10.

Undercut anchors in uncracked concrete

Given an adequate bearing area and a tight interlock between the anchor and
the drilled undercut, the load-bearing behaviour of an undercut anchor should
closely correspond to that of a cast-in-place headed anchor. The similarities
of undercut systems and headed anchors have been extensively investigated.
Furche (1988) conducted tension tests using headed anchors modified to
simulate undercut anchors with various undercut angles and bearing areas.
All the test specimens exhibited concrete-cone failures. For undercut angles
greater than 25° (see Fig. 10.1) the load—displacement behaviour and ultimate
loads recorded are indistinguishable from tests with unmodified headed
anchors. For load angles 15° < a < 25°, some flattening of the load—
displacement curve was observed, but the failure load was unaffected. Furche
observed that, as with unmodified headed anchors, a cone of crushed concrete
typically forms above the head (see Fig. 5.28). The angle of this cone of
crushed concrete typically approaches 25°, independently of the head angle
a for the range 25° < a < 90°. Furche speculates that this zone of crushed
material bearing on the surrounding concrete mass defines the ultimate load
behaviour.
Furche & Bohner (1988) and Furche & Eligehausen (1990) also investigated
modified headed anchors of head angle 2° < a < 90°, and concluded that
for a < 25° the splitting and bursting forces are increased by up to
50% —100% as compared to unmodified headed anchors.
In the application of test results for modified headed anchors to undercut
systems, other possible influencing factors must be considered. The concrete
surrounding an undercut anchor is affected by the drilling process. Aggregate
granules may be split when drilling the hole or when generating the undercut.
Also, depending on the system design, the match between the drilled undercut
geometry and the anchor bearing surfaces may be imperfect. If the anchor
is not prestressed, the undercut bearing elements may not make tight contact
with the concrete until load is applied.

10.1. Prestressing Most of the undercut systems currently available do not require prestressing
and relaxation in order to function properly. Prestressing may be recommended, however,
to reduce initial slip. The maximum tightening torque specified is generally
determined by the grade of steel employed for the bolt by the manufacturer.
The influence of the prestressing torque on the rigidity of one system is shown
in Fig. 10.2.
The principles of prestressing and the mechanism of relaxation discussed
in section 5.1 are generally applicable to undercut systems also.

Fig. 10.1. Undercut anchor

types and dimensional
notation
a
0
het
O
/lef
a o o

¥ o
o

(a) (b)

111
 MONOTONIC LOADING IN CONCRETE

10.2. Tension loading 10.2.1. Failure modes and load—displacement behaviour

As with headed anchors, undercut anchors introduce tension loads into the
concrete through mechanical interlock, and load—displacement behaviour
is determined largely by the size of the load-bearing area. The annular gap
between the anchor sleeve and drilled hole, and gaps between the discrete
elements of the expansion sleeve, act to reduce the load-bearing area.
Furche (1988) compared the load—displacement behaviour of headed and
undercut anchors. Fig. 10.3(a) demonstrates that similar load-bearing areas
led to similar load—displacement curves in tension tests. The load-
displacement behaviour is nearly identical if relative contact pressure alfCQ
= Fl(fCi. Ah) is plotted as a function of the displacement (see Fig. 10.3(b)).
A decreasing load-bearing area leads to plastification of the concrete in the
area of load transfer at an earlier load stage, and thus to increased
displacement.
In the case of undercut anchors that drill their own undercut (see Fig.
3.10(d)) the space between the individual sleeve segments is filled with drill
dust during installation. This may explain the steeper rise of the load-
displacement curve shown by these systems. The difference is generally
insignificant, however, and undercut systems that have nearly the same
bearing area show very similar load—displacement behaviour (see Fig.
10.4).
Section 5.2.1. gives a detailed discussion of failure modes and associated
load—displacement behaviour as identified in tests with headed anchors.

10.2.2. Failure loads

10.2.2.1. Steel failure. The discussion in section 5.2.2 is applicable without
modification.
10.2.2.2. Concrete failure. The concrete failure surfaces generated by
undercut and headed anchors are similar; the equations developed to predict
the concrete failure load of headed anchors loaded in tension are generally
believed to be applicable to undercut anchors also. The calculations for
concrete cone break-out given in section 5.2.2.3 are applicable without
modification, provided that the embedment depth hsf is taken as the distance
System (M6) from the concrete surface to the end of the expansion element. According
with Tinst to Eligehausen et al. (1987/1988), the failure load of undercut anchors loaded
in tension is better approximated by equation (8.5), which was developed
for expansion anchors, than by equation (5.4), because the diameter of the
expanded undercut anchor is generally smaller than the head diameter of a
typical headed anchor.
10.2.2.3. Bursting failure. The discussion in section 5.2.4 is generally valid
for undercut anchors also. Due to the inclination of the undercut, splitting
forces are higher for undercut anchors than for headed anchors. This may
result in lower failure loads in some cases.
10.2.2.4. Pull-out failure. Undercut systems are generally designed to
prevent pull-out failure. For a discussion of the pull-out failure mode in the
System (M6)
case of headed anchors, see section 5.2.5.
without Tinst 10.2.2.5. Splitting failure. The edge distances and spacings necessary to
prevent splitting failures during the installation and loading of undercut anchors
I I
1 2 3
have been determined experimentally by Rehm et al. (1988), who propose
Displacement: mm the following values for a concrete strength/ c > 20MPa: c > 1.0/?et to
prevent cracks during installation, c > 1.5/jef to ensure a concrete cone
Fig. 10.2. Influence of failure load in accordance with equation (5.8), s > 1.0/ief to prevent cracks
torque on the rigidity of the during installation, and h > 2.0h .
ei
system (undercut anchor
with self drill carbide tips, For a given structural member thickness, the minimum edge distance and
see Fig. 3.10(d)):f = anchor spacings required to prevent splitting cracks are a function of the
26MPa, Tim, = WNm, hef concrete strength and the expansion forces. The expansion force is influenced
= 50mm (UPAT, 1987a) by the installation torque and the anchor design. The values given above are
112
 UNDERCUT ANCHORS IN UNCRACKED CONCRETE

80 30
i
Headed anchor: An = 141 mm 2
a = 3 mm, a = 30° Undercut anchor: An = 120 mm
a = 2 mm, a= 22°

20

-B40
CO Undercut anchor: An = 120 mm 2 ~
o
a = 2 mm, a = 22° Headed anchor: Ah = 141 mm 2
10
a = 3 mm, a = 30°

4 8 12 4 8 12
Displacement: mm Displacement: mm
(a) (b)

Fig. 10.3 (above).

Undercut anchor: system Fig. 3.10(b)(M10)
Comparison of displacement fee = 25.8 MPa
behaviour of headed bolts Tinst = 40 Nm
and undercut anchors (Ah = het = 60 mm
load-bearing area): (a)
load—displacement curves;
(b) contact pressure-
displacement curves (after
Furche, 1988) Undercut anchor: system Fig. 3.10(d)(M10)
fee = 24.2 MPa
Fig. 10.4 (right). Load- 7Jnst = 50/10Nm
= 60 mm
displacement curves for two
undercut systems (UPAT,
1987b)

4 6
Displacement: mm

theoretically valid for the undercut anchor types shown in Fig. 3.10 and typical
ratios of anchor diameter to anchoring depth.

10.3. Shear loading 10.3.1. Types of failure and load—displacement behaviour

The failure modes and associated load—displacement patterns of undercut
anchors loaded in shear are comparable to those observed in tests with headed
anchors (cf. section 5.3.1). However, due to gaps between the hole and the
anchor sleeve and between the sleeve and the bolt, larger shear displacements
are observed than for cast-in-place systems.

10.3.2. Failure loads for various types of failure

The description and equation given in section 5.3.2 are applicable without
modification.

10.4. Combined The description and calculation given in section 5.4 are applicable without
tension and shear modification.
loading

113