Test Methods for Seismic Qualification of Post-Installed Anchors

John F. Silva, S.E.

Hilti, Inc., USA

Abstract

The qualification of post-installed anchors for use in seismic environments in the U.S.
has been addressed independently by a number of different groups, including ICBO
Evaluation Service, Inc., the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California
(SEAOSC), ACI, and the telecommunications industry. Some of these methods have
been derived from approaches developed in the nuclear industry to account for a variety
of possible events (earthquake, explosion, impact).

The primary focus of most of the test methods current and proposed is the response of
the installed anchor to external cyclic loading, tension and shear. With the exception of
the NEBS criteria, which consists of shake-table testing, strain rate effects are not taken
into account. Two methods, the Provisional Test Method developed by ACI Committee
355 and the German nuclear standard developed by the Deutsches Institut für
Bautechnologie (DIBt), explicitly consider damage to the concrete in the form of a static
crack passing through the anchor location. The SEAOSC criteria provides a comparison
of the post-installed anchor with an “equivalent” cast-in-place headed anchor, and results
in load-displacement information (stiffness degradation, total slip) for cyclic loading
throughout the entire load range (to failure). Results are presented for one anchor tested
to three of these criteria: ICBO ES AC01 Method 2, SEAOSC, and the German nuclear
standard. Conclusions are drawn regarding the effectiveness of the respective test
methods.

1. Earthquakes and Their Effect on Anchor Performance

Strong ground motion associated with earthquakes can be defined in terms of strain rate
− 5 − 2
( 10 < ε < 10 ) , number of cycles (typically < 30) and displacement (from several
centimeters to a meter or more). Previous studies indicate that the strain rates associated

SILVA, Test Methods, 1 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
with earthquakes are not a significant factor, positive or negative, for anchor behavior.
At sub-yield load levels, cycling shear loads can lead to stiffness loss; pulsing tension
loads are generally less significant. At load levels at or near ultimate, stiffness
degradation is more significant. Displacement beyond the deformation capacity of the
anchor is obviously a criterion for anchor failure. Many of the documented anchor
failures in the literature can in fact be characterized as resulting from excessive
deformation demand, usually in shear.

Inertial forces generated in structures by strong ground motion are more difficult to
characterize. Historically, the design of structures for earthquake resistance has focused
on collapse prevention. For this purpose, design forces were defined as a percentage of
the building mass, typically at levels that are far below expected inertial forces. Implicit
in this approach is an expectation of structure overload with attendant member yielding
and stiffness degradation.

More recently, design methods are derived from a multi-level performance concept (life-
safety, damage limitation, continued operability, etc.) that places greater emphasis on
design for ‘real’ force levels. Material resistances are simultaneously derived to
represent ‘real’ ultimate strengths.1 Clearly, expectations of force and displacement
demands beyond the elastic range continue to form the basis for fixed base (non-
isolated) seismic design of structures.

2. History

The performance of post-installed anchors in earthquakes was initially a subject of

concern for the nuclear industry both in Canada and the United States.

Since the 1970s, attention had been focused in within the U.S. nuclear industry on
encouraging ductile failure of anchorages through the design process.2 While generally
practical for the design of cast-in-place anchorages, this approach is often difficult to
implement in the case of post-installed anchors, most of which were/are not designed to
fail in a ductile manner. A nation-wide review of as-built conditions at U.S. nuclear
facilities in the early 1990s focused on best-guess estimations of anchor static capacity
as a means of retroactively qualifying anchorages for seismic loads. Combined with the
severe loading criteria that had been established for nuclear construction, it was believed
that this approach contained sufficient conservatism to avoid further seismic
qualification testing of anchors.

SILVA, Test Methods, 2 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
 60%Fy Ns = 50%Nu
45%Fy
tension

tension
30%Fy Ni = 1/2(Ns-Nm)+Nm
15%Fy Nm = 25%Nu

30 30 80 200 cycles 10 30 100 cycles

16%Fy
Vs= 50%Vu
12%Fy
8%Fy
Vi = 1/2(Vs-Vm)+Vm
4%Fy
Vm= 25%Vu
shear

shear

cycles
10 cycles
200 100
80 30
30
30

Figure 1 – CSA CAN N287.2 Figure 2 – ICBO ES Seismic Test

Seismic Test Cycles Cycles
Investigations in the Canadian nuclear industry centered on the response of single
anchors to cyclic loading. Ontario Hydro, based on testing of then-available anchor
systems, developed tension and shear cyclic loading regimens for the Canadian
Standards Association that were subsequently incorporated into CSA Standard CAN3-
N287.2. The testing was designed to subject the anchor to a few high load cycles (60%
Fy) followed by several hundred cycles to “..study the effect of fatigue on the anchor
after the introduction of the initial high localized stress.” (see Fig. 1) All cycles were run
with an input frequency of 5 Hz.3 On the basis of these tests, two types of anchors,
heavy-duty sleeve and lead-caulking anchors, were identified as suitable for seismic
loading. The other anchor types tested, drop-in and self-drill anchors, typically
experienced premature bolt failure. The CSA Standard, with its emphasis on fatigue
response, later served as the basis for the ICBO ES seismic qualification test.

The telecommunications industry likewise began to review the seismic requirements for
post-installed anchors in connection with the installation of then state-of-the-art digital
switching installations in the early 1980s. Both static and shake table testing of specific

SILVA, Test Methods, 3 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
components has since been standardized through the adoption of a synthesized
waveform and corresponding set of response spectra.4 Testing of the anchors is
conducted only in conjunction with a specific component, and qualification is based on a
pass/fail criteria.

3. Seismic Qualification Testing in the U.S.

Prior to 1997, testing of post-installed anchors for seismic performance was not common
practice outside of the nuclear and telecom industries. Based on long-standing tradition,
post-installed anchors were routinely listed by the International Conference of Building
Officials Evaluation Service (ICBO ES) as suitable for wind and seismic loading based
on static load tests in uncracked, unreinforced concrete specimens. Additionally, as late
as 1987, increases in allowable loads of 33% for seismic loads were granted in
conformance with applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code pertaining to short-
duration loading.

Connection failures in the Northridge Earthquake in January of 1994 prompted a review

of this practice, however, and for the period 1995 to 1997, mechanical post-installed
anchors were not permitted for seismic applications. A test criteria based loosely on the
CSA Standard N287.2 was adopted in 1997,5 and listing of mechanical anchors for
seismic loading resumed in 1998 with the issuance of Evaluation Reports for the Hilti
HSL and Kwik Bolt II anchors. While similar to the Ontario Hydro approach (cyclic
loading, descending load levels, compare Figs. 1 and 2) the test regimen used by ICBO
ES differs from the Canadian approach in two significant areas:

1. The number of cycles is significantly reduced. This was done to reduce the
probability of fatigue failure in the test.
2. The peak load level was reduced to 150% of the maximum allowable design load,
which in turn is limited to 133% of the static design load. Taken together, these
limits typically result in a peak load on the anchor equal to twice the static allowable
value, or roughly one-half of ultimate. Given that ultimate strength in tension for
most post-installed anchors is limited by concrete cone breakout, this often
represents a significant reduction from the CSA Standard (60% Fy, bolt).

In addition, the frequency requirement was changed from 5 Hz to a maximum of 1 Hz.

In 1991 ICBO ES ceased authorizing the use of post-installed anchors for use in tensile
zones. This issue was not re-visited in the context of seismic loading, and hence the
seismic qualification tests for both mechanical and bonded anchors6 are performed in
uncracked, unreinforced concrete specimens.

Concurrent with the development of seismic qualification testing at ICBO, the Structural
Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) proposed a test standard based
on the assumption that the historical provisions for cast-in-place anchors in the Uniform

SILVA, Test Methods, 4 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
Building Code had proven adequate in past earthquakes. Accordingly, the SEAOSC
Standard Method of Cyclic Load Test for Anchors in Concrete or Grouted Masonry7
requires side-by-side testing of post-installed anchors with code cast-in-place anchors
(standard hex A307 bolts) of like diameter. The anchors are loaded cyclically in steps of
five cycles each to failure, and the resulting load-slip curves and ultimate loads
compared. Qualification of the post-installed anchor is thus based on performance equal
to or exceeding that of the cast-in-place anchor. This test was subsequently adopted by
the ICBO Evaluation Service as an alternate means of qualification for seismic loading.

4. Seismic Qualification Testing in Europe

In 1998 the Deutsches Institut für Bautechnologie (German Construction Technology

Institute) issued testing guidelines for the use of anchors in nuclear power plants and
nuclear installations.8 The typical loading cases (earthquake, aircraft impact, explosive
shock wave) are cited. Typically, the test regimen consists of three series of tension tests,
i.e.:

1. monotonic tension loading to failure in 1.5 mm wide parallel crack (crack width
constant over depth of test member);
2. 15 tension load cycles ( f ≤ 1 Hz ) in 1.5 mm wide parallel crack; and
3. 10 crack opening and closing cycles (1.0 mm to 1.5 mm) with a constant tension
load applied to the anchor, followed by loading to failure with the crack width held
constant at 1.5 mm.

In addition, 15 shear load cycles in a 1.0-mm parallel crack are performed, followed by
shear loading to failure.

The extreme crack widths required (an earlier variant required a maximum crack width
of 2.0 mm) coupled with relatively severe pass/fail criteria make this the most rigorous
test method currently in existence.

5. Testing of the Hilti HDA

The Hilti HDA belongs to the class of self-undercutting undercut anchors (see Fig. 3).
The anchor is offered in four sizes (M10, M12, M16, and M20) and two shear sleeve
variants (preset and through-set, see Fig. 4). Equipped with an ISO Grade 8.8 bolt, the
HDA is proportioned to exhibit
bolt failure at static tension
ultimate for concrete strengths
greater than 14 MPa and where
full development of the
concrete cone breakout strength
Figure 3 – HDA Self-Undercutting Anchor is afforded. The HDA was

SILVA, Test Methods, 5 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
 brought to market in 1998 and has since
been tested to several criteria documenting
its response to shock, fatigue, fire and
earthquake in the U.S. and Europe. The
results from selected earthquake/nuclear
qualification tests are presented for
comparison here.

6. ICBO ES AC01 Method 2

Testing of the HDA-P M12 x 100/20 per

ICBO ES Acceptance Criteria AC01,
Figure 4 – HDA Setting Details Method 2, was performed at Hilti
laboratories using a 111-kN capacity
actuator with in-line load cell and servo-controlled hydraulics. Displacement
measurements were obtained with a linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT).
The actuator was controlled via a digital readout device with peak hold and signal
conditioners. Electronic data acquisition and control systems sampled the outputs of both
the load cell and LVDTs.

The HDA M12 is equipped with a 12-mm ISO 8.8 bolt and has an effective anchoring
depth of 100 mm. The outside diameter of the HDA M12 is 21 mm.

Five tests each in cyclic tension and shear were conducted in 22 MPa (cylinder strength)
normal weight concrete. In addition, five static tension and shear tests to failure were
performed to establish reference values. All testing was conducted in accordance with
ASTM E488-90.

Table 1 - HDA Allowable Stress Design The average ultimate static tension capacity
Seismic - ICBO ES of the HDA M12 as determined in the
reference tests (all tests resulted in steel
f'c = 2,500 psi
failure) was 70.5 kN with a COV of 0.05%.
Anchor ASD Seismic ASD Seismic Accordingly, the maximum test load for the
Tension Shear seismic qualification test was set at 70.5/2 =
(k) (kN) (k) (kN) 35.3 kN. This translates to a steel stress of
HDA-P M10 3.5 15.6 2.2 9.6 approximately 418 MPa or 65% Fy (52% Fu).
HDA-T M10 3.5 15.6 6.2 27.7 [Note: The allowable earthquake load for
HDA-P M12 5.3 23.6 3.2 14.1 this anchor would be set at 70.5/3 = 23.5
kN.] The anchor survived the seismic test
HDA-T M12 5.3 23.6 6.8 30.3
with all residual strength tests resulting in
HDA-P M16 9.5 42.3 5.6 25.1
steel failure. The maximum peak
HDA-T M16 9.5 42.3 12.2 54.5 displacement was 1.0 mm.

SILVA, Test Methods, 6 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
Similarly, the average ultimate static shear capacity of the HDA-P M12 as determined in
the reference tests was 41.2 kN with a COV of 9.0% (all steel failures). The maximum
test load was thus set at 41.2/2 = 20.6 kN. The anchor survived the seismic test, and the
mean residual strength was determined to be 36.6 kN, or 89% of the reference capacity,
although all tests resulted in steel failure (COV = 1.5%). [Note: The criterion for passing
is 80% of Vref.] The maximum peak displacement, at 8.8 mm, was within 23% of the
allowable maximum of 10.8 mm.

The resulting allowable tension and shear values for seismic loading are shown in Table
1.

7. SEAOSC (ICBO ES AC01 Method 1)

Testing of the HDA per SEAOSC Standard Method of Cyclic Load Test for Anchors in
Concrete or Grouted Masonry was conducted at Consolidated Engineering Laboratories
in Oakland, California. Loads were applied with a 98 kN capacity hydraulic actuator
equipped with an in-line load cell and servo-controlled hydraulics. LVDTs were used to
Table 2 - HDA SEAOSC Test Result Summary measure displacement.
Cyclic Tension Results
Mean The test members consisted
Mean Ultimate Displacement @ of concrete blocks with a
Anchor Tension Load Failure
cylinder compressive
n (k) (kN) COV (in.) (mm) strength of between 20 MPa
1/2" X 4" A307 3 11.0 49.1 1.0% 0.2 5.0 and 24 MPa at the time of
HDA-P M10 x 100 5 11.4 50.8 0.4% 0.2 4.5 testing. The blocks were cast
5/8" X 4-1/2" A307 3 17.6 78.2 4.7% 0.2 4.3 with 1/2- (12 mm) and 5/8-
HDA-P M12 x 125 3 16.2 72.1 2.4% 0.3 7.7 inch (16 mm) A307 standard
5/8" X 4-1/2" A307 3 17.0 75.8 4.2% 0.2 5.9
hex head bolts placed at
1 minimum embedment per
HDA-P M16 x 190 4 20.3 90.4 0.2% 0.2 4.5
1997 UBC Table 19D, i.e., 4
inches (102 mm) and 4-1/2
Cyclic Shear Results inches (114 mm),
Mean
Mean Ultimate Displacement @ respectively. Block
Anchor Shear Load Failure dimensions were 152 cm x
n (k) (kN) COV (in.) (mm) 91 cm x 61 cm. They were
1/2" X 4" A307 3 5.2 23.1 7.9% 0.2 4.5
cast vertically, with the bolts
2 placed in the side forms to
HDA-P M10 x 100 3 6.0 26.7 0.3% 0.2 5.1
provide equivalent casting
5/8" X 4-1/2" A307 3 9.0 40.1 7.3% 0.3 6.6 conditions for all anchors.
3
HDA-T M10 x 100 3 15.1 67.0 0.2% 0.4 9.6 The HDA anchors were
1
value limited by actuator capacity subsequently installed in the
2
bolt only cured concrete blocks
3
shear sleeve engaged adjacent to the cast-in-place
bolts, with sufficient spacing

SILVA, Test Methods, 7 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
Table 3 - HDA Allowable Stress Design Seismic - to allow testing per ASTM E488.
SEAOSC
According to the SEAOSC test
ASD Seismic ASD Seismic
Anchor
procedure, the load steps for the cyclic
Tension Shear
loading are determined by identifying
(k) (kN) (k) (kN)
1
(from static test data) a First Major
HDA-P M10 4.0 17.8 4.4 19.5 Event (FME), i.e., a load level at which
1,2
HDA-T M10 4.0 17.8 8.0 35.5 the load-displacement of the anchor
3
HDA-P M12 5.9 26.0 8.0 35.5 undergoes a significant change. Load
HDA-T M12 5.9 26.0 11.4 50.9
3,4 steps are then established as 25%
HDA-P M16 8.6 38.5 10.8 47.9 5 increments of the FME, i.e., 25%FME,
HDA-T M16 8.6 38.5 12.6 56.2 5,6 50%FME, 75%FME, 100%FME,
1 125%FME, etc. to failure. Five cycles
Equivalent to 1/2-inch A307 bolt
2
are performed at each load step at less
For shear, equivalent to 5/8-inch A307 bolt
3
than 1 Hz.
Equivalent to 5/8-inch A307 bolt
4
For shear, assume equivalent to 3/4-inch A307 bolt Two sizes of HDA anchors, M10 and
5
Assume equivalent to 1-inch A307 bolt M12, were tested in cyclic (pulsing)
6
For shear, assume equivalent to 1-1/8-inch A307 bolt tension. In addition, the M16 size was
tested in tension to the actuator capacity
of 90 kN. The rated tension capacity of the M16 is 127 kN. Both the HDA M10-P and
M10-T (shear sleeve engaged) were tested in cyclic shear. All anchors were installed per
manufacturer recommendations and the maximum recommended torque applied. This
torque was then reduced to 50% of the maximum recommended torque prior to testing.
Alternatively for some specimens, 48 hours were allowed to pass prior to testing, which
resulted in a residual pre-tension value approximately equal to 50% torque.

All tests resulted in steel failure at ultimate, with the exception of the HDA M16
anchors, which were not tested, to failure.

Test results are provided in Table 2. Sample load-displacement curves are shown in Fig.
5, and the allowable loads implied from the test data are given in Table 3.

8. German Nuclear Qualification

Testing of the HDA for structural applications in German nuclear facilities was
conducted at the University of Stuttgart according to the DIBt Guideline For Evaluating
Anchor Fastenings For Granting Permission In Individual Cases According To The State
Structure Regulations Of The Federal States. Tests were conducted with three HDA
sizes, M10, M12 and M16. Three types of tension tests were conducted:

SILVA, Test Methods, 8 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
Table 4 - HDA - German Nuclear Standard Tension Test Result Summary
fcc Test Type Crack Mean Ult. Displ. @
Anchor Type Width Tension Mean Ult.
(MPa) Load Crack (mm) n (kN) COV (mm)
HDA-T M10x100 25.0 monotonic static 1.5 5 40.9 14% 5.0
HDA-T M10x100 28.8 monotonic static 1.5 5 46.1 7% 3.2
HDA-T M10x100 25.0 cycl. tension static 1.5 5 40.1 13% 1.6
HDA-T M10x100 25.0 cycl. tension static 1.5 5 37.0 13% 1.3
HDA-T M10x100 30.8 monotonic moving 1.5 5 48.2 1% 3.1
HDA-T M12x125 25.0 monotonic static 1.5 5 64.4 9% 4.4
HDA-T M12x125 27.1 cycl. tension static 1.5 5 64.4 13% 2.5
HDA-T M12x125 28.3 cycl. tension static 1.5 5 67.6 9% 2.6
HDA-T M12x125 25.0 monotonic moving 1.5 5 67.6 4% 4.6
HDA-T M16x190 25.0 monotonic static 1.5 5 119.7 5% 5.5
HDA-T M16x190 25.0 cycl. tension static 1.5 5 113.3 12% 3.6
HDA-T M16x190 25.3 cycl. tension static 1.5 5 122.8 11% 3.6
HDA-T M16x190 27.3 monotonic moving 1.5 5 125.8 8% 6.3

1. static tension tests in parallel cracks

2. pulsing tension tests in parallel cracks
3. static tension tests in opening and closing cracks

Crack widths in all cases were 1.5 mm.

Cyclic shear tests were conducted in 1.0-mm cracks with both the P and T versions of
the HDA.
Tension test results are presented in Table 4. A representative load-displacement curve is
shown in Fig. 6.
Table 5 - HDA Category A
An evaluation of the test data resulted in recommended
Allowable Loads - German
working loads as shown in Table 5.
Nuclear Standard
C20/25 concrete 9. Comparison of Test Methods
Anchor NRk,p VRk,s
(kN) (kN) It is remarkable that, with respect to the determination of
HDA-P M10 16.5 16.8 allowable loads for tension, all three methods arrive at
HDA-T M10 16.5 33.3 roughly the same values for allowable stress design,
HDA-P M12 23.5 22.4
albeit by very different means (compare Tables 1, 3 and
5). It should be noted that this result is likely unique to
HDA-T M12 23.5 41.3
undercut-type anchors that do not suffer dramatic
HDA-P M16 47.1 48.0
capacity reductions in cracked concrete. Anchors that do
HDA-T M16 47.1 80.0 not exhibit such behavior may not achieve a similar

SILVA, Test Methods, 9 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
k Steel Failure

12
11
10
HDA M10 kN
9
8 1/2” A307 std
hex bolt HDA M10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 in mm

Figure 5 – Sample SEAOSC Seismic Test Load- Figure 6 – DIBt Tension Cycle in 1.5
Displacement Curves mm Crack

result. The greatest differences in the allowable loads occur in shear, whereby the
increased number of cycles associated with the ICBO ES Method 2 test restricts the
shear value, essentially as a function of low-cycle fatigue. As discussed above, this is
true to the original concept of the Canadian standard on which the ICBO test is based.

Of greater interest, however, is the information to be derived from the test aside from
simple pass/fail results. Figure 5 shows typical load-slip curves derived from the
SEAOSC seismic cycle. Note that it is possible to derive stiffnesses from this data
throughout the entire load range that reflects a realistic numbers of cycles. While the
German standard provides similar information (see Fig. 6), the information provided
regarding the response at near-ultimate load levels is limited.

10. Conclusions

Seismic qualification of anchors is based on various and disparate philosophies

regarding the appropriate conditions to be simulated in testing. ICBO ES continues to
use a low-cycle fatigue standard, while the German nuclear standard focuses heavily on
the effects of base material damage on anchor behavior. The SEAOSC approach, while
concentrating on comparisons with cast-in-place anchors, allows for development of

SILVA, Test Methods, 10 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
stiffness behavior necessary for the employment of advanced anchor design methods.
Clearly, an argument can be made for a combination of the SEAOSC approach with a
realistic approximation of base material damage (cracking).

11. Future Test Methods

Documented anchor failures in past earthquakes are likewise in many cases attributable
to shear overload, as opposed to pullout.

Clearly, the response of anchors to earthquake-induced loads is dependent on several

factors; nevertheless, four critical parameters can be identified:

1. load direction and magnitude

2. displacement demand
3. deformation constraints
4. earthquake-induced damage to the
base material (cracking)
FEQ
It can be argued that factors 1 through 3
are controlled by and, in most cases, a by-
product of, the design process. That is,
load and deformation demands on the
anchor are dependent to a large extent on
connection detailing. Inertial loads as
derived in analysis are typically based on
assumptions regarding induced
Fy accelerations. While they may serve as a
starting point for the correct proportioning
FEQ a. of the load path, static lateral loads rarely
lead to a correct estimation of the actual
force/deformation requirements for the
anchor in the event of a significant (design
Mp level) earthquake. For this reason, newer
design codes have adopted language that
encourages a stiffness/ductile design
approach to anchorage. The 2000
International Building Code section on
anchorage9 contains provisions that
require the anchorage design to satisfy
b. either a ductile anchor criterion, or to
establish a yielding mechanism elsewhere
Figure 7 – Anchor Design Concepts in the load path (see Fig. 7). This second
a. ductile anchor approach ensures that the anchor is not the
b. yielding element weak link in the load path. In the case of

SILVA, Test Methods, 11 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
predominantly shear loading, provision of such a yielding ‘fuse’ is the only sensible way
to protect the anchor from catastrophic overload.

Critical for an anchorage design that considers stiffness and material interaction in the
detail design is understanding the likely response history of the components being
considered. In the case of the anchor, such information can only be provided from
testing that mimics the essential components of strong motion and measures the required
response parameters in a way that is useful for design.10 While the recently published
ACI 355.2-00 test method11 includes cracking and is therefore a dramatic improvement
over previous criteria, it continues to be based on a low cycle fatigue loading regimen.

Consideration should therefore be given to seismic qualification criteria that include

stepwise cyclic loading (with three to five cycles at each load step) as described in the
SEAOSC method, with the following modifications:
a) conduct the tests in static cracks*, and
b) report the load-slip behavior, in the form of a characteristic envelope curve, along
with the other design parameters.

12. Summary

Three methods for qualification of anchors for seismic loading are currently in use in the
U.S. and Europe. Taken together, these methods encompass the effects of cyclic loading,
base material damage, and anchor overload. An undercut anchor has been tested using
the three standards, and the results provide a limited basis for evaluation of the test
methods. A test method that combines the best elements of the three current methods is
required to meet the requirements of future design codes.

References

1. FEMA Publication 273, ‘NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of

Buildings’, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington D.C., October 1997.
2. ACI Committee 349, ‘Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related concrete
Structures (ACI 349-85)’, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985.
3. Senkiw, G. A., ‘Qualification Tests on Concrete Anchors for CANDU Nuclear
Power Plants’, ACI Symposium on Anchorage to Concrete, Phoenix, Arizona,
March 1984.
4. Bell Communications Research, ‘Generic Requirements GR-63-CORE, Network
Equipment-Building System (NEBS) Requirements: Physical Protection’, Bellcore
Customer Research, Piscataway, New Jersey, Issue 1, October 1995.

*
It should be noted that a cycling crack test would more closely approximate the
conditions associated with a structure subjected to strong ground motion, although the
practical implications of such a test have not been adequately explored to date.

SILVA, Test Methods, 12 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
5. ICBO ES, ‘AC01, Acceptance Criteria for Expansion Anchors in Concrete and
Masonry Elements’, ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc., Whittier, California, January
2001.
6. ICBO ES, ‘AC58, Acceptance Criteria for Adhesive Anchors in Concrete and
Masonry Elements’, ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc., Whittier, California, January
2001.
7. SEAOSC, ‘Standard Method for Cyclic Load Test for Anchors in Concrete or
Grouted Masonry’, Structural Engineers Association of Southern California,
Whittier, California, April 1997.
8. DIBt, ‘Verwendung von Dübeln in Kernkraftwerken und kerntechnischen Anlagen,
Leitfaden zur Beurteilung von Dübelbefestigungen bei der Erteilung von
Zustimmungen im Einzelfall nach den Landesbauordungen der Bundesländer’ (Use
of Anchors in Nuclear Power Plants and Nuclear Technology Installations,
Guideline For Evaluating Anchor Fastenings For Granting Permission In Individual
Cases According To The State Structure Regulations Of The Federal States),
Deutsches Institut für Bautechnologie, Berlin, September 1998.
9. ICC: International Building Code, 2000 Edition, Whittier, CA 90601, Sec. 1916, pp.
469-477.
10. Silva, J., Eligehausen, R., ‘The Concrete Capacity Design Method for Anchors in
Concrete’, Proceedings 69th Annual Convention Structural Engineers Association of
California, August 2000, p. 10.
11. ACI Committee 355, ‘Evaluating the Performance of Post-Installed Mechanical
Anchors in Concrete (ACI 355.2-00)’, Concrete International, February 2001, pp.
108-136.

SILVA, Test Methods, 13 /13

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com