Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Influence of the flexural and shear reinforcement in the concrete cone

resistance of headed bars
Mauricio Ferreira b, *, Manoel Pereira Filho a, Nataniel Lima a, Marcos Oliveira a
a
University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
b
Federal University of Para, Belem, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents the experimental response and resistance of sixteen axial tensile tests on headed deformed
Concrete cone failure bars embedded in reinforced concrete members, used as cast-in anchors, under concrete cone failure. Nine of
Cast-in anchors these tests investigated the influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio, which affects the concrete cracking state
Headed bars
in the vicinity of the anchor. The other seven tests measured the shear reinforcement contribution, adjusted to
Concrete cracking
Supplementary reinforcement
work as supplementary reinforcement, distributed in the tests in different amounts and arrangements.
Furthermore, design and theoretical methods were used to discuss the authors’ experimental results compared to
other literature results. The flexural reinforcement ratio significantly influenced the concrete cone resistance, as
it controls the crack width. Well-detailed stirrups, placed following the design codes’ spacing limitations for
supplementary reinforcement, can substantially increase the concrete cone resistance. The assumptions under­
lying the design methods are conservative, which is justified by the simplicity of their equations, but more ac­
curate calculation methods are required.

1. Introduction
Headed deformed bars are often used as cast-in anchors to transfer
forces between structural members. Their use simplifies structural de­
tailing and boosts the construction process and economy. They are
widely used to connect different structural members, such as in base-
column and beam-column connections, among other applications.
When headed deformed bars are submitted to tensile loading, the
following failure modes described by both fib Model Code 2010 [1] and
ACI 318 [2] can be observed: steel failure (see Fig. 1a); concrete cone
failure or concrete breakout (see Fig. 1b); concrete splitting (see Fig. 1c);
and edge failure or side-face blow-out (see Fig. 1d). The switching from
one to another failure mode depends on the embedment length, the side
cover, the bearing area of the head, the thickness of the concrete
structural member, and other variables, as discussed in detail by Gil-
Martín and Hernández-Montes [3]Significant scientific efforts were
carried to investigate the performance of cast-in anchors failing due to
concrete cone failure (see [4,7–9]), accounting for the influence of
concrete cracking degree (see [9–12]). The main conclusion is that for
crack widths varying between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm, mean strength
reduction factors of 0.70 can be applied to the resistance of anchors
embedded in uncracked concrete. ACI 318 [2] and EN 1992-4 [6] as­
sume a strength reduction factor of 0.8 and 0.7 applied to the resistance
for uncracked concrete situations, respectively.
These recommendations are based on experimental tests on cast-in
anchors embedded on thick concrete members, most of them without
surface reinforcement and with induced cracks, which widths ranged
from 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm. These tests are representative of some design
cases, like for base-column connections. However, design situations
where headed deformed bars are embedded in structural members with
significant amounts of flexural and shear rebars deserve more attention
(see [13,14] as reference).
Tensile tests on headed bars embedded in thick concrete members
led to the conclusion that the surface reinforcement does not affect the
concrete cone failure load (see Eligehausen et al., [12]). Nevertheless,
Nilsson et al. [15] showed that the surface reinforcement could improve
the load-carrying capacity of anchor bolts as a function of their amount
and positioning. Furthermore, for reinforced concrete structures under
service load, the maximum crack width allowed varies from 0.2 to 0.4
mm. Thus, unless the anchor’s position coincides with a particular
structural member’s most tensioned zone, it is likely that its load-
carrying capacity will vary between cracked and uncracked resistances.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mpina@ufpa.br (M. Ferreira).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113212
Received 14 October 2020; Received in revised form 13 August 2021; Accepted 12 September 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

Table 1
Summary of theoretical equations for concrete cone failure estimates of headed
bars without supplementary reinforcement.
√̅̅̅̅ n
Concrete Cone Capacity (CCD) Method NRc = k⋅ fc ⋅hef
where:
⎧
⎪
⎪ Uncracked concrete:
⎨
15.5
k =
⎪ Cracked concrete:
⎪
⎩
√̅̅̅̅ 10.85
EN 1992-4 NRc = k⋅ fc ⋅hnef
INFASO
where:
Sharma et al. ⎧
⎪
⎪ Uncracked concrete:
⎨
12.7
k =
⎪
⎪ Cracked concrete:
⎩
8.9
n = 3/2
√̅̅̅̅ n
ACI 318 NRc = k⋅ fc ⋅hef
where:
⎧
⎪
⎪ Uncracked concrete:
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 12.5 for hef < 280 mm
⎨
4.9 for 280 mm ⩽hef < 635 mm
k =
⎪
⎪ Cracked concrete:
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 10 for hef < 280 mm
⎩
3.9 for 280 mm ⩽hef < 635 mm
{
3/2 for hef < 280 mm
n =
5/3 for 280 mm ⩽hef < 635 mm

Fig. 1. Failure modes of headed deformed bars under tensile loading.
Fig. 2. Headed deformed bars embedded in precast concrete struc­
tural members.
Experimental evidence (see [14,16–21]) supports the use of addi­
tional reinforcement to increase the strength or prevent the concrete
cone failure of cast-in anchors. When the additional reinforcement is
designed exclusively to resist the entire force applied to an anchor, ACI
318 [2] classifies them as supplementary reinforcement, requiring
proper anchorage on both sides of the concrete breakout surface.
Detailing rules are presented by ACI, and the design assumption is that
the supplementary reinforcement strength can be checked instead of the
concrete breakout strength.
For EN 1992-4 [6], supplementary reinforcement is any reinforce­
ment tying a potential concrete breakout body to the concrete member.
EC2 part 4 suggests that the stirrups of a given structural member can be
considered as supplementary reinforcement. Although design assump­
tions and detailing rules like those from ACI 318 are given, it is neces­
sary to advance the guidelines on the use of stirrups as supplementary
reinforcement, e.g., to assist the decision-making process when it is not
feasible to fully anchor the stirrups within the concrete cone nor avoid
the concrete cone failure. Besides, the models included in design codes
consider only failures associated with loss of bonding or yielding of the
supplementary reinforcement but ignore the possibility of concrete strut
failure, as pointed by Sharma et al. [22], in cases where significant
amounts of steel are added.
This paper presents and discusses the results of sixteen tests on
headed deformed bars used as cast-in anchors on reinforced concrete
members under tensile loading. The tests were inspired by different
design situations of connections between structural members in pre­
fabricated concrete constructions for Brazil’s mining and energy gen­
eration industry. Fig. 2a illustrates one of these cases, showing the water
intake structure of a thermal power plant. In many of these situations,
the structural elements’ dimensions hinder the development of headed
bars in tension, thus concrete breakout is the governing failure mode.
The tests simulated the local resistance of the shaded area containing
headed bars shown in Fig. 2b, used to increase the lateral stiffness of the
frames. In such cases, concrete cone failure can precede yielding of the
headed bars as their effective depth can be limited. Although in design
practice it is more common to have two or more headed bars in beam-
column joints, the dimensions of the tested specimens were idealized
to represent local models and were designed to investigate the influence
of the flexural and shear rebars, arranged to assume the function of
surface and supplementary reinforcement, in the concrete cone resis­
tance of single headed bars. All tested specimens were designed to
present concrete cone failure as all other failure modes were avoided,
including the headed bars’ yielding. In addition, it should be noted that
the carried tests represent situations in which the headed bars transfer
the main design loads, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
The experimental results presented in this paper were summed to
data available in the literature. They were used to discuss the theoretical
estimates obtained following the provisions given by ACI 318 [2], EN

2
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

Table 2
Summary of design code equations for concrete cone failure estimates of headed bars with supplementary reinforcement.
EN 1992-4 (2013) NRcs = NRc ⩽0⋅NRc + NRs
where:
∑li ⋅π⋅Øsr ⋅fbk
NRs = NRb ⩽NRys ; NRb = ; NRys = nsr ⋅As,sr ⋅fy,sr
nsr
α1 ⋅α2
⎧
⎪
⎨ 0.3⋅fc2/3 for fc < 55 MPa
fy,sr ⩽600MPa ; fbk = 2.25⋅η1 ⋅η2 ⋅fct ; fct = 1.15⋅0.7⋅
⎩ 2.12⋅ln( 1 + ( f /10) ) for f ⩾ 55 MPa
⎪
c c

⎧
⎨ 0.7 for hooked bars
α1 = ; α2 = 0.7⩽1 − 0.15(cb − 3⋅Øsr )/Øsr ⩽1.0
⎩
1.0 for straight bars
⎧ ⎧
⎨ 1.0 for good bond condition ⎨ 1.0 for Øsr ⩽32mm
η1 = ; η2 = ;
⎩ ⎩
0.7 for bad bond condition (132 − Øsr )/100 for Øsr ⩾32mm
ACI 318 (2019) NRcs = NRc ⩽0⋅NRc + NRs
where:
∑li ⋅π⋅Øsr ⋅fbk
NRs = NRb ⩽NRys ; NRb = ; NRys = nsr ⋅As,sr ⋅fy,sr
nsr
α1
()
cd
0.275⋅ {
0.7 for hooked bars ( cd )
Øsr √̅̅̅̅
fbk = ⋅ fc ; α1 = ; ⩽2.5 ;
η1 ⋅η2 ⋅η3 1.0 for straight bars Øsr
⎧
{ { ⎪
⎪ 1.00 for fy,sr ⩽420 MPa
1.0 for good bond condition 0.8 for Øsr ⩽25mm ⎪
⎨
η1 = ; η2 = ; η3 = 1.15 for fy,sr = 550 MPa
1.3 for bad bond condition 1.0 for Øsr ⩾25mm ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ 1.30 for f = 700 MPa
y,sr

1992-4 [6], INFASO [23], and Sharma et al. [22], providing valuable
inclinations to improve the methods of calculation adopted today in
design standards.
2. Methods of calculation
The Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Method, presented by Fuchs
et al. [8], is the basis of the assumptions adopted in the design codes
(ACI 318 [2] and EN 1992-4 [6]) for the calculation of the concrete cone
resistance of single cast-in headed bars under tensile loading. The CCD
method assumes a square-based pyramidal failure surface with a 35◦
inclination of their lateral surfaces.
The concrete cone failure load of a single anchor in uncracked con­
crete, unaffected by edge influences or neighboring anchors, is calcu­
lated as NCCD = k1 fc0.5 ∙ k2 hef2 ∙ k3 hef − 0.5. In this equation, the term k1
fc0.5 represents the nominal concrete tensile stress at failure distributed
throughout the horizontal projection of the failure area, given by k2 hef2.
The factor k3 hef − 0.5, according to the authors, gives the so-called size
effect. k1, k2, and k3 are calibration factors, and the final form of the
equation proposed was NCCD = knc ∙ fc0.5 ∙ hef 1.5, where knc varies
depending on the anchor type.
Design codes calibrated the factor k to consider the cracking state of
concrete in the vicinity of the anchors, based on the range of test data
available. ACI 318 [2] recommends a variation of the CCD method for
embedment depth between 280 mm and 635 mm to correct their theo­
retical trends for deep embedment depths, based on the research carried
by Lee et al. [16].
Table 1 summarizes the theoretical equations for concrete cone
failure estimates of headed bars without supplementary reinforcement.
The design codes adjusted the k-factor values presented in Table 1 to
guarantee adequate safety levels for their theoretical predictions. In this
paper, a version from the CCD method was included to discuss mean
concrete cone resistance estimates, where the average value for un­
cracked concrete was used as kuncr = 15.5, based on [8], and for cracked
concrete the used value was kcr = 10.85, as proposed by [11].
There is no consensus, either in the design codes or theoretical
models, on estimating the concrete cone resistance in situations where
supplementary reinforcement is added. ACI 318 [2] and EN 1992-4 [6]
state that supplementary reinforcement consists of stirrups, ties, or
hairpins, which shall be placed as close as possible to the anchor. Only
supplementary reinforcement spaced less than 0.50 hef for ACI 318 [2]
and 0.75 hef for EN 1992-4 [6] from the anchor shall be assumed as
effective. The design hypothesis considers a strut and tie model where
the total axial tensile force must be resisted solely by the supplementary
reinforcement. Thus, the concrete cone failure strength results from the
minimum value obtained among the bond resistance and the yield
strength of the supplementary reinforcement. Table 2 summarizes the
design code equations to calculate the concrete cone resistance of
headed bars with supplementary reinforcement.
Contrarily, according to INFASO [23], both the concrete and the
supplementary reinforcement can mutually contribute to the resistance
for concrete cone failure. The concrete cone failure load is estimated as
the minimum of the three possible failure modes for cast-in headed bars
with supplementary reinforcement placed within a zone up to 0.75 hef
from the bar’s axis. In the first two possible failure modes, the ultimate
resistance is expressed by the contributions given by the concrete and by
supplementary reinforcement, where the last is limited, or by its
anchorage failure, or due to steel yielding.
Table 3 presents the equations for these failure modes. The contri­
bution given by concrete is not fixed but is a function of the anchor’s
slip. This assumption considers that the activation of the supplementary
reinforcement occurs after the concrete has reached a peak. Thus, the
concrete contribution is deemed to decrease with increments in the
anchor’s slip. If high amounts of supplementary reinforcement are used,
and if these rebars are adequately anchored, INFASO [23] assumes that
it is possible to achieve upper strength values. This third failure mode is
taken as a maximum concrete cone failure load, which, according to
INFASO [23], shall be computed uniquely as a function of the concrete.
Sharma et al. [22] simplified the method proposed by INFASO [23]
but keeping the assumption that the concrete cone resistance can be
calculated by the sum of the contributions given by the supplementary
reinforcement and the concrete. In their proposal, the concrete contri­
bution is assumed as 50% of the concrete cone resistance of headed bars
without supplementary reinforcement. The supplementary reinforce­
ment contribution is the sum of the forces given by bond along the
shank’s length and by mechanical interlock in their anchorage, limited
by the steel yielding. An equation to control the maximum strength,
considered a function of the concrete resistance, is also proposed to

3
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

Table 3
Summary of theoretical methods for concrete cone failure estimates of headed bars with supplementary reinforcement.
INFASO (2012) NRcs = NRc + NRys + δy ⋅kc ⩽NRc + NRb + δb ⋅kc ⩽NRmax
where:
∑li ⋅π⋅Øsr ⋅fbk
NRys = nsr ⋅As,sr ⋅fy,sr ; NRb = ;
nsr
α1 ⋅α2

2⋅N2Rys 2⋅N2Rb √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ A

c
δy = ; δb = ; kc = − 537⋅ hef ⋅fc ⋅ ;
12100⋅fc ⋅Ø4sr ⋅n2sr 12100⋅fc ⋅Ø4sr ⋅n2sr Ac0
⎧
⎨ 0.7 for hooked bars
α1 = ; α2 = 0.7⩽1 − 0.15(cb − 3⋅Øsr )/Øsr ⩽1.0
⎩
1.0 for straight bars
⎧
⎪
⎨ 0.3⋅fc2/3 for fc < 55 MPa
fbk = 2.25⋅η1 ⋅η2 ⋅fctd ; fctd = 0.7⋅
⎩ 2.12⋅ln( 1 + ( f /10) ) for f ⩾ 55 MPa
⎪
c c

⎧ ⎧
⎨ 1.0 for good bond condition ⎨ 1.0 for Øsr ⩽32mm
η1 = ; η2 = ;
⎩ ⎩
0.7 for bad bond condition (132 − Øsr )/100 for Øsr ⩾32mm

NRmax = ψ strut ⋅NRc ; ψ strut = 2.5 − x/hef ⩾1.0

SHARMA et al. (2017) Ncs = Nc ⩽0.5⋅Nc + Ns ⩽Nmax
where:
NRs = NRb ⩽NRys ; NRb = Nhook + Nbond ; NRys = nsr ⋅As,sr ⋅fy,sr
( )0.1
∑ 0.8⋅fc
Nhook = ψ 1 ⋅ψ 2 ⋅ψ 3 ⋅As,sr ⋅fy,sr ⋅ ;
nsr
30

)2 ( )2 ( )1
⎧
⎨ 0.95 for 1st row (
Øf 3 li 5 10 4
ψ1 = ; ψ2 = ⩽1.2; ψ 3 = ⋅ ;
⎩
0.16 for else rows Øsr hef Øsr

∑ ( )
Nbond = π⋅Øsr ⋅ li − li,min ⋅fbm
nsr

if li < 4⋅Øsr the anchor reinforcement shall be assumed as ineffective;

li,min = 4⋅Øsr ; fbm = 1.33⋅fbk ; fbk = 2.25⋅η1 ⋅η2 ⋅fctd ;

⎧ ⎧
⎨ 1.0 for good bond condition ⎨ 1.0 for Øsr ⩽32mm
η1 = ; η2 = ;
⎩ ⎩
0.7 for bad bond condition (132 − Øsr )/100 for Øsr ⩾32mm
⎧
⎪
⎨ 0.3⋅fc2/3 for fc < 55 MPa
fctd = 0.7⋅
⎩ 2.12⋅ln( 1 + ( f /10) ) for f ⩾ 55 MPa
⎪
c c

NRmax = ψ strut ⋅NRc ;

ψ strut = 2.75 − 1.17⋅x/hef ⩾1, 0

Fig. 3. Design parameters.

account for compression failure of the concrete strut. Fig. 3 presents the
main design parameters of the methods from INFASO [23] and Sharma
et al. [22].
3. Experimental program
The experimental program was carried at the Federal University of
Pará and involved sixteen tests on single cast-in headed bars embedded
in reinforced concrete members designed to present concrete cone

4
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

Fig. 4. General details of the flexural and shear reinforcement of the con­
crete members.

failures. The tests were divided into two series (F and A), and the first set
(series F) involved nine pull-out tests which aimed to evaluate the in­
fluence of the flexural reinforcement ratio (ρf) on the concrete cone
strength. In these tests, besides ρf, the main variables were the diameter
of the shanks of the headed bars (ds), with 10 mm or 16 mm, and the
effective embedment depth (hef), with 60 mm or 110 mm. For embed­
ment depths of 60 mm, ρf varied from 0.13% to 1.24%, and for
embedment depths of 110 mm, it ranged from 0.33% to 3.21%. There­
fore, tests covered the allowed range for the flexural reinforcement ratio
for beams in the Brazilian code, varying from 0.15% to 4%, and the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio of columns, which varies from 0.4% to
4%, according to ABNT NBR 6118 [25]. One should note that the
cracking pattern of the tested specimens may not be representative of Fig. 5. Detailing of the supplementary reinforcement.
actual beams and columns as in practice they are usually subjected to
loads in addition to those transferred from the anchors. govern the failure mode, as observed in several tests reported by Ghi­
The second series (series A) included seven pull-out tests that were mire et al. [26].
idealized to investigate the shear reinforcement’s contribution to the For this series, specimen F-110–0.5 from the first series was defined
concrete cone strength of headed bars. They aim to represent cases as a reference model, and thus, all tested members had a constant
where the shear rebars of a given concrete structural member are locally flexural reinforcement ratio (ρf = 0.51%). In these tests, shear rein­
rearranged to assume the function of supplementary reinforcement. In forcement bars were added to the surroundings of the headed bars. The
these cases, the shear reinforcement may not prevent the concrete cone shear reinforcement was detailed and arranged to work as supplemen­
failure, primarily due to anchoring deficiencies at the tip of stirrups tary reinforcement to improve the headed bars’ resistance.
within the concrete cone. Therefore, the concrete cone strength may still

5
 Table 4
Characteristics of the tested specimens.
Series Specimen Headed bars Flexural reinforcement Supplementary reinforcement
M. Ferreira et al.

hef ds dh fy,s Es d nf Øf fy,f Ef ρf nsr Øsr s s0 sr θ fy,sr Esr

(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (mm) N1 (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (◦ ) (MPa) (GPa)

Series F F-60-0.1 61 10 30 504 190 171 4 5.0 544 198 0.13 – – – – – – – –

F-60-0.3 63 172 4 8.0 580 196 0.33 – – – – – – – –
F-60-0.5 62 170 4 10.0 504 190 0.53 – – – – – – – –
F-60-1.2 60 170 6 12.5 515 191 1.24 – – – – – – – –
F-110-0.3 116 16 51 545 190 175 4 8.0 580 196 0.33 – – – – – – – –
F-110-0.5 114 176 4 10.0 504 190 0.51 – – – – – – – –
F-110-0.8 115 176 4 12.5 515 191 0.8 – – – – – – – –
F-110-1.6 116 166 8 12.5 1.69 – – – – – – – –
F-110-3.2 113 168 6 20.0 546 194 3.21 – – – – – – – –
Series A A4-5-50-0 110 20 60 546 194 172 4 10.0 504 190 0.51 4 5.0 60 50 – 90 623 195
A4-6-50-0 110 170 4 6.3 60 50 – 90 544 198
Aw4-6-50-0 109 165 4 6.3 60 50 – 55 544 198
A4-6-62-0 112 16 51 545 190 178 4 6.3 71 62.5 – 90 544 198
A4-6-125-0 113 20 60 546 194 169 4 6.3 130 125 – 90 544 198
A8-6-45-35 109 168 8 6.3 55/86* 45 35 90 544 198
A4-8-50-0 110 168 4 8.0 60 50 – 90 580 196

Note:
fcm = 34.5 MPa; fctm = 1.5 MPa; Ec = 23.5 GPa; L = 900 mm; bw = 350 mm; h = 200 mm.
*
Radial distance between the anchor’s head and the first and second perimeters of supplementary reinforcement.

6
specimens.
Fig. 6. Tests setup.

14% of pozzolan addition), natural sand, and crushed basalt gravel with
The concrete was made with Portland cement CP-II-Z-32 (with 6% to
number of legs (nsr) inside the concrete cone area, varying from 4 or 8

tested elements, and Table 4 summarizes the main characteristics of the

details of the flexural, shear, and supplementary reinforcement of the
and the slope of the supplementary reinforcement leg, which were in­
plementary reinforcement (s0), varying between 35 mm and 125 mm;
the supplementary reinforcement (Øsr), ranging from 5 mm to 8 mm; the
The main variables in the second series of tests were: the diameter of

clined at 50◦ or vertically arranged at 90◦ . Figs. 4 and 5 present general

legs; the axial distance between the anchor and the first row of sup­
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

guarantee that the shanks would yield without damages to the welds or
the heads since headed bars are intended to yield before failure. Also,
uniaxial tensile tests following the provisions presented by ASTM A370
[27] provided the mechanical properties of the deformed bars, which
are summarized in Table 4.
The reinforced concrete structural members in which the headed
bars were embedded had prismatic geometry and were 350 mm wide
(bw), 200 mm thick (h), and 900 mm long (L). As explained previously,
the tested specimens were designed to represent local models of the
beam-column connections shown in Fig. 2, and their dimensions were
set to guarantee both the formation of the concrete cone without edge
effect (bw > 3 hef) and a flexible behavior of the specimens, with the
shear span av > 2d.
They were supported above concrete blocks so that the headed bars
were positioned on its upper face, allowing crack measurements. The
headed bars were submitted to upwards axial tensile loading through a
reaction system composed of two roller supports and one steel beam.
Fig. 6 presents in detail the test arrangements.
Vertical displacements were measured by dial gauges (DG), as indi­
cated in Fig. 7a. DG1 measured the vertical displacement of the rein­
forced concrete specimen, and DG2 was attached to the bar’s head
through a hole located in the lower surface of the concrete member,
allowing the assessment of anchors’ slip. To attach the dial gauges to the
head, a 5 mm diameter steel rod was welded to the back surface of the
anchor’s head. This rod was involved with expanded polystyrene to
prevent bonding with concrete. In all tests, two strain gauges were fixed
close to the anchor’s head (Gh), and one strain gauge was placed in the
Fig. 7. Details of the instrumentation. a) Dial gauges. b) Strain gauges on the
headed bar and flexural reinforcement. c) and d) Strain gauges in the supple­
mentary reinforcement.

a maximum diameter of 9.5 mm as coarse aggregate. The compression

and tensile strength of concrete were obtained from tests on 100 mm ×
200 mm cylindrical samples, and the modulus of elasticity was deter­
mined through tests on 150 mm × 300 mm samples. After casting of
concrete, the tested specimens and the cylindrical samples were covered
with sisal fiber fabrics and kept continuously moist with water for seven
days. The mean compressive strength (fcm) was equal to 34.5 MPa, the
mean tensile strength (fctm) was equal to 1.5 MPa, and the modulus of
elasticity (Ec) was equal to 23.5 GPa.
In the fabrication process of the headed bars, the circular heads were
made with ASTM A36 steel bars with diameters three times the bar size.
Uniaxial tensile tests were carried on samples of the headed bars to Fig. 9. Load-crack widths.

Fig. 8. Load-strain curves for flexural rebars and concrete surface (F-110 specimens).

7
M. Ferreira et al.
Fig. 10. Crack pattern on longitudinal saw-cuts of specimens.
shank, immediately above the upper surface of the reinforced concrete
element (Gs), as shown in Fig. 7b. This instrumentation was used to
evaluate the importance of the bonding mechanisms between the
headed bars and concrete for the different embedment depths tested.
The flexural reinforcement strains were measured by pairs of strain
gauges (Gf) at opposite ends of the diameters of the upper bars.
Furthermore, one strain gauge was mounted on the bottom surface of
the concrete, allowing the complete monitoring of the flexural response
of the reinforced concrete members, as shown in Fig. 7b. In the second
series of tests, strain gauges were also mounted on the supplementary
reinforcement at different heights of the bars, as shown in Fig. 7c and 7d.
The gauges were placed in the intersection between the axis of the
supplementary reinforcement and the theoretical concrete cone, in­
clined at 35◦ , according to the ACI 318 [2].
8
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212
4. Test results
4.1. Series F
Fig. 8 presents the flexural response of the reinforced concrete
members of series F-110, expressed as a function of the load–strain
curves on the concrete surface (see Fig. 8a) and on the flexural rebars
(see Fig. 8b). These results, which illustrate the response observed for
the two series of tests, show that there were no flexural failures of the
concrete members. In general, the strains on the concrete surface were
significantly below the crushing strain of concrete, and the flexural
reinforcement showed an initial yield strain level before the concrete
cone failure in only one of the tests.
Fig. 9 shows crack width estimates for different loading stages of the
tested specimens. These values were calculated following the recom­
mendations presented by the fib Model Code 2010 [1], using as input
data the strain values measured in the flexural reinforcement during
these tests. In Fig. 9, these results are also compared with the crack
M. Ferreira et al.
Fig. 11. Load-strain curves on supplementary shank outside and inside
of concrete.
width limits for the Serviceability Limit State (SLS), represented by the
red dashed line.
It is observed that all the headed bars were embedded in cracked
concrete zones and that the cracking state varied significantly as a
function of the flexural reinforcement ratio. In only one specimen, the
crack width estimate exceeds the limit value established by MC10 [1],
with the crack widths decreasing progressively with the increase in the
flexural reinforcement ratio. Noteworthy that the maximum crack width
in the F-110-3.2 specimen was considerably small, indicating that this
anchor was embedded in an almost uncracked concrete section.
Fig. 10a and b present the typical cracking pattern of the tested
specimens immediately before failure. After testing, all specimens were
saw-cut in the longitudinal direction to allow the precise determination
of the headed bars’ failure modes, as shown in Fig. 10a and b. All tests
showed concrete cone failure, as illustrated in Fig. 10c–k, and Fig. 10m
Fig. 12. Load-slip curves.
9
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212
shows one photo of specimen F-110-1.6 after failure. In general, the
failure crack developed steadily, initiating from the bar’s head until
reaching the level of the flexural rebars. Minor variations of the incli­
nation of the cone were observed in the same specimen, and the angles
specified in the drawings are mean values. In these tests, the flexural
reinforcement ratio affected the inclination of the concrete cone failure
surface, regardless of the effective embedment depth (see Fig. 10l). The
inclination ranged from 42◦ for the specimens with the lowest flexural
reinforcement ratio to 34◦ in specimen F-110-3.2, with the highest
flexural reinforcement ratio.
The influence of the bonding mechanisms is discussed in Fig. 11. It
presents a comparison between the strains measured in the shanks of the
headed deformed bars inside (Gh) and outside (Gs) the concrete. The
results indicate that the mechanical interlock between the anchor’s head
and the concrete surface governs the resistant mechanism. Nevertheless,
a slight difference between the strains measure inside and outside of
concrete was observed for specimen F-110-3.2 (see Fig. 11e), indicating
that for headed bars embedded in uncracked concrete, bonding between
the anchor and concrete can contribute to the concrete cone strength.
Fig. 12 presents load-slip curves for the headed bars of series F-110
and F-60. The red dashed line marks the level of the mean cracking load
of the specimens, as observed in the tests. Specimens of the F-60 series
are less influenced by the concrete cracking than those of the F-110
series since they present strength limits not much higher than the
cracking load. However, considering the F-110 series results shown in
Fig. 12a, the influence of the crack width on the anchors’ slip becomes
evident. In this case, it is also evident how the increase in the flexural
reinforcement ratio and the consequent efficient control of the crack
widths were able to stiffen the load-slip response.
Table 5 compares the measured strengths and the theoretical esti­
mates for tests without supplementary reinforcement. The strength es­
timates from EC2 and ACI were conservative, except for the ACI’s
estimate for specimen F-110-0.3. Table 5 also shows that the level of
conservatism of the strength estimates increased for both design codes,
as a function of the increments in the flexural reinforcement ratio, with
EC2 showing worst performance than ACI, with a high average (μ =
1.60) and higher dispersion of the results (SD = 0.40).
4.2. Series A
Fig. 13 presents the load-slip response for the series of tests on
headed bars with supplementary reinforcement. The results were set as a
function of the main variables, which were: the area of supplementary
reinforcement (see Fig. 13a); the ratio between the distance of the legs of
the supplementary reinforcement to the anchor, and the effective
embedment depth (see Fig. 13b); and the angle between the horizontal
plane and the leg of the supplementary reinforcement (see Fig. 13c). The
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

Table 5
Summary of experimental and theoretical results of tests without supplementary reinforcement.
Specimens hef ρf Nu kexp MS/MR Nu/ N u/ N u/
(mm) (%) (kN) NEC2-4 NACI NCCD

F-60-0.1 61 0.13 38 13.6 0.76 1.53 1.36 1.25

F-60-0.3 63 0.33 48 16.3 0.46 1.84 1.63 1.51
F-60-0.5 62 0.53 46 16.0 0.33 1.80 1.60 1.48
F-60-1.2 60 1.24 50 18.3 0.15 2.06 1.83 1.69
F-110-0.3 116 0.33 66.5 9.1 0.61 1.02 0.91 0.84
F-110-0.5 114 0.51 72.0 10.1 0.49 1.13 1.01 0.93
F-110-0.8 115 0.80 83.5 11.5 0.35 1.30 1.15 1.06
F-110-1.7 116 1.69 101.5 13.8 0.25 1.55 1.40 1.27
F-110-3.2 113 3.21 136.0 19.3 0.20 2.17 1.93 1.78
µ 1.60 1.42 1.31
S.D. 0.40 0.36 0.33
C.V. 0.25 0.25 0.25

Notes:
MR = As,f ⋅fy,f ⋅(d − 0.5⋅a).
( )/( )
a = As,f ⋅fy,f 0.85⋅fcm ⋅bw .
MS = Nu ⋅lef /4.
lef = 700mm.

Fig. 13. Load-slip curves of specimens with supplementary reinforcement.

experimental response of specimen F-110-0.5, without supplementary
reinforcement, represents a reference for the other results showed in
Fig. 13.
The supplementary reinforcement significantly increased the load-
carrying capacity of the headed bars before failure, as a function of in­
crements in As,sr, as shown in Fig. 13a. Fig. 13b shows that it is essential
to keep the supplementary reinforcement close to the anchor, with the
specimen with s/hef = 1.1 showing response and resistance almost equal
to those without supplementary reinforcement. Regarding the value of θ,
it is noticeable that using inclined legs (in specimen Aw4-6-50-0 θ was
50◦ ) was less effective than using vertical legs (θ = 90◦ ), as shown in
Fig. 13c.
Fig. 14 shows mean strains measured in the supplementary rein­
forcement as a function of As,sr, s/hef, and θ. As shown in Fig. 7c and d,
the strain gauges were placed in varying heights of the rebars in the
virtual intersection between the supplementary reinforcement and the
concrete cone failure surface, aiming to measure their maximum strains.
As shown in Fig. 14a, the supplementary reinforcement reached strain
levels close to the steel yielding strength in all tests. The exception was
in specimen A8-6-45-35, which had two layers of supplementary rein­
forcement inside the concrete cone failure’s predicted zone. In the first
layer, which was 0.50 hef away from the anchor, the steel bars yielded
before the collapse. On the other hand, in the second layer, which was
0.78 hef away from the anchor, the supplementary reinforcement
reached 30% of the yield strain of the steel.
Fig. 14b clearly shows that it is crucial to keep the supplementary
reinforcement close to the anchor, as recommended by ACI 318 [2] and
EN 1992-4 [6]. In specimen A4-6-50-0, the supplementary reinforce­
ment was gradually activated before failure, increasing the anchor’s
efficiency in terms of ductility and resistance. In specimen A4-6-125-0,
the supplementary reinforcement was activated in the imminency of
failure, preventing its contribution to the anchor’s concrete cone
resistance.
Fig. 14c shows that the supplementary reinforcement with inclined
legs (θ = 50◦ ) had a similar load-strain response in comparison to the
one with vertical legs (θ = 90◦ ). Then, for a loading stage of 90 kN, the
strains in the inclined legs of the supplementary reinforcement started to
increase more intensely than that observed for the specimen with ver­
tical legs. As shown in Fig. 14d, the vertical legs of the supplementary
reinforcement of specimen A4-6-50-0 were closer to the anchor’s head,
thus being more effective in controlling the propagation of the failure
crack than in the case of inclined legs used in the supplementary rein­
forcement of the specimen Aw4-6-50-0.
Table 6 compares the experimental and theoretical results for tests
with supplementary reinforcement. It also presents the failure modes
observed on tests and those theoretically predicted using the equations

10
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

contribution in these cases.

The good correlation between the experimental results and the fail­
ure modes prediction obtained according to the model presented by
Sharma et al. [22] should also be noted. For the specimen A4-6-125-
0 specimen, it was demonstrated that the supplementary reinforce­
ment was activated only at failure, and so its strength was governed only
by the concrete’s contribution. In the case of Aw4-6-50-0, the speci­
men’s saw-cut view would help to elucidate if there was an anchorage
failure. However, the authors consider that the adopted detailing was
unfavorable in comparison to the A4-6-50-0 specimen and that the
theoretical prediction made according to this model was the one that
best approached the experimental results.

5. Discussion

This topic presents a discussion of the influence of the crack width,

flexural, and shear reinforcement in the concrete cone resistance of
single cast-in anchors. The analyses consider a comprehensive scenario,
accounting not only with the results of the experimental tests presented
by the authors but also by examining other experimental results avail­
able in the literature [see Refs. [11,14–17,20,28–30].

5.1. Influence of the flexural reinforcement

Fig. 15 compares the variation of kexp as a function of the crack width

(wk) in the failure stage, where kexp = Nu/(fc 0.5 ∙ hef 1.5). In this figure,
besides the results of Series F-60 and F-110, results from Eligehausen

Fig. 14. Load-strains in the supplementary reinforcement.

presented in Table 3. Although it was not possible to saw-cut the spec­

imens with supplementary reinforcement so far, it was possible to
observe that all samples showed concrete cone failure. The specimens
A4-6-125-0 and Aw4-6-50-0 were the only ones that failed without
yielding the supplementary reinforcement due to the reasons discussed
previously.
ACI [2] and EN 1992-4 [6] presented over-conservative estimates (μ
= 1.97 and 2.30, respectively) and high dispersion of results (SD = 0.46
and 0.64, respectively). The over-conservativeness of the design codes
results from the fact that they ignore the concrete’s contribution to the
concrete cone resistance of structural members with supplementary
reinforcement. INFASO [23] and Sharma et al. [22] presented more
accurate theoretical predictions (μ = 1.50/SD = 0.21 and μ = 1.45/SD =
0.22, respectively) since they take into account the concrete’s Fig. 15. Influence of the crack width on the concrete cone resistance.

Table 6
Summary of experimental and theoretical results of tests with supplementary reinforcement.
Specimens As,sr (mm2) s/hef θ Nu (kN) Nu/NREF Nu/NEC2 Nu/NACI Nu/NINFASO Nu/NSharma
1st row 2nd row 1st row 2nd row

A4-5-50-0 78.5 – 0.55 – 90◦ 128.0 b 1.78 2.12a 1.89a 1.68b 1.62b
A4-6-50-0 124.7 – 0.55 – 90◦ 158.0 b 2.19 2.62a 2.33a 1.54c 1.45b
A4-8-50-0 201.1 – 0.55 – 90◦ 159.5 b 2.22 3.27a 2.35a 1.56d 1.46d
A4-6-62-0 124.7 – 0.63 – 90◦ 115.0 b 1.60 1.86a 1.65a 1.08c 1.01b
A4-6-125-0 124.7 – 1.19 – 90◦ 88.0 * 1.22 1.40a 1.25a 1.40c 1.40a
A8-6-45-35 124.7 124.7 0.50 0.78 90◦ 168.0 b 2.33 2.82c 2.51a 1.65c 1.55d
Aw4-6-50-0 124.7 – 0.55 – 55◦ 118.5 * 1.65 1.99a 1.77a 1.60c 1.70b
μ 2.30 1.97 1.50 1.45
S.D. 0.64 0.46 0.21 0.22
C.V. 27.8% 23.1% 13.9% 15.3%

Failure modes:
a
Concrete cone failure without supplementary reinforcement.
b
Concrete cone failure with yielding of supplementary reinforcement.
c
Concrete cone failure with bond failure of the supplementary reinforcement.
d
Maximum concrete cone resistance.
*
Concrete cone failure without yielding of the supplementary reinforcement.

11
M. Ferreira et al.
Fig. 16. Influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio on the concrete
cone resistance.
and Ozbolt [11], Takiguchi et al. [28], and Nilsson et al. [15] are also
used. Tests from Takiguchi et al. [28], in which the concrete specimen
was axially compressed, and those carried by Nilsson et al. [15] on cast-
in anchors embedded in uncracked concrete, were removed from the
analyses. Except by the authors’ tests, in the others, concrete cracking
was induced by different mechanisms and had little, or no correlation
with the tensile load applied to the cast-in anchor. In tests from Eli­
gehausen and Ozbolt [11] and Takiguchi et al. [28] a smooth reduction
of kexp was observed for increments in wk. Contrarily, the authors’ tests,
where concrete cracking resulted from the flexural response of the
specimens, were particularly sensitive to increments in wk.
It is notable in Fig. 15 that the kexp drops linearly for crack widths up
to 0.2 mm and that it stabilizes at values of wk > 0.2 mm. Specimens
tested by Nilsson et al. [15] deserve attention as they had a constant
crack width (wk = 0.5 mm), and their primary variable was the flexural
reinforcement ratio. Significant variations of kexp are observed in these
tests, varying from levels below cracked concrete baseline (kcr) to
overcome the normal levels expected for uncracked concrete (kuncr), and
this is mainly related to increments in ρf, as shown in Fig. 16. Finally,
Fig. 15 also indicates that presuming that the concrete cone resistance
can linearly increase for wk < 0.2 mm could prevent over-conservative
strength estimates.
Fig. 16 evaluates the influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio on
12
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212
the concrete cone resistance of cast-in anchors. Fig. 16a and b use
experimental data from tests on cast-in anchors embedded in uncracked
and cracked concrete, respectively. In Fig. 16a, seven tests from Nilsson
et al. [15] were not used due to lack of information, and five specimens
from Nilforoush et al. [30] were removed since they did not present
concrete cone failure. In addition, in Fig. 16a and b, as Nilsson et al. [15]
had several samples in the same range of ρf, faded circles show indi­
vidual strengths while full circles present mean strengths of specimens in
the same range of ρf.
In Fig. 16a, if tests from Nilforoush et al. [30] with ρf = 0 are ignored
as they present kexp significantly below uncracked values of kACI and
kEC2-4, it shall be noted that for flexural reinforcement ratio below the
absolute minimum value allowable by ABNT NBR 6118 (ρf = 0.15%),
the flexural reinforcement ratio does not seem to impact the concrete
cone strength. Nevertheless, for 0.15% < ρf < 0.60% a mean increase of
30% is observed for kexp, which seems to stabilize for ρf > 0.60%.
5.2. Influence of the supplementary reinforcement
The contribution of concrete and supplementary reinforcement in
the concrete cone resistance is discussed in Fig. 17. The steel contribu­
tion (Ns) was estimated for each loading step based on the measured
strains considering the elastoplastic response observed in the rebars’
characterization tests. The concrete contribution (Nc) was obtained by
subtracting Ns from the applied load (N). In these discussions, Ns and Nc
were divided by the concrete cone resistance measured in the test of
specimen F-110-0.5, which is a reference resistance (NREF) for tests in
headed bars with supplementary reinforcement.
In specimens where the supplementary reinforcement was placed up
to ¾ of hef, the concrete’s contribution at failure was close to the theo­
retical estimates of the concrete cone resistance, pointing that neglecting
the concrete contribution, as recommended by ACI 318 [2] and EN
1992-4 [6] can be over-conservative. On the contrary, both Sharma et al.
[22], which assumes a constant contribution of concrete (0.5∙Nc), and
INFASO [23], which takes a variable contribution from concrete, pro­
pose methods of calculation that are conceptually closer to reality.
Fig. 18 discusses the efficiency factors of concrete (ηc) and supple­
mentary reinforcement (ηs) in the concrete cone resistance of headed
bars with supplementary reinforcement. The variation of the efficiency
factor is analyzed as a function of As,sr, s/hef, and θ. ηc was obtained by
the ratio between Nc and NREF, where Nc is the concrete contribution,
taken as described for Fig. 17, and NREF is the concrete cone resistance of
specimen F-110–0.5, which serves as a reference for these tests. ηs was
determined as the ratio between Ns, which is the supplementary re­
inforcement’s contribution, and the yield strength of the supplementary
reinforcement (Nys).
Fig. 18a shows that the concrete efficiency factor reduced with in­
crements in the amount of steel used in the supplementary reinforce­
ment. One can also note that, if adequate anchoring and spacing
conditions are provided for the supplementary reinforcements, it is
possible to assume that they will develop stress levels close to the yield
strength of steel. Furthermore, these results corroborate with the design
assumptions from INFASO [23], indicating that the concrete cone
resistance can be taken as the sum of the contributions given by concrete
and supplementary reinforcement, with a varying concrete contribution.
Fig. 18b shows that the spacing limits specified by the design codes
for the supplementary reinforcement, of 0.5 hef by ACI and of 0.75 hef for
EC2-4, is fundamental to guarantee that concrete and steel can work
together before the concrete cone failure. Moving the supplementary
reinforcement to a distance up to 1.0 hef resulted in an inadequate
response since they were activated only when the concrete had already
lost its load-carrying capacity. Fig. 18c confirms that using vertical bars
(θ = 90◦ ) increased the supplementary reinforcement’s structural per­
formance as they were able to control more efficiently the formation of
the concrete cone failure.
Fig. 19 compares the authors’ experimental results with data
M. Ferreira et al.
Fig. 17. Concrete and supplementary reinforcement force relationship.
presented by Lee et al. [16], Fontenelle [29], Henriques et al. [17],
Petersen et al. [18], and Trautwein et al. [20]. Fig. 19a evaluates the
influence of increasing ρsr in the concrete cone strength of cast-in an­
chors, and Fig. 19b discusses the limits of s/hef imposed by design ap­
proaches. In Fig. 19a, twenty-five tests from Henriques et al. [17] were
removed due to group effects, and twenty-five tests from Petersen et al.
[14] were cut off due to cyclic loading or edge effects. Besides, all tests
where s > 0.75 hef were removed from these analyses. In Fig. 19a, Nu is
the experimental strength of the tested specimen with supplementary
reinforcement, NREF is the resistance of the reference specimen for each
tested specimen, and ρsr is the anchor or shear reinforcement ratio,
calculated as As,sr/9 ∙ hef 2.
In general, the database shows that increasing ρsr results in in­
crements of the concrete cone resistance. However, a resistance
13
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212
increment plateau is observed, regardless of further increases in ρsr. The
specimens tested by the authors showed higher strength increments than
those from the database, which is attributed to the stirrups detailing,
once they enclose flexural rebars with a diameter equal to or greater
than the size of the stirrups, and fully anchored beyond the failure cone.
The other tests did not follow these concepts, especially those from
Henriques et al. [17], whose supplementary reinforcement did not
embrace any longitudinal bar, and those from Fontenelle [29] and
Trautwein et al. [20], whose lower anchorage length of the supple­
mentary reinforcement seems to be small and possibly limited their
activation, especially for those with a larger diameter.
Regarding the limits imposed by ACI and EC2-4 for the ratio s/hef
discussed in Fig. 19b, it is shown that although ACI can seem quite
restrictive compared to EC2-4, large drops of resistance are observed for
M. Ferreira et al.
Fig. 18. Influence of tests variables in the efficiency factors of concrete (ηc) and supplementary reinforcement (ηs).
tests in the range of 0.5 < s/hef < 0.75. These results highlight the rel­
evancy of fitting the design codes’ recommendations at a conservative
level, as observed in this topic, but shall also encourage the development
of more accurate methods to estimate the concrete cone resistance of
cast-in anchors.
6. Conclusions
This paper presented sixteen experimental tests on headed bars
embedded on reinforced concrete members under tensile loading. All
tests were designed to present concrete cone failure and represent sit­
uations where the headed bars transfer the main design loads. Nine of
these tests evaluated the influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio in
the headed bars’ concrete cone resistance. The other seven tests inves­
tigated the contribution given by the shear reinforcement, working as
supplementary reinforcement, in the concrete cone failure load. The
behavior and the resistance measured in the experimental tests and the
comparisons presented with other tests from literature permit the
following conclusions:
• For the different embedment depths evaluated (hef ranging from 60
mm to 110 mm), the flexural reinforcement ratio slightly affected the
angle of the concrete cone surface, which consistently varied be­
tween 34◦ (ρ = 3.2%) to 42◦ (ρ = 0.10%). Considering the scenario of
these tests, which is restricted to cases of headed bars with small
effective embedment depth, it was observed that the headed bars
resistant mechanism is fundamentally related to the interlock be­
tween its head and concrete.
14
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212
• The concrete cone resistance is considerably affected by the crack
width. The flexural reinforcement ratio may significantly contribute
to the resistance of headed bars used as cast-in anchors since it might
control the crack width, when embedded on flexural members, or
whether embedded on rigid structural members, they may work as
surface reinforcement and contribute due to dowel action.
• The second series of tests showed that adjusting the shear rein­
forcement to work as supplementary reinforcement can significantly
increase the resistance of head bars, especially if they embrace well-
anchored longitudinal bars. The distance between the legs of the
supplementary reinforcement and the cast-in anchors is a critical
parameter, as observed in the present tests and the literature, con­
firming that the design codes’ limits are essential to guarantee their
activation before failure.
• The theoretical model presented by Sharma et al. [22] showed the
best correlation with the present experimental results in the tests
with supplementary reinforcement, deserving to be highlighted the
good correlation with the observed failure modes. On the other hand,
ACI 318 [2] and EN 1992-4 [6] were conservative and less accurate,
but this is reasonable due to the simplicity of their equations. How­
ever, the results and discussions presented in this paper shall also
encourage the development of more accurate design methods.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

Emeritus Professor of the University of Westminster, for all the relevant

discussions during the development of this research project. The support
of CAPES, CNPq, FAP-DF, and FAPESPA, Brazilian Research Develop­
ment Agencies, are also acknowledged. The authors also declare that the
ideas presented in this paper reflect their scientific opinions individually
and do not necessarily represent those of the funding agencies.

Fig. 19. Influence of ρsr and s/hef in the concrete cone resistance.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Paul E. Regan,

Appendix A. Notation

bw is the width of the concrete specimen

cd is the factor representing the least of the side cover, the concrete cover of the bar or wire, or one-half the spacing of the bars or wires
d is the effective depth of specimen
ds are the diameter of the anchor shank
dh is the diameter of the anchor head
fbk is the characteristic bond strength
fbm is the mean bond strength
fc is the concrete compressive strength
fcm is the mean concrete compressive strength
fct is the concrete tensile strength
fctm is the mean concrete tensile strength
fy,f is the yield strength of flexural rebars
fy,s is the yield strength of anchor shank rebars
fy,sr is the yield strength of the supplementary reinforcement
h is the height of the concrete specimen
hef is the embedment depth
k is a coefficient to account for the influence of the cracking state of the concrete in the concrete cone resistance
kc is the stiffness of the descending branch of the concrete cone failure in tension
kcr is a coefficient to consider that the anchor was placed on a cracked concrete zone
kexp is the coefficient measured on tests, calculated as Nu/(fc05 ∙ hef15)
kuncr is a coefficient to consider that the anchor was placed on an uncracked concrete zone
l1 is the anchorage length of the supplementary reinforcement measured from boths sides of the breakout failure surface
li,min is the minimum anchorage length of the supplementary reinforcement to be considered effective to Sharma et al (2017)
nf is the number of flexural rebars in the tested specimen
nsr is the number of legs of the supplementary reinforcement inside the concrete cone
(continued on next page)

15
M. Ferreira et al. Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212

(continued )
s is the radial distance between the headed anchor and the supplementary reinforcement legs
s0 is the longitudinal distance between the anchor and the first layer of supplementary reinforcement
sr is the longitudinal distance between the first and the second layer of supplementary reinforcement
x is the distance between the secondary failure cone and the anchor axis
wk is the concrete crack width
Ac is the total projected area for an anchor group
Ac0 is the maximum projected area for a single anchor
As,sr is the area of the supplementary reinforcement
C.V. is the coefficient of variation of the results
Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete
Ef is the modulus of elasticity of the flexural reinforcement
Es is the modulus of elasticity of the anchor shank reinforcement
Esr is the modulus of elasticity of the supplementary reinforcement
L is the length of the concrete specimen
MS is the bending moment acting on the specimen
MR is the bending moment strength of the specimen
N is the tensile load applied in the anchor
Nbond is the contribution of the bond strength in the resistance of the supplementary reinforcement
Nc is the contribution of the concrete strength in the concrete cone resistance
Nhook is the contribution of the hook and bend strength in the resistance of the supplementary reinforcement
NRb is the bond strength of supplementary reinforcement
NRc is the concrete cone strength of anchors without supplementary reinforcement
NRcs is the concrete cone strength of anchors with supplementary reinforcement
NREF is the concrete cone strength of the specimen F-110-05
NRmax is the maximum resistance of headed bars with supplementary reinforcement
NRs is the contribution of the supplementary reinforcement in the concrete cone resistance
NRys is the yield strength of the supplementary reinforcement
Ns is the contribution of the supplementary reinforcement measured along the tests
Nu is the experimental strength of the specimens
S.D. is the standard deviation of the results
SLS is the serviceability limit state
α is the angle of the concrete cone
α1 is a factor to consider the influence of the anchorage by hooks, bends, or straight on the bond strength
α2 is a factor to consider the influence of cd on the bond strength
δb is the displacement of the supplementary reinforcement assuming that bond failure occurs
δy is the displacement of the supplementary reinforcement at the yielding point
εc is the strain on the concrete surface
εs is the strain on reinforcement steel
εys is the yield strain of reinforcement steel
Øf is the diameter of the flexural reinforcement
Øsr is the diameter of the supplementary reinforcement
µ is the average of the results
η1 is the factor that considers the bond condition
η2 is the factor that considers the influence of the diameter of the bar
η3 is the factor that considers the steel yielding strength of the reinforcing bar
θ is the angle between the horizontal plane and the leg of the supplementary reinforcement
ξ is the slip of the headed bars
ρf is the flexural reinforcement ratio
ρsr is the anchor or shear reinforcement ratio, calculated as As,sr/9 hef2
σL are the stresses in the concrete due to external loads, including anchor loads
σR are the stresses in the concrete due to restraint or intrinsic imposed deformations

References [11] Eligehausen R, Ozbolt J. Influence of crack width on the concrete cone failure load.
In: Bazant ZP, editor. 1st Int. Conf. Fract. Mech. Concr. Struct.; 1992. p. 876–81.
[12] Eligehausen R, Mallée R, Silva J. Anchorage in concrete construction. 1st ed. KG:
[1] Fédération Internationale du Béton. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010;
Ernst & Sohn GmbH & Co.; 2006.
2013:402.
[13] Zhao J. Tensile behavior of single cast-in anchors in plastic hinge zones. Adv Civ
[2] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
Eng Technol 2018;2:171–80. https://doi.org/10.31031/acet.2018.02.000535.
19); 2019:623.
[14] Petersen D, Lin Z, Zhao J. Design of anchor reinforcement for seismic tension loads.
[3] Gil-Martín LM, Hernández-Montes E. Reinforcement anchored in tension by heads.
Eng Struct 2018;164:109–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.015.
Review of capacity formulation and applicability limits. Eng Struct 2019;184:
[15] Nilsson M. Effects of surface reinforcement on bearing capacity of concrete with
186–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.063.
anchor bolts. Nord Concr Fed 2011;44:161–74.
[4] Eligehausen R, Sawade G. A fracture mechanics based description of the pull-out
[16] Lee NH, Kim KS, Bang CJ, Park KR. Tensile-headed anchors with large diameter
behavior of headed studs embedded in concrete. London; 1989. doi:10.18419/
and deep embedment in concrete. ACI Struct J 2007;104:479–86. https://doi.org/
opus-7930.
10.14359/18778.
[6] EN 1992-4: 2018. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 4: Design of
[17] Henriques J, Raposo JM, da Silva LS, Neves LC. Tensile resistance of steel-
fastenings for use in concrete; 2018:132.
reinforced anchorages: experimental evaluation. ACI Struct J 2013;110:239–50.
[7] Eligehausen R, Bouska P, Cervenka V, Pukl R. Size effect of the concrete cone
[18] Petersen D, Lin Z, Zhao J. Behavior and Design of Cast-in-Place Anchors under
failure load. In: Bazant ZP, editor. 1st Int. Conf. Fract. Mech. Concr. Struct.; 1992.
Simulated Seismic Loading. vol. 1. Milwaukee; 2013.
p. 517–25.
[19] Sharma A, Eligehausen R, Asmus J. Comprehensive Experimental Investigations on
[8] Fuchs W, Eligehausen R, Breen JE. Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) approach for
Anchorages with Supplementary Reinforcement. In: Sharma A, Hofmann J, editors.
fastening to concrete. ACI Struct J 1995;92:73–94.
3rd Int. Symp. Connect. between Steel Concr., Stuttgart; 2017. p. 242–52.
[9] Eligehausen R, Balogh T. Behavior of fasteners loaded in tension in cracked
[20] Trautwein LM, Marinho AM, Gomes RB. Anchor bolts – influence of supplementary
reinforced concrete. ACI Struct J 1995;92:365–79.
reinforcement. KSCE J Civ Eng 2018;22(2):679–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/
[10] Rehm G, Eligehausen R, Mallée R. Befestigungstechnik (Fixing technology).
s12205-017-1255-9.
Betonkalender 1988, Part II 1988:569–663.
[21] Bujnak J, Sharma A, Eligehausen R, as. Anchorages with Supplementary
Reinforcement under Tension, Shear and Interaction loads - Experimental

16
M. Ferreira et al.
Database, Innovations in Materials, Design and Structures. fib Symp., Kraków;
2019.
[22] Sharma A, Eligehausen R, Asmus J. Comprehensive Analytical Model for
Anchorages with Supplementary Reinforcement. In: Sharma A, Hofmann J, editors.
3rd Int. Symp. Connect. between Steel Concr., Stuttgart; 2017. p. 253–65.
[23] Kuhlmann U, Ožbolt A, Hofmann J, Eligehausen R, Berger W, Wald F, et al. New
market chances for steel structures by innovative fastening solutions between steel
and concrete (INFASO). Luxembourg; 2012.
[25] ABNT. NBR 6118 Design of concrete structures - Procedure 2014:238.
[26] Ghimire KP, Shao Y, Darwin D, Reilly MO. Conventional and High-Strength
Headed Bars — Part 1: Anchorage Tests. ACI Struct J 2019;116:255–63. https://
doi.org/10.14359/51714479.
17
Engineering Structures 248 (2021) 113212
[27] ASTM A370. Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of
Steel Products; 2019.
[28] Takiguchi K, Harada R, Ishizeki K. Pull out Strength an Anchor Bolt Embedded in
Cracked Concrete. In: Trans. 15th Int. Conf. Struct. Mech. React. Technol., Seoul;
1999. p. 305–10.
[29] Fontenelle EG. Resistência à Tração de Pinos de Ancoragem Isolados e Pré-
Instalados - Influência da Armadura de Flexão e de Cisalhamento. Universidade
Federal de Goias; 2011.
[30] Nilforoush R, Asce SM, Nilsson M, Elfgren L. Experimental evaluation of influence
of member thickness, anchor-head size, and orthogonal surface reinforcement on
the tensile capacity of headed anchors in uncracked concrete. J Struct Eng 2018;
144:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001976.