Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Anchorage in steel fiber reinforced concrete – concept, experimental T

evidence and design recommendations for concrete cone and concrete edge
breakout failure modes
Máté Tóth , Boglárka Bokor, Akanshu Sharma
⁎

Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 4, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany1

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A large number of studies confirm the beneficial effects of the steel fiber reinforcement in concrete structures.
Anchorage The addition of steel fibers to the concrete mix leads to better mechanical and physical concrete properties
Steel fiber reinforced concrete including higher fracture energy, reduced crack widths, higher impact and abrasion resistance, increased dur-
Concrete breakout failure ability. Due to the increasing popularity of using anchorages in steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC), it is
Experimental investigations
essential to understand the behavior of anchorages in SFRC and to validate the applicability of the current
Design recommendations
provisions for the design of anchorages for use in structural concrete. However, there is only little research
available on the behavior of anchorages in SFRC. This paper presents the results of experimental investigations
on tension and shear loaded steel anchors in normal-strength plain concrete (PC) and in SFRC. The compre-
hensive test program includes 62 pull-out and shear loading tests on single anchors and on anchor groups. The
test results are discussed in detail to emphasize the influence of steel fiber reinforcement on the load-dis-
placement behavior of fastening systems. The results indicate that the fiber content has a positive effect on the
load-displacement behavior of the anchorages, in general. A better utilization of fastening systems can be at-
tained due to the more ductile behavior and due to the crack bridging mechanism of the SFRC. Furthermore, in
certain applications and parameter combinations the ultimate load in case of concrete failure may be higher in
SFRC compared to PC.

1. Introduction and state of art
Steel fibers are added to the concrete mix to improve the fracture
behavior of concrete. Thus, the brittle matrix of plain concrete can be
improved to a composite material, which is reinforced by randomly
oriented short, discontinuous steel fibers of particular geometry. Steel
fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) shows improved flexural tensile
strength, residual flexural tensile strength and post-peak cracking be-
havior compared to plain concrete [1–3]. After crack initiation in SFRC,
the internal forces are transferred through fibers leading to optimized
stress redistribution in the component cross-section [2].
The conventional SFRC is based on a regular concrete composition,
to which generally straight, wavy or hooked-end steel fibers with an
amount of maximum 40–50 kg/m3 are added. Typically the steel fiber
length varies from 25 to 60 mm with a diameter of 0.5–1.1 mm [4].
SFRC can be produced by adding the fibers either to the dry or to the
fresh concrete mix. According to the experience, the in-situ SFRC can be
handled in the similar way as the plain concrete (PC) including com-
paction and vibration provided that the steel fiber amount is within the
range of 20–50 kg/m3 for structural concrete and 30–80 kg/m3 for
shotcrete [4]. Since the efficiency of bond between steel fiber and
concrete matrix is mainly governed by the concrete compressive
strength, it is recommended to use C30/37 or higher concrete strength
classes to provide sufficient anchoring of the fibers in the cement ma-
trix. This basic rule also applies if hooked-end fibers are used, which
inherently provide a better bond-slip behavior due to the mechanical
interlock at the hooked ends. SFRC is basically not considered as a high-
performance material and it exhibits rather a strain-softening instead of
strain-hardening behavior. The strain-softening behavior is character-
ized by no multiple-cracking and the ultimate tensile stress is equal or
only slightly higher than the stress corresponding to the first-cracking
[5].
Nowadays, conventional fiber reinforced concrete (FRC), such as
SFRC is widely used for industrial floors mainly to avoid premature

