
• N
1
'I
If
//__ _',
I
11 \az ;--:~:1
0
., 0
0
0
0
•
•
= <> 0""'
• 0
/7N!
I ! !
v()
NNt
/'// _________ ...,;:,' ,.3 _./
00 =o =
o.,:: o""'
c) d1) dz) d3)
Axial Deformation
Fig. 2-Failure modes for fastenings under tensile loading: Fig. 3-Idealized load-deformation curves for fasteners
(a) steel failure; (b) concrete breakout; (c) pullout; (d) con- under tension load
crete splitting
SCOPE
The relevant literature contains several approaches for the
calculation of concrete failure load in uncracked concrete.
The most important examples are design recommendations
of ACI Committee 349,4 PCI design procedures that are
somewhat similar to those of ACI 349, 5 and the concrete ca-
pacity design (CCD) method based on the so-called K -meth-
od developed at the University of Stuttgart. 6-8 The CCD
method provides a clear visual explanation of calculation of
the K -factors used in the K -method. It combines the trans-
d'3 c)
parency (ease of visualization of a physical model, making it
readily understood by designers for application) of the ACI
349 method, accuracy of the K -method, and a user-friendly
rectangular failure surface calculation procedure. A compar-
ison of the CCD method with the K -method is given in Ref- .
Fig. 5-Failure modes for fastenings under shear loading:
(a) steel failure preceded by concrete spall; (b) concrete erences 9 and 10. From this comparison, it is evident that the
breakout; (c) concrete pryout failure for fastenings far from CCD and K -methods predict almost identical failure loads.
edge In this paper, the provisions of ACI 349-85 and the CCD
method to predict the fastening capacity of brittle (concrete
breakout) failures in uncracked concrete are compared with
[Fig. 2(d)]. This type of failure can be avoided by specifying
a large number of test results. To facilitate direct compari-
minimum values of center-to-center and edge spacings, as
son, the capacity reduction factor <1> of ACI 349 and partial
well as component thickness. Again, prequalification testing
material safety factor y m of the CCD method are both taken
under ASTM ZXXX: 1 is designed to preclude such failures.
as 1.0. The comparison is made for fastenings both under
Concrete breakout failure [Fig. 2(b 1) through 2(b3)] is a
tension load (single fasteners close to and far from the edge,
very important practical design case, because many fasteners
as well as anchor groups with up to 36 fasteners far from the
are made such that a concrete failure will occur before yield-
edge) and under shear load toward the edge (single fasteners
ing of steel. In fasteners with deeper embedment but thinner
and double fastenings installed close to the edge in wide and
side cover, concrete blowout [Fig. 2(b4)] can govem. 2 This narrow as well as thick and thin members). Based on this
latter case is not covered in this paper. comparison, the accuracy of the two design approaches is de-
termined.
BEHAVIOR UNDER SHEAR LOADING
The failure modes of anchors loaded in shear are shown in
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Fig. 5. In principle, the same behavior as that under tensile While ductility is highly desirable in applications where
loading can be observed. However, a pullout failure may the- there are substantial life safety concerns, a brittle failure
oretically occur only if the ratio of anchorage depth to anchor mode covered by a sufficient safety factor is often accept-
diameter is very small and the tensile capacity is very low. In able. In both cases, concrete capacity must be predicted as
contrast, in shear, a brittle concrete failure will occur for fas- accurately as possible to insure a ductile failure (ductile de-
tenings located close to the edge [Fig. 5(b)] and cannot be sign) or sufficiently low probability of failure (brittle de-
avoided by increasing anchorage depth. Steel failure, often sign), respectively. In many applications, the relevant design
proceeded by a local concrete spall in front of the anchor methods (ACI 349-85 and CCD method) will predict rather
[Fig. 5(a)], will be observed for fasteners sufficiently far different concrete capacities. Therefore, screening of both
away from the edge. For that case, the load-displacement be- methods based on an extensive data base is needed. Compa-
havior will depend on ductility of the anchor steel. A con- rable earlier studies 11 •12 are based on a small number of test
crete pryout-type failure of fastenings located quite far away data and did not include the newly developed CCD method.
from the edge [Fig. 5(c)] may occur for single anchors and
especially for groups of anchors with a small ratio of embed- DESIGN PROCEDURES
ment depth to anchor diameter and high tensile capacity. 3 Fig. 6 shows concrete breakout cones for single anchors
The critical ratio depends on the anchor strength, concrete under tension or shear load, respectively, idealized accord-
strength, and number and spacing of fasteners. This failure ing to ACI 349.4 From this figure, it is evident that the con-
mode is not covered in this paper. crete cone failure load depends on tensile capacity of the
~-------....;
a) /
D
-c /.crete break out (brittle)
0 I
0 pull-through
_j
0
/
-
b - - - - - - - - ......or pull-out
'
'.~
1/
X I /
<(
1/ ' \ \
•N //~~-
1°2
I
,_ pu II
r out
#
=
0
0
0
0
•
•
= <> D
• 0
/7N!
I I I
v?J
NNt
/
~ --------'
/// ', ,.3
00 = ==Q 0 • 0
Fig. 2-Failure modes for fastenings under tensile loading: Fig. 3-/dealized load-deformation curves for fasteners
(a) steel failure; (b) concrete breakout; (c) pullout; (d) con- under tension load
crete splitting
I I
hole at a load level larger than the remaining prestressing 0
X
force of the anchor (Lines a2 and a3 in Fig. 3) before expand- <(
ing further and developing a higher load capacity. This be-
havior is influenced considerably by the installation
procedure and is highly undesirable. It must be prohibited by
performance requirements in prequalification testing of the
fastening device. failure pullout failure
With expansion anchors, the depth of embedment can
control the type of failure. As shown in Fig. 4, there is a he f
critical embedment depth later termed hef• the effective Embedment Depth
embedment depth, at which the mode of failure changes
from concrete failure to pullout. This depends on the Fig. 4-Role of effective depth hetfor expansion anchors
expansion mechanism and hef is determined in
prequalification tests.
Brittle failures are failure by concrete breakout or splitting
The concrete bearing area of undercut anchors and headed
of the structural concrete member before yielding of the fas-
studs is usually large enough to prevent pullout failure.
tener or fastened element [Fig. 2(b) and (d)] or by steel fail-
Ductile failures are failure by yielding of the fastening de-
vice or system fastened to the concrete before any breakout ure when the length over which inelastic steel strains appear
of concrete occurs [Fig. 2(a)]. is rather small.
Under conditions that the steel material is sufficiently duc- For nonductile fasteners and cases where the concrete ca-
tile and the length of the fastener or attachment over which pacity is less than the fastener device capacity, a brittle fail-
inelastic steel strains appear is large enough, and assuming ure will occur (Line bin Fig. 3).
that the concrete base material does not fail, a ductile steel It is not yet possible to determine theoretically the failure
failure will occur (Line c in Fig. 3). load to be expected in the "splitting" type of failure
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1995 75
2h + d
bz)
b) shear
/-~
~
a)
Av
0
= ~c2
2 1
bl
c
Av = ( 7t
7t·S
- 180 +sine) ·t 2
e = 2cos·1 (~)
1t I 2·9 . ) .c 2
Av = ( 1t - ---
180
+ sm9
1
cl
9 = 2cos· 1 (~)
2c 1
Fig. 8-Projected areas for fastenings under shear loading according to ACI 349: (a) single
fastening installed in thick concrete member; (b) single fastening installed in thin concrete
member (h ~ c 1); (b) doublefastening installed in thick concrete member (s 1 < 2c1)
{i"l
Nno=0.96·,.,;Jcc'hef'
2 ( du)
1+h' N (3)
AN
ef
=A. Nno[Eq(2)] 'lb (4b)
No
For fastenings with edge effects (c < hef) and/or affected
by other concrete breakout cones (s < 2 · he1), the average To obtain the failure load in SI units (N), Eq. (3) may be
failure load follows from Eq. (4) used in place ofEq. (2) in Eq. (4b).
