Professional Documents
Culture Documents
N. Subramanian
Many structures such as microwave and transmission line with the help of anchor bolts. Also, in all the industrial
towers, industrial buildings, etc require that the superstructure buildings, the columns are connected to the foundation
be secured safely into the foundations using anchor bolts. concrete by means of anchor bolts.
However, rational methods are not available in the Indian However, methods to design such anchorages are not
code for calculating the tensile and shear load capacity of anchor given in the Indian code. Till recently, the only available source
bolts. Till recently, the methods suggested by the ACI 349-85 for their design was the American codes for nuclear safety
1,2.
code were used by designers. Based on extensive experimental related structures However, a number of researchers all
results, empirical formulae have been suggested by researchers over the world have conducted numerous experiments and
from Germany. An innovative method, called the concrete based on them, have suggested formulae for the design of
3,4,5
capacity design (CCD), has been found to give reasonable different kinds of fasteners . In India, cast in-situ anchors
estimates of tensile and shear load capacity of anchor bolts. are used often in practice, and hence, the design methods of
ACI 349 are applicable to them.
Moreover, the calculations made using the CCD method are
simple and less complex than the ACI code method. For It is well known that the concrete cone failure model, as
foundations involving high strength concrete, which tend to suggested by ACI 349, results in complex calculations,
be brittle, linear fracture mechanics methods should be applied. especially when multiple anchorages are used6. Hence, after
In this method, instead of the tensile strength of concrete, the an exhaustive number of experiments, Eligehausen and his
total crack formation energy has to be used to find the tensile associates have suggested a truncated pyramid failure
capacity of the anchor bolts. The article deals with the recent model7,8,9. This model has several advantages over the ACI
code method. They have also suggested modifications to the
developments in the design of anchor bolts and presents a
formula for taking into account cracked concrete10. These
comparative study of ACI and CCD methods. formulae have recently been incorporated in the Euro code11.
A description of these methods is given in this paper along
Microwave towers, transmission line towers, towers used with a comparison with the ACI code method. The worked
for oil well derricks and mine shaft equipment, beacon out examples clearly illustrate the ease of applying this
supports, observation platform towers, etc are examples of method for the design of anchorages.
self- supporting towers. Normally, in the case of transmission
line towers, the stub angle is taken inside the pad portion of The design philosophy developed so far is based on the
the foundation, and cleat angle and keying rods anchor this tensile strength of concrete. It has been observed that in many
stub angle, Fig 1. But, in the case of microwave towers, the kinds of failures where tensile capacity governs, there was a
stub angle is connected to the pad portion through base plate disturbing size-effect that could not be explained12. According
to fracture mechanics principles, it has been shown that the
Dr N. Subramanian, Chief Executive, Computer Design Consultants, 191, North failure load of headed studs anchored in concrete depends
Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. on the material parameters, EC and GF and not, as usually
w w
b
Substituting for AN and fct, we get for a single anchor
Cleat angle unlimited by edge influences or overlapping cones:
(c)
dh
f ck hef (1 +
2
Fig 1 Typical foundation for transmission line towers (a) Nuo = 0.96 ) (3)
foundation with stub angle (b) foundation with base plate hef
(c) typical stub angle details
where, fck = compressive strength measured on 200-mm
cubes and hef and dh are defined in Fig 2.
assumed, on the tensile strength. This is of great interest,
especially in high strength concrete, which tends to be brittle. For fastenings with edge effects (c<hef) and/or affected
by other concrete breakout cones (s < 2hef), the average failure
Tensile capacity of anchor bolts load follows from eqn. (3) as under:
Based on the results of numerous pullout tests with headed-
anchors, an empirical formula for the calculation of the AN
maximum load N u of fastenings has been derived
1,2,3,4,5,6
. Nu = N uo
ANo
Generally, this equation is of the form:
b c
where, ANo = projected area of stress cone of a single anchor
Nu = a(fck) (hef) (1)
2
where, fck = concrete compressive strength, N/mm
2 h ef + dh
hef = embedment length, mm
N
and a,b,c = constants.
The influence of embedment length is given by c, found AN V
45
o
O
to be in the range of 1.5 to 1.54, which means that the failure
load does not increase in proportion to the surface of the
h ef
c1
d
failure cone, Fig 2. However, in the ACI code, the value of c o
Av
o
45
has been chosen as 2, which anticipates a direct proportionality
between the failure load and the size of the failure cone surface. dh
The factor a is used to calibrate the measured failure load
(a) (b)
with the predicted values and to assure the dimensional
correctness of eqn. (1). The expression (fck)b represents the Fig 2 Concrete breakout bodies according to ACI 349
(a) tensile loading (b) shear loading
hef
1.5 h ef 15
.
Nuo = k1k2k3 fck (hef ) (8)
(a)
where, k1, k2 and k3 are calibration factors. Note that, by
(b) basing the tensile failure load on the effective embedment
depth hef , the computed load will always be conservative,
8
Fig 3 Idealised concrete cone for individual fastening even for an anchor that might experience pullout .
under tensile loading as per CCD method
Assuming k4 = k1k2k3
where, c = distance from centre of anchor bolt to edge where, k4 = 13.5 for post-installed fasteners
of concrete = 15.5 for cast in-situ headed studs and headed
s = distance between anchor bolts (spacing). anchor bolts
hef = embedment length, Fig 3.
Shear load capacity of bolt as per ACI code
Eligehausen and Balogh10 have further suggested that the
The capacity of an individual anchor failing in shear (Fig 2(b)) above values of k4 may be multiplied by a factor equal to 0.75
(provided that the concrete half-cone is fully developed) is to take into account cracked concrete. If headed studs are
given by: located in the intersection of cracks running in two directions
2
(example in slabs spanning in two directions), the concrete
Vuo = 0.48 f ck (c1) (6) cone failure load is about 20 percent lower than the value
If the depth of the concrete member is small (h < c1) and/ according to eqn. (9).
or the spacing is close (s < 2c1) and/or the edge distance
perpendicular to the load direction is small (c2 < c1), the
load has to be reduced with the aid of the projected
area on the side of the concrete member as below:
1.5hef 1.5hef
A A
N N
1.5hef
AV
3hef
Vu = Vuo (7)
Avo
AN
Eligehausen and his associates have developed a
method called the concrete capacity design (CCD)
1.5hef
7
conducted by them on various types of anchors .
c1
V
ANo = projected area of one anchor at the concrete
V o surface unlimited by edge influences or
@35
o @ 35
h neighbouring anchors, idealising the failure
h
c1 c1 cone as a pyramid with a base length scr =
3hef, Fig 4(a),
1.5 c 1
1.5 c1
c1
proportion to 1 / h e f and the failure load increases with
1.5 c1
1.5 c1
1.5 AV Av
(h ef) .
to develop, the load-bearing capacity of the anchorage A v = A vo ( single fastening ) Av = 1.5 c 1 ( 1.5 c 1 + c 2 )
is also reduced. (Note that with an edge distance in all = 1.5 c 1 ( 2 x 1.5 c 1 ) if : c 2 _
< 1.5 c 1
directions c ³ 60d, it may be assumed that no concrete = 4.5 c 12 (a) (b)
edge failure will occur). This is also true for fasteners
spaced so closely that the breakout cones overlap. One
of the principal advantages of the CCD method is that
calculation of the changes in capacity due to factors such
c1
c1
GF C Aggregate interlock
and other frictional
Deformation effects
arc tan Eo
Deformation
EtL A D
c1
crack zone deformation, w1
(a) (b)
s £ 3c1 s s
Fig 9 Tensile testing of concrete (a) test with load control
which gives a brittle failure. (b) test with load -
s1 deformation control
hef = effective anchorage depth, Fig 3. For faste- = h ef for fasteners with a constant overall
nings with three or four edges and cmax £1.5hef stiffness, such as headed studs, undercut
(cmax = largest edge distance), the embedment anchors and torque-controlled expansion
depth to be inserted in eqn. (10) is limited to anchors, where there is no distance sleeve
hef = cmax/1.5. This gives a constant failure load = 2d for torque-controlled expansion anchors
for deep embedments8. with distance sleeve separated from the
Examples for calculation of projected areas are given in expansion sleeve
Fig 4. Note the relatively simple calculation for the CCD d = diameter of anchor bolt in mm
6
method compared to that of the ACI 349 method . and cl = edge distance in loading direction in mm.
Shear load capacity as per CCD method According to eqn. (11) the shear failure load does not
increase with the failure surface area, which is proportional
The concrete capacity of an individual anchor in a thick to (c1)2. Rather, it is proportional to (c1)1.5. This is again due to
uncracked structural member under shear loading toward size effect. Furthermore, the failure load is influenced by the
the free edge, Fig 5, is anchor stiffness and diameter. The size effect on the shear
failure load has been verified theoretically and
experimentally8.
Equation 14 1200
0.8
Nu = 2.1 EGF hef 1.5
Test
0.6
800
Max load, kN
a = 1.5
0.4 Nu
a = 2.0
400
0.2
a
B
L
0
0 200 400 600
V / Vu embedment depth h ef, mm
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
13. ELIGEHAUSEN, R., and SAWADE, G., Fracture mechanics based description of the
EC = modulus of elasticity of concrete (a value of 23500 N/mm2 pull-out behaviour of headed studs embedded in concrete in RILEM report on
was used). Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures From theory to Applications, Elfgren,
L, Ed, Chapman & Hall, London, 1989, pp. 281-299.