⁎
Corresponding author at: IEA Engineering Office Eligehausen-Asmus-Hofmann, Hauptstrasse 4, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany.
E-mail addresses: toth@i-ea.de (M. Tóth), boglarka.bokor@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de (B. Bokor), akanshu.sharma@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de (A. Sharma).
1
Where the actual work was done.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.007
Received 24 June 2018; Received in revised form 27 September 2018; Accepted 3 December 2018
Available online 08 December 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 1. Influence of the fiber content on the mean ultimate loads of anchors loaded in tension and shear – Literature results [6–9].
shrinkage cracks and to improve the resistance against impact loads or
abrasion. Post-installed anchors also find their applications in such in-
dustrial floors e.g. to fasten the industrial components or heavy ma-
chines. Due to the fact that anchors utilize the concrete tensile capacity
for load-transfer, it is intuitive that anchors may have an improved
load-bearing behavior when they are installed into SFRC instead of PC
due to the crack bridging mechanism of the fibers and due to less brittle
concrete breakout failure mode in SFRC.
To date, rather limited studies exist focusing on the behavior of
anchors in SFRC [6–9] and only in some of these studies [8,9] the focus
was set on the investigation of the concrete dominant failure modes in
SFRC. Klug et al. [6] performed tension and shear loading tests using
expansion anchors, undercut anchors and bonded anchors in PC and in
SFRC. The embedment depth of the tested anchors ranged between 50
and 60 mm. No increase in the ultimate load for the tested anchor types
was reported and it was concluded that the structural behavior of fas-
tenings is not improved in SFRC (L = 35 mm, wavy steel fiber and
L = 50 mm, d = 0.8 mm hooked-end steel fiber) compared to plain
concrete. However, in most of the cases, the observed failure mode of
the anchors was different from concrete breakout failure and therefore,
the beneficial effects of anchoring in SFRC could not be shown. Fur-
thermore, the authors assumed that the fiber orientation might have
been parallel to the component surface. Consequently, the amount of
fibers, which were intercepting the concrete breakout body, was not
sufficient to improve the load-bearing behavior of the fastening system.
Kurz et al. [7] investigated the load-bearing behavior of four different
fastening systems (bonded anchor, expansion anchor, bonded expasion
anchor, concrete screw) under tension loading in PC and in SFRC. The
embedment depth of the tested anchors ranged between 65 and 75 mm.
The different installation parameters corresponded to the manu-
facturers’ installation instructions. The observed failure modes included
pull-out failure, steel failure and concrete cone failure. However, when
bonded anchor was tested with an embedment depth to anchor dia-
meter ratio of 5.8 (hef/d), the obtained failure mode was concrete cone
and the increase in the ultimate load by adding 25 and 60 kg/m3 fiber
to the basic mixture was 17 and 23%, respectively. Kurz et al. [7]
concluded that the steel fiber content (L = 60 mm, d = 0.75 mm,
61
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
hooked-end steel fibers) has no significant influence on the load-
bearing and installation behavior of the tested fastening systems. Cov-
entry et al. [8] studied the performance of chemical anchor bolts with
hef/d ratio of 9 in SFRC (L = 50 mm, d = 1 mm, hooked-end steel fi-
bers) with a steel fiber content of 20, 40 and 60 kg/m3 and concluded
that higher loads can be transferred into the concrete by adding steel
fibers. However, the observed increase of ultimate load compared to
plain concrete was less than 15% for the investigated cases. Note that at
embedment depths larger than 5d, the concrete cone failure mode
usually converts into a mixed bond-concrete cone type of failure [10].
Consequently, the beneficial effects of using SFRC may not be fully
utilized. Nilforoush et al. [9] investigated the tensile behavior of single
cast-in-place anchor bolts (hef = 220 mm, d = 36 mm) in plain and
steel fiber-reinforced normal- and high-strength concrete (L = 60 mm,
d = 0.92 mm, hooked-end steel fibers) and showed that the addition of
80 kg/m3 steel fibers to the concrete mixture leads to a significant in-
crease (27–43%) in the tensile breakout capacity of headed anchors.
The vertical anchor displacement at peak load and the ductility also
showed a significant increase compared to the behavior in plain con-
crete. It was also established by Nilforoush et al. in [9] that the Con-
crete Capacity Design (CCD) method [11] underestimates the ultimate
resistance of headed anchors in SFRC in case of concrete cone failure.
From the above discussed literature data only those failing due to
concrete cone (under tension) or concrete edge (under shear towards
the edge) failure are summarized in Fig. 1, whilst the tests failing due to
pull-out or combined bond-concrete cone were neglected. Note that the
symbols presented in Fig. 1 are mean values of the corresponding test
series, since the results of the single tests were not published in some
cases. The mean values are generally calculated from 2 to 5 tests and
the graph shown in Fig. 1 is based on a total number of 67 individual
tests.
It was established that the ultimate concrete cone capacity of an-
chors under tension loading and the concrete edge failure of anchors
under shear loading may be increased by adding steel fibers into the
concrete mix. However, the positive influence of the improved me-
chanical properties of SFRC can be verified only if concrete related
failure modes such as concrete cone failure or concrete edge failure
M. Tóth et al.
occur. Therefore, the choice and combination of the different installa-
tion parameters such as embedment depth, edge distance, anchor dia-
meter, steel strength and bond strength shall be made such that the
premature pull-out or steel failure of the anchor can be avoided. If other
failure modes than concrete failure such as pull-out, bond failure, steel
rupture are decisive, the ultimate load remains basically unchanged.
Therefore, the application of steel fibers may generally be more bene-
ficial for the cast-in-place headed anchors and post-installed adhesive
anchors (than the other types of anchors), which are more likely to fail
by concrete-related failure modes such as concrete cone breakout,
concrete splitting, and concrete edge failures.
Due to the limited and partly questionable results available in the
literature, currently, no design provisions or recommendations exist
accounting for the influence of steel fiber reinforcement on the beha-
vior of anchorages. There is a need to conduct systematic studies with
experiments focusing on concrete failure modes so that the behavior of
anchors in SFRC could be correctly assessed and possibly included in
the design codes (e.g. in fib Bulletin 58 [12], EN 1992-4 [13]).
2. Motivation
The available results in the literature indicate that anchors installed
in SFRC may display improved behavior in case of concrete dominated
failure modes such as concrete cone failure under tension loads or
concrete edge failure under shear loads. A tension loaded anchor in-
duces high tensile stresses in the concrete. As the tensile stresses exceed
the concrete tensile strength in the load transfer zone, radial cracks
initiate, which grow and propagate with increasing tensile load on the
anchor. The ultimate concrete cone capacity in plain concrete is
Fig. 2. (a) Crack propagation in plain concrete [2]; (b) Crack propagation in fiber reinforced concrete [2]; (c) Crack propagation in the anchoring zone of an anchor
in plain concrete [10] (d) Crack propagation in the anchoring zone of an anchor in SFRC.
62
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
generally obtained, when the resulting crack length reaches ca. 40–45%