(5)
a)
Again, with <1> = 1 and the conversion factors given, the
SI equivalent is
( 7a)
where
Under tension loading, the concrete capacity of a single
Av = actual projected area
fastening is calculated assuming an inclination between the
Avo = projected area of one fastener unlimited by edge failure surface and surface of the concrete member of about
influences, cone overlapping, or member thickness 35 de g. This corresponds to widespread observations that the
[Fig. 8(a)] horizontal extent of the failure surface is about three times
2
= n/2 · c 1 the effective embedment (Fig. 9).
The concrete cone failure load Nno of a single anchor in
To obtain the failure load in SI units (N), Eq. (6) may be
uncracked concrete unaffected by edge influences or over-
used in place ofEq. (5) in Eq. 7(b).
lapping cones of neighboring anchors loaded in tension is
Fig. 8 shows the determination of the projected areas Av
given by Eq. (8)
for shear loading using the cone concept of ACI 349. Again,
the computations are complex for the examples shown in
Fig. 8(b) and 8(c). (8)
where (lOa)
knc = 13.5, post-installed fasteners
knc = 15.5, cast-in situ headed studs and headed anchor
bolts
JT::= concrete compression strength measured on cubes
(lOb)
with three or four edges and cmax :5: 1.5hefCcmax = A, = A" {single fastening)
= {2·1.5h.){2·1.5h.)
largest edge distance), the embedment depth to be
= {3h. )2 = 9h!
inserted in Eq. (lOa) and (lOb) is limited to hef=
cma/1.5. This gives a constant failure load for deep
embedments22
Examples for calculation of projected areas are given in .
Fig. 11. Note the relatively simple calculation for the CCD
A, = (c, + tsh.){2·t5h.)
method compared to Fig. 7 illustrating the ACI 349 method. if: c, s: 1.5haf
In Eq. (10), it is assumed that the failure load is linearly
proportional to the projected area. This is taken into account b)
ing factor 'I' 2• A linear reduction from 'I' 2 = 1.0 for c 1 ;;:;
1.5he1 (no edge influence) to 'Jf 2 =0.7 for the theoretical case
c 1 =0 has been assumed. ·
Up to this point, it has been assumed that anchor groups A, = {c, + s, + tsh.)(c, + s, + tsh.J
are loaded concentrically in tension. However, if the load it: c,, c 2 s tsh ..
$ 11 S:z S 3.Qhet
acts eccentrically on the anchor plate; it is not shared equally
d)
by all fasteners. Based on a proposal in Reference 24, this ef-
fect can be taken into account by an additional factor 'I' 1
[Eq. (11)] Fig. ]]-Projected areas for different fastenings under ten-
sile loading according to CCD method
(lla)
= (llb) where
outside diameter of fastener, in.
eN' = distance between the resultant tensile force of ten- activated load-bearing length of fastener, in., :5: 8d0
sioned fasteners of a group and centroid of ten- (Reference 25)
sioned fasteners (Fig. 12) = hef for fasteners with a constant overall stiffness,
Fig. 12 shows examples of an eccentricaly loaded such as headed studs, undercut anchors, and torque-
quadruple fastening under tensile loading located close to a controlled expansion anchors, where there is no
comer. In Fig. 13, Eq. (lla) is applied for the case of a distance sleeve or the expansion sleeve also has
double fastening. In this figure (as in Fig. 12), it is assumed the function of the distance sleeve
that the eccentricity eN' of the resultant tension force on the = 2d0 for torque-controlled expansion anchors with
fasteners is equal to eccentricity eN of the applied load. This distance sleeve separated from the expansion sleeve
is valid for eN :5: s1 16 and for eN > s1 16 if the fastener c 1 = edge distance in loading direction, in.
displacements are neglected. If the load acts concentrically In SI units with length quantities in mm and stress in N/
on the anchor plate, Eq. (10) is valid ('I' 1 = 1) [Fig. 13(a)]. If mm2, this equation becomes
only one fastener is loaded [Fig. 13(c)], the failure load of
the group is equal to the concrete capacity of one fastener
without spacing effects. For 0 :5: eN' :5: 0.5s1, a nonlinear (12b)
s,
' ' AN
Nn = AN 0
. "'1 . Nn 0
N - An ·N 1
n - A no '1'1 = 1 + 2e'N I (3h 61 )
no
0) b) c)
0
c::
:z
..........
c:: 1
:z
b)
Fig. 15-Concrete failure cone for individual fastener in
thick concrete member under shear loading toward edge:
0 (a) from test results; (b) simplified design model according
0 0,25s, to CCD method
e'n
Fig. 14-lnjiuence of eccentricity of tensile force on failure
load of double fastening 24
(13a)
b)
where
Av = actual projected area at side of concrete member, Fig. 16-Comparison of tension and shear loading for CCD
idealizing the shape of the fracture area of individ- method
3c,
Av = 1.5c,(1.5c, + c 2 )
if: c 2 :s; 1.5c 1
Av = 2·1.5C 1 ·h
if: h :s; 1.5c 1
1,5c, 1,5c,
Av = (2·1.5c 1 + s,)·h
if: h :s; 1.5c1
s, :s; 1.5c,
1,5c 1 s, 1,5c,
Fig. 17-Projected areas for different fastenings under shear loading according to CCD
method
ual anchors as a half-pyramid with side length stress distribution caused by a comer
1.5c1 and 3cdFig. 17)
Avo = projected area of one fastener unlimited by comer
influences, spacing, or member thickness, idealiz-
ing the shape of the fracture area as a half-pyramid
with side length 1.5c 1 and 3c 1 [Fig. 15(b) and (13c)
17(a)]
\jl 4 = effect of eccentricity of shear load
c1 = edge distance in loading direction, in. (Fig. 17); for
1 fastenings in a narrow, thin member with c2,max <
= (13b)
1.5c 1 (c2,max =maximum value of edge distances
perpendicular to the loading direction) and h <
distance between resultant shear force of fasteners 1.5ct. the edge distance to be inserted in Eq. (13a),
of group resisting shear and centroid of sheared fas- (13b), and (13c) is limited to c 1 =max (c2,maJ1.5;
teners (Fig. 18) h/1.5). This gives a constant failure load indepen-
'l's= tuning factor considering disturbance of symmetric dent of the edge distance c 1 (Reference 21)
~~~-
F
I
I
-
v
J
I -· Vn•.L
a)
sS3c, s s
- St
trated in Fig. 8.
The considerations just presented relate to shear loads act- Fig. 19-Doublefastening: (a) shear load perpendicular to
edge; (b) shear load parallel to edge
ing perpendicular to and toward the free edge [Fig. 19(a)]. If
the load acts in a direction parallel to the edge [Fig. 19(b)],
the test performed at TNO Delft27 indicates that the shear 2. The assumption of slope of the failure cone surface.
load capable of being resisted is about twice as large as the This leads to different minimum spacings and edge distances
load that can be resisted in the direction perpendicular to and to develop full anchor capacity.
toward the edge (Fig. 19). A similar value can be conserva- 3. The assumption about the shape of the fracture area
tively used for resistance to loads in the direction perpendic- (ACI 349: cone, CCD method: pyramid approximating an
ular to but away from the edge. 26 idealized cone). In both methods, the influence of edges and
overlapping cones is taken into account by projected areas,
Comparison of ACI 349 and CCO methods based on circles (ACI 349) or rectangles (CCD method), re-
The main differences between these design approaches are spectively. Due to this, calculation of the projected area is
summarized in Table 1. They are as follows: rather simple in the case of the CCD method and often rather
1. The way in which they consider influence of anchorage complicated in the case of ACI 349.
depth hef (tensile loading) and edge distance c 1 (shear load- 4. The CCD method takes into account disturbance of the
ing). stresses in concrete caused by edges and influence of load
Table 2-Single fastenings with post-installed fasteners far from edge, test series-Tensile loading
fc~200 • N/mm 2 hepmm
Edge Country
spacing of test n Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
GB 55 23.0 27.5 34.0 22.0 59.2 136.0
F 79 13.6 28.9 54.9 42.0 89.0 156.0
s 28 16.3 29.8 43.7 32.0 55.9 125.0
CJ 1.5hef D 360 8.8 31.7 75.4 17.6 62.7 220.0
EUR 522 8.8 30.8 75.4 17.6 65.9 220.0
USA 88 15.3 33.1 52.0 24.5 69.0 275.0
~ 610 8.8 31.1 75.4 17.6 66.3 275.0
GB 58 23.0 27.1 34.0 22.0 63.2 136.0
F 81 13.6 28.0 54.9 42.0 87.0 156.0
s 28 16.3 29.8 43.7 32.0 55.9 125.0
CJ l.Ohef D 400 8.8 31.6 75.4 17.6 62.6 220.0
EUR 567 8.8 30.7 75.4 17.6 65.1 220.0
USA 92 15.3 32.6 52.0 24.5 67.6 275.0
~ 659 8.8 31.0 75.4 17.6 65.5 275.0
Table 3-Single fastenings with cast-in situ headed studs far from edge, single tests-Tensile loading
fc~200 • N/mm 2 he!• mm
Edge Country
spacing of test n Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
s 3 30.9 39.5 56.7 130.0 137.3 142.0
cs 26 28.3 31.2 34.4 50.0 177.0 450.0
D 192 11.4 28.5 71.9 42.9 156.4 525.0
CJ 1.5hef EUR 221 11.4 28.9 71.9 42.9 158.5 525.0
USA 27 24.3 28.9 43.1 63.5 109.7 251.4
~ 248 11.4 28.9 71.9 42.9 152.6 525.0
s 6 30.9 38.6 56.7 112.0 133.3 142.0
cs 26 28.3 31.2 34.4 50.0 177.0 450.0
D 220 11.4 28.3 71.9 42.9 145.0 525.0
CJ l.Ohef EUR 252 11.4 28.8 71.9 42.9 147.0 525.0
USA 28 24.3 29.3 43.1 63.5 107.9 251.4
~ 280 11.4 28.6 71.9 42.9 141.7 525.0
Table 5-Quadruple fastenings with cast-in situ headed studs, single tests-Tensile loading
fc~200 ' N/mm2 hef• mm c 1,mm s,mm
Edge Country
spacing of test n Minimum Average ~aximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average ~aximurr Minimum Average !Maximum
Quad- USA 3 32.5 33.6 35.8 161.9 161.9 161.9 - - - 50.8 76.2 101.6
rup1e D 32 17.9 27.5 38.9 67.3 179.4 360.3 - - - 80.0 125.5 400.0
fastening
:E 35 17.9 28.1 38.9 67.3 177.9 360.3 - - - 50.8 146.0 400.0
Table 6-Single fastenings with post-installed fasteners and fully developed concrete breakout, test
series-Shear loading
fc~200 ' N/mm2 hef• mm d,mm c 1,mm
Country
of test n Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum
USA 60 21.3 31.7 53.9 25.0 94.5 220.0 8.0 20.9 32.0 40.0 128.3 300.0
D 84 16.1 25.7 48.4 27.4 70.3 167.6 6.4 14.6 25.4 38.1 98.0 203.2
:E 144 16.1 28.2 53.9 25.0 80.4 220.0 6.4 17.2 32.0 38.1 110.6 300.0
Table 7-Single fastenings with post-installed fasteners in concrete members with limited thickness,
single tests-Shear loading
fc~200 , N/mm2 hef• mm d,mm c 1,mm c 2,mm
Country Mini- Maxi- Mini- Maxi- Mini- Maxi- Mini- Maxi- Mini- Average Maxi-
of test n mum Average mum mum Average mum mum Average mum mum Average mum mum mum
D 38 35.2 42.8 46.4 155.0 250.8 306.0 20.0 27.5 40.0 63.0 140.2 220.0 62.5 184.1 300.0
Anchor-
fc~200 ' Nlmm 2 hef• mm d,mm c 1,mm c 2,mm
age Country Mini- Maxi- Mini- Maxi- Mini- Maxi- Mini- Maxi- Mini- Average Maxi-
device oftest n mum Average mum mum Average mum mum Average mum mum Average mum mum mum
Expan-
sion
anchor D 36 20.5 24.8 27.2 80.0 81.7 100.0 18.0 20.7 24.0 80.0 172.1 200.0 80.0 190.0 400.0
Tensile loading ted. As can be seen, the tension failure loads predicted by the
In Fig. 20 and 21, measured failure loads of individual an- CCD method compare rather well with the mean test results
chors are plotted as a function of embedment depth. The tests over the total range of embedment depths, with the exception
were performed on concrete with different compression of the two post-installed fasteners at the deepest embedment.
strengths. Therefore, the measured failure loads were nor- In contrast, anchor strengths predicted by ACI 349 can be
malized to fc: = 25 N/mm2 lfc' = 3070 psi) by multiplying considered as a lower bound for shallow embedments and
them with the factor (25/fcc, tes 1) 0 ·5 . In addition, predicted fail- give quite unconservative results for the deepest embedded
ure loads according to ACI and the CCD methods are plot- headed studs. This is probably due to the fact that size effect
ac~""J
1000.0
90
400.0 200
80 800.0
/x
350.0 I
I 150
70 z=:. 600.0 I - CCD-Method "iii
.Q.
z I =:.
300.0 z
z
=:.
"iii
Q.
I
60 ~
z z 100
400.0
250.0
50
200.0 200.0 tN 50
40
150.0 CCD-Method~x
X
: X l
30
100.0 X
X/
~~
~
•
X
. X
- 20
h. [mm]
0
h~ The coefficient of variation of expansion anchors is slightly
larger, which might be a result of the different load transfer
0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0
mechanisms.
het [mm]
Note that in Fig. 22 through 24, the average of the ratio
Nu,tes!Nu,predicted is higher for the ACI 349 method than for
Fig. 20-Concrete breakout load for post-installed fasten- the CCD method. This is due to the fact that the majority of
ers, unaffected by edges or spacing effects-Tensile test
results and predictions the evaluated data has an effective embedment depth hef
smaller than 150 mm (6 in.). For headed studs with embed-
is neglected by ACI 349. Substantial scatter exists with the ments greater than 300 mm (12 in.), ACI 349 predictions be-
deep embedment data, justifying a conservative approach in come unconservative (Fig. 21). Thus, the average values do
this region. not indicate local unconservative cases.
Fig. 22 shows the results of all evaluations for tensile load- In Fig. 25, results of tests with quadruple fastenings with
ing with post-installed fasteners far from the edge. Average headed studs are evaluated in the same way as in Fig. 22. The
values of the ratios Nu,test to Nn,predicted and corresponding co- figure indicates that spacing influence is more easily and ac-
efficients of variation for both methods are plotted. The av- curately taken into account by the CCD method than by ACI
erage and coefficient of variation are substantially better for 349. While the average failure load is predicted correctly by
the CCD method than for ACI 349. This is also true when the the CCD method, it is significantly overestimated by ACI
data are subdivided into five different anchor types (Fig. 23) 349. This can also be seen from Fig. 26, which shows failure
and for headed studs without edge or spacing influences loads of groups as a function of the distance s1 between the
(Fig. 24). Eq. (9) uses the same coefficient knc for undercut outermost anchors. Groups with 4 to 36 anchors were in-
anchors as for other post-installed anchors. The results stalled in very thick concrete specimens loaded concentrical-
shown in Fig. 23 support this procedure. These undercut an- ly in tension through a rigid load frame to assure an almost
chor tests were typically for undercut anchors with head equal load distribution to the anchors. Light skin reinforce-
bearing pressures greater than 13fc'- Better values would be ment was present near the top and bottom surfaces of the
expected if the undercuts were proportioned for lower bear- specimens and light stirrups were present near the edges in
ing pressures. some specimens for handling. The stirrups did not intersect
The coefficient of variation of the ratios of measured fail- the concrete cone. No reinforcement was present near the
ure load to the value predicted by the CCD method is about fastening heads. These specimens represent the capacity of
15 percent for headed studs and undercut anchors, which groups of fasteners installed in plain concrete. Embedment
agrees with the coefficient of variation of the concrete tensile depth and concrete strength were kept constant. In all tests a
.."'-
0 ...
0.. .
....
1.50
....
<
.
0
-~
.. c
'-Z
1.00 .."'"
0~
oz
=
~
;: ......
<-=.."' . -,.
;
...:- 1.00
u
-~ -~ - r::: -~ -
~
1--
: ~ r::: ~ ~ ~
.so r::: ~ r::: ~ %
::> z" .50 ~ ~ V::
~ ~
z
% ~ % ~ %
.00 .00
v:~ ~ ~ ~
ACI 349 CC-Method
610 610 268 48 98 7~ 110
.0
.0
~ ~ ~ ~ %
~ ~ % ~
N
;:..:
% ~
c 10.0 r::: ~ ~ r:::
~ ~ ~
0
c
~ ~
-......
0 10.0
"
~
>" 20.0
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~ r.:::
> 0
- 0
20.0 ~
.. 30.0
.
c
u 30.0 u
u
-;
0
-..
u
0
~0.0
(,.) 1.50
_.,.,
0
.
0
o:n
0
~
.._
a..
c 1. 00
~'
oO.
'-Z
~ ......
<-:='
.
"'
.50
::>
z
.00
ACI 349 CC-Method
ACI 349 CC-Method
248 248
.0 32 35
N .0
;:-.:
c
0 10.0
c:
"';; 0
10.0
... ·-
0 "';;
>
20.0 ...0
~ >
20.0
.c
·-
0
0
..
30.0
..
c:
0
30.0
..
0
u
40.0 0
u
40.0
Fig. 24-Comparison of design procedures for cast-in situ Fig. 25-Comparison of design procedures for quadruple
headed studes, unaffected by edges or spacing effects-Ten- fastenings with cast-in situ headed studes--Tensile loading
sile loading
3000 675
fcc : 25 N/mm 2 (3,6 ksi) n Symbol
he f =185 mm (7,3 in) 1 + b -
4 0 ~-~--
n =1-36 headed studs ~'0. --
16 6. ~~\--
06. 36 0
+D Mean value of a series
2000 ~--~5~,----~----------~----------~----------~~--------~ 450
'
,. - - - - . n=9
: -:.
:M
.......
z
225
-·...
,., :'
~:
'
200 400 600 800 1000[mm]
7,9 15,7 23,6 31,5 39,4 [in]
Fig. 26-Actual and predicted loads for groups of cast-in situ headed studs as function of distance between outermost
anchors-Tensile loading
. ...,
v 1. so
0
_...,....
..
0~
O>C:
o:z 1. 00
:;;-....
."' N4e~JO
>~
<- '
~ N2 : N3
.so '
' H
'
::>
:z ~1~100 ;,~ 1~.Smm
I
it
!4----4'~ 4'!......+toll--4~in
.00 s, =300 mm
ACI 349 CC-Method s, = 12" in
30 83
.0
X
10.0 .2
., 0 Test results
~
c:
0
.v,------ - CCD-Method
I
... 20.0 §
~
--
>" 0.8
8
~ ~
-.
c:
30.0 r--
0 .6
v
-...
u
0 40.0 0. 4
0. 2
so.o 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 27-Comparison of design procedures for single fas- Fig. 28-Comparison of test results on eccentrically loaded
tenings with post-installed fasteners close to edge-Tensile line fastenings composed offour cast-in situ headed studs
loading with load predicted by CCD method-Tensile loadinl
distances. This can be attributed to the absence of a ·fluo- applications, average failure loads predicted by ACI 349 are
ropolymer sheet in the U.S. tests and resulting friction con- unconservative and coefficients of variation are much larger.
tribution leading to higher shear capacity. The friction
contribution relative to the failure load is large for small edge CONCLUSIONS
distances. In this study, the concrete capacity of fastenings with cast-
Failure loads predicted by the CCD method agree well in situ headed studs and post-installed anchors in uncracked
with the average failure loads measured in European tests. plain concrete predicted by ACI 349 and the CCD method
has been compared with the results of a large number of tests
On the contrary, ACI 349 is conservative for small edge dis-
(see Tables 2 through 8). Based on this comparison, the fol-
tances and unconservative for large edge distances. This is,
lowing conclusions can be drawn:
again, probably due to the neglect of size effect by ACI 349.
1. The average capacities of single anchors without edge
Due to the friction contribution just mentioned, the U.S. test
and spacing effects loaded in tension are predicted accurate-
data are predicted more conservatively by both methods.
ly by the CCD method over a wide range of embedment
In Fig. 30 and 31, average values of the ratios Vu,tes!Vn,pre- depths [20 mm (0.8 in.)< hef$. 525 mm (20.7 in.)]. For a few
diction and corresponding coefficients of variation for post-in-
post-installed anchors with embedment depths in the 250-
stalled fasteners are given for European and U.S. test data, mm (10-in.) range, the CCD method was quite conservative.
respectively. The ACI 349 averages are more conservative. Conversely, ACI 349 underestimates the strength of shallow
This is due to the fact that most tests were done with small anchors and is unconservative for quite a number of deep
edge distances. However, the ACI 349 coefficients of varia- embedments. The same result was found for the predicted
tion are larger. A similar result was found for headed studs. 10 capacities of single anchors loaded in shear toward the edge
The results of European tests with double fastenings par- with small or large edge distances, respectively.
allel to the edge and loaded toward the edge (Fig. 32) and This result is due to the fact that ACI 349 assumes the fail-
tests with single fastenings in thin concrete members ure load to be proportional to a failure area that increases
(Fig. 33) are similarly evaluated. As can be seen, the CCD with the square of the embedment depth. On the other hand,
method compares more favorably with the test data. For both the CCD method takes size effect into account and assumes
40
175.0
I 175.0
I
40
I
I
150.0
I 150.0
I
I 30
I -30
125.0
I 125.0 I
ACI349-( +
ACI349-/
I>
~
100.0
• 20
100.0 I CCD-Method
75.0
•I •
/ + - CCD-Method
i" 20
y , 75.0
• ;j •
50.0
10 50.0
10
25.0
25.0
(a) (b)
Fig. 29-Comparison of shear test results with ACI 349 and CCD method for single post-installed fasteners in thick concrete
members: (a) European tests; (b) U.S. tests
2.00 2.00
.,
.
.,
1. 50
.
1. 50
.,u
..
u
.,.
... -~
.
~~
a>C
oz 1.00 ----- .
0~
a>C
oz 1.00
:;; ..... :;; .....
.
>~ >~
<-
."' .50
<-
</)
.50
z
=>
z"
.00 .00
ACI 349 CC-Method ACI 349 CC-Method
55 55 84 84
X .0 X .0
c c
0 0
10.0 0 10.0
"
~ ~
>" >"
'";; '";;
20.0 20.0
..
c
u
.
c
u
-..
0
(..)
30.0
0
..
(..)
30.0
40.0 40.0
Fig. 3D-Comparison of design procedures for European Fig. 3/-Comparison of design procedures for U.S. tests
tests with single post-installed fasteners in thick concrete with single post-installedfasteners in thick concrete mem-
members-Shear loading toward edge bers-Shear loading toward edge
"'o:z
O>C 1. 00 ----- - ...
0~ 1.00 -----
:;;-..... "'
>~
...:-.."' ""c
o:z
:;;-.....
>-
:z
:::>
.50 <-;;;
.. .50
:>
:z
.00
ACI 349 CC-Me I hod
ACI 349 CC-Method
36 36 99
99
:-<: .0
c
0
;; 10.0 c
... 0 10.0
0
> ...
0
~ >
20.0 20.0
.
c
u
30.0
.
c
u
"' 30.0
w
0
w
..
0
Fig. 32-Comparison of design procedures for double fas- Fig. 33-Comparison of design procedures for European
tenings with post-installed fasteners in thick concrete mem- tests with single post-installed fasteners in thin concrete
bers (European tests)-Shear loading toward edge members-Shear loading toward edge
failure load to be proportional to the embedment depth to the ly. In contrast, the circular areas of ACI 349 result in consid-
1.5 power. erable computational complexity.
