Structural Engineering International

ISSN: 1016-8664 (Print) 1683-0350 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsei20

Pullout Tests on Post-installed Bonded Anchors in

Ultra-high Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Fabien Delhomme & Michael Brun

To cite this article: Fabien Delhomme & Michael Brun (2019): Pullout Tests on Post-installed
Bonded Anchors in Ultra-high Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Structural Engineering
International, DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2019.1568847

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2019.1568847

Published online: 18 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsei20
Pullout Tests on Post-installed Bonded Anchors in Ultra-high
Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Fabien Delhomme; Michael Brun, University of Lyon, INSA-Lyon, GEOMAS, Villeurbanne, France. Contact: fabien.delhomme@insa-
lyon.fr
DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2019.1568847

ABSTRACT anchor/concrete bond stress. Steel

failure is dependent on the tensile
An experimental study was completed on the behavior on post-installed bonded capacity of the anchoring element.
anchors in ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete with a compressive . Concrete cone breakout failure for
strength higher than 150 MPa. The aim was to analyze the failure mechanisms in shallow embedment depths (hef)
static pullout tests. The diameter of the tested anchors was 12 mm and the typically between 3 and 5 times the
studied parameters were the embedment depth, the edge distance and the state rod diameter. Two models are avail-
of cracking of the concrete block. In case of tests without edge effect in able for describing this failure mode:
uncracked concrete, a combined pullout and concrete cone failure occurred for the concrete cone3,5 and concrete
an embedment depth lower than 60 mm. The recorded mean bond stress was capacity design (CCD) models.6–9
32.5 MPa for uncracked concrete and 16.3 MPa for cracked concrete with a Concrete cone models assume a pro-
crack width of approximately 1 mm. A splitting failure was observed for shallow jected circular area on the concrete
embedment and for edge distances lower than 60 mm. For this tested special surface based on a failure cone with
anchor system, the increase in tensile strength provided by the metallic fibers a side inclination of 45° to the con-
enhances the tensile behavior of anchors in comparison to normal strength crete surface (plasticity based).
concrete. It is necessary to adapt the design codes developed for normal strength CCD model assumes a projected
concrete in order to have more accurate and reliable prediction methods. square area on the concrete surface
Keywords: anchor; fiber concrete; pullout test; bond; experiment side dimensions of three times the
anchor embedment depth and a
failure surface within the concrete
Introduction has been extensively investigated and of approximately 35° to the concrete
their design is wellknown and standar- surface (fracture mechanics based).
In civil engineering or in an industrial dized. The use of ultra-high performance Nowadays, CCD model is the stan-
building, the fastening of structural or fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) dard approach. According to the
non-structural members in reinforced is becoming more and more frequent European technical specification8
concrete is often performed by means with the use of precast elements or in which use CCD model, Eqs. (1) and
of anchors. Anchors are divided into repair.1 The incorporation of steel (2) give the design formulas to calcu-
two general categories: cast-in-place and fibers into the concrete improves the late the characteristic resistance for
post-installed. The use of post-installed concrete performances in terms of duct- concrete cone breakout failure for
anchors allows greater flexibility in the ility and tensile strength2 and should concrete grade up to C50/60.
planning and design of concrete struc- have an impact on the behavior of post-
tures. Post-installed anchors are currently installed anchors. This study provides Ac,N
not only used in repair and retrofit additional experimental data on the NRk,c = NRk,c
0
c c c
A0c,N s,N re,N ec,N
applications but also in new construction tensile behavior of bonded anchors
with the development of precast concrete in UHPFRC of compressive strength (1)
products. These anchors can be classified higher than 150 MPa. The tested par-








1.5
into three categories: expansion anchors, ameters are the embedment depth, the 0
NRk,c = k1 fck,cube hef (2)
undercut anchors, and bonded anchors. edge distance and the state of cracking
Expansion and undercut anchors transfer of the concrete sample. 0
where NRk,c is the characteristic
tension load to the concrete at the
resistance of a single anchor rod,
embedded end of the anchor. Adhesive
Background NRk,c is the characteristic resistance
anchors transfer tension loads from the
of the anchor group, Ac,N is the
embedded element to the concrete
A lot of research has already been actual area of concrete cone of the
through the bond between the anchor
carried out in order to analyze the be- anchor group at the concrete
rod and the adhesive and between the
havior of post-installed anchors in con- surface, A0c,N is the influence area of
adhesive and the concrete along the
crete. In recent years, the failure modes concrete cone of a single anchor
entire bonded surface. A typical bonded
of the post-installed bonded anchors in rod, fck,cube is the concrete compres-
anchor consists of a threaded rod inserted
normal strength plain concrete were sive strength on cube with a side
into a drilled hole in hardened concrete
widely studied.3,4 The different failure length of 150 mm, hef is the effective
and filled with a bonding agent such as
mechanisms are the following: embedment depth, k1 is the coeffi-
epoxy, polyester or vinylester.
cient taking into account the influ-
The behavior of post-installed anchors in . Steel failure of the anchoring ence of load transfer mechanisms in
normal strength concrete (concrete element for large embedment concrete (the standard values are
grade lower than or equal to C50/60) depths and/or for a sufficient k1 = 10.1 for uncracked concrete

Structural Engineering International 2019 Scientic Paper 1

 Mean effective Mean effective edge Mean compressive Mean tensile Mean initial crack
Test embedment depth (mm) distance (mm) strength (MPa) strength (MPa) width (mm)
h100 101.8 – 162 38 –
h60 61.5 – 140 44 –
h40 43.0 – 149 43 –
h100-c60 100.3 63.0 165 43 –
h100-c40 99.7 40.3 165 43 –
h60-c60 59.3 59.3 156 39 –
h60-c40 60.5 42.8 156 39 –
h80- 81.0 165 48 0.80
precrack
h60- 59.2 – 152 45 0.93
precrak
h40- 39.2 – 148 48 0.93
precrack
h60- 60.8 – 151 48 1.02
postcrack
h40- 39.8 – 146 42 1.1
postcrack
Table 1: Main characteristics and parameters of pullout tests

τRk = 22 MPa for cracked concrete, d

Steel rod Yield strength (MPa) 520
Ultimate strength (MPa) 650
Elastic modulus (GPa) 210
Concrete Mean compressive strength (MPa) 149–165
Mean Flexural strength (MPa) 39–48
Elastic modulus (GPa) 43.5
Table 2: Mechanical properties of steel and concrete
and k1 = 7.2 for cracked concrete), surface forms near the face of the
ψs,N takes account of the disturbance concrete block and a failure in
of the distribution of stresses in the the remaining portion occurs at the
concrete due to edges of the concrete interface between anchor and con-
member, the shell spalling factor, ψre, crete. The overall pullout resistance
N, takes account of the effect of a is, therefore, the sum of the concrete
reinforcement and ψec,N takes cone strength contribution and the
account of a group effect when bonded interface strength contri-
different tension loads are acting on bution. The design formulas in the
the individual anchors of a group. European guideline for bonded
. Failure at low embedment depths anchors8 are given in Eqs. (3) and (4).
(between 50 and 100 mm). This
failure mechanism is quite fre- Ap,N
NRk,p = NRk,p
0
c c
quently encountered. The existing A0p,N s,Np g,Np (3)
model assumes that a cone failure
× cre,Np cec,Np
N 0Rk,p = p d hef tRk (4)
where τRk is the characteristic bond
Fig. 1: Torque controlled anchor HIT-Z resistance, for used anchors, τRk =
threaded steel rod 24 MPa for uncracked concrete and
is the anchor diameter, ψs,Np takes
account of the disturbance of the dis-
tribution of stresses in the concrete
due to edges of the concrete
member, ψg,Np, takes account of the
effect of the failure surface for
anchor groups, ψec,Np takes account
of a group effect when different
tension loads are acting on the indi-
vidual anchors of a group and the
shell spalling factor, ψre,Np, takes
account of the effect of a dense
reinforcement.
. Splitting failure may occur with
anchors located near to an edge,
especially in a thin member10 or
due to installation. Splitting failure
is caused by splitting forces, which
are generated in the concrete
member by tensile loaded fasteners.
The splitting force generates cracks
growing from the anchor to the
edge and, consequently, leading to
spalling of the edge of the member.
Due to the load transfer of bonded
anchors, compressive stresses occur
in the concrete bordering the load
bearing area of an anchor. This
pressure generates tensile hoop
stresses. These tensile stresses act
like splitting forces. The splitting
forces increase with the tension
load. The design formula in the
European guideline for bonded

2 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International 2019

 strength concrete were used with,
Water- Short steel fibre Long steel respectively, a compressive strength of
Premix Water cement Superplastizer 12.7/0.175 mm fibre 20/ 30 or 50 MPa. In some mixtures, steel
(kg) (kg) ratio (kg) (kg) 0.3 mm (kg)
fibers of 60 mm long and 0.8 mm in
2086 210 0.19 28.7 60 100 diameter were used with a fiber
3 content of 0.8% and 1% by volume.
Table 3: Mixture proportions of BCV for 1 m
With the addition of steel fibers the
damage of concrete was significantly
anchors8 is given in Eq. (5). the same as for a concrete cone reduced. In case of a concrete cone
failure. failure, the concrete cones, in steel
fiber reinforced concretes, were of
Ac,N
NRk,sp = NRk,c
0
c c c c Few results on the behavior of post-
three or more pieces rather than one
A0c,N s,N re,N ec,N h,sp complete one. The use of steel fibers
installed bonded anchors in steel fiber
(5) in concrete did not affect the pullout
reinforced or (ultra) high strength con-
capacity of the anchors, but the
crete are available.11–15 Among these,
failure type of some anchors shifted
where ψh,sp takes into account the in Ref. [11], monotonic tension tests
from concrete cone to pullout mode
influence of the actual member were carried out on 12 and 16 mm
or combined pullout and cone mode.
depth, h, on the splitting resistance diameter adhesive anchors at embed-
Moreover, the displacement at
for anchors according to current ment depths ranging from 40 to
maximum load was generally higher
experience, ψs,N, ψre,N, ψec,N are 160 mm. Normal strength and high
in steel fiber reinforced concrete. For
deeper embedment depths, the influ-
ence of steel fibers on the displacement
at the ultimate load was greatly
reduced. In Ref. [12], tests were
carried out in steel fiber reinforced
concrete with headed cast-in-place
anchor. Concrete strength ranged
from 27.4–58 MPa, four steel volume
fractions of steel fibers ranging from
0.4% to 1.6%, three anchor diameters
(8, 10 and 12 mm), and four embed-
ment depth from 25 to 62.5 mm were
used. The majority of the specimens
failed by concrete cone failure. The
addition of steel fibers to concrete
increased the concrete cone breakout
capacity of the anchors. In fibrous con-
crete, the concrete cone angle was
increasing and the failure cones were
smaller than in concrete specimens
without fibers.

Test Setups and Procedures

The tested parameters are the
following:

. Four embedment depths: 100, 80, 60

and 40 mm. The 40 mm embedment
depth was tested in order to have a
pullout failure.
. Two edge distances: 60 and 40 mm.
The 40 mm edge distance was
tested in order to have a splitting
failure.
. Cracked or uncracked blocks.

The main characteristics and par-

ameters of the realized tests are given
in Tables 1 and 2.
Fig. 2: Cracking setup - (a) Concrete block with the holes for the wedges – (b) Positioning of The tested anchors were post-installed
wedges – (c) Crack line on the top of the block before the anchor installation – (d) Side of the bonded anchors HIT-Z15 threaded
block showing the crack run through the whole thickness (Photos: Fabien Delhomme) steel rod of 12 mm in diameter