of the side length of the final concrete cone side-length [14]. The
concrete cone capacity of tension loaded anchors is mainly dependent
on the concrete fracture energy (Gf), Young’s Modulus and the em-
bedment depth of the anchor [12]. The concrete breakout failure load
of a single anchor loaded in shear towards the edge is influenced by the
edge distance, the tensile behavior of concrete, anchor diameter and the
effective length for load transfer.
If the anchors are installed in SFRC instead of PC, the crack pro-
pagation is more stable and the crack growth rate is limited by the
fibers (Fig. 2). If sufficient amount of fibers intercepts the fracture
surface, the concrete breakout capacity may increase for both tension
and shear loaded fastenings. The schematic of the crack bridging me-
chanism in case of concrete cone failure of an anchor is depicted in
Fig. 2d. After the crack initiation, the overbridging fibers are able to
still transmit tensile stresses over the crack into the surrounding con-
crete leading to an optimized stress-redistribution. The ultimate con-
crete breakout capacity of an anchor in SFRC is then limited by either
the fiber rupture or fiber pullout provided that the pull-out and steel
resistance of the anchor are not exceeded.
In general, the better performance of anchors in SFRC can only be
reached if the fiber distribution in the concrete matrix is optimal i.e.
uniform, homogenous and isotropic. The fiber orientation is mainly
dependent on the technique of compaction, compaction time, placing
and mixing time as well as on the direction of concrete casting [15].
Even in case of adequate compaction and vibration, it is well known
that fibers located close to the mold faces are rather parallel oriented or
sharp angled to the surface due to geometrical reasons and due to the
wall-effect (Fig. 3). Due to the non-isotropic fiber distribution in this
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 3. Wall effect for a fiber of length Lfiber at a distance of wall y < Lfiber/2,
based on [16].
zone, the ultimate concrete cone failure load of tension loaded anchors
installed close to the edge or having a shallow embedment depth may
not be increased significantly. In this case, the angle of the intercepting
fibers to the conical fracture surface is predominantly sharp, leading to
no or insignificant contribution to the concrete cone capacity. This
phenomenon was also discussed in [6,7]. Therefore, a minimum em-
bedment depth (hef ≫ Lfiber/2) should be defined to ensure an isotropic
fiber distribution at the anchor tip i.e. at the depth where the conically
shaped tensile cracks initiate. Similar disturbance of the fiber orienta-
tion is expected at sharp concrete corners and edges, which is of par-
ticular interest in case of anchors installed close to the edge and loaded
in shear towards the edge. It is therefore essential to select a sufficient
edge distance c1 for this loading scenario (c1 ≫ Lfiber/2), otherwise, no
significant increase in the concrete breakout capacity is expected. The
experiments presented in the study were executed taken into con-
sideration the above discussed phenomenon, to provide a sufficient
utilization of SFRC in the fastening technology.
Furthermore, the available results presented in the introduction are
restricted to the investigation of single anchors. No studies were found
focusing on the behavior of anchor groups in SFRC. However, it is ex-
pected that adding sufficient amount of fibers to the concrete should
have a bigger positive influence in case of anchor groups, than in the
case of single anchors. The reason for that is the possible force redis-
tribution among the concrete and fibers and additionally among the
adjacent anchors within the group after the crack initiation. Accounting
for the force redistribution is of particular interest if the loading is ec-
centric and non-rigid base plate is used (i.e. where the assumed force
distribution based on the theory of elasticity is not valid). Under ec-
centric tension loading, the individual anchors of a group are subjected
to different axial tension loads. The anchors located close to the point of
load application take up higher forces than those located farther. In
such cases, the capacity of the highest loaded anchor governs the de-
sign. In reality, as the anchors close to the point of loading reach their
capacity, the anchors away from the loading point start to take up more
forces. However, due to brittle fracture of concrete, the highest loaded
anchors fail before the other anchors can be adequately engaged. The
redistribution of forces among the individual anchors of a group can be
improved if the fracture behavior of concrete becomes ductile, as in
case of SFRC. Due to a better redistribution of forces among the an-
chors, for anchor groups installed in SFRC, higher anchorage capacity
and more ductile load-displacement behavior could be achieved.
63
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
The aim of this experimental study is to explore the beneficial ef-
fects of steel fiber reinforcement on the load-bearing capacity of single
anchors and anchor groups in case of concrete breakout failure.
3. Scope of the study
The performed experimental study includes tension and shear
loading tests on both single anchors and on anchor groups in order to
investigate the influence of steel fiber reinforcement on the concrete
cone and concrete edge failure loads. To this end, tests were carried out
in normal-strength PC and in SFRC using 30 kg/m3 and 50 kg/m3 of
steel fibers. Furthermore, centric (e = 0 mm) and eccentric tension tests
(e = 60 mm, e = 120 mm) were carried out on anchor groups, com-
posed on a single row of three anchors (1 × 3) with the assumption that
the steel fibers contribute to a better load redistribution within the
group in comparison to that in PC and to investigate whether the load
redistribution among the anchors within the group may lead to an in-
crease in the ultimate concrete cone capacity of the group.
Furthermore, the influence of rigid and non-rigid base plates on the
load-displacement behavior of the group of anchors in PC and SFRC was
studied.
The test parameters, such as concrete strength, anchor diameter,
anchor embedment depth, anchor spacing and edge distance were
chosen in a way that failure modes other than concrete cone and con-
crete edge failure were not decisive.
In addition to the experiments, the ultimate loads of the experi-
mentally investigated cases were calculated based on the CCD Method,
according to the provisions of the EN 1992-4 [13] in order to verify,
whether the current design provisions are valid for anchors in SRFC.
The calculated mean concrete cone capacity of a single post-installed
anchor without edge influence in non-cracked concrete according the
CCD-Method is calculated according to Eq. (1). The mean ultimate re-
sistance of anchor groups loaded in tension in case of concrete cone
failure is calculated according to Eq. (2).
Nu, c 0 = 14.6· fcm 0,5 ·hef 1,5 (1)
Ac . N
Nu . c = Nu0. c · · s . N · re . N · ec . N · M . N
Ac0. N (2)
where
fcm is the mean concrete cylinder compressive strength, N/mm2
hef is the effective embedment depth of the anchor, mm
s . N takes into account the disturbance of the distribution of stresses
in the concrete due to the proximity of an edge of the concrete
member
re . N is the shell spalling factor
ec . N is the factor to consider the influence of eccentric loading on
the concrete cone capacity of the anchor group
M . N takes into account the effect of a compression force between
fixture and concrete in cases of bending moments with or without
axial force
Ac0, N is the projected area of a single anchor, mm2
Ac , N is the actual projected area of a single anchor or of an anchor
group, mm2.
The mean ultimate shear resistance of a single anchor loaded to-
wards the edge in non-cracked concrete according the EN 1992-4 [13]
is calculated according to (3)–(5).
Vu, c 0 = 3.27· dnom·lf · f
0,5
· c11,5
cm (3)
0.5
lf
= 0.1·
c1 (4)
M. Tóth et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75

0.2
dnom
No. of tests [–] = 0.1·
c1 (5)

5
4
5

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
where

dnom is the nominal diameter of the anchor, mm

lf = hef in case of a uniform diameter of the shank of the headed
Base plate thickness of groups

anchor and a uniform diameter of the post-installed anchor, mm

c1 is the edge distance, mm.
t [mm]

50
50
50
50
50
50
25
25
–
–
–

–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
4. Experimental investigations

4.1. Test program

In this experimental program, a total of 62 tension and shear

loading tests were carried out on single anchors and on anchor groups
Eccentricity of loading e

arranged in 1 × 3 pattern (a single row of three anchors). The test

program and the test parameters are summarized in Table 1. In general,
[mm]

three to five tests were performed in each test series. In Table 1, the
120
120
120
120
60
60
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
eccentricity e is defined as a distance between the point of the load
application and the center of gravity of all anchors within the group.
The embedment depth of the anchors in all the tests was kept as
hef = 70 mm. In the tension tests, the edge distance was kept large
(more than the critical edge distance = 1.5·hef), while in the shear tests,
Ancor spacing s

two different values of edge distance c1 were investigated, c1 = 60 mm

and c1 = 85 mm. The nomenclature is given for the tension tests on
[mm]

120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
–
–

–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

single anchors as (concrete mix)-(loading)-(fiber content); for the ten-

sion tests on anchor groups as (concrete mix)-(loading)-(eccentricity of
loading)-(base plate thickness)-(fiber content); for the shear loading
tests as (concrete mix)-(loading)-(edge distance)-(fiber content).
Test program: tension and shear loading tests on single anchors and anchor groups in normal-strength PC and in SFRC.
Edge distance c

4.2. Materials
[mm]

> ccr
> ccr
> ccr

> ccr
> ccr
> ccr
> ccr
> ccr
> ccr
> ccr
> ccr
> ccr
> ccr

60
60
60
85
85
85

4.2.1. Geometry of test specimens

The tests were carried out in plain and in steel fiber reinforced
concrete members according to the test program given in Table 1. The
Fiber content [kg/

geometry of the concrete specimens was designed in a way that the

formation of full size concrete breakout bodies was possible without
m3]

30
50

50

50

50

50

50

30
50

30
50

influencing the neighboring anchors for both tension and shear loading
0

tests. To ensure the formation of the undisturbed concrete cone for

fastenings in PC, the clear support distance of 4⋅hef according to
ETAG001, Annex A [17] would be required. It was assumed that the
Concrete mix ID

initial angle of the concrete cone may be flatter in the case of SFRC.
Therefore, to ensure the undisturbed formation of the concrete cone
1

also for the tests in SFRC, the clear distance between the single anchors
or the outermost anchor of the groups was increased to greater than 6
times the hef for all the tension tests in PC as well as in SFRC. The
Single or group

concrete specimen thickness was approximately 2.9⋅hef. During the

shear loading tests, the distance between the neighboring anchors was
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Single
Single
Single

Single
Single

Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
Single
test

at least 4⋅c1. The concrete members were cast without edge reinforce-
ment to eliminate any influence of the edge reinforcement. For op-
timum use of the test specimens in the shear loading tests, the anchors
were installed on the side of the test specimens.
Loading direction

ccr: critical edge distance based on the MPII.

Tension

Tension

Shear

4.2.2. Concreting and concrete composition

Concrete specimens of size 1900·1900·200 mm served as the base
material. The concrete compositions of the used concrete batches are
given in Table 2. The production of the PC and SFRC test members was
2-TG-120–50-50

2-TG-120–25-50
2-TG-60–50-50
2-TG-120–50-0

2-TG-120–25-0
2-TG-0–50-50
2-TG-60–50-0
2-TG-0–50-0

carried out in two steps. First, the basic mix was made and the plain
1-SS-c60-30
1-SS-c60-50

1-SS-c85-30
1-SS-c85-50
1-SS-c60-0

1-SS-c85-0
1-TS-30
1-TS-50

2-TS-50
Test ID

1-TS-0

2-TS-0

concrete test members were cast. Later, the required amount of steel
fibers was added to the fresh concrete mix by taking into account the
remaining amount of concrete. This concept of manufacturing proce-
dure enabled a direct comparison of the test results in the PC and in
Test series

SFRC concrete specimens.

Table 1

III.
II.
I.

The fibers were dispersed uniformly to the freshly mixed basic

concrete mix. To ensure the lump-free state of fibers in the mix, the

64
M. Tóth et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75

Table 2
Concrete mix.
Concrete Cement type Cement [kg/ Aggregate 0–2 mm Aggregate 2–8 mm Water [kg/ w/c [–] Fiber cont. Super-plasticizer [M Retarder [M% of
batch [–] m3] [kg/m3] [kg/m3] m3] [kg/m3] % of Cement] Cement]

1 CEM II/A-LL 358.2 788.9 957.8 194.0 0.54 0 1.93 0.68

42,5R 0
30 1.93 0.68
30
50 2.54 0.68
50

2 CEM II/A-LL 337.7 831.4 997.1 182.2 0.54 0 0.86 0.30

42,5R 0
50
50

Table 3
Test results.
Test ID Fiber Mean cube Mean Ultimate load Nu Mean Mean % increase Coefficient Calc. ult. Nu,m /
[–] content compressive flexural ultimate displacement w.r.t. of variation load Nu,calc
[kg/ strength fcc tensile Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 load Nu,m at ultimate reference CoV based on or Vu,m
m3] [N/mm2] strength [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] or Vu,m load δu,m tests [%] CCD / Vu,calc
fct,fl [kN] [mm] [%] Method [–]
[N/mm2] Nu,calc or
Vu,calc
[kN]

1-TS-0 0 53.4 2.9 56.8 52.8 54.4 52.1 51.4 53.5 0.36 – 4.1 55.9 0.96
1-TS-30 30 61.6 2.9 82.4 71.9 82.3 85.0 – 80.4 1.43 50 7.2 60.0 1.34
1-TS-50 50 58.2 4.9 68.1 73.5 65.6 73.7 82.6 72.7 1.14 35 9.0 58.3 1.25

2-TS-0 0 66.6 2.6 59.6 55.8 59.8 – – 58.4 0.67 – 3.9 62.4 0.94
2-TS-50 50 65.0 3.1 67.9 70.8 68.9 – – 69.2 0.76 18 2.2 61.4 1.13
2-TG-0–50-0 0 66.6 2.6 105.7 101.8 104.1 – – 103.9 0.52 – 1.9 133.5 0.78
2-TG-0–50-50 50 65.0 3.1 134.8 131.4 137.6 – – 134.5 1.01 29 2.3 131.4 1.02
2-TG-60–50-0 0 66.6 2.6 76.9 86.3 86.7 – – 83.3 1.02 – 6.7 84.9 0.98
2-TG-60–50-50 50 65.0 3.1 113.1 94.7 124.7 – – 110.8 1.41 33 13.6 83.6 1.33
2-TG-120–50-0 0 66.6 2.6 69.1 68.8 73.3 – – 70.4 0.87 – 3.6 65.1 1.08
2-TG-120–50-50 50 65.0 3.1 89.7 85 90.4 – – 88.4 1.36 26 3.3 64.0 1.38
2-TG-120–25-0 0 66.6 2.6 57.0 67.1 61.2 – – 61.8 1.33 – 8.2 65.1 0.95
2-TG-120–25-50 50 65.0 3.1 77.2 95.4 89.9 – – 87.5 2.09 42 10.7 64.0 1.37

1-SS-c60-0 0 53.4 2.9 25.1 24.6 20.8 – – 23.5 1.04 – 10.0 18.6 1.26
1-SS-c60-30 30 61.6 2.9 24.4 26.0 27.9 – – 26.1 1.72 11 6.7 19.9 1.31
1-SS-c60-50 50 58.2 4.9 29.8 29.5 30.0 – – 29.7 2.11 27 0.9 19.4 1.53
1-SS-c85-0 0 53.4 2.9 31.5 31.6 29.8 – – 31.0 1.01 – 3.2 29.2 1.06
1-SS-c85-30 30 61.6 2.9 39.2 37.6 45.8 – – 40.9 2.33 32 10.7 31.4 1.30
1-SS-c85-50 50 58.2 4.9 46.7 44.7 44.2 – – 45.2 2.37 46 2.9 30.5 1.48

mixer was rotated at full speed continuously for approximately concrete specimen of size 70 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm. The flexural tensile
3–5 min. The SFRC specimens were cast, subsequently. The compaction strength values are included in Table 3. The load – crack width curves
was made by internal vibrator. It was ensured that no fiber balls were of the 3-point bending tests on PC and SFRC are shown in Fig. 4.
formed during the mixing, placing or compacting. Note that studies on
the influence of compaction method on the fiber orientation in concrete
4.2.3. Tested anchors
conclude that an external vibration (vibrating table) may lead to fiber
All tests were carried out with an epoxy-based adhesive anchor
segregation and preferential horizontal orientation of the fibers [15].
using M16 (d = 16 mm) steel threaded rods of grade 12.9
As a general rule to ensure a sufficient bond between the concrete
(fu,nom = 1200 N/mm2). The mean bond strength of the used adhesive
matrix and fibers, the maximum aggregate size should not exceed one-
was approximately τ = 35 N/mm2. The effective embedment depth of
third of the fiber length. For this reason, the maximum aggregate size of
the anchors was hef = 70 mm in all tests. This corresponds to and hef/d-
Dmax = 8 mm and the hooked-end type fibers HE 75/35 by the company
ratio of 4.4. According to Eligehausen et al. [10], the failure of adhesive
ArcelorMittal were used for SFRC concrete mix [18]. The tensile
anchors at small embedment depths (hef ≈ 3d to 5d) is characterized by
strength of fibers was reported to be around 1200 N/mm2. The nominal
a cone-shaped concrete breakout originated at the base of anchor,
fiber diameter was d = 0.75 mm and the nominal fiber length was
provided that the bond strength of adhesive is sufficiently large.
Lfiber = 35 mm (aspect ratio Lfiber/d = 47).
The anchors were installed according to the corresponding
The compressive strength of the corresponding mixes was measured
Manufactureŕs Printed Installation Instructions (MPII). First, the bore
on concrete cubes of 150 mm side length according to DIN EN 12390-15
holes were drilled perpendicular to the concrete surface. For drilling the
[19]. The measured mean concrete cube compressive strength fcc of the
bore holes of the anchor groups, steel-plate templates including pilot-
test specimens is given in Table 3. The flexural tensile strength (mod-
holes with accurate spacing were prepared. The templates were used to
ulus of rupture) of concrete was measured by 3-point bending tests
ensure the precise positioning of the anchors within the group. After
according to the recommendations given by RILEM TC 162-TDF [20] on
drilling, the holes were cleaned according to the MPII. Subsequently,

65
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 4. Load – crack width curves of the 3-point bending tests on PC and SFRC in (a) concrete batch 1 and (b) concrete batch 2.
the anchors were installed. After the prescribed curing time, the fixture
or the base plate was positioned on the anchors and the test was carried
out.
4.3. Test setup
The experiments were performed in the accredited testing labora-
tory of the Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart.
The tension and shear loading tests were carried out in displacement
control using a quasi-static loading rate. The tension tests on single
anchors were carried out based on the recommendations given in ETAG
001, Annex A, Section 4 [17] using an unconfined test setup. The ten-
sion tests on single anchors and the anchor groups were performed with
a test setup, consisting of a tension test rig with adequate spacing to
allow the formation of an unrestricted concrete cone, a hydraulic cy-
linder, a calibrated load cell and a displacement transducer. The tension
load was applied to the anchors through a steel fixture for single an-
chors and a steel base plate for anchor groups. A high strength threaded
rod was used to transfer the load from the hydraulic cylinder into the
fixture or the base plate. In the case of eccentric loading, a special hinge
was placed in between the base plate and the threaded rod to allow free
rotation of the base plate under increasing load. The total vertical
displacement of the group was measured at the point of load applica-
tion on the base plate by means of a Linear Variable Displacement
Fig. 5. Typical test setup used for: (a) tension tests on single anchors with clear support distance of 450 mm; (b) tension tests on anchor groups with a clear support
distance of 900 mm; (c) shear tests on single anchors with a clear support distance of 450 mm.
66
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
Transformer (LVDT). The test setup used for the single anchor tests and
for the group tests are shown in Fig. 5a and b respectively. The anchors
for the shear loading tests were installed on the side of the concrete
specimens and therefore, the vertical loading setup could be used to
apply the shear loads. The setup used for the shear test with the loading
fixture is shown in Fig. 5c. Since the support rig could not stand com-
pletely on the concrete surface, external supports were used. The an-
chor displacement in the loading direction was measured indirectly
according to Fig. 5c using two displacement transducers and brackets
glued to the test specimen on both sides of the loading fixture.
5. Test results
5.1. General
In this chapter, the results of the performed experiments are pre-
sented. The ultimate load of each executed test, the mean value of the
ultimate loads with the corresponding coefficient of variation (CoV),
the mean displacements at ultimate load of the particular test series are
listed in Table 3. Furthermore, Table 3 contains the calculated ultimate
concrete cone and concrete edge resistances based on the CCD Method.
Note that the CCD-Method is not valid for SFRC. The ratios of the cal-
culated and measured ultimate loads are discussed in Chapter 6.
The observed failure mode in the tension and shear tests was
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 6. (a) Load-displacement curves of the single anchors loaded in tension; (b) typical failure mode under tension and concrete cone failure with fiber pull-out on
the fracture surface.
concrete cone and concrete edge failure, respectively, in all the cases.
Note that in certain cases, due to the limited number of tests (3), the
coefficient of variation (CoV) may not be representative. The percen-
tage increase in the mean failure loads observed for the tests in SFRC
compared to the corresponding tests in plain concrete is also given in
Table 3. For all the tests, the relative increase in the failure loads was in
the range of 11–50%.
5.2. Results of tension tests on single anchors
In test series I, the influence of fiber content on the load-bearing and
load-displacement behavior of tension loaded single anchors was in-
vestigated. The tests were carried out in the concrete batch No. 1. The
corresponding load-displacement curves are given in Fig. 6. It can be seen
that the ultimate load increased significantly, when the fibers are present in
the concrete. In the case of 30 kg/m3 fiber content, the mean ultimate load
increased by 50%. However, it was observed that compared to the basic
mix, the increase in the ultimate load was only 35% in the case of 50 kg/m3
steel fiber content. This can be attributed to the scatter of the concrete cone
failure and in the actual number of fibers intercepted by the concrete cone.
This highlights the fact that SFRC is quite an inhomogeneous material and
the fiber distribution as well as fiber orientation plays a major role in
governing the behavior of the anchorages. Therefore, sufficient care must be
taken in order to ensure that the concrete mix has uniformly distributed and
randomly oriented fibers. Nevertheless, by adding fibers to the concrete, not
only the ultimate loads but also the displacement at ultimate load increased.
In PC, the mean displacement at the ultimate load δu,m was 0.36 mm, while
Fig. 7. Load-displacement curves of the shear loaded single anchors (a) edge distance c1 = 60 mm; (b) edge distance c1 = 85 mm.
67
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
in SFRC (30 kg/m3) δu,m was 1.43 mm and in the SFRC (50 kg/m3) δu,m was
1.14 mm.
The load-displacement behavior of the single anchors loaded in
tension was improved in general and the ultimate resistance also in-
creased by adding steel fibers to the concrete. This is attributed to the
fact that the fibers intercepted by the fracture surface provide addi-
tional resistance and contribute to the load-bearing capacity. Although
it is intuitive that the increased amount of steel fibers in the concrete
mixture will result in a higher concrete cone capacity, the hereby pre-
sented results could not confirm this, since the number of fibers inter-
cepted by the failure crack may not be proportional to the quantity of
fibers added into the concrete mix. This may be due to the fact that
SFRC is an inhomogeneous material and the fiber distribution may be
inconsistent in the anchorage zone.
5.3. Results of shear loading tests on single anchors
The shear loading tests were carried out in concrete specimens with
0, 30 and 50 kg/m3 steel fiber content in the concrete batch No. 1. The
test series with different quantities of fibers (0, 30 and 50 kg/m3) and
different edge distances (c1 = 60 mm and c1 = 85 mm) clearly show a
positive influence of the steel fibers on the load-bearing behavior of
single anchors loaded in shear perpendicular and towards the concrete
edge. The load-displacement curves obtained from the tests performed
on the anchors at an edge distance of 60 mm and 85 mm are given in
Fig. 7a and b, respectively. The failure loads and the displacement at
failure load increased significantly by adding fibers to the concrete. In
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 8. Load-displacement curves of the tension loaded (a) single anchors; (b) anchor groups e = 0 mm, t = 50 mm; (c) anchor groups e = 60 mm, t = 50 mm; (d)
anchor groups e = 120 mm, t = 50 mm; (e) anchor groups e = 0 mm, t = 25 mm; (f) typical failure mode in SFRC.
the case of test series with c1 = 60 mm (Series 1-SS-c60), adding 30 and
50 kg/m3 steel fiber to the basic concrete mix, resulted in an increase in
the mean ultimate load by 11% and 27%, respectively. For the tests
performed at an edge distance of c1 = 85 mm (Series 1-SS-c85), the
increase in the failure load, due to the addition of fibers, ranges be-
tween 32 and 46%. This is due to the fact that larger edge distance
results in a larger concrete breakout body leading to more fibers being
intercepted by the concrete fracture surface.
5.4. Results of tension tests on anchor groups
Test series II was carried out in the concrete batch No. 2 in order to
investigate the influence of fiber content on the load-displacement be-
havior of anchor groups (1 × 3 configuration). Furthermore, with a
68
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
systematic variation of the parameters, further investigations on the
influence of eccentric loading and the influence of base plate stiffness
(rigid/non-rigid) on the concrete cone capacity were carried out. In all
the executed tests, a common concrete cone breakout failure mode was
observed. The salient points of the test results are summarized in
Table 3. The load-displacement curves of the corresponding test series
are plotted in Fig. 8. To facilitate better comparison, all the graphs are
plotted at the same scale.
For the evaluation of the results with anchor groups, reference
single tension tests were carried out in the concrete batch No.2 as well.
The results on single anchors and anchor groups confirmed that the
addition of steel fibers has a beneficial effect on the concrete cone ca-
pacity (i.e. the ultimate loads and the ductility increased due to pre-
sence of steel fibers). Comparing the results on single anchors obtained
M. Tóth et al.
in batch No. 1, the mean ultimate load increased by 18% due to the
addition of 50 kg/m3 steel fiber. However, the results of group tests
showed an increase in the mean ultimate loads in the range of 25–42%,
depending on the loading condition (i.e. centric and eccentric) and the
base plate thickness. This agrees well with the tendencies observed in
the concrete batch No.1 and confirms the assumption that the fiber
addition to the concrete may have a bigger influence on the load-dis-
placement behavior of fastening systems if anchor groups instead of
single anchors are installed in SFRC.
For groups tested under centric tension loads, 30% increase in the
mean ultimate load was observed by adding 50 kg/m3 steel fibers (2-
TG-0-50-0; 2-TG-0-50-50, Fig. 8(b)).
Fig. 8(b)–(e) presents the results of tests performed on groups of
anchors subjected to centric and eccentric tension loads. It can be ob-
served that compared to plain concrete, the anchors in SFRC show a
more stable and gradual descending branch after reaching the peak
load. In general, when an anchor group is eccentrically loaded, some
anchors within the group are loaded more compared to the other an-
chors. Consequently, the most loaded anchor(s) reach their capacity
prior to the other anchors and limits the failure load for the group.
However, in case of a ductile fracture as in case of SFRC, the force can
be redistributed among other anchors and a higher group capacity
could be reached.
With the test series 2-TG-120-50-0, 2-TG-120-25-0 and 2-TG-120-
50-50, 2-TG-120-25-50, the influence of the base plate thickness on the
load-displacement behavior was investigated in PC and SFRC, respec-
tively. The anchor groups were loaded eccentrically in such a way that
the point of load application was at the position of the outer anchor.
The thickness of the rigid base plate was t1 = 50 mm and the thickness
of the non-rigid (flexible) base plate was t2 = 25 mm. Fig. 8d–e present
that due to the reduction of the base plate thickness from 50 mm to
25 mm, the peak loads decreased by 12% in PC and 1% in SFRC.
6. Discussion
6.1. General performance of anchorages in SFRC
In the conducted tests, the performance of the anchors installed in
SFRC was found to be significantly better compared to those installed in
PC. With the new test results along with the presented literature data, it
can be concluded that addition of steel fibers in concrete lead to an
increase in the ultimate concrete cone capacity and concrete edge re-
sistance of the anchors. Fig. 9 presents the ratio of the ultimate load in
SFRC to the mean ultimate load in PC as a function of the fiber content.
The influence of fiber content (30 and 50 kg/m3) on the ultimate con-
crete cone capacity and on the concrete edge capacity is shown in
Fig. 9. According to the experience, the scatter of the concrete con-
e and concrete edge failure may reach 15% in PC, which is accounted
Fig. 9. Influence of the fiber content on the ultimate loads.
69
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
Fig. 10. Comparison of calculated resistance based on the CCD-Method to the
experimentally obtained concrete cone and concrete edge resistances.
for in the CCD method [10]. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the
scatter of the results in SFRC, to show whether the partial safety factor
shall be changed. The coefficient of variation (CoV) is calculated for
each test series and is given in Table 3. The maximum observed CoV
was 13.6% in the test series 2-TG-60-50-50 (anchor group, eccentric
loading). The average CoV based on all new test series in SFRC was
6.3%. The new results show that the coefficient of variation, calculated
in 11 different test series (24 tension and 12 shear loadings tests in
SFRC), never exceeded 13.6%. Therefore, the ratio of characteristic to
mean values as well as the partial factors used for the design of anchors
in PC remain valid for the design of anchors in SFRC.
In addition, the failure load was calculated based on the CCD
Method, using the formulas given in Eqs. (1)–(5). The comparison of the
calculated concrete cone and concrete edge resistances with the ex-
perimentally obtained (mean) values is given in Table 3 and Fig. 10. It
can be seen that the ultimate loads calculated based on the CCD-Method
fit well to the experimental results for anchorages in PC. The maximum
deviation between the calculated resistances and the experimentally
obtained results is observed in the test series 2-TG-0-50-0 (anchor
group, centric loading), the deviation was 31%. Nevertheless, the mean
deviation between the calculated resistances and the experiments was
0% in PC. It was furthermore shown that the CCD-Method under-
estimates the concrete cone and concrete edge capacities in SFRC (red
and blue symbol in Fig. 10), in general. The experiments (mean values
incl. all test series) showed 31% overstrength compared to the calcu-
lated values. Note that the calculated resistances according to CCD-
Method are derived from the concrete compressive strength assuming a
“standard” tensile strength to compressive strength ratio and “stan-
dard” fracture energy. Therefore, it is not surprising that inserting only
the compressive strength of the SFRC into the corresponding formulas
Eqs. (1)–(3), the real behavior of anchors in SFRC cannot be captured
with sufficient accuracy. Note that the deviation between the calculated
values and the experiments with headed studs shown in [9] by Nilfor-
oush (29–51%) is even more pronounced because of the higher fiber
content (80 kg/m3) and the greater embedment depth, which results in
more intercepted fibers on the fracture surface.
6.2. Quantitative influence of steel fibers on anchorage resistance
It was emphasized in the introduction that the non-isotropic fiber
orientation close to concrete surface and close to the component edge
may lead to no significant increase of the concrete cone capacity and
concrete edge capacity in case of insufficient embedment depth or in-
sufficient edge distance. The literature predicts the thickness of the
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 11. Tension loading: Ratio of mean ultimate load in SFRC to mean ultimate load in PC in function of hef/Lfiber – Literature results from [6–9] and new results.
zone of non-isotropic fiber orientation to be the half of the fiber length
[16]. According to this rule, the absolute minimum requirement for the
embedment depth and edge distance should be hef > 0.5·Lfiber and
c1 > 0.5·Lfiber. Note that no systematic investigations have been car-
ried out addressing this issue in particular for anchorages, however,
based on the basic principles of SFRC and anchor technology, it is in-
tuitive that the ratio of hef/Lfiber and c1/Lfiber may be important para-
meters that could express the effectiveness of steel fibers when an-
choring in SFRC. Therefore, this parameter was evaluated from the test
data. The majority of experiments in SFRC were performed using
hooked-end type fibers with a fiber length ranging from 35 to 60 mm. In
Fig. 11, the ratio of the mean ultimate load in SFRC to the mean ulti-
mate load in PC is plotted as a function of the ratio of anchor embed-
ment depth (hef) to fiber length (Lfiber) in case of tension loading. It can
be observed that for the cases with hef/Lfiber less than 1.7, no increase in
the capacity was obtained due to fibers. In Fig. 12, the ratio of the mean
ultimate load in SFRC to the mean ultimate load in PC is plotted as a
function of the ratio anchor edge distance (c1) to fiber length (Lfiber) in
case of shear loading. Similar to the case of tension loading, no sig-
nificant increase in the concrete edge capacity is observed if the c1/Lfiber
Fig. 12. Shear loading: Ratio of mean ultimate load in SFRC to mean ultimate load in PC in function of c1/Lfiber – literature results from [6] and new results.
70
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
ratio is below 1.7. This can be understood with the argument that for
smaller embedment depths or edge distances, the dimension of the
breakout body relative to the fiber length is not big enough to engage
sufficient number of fibers that would be needed for a substantial in-
crease in the capacity of the anchorage. Based on this interpretation,
the recommendations regarding the minimum required effective em-
bedment depth and minimum required edge distance are proposed
according to Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively. If these conditions are not
fulfilled, no benefit of the steel fibers may be expected on the concrete
breakout failure resistance of the anchorages in SFRC.
hef . min 1.7·Lfiber (6)
c1. min 1.7· Lfiber (7)
The new results presented in this paper were combined with the
experimental data available in the literature on anchorages in SFRC.
The summary of the new results and existing literature data includes
tests results in SFRC with 0 (PC), 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80 kg/m3 steel
fiber content. The joint database contains 129 (62 new results) ex-
perimental results. However, for clarity of presentation, only the mean
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 13. Influence of the fiber content on the mean ultimate loads in the case of concrete cone and concrete edge failure – Literature results from [6–9] and new
results of this work.
Fig. 14. Comparison of calculated resistance based on the CCD-Method by
applying the proposed modification factor (γfiber) to the experimentally ob-
tained concrete cone and concrete edge resistances.
failure loads are plotted in Fig. 13. Note that certain results reported in
[6,7] do not fulfil the proposed requirements as per Eqs. (6) and (7). For
this reason, those results are not shown in Fig. 13.
Based on the summarized results shown in Fig. 13, it is proposed
that the beneficial effect of steel fibers on concrete cone or concrete
edge resistance of the anchorages can be taken into account by multi-
plying the concrete cone or concrete edge resistance in PC with a
modification factor (γfiber) given as:
kfiber
= + 1 < 1.25
fiber
300
where
kfiber is the amount of steel fiber reinforcement given in kg/m3, with
kfiber ≥ 30.
Note that the above formula was developed based on limited
number of experimental results carried out on post-installed bonded
anchors and on cast-in headed studs (see Fig. 13) in SFRC with hooked-
end type steel wire fibers (Lfiber = 35–60 mm). The concrete
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
compressive strength ranged from 40 to 80 N/mm2 and the fiber dis-
tribution was assumed to be uniform. Since the modification factor
(γfiber) was derived based exclusively on the results of the tests, which
fulfil the requirements given in Eqs. (6) and (7), the factor γfiber shall
assume a value of 1.0 if either or both of Eqs. (6) and (7) are not ful-
filled. Since no results are available with higher than 80 kg/m3 steel
fiber content, the factor γfiber is limited to 1.25. If the fiber content is
less than 30 kg/m3, the factor γfiber shall assume a value of 1.0.
Parameters, such as fiber geometry and concrete matrix properties
influence the material properties of SFRC. Consequently, the behavior
of anchorages in different SFRC may differ from the investigated cases.
Therefore, further systematic investigations are recommended to cap-
ture the sensitivity of the behavior of anchorages in SFRC due to diverse
type of fibers and concrete mixes. Further, it is assumed that the ben-
eficial effect of the fibers in concrete can only be utilized by the an-
chorages if the geometrical requirements regarding the ratio of fiber
length to anchor embedment depth and concrete edge distance given in
Eqs. (6) and (7) are satisfied. If more experimental results obtained
from systematic anchor testing in SFRC are available, the results can be
incorporated in Fig. 13 and the proposed modification factor γfiber could
be further verified.
The concrete cone capacity of the investigated anchorages was re-
evaluated based on the CCD-Method by applying the proposed mod-
ification factor (γfiber). Fig. 14 shows the deviation between the calcu-
lated and the measured mean ultimate loads after the re-evaluation. It
was found that the calculated concrete capacities using the re-
commended modification factor (γfiber) fit well to the experimentally
obtained results in SFRC. Note that two failure points (2-TG-0-50-0 and
2-TG-0-50-50) are overestimated. This is due to the fact that the
t1 = 50 mm thick base plate, which was assumed to be rigid, was not
sufficiently rigid.
(8)
6.3. Behavior of anchor groups in SFRC
6.3.1. Centrically loaded anchor groups
Centric tension loading tests were performed on anchor groups with
base plates, which were assumed to be sufficiently rigid (t1 = 50 mm)
in PC and in SFRC. The spacing (s = 120 mm) between the anchors was
less than the critical spacing (s < scr = 3.0⋅hef = 210 mm), so the
group effect was present (ΨA,N = Ac,N/Ac,N0 = 2.14).
Theoretically, in case of centrically loaded anchor groups with
perfectly rigid base plate, the adjacent anchors are loaded
71
M. Tóth et al.
Fig. 15. (a) Assumed increase in the ultimate loads and assumed deformation profile of base plate of single anchors and centric loaded anchor groups with
sufficiently rigid base plate; (b) Measured ratios of the corresponding mean ultimate loads (refer to Table 3).
simultaneously and reach their peak load at the same time, whereas the
deformations of the base plate (compared to the anchor vertical dis-
placements) are negligible. In such cases no force redistribution among
the adjacent anchors of the group takes place and according to the CCD
Method [11] the ultimate load of the group is equal to the ultimate load
of the single anchor multiplied by the factor for group effect
(ΨA,N = 2.14 in the investigated case) (Fig. 15a), provided other in-
fluencing factors (close edge, eccentric loading etc.) are not present.
Assuming that the fibers are distributed uniformly in the concrete mix, it
can be assumed that the number of fibers located on the fracture surface of
the anchor group is also ca. ΨA,N times the number of fibers located on the
fracture surface of the single anchor. Therefore, in case of anchor groups
loaded centrically in tension with sufficiently rigid base plates (no force
redistribution), it is reasonable to assume that the relative increase of the
ultimate load only due to increased fiber content at the fracture surface
should be the same for the group and for a single anchor (Nu,m.SFRC.single/
Nu,m.PC.single = Nu,m.SFRC.group.centric.rigid/Nu,m.PC.group.centric.rigid) (Fig. 15a).
Fig. 15b depicts the comparison of the mean loads from the corre-
sponding test series. The ratio of the ultimate load of the tension loaded
group to the single anchor in PC was lower than the expected calculated
increase assuming a sufficiently rