INL/JOU-16-39845

Accepted Manuscript

DIRECT SHEAR
STRENGTH OF REBAR-
COUPLER ANCHOR
SYSTEMS FOR
STEEL-PLATE
COMPOSITE (SC) WALLS

Efe G. Kurt, Amit H. Varma,

Young M. Sohn

December 2016

This is an accepted manuscript of a paper intended for publication in a

journal. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by
an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any
warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of such use, of any
information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or
represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned
rights. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the
United States Government or the sponsoring agency.

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Nuclear Energy
Under DOE Idaho Operations Office
Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517
 1 DIRECT SHEAR STRENGTH OF REBAR-COUPLER ANCHOR SYSTEMS FOR

2 STEEL-PLATE COMPOSITE (SC) WALLS

3 Efe G. Kurt 1, Amit H. Varma 2, and Young M. Sohn 3

4 ABSTRACT

5 This paper focuses on the direct shear behavior of rebar-coupler anchor systems, and their

6 use for anchorage of steel-plate composite (SC) walls to the concrete basemat of safety-related

7 nuclear facilities. Large-scale rebar-coupler anchor specimens were tested under direct shear

8 loading until failure. The results included the applied load-slip displacement responses of the

9 specimens, the direct shear strength, and the observed failure mode. The American Concrete

10 Institute (ACI) 349 code equation for calculating the direct shear strength of embedded anchors

11 was compared with the direct shear strengths from the tests. The code equation underestimated

12 the direct shear strength of the anchor system, because shear failure was assumed to occur in the

13 rebars, whereas experimental observations indicated that shear fracture failure occurred in the

14 couplers rather than the rebars. The design equation was updated to utilize the net shear area of

15 the couplers instead of the rebars, after which the direct shear strengths from the tests could be

16 calculated with reasonable accuracy. The experimental results were also used to propose an

17 empirical model for the shear force-slip displacement response of rebar-coupler anchor systems.

18 Keywords: Composite, steel-plate composite, steel-concrete, direct shear strength, rebar-

19 coupler anchor.

20

21

1
Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Idaho National Laboratory, efegkurt@gmail.com
2
Professor, Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, ahvarma@gmail.com
3
Assistant Professor, Central Connecticut University at New Britain, CT, sohny@gmail.com

1
22 INTRODUCTION: SC WALLS

23 Steel-plate composite (SC) walls consist of a concrete wall sandwiched between two steel

24 faceplates located on the exterior surfaces. The steel faceplates serve as stay-in-place formwork

25 during concrete casting, and the primary reinforcement for the concrete wall after it sets. No

26 additional rebars (or curtains of orthogonal reinforcing bars) are needed to reinforce the

27 composite SC wall. The concrete infill provides mass, stiffness, damping, and thermal inertia to

28 the composite walls, while delaying the local buckling of the steel faceplates. These steel

29 faceplates are anchored to the concrete infill using steel headed stud anchors (or shear studs), and

30 connected to each other using tie bars or steel shapes. These tie bars provide bracing to the steel

31 faceplates during concrete casting, and also serve as transverse (or out-of-plane shear)

32 reinforcement for the walls. Thus, SC walls optimize the use of both steel and concrete

33 construction materials.

34 The interest in the use of SC walls for safety-related nuclear facilities stems from: (i) their

35 construction schedule economy resulting from the use of stay-in-place formwork and elimination

36 of congested rebar cages (IAEA 2011), (ii) the extensive use of steel modules consisting of

37 faceplates, shear studs and tie bars that can be pre-fabricated in the shop and shipped to site for

38 construction (AISC N690s1, 2015), (iii) better construction quality resulting from reduced rebar

39 congestion and shop fabrication, (iv) structural efficiency resulting from their performance for

40 seismic and accident thermal loading (Sener et al. 2015a, Booth et al. 2015), and (v) significant

41 potential for resistance to missile impact, aircraft impact, and impulsive loading (Bruhl et al.

42 2015, Bruhl and Varma 2015).

43 SC walls are being used in nuclear power plants that are being constructed around the world.

44 For example, the AP1000® plants being constructed in Sanmen and Haiyang in China use SC

2
45 walls for the containment internal structure (CIS). The AP1000® plants (DCD 2011) being

46 constructed in V.C. Summer (South Carolina) and Vogtle (Georgia) use SC walls for the CIS and

47 also for the external shield building enhanced for aircraft impact considerations (safeguards

48 information, NEI 2011). Steel-plate composite (SC) walls are also being considered for future

49 power plants and small modular reactors (SMRs). For example, SC walls are being used for the

50 CIS of the US-APWR® (DCD 2013), which was under review for licensing. The Westinghouse

51 SMR and the Generation mPower SMRs are also considering the use of SC walls for safety-

52 related structural components in plant design.

53 BACKGROUND: SC WALL CONNECTIONS

54 Prior research has focused on the behavior and design of SC walls for various force and

55 moment demands, for example, in-plane shear (Ozaki et al. 2004, Seo et al. 2016), out-of-plane

56 flexure (Sener et al. 2015b), out-of-plane shear (Sener and Varma 2014), and axial compression

57 (Zhang et al. 2014). Prior research has also focused on the behavior and design of SC walls for

58 combinations of various in-plane forces and out-of-plane moments (Varma et al. 2014). The

59 results from these and other prior research programs have been used to develop design codes and

60 specification for SC walls in safety-related nuclear facilities, for example, JEAC (2009), KEPIC

61 (2010), and most recently AISC N690-12s1 (2015) in the US.

62 Recent research has also focused on the seismic behavior and design of SC walls in building

63 structures, for example, Alzeni and Bruneau (2014), Kurt et al. (2016), and Epackachi et al.

64 (2015). These research studies have been used to develop seismic design provisions for SC walls

65 in steel building structures, where they are referred as composite plate shear walls – concrete

66 filled (CPSW-CF) in AISC 341 (2016) and ASCE 7 (2010).