Structural Engineering International 2019 Scientic Paper 3


Fig. 3: Pullout test setup (Photo: Fabien Delhomme)
(Table 2 and Fig. 1). The anchors were
post-installed by drilling a 14 mm
diameter hole with a handheld percus-
sion drilling machine. The anchors
were installed in the cleaned hole
(manual pump and brush) with a
urethane acrylate methacrylate resin.
The adhesive cured for a minimum of
24 h at room temperature before
testing.
One anchor was installed in a concrete
block (285 × 340 and 150 mm high),
which was large enough to avoid split-
ting failure and edge effects when the
anchors were positioned in the center.
Vicat Company supplied their ultra-
high performance fiber reinforced con-
crete (SMART-UP BCV type). The
mix proportions are given in Table 3.
The specimens are cast into wood
forms according to the recommen-
dation of the manufacturer (mixing of
premix, the addition of water and super-
plastizer, the addition of short and long
fibers). The concrete is mixed by small
amounts (15 l) to ensure an efficient
concrete mix and a homogenous fiber
distribution. The HPFRC samples are
poured vertically from one location at
the center of the formwork without
any vibration (self-placing concrete).
The anchors were installed on the
upper surface of the block (the side
without formwork) following the
casting direction because of the use of
a self-compacting concrete and the
upper surface was perfectly smooth. In
the standard prescription, the tested
anchors shall be installed on a concrete
surface that has been cast against a
form. After removal, one day after
casting, the concrete samples were
cured into sealed plastic bags, so no
additional water gain was possible
during hydration. The anchors were
tested at least 28 days after casting.
The mean bending flexural strength
was controlled before each test on
three 40 × 40 × 160 mm3 prismatic rec-
tangular samples and the mean com-
pressive strength on six 40 × 40 mm²
section prismatic rectangular samples
(standard compressive tests on
mortar). The elastic modulus was
measured on cylindrical samples of
220 mm high and 110 mm diameter.
The concrete cracking can appear after
the anchors installation in new con-
structions due to the loading of the
structure or before the installation in
repair or retrofit applications. The
aim of the cracking procedure was to
create a crack line throughout the
entire thickness of the block. The
used method did not allow an accurate
regulation of the crack width. The
method relies on the guidance given
in Refs. [16,17] for tests on studs. To
avoid interference on the behavior of
the anchor, no elements were incorpor-
ated into the concrete block. The crack
was realized with two wedges pushed
into the concrete block (Fig. 2).
Before casting, two plastic pipes, of

Test Failure mode Ultimate load Nmax (kN) Sliding at ultimate load (mm) Stiffness (kN mm−1)
h100 Steel rod failure 66.2 ± 0.1 1.00 ± 0.01 152.7
h60 Steel rod failure 64.7 ± 1.5 1.19 ± 0.09 149.3
h40 Pullout failure 52.7 ± 1.7 1.43 ± 0.09 158.2
h100-c60 Steel rod failure 65.5 ± 0.8 1.18 ± 0.11 151.2
h100-c40 Steel rod failure 65.2 ± 0.7 1.33 ± 0.08 139.7
h60-c60 Steel rod failure 61.5 ± 1.9 1.34 ± 0.25 141.8
h60-c40 Splitting failure 55.4 ± 1.9 1.22 ± 0.07 127.9
h80-precrack Steel rod failure 66.3 –
h60-precrack Pullout failure 47.5 ± 4.4 2.36 ± 0.4 101.8
h40-precrack Pullout failure 25.2 ± 1.2 1.35 ± 0.25 58.1
h60-postcrack Pullout failure 45.8 ± 5.9 2.63 ± 0.19 47.4
h40-postcrack Pullout failure 23.8 ± 2.5 2.04 ± 0.2 19.3
Table 4: Results of pullout tests

4 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International 2019

Fig. 4: (a) (b) Combined pullout and concrete cone failure for tests h40 – (c) Combined pullout and splitting failure for tests h60-c40 – (d)
Combined pullout and concrete cone failure for test h40-precrack (Photos: Fabien Delhomme)

length at least equal to the block thick- complete splitting of the concrete of a handle hydraulic jack. The crack
ness, were installed. A minimum sample. After casting and curing of opening created, measured with a
reinforcement was also positioned the concrete, the plastic pipes were manual crackmeter was approximately
between the pipe and the lateral side removed. Then, the metallic wedges of 1 mm, on all the block thickness,
of the block in order to avoid a were simultaneously pushed by means along the desired crack line. Two con-
figurations were tested: the anchor
was set and after the crack was
created (post-cracked) or the crack
Characteristic failure load (kN)
was created and after that, the anchor
Combined Experimental was set on the crack (pre-cracked).
Concrete pullout and Experimental ultimate load
Test cone concrete cone Splitting failure mode (kN) The samples were tested on a hydraulic
press and fixed in order to have no con-
h40 32.9 38.9 – Pullout failure 52.7 ± 1.7 fining pressure (unconfined tension
h60-c40 34.9 33.2 40.4 Splitting failure 55.4 ± 1.9
test) applied around the anchorage
(Fig. 3). The quasi-static tensile
h60- 39.1 48.9 – Pullout failure 47.5 ± 4.4 loading was displacement controlled
precrack with a loading rate of 1 mm min−1.
h40- 20.7 32.4 – Pullout failure 25.2 ± 1.2
The load was applied until the failure
precrack of the anchor. Three identical samples
of each configuration were tested.
h60- 38.2 49.5 – Pullout failure 45.8 ± 5.9
postcrack . The data recorded, at an acquisition
rate of 2 Hz, were the following:
h40- 20.8 33.0 – Pullout failure 23.8 ± 2.5 . The displacement between the
postcrack
anchor and the upper surface of the
Table 5: Ultimate loads for concrete failure modes according to European guidelines concrete block with two LVDTs (S1

Structural Engineering International 2019 Scientic Paper 5


Fig. 5: Tests without edge effect in uncracked concrete
and S2). The mean displacement was
used in the analysis of results.
. The load applied with a load sensor.
For cracked blocks, the evolution of
the crack width with two LVDTs (C1
and C2).
Fig. 6: Tests with edge effects in uncracked concrete
6 Scientic Paper
Pullout Test Results
Table 4 gives the main results of pullout
tests. The standard deviation on the 3
tests gives the uncertainty on load
and displacement. The stiffness is the
secant stiffness between the origin
Structural Engineering International
and 0.3 times the ultimate load as indi-
cated in European guidelines.18
Tests Without Edge Effect in
Uncracked Concrete (Tests h40,
h60, h100)
For tests h60 and h100, with a nominal
embedment depth of respectively 60
and 100 mm, the anchors failed via
steel rupture with no visual damage of
concrete observed at the block surface.
For a nominal embedment depth of
40 mm (tests h40), the failure mode
was a combined pullout and concrete
cone failure (Fig. 4ab). The maximum
tensile load was 52.7 kN with a displace-
ment of 1.4 mm (Fig. 5). The failure
occurred at the interface between the
resin and the rod. The concrete cones
were often in many pieces rather than
a complete cone. The height of the con-
crete cone was lower than 15 mm and it
was flattened with a mean inclination
angle of approximately 20° and a
mean diameter at the surface of
approximately 100 mm. The reinforce-
ment caused by the metallic fibers and
the increase in strength lead to a
better distribution of the stresses into
the concrete and a decrease in the con-
crete cone angle in comparison to a
normal strength concrete. The bond
stress was calculated considering
uniform stress along the rod because
of the low embedment depth (Eq.
(6)). For tests h40, the average bond
stress was 32.5 MPa.
t = Nmax /( pdhef ) (6)
Where τ is the bond stress and Nmax the
experimental ultimate tensile load.
Tests with Edge Effects in
Uncracked Concrete (Tests h60-c60,
h60-c40, h100-c40, h100-c60)
In tests with an embedment depth of
60 mm, from an edge distance of
40 mm (tests h60-c40), the failure was
caused by a concrete splitting following
by an anchor pullout (Fig. 4c and
Fig. 6). For higher edge distances, the
failure occurred via a steel rod
rupture (tests h60-c60).
For tests with an embedment depth of
100 mm, a steel rod failure occurred
whatever the tested edge distances
(tests h100-40 and h100-c60). The
reinforcement with the metallic fibers
allowed to avoid a concrete splitting
failure for the low edge distances and
performed the same function as a
2019