A comparison of the above equation with the test results
is shown in Fig 10. It is found that the agreement between Illustrative examples
theory and test result is sufficiently close for practical purposes. Example 1
Calculate the tensile and shear capacities of a single headed anchor
Conclusion bolt as per ACI and CCD method. Assuming that concrete half
Methods for the design of anchorages are not available in the cone is fully developed in case of shear failure and there is no edge
influences or overlapping cones.
Indian code. The methods suggested in the ACI 349-85 involve
complex calculations. Based on the extensive experimental dh = 45.2 mm (for d = 27mm)
study, equations for the ultimate tensile capacity and ultimate
c1 = 300 mm (for headed anchors c1 = hef)
shear capacity of headed anchor bolts have been derived by
Eligehausen and his associates. These equations are easy to hef = 300 m m
apply for multiple anchorages, since they involve square- fck = 2 0 N/mm 2
based, truncated pyramids. The differences between this Tensile capacity as per ACI code
approach and the ACI approach have been brought out. For
foundations using high strength concrete, instead of the 45.2
= 0.96 2 0 × 300 (1 +
2
Nu ) = 444,609 N
tensile strength of concrete, the total crack formation energy 300
has to be taken to compute the ultimate tensile load.
Tensile capacity as per CCD method
Acknowledgements
N uo = 15.5 20 (300) 1. 5 = 360,187 N
The author is highly indebted to Prof. Eligehausen, professor
and head for fastening techniques at the Institute for Building Shear capacity as per ACI method
Materials, University of Stuttgurt, Germany for making
Vu = 0.48 20 (300) 2 = 193,196 N
available numerous publications, based on which this article
is written. Shear capacity as per CCD method
References Vu = (300/27)0.2 27
1.5
20 (300) = 195,445 N
1. ______ Code requirements for nuclear safety related concrete structures (ACI It is clearly seen that the values predicted by the CCD method
349-85). ACI Committee 349, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan are quite reasonable as compared to the ACI code method.
48219, USA, 1985.
2. ______ Design Guide to ACI 349-85, ACI Committee 349, American Concrete Example 2
Institute, Detroit, Michigan 48219, USA, 1985.
Calculate the tensile and shear capacities of a headed anchor bolt
3. ELIGEHAUSEN, R., MALLEE, R., and REHM, G., Befesttigungstecknik, Beton- arrangement as shown in Fig 11.
Kalender 1997, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 145 pp.
d = 27 mm
4. HAWKINS, N. Strength in shear and tension of cast-in place anchor bolts in
Anchorage to Concrete, SP-103, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985,
pp. 233-255.
dh = 45.2 mm
5. BODE, H., and ROIK, K. Headed studs embedded in concrete and loaded in c1 = 500 mm
tension in Anchorage to Concrete, SP-103, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
1993, pp. 61-88. hef = 300 mm
6. SUBRAMANIAN, N., and VASANTHI, V., Design of anchor bolts in concrete. The
Bridge and Structural Engineer. September 1991, Vol. XXI, No.3, pp. 47-73. fck = 25 N/mm 2
7. FUCHS, W., ELIGEHAUSEN, R., and BREEN, J.E., Concrete capacity design (CCD) Tensile load capacity
approach for fastenings to concrete, ACI Structural Journal. January-February
1995, Vol 92, No 1, pp. 73-94.
8. FUCHS, W., and ELIGEHAUSEN, R., Das CC-Verfahren fur die Berechnung der
Betonausbruchlast von Verankerungen, Beton und Stahlbetonbau, H. 1/1995,
pp. 6-9, H. 2/1995, pp. 38-44, H. 3/1995, pp. 73-76.
12. BEZANT, Z.P., Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete, rock, metal, Journal of the
Fig 11 A typical headed anchor bolt arrangment
s1 = 600 £ 3 hef
dh = 32.95 mm Tu 300,000
= = 0.661 < 1
Nu 453,818
c1 = 300 mm < 1.5hef
c2 = 300 mm < 1.5hef V 60,000
= = 0.498 < 1
s1, s2 = 600 mm < 3hef Vu 120,556
N uo = 13.5 20 (250) 1.5 = 238,648 N (Tu/Nu) + (V/Vu) = 0.661 + 0.498 = 1.159 < 1.2
AN = (300 + 600 + 1.5 ´ 250) (300 + 600 + 1.5 ´ 250) (Tu/Nu)
1.5
+ (V/Vu)
1.5
= (0.661)
1.5
+ (0.498)
1.5
2
= 1,625,625 mm
= 0.537 + 0.351
A No = 9 ´ 2502 = 562,500 mm2
y 2 = 0.7 + 0.3(300/(1.5 ´ 250)) = 0.94 = 0.888 < 1