3
67 There are three primary types of connections for SC walls, namely, (i) SC wall-to-concrete

68 basemat anchorage connection, (ii) SC wall-to-wall joint connection, and (iii) SC wall-to-floor

69 slab connection. Limited research has been conducted on the design of these connections for SC

70 walls, for example, Katayama et al. (1999), Varma et al. (2011), Seo (2014) investigated the

71 behavior of connection type (i) wall-to-basemat anchorage. Seo (2014), Seo and Varma (2016),

72 and Hwang et al. (2013) and Lee et al. (2012) have investigated the behavior of connection type

73 (ii), wall-to-wall connections. Kim et al. (2008) and Kim and Choi (2011) have investigated the

74 behavior of connection type (iii)

75 For connection type (i), namely SC-wall-to-basemat anchorage, there are different potential

76 designs. For example, (a) the steel faceplates of the SC wall can be welded to steel baseplate(s),

77 and steel rebars can be welded to underside of the baseplate(s) and anchored into the concrete

78 basemat, or (b) steel dowel rebars from the concrete basemat can be continued into the SC wall

79 and lap-spliced with the steel plates, or (c) the steel plates of the SC walls can be continued and

80 embedded directly into the concrete basemat using shear studs. These three potential designs are

81 mentioned in JEAC 4618 (2009) and Kurt (2016). Design type (i)(a), i.e., wall-to-basemat

82 anchorage with steel baseplate(s) is of interest because it can be used to design full-strength

83 connections that are stronger than the weaker of the two connected parts.

84 MOTIVATION

85 Figure 1 shows a typical and practical SC wall-to-concrete basemat anchorage connection

86 type (i)(a). The faceplates of the SC wall are welded to a high strength steel baseplate, which

87 extends across the thickness of the wall because it forms part of the continuous pressure

88 boundary within the prestressed concrete containment vessel. Headed shear studs are welded on

89 top of the baseplate and embedded inside the concrete infill of the SC wall to transfer shear

4
 90 forces from the concrete infill to the steel baseplate. The transfer of forces between the SC wall

91 and concrete basemat is achieved by rebar anchors that are welded underneath the baseplate

92 using couplers, and embedded into the concrete basemat. An alternate design, where the

93 continuous pressure boundary is not required, uses two baseplates instead of one continuous

94 baseplate across the wall thickness. Each baseplate is welded to the steel faceplate of the SC

95 wall, and force transfer is achieved by rebar anchors that are welded underneath the baseplates

96 and embedded into the concrete basemat.

97 This type of connection type (i)(a) shown in Figure 1 is preferred because it can be designed

98 as a full-strength connection, i.e., stronger than the weaker of the two connected parts including

99 the SC wall itself. This is preferred because during beyond design basis or extreme events, the

100 SC wall can undergo inelastic deformations and provide ductility to the system without sudden

101 failure of the associated connections (Sener et al. 2015a). In safety-related nuclear facilities, the

102 behavior and performance of structural walls is governed by their response to in-plane shear

103 forces (Sener et al. 2015a), which can be estimated using AISC N690-12s1 (2015) or Seo et al.

104 (2016). The shear strength of the SC wall-to-basemat anchorage connection depends on the

105 direct shear strength of rebar-coupler system welded underneath the baseplates as mentioned

106 above and shown in Figure 1.

107 This paper focuses on the direct shear strength of the rebar anchors welded underneath the

108 steel baseplates as they are the primary element governing the behavior, stiffness, and strength of

109 this connection. The paper presents the results of direct shear tests conducted on full-scale rebar-

110 coupler systems welded to high strength steel baseplates. These tests included one on a full-scale

111 #18 rebar-coupler system welded to a 90 mm. thick baseplate, and one on a group of two full-

112 scale #11 rebar-coupler systems welded to a 56 mm. thick baseplate. These sizes are typical and

5
113 representative of nuclear construction. The focus of the tests was to evaluate: (i) the applicability

114 of the ACI code equation for calculating the direct shear strength of embedded anchors, and (ii)

115 to obtain the complete shear force-slip displacement response including stiffness, direct shear

116 strength, slip displacement capacity and failure mode of the full-scale welded rebar-coupler

117 systems. This information is required for designing the basemat anchorage connection, and for

118 evaluating the performance of structures composed of SC wall systems anchored to the basemat.

119 DIRECT SHEAR STRENGTH OF ANCHORS: ACI CODE

120 Anchors, located away from concrete edges, have the potential to develop steel rupture

121 failure under direct shear, provided that the anchors are sufficiently embedded to prevent

122 concrete pryout failure mode. ACI 349 (2013) Appendix D.6.1 Equation D-19 proposes the

123 following simple equation for calculating the direct shear strength of steel bolts embedded in

124 concrete;

125 Vsa = n ´a´ Ase ´ futa Eq.1

126 where; futa = tensile strength of anchor steel, MPa

127 Ase = effective cross-sectional area of anchor, in2

128 n = number of anchors in the group

129 α = 0.6

130 According to ACI 349, the value of futa shall not be taken greater than the smaller of 1.9fya

131 and 860 MPa, where fya is the yield strength of the anchor steel. The value of the coefficient α is

132 specified as 0.6 in ACI 349, but there are different values of coefficient α proposed by some

133 other researchers. For example, Cook and Klinger (1992) recommend 0.5 for cast-in-place

134 anchors and 0.6 for sleeved anchors such as undercut anchors. Anderson and Meiheit (2006)

135 conducted several tests on headed anchors welded to baseplates, and recommended the value of

6
136 1.0 for the coefficient α. Additionally, under direct uniaxial shear, the von Mises yield criterion
!
137 provides shear yield stress equal to or 0.57 times the tensile yield stress. This relationship is
"

!
138 typically assumed to hold for the shear fracture stress to be equal to or 0.57 times the tensile
"

139 fracture of the anchor, futa.

140 If the anchors are ductile, and welded in a regular pattern that is parallel to the direction of

141 the applied shear load, then the applied (shear) load is resisted uniformly by the anchors,

142 particularly at the ultimate load level. The direct shear strength of such an anchor group can be

143 calculated as the direct shear strength of each anchor multiplied by the number (n) of anchors in

144 the group, as shown in Eq-1 recommended by ACI 349.

145 REBAR ANCHOR DEVELOPMENT LENGTH: ACI CODE

146 The rebar anchors need to be developed and embedded sufficiently in the concrete basemat to

147 prevent any pullout or pryout failure modes. ACI 349 has direct recommendations for the

148 development lengths of rebars under tension or compression, but not for the development length

149 of a rebar under shear. However, shear-friction methodology can be used for understanding the

150 force transfer mechanism for a rebar subjected to shear and embedded in the concrete basemat.

151 Shear-friction assumes that the rebars are extending across a joint or shear plane, and shear

152 transfer occurs across two planes via friction between the surfaces. The friction force is a result

153 of the clamping forces created by the rebars keeping the two surfaces together. ACI 349 Ch.11

154 covers the shear-friction method, and it requires the shear-friction reinforcement to be anchored

155 to develop fy by embedment, hooks or welding to special devices. Therefore, the development

156 lengths of the rebars for the tests were calculated using ACI 349 Ch.12.

157 ACI 349 Ch.12 specifies the development length detailing of straight rebars in tension or

158 compression and hooked rebars in tension. The average bond stresses over the length of the

7
159 embedment of the rebar are the basis for the design equations in ACI 349, and they are functions

160 of the uniaxial compressive strength. The general design equation for development length of

161 straight rebars, ld, is given as:

3 f y yt y e y s
ld = db
40 f c' ( cb + Ktr )
162 db Eq-2

163 and the development length of hooked bars, ldh, is defined as :

0.02 f y db
ldh =
164 f c' Eq-3

165 The constants, ψt, ψe, and ψs, are related to the location, material and geometric properties of

166 the rebars being developed. These constants are defined in ACI349-13. The following minimum

167 development lengths of the rebars used in the tests were calculated using Eq-2 and Eq-3 in

168 accordance with ACI 349 (2013):

169 • #18 rebar development length (fy = 410 MPa, f’c = 41 MPa, ψt = 1.3, ψe = 1.0, ψs = 1.0):

3 f ya yt y e y s
170 ld 18 = ( )d #18 = 1700 mm ( straight bar )
40 f c' ( cb + Ktr )
d #18

0.02 f ya d #18
171 ldh18 = = 890 mm (hooked bar )
f c'

172 • #11 rebar development length (fy = 410 MPa, f’c = 41 MPa, ψt = 1.3, ψe = 1.0, ψs = 1.0):

3 f y yt y e y s
173 ld 11 = ( )d #11 = 1100 mm ( straight bar )
40 f c' ( cb + Ktr )
d #11

174 The development length of #18 rebar anchor was calculated as 1700 mm and 890 mm for

175 straight and hooked bars, respectively. In the design of the test specimen, the hooked
8
176 configuration was preferred (over straight bars) for the #18 rebar anchor due to issues related to

177 the size and expanse of the specimen. The development length of the #11 rebar anchor was

178 calculated as 1100 mm. for straight bars. The actual embedment lengths (implemented in the

179 specimens) were longer than the corresponding calculated development lengths. Figure 2 shows

180 the as-built rebar dimensions for the tested specimens.

181 TEST SETUP

182 Two full-scale direct shear tests were conducted. One of these anchor tests was conducted on

183 a full-scale #18 rebar-coupler system welded to a 90 mm. thick baseplate. This specimen is

184 referred as DSS1 in the paper. The second test was conducted on a group of two #11 rebar-

185 coupler anchor systems welded to a 56 mm thick baseplate. This specimen is referred as DSS2 in

186 the paper.

187 The nominal ares of the #18 rebar in DSS1 was equal to 2580 mm2, and the nominal area of

188 the #11 rebar in DSS2 was equal to 1005 mm2. The total area of the group of two #11 rebars in

189 DSS2 was equal to 2010 mm2. Both the #18 and #11 rebars were made from ASTM A706 steel

190 with specified minimum yield strength of 410 MPa and ultimate strength of 550 MPa,

191 respectively (ASTM, 2014). The ACI code equation (Eq-1) used along with these nominal

192 material properties results in design shear strengths of approximately 845 kN and 670 kN for the

193 single (DSS1) and group anchor (DSS2) specimens, respectively.

194 Two reinforced concrete blocks were constructed to provide the base blocks in which the

195 rebars could be embedded for testing. These concrete blocks were 2300 x 1850 mm in plan, and

196 2160 mm high in elevation. Figure 3 shows a picture and schematic view of the concrete blocks.

197 The concrete blocks were cast within wood formwork designed to be stiff enough to prevent

198 appreciable deflections during and after casting the concrete. The reinforcement for the concrete

9
199 blocks was designed and detailed to resist the applied forces and resulting internal forces (shear,

200 moment etc.) without undergoing significant stresses. Additionally, this reinforcement was

201 placed inside the concrete blocks such as to minimize its contributions to the strength of the rebar

202 anchors. The concrete block was designed to prevent concrete breakout failure of the test

203 specimens by following the recommendations in ACI 349 (2013) Appendix D.6. The concrete

204 blocks were post-tensioned to the laboratory strong floor using 38 mm diameter bars that were

205 4.6 meters long and spaced at 610 mm on center.

206 Self-consolidating concrete with a specified minimum strength of 41 MPa was used in the

207 construction of the concrete blocks. Several concrete cylinders were cast, and tested (later on the

208 day of testing the specimens) as per the ASTM C39 standard. The average compressive strength

209 of the concrete cylinders was equal to 50 MPa and 46 MPa for the single-anchor (DSS1) and

210 group specimens (DSS2), respectively.

211 The thicknesses of the baseplates for the DSS1 and DSS2 specimens were equal to 90 mm

212 and 56 mm respectively. The spacing between the two #11 rebar anchors in the DSS2 specimen

213 was 190 mm, which also conforms to the minimum spacing requirements recommended by ACI

214 349 (ACI, 2013). Table 1 summarizes the measured material properties of the steel rebar anchors

215 and baseplates. The baseplates used in the tests had nominal yield strength of 345 MPa and

216 ultimate strength of 540 MPa. The measured average yield strength of #18 rebar was 540 MPa

217 and the tensile strength was 690 MPa, while these values were 470 MPa and 700 MPa for #11

218 rebars.

219 INSTRUMENTATION AND TESTING PROCEDURE

220 The specimens were tested using a hydraulic cylinder with maximum push capacity of 2560

221 kN, and pull capacity of 1070 kN. The hydraulic cylinder was positioned, as shown in Figure 3,

10
222 to apply vertical push force to the baseplate through bearing. Vsa,m was the shear strength of test

223 specimens calculated using Eq-1 using the measured ultimate strength ( f ut , m ) of the rebar

224 anchors listed in Table1. Vsa,m was calculated as 1060 kN and 845 kN for Specimens DSS1 and

225 DSS2, respectively. Table 2 provides the calculated shear strengths (Vsa,m) of test specimens

226 along with measured material properties presented in Table 2, and the design shear strengths,

227 ∅Vsa,m, where ∅ is the strength reduction factor. The ASTM A706 rebars are classified as ductile

228 steel elements by Section D.1 of ACI 349 (2013), and the corresponding strength reduction

229 factor, ∅, is specified as 0.75 in Section D.4.5. The push capacity of the hydraulic cylinder was

230 approximately 240% greater than the calculated shear strengths of the specimens.

231 The instrumentation used in the tests included string potentiometers and displacement

232 transducers. Figure 4 shows a view of the instrumentation layout around the specimens. All of

233 the sensors were calibrated and checked before the tests, and monitored during testing. The

234 instrumentation surrounding the specimens was used to measure and record the horizontal and

235 vertical displacements of the baseplate and the concrete block, and their relative displacement

236 with respect to each other. This relative displacement is refereed as slip in later sections of the

237 paper. Strain gages were attached (bonded) to the couplers and rebar anchors to measure the

238 longitudinal strains along the coupler and rebar anchor height. Figure 5 shows the layout of the

239 strain gages. The locations were ground smooth, and the strain gages were waterproofed and

240 sealed after bonding.

241 An initial load of approximately 445 kN was applied and the corresponding measurements

242 from the string potentiometers, displacement transducers and strain gages were recorded. The

243 specimen was unloaded. Following this initial loading cycle, the specimens were loaded

244 monotonically to: (a) their calculated design shear strength, ∅Vsa,m, (b) shear strength Vsa,m, and

11
245 (c) 1.25 of Vsa,m. Loads were applied in increments varying from 40 to 80 kN in the early stages

246 of the tests, and in smaller increments of 20 to 40 kN during the later stages. The specimen was

247 subjected to monotonically increasing loading beyond 1.25 Vsa,m up to fracture failure in the final

248 stage of testing.

249 TEST RESULTS

250 The results of the tests are presented in the following sections in tabulated and graphical

251 formats. The relative displacement at the anchor points, i.e., slip displacement, was calculated by

252 subtracting the vertical displacement measured at the baseplate from the measured vertical

253 displacements of the concrete block. The movement of the concrete block was extremely small,

254 within 1%, compared to the displacements measured for the baseplate at the early stages of

255 loading.

256 SINGLE ANCHOR SPECIMEN (DSS1)

257 This test evaluated the performance of the full-size #18 rebar-coupler anchor system under

258 direct shear. The complete load-slip displacement response of Specimen DSS1 is shown later in

259 Figure 11, and discussed step-by-step in this section. The initial applied load, 480 kN, was used

260 to identify any unresponsive strain gages or displacement sensors. The measured values in this

261 initial load step confirmed that two strain gages on the rebar anchor were not functioning

262 properly. They were disconnected from the data acquisition system. The remaining strain gages

263 showed that both the coupler and the anchor rebar remained elastic at the applied load of 480 kN.

264 The recorded slip between the concrete block and the steel baseplate, which was the

265 displacement at the anchor point, was approximately 0.56 mm. The vertical movement, uplift, of

266 the concrete block during at the early stages of the test was so small that the recorded slip values

267 were close to the vertical displacement of the baseplate. However, the slip at the anchor points

12
268 were calculated by subtracting the displacement of the concrete block from the displacement of

269 the baseplate around the anchor points.

270 The specimen was unloaded, and then reloaded up to (∅Vsa,m) 797 kN for the second loading

271 cycle. At this load level, there were no visible cracks or damage of the concrete block. The yield

272 strain of the #18 rebar was 2620 microstrain based on the measured yield stress of the rebar. The

273 maximum recorded axial strain on the rebar (strain gage 14B) was approximately 995

274 microstrain reflecting that the rebar was still in the linear range of response. Figure 6 shows the

275 applied force vs. measured strain response on the rebar for DSS1. The measured displacement at

276 the anchor point and the slip displacement was approximately equal to 0.89 mm. As there were

277 no sign of failure, the specimen was unloaded, and then reloaded up to (Vsa,m) 1070 kN. There

278 were still no visible cracks or damage of the specimen. The maximum recorded strain on the

279 rebar (14B) was approximately 2380 microstrain showing that the rebar was still in the elastic

280 range. The maximum measured slip displacement was approximately equal to 2 mm at the

281 applied load of 1150 kN. Small concrete cracks were observed around the anchor point at this

282 load level. The test was considered successful when the specimen showed no failure at the load

283 value of 1070 kN ( Vsa ,m ). However, the applied loading was increased up to (1.25 Vsa ,m ) 1330

284 kN to further evaluate the direct shear behavior of the rebar-coupler anchorage system. The

285 measured strains on the rebar (12B, 13B, and 14B) were higher than the yield strain. Although

286 the anchor rebar was experiencing inelastic deformations, there were no signs of significant

287 distress or failure of the specimen even at this load level. There was some creep (increasing

288 displacement) when the applied loading was sustained at this load level (1330 kN). The

289 maximum recorded slip displacement was approximately 3.6 mm, and the residual slip-

290 displacement was equal to 1.8 mm when the specimen was unloaded.

13
291 GROUP ANCHOR SPECIMEN (DSS2)

292 This test evaluated the performance of the group of two #11 rebar-coupler anchor systems

293 under direct shear. The complete load-slip displacement response of Specimen DSS2 is shown

294 later in Figure 12, and discussed step-by-step in this section. The initial applied load, 445 kN,

295 was used to identify unresponsive strain gages or displacement sensors. The measured values

296 confirmed that two strain gages were not functioning properly, and they were therefore

297 disconnected from the data acquisition system. The maximum recorded slip displacement at the

298 anchor point was approximately 0.75 mm. Maximum strain on the rebars was close to 920

299 microstrain (212B). After the specimen was unloaded, the measured displacements around the

300 specimen returned back to their initial unloaded values without any residual displacements.

301 Figure 7 shows the applied force vs. measured strain response on the rebar anchors for DSS2.

302 The loading was increased to fVsa ,m = 620 kN . There were no signs of any damage on the

303 specimen. The measured slip displacement at the anchor location was approximately 1.5 mm.

304 The measured maximum strain increased to 1580 microstrain. When the specimen was unloaded,

305 the residual slip was approximately equal to 0.90 mm. The specimen was reloaded up to Vsa,m

306 equal to 890 kN. The corresponding slip displacement was measured as 3 mm. The maximum

307 recorded strain was equal to 1820 microstrain, which indicates that the rebars were still within

308 their elastic range of response. As there was still no signs of damage, the load was increased up

309 to 1.25 Vsa,m (1110kN). There were some visible inclined surface cracks originating around the

310 anchor points at loading equal to 980 kN. The strain gages stopped functioning properly when

311 the applied load reached to 1000 kN. The measured maximum slip displacement was equal to 4.3

312 mm at 1110 kN. The group anchor rebar-coupler system did not show significant distress or

14
313 failure at load level of1.25 Vsa,m (1110kN). After the specimen was unloaded, the residual slip

314 displacement was equal to 3.5 mm.

315 FAILURE TESTS

316 Both of the specimens (DSS1 and DSS2) could resist applied loads that were greater than

317 1.25 times the calculated direct shear strength Vsa,m without significant distress or failure.

318 Therefore, the applied loading was increased monotonically (in small increments of 20 kN) up to

319 complete fracture failure. The test setup and instrumentation layout were the same as before. The

320 strain gages were disconnected from the data acquisition system because they had been damaged

321 by the earlier loading cycles. The hydraulic setup including actuator, pump, and pressure

322 transducer were the same as before.

323 The complete load-slip displacement response of Specimen DSS1 up to failure is shown in

324 Figure 11. As shown the maximum measured slip displacement (at failure) was equal to 7 mm.

325 Shear fracture failure of the welded coupler occurred at 1548 kN. Figure 8 shows photographs of

326 the fractured coupler surfaces (a) inside the concrete block, and (b) on the baseplate surface.

327 Figure 8 indicates that shear fracture failure occurred through the coupler wall thickness near the

328 end of threaded #18 rebar anchor.

329 The complete load-slip displacement response of Specimen DSS2 up to failure is shown in

330 Figure 12. As shown the maximum measured slip displacement (at failure) was equal to 6 mm.

331 Shear fracture failure of the welded coupler occurred at 1263 kN. Figure 9 shows photographs of

332 the fractured coupler surfaces (a) inside the concrete block, and (b) on the baseplate surface.

333 Figure 9 indicates that shear fracture failure occurred through both the coupler wall thicknesses

334 near the end of threaded #11 rebar anchors.

335 DIRECT SHEAR STRENGTH OF REBAR-COUPLER ANCHOR SYSTEM

15
336 As discussed in the previous section, and shown in Figures 11 and 12, in the early stages of

337 loading, the slip displacements were relatively proportional to the applied loading. The applied

338 load-slip displacement curves did not show appreciable deviation from linear-elastic behavior up

339 to at least one-fourth (25%) of the maximum applied load. The applied load-slip displacement

340 responses demonstrated significant nonlinearity with increasing loading. At the final stages of

341 loading, i.e., close to the failure, applied load-slip displacement responses demonstrated plastic

342 flow, i.e., slip displacements increased significantly with little to no increase in loading.

343 The specimens were subjected to loads significantly greater than design shear strengths,

344 fVsa ,m , and complete failure occurred at applied loads of 1548 kN and 1263 kN for Specimens

345 DSS1 and DSS2, respectively. Figures 8 and 9 show photographs of the fracture failures that

346 occurred in the couplers. These photographs indicate that shear fracture failures occurred in the

347 net section of the coupler after the end of the rebar anchor that was threaded into it. Figure 10

348 identifies the location of this shear fracture failure plane in the net area of the rebar-coupler

349 anchor system.

350 The experimental results and observations of the shear fracture failure surfaces (and

351 locations) indicate that the direct shear strength of the rebar-coupler anchor system is governed

352 by the shear fracture failure of the net section in the coupler, not the shear fracture failure of the

353 rebar anchor as assumed earlier in Eq.-1. Therefore, Eq-1 was modified to utilize the net shear

354 area of the coupler as shown in Figure 10. The updated equation for calculating the direct shear

355 strength (Vrb-cp) of the rebar-coupler systems is shown in Eq-4, which is still based on and

356 consistent with the format of the original ACI 349 design equation.

357 Vrb -cp = n ×a × Acp ,net × futc ,m Eq-4

358 where; Vrb-cp = direct shear strength of rebar-coupler anchor system

16
359 futc,m = measured tensile strength of steel coupler, MPa

360 Acp,net = effective cross-sectional area of steel coupler, in2

361 n = number of rebar-coupler anchors

362 α = 0.6

363 Table 3 shows the geometric properties, provided by the manufacturer, of the steel couplers.

364 Figure 10 shows a noticeable feature of the couplers that the inner diameter of the coupler where

365 the rebar starts to engage with the coupler decreases almost linearly from ϕG, engagement

366 diameter, to ϕG, inner diameter, until the attached length of the rebar is terminated inside the

367 coupler. This makes the net area of the rebar-coupler anchor system to be governed by the inner

368 diameter, ϕG1, of the coupler. Thus the net area of the coupler is the difference in the areas

369 calculated using the outer diameter ϕA, and ϕG1. Direct shear strengths of the specimens using

370 Eq-4 are as follows:

𝜋
371 𝐴%&,()* (#18) = ∅𝐴2∅!1 − ∅𝐺12∅!1 = 3590𝑚𝑚2
4

372 𝑉%=>?%& 𝐷𝑆𝑆1 = 0.6 ∗ 3590𝑚𝑚2 ∗ 710 𝑀𝑃𝑎 = 1530 𝑘𝑁

𝜋
373 𝐴%&,()* (#11) = ∅𝐴2∅!! − ∅𝐺12∅!! = 1477𝑚𝑚2
4

374 Vrb-cp ( DSS 2) = 2 ×0.6×1477 mm2 × 700 MPa = 1250 kN

375 Table 4 shows the comparison of the calculated direct shear strengths with the measured

376 failure loads in the experiments. As shown, the direct shear strengths of the rebar-coupler anchor

377 systems calculated using Eq-4 were within 1% difference of the failure loads observed in the

378 tests.

379

380

17
381 LOAD-SLIP CURVE

382 Rebar-coupler anchor systems are typically designed and analyzed with the assumption that

383 there is no slip between the anchor system and the concrete, i.e. fixed-base boundary condition

384 with no translation. Unfortunately, this fixed-base boundary condition assumption also neglects

385 the potential stress relief associated with the flexibility (displacements) of couplers to

386 accommodate thermal deformations induced during accidental thermal events. This flexibility

387 due to the load vs. slip displacement behavior of the rebar-coupler anchor system can relieve

388 large internal forces (axial and shear forces) calculated in the SC walls assuming fixed-base

389 boundary conditions. This section proposes a simple empirical model for the load-slip

390 displacement behavior of rebar-coupler anchors based on existing knowledge and the limited test

391 data presented in this paper. Additional research is needed to further evaluate and develop

392 appropriate models for the load-slip behavior of rebar-coupler anchor systems.

393 Several researchers have developed load-slip relationships for steel headed stud anchors (also

394 referred as shear studs) embedded inside concrete as an outcome of push-out tests. The research

395 conducted by Ollgaard et al. (1971) is the most cited among all previous studies in the U.S. for

396 load-slip relationship of shear studs. It also serves as the source for stud strength identified in

397 AISC and AASHTO specifications. The load-slip relationship proposed by Ollgaard et al is:

398 Q = Qu (1 - e -18 D ) 2/5 Eq-5

399 In Eq-5, Qu is an empirical function representing the direct shear strength of stud anchors, and Δ

400 is the slip displacement.

401 The load-slip relationship for the rebar-coupler anchor system can be modeled (empirically)

402 using the mathematical relationship proposed by Ollgaard et al., with the exception that Qu

403 should be replaced with Vrb-cp, which is the direct shear strength of the rebar-coupler anchor

18
404 system. For example, Figures 11 and 12 include the load-slip relationships predicted for

405 Specimens DSS1 and DSS2 using Eq-5, while using Vrb-cp instead of Qu in the empirical

406 relationship proposed by Ollgaard et al. Comparisons with the corresponding experimental

407 results in Figures 11 and 12 indicate that this empirical model over estimates the initial stiffness

408 and secant stiffness of the rebar-coupler anchor systems. This is because Eq-5 inherently results

409 in infinite slope at zero load, which corresponds to perfect bond between the anchors and

410 concrete as assumed by Ollgard et al. (and valid for shear studs only). The couplers of rebar-

411 coupler anchor systems act similar to shear lugs with some crushing of the concrete around the

412 coupler due to high bearing stresses. This results in softening of the initial stiffness of load-slip

413 curves. The load-slip relationship proposed by Ollgaard et al. was therefore modified to Eq-6 to

414 effectively model the relatively lower initial stiffness of rebar-coupler anchor systems:

415 V = Vrb-cp (1 - e-18D ) Eq-6

416 Figures 11 and 12 include the load-slip (V- Δ) relationships calculated using Eq-6 for the two

417 specimens DSS1 and DSS2, respectively. Comparisons with the corresponding experimental

418 results indicate that this empirical model (Eq-6) models the load-slip relationship of the rebar-

419 coupler anchor systems with reasonable accuracy. As mentioned earlier, this is a simple

420 empirical model based on existing knowledge and the limited test data presented in this paper.

421 Additional research is needed to develop better models for the load-slip behavior of rebar-

422 coupler anchor systems.

423 CONCLUSIONS

424 This paper presented the results from direct shear tests of large-scale rebar-coupler anchor

425 systems. The applied load vs. slip displacement responses of the specimens were discussed along

426 with the final failure mechanism of the anchor system. The experimental results were used to

19
427 develop a simple equation for calculating the direct shear strength of rebar-coupler anchor

428 systems. The experimental results were also used to propose a simple empirical model for the

429 load-slip relationship of the rebar-coupler anchor systems. The experimental results presented in

430 the paper are extremely useful as there are very few full-scale tests available in the literature. The

431 study led to the following major conclusions:

432 1. The applied load vs. slip displacement response of the rebar-coupler anchor systems was

433 relatively linear up to about 25% of the shear strength. The load-slip responses had

434 significant nonlinearity with increasing loading. At the final stages of loading, i.e., close to

435 the failure, the load-slip response had plastic flow, i.e., slip increased with little to no

436 increase in loading.

437 2. The initial design assumption was that the direct shear strength of the rebar-coupler anchor

438 system would be governed by the shear fracture of the rebar (area). The ACI 349 code

439 equation for estimating the direct shear strength of steel elements (bolts) embedded in

440 concrete was used to calculate the design shear strength ( fVsa ,m ) of the tested specimens.

441 3. Experimental results indicated that large-scale specimens could resist applied loads more

442 than 125% of the (initially) calculated design shear strength ( 1.25Vsa ,m ) without any signs of

443 significant distress or failure.

444 4. The direct shear strength of the rebar-coupler anchor systems was governed by the shear

445 fracture failure of the net section area of the coupler, not the shear fracture of the rebar

446 anchor. This net section area was located just after the end of the rebar anchor threaded into

447 the coupler. The experimental results indicated significant (95-100%) over strength of the

448 specimens with respect to the initially calculated design shear strengths.

20
449 5. The direct shear strength equations were updated to utilize the net section area of the

450 couplers (rather than the area of the rebars). The direct shear strengths calculated using the

451 updated equation were within 1% of the corresponding failure loads from the tests.

452 6. The load-slip relationships measured from the tested specimens could be modeled

453 empirically using a modified version of the empirical model proposed by Ollgaard et al.

454 (1971) for the behavior of shear studs embedded in concrete. The Ollgaard et al. model had

455 to modified to account for the softening of the load-slip relationship due to the shear lug type

456 behavior of the coupler embedded in concrete, and the crushing of concrete around it due to

457 bearing stresses.

458 7. The proposed design equation and empirical load-slip model are preliminary, and additional

459 research is needed to improve these models and to further investigate the effects of different

460 spacing and size of anchors.

461 NOTATION

462 α = ratio of shear to tensile strength of the anchors

463 Acp,net = Effective cross sectional area of the steel coupler, in.2

464 Ase = Effective cross sectional area of the rebar anchors, in.2

465 B = Depth of the steel coupler, mm

466 db = Diameter of the rebar anchors, mm

467 ϕ = Strength reduction factor

468 ϕA = Outer diameter of the steel coupler, mm

469 ϕG = Engagement diameter of the steel coupler, mm

470 ϕG1 = Inner diameter of the steel coupler, mm

471 ϕVsa = Design shear strength of the anchor with nominal material properties, kN

21
472 ϕVsa,m = Design shear strength of the anchor with measured material properties, kN

473 f’c = Uniaxial compressive strength of the concrete, MPa

474 futa = Nominal tensile strength of the anchors, MPa

475 fut,m = Measured tensile strength of the rebar anchors, MPa

476 futc,m = Measured tensile strength of the steel coupler, MPa

477 fya = Nominal tensile yield strength of the anchors, MPa

478 ld = Development length of straight rebars, mm

479 ldh = Development length of hooked rebars, mm

480 Vexp = Measured shear strength of the rebar-coupler anchor system, kN

481 Vrb-cp = Shear strength of the rebar-coupler anchor system, kN

482 Vsa = Shear strength of the anchor with nominal material properties, kN

483 Vsa,m = Shear strength of the anchor with measured material properties, kN

484 REFERENCES

485 ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2013). “Code requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related

486 Concrete Structures and Commentary.” ACI 349, Farmington Hills, 958 MI.

487 AISC 341 (2016) “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.” American Institute of

488 Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, www.aisc.org

489 AISC N690-12s1. (2015). “Specification for Safety-Related Steel Structures for Nuclear

490 Facilities, Supplement no. 1.” Chicago, IL: AISC, www.aisc.org

491 Alzeni, Y., and Burneau, M. (2014). “Cyclic Inelastic Behavior of Concrete Filled Sandwich

492 Panel Walls Sujected to In-Plane Flexure.” Technical Report MCEER 14-0009, Univ. at

493 Buffalo, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY,

494 http://www.mceer.buffalo.edu/pdf/report/14-0009.pdf

22
495 Anderson, N.S. and Meinheit, D.F. (2006). “Design Criteria of Headed Stud Groups in Shear:

496 Final Report.” Wiss., Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Northbrook, IL.

497 ASCE / SEI 7 (2010). “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.” ASCE,

498 Reston, VA, www.asce.org

499 Booth, P.N., Varma, A.H., Sener, K., and Malushte, S. (2015a). “Flexural Behavior and Design

500 of Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls for Accident Thermal Loading.” Nuclear

501 Engineering and Design, Volume 295, Pages 817-828, Elsevier Science,

502 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.036

503 Bruhl, J., Varma, A.H., Johnson, W.H. (2015). “Design of Composite SC Walls to Prevent

504 Perforation from Missile Impact.” International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 75,

505 pp. 75-87, Elsevier Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.07.015

506 Bruhl, J., and Varma, A.H. (2015). “Summary of Blast Tests on Steel-Plate Reinforced Concrete

507 Walls.” Proceedings of the Structures Congress, April 2015, pp. 151-59, ASCE, Reston,

508 VA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784479117.013

509 Cook, R.A., and Klinger, R.E. (1992). “Ductile multiple-anchor steel-to-concrete connections.”

510 J. Struct. Eng., (118)6, 1645-1665

511 DCD (2011). “Design Control Document for the AP1000.” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

512 Commission, Washington, DC, USA http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-

513 cert/ap1000.html

514 DCD (2013). “Design control document for the US-APWR.” Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

515 Washington, DC, USA, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-

516 cert/apwr/dcd.html

23
517 Epackachi, S., Whittaker, A., Varma, A.H., and Kurt, E. (2015). “Finite Element Modeling of

518 Steel-Plate Concrete Composite Wall Piers.” Engineering Structures, Elsevier Science,

519 Vol. 100, pp. 369-384, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.06.023

520 Hwang, K.M., Lee, K.J., Yang, H.J., and Kim, W.K. (2013). "An Experimental Study on the

521 Flexural and Shear Behavior of Steel Plate Concrete-Reinforced Concrete Connected

522 Structures." Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 257, pp. 88-99.

523 IAEA (2011). “Construction Technologies for Nuclear Power Plants.” International Atomic

524 Energy Agency, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.5, Vienna

525 JEAC (2009). “Technical Code for Seismic Design of Steel Plate Reinforced Concrete

526 Structures: Buildings and Structures.” JEAC-4618, Japanese Electric Association Nuclear

527 Standards Committee, Tokyo, Japan. Translated from Japanese by Obayashi Company

528 and Westinghouse Electric Company

529 Katayama, S., Fujita, F., Furuwada M., Shohara, R., Takeuchi, M., and Matsumoto, R. (1999).

530 “Experimental study on a steel plate reinforced concrete structure (part #33). Pull-out

531 tests on anchorage rebars of SC panels.” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual

532 Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, B-2, Structures II, Structural Dynamics Nuclear

533 Power Plants, 1247-1248.

534 KEPIC-SNG (2010). “Specification for safety-related steel plate concrete structures for nuclear

535 facilities.” Board of KEPIC Policy, Structural Committee, Korea Electric Association;

536 Kim, H.G., Kim, W.B., Kim, W.K. (2008). "Behavior and Strength of Wall-Slab Connection in

537 SC Structure." J. Korean Soc. Steel Constr., Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 347-354.

24
538 Kim, W.B., and Choi, B.J. (2011). "Shear Strength of Connections Between Open and Closed

539 Steel-Concrete Composite Sandwich Structures." Steel and Composite Structures, Vol.

540 11, No. 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/scs.2011.11.2.169, pp. 169-181

541 Kurt, E.G. (2016). “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls and Their Basemat Connections: Seismic

542 Behavior, Analysis and Design” Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette,

543 IN 47906

544 Kurt, E.G., Varma, A.H., Booth, P.N., and Whittaker, A., (2016). "In-plane Behavior and Design

545 of Rectangular SC Wall Piers Without Boundary Elements." ASCE Journal of Structural

546 Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001481,

547 04016026

548 Lee, K.J., Hwang, K.M., Hahm, K.W., and Kim, W.B. (2012). "An Experimental Study on

549 Flexural/Shear Load Properties of SC (steel plate concrete) Structure with Reinforced

550 Concrete Join." J. Korean Soc. Steel Constr., Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 137-147.

551 Nuclear Energy Institute. (2011). “Methodology for performing aircraft impact assessment for

552 new plant designs.” NEI 07-13, Draft Rev 8, prepared by ERIN Engineering & Research,

553 Walnut Creek, CA.

554 Ollgaard, J.G., Slutter, and R.G., Fisher, J.W., (1971). “Shear strength of stud connectors in

555 lightweight and normal-weight concrete.” Engineering Journal, Issue: April 1971, pp. 55–

556 61, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.

557 Ozaki, M., Akita, S., Oosuga, H., Nakayama, T., Adachi, N. (2004). “Study on Steel Plate

558 Reinforced Concrete Panels Subjected to Cyclic In-Plane Shear.” Nuclear Eng. and

559 Design, Vol. 228, pp. 225-244. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2003.06.010

25
560 Sener, K., and Varma, A.H. (2014). “Steel-Plate Composite SC Walls: Experimental Database

561 and Design for Out-of-Plane Shear.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier

562 Science, Vol. 100, pp. 197-210, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.04.014

563 Sener, K., Varma, A.H., Booth, P.N., and Fujimoto, R. (2015a). “Seismic Behavior of a

564 Containment Internal Structure Consisting of Composite SC Walls.” Nuclear Engineering

565 and Design, Vol. 295, pp. 804-816, Elsevier Science,

566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.038

567 Sener, K., Varma, A.H., and Ayhan, D. (2015b). “Steel-Plate Composite SC Walls: Experimental

568 Database and Design for Out-of-Plane Flexure.” Journal of Constructional Steel

569 Research, Vol. 108, May, pp. 46-59, Elsevier Science,

570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.02.002

571
572 Seo, J. (2014). “Design of steel concrete composite wall-to-wall joints for safety-related nuclear

573 facilities.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906,

574 http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI3636512/

575 Seo, J., and Varma, A.H. (2015). "Behaviour and Design of Corner or L-Joints in SC Walls."

576 Transactions of SMiRT 23 in Manchester, UK, Paper ID 695, IASMIRT, North Carolina

577 State University, Raleigh, NC, pp. 1-10.

578 Seo, J., Varma, A.H., Sener, K., and Ayhan, D. (2016). "Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls: In-

579 Plane Shear Behavior, Database, and Design." Journal of Constructional Steel Research,

580 Elsevier Science, Volume 119, Pages 202-215,

581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.12.013

582 Varma, A.H., Malushte, S., Sener, K., and Lai, Z., (2014). “Steel-Plate Composite (SC) Walls for

583 Safety Related Nuclear Facilities: Design for In-Plane Force and Out-of-Plane

26
584 Moments.” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Special Issue on SMiRT-21 Conference,

585 Vol. 269, pp. 240-249, Elsevier Science,

586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.09.019

587 Varma, A.H., Seo, J., Chi, H., and Baker, T., (2011). “Behavior of SC Wall Lap Splice

588 Anchorages.” Transactions of the 21st International Conference on Structural Mechanics

589 in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 21), New Delhi, India, Paper ID 765, IASMiRT, North

590 Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, pp. 1-10.

591 Varma, A.H., Seo, J., Chi, H., and Baker, T., (2011). “Behavior of SC Wall Lap Splice

592 Anchorages.” Transactions of SMiRT 21, New Delhi, India, Paper ID 765, IASMiRT,

593 NCSU, Raleigh, NC, pp. 1-10.

594 http://engineering.purdue.edu/~ahvarma/Publications/p765.pdf

595 Zhang, K., Varma, A.H., Malushte, S., and Gallocher, S. (2014). “Effects of Shear Connectors

596 on the Local Buckling and Composite Action in Steel Concrete Composite Walls.”

597 Nuclear Engineering and Design, Special Issue on SMiRT-21 Conference, Vol. 269, pp.

598 231-239, Elsevier Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.08.035

599

27
600 Table 1. Measured material properties of rebar anchors and baseplates.
Measure Measure
d yield d Tensile
strength Strength
(MPa) (MPa)
#18 Rebar anchor rods (DSS1) 540 690
#11 Rebar anchor rods (DSS2) 470 700
Baseplate (DSS1) – 90 mm 340 530
Baseplate (DSS2) – 55 mm 350 545
601

602 Table 2. Calculated design shear strengths of the test specimens with measured material

603 properties, Vsa ,m , and their comparison to the experimentally observed shear strength, Vexp .

fVsa ,m Vsa ,m 1.25Vsa ,m Vexp

Vexp /( Vsa ,m )
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
DSS1
- (Single #18 Rebar 796 1063 1330 1348 1.27
Anchor)
DSS2
(Double #11 Rebar 632 845 1054 1143 1.35
Anchors)
604

605 Table 3. Geometric and material properties of the couplers

Bar Size ΦA – ΦG1 – B futa

(mm) (MPa)
diameter (mm) diameter (mm)
#18 79 42 114 710
#11 50 26 75 700
606

607

608

609

610

611

28
612 Table 4. Comparison of direct shear strength calculated using the updated design equation,

613 Vrb-cp, and observed shear strength from the tests

Vrb -cp Vexp

Vexp /( Vrb -cp )
(kN) (kN)
DSS1
1530 1548 1.01
- (Single #18 Rebar Anchor)
DSS2
(Double #11 Rebar 1250 1263 1.01
Anchors)
614

615

29
616

617

618 Figure 1 – Schematic sketch of SC wall and rebar-coupler anchor system

619

620

621

622 Figure 2. Rebar anchor development length for specimens DSS1 and DSS2. (dimensions in

623 mm)

30
624

(a) Picture at the test day of (b) Detailed sketch of the test setup
DSS2
625

626 Figure 3. Test setup; (a) Photo on day of test for DSS2, and (b) Detailed sketch

627

628 Figure 4. Displacement sensor layout for the Specimens

31
629

630 (a) (b)

631 Figure 5 . Strain gage layout on the couplers and rebar anchors for (a) DSS1 and (b) DSS2

632

633 Figure 6. Applied force- measured strain on the rebar anchor for DSS1

32
634

635 Figure 7. Applied force - measured strain on the rebar anchor for DSS2

636 (a) (b)

637

638 Figure 8. Photographs of fractured coupler of DSS1 (#18 rebar); (a) inside the concrete

639 block, and (b) on the baseplate

33
640

641

642 Figure 9. Photographs of the fractured couplers of DSS2 (#11 rebars); (a) inside the concrete

643 block, and (b) on the baseplate

644

645 Figure 10 – Weldable Coupler Details and Shear Failure Plane

646 (https://www.erico.com/category.asp?category=R80)

34
647

648 Figure 11. Comparison of applied load-slip displacement behavior of (i) DSS1 Specimen, (ii)

649 Eq-5 by Ollgaard et al, and (iii) modified Eq-6 by authors

650

651 Figure 12. Comparison of applied load-slip displacement behavior of (i) DSS2 Specimen, (ii)

652 Eq-5 by Ollgaard et al, and (iii) modified Eq-6 by authors

35