2. In many applications (for example, anchor groups away Summarizing, the CCD method is a relatively simple,
from edges loaded in tension, single anchors in thin concrete transparent, user-friendly, and accurate method for efficient
members loaded in shear, double fastenings in thick concrete calculation of concrete failure loads for fastenings in un-
members loaded in shear), the capacity is predicted more ac- cracked concrete. It is based on a physical model to assist de-
curately by the CCD method. Failure loads predicted by ACI signers in extrapolating the empirical results to other
349 for these cases are significantly unconservative. This is applications. Therefore, this method is recommended for the
mainly due to the fact that ACI 349 assumes a 45-deg failure design of fastenings. It is not incorrect to use the ACI 349
cone. The CCD method is based on an assumed inclination method for many fastening applications. However, since it
of the failure surface of about 35 deg, which produces better does not seem universally advantageous and in some appli-
agreement with test results. cations produces unconservative values, the authors strongly
3. In some applications, such as single anchors at the edge recommend use of the CCD procedures.
loaded in tension, the mean capacity is predicted accurately
by both methods. However, the coefficient of variation of the CAUTION
ratio of measured failure load to the value predicted by ACI It is known that the presence of tensile cracks can substan-
349 is rather large (V"' 45 percent). tially reduce the concrete capacity of fasteners.* Some fas-
4. In all applications investigated, concrete capacity is pre- teners are not suitable for use in cracked concrete. For those
dicted with consistent accuracy by the CCD method. The co- fasteners suitable for use in cracked concrete, it is possible to
efficient of variation of the ratios between measured and adjust the uncracked concrete failure loads predicted by the
predicted capacities is about 15 to 20 percent. This coeffi- CCD method by using an additional multiplicative factor.
cient of variation is equal to or not much larger than the value This factor results in cracked concrete capacities around 70
expected for concrete tensile strength when the test speci- percent of uncracked concrete capacities.t Similarly, it is
mens are produced from many different concrete mixes.
5. Calculation of the projected areas is simpler with the *'tEligehausen, R., and Balogh, T., "Behavior of Fasteners Loaded in Tension in
ectangular areas of the CCD method, making it user-friend- Cracked Concrete," accepted for publication in ACI Structural Journal.
hancement can be included in design provisions but is 9. Eligehausen, R., "Vergleich des K- Verfahrens mit der CC-Methode
outside the scope of this paper. (Comparison of the K -Method with the CC-Method)," Report No. 12/16-
9217, Institut fiir Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universitlit Stuttgart, 1992. (in
German)
NOTATION* 10. Fuchs, W., "Entwicklung eines Vorschlags fiir die Bemessung von
c distance from center of a fastener to edge of concrete
Befestigungen (Development of a Proposal for the Design of Fastenings to
CJ distance from center of a fastener to edge of concrete in one
Concrete)," Report to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Feb. 1991.
direction. Where shear is present, CJ is in the direction of the (in German)
shear force 11. Klingner, R. E., and Mendonca, J. A., "Tensile Capacity of Short
distance from center of a fastener to edge of concrete in direc- Anchor Bolts and Welded Studs: A Literature Review," ACI JOURNAL, Pro-
tion orthogonal to CJ· Where shear is present, cz is in the direc- ceedings V. 79, No.4, July-Aug. 1982, pp. 270-279.
tion perpendicular to shear force 12. Klingner, R. E., and Mendonca, J. A., "Shear Capacity of Short
outside diameter of fastener or shaft diameter of headed stud or Anchor Bolts and Welded Studs: A Literature Review," ACI JoURNAL, Pro-
headed anchor bolt ceedingsV. 79, No.5, Sept.-Oct. 1982, pp. 339-349.
head diameter of headed studs or headed anchors 13. ACI Committee 318, Letter Ballot LB 93-5, CB-30, Proposed
concrete compressive strength, measured on 6 by 12-in. cylin- Chapter 22, Fastening to Concrete, 1993.
14. ACI Committee 349, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety
ders
Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76)," American Concrete Institute,
fcc 1 concrete compressive strength, measured on 200-mm cubes Detroit, 1976.
fct concrete tensile strength 15. ACI Committee 349, "Design Guide to ACI 349-85," American
h • thickness of concrete member in which a fastener is anchored Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1988.
hef effective embedment depth 16. Cook, R. A., and Klingner, R. E., "Behavior and Design of Ductile
n number of test results Multiple-Anchor-To-Steel-Connections," Research Report No. 1126-3,
s distance between fasteners, spacing Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1989.
St distance between outermost fasteners of a group 17. Bazant, Z. P., "Size Effect in Blunt Fracture, Concrete, Rock, Metal,"
v coefficient of variation Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 110 No.4, 1984, pp. 518-
X ratio of actual to predicted load 535.
X mean value of x 18. Bode, H., and Roik, K., "Headed Studs-Embedded in Concrete and
AN projected area, tension Loaded in Tension," Anchorage to Concrete, SP-103, G. B. Hasselwander,
Av projected area, shear ed., American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1987, pp. 61-88.
CEB Euro-Intemational Concrete Committee 19. Eligehausen, R., and Sawade, G., "Fracture Mechanics Based
cs Czechoslovakia Description of the Pull-Out Behaviour of Headed Studs Embedded in Con-
D Germany crete," Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures. From Theory to Appli-
EUR = Europe cations, L. Elfgren, ed., Chapman & Hall, London, 1989, pp. 263-281.
F France 20. Eligehausen, R., and Ozbolt, J., "Size Effect in Anchorage Behav-
GB Great Britain iour," Proceedings, European Conference on Fracture Mechanics, Frac-
N tensile load ture Behaviour and Design of Materials and Structures, Turin, Oct. 1991,
S Sweden pp. 17-44.
USA United States of America 21. Eligehausen, R.; Bouska, P.; Cervenka, V.; and Pukl, R., "Size Effect
V shear load on the Concrete Failure Load of Anchor Bolts," Fracture Mechanics of
a. slope of concrete breakout cone Concrete Structures, Elsevier Applied Science, 1992, pp. 517-525.
<P capacity reduction factor for safety considerations 22. Eligehausen, R., and Balogh, T., 'CC-Method (Concrete Capacity
Method)," Report No. 12115-92/1, Institut fiir Werkstoffe im Bauwesen,
Universitlit Stuttgart, 1992.
REFERENCES 23. Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; Lotze, D.; and Reuter, M., "Befestigun-
I. ASTM ZXXX, "Standard Specification for Performance of Anchors
gen in der Betonzugzone (Fastenings in the Concrete Tensile Zone)," Beton
in Cracked and Non-Cracked Concrete Elements," Draft 1, Mar. 22, 1993.
und Stahlbetonbau (Berlin), No.1, 1989, pp. 27-32; and No.2, pp. 71-74.
2. Furche, J., and Eligehausen, R., "Lateral Blowout Failure of Headed
(in German)
Studs near a Free Edge," Anchors in Concrete-Design and Behavior, SP-
130, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991, pp. 235-252. 24. Riemann, H., " 'Extended K -Method' for the Design of Fixing
3. Zhao, G., "Befestigungen mit Kopfbolzen im ungerissenen Beton Devices as Exemplified by Headed Stud Anchorages," Betonwerk & Fer-
(Fastenings with Headed Studs in Uncracked Concrete)," PhD thesis, Uni- tigteil-Technik (Wiesbaden), No. 12, 1985, pp. 808-815.
versity of Stuttgart, 1993. 25. Paschen, H., and Schonhoff, T., "Untersuchungen iiber in Beton
4. ACI Committee 349, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related einge1assene Scherbolzen aus Beton (Investigations about Shear Bolts
Concrete Structures (ACI 349-85)," American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Made from Reinforcing Bars in Concrete)," Deutscher Ausschuss for
1985. Stahlbeton (Berlin), No. 346, 1983.
5. PC/ Design Handbook, 4th Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete
26. Fuchs, W., "Tragverhalten von Befestigungen unter Querlast im ung-
Institute, Chicago, 1992.
erissenen Beton (Behaviour of Fastenings under Shear Load in Uncracked
6. Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; and Mayer, B., "Loadbearing Behaviour
Concrete)," Mitteilungen No. 1990/2, Institut fiir Werkstoffe im Bauwesen,
of Anchor Fastenings in Tension," Betonwerk & Fertigteil-Technik (Wies-
Universitlit Stuttgart, 1990.
baden), No. 12, 1987, pp. 826-832; and No. I, 19~8, pp. 29-35.
7. Eligehausen, R., and Fuchs, W., "Loadbearing Behaviour of Anchor 27. Stichting Bouwresearch, "Uit beton stekende ankers (Anchors Stick-
Fastenings under Shear, Combined Tension and Shear or Flexural Load- ing Out of Concrete)," Report of the Study Commission B7, V. 27, 1971.
ing," Betonwerk & Fertigteil-Technik (Wiesbaden), No.2, 1988, pp. 48-56. 28. Maxi-Bolt Load Test Program, Arkansas Nuclear One, Engineering
8. Rehm, G.; Eligehausen, R.; and Mallee, R., "Befestigungstechnik Report 92-R-0001-01.
29. Burdette, E. G.; Perry, T. C.; and Funk, R. R., "Load Relaxation
*Notations for specific design procedures are defined in sections related to that pro- Tests of Anchors in Concrete," Anchorage in Concrete, SP-103, G. B. Has-
cedure. · se1wander, ed., American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1982, pp. 133-152.
Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete. Paper by .Werner Fuchs, Rolf Elige-
hausen, and John E. Breen
Discussion by Robert W. Cannon, Phillip J. Iverson, LeRoy A. Lutz, RichardS. Orr, and Authors
By ROBERT W. CANNON ACT 349 made no provisions for the design of nonductile,
MemberACJ, Consulting Engineer, Maryville, TN
cast-in-place anchorages. When you consider the reduced~
factors that must be applied for the less reliable brittle fail-
The authors of the CCD approach have been very eloquent ure, and the relatively minor differences in embedments re-
in their efforts to persuade the reader of the benefits of the quired for a ductile anchorage to develop a given load
CCD approach. Unfmtunately, the approach is limi ted with requirement, there appears to be no justification for such pro-
respect to applicability and departs from time-honored ap- visions.
proaches to the development of design criteria based on low- The paper makes quite a point about the simplici ty of the
er-bound test results. The so-called "five percent fractile" is CCD procedure for quadruple anchorages in comparison
completely misleadi ng, with respect to the approach's ability witb the complicated calculations of ACT 349. Most people
to predict group pullout and edge effects on concrete capac- today use computers; however, there are design charts
ities or provide meaningful explanations for significantly available 30 for hand calculations. There are eq ualizing sim-
higher test results than those achieved at Stuttgart, which plifications that can be used to overcome the complications
constitutes the principal database for the CCD approach. of calculating overlaps. In add ition, the reduced area requ ire-
ments for anchor heads were inserted in the code primarily
The ACI 349 equation for determining the pullout capaci-
to discourage designers from complicatin g designs by add -
ty of the concrete is basically a lower-bound equation used
ing plates and washers at the anchor head and is relatively in-
for determining the embedment requirements of ductile an-
significant when applied to the calculated pullout capacity of
chorage systems to increase design reliability by limiting the
standard bolts and studs.
mode of failu re to the tensile strength of steel rather than ,
By eliminating the bead size from the formula, the follow-
concrete. To assure yielding of the steel and full load transfer ing equation can be used for a group-projected area
at th e anchor head, the code requires development of the
minimum specified tensile strengths of all tensile stressed
anchors by application of appropriate strength reduction fac-
tors in detennining the tensile pullout capacity of the con- where Sx and Sy are the out-to-out dimensions in the x- and
crete (when all of the tensile anchors must be fully y-directions.
developed, there is no need to calculate the eccentricity of The major thrust of the paper follows the continuing ef-
the load as required in the CCD approach). The only excep- forts over the past 10 years of the authors to discredi t the 349
tio n to these requirements in the present code relates to ex- Code and to promote their theoretical " best fit" formula
pansion anchors, whose design is restricted to tests that are based on the results of tests whose details were largely with-
representative of the anchor spacing and load application, held from the review of Committees 349 and 355 on clai ms
along with the application of significantly lower strength ad- of proprietary information. This test data did not become
justment factors for design loading. available to the committees until Dr. Fuchs brought the data
\
I
j X
I
'
iX
..:.:.::::.: :::: ......
I AVG = 0.98
r: . . . . L. . . . . .
I
I
.!..... ....
i
~0
1.1 · · · · · · · · ···~ :t··· · ·!·· · · · · · ·~·· · · · ··./ STD: .01~ ....J••···········f ··············
I ! I
t
0.9 ·· j······
~
· · · · · j· · t~ . i
I ! ! l ' • , i l
~ 0.8 l ·• l • -~ ~ m !
~ 0 .7 +---+-- ---=i;::__- +----+---t- '
r- 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Out-to-out Distance of Anchors in mm
I • he = 185 mm • he = 360 m·m x he = 67 mm
Fig. A - CC method predictions versus capacity (German testing offour stud anchors)
~ 0.8 .... . ........ 1 .................... ,.....•.......... --t- .......... ... t......... ......,..... : ········+········ ·······i·············· ·i
....
with him when he joined the staff of the University of Texas capable of developing the cracking strength of the slab.
at Austin for a postdoctoral fellowship. While the au thors admit the cracking of these slabs, they
Relevant information conceming the applicability of tests continue to show these test results as "uncracked" concrete
to accepted standards was not revealed along with the data, and use them as a maj or point of argument agai nst the reli-
nor discussed in the paper. For example, European ability of the 45 deg stress cone equation of ACI 349 for deep
standards31 clearly state that the minimum stmctural thick- embedments.
ness for testing anchms should be twice the embedment There is an old saying that "figures don't lie," that also ap-
depth of the anchor. Yet, the thickness of the slab used to test plies to statistics. Statistical comparisons of apples and or-
the individual 525-mm embedments, shown in Fig. 21 , was anges are meaningless and statistical comparisons of lower--
only 600 mm and so lightly reinforced that it was totally in- bound equation predictions with "best fit" data equations are
(/)
.0
c
0
u_
h:a
C/)
---
5 6 7 8 10 11
Fig. C-Capacity of two andfour anchors versus embedm.enJ (ACTJem2 miscellaneous test data)
meaningless as well. It should be obvious that such compar- (50 and 38 ksi), respectively. The stress level of the 150-mm
isons will always show the inability of the lower-bound embedment corresponds to yield, assuming the anchors were
equation to predict the mean and correspondingly show in- composed of typical welded stud material. Please note that
creased variability with respect to the predicted mean. In ad- the ACI 349 curve in Fig. 21 corresponds to the lower-bound
dition, the reliability of statistical comparisons of anchor of the 150-mm embedment data and the center of the 450-
tests is not dependent on the total number of comparisons mm embedment data. These tests were performed with test
nearly as much as it is dependent on weighted numbers with span and block size correlated to anchor size to preclude any
respect to embedment depths. The inclusion of Fig. 22 effects of the size of structure on pullout. From the previous
through Fig. 27 to graphically show these meaningless statis- information, it is reasonable to expect that yielding of the
tical comparisons can only be intended to mislead the reader. steel, prior to failure, would increase capacities of the 450-
The authors attempt to support their theory of "size effect" mm embedments if sized for ductility.
by referencing fracture mechanics theory based on "in the Fig. 25 through 27 are clearly misleading and were intend-
case of concrete tensile failure with increasing member size, ed to show the 349 Code as being unconservative. I do not
the failure load increases less than the available failure sur- understand why there would be a different number of cast-
face." There is definitely a "size effect" related to the pullout in-place tests of headed anchors for the ACI 349 and CC
capacity of headed anchors, but it is totally unrelated to any method comparisons in Fig. 25. I have all of the test data.
decreasing ability of concrete, with embedment depth, to Apparently, the 32 quadruple anchor tests for the CC method
transfer loads from the head of the anchor into the concrete, are those listed in the ACI data bank as Tests GER7-0l
as claimed by the authors. The size effect has to do with the through GER7-32. Fig. A is a plot of that data as a function
oversizing of anchors to assure a concrete failure, and its ef- of distance between outermost anchors with the differences
fect on the manner of load transfer from anchor to concrete. in embedment indicated by symbols. Fig. B is a plot of the
Tests performed by TV A32 on mechanically anchored 1•/.-in. same data as a function of average anchor stress divided by
grade 60 reinforcing b.ars under varying methods of surface the reported yield. Again, note that the average stress level is
treatment clearly demonstrated that full-load transfer to the substantially below yield at pullout failure of the concrete.
head of the anchor only occurred at yielding of the steel. Pri- Fig. C is a comparison of all two- and four-anchor test data,
o r to yielding, patt of the cast-in-place headed anchor's load with respect to embedment depth for both headed and undercut
was transfetTed through bond, with the amount depending on anchors, with anchor spacing sorted from the largest to the
load, ancho r size, and depth of embedment. The effect of smallest for the prediction graph of equations to proceed from
partial, rather than full , load transfer at the anchor head is a the smallest to the largest from one embedment to another. It ba-
reduction in the effective embedment resisting pullout and a sically shows the increasing conservatism of the CC method
reduced capacity for given embedment. with embedments greater then 6 in. Of special interest is the 14-
The Prague test data, shown in Fig. 2 1, at embedment in. embedment test that falls below CCD predictions. These are
depths of 150 and 450 mm (6 and 18 in.) had average anchor the same 360 mm tests shown in Fig. A. I assume the explana-
stresses at pullout failure of the concrete of345 and 262 MPa tion must be structural, rather than the spacing of anchors, since
Cracked, in.
the significantly higher undercut anchor tests at the 11.25-in. zone of the anchorage in much the same way as an embedded
embedment had identical spacing. plate attached to the anchor heads. Under these conditions,
The described data plots of Fig. 26 as "mean value of a se- the anchorage is more prone to act in a manner similar to that
ries" also appear to be misleading. Most of the plots appear of an embedded plate and should be designed for the shew:
to be that of individual tests, and the mean value of the 4-an- strength of the periphery by using he as d under the special
chor plot does not appear to come from the data of Fig. A In provisions for slabs and footings, Section 11.11 .2. This has
my search of the ACT data bank, I could not find any 36-an- the effect of subtracting w·ea S, • Sy from Eq. ( 1) in determin-
chor tests listed, and I could only find three 16-anchor tests ing pullout capacity.
at 561-, 711-, and 810-mm spacings. The 711 -mm spacing Table A provides a comparison of Section 11.11 .2 with the
conesponds closel y with the plotted 36-anchor tests, and CC method for the test data of Fig. 26. Please note the close
CCD method predictions are not affected by the number of comparisons of the capacities for the multiple rows of studs
anchors. The data bank indicates 22-mm (7/,-in.) diameter between the CCD and Section 11.11.2 predictions. Based on
studs. If so, the average anchor stress of tJ1ese thre e tes ts are the number of low tests in Fig. A, the design c)> for nonductile
29.5, 36, and 54.5 ksi, increasi ng, respectively, with the out- headed anchors should probably not be more than 0.5.
ermost spacing. Note the significantly higher pullout capac- 1 believe 1 have spent enough time defending ACI 349-85
ity of the higher stressed anchors witb respect to predictions. for now. Upon receipt of ACI 318's proposed Chapter 22, I
The same size anchors at the lower 400-mm spacing will wrote a two-part paper32 entjtJed "Straight Talk about An-
have yet a lower average stress. chorage to Concrete," which was recently published in the
The incorporation of multiple rows of interior studs into an September-October 1995 ACI Structural Journal , and I have
anchorage transforms the stiffness of the concrete within the created a computer prog ram . Both U.S. and metric versions
'
25·r
~ 2.00-
"-~ 2.00 .,..
"~
ll .,;
Q
X
~n id
l
r
X
~
,:::.I
.§ X ~
~ 1.50
"~ X X
z" 1.50 ~ ~ !I
f
I
X X
c
l z 1.00 ~~X
.•
j l X X
<:-
z =
~
-·---~
0.50'
z= I
0 100 200 300 400 500 0.00 ~·· 100 200 300 400
hcf [mm) her [mrn]
Fig. D(a) -Fig. E
'
"0
~
300t
2.50
s:-
.E'
~
5.00
z
c:
1.50 I
l
z 3.00
X ~
I= 1.00 ~
z
2.00
z 0.50 1.00
~f
cone capacity mnst be larger than the steel capacity. The re-
sulting required embedment depths are given in Mr. Can-
non's Table B. Because of the different assumptions in the
models, the required embedment depths calculated accord-
ing to the CCD method certainly may be larger than those
\ Adf>l
calculated according to ACT349. T his is especially valid for
quadruple fastenings. Note, however, that ACl 349 is often
~N
unconservati ve for large embedment depths and for anchor Fig. I
groups (see Fig. 2 1, 25, 26, 29, and 32). T herefore, the com-
a) \
\
\
\
tlJ-.--::r~
\
j
200
Fig. J(a)
b) \
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
/ (}ao
0
s
200
c1 = JJOmm
'' c2 = lOOmm
'' c3 = 120mm= cmax
c4 =- BOmm
her= 200mm
0
oOQ
o oc:)
h;, = 72017,5= 80mm
,-. ,
,...,
Fig. J(b)
ne:=>!""----
4.1=.--"'----7
/
/
/
/
/
/
;
s h
Fig. K
As indicated in the original paper, for fastenings with three design (see Fig. L). The ratio V,d/Vall varies with varying
or four edges and Cma.x $ 1.5 hef[crruu =largest edge distance; ratio c/c 2.
for examples, see Fig. J(a) and (b)], the embedment depth It is a= 2.0 for c 1 = c2 , ex> 2 for c 1 < c2 and ex< 2 for c 1
should be limited toh,j = c,ax I 1.5. This gives a constant > c2 . This tendency seems correct. However, it should be
failure load for deep embedments. Mr. Lutz. is correct that for noted that up to the present time, only the case of a single an-
these cases, the newly defined he/ should be used in Eq. (9), chor in a corner with equal edge distances in the two direc-
(lOd), and (llb) and for the calculation of AN and ANo (see tions has been tested.
Fig. 11). Similarly, for fastenings in a narrow, thin member Lastly, Mr. Lutz asks for a procedure to calculate the shear
with c 2, max$ 1.5 c 1 (for example, see Fig. K), the edge dis- resistance of anchor groups where all anchors do not have
tance should be limited to c 1 = ma.x (c2 , max/1 .5; hi 1.5). This the same edge distance (e.g., double-fastening perpendicular
gives a constant failure load independent of the edge dis- to the edge or quadruple fastenings) situated at the edge or in
tance c 1. The newly defined c 1 should be used in Eq. ( 12), a corner and loaded by a shear force with an arbitrary angle
(13b), and (13c) and for the calculation of Av and Avo (see between shear force and edge. This application has not been
Fig. 17). The use of this proposal is demonstrated in Fig. J covered in the paper because of reasons of space. Engineer-
and K. Apparently, these more precise definitions are needed ing models based on the CCD method for calculating the
to clarify the application raised by Mr. Lutz. The corrected shear resistance in this case have been proposed in Referenc-
equations should read es 8 and 42. This proposal has also been incorporated in the
e )o.2 1.s draft CEB Design Guide.43 However, it should be pointed
vm =( do JdoJJ::: c/ ' lb (l4a) out that only limited test data is available to check the accu-
racy of the proposed equations. Hopefully, it will be dis-
cussed in ACI Corrunittee 3 18 whether this proposal should
be incorporated in the proposed Fastening to Concrete Chap-
'II4 = ----:-----:-
1 + (2/ /3c;')
(14b) ter of ACI 318.
h.r[in]
4 8 12 16
50
40~n = ll ~----~-----+-----+----_,
Yn,u = 2V~,.L n
---~n=9
n=6
-n
-~~-+----4-----t-~
~
30 ~---1-----+-----r----~--~
Ynu
,
~20~~,~~~
her
10 f- "-':: (l - - 1 -- -- --1
While in the tests of References 18 and 47the failure loads by the proposed Eq. (9). This was to be expected because Eq.
basically increased with h!} . In the tests of Reference 28, (9) is based on linear fracture mechanics that yield the larges t
they increased in proportion to h~). Because, in general, not size effect
all dimensions were scaled in proportion to the embedment Because only a limited amount of test data is available for
depth and the amount of the data for hef > 200 mm (8 in.) is anchors with h~r = 500 mm (19.7 in.) and none for deeper
rather limited in the tests, a numerical investigation was car- anchors, a design equation sho uld be a conservative fractile
ried out in Reference 45 using a nonlinear finite element and in agreement with theoretical considerations. The au-
model. For the material model for concrete, a very advanced thors believe that the proposed Eq. (9) satisfies these condi-
nonload microplane model was used that takes into account tjons. Needless to say, if further tests of very deep bolts
nonlinear fracture mechanics. indicate hl.6, or even hu, are appropriate and safe for mas-
The matetial model parameters were calibrated to match sive nuclear-related structures, Committee 349 could change
the average test result of the Prague tests21 or h(f = 150 mm, their very unconservative h2 values to one of these values.
and thus, kept constant for all calculations. In the numetical Committee 318 could consider such a change a special case
study, all dimensions were scaled in proportion to the em- for extremely deep embedments.
bedment depth [he! = 50, 150,450, 1350, and 2700 mm (2, Mr. Orr argues that the failure load of deep anchors should
5, 9, 17.7, 53.1, and 106.2 in.)]. The calculated concrete cone be reasonably consistent with the capacity calculated as if it
failure loads were plotted in Fig. Mas a function of the em- were a column load on a slab. As discussed in connection
bedment depth. For comparison, the test data are shown as with the Cannon discussion, the behavior of fastener pullout
welL Furthen~ore, failure_ cur~es are plotted for theL~ssurr~ and slabs failing in punching shear is quite different Further-
tion that N 11 mcreases wtth hcf (ACI 349-85), hef , hef , more, in recently drafted codes, such as Eurocode 2,46 the pe-
andh~/ (CCD method), respectively, taking N, == constant rime ter for calculating the shear stress is taken at a distance
for he!= 200 mm. Fig. M demonstrates that in this large scale 1.5d from the column face, and the design shear stl'ength de-
range, the failure loads of deep anchors are significantly creases with increasing slab thickness because of a size ef-
overestimated by ACI 349-85 and slightly underestimated fect found in experimenta!40 and numerical47 investigations.
800 ACI Structural Journal I November-December 1995
According to Mr. Orr, the test data suggest that the spacing Mr. Iverson are also shortcomings that apply to the present
scr for full anchor capacity could be higher than 3herfor shal- PC/ Design Handbook procedures. It behooves all of us in-
low anchors, and may be reduced to 2her for deeper anchor terested in fastening to concrete to see continued research
bolts. According to the evaluation of the authors, the influ- and development in this important area. The authors agree
ence of the.embedment on the spacing scr is small and was, that more data on fastenings close to an edge are needed and
therefore, neglected for reasons of simplicity. Because an- that there should be a reduction in capacity for fasteners that
chor groups with deep anchors [hef> 350 mm (16.6 in.)] have must be installed in the edge zone, as is often required in re-
not yet been tested, the shape of the failure cone of single an- pair and strengthening situations. Fig. 26 shows considerable
chors may be taken as a first indication of the spacing scr In data on groups of headed studs. The authors did not under-
the Prague tests, 21 the shape of the failure cone has been stand Mr. Iverson's concern in that area.
measured very carefully. The average angle of the failure Mr. Iverson indicates that producers would most likely use a
cone for tests with an almost constant pressure under the bent or hooked defoLmed bar anchor to achieve the higher ca-
head at shear load is plotted in Fig. Nasa function of the em- pacities necessitated by large embedments. By designing in
bedment depth. It can be seen that the shape of the failure this manner, a very limited increase of the concrete breakout
cone is not much influenced by the embedment depth. On an compared to headed studs or post-installed anchors can be ex-
average, the angle amounts to about 33 deg, which gives scr
= 3 hefi and agrees with the proposed value of the CCD meth-
pected. A hook can be compared to an idealized head of a head-
ed stud. it may mobilize a wider base of cone but, in reality,
od. Therefore, the authors believe that the proposal for scr = often no significant increase in the failure load can be realized.
3 hef is reasonably accurate for the ordinary embedment
The CCD method only covers the failure mode of the con-
depths used in practice.
crete cone type breakout. For very small edge distances c <
If normal forces and bending moments are acting on the
0.5 hef; a lateral blowout failure will occur; this has been
base plate, Mr. Orr proposes to calculate the loads on the an-
shown in many U.S. and European tests. Design equations
chor bolts with a method similar to that used for reinforced
for applications very close to the edge are given in Reference
concrete cross sections. The authors generally agree with
2, and provisions of this type will be added to the ACI 318
this proposal. Note that the paper does not discuss the meth-
proposal.
od of calculation of the loads on the anchors, but only theca-
pacity (resistance) of the anchorage in case of concrete cone Fastenings failing by concrete breakout systematically are
failure. The proposed factor 'I' I takes into account the influ- governed by the concrete tensile capacity. Investigations
ence of an eccentric tension load on the concrete cone failure have been conducted into the applicability of the 0.5 power
load in a rational way (see Fig. 14). It agrees reasonably well relationship between the concrete compressive and tensile
with test results (see Fig. 28). strength for high-strength concrete.48 They have shown that
the load-bearing capacity of anchors increases in the practi-
The authors agree that the concrete cone capacity might be
cal range of concrete strength, including normal high-
influenced by a compression reaction from flexural loads.
That case is currently under study at the University of Stut- strength concrete with JJ:. The limited data for fasteners in
high-strength concrete have not precluded the extensive sec-
tgart and a design proposal will be presented in due time.
tion on fasteners in PC! practice. 5
Mr. Orr also suggests that some data show undercut anchors
to be superior to other expansion anchors and feels that they Cast-in-situ anchorages and well-designed, tested, and ap-
should be treated more like headed studs. Until complete in- proved post-installed anchors have the san1e level of installation
formation is available concerning the effect of bolt prestress- safety and reliability. The ad vantages of the flexibility in appli-
ing and other variables on the behavior of these anchors, the cation of post-installed anchoring techniques cannot be denied.
authors would prefer to keep all of the post-installed anchors These facts should be acknowledged in the precast industry.
in a classification separate from cast-in-situ anchors. Several concerns raised by Mr. Iverson are certainly at the
The authors disagree that in the proposed method the edge cutting edge of current technology. It is useful to view them
effects of groups are considered by reducing the capacity of from the perspective that at the present time, ACI 318 simply
the full group in proportion to the reduction in capacity of the does not address fastening to concrete, the PC/ Design
anchors closest to the edge. Because the projected area AN is Handbook implicitly contains many of the same limitations
· calculated for the full group [see Fig. 11 (d)] , the capacity of that he raises, and technical committees, like ACI 355 and
the anchor(s) closest to the edge anJ. further away from the the CEB Committee on Fasteners, are actively studying
edge is averaged. This might be unconservative for very these questions. Certainly one of the most important ques-
small edge distances. However, in general, for these edge tions is whether a fastener group should be analyzed for lo~d
distances, other failure modes will govern the design (e.g., distribution using elastic or plastic theory. Investigation of
splitting or blowout failure). this question has been underway and tests have been run.
The authors cannot see why the CCD method cannot be However, at the moment, this question is still hotly debated.
applied to unusual design cases in a similar but simpler way Similarly, he questions the interaction of tension and shear
than has been perf01med with the 45-deg cone in the past. on fasteners. While length limitations precluded treatment of
that subject in the original paper, the 318 proposal 13 and the
RESPONSE TO PHILLIP J. IVERSON CEB Design Guide43 both treat that interaction.
The authors appreciate the constructive criticism by Mr. Mr. Iverson also asks whether all of the tests in the data-
Iverson and the careful review of the CCD proposal by the base were performed in the same manner, at the same load-
PCI ad hoc group. Many of the limitations of data cited by ing rate, etc. Obviously, a world data bank with no world