Fig. 7: Tests without edge effect in cracked concrete
surrounding reinforcement as usually
recommended.8
Tests in Cracked Concrete (Tests
h40-precrack, h60-precrack, h40-
postcrack, h60-postcrack, h80-
postcrack)
In test with an embedment depth of
80 mm (tests h80-precrak), the
anchors failed by steel rod rupture.
Fig. 8: Bond stress for tests without edge effect in cracked and uncracked concrete
Structural Engineering International
For an embedment depth of 40 or
60 mm (tests h60-precrak, h40-
precrak, h60-postcrak and h40-post-
crak) a collapse by a combined con-
crete cone and pullout failure was
observed (Fig. 4d) for a created crack
before (pre-cracked) and after (post-
cracked) the installation of the
anchor. The concrete failure mode
was the same as tests in uncracked
2019
concrete but with the creation of two
concrete half cones due to the crossing
of the crack.
The ultimate loads were very close
regardless of the cracking mode
(Fig. 7). On the other hand, the stiff-
ness (Table 4) was reduced by more
than 50% (53% for hef = 60 mm and
67% for hef = 40 mm) between a
created crack before or after the instal-
lation of the anchor. Consequently, the
sliding at the ultimate load was
increased (Table 4). The filling of the
crack by the resin for injection after
cracking ensures a higher confining
pressure of the anchor compared to
an injection before cracking, which
reduces the sliding of the anchor.
In comparison to tests in uncracked
concrete at an embedment depth of
40 mm (tests h40), the stiffness was
reduced by 63% and 88%, respectively,
for pre-cracked and post-cracked tests.
Moreover, the cracking induced a
decreasing of 50% of the mean bond
stress (Fig. 8 – Eq. (6)), with
32.5 MPa in uncracked concrete and
16.3 MPa in cracked concrete. In
order to position these results in the lit-
erature, in Ref [19], bond standards
tests on thick UHPFRC elements
with 12 mm diameter rebars and an
embedment length of 30 mm give a
maximum bond strength of 53.2 MPa.
Concerning the evolution of the crack
during the test, the increasing of the
crack width, set to zero before
loading for comparison, was lower
than 0.3 mm.
Comparison with the
European Standards
In a design stage, the desirable failure
mode is the ductile failure of the steel
element in order to avoid a brittle con-
crete failure. For the different potential
failure modes, the characteristic loads
were calculated with the European
guideline (TR029, 2010) for non-
reinforced normal strength concrete.
Therefore, discrepancies are to be
expected. The mean compressive
strength was used, between 149 and
165 MPa following the tests (Table 1)
and none partial safety factors on con-
crete compressive strength γc was
taking into account (γc = 1). The
results are given in Table 5. The calcu-
lated failure loads are lower to exper-
imental loads because the equations
used (Eqs. (1) to (4)) give the
characteristic value. Nevertheless, the
Scientic Paper 7
controlling failure load is always given
by a concrete cone failure, with the
exception of the tests with a reduced
edge distance where a combined
pullout and concrete cone failure is
governing. Consequently, the failure
mode is not correctly assessed since
the observed failure modes are bond
failure or splitting failure for tests
with a reduced edge distance. The
tensile strength of the concrete is
strongly increased by the metallic
fibers and it cannot be estimated only
infunction








of the compressive strength
( fck,cube ) as in Eq. (2). Moreover, in
case of a concrete cone failure, the
fibers involve a concrete cone with an
inclination angle lower than 35°
improving the concrete breakout
capacity.
In uncracked concrete, the combined
concrete cone and pullout capacity
are strongly underestimated because
of the use of a bond stress for concrete
of grades lower than C50/60. On the
contrary, in cracked concrete, the
theoretical bond stress is overesti-
mated because the crack width is
higher than the recommended values
between 0.3 and 0.5 mm.18
Conclusions
Although the realized tests were not
performed according to the exact
standard procedure, the use of ultra-
high performance fiber reinforced
concrete enables to greatly improve
the tensile capacity of the tested
anchor system. The metallic fibers
and the reduced water amount used
in the concrete mixture provide a
high tensile strength which avoids a
collapse of the anchor by a concrete
cone failure. In uncracked concrete,
without edge effect, the only failure
modes observed were a steel
rupture, for an embedment depth
higher than 40 mm, or a combined
pullout and concrete cone failure. In
the last case, the breaking occurs at
the interface between the resin and
the steel rod and the concrete cone
is characterized by a low height and
a low inclination angle. The reinforce-
ment provided by the metallic fibers
leads to a better distribution of the
stresses into the concrete. Splitting
failure only occurs from edge distance
8 Scientic Paper
of 40 mm and for shallow embed-
ment. The metallic fibers perform
the same function as a surrounding
reinforcement as usually rec-
ommended for low edge distances.
Therefore, a splitting failure could
be observed in thin precast elements
where the edge distance is very low.
Moreover, the three dimensions con-
finement effects due to the metallic
fibers will be reduced because of the
two dimensions fibers orientation in
shell elements. In cracked concrete,
it is necessary to increase the embed-
ment depth to prevent a pullout
failure because of the reduction of
the bond stress in strongly cracked
concrete (32.5 MPa in uncracked con-
crete and 16.3 MPa in cracked con-
crete). The European guidelines
available for normal strength concrete
do not predict the correct failure
mode, with a concrete cone failure,
because of the low concrete cone
angle in UHPFRC and the under-esti-
mation of the tensile strength of con-
crete. The behavior of the tested
anchor system seems to be modified
in UHPFRC in comparison to
normal strength concrete. The use of
UHPFRC being quite common in
precast elements or in repair, it is
necessary to adapt the design codes
developed for normal strength con-
crete. More experimental data
carried out according to the standard
condition and procedure, may result
in a better understanding of the role
of the steel fibers in enhancing the
breakout and pullout capacity and a
more accurate and reliable prediction
method.
Acknowledgements
The writers wish to thank A. Tregoat and
A. Vasseur for their support in carrying
out the experiments.
References
[1] Toulemonde F, Resplendino J. Design and
Building with UHPFRC. Piano, US Wiley
edition, 2010.
[2] AFGC. Ultra-high performance fibre-
reinforced concretes. Recommendations. AFGC.
Paris: AFGC, 2013.
[3] Cook RA. Behavior of chemically bonded
anchors. J. Struct. Eng. 1993; 119: 2744–2762.
Structural Engineering International
[4] Kim SJ, Smith ST. Pullout strength models
for FRP anchors in uncracked concrete.
J. Compos. Constr., 2010; 14: 406–414.
[5] Comité Euro-international du Béton.
Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures:
State-of-the-art Report. Lausanne: Thomas
Telford services Ltd, 1994.
[6] Fuchs W, Eligehausen R, Breen JE. Concrete
cone capacity design (CCD) approach for
fastening in concrete. ACI Struct J. 1995; 92(1):
73–94.
[7] Steel Design Guide. Base plate and anchor
rod design, AISC, 2006.
[8] EOTA. TR029 - Design of Bonded Anchors.
ETOA edition, Brussels, 2010.
[9] Comité Euro-international du Béton /
Fédération Internationale du Béton. Design of
Anchorages in Concrete. Lausanne: Thomas
Telford services Ltd, 2011.
[10] Hüer T, Eligehausen R. Splitting failure
mode of bonded anchors. Proceedings of
FraMCos-6. Catania, Italy, 2007.
[11] Gesoglu M, Özturan T, Özel M, Güneyisi E.
Tensile behavior of post-installed anchors in
plain and steel fiber-reinforced normal and
high-strength concretes. ACI Struct J. 2005; 102
(22): 224–231.
[12] Saad A, AbdulKader A, Alaa A. Breakout
capacity of headed anchors in steel fibre normal
and high strength concrete. Asian J. Appl. Sci..
2012; 5(7): 485–496.
[13] Cattaneo S, Muciaccia G. Adhesive
anchors in high performance concrete, Mater
Struct. 2016; 49: 2689–2700. doi:10.1617/s11527-
015-0677-4
[14] Randl N, Gusella O. Tragverhalten von
Verbundankern in hoch- und ultrahochfestem
Beton (behavior of adhesive anchors in high
strength and ultra high performance concrete).
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau. 2011; 106: 561–573.
doi:10.1002/best.201100045
[15] EOTA. TR018 - Assessment of torque con-
trolled bonded anchors. ETOA edition,
Brussels, 2003.
[16] Eligehausen R, Balogh T. Behavior of fas-
teners loaded in cracked reinforced concrete.
ACI Struct J. 1995; 92(3): 365–379.
[17] Eligehausen R, Mattis L, Wollmershauser
R, Hoehler MS. Testing anchors in cracked con-
crete, guidance for testing laboratories: how to
generate cracks. ACI Concrete Int. Mag. 2004;
26(7): 66–71.
[18] EOTA. ETAG 001- Guideline for European
Technical approval of metal anchor for use in con-
crete – Part 5: bonded anchors. EOTA edition,
Brussels, 2013.
[19] Marchand P, Baby F, Khadour A, Battesti T,
Rivillon P, Quiertant M, Nguyen HH, Généreux
G. Bond behaviour of reinforcing bars in
UHPFRC - experimental investigation. Mater
Struct. 2016; 49 1979–1995.
2019