2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2500

Design of Anchor Reinforcement in Concrete Pedestals

Widianto1, Jerry Owen2, and Chandu Patel3
1
ExxonMobil Development Company, Civil/Structural Engineer, Fixed Structures
and Civil Engineering, 12450 Greenspoint Dr., Houston, TX 77060, (281)654-3994,
widianto.widianto@exxonmobil.com
2
ExxonMobil Development Company, Civil Engineer, 665 8th St. SW, Calgary,
Alberta, (403)298-5413, jerry.owen@exxonmobil.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3
Bechtel Corporation, Structural Engineer, C/S/A, 3000 Post Oak Blvd., Houston, TX
77056, (713) 235-5815, capatel@bechtel.com

ABTRACT

One of the major additions incorporated in Appendix D of ACI 318-08 is the

definition of anchor reinforcement in addition to the previously defined
supplementary reinforcement. However, ACI 318-08 does not provide the specific
guidelines for designing such reinforcement. This paper presents methods for
designing a typical anchorage in reinforced concrete pedestals for both tension and
shear forces. It addresses the failure modes to be checked (steel failure of the anchor
in tension, and shear if applicable, concrete side-face blowout, concrete pull-out), and
how to properly size and detail the pedestal reinforcement to transfer both the tensile
and shear forces.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Prior to ACI 318-08

Appendix D “Anchoring to Concrete” has been included in ACI 318 since 2002 (i.e.
ACI 318-02) and provides design requirements for anchorage to concrete, with a
focus on the anchor strength and the unreinforced concrete strengths (breakout,
pullout, side-face blowout, and pryout) based on the Concrete Capacity Design
(CCD) methodology.

Prior to ACI 318-08, Appendix D of ACI 318 recognized the beneficial effects of
supplementary reinforcement across the potential concrete breakout cone when
evaluating the strength of an anchor. However, even though the use of supplementary
reinforcement to restrain the concrete breakout (Section D.4.2.1 of ACI 318-02 and
ACI 318-05) is permitted, specific guidelines in designing such reinforcement are not
provided, and the corresponding commentary indicates that the designer has to rely
on other test data and design theories when including the effects of supplementary
reinforcement. In addition, it is not clear what types of reinforcement can be included
as supplementary reinforcement.

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2501

1.2 ACI 318-08

In order to reduce some confusion about supplementary reinforcement, the ACI 318-
08 defines two types of reinforcement that can be used across a potential breakout
cone:
• Supplementary reinforcement
Supplementary reinforcement is the reinforcement that acts to restrain the
potential concrete breakout but is not designed to transfer the full design load
from the anchors into the structural member.
• Anchor reinforcement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Anchor reinforcement is designed and detailed specifically to transfer the full

design load from the anchors into the structural member. An explicit design
and full development of anchor reinforcement is required. Sections D.5.2.9
and D.6.2.9 indicate where anchor reinforcement is developed in accordance
with Chapter 12 of ACI 318 on both sides of the breakout surface, the design
strength of the anchor reinforcement shall be permitted to be used instead of
the concrete breakout strength.

It is now clear that anchorage forces can be resisted by concrete strength (in plain
concrete or when supplementary reinforcement is provided only) or by anchor
reinforcement. The required size of concrete member to resist anchorage forces by
concrete strength only is typically much larger than that by anchor reinforcement.

1.3 Reinforced Concrete Pedestals

Reinforced concrete pedestals are commonly used to support static equipment (i.e.,
horizontal vessels and heat exchangers) and pipe-rack or industrial building columns.
The size of commonly used reinforced concrete pedestals is typically insufficient to
resist the anchorage forces without anchor reinforcement. It is also typically a
construction preference to keep the anchors inside the reinforced concrete pedestal
only and not extended into mat or footings. Therefore, the anchorage design in
reinforced concrete pedestals following the requirements of ACI 318 Appendix D
almost always includes designing anchor reinforcement.

2. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

When designing anchor reinforcement, the following design philosophy and practices
need to be considered:
• Anchor reinforcement is fully activated only after a concrete breakout cone
has potentially developed. Therefore, the anchor force is assumed to be
resisted only by the reinforcement and concrete contribution is neglected.
• When a ductile design is required, the reinforcement should be proportioned
to develop the strength of the anchor. When a ductile design is not required,
the reinforcement may be designed to resist the factored design load.

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2502

• When reinforcement is used to restrain concrete breakout, the overall

anchorage design should ensure that there is sufficient strength corresponding
to the other concrete failure modes: pullout, side-face blowout, and pryout
failures.
- The pullout strength of headed anchors Np can be estimated using the Eq.
(D-15) of the ACI 318-08 (i.e. N p = 8 Abrg f c ' , where Abrg is the net bearing
area of the embedded anchor head).
- Where there is a realistic possibility of side-face blowout, it is
recommended that the engineers make all efforts to change the bolt layout,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concrete configuration, or the bearing area to preclude blowout before

committing to a solution that relies on supplemental reinforcing.
- The pryout failure is only critical for short and stiff anchors. It is
reasonable to assume that for general cast-in place headed anchors with
hef,min = 12 do, the pryout failure will not govern.
• The rebar development length should be adequate to fully develop the
required load on both sides of the failure surface.
• The arrangement of reinforcement should consider the minimum clearance
requirements for placing and vibrating of concrete and the minimum bar
spacing requirements.

3. DESIGNING ANCHOR REINFORCEMENT FOR TENSION

The vertical anchor reinforcement for tension intersects potential crack planes
adjacent to the anchor head thus transferring the tension load from the anchor to the
reinforcement as long as proper development length is provided to develop the
required strength, both above and below the intersection between the assumed failure
plane and reinforcement (Fig. 1a). The development length may be reduced when
excess reinforcement is provided per Section 12.2.5 of the ACI 318-08 (but cannot be
less than 12″). Reduction in the development length cannot be applied in the areas of
moderate or high seismic risk. In order to limit the embedment length of an anchor, a
larger number of smaller-size reinforcing bars is preferred over fewer, larger-size
reinforcing bars.

3.1 Recommended location

There are various guidelines about how far the anchor reinforcement for tension
loading should be placed from the anchor (i.e., dmax shown in Fig. 1a).
• Cannon et al. (1981) indicated that for hairpin reinforcement to effectively
intercept the potential failure planes, each leg should be located with hef/3
from the edge of an anchor head, where hef is the effective embedment depth
of the anchor. However, there was no test data that was referenced in Cannon
et al. (1981) as a basis of their recommendation.
• In the previous edition of ASCE document (1997), it is stated that to be
considered effective, the distance of the reinforcement from the anchor bolt

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2503

head should not exceed the lesser of one-fifth of Ld or 6 inches, where Ld is

the embedment length of the anchor bolt.
• Comite Euro-International Du Beton (1997) recommended that the
reinforcement is placed as closely as possible to the headed anchors and
preferably tied to the anchors.
• Section 7.3.2.a of PIP STE05121 (2006) indicates that hairpin legs and
vertical dowels shall be located within hef/3 from the edge of the anchor head.
However, there was no test validation for this recommendation.
• Lee et al. (2007) stated that the supplementary hairpin reinforcement must be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

arranged at a distance less than 4 inches or 0.15hef from the anchor. However,
they also indicated that their test results cannot be used to develop a general
design model for anchors with supplementary reinforcement.
• ACI 318-08 Section RD.5.2.9 indicates that only reinforcement spaced less
than 0.5hef from the anchor centerline should be included as the anchor
reinforcement. The ACI 318 specification is based on research with the
maximum diameter similar to #5 bar.
It can be seen that there is currently no available test data that can be used to strongly
recommend the location of anchor reinforcement in typical pedestals. Without any
available test results, it is prudent and a good practice to place anchor reinforcement
as close as practicable to the anchor in order to prevent any unknown failure
mechanism. It should also be noted that as the distance between anchor reinforcement
and anchor increases, the required height of pedestal also increases in order to fully
develop the anchor reinforcement.

3.2 Required area

The required area of reinforcement, Ast, per anchor is as follows:

When ductile design is not required, the reinforcement can be proportioned to carry
the factored tension design load per anchor Tu as follows:
Tu
A st ≥ (1)
φ f y
When ductile design is required and it is desired that yielding of the anchor will
provide the required ductility in the connection, the reinforcement should be
proportioned to develop the strength of the anchor as follows:
f
Ast ≥ Ase uta (2)
fy
Design for anchor ductility requires that the necessary conditions for elongation over
a reasonable gage length are fulfilled, i.e., that strain localization will not limit the
yield strain. Anchors are assumed to transfer all tension forces to the head of the
anchor for reinforcement design purposes. High strength bolts should have provisions
for allowing stretching, if required, to transfer tension forces to the anchor head.

When the anchor is sized for more than 2.5 times Tu, it is permitted to design the
reinforcement to carry 2.5 times Tu to satisfy IBC 2006 and ASCE 7-05 requirements

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2504

for Seismic Design Categories C and above where ductility cannot be achieved as
follows:
2.5 Tu
Ast ≥ (3)
φ fy
where:
Ase = effective cross-sectional area of anchor
φ = 0.75, strength reduction factor
fy = specified minimum yield strength of reinforcement
futa = specified minimum tensile strength of anchor steel
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tension
force ld or ldh ld or ldh

Top of concrete Top of concrete V

pedestal pedestal

2″ 2″
3″
3″
hef
ld ld or ldh ld or ldh
Tie spacing as
35° required by pier
design
≥ ld or ldh as
applicable 35°
Pier reinforcement
(dowel to mat) dmax

a. Tension b. Shear
Figure 1. Development of anchor reinforcement on both sides of
concrete breakout cone

4. DESIGNING ANCHOR REINFORCEMENT FOR SHEAR

Where allowed by Code, shear may be transferred by friction between the base plate
and the concrete with the anchors used for transfer of tension only. If the factored
shear loads exceed the shear friction capacity a suitable means must be provided to
transfer the shear from the base plate to the pedestal. This can be accomplished by the
following:
• Use of shear lugs
• Use of a mechanism to transfer load from the base plate to the anchor without
slippage (such as welding bearing washers in place).
When a group of anchors is used to transfer the shear force, Cases 1 and 2 shown in
Fig. RD.6.2.1(b) of ACI 318-08 can be used to determine the critical concrete
breakout cone. In Fig. 1b, it is assumed that the concrete breakout cone propagates
from the rear anchor.

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2505

4.1 Recommended location

For shear loading, ACI 318-08 Section D.6.2.9 indicates that anchor reinforcement
should be either developed on both sides of the breakout surface (Fig. 1b), or enclose
the anchor and is developed beyond the breakout surface. In order to ensure yielding
of the anchor reinforcement, the enclosing anchor reinforcement should be in contact
with the anchor and placed as close as practicable to the concrete surface. The ACI
318-08 specification is based on research with the maximum diameter similar to #5
bar. The effective width for a grid of surface reinforcement is shown in Fig.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RD.6.2.9(b) of ACI 318-08.

4.2 Required area

For ductile design, the shear reinforcement should be designed to develop the
ultimate shear capacity of the anchors. If this is not practical, the shear reinforcement
can be designed to develop 2.5 times the factored design shear load.

5. ALTERNATE DESIGN METHOD USING STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL

A strut-and-tie model (STM) is an ultimate strength design method based on the

formation of a hypothetical truss that transmits forces from loading points to supports.
The STM utilizes concrete struts to resist compression and reinforcing ties to carry
tension. Design using STM involves calculating the required amount of
reinforcement to serve as the tension ties and then checking that the compressive
struts and nodal zone (joints) are sufficiently large enough to support the forces. A
key advantage of design using STM is that the engineer can visualize the flow of
stresses in the structural member.

ACI 318-08 Sections RD.5.2.9 and RD.6.2.9 state that in sizing the anchor
reinforcement, the use of strength reduction factor φ=0.75 is recommended as is used
for the STM. Even though the Appendix D of ACI 318-08 implicitly recommends the
use of STM design approach in designing anchor reinforcement, it does not provide
much guidance.

While the STM is a conceptually simple design tool, it requires an assumption for the
following parameters:
1. Capacity of struts and nodes
2. Geometry of struts and nodal zones
3. Anchorage of tie reinforcement

In order to shed a light in the lack of guidelines and test results, the following models
and assumptions are suggested in order to proceed with the use of STM:

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2506

5.1 STM for tension loading

One possible STM for tension loading is shown in Fig. 2. Using the STM design
approach, it is assumed that the diagonal concrete struts propagate radially from the
anchor head. As a result of this diagonal concrete struts, there are radially horizontal
force components propagating from the anchor head. For clarity, only the horizontal
force in one direction is shown in Fig. 2. This horizontal force component is the force
that can cause:
• Side-face blowout (lateral bursting) failure when concrete cover is insufficient
•
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Splitting cracks when concrete cover is sufficient

In Fig. 2, the resultant of the radial horizontal component propagating from the
anchor head is denoted F. The magnitude of F depends on the concrete bearing
pressure on the head. Therefore, the angle of diagonal concrete struts also depends on
the concrete bearing pressure on the head. Instead of one single diagonal strut, most
likely there are several diagonal struts propagating from the anchor head (i.e., fan
shaped struts). As a result, the available nodal area (where the diagonal struts meet
with the vertical reinforcing bars) and strut area are relatively large and hence, it is
assumed that there is sufficient strength for such nodes and struts in typical concrete
pedestals.

Current design codes do not provide much guidance on the magnitude of the blowout
force F or on the reinforcing design methods. Since the magnitude of F depends on
the concrete bearing pressure, F can be related to the tension force T by a coefficient
α.

In the Appendix B of ACI 349-97, the commentary to Section B.4.4 stated that the
lateral blowout force could be conservatively taken as one-fourth of the tensile
capacity of the anchor steel (i.e., α=0.25). The commentary further recommended
that the engineer rely on accepted practices for prestressing anchorages and use spiral
reinforcement around the embedded portion of the bolt. Reinforcing ties or U shaped
bars (also referred to as hairpins) are options; however, the bars must be properly
developed and placed in close proximity to the anchor head, which can be difficult
given the adjacent free edge.

Furche and Eligehausen (1991) suggested:

p p
α = 0.11 ≅ 0.1 (4)
f cc , 200 fc '
where p is the bearing pressure, which is equal to tension force T divided by net
bearing area of the head Abrg.

Based on extensive non-linear numerical investigations, Hofmann and Eligehausen

(2002) proposed:
p p
α = 0.045 ≅ 0.037 ≤ 0.5 (5)
f cc , 200 fc '

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2507

In lack of comprehensive test results, it is recommended that the maximum α from

the following (α = 0.25, α from Eq. (4), and α from Eq. (5)) is used. Anchor
reinforcement in the form of regular transverse ties or hairpins should be designed to
carry F. Since the majority of action occurs at the bearing surface of the anchor head,
it is recommended that the anchor reinforcement is placed as closely as possible to
the bearing surface of the anchor head.

Since the node is relatively large, when checking the available development length of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vertical reinforcing bars, it is also reasonable to assume the available length is

measured from the intersection between the 35-degree breakout cone angle and the
vertical reinforcing bars. This assumption is consistent with Thompson et al. (2006)
recommendation for the mechanism of force transfer between opposing lapped
headed bars: “the angle of concrete struts between opposing lapped headed bars is 35
degrees.”

Herein, since the available area for nodes and struts are assumed to be sufficiently
large, the STM for tension loading is used only to proportion ties (i.e. vertical
reinforcing bars and horizontal ties) based on the overall equilibrium of the system.
Based on vertical force equilibrium, the vertical reinforcing bars should be
proportioned to carry the total tension force Ttotal in the pedestal. And based on
horizontal force equilibrium, the ties should be proportioned to carry the total
horizontal force F.
T T

Diagonal concrete struts

Elevation

Resultant of horizontal component of

diagonal concrete struts, which is
assumed to be similar to side-face
Plan F=α×T blowout force, F.

Figure 2. Possible STM for tension loading

5.2 STM for Shear Loading

One possible STM for shear loading on the rectangular pedestal is shown in Fig. 3. In
order to shed a light in the lack of guidelines, the following assumptions are

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2508

suggested in order to proceed with the use of STM for shear transfer analysis on
pedestal anchorage and for designing the anchor reinforcement for shear:

Tie
T1
Concrete strut
V
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Hairpin
T2 V force per anchor
V : Shear
T2 T1 : Tension force on tie
V T2 : Tension force on hairpin
Anchor do : Diameter of anchor
T1

Grout Note:
Section 7.10.5.6 of the ACI 318-08
2″ indicates that the lateral
reinforcement shall surround at
3″ 8do least four vertical bars, shall be
distributed within 5 inches of the
pedestal, and shall consist of at
least two #4 or three #3 bars.
do
1.5
1 Anchor

Concrete strut

Rebar

Figure 3. Concrete struts and tension ties for carrying anchor shear force

1. Concrete strength for struts and bearings fcu is 0.85fc′ based on the Appendix A of
ACI 318-08. This assumption is conservative considering significant amount of
confinement in pedestals.

2. The concrete struts from anchors to vertical rebars are shown in Fig. 3. Section
D.6.2.2 of the ACI 318-08 indicates that the maximum load bearing length of the
anchor for shear is 8do where do is the anchor diameter. Therefore, the bearing area
of the anchor is assumed (8do)do = 8do2. The compressive force from the anchor to
rebar is assumed to spread with a slope of 1.5 to 1. When the internal ties are not
required (in the case where axial force in the pedestal is so small that Section
7.10.5.3 of the ACI 318-08 does not apply), the STM shown in Fig. 4 can be used.

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2509

For a given anchor shear V, the tension tie force T in Fig. 4 is larger than T1 in Fig.
3.

Tie
T
Concrete strut
V
V
V : Shear force per anchor
V
T : Tension force on tie
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

V
Anchor
TT

Figure 4. STM without internal ties

3. For tie reinforcement, the following assumptions are suggested:

a. Only the top most two layers of ties (Assume 2-#4 within 5 inches of top of
pedestal as required by Section 7.10.5.6 of the ACI 318-08), shown in Fig. 3, are
effective.

b. Tie reinforcement should consist of tie with seismic hooks. If internal ties are
required, hairpins could be used. As an alternative, diamond-shaped ties can also
be used.

c. The location of hooks and the direction of hairpins should be alternated as shown
in Fig. 5.

d. If the available length of hairpin lah (Fig. 5) is shorter than the required straight
development length for a fully developed hairpin ld, the maximum strength that
l
can be developed in hairpin is f y × ah , where fy is the yield strength of hairpin. If
ld
lah is shorter than 12 inches (i.e. the minimum development length based on
Section 12.2.1 of the ACI 318-08), hairpin should not be used.

e. At the nodes away from the hook, the tie is assumed to be fully developed. For
example, under the shear force V, the tie on layer A can develop fy at the nodes 1
and 6 (Fig. 5).

f. At the node where the hook is located, the tie cannot develop fy. For example,
under the shear force V, while the tie on layer A (Fig. 5) can develop fy at the node
6, the tie on layer B cannot develop fy because the hook of tie B is located at the
node 6. In order to calculate the contribution from tie B to the tension tie at the
node 6, the stiffness of “Case 1” shown in Fig. 6 (smooth rebar with 180° hook
bearing in concrete (Fabbrocino et al., 2005)) is compared to the stiffness of “Case

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2510

2” (the conventional single-leg stirrup with reinforcing bars inside the bends
(Leonhardt and Walther, 1965 as cited in Ghali and Youakim, 2005)). Even though
the capacity of “Case 2” may be higher than the capacity of “Case 1” due to
bearing on the heavier rebar, the contact will not always present because of
common imprecise workmanship. When the contact is not present, the “Case 2” is
assumed to behave as “Case 1”. Leonhardt and Walther (1965) found that in order
to develop fy on the bends of 90°, 135°, and 180° hooks when engaging heavier
bars lodged inside the bends (“Case 2” in Figure 6), there was a slip about 0.2 mm.
Based on the test results of Fabbrocino et al. (2005), the stress at the hook that was
developed at the smooth rebar with 180° hook bearing in concrete when it slipped
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2 mm was about 20 ksi. Therefore, it is assumed that the tie can only develop 20
ksi at the node where the hook is located.

V 1 dtie 2 3
6dtie ≥ 3″

2″ Layer A
3″
lah
4 5
Layer B
V

6 7 8

Layer A

1 dtie 2 3

4 5
V
6dtie ≥ 3″
6 7 8

Layer B

Figure 5. Alternated direction of hooks and hairpins for the top most two layers
of ties

T T

Case 1 Case 2

Figure 6. Bearing of J-shape bars on concrete and bearing of conventional

stirrup on rebar

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 2511

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318. (2002, 2005, 2008). Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ACI Committee 349. (1997, 2006). Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related
Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
ASCE. (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Craig Brinck on 12/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cannon, R. W., D. A. Godfrey and F. L. Moreadith. (1981). “Guide to the Design of

Anchor Bolts and Other Steel Embedments,” Concrete International, July.
Comite Euro-International Du Beton. (1997). Design of Fastenings in Concrete:
Design Guide. Thomas Telford, United Kingdom.
Elfgren, L., Broms, C.E., Cederwall, K., Gylltoft, K. (1982). “Fatigue of Anchor
Bolts in Reinforced Concrete Foundations,” Fatigue of Steel and Concrete
Structures, IABSE, Vol. 37, International Association for Bridges and
Structural Engineering, Zurich, pp. 463-470.
Eligehausen, R., Mallee, R., and Silva, J.F. (2006). Anchorage in Concrete
Construction. Ernst and Son.
Fabbrocino, G., Verderame, G.M., and Manfredi, G. (2005). “Experimental behavior
of anchored smooth rebars in old type reinforced concrete buildings,”
Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 1575-1585.
Furche, J., and Eligehausen, R. (1991). “Lateral Blow-out Failure of Headed Studs
Near a Free Edge,” Anchors in Concrete—Design and Behavior, SP-130,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 235-252.
Ghali, A. and Youakim, S.A. (2005). “Headed Studs in Concrete: State of the Art,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, pp. 657-667.
Hofmann, J. and Eligehausen, R. (2002). “Lokaler Betonausbruch bei Randnahen
Befestigungen mit Kopfbolzen (Local blowout failure with headed anchors
close to an edge),” Institut fur Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universiat Stuttgart,
Paper presented at the meeting of FIB Special Activity Group, Beijing. (in
German).
International Code Council, Inc. (2006). International Building Code (IBC).
Lee, N.H, Kim, K.S, Bang, C.J., Park, K.R. (2007). “Tensile-Headed Anchors with
Large Diameter and Deep Embedment in Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 104, No. 4, pp. 479-486.
Leonhardt, F. and Walther, R. (1965). “Welded Wire Mesh as Stirrup Reinforcements
– Shear Tests on T-Beams and Anchorage Tests,” Bautechnik, V. 42, October.
(in German)
Process Industry Practices (PIP). (2006). “Anchor Bolt Design Guide,” PIP
STE05121, October.
Thompson, M.K., Ledesma, A, Jirsa, J.O., and Breen, J.E. (2006). “Lap Splices
Anchored by Headed Bars.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 271-
279.

Structures Congress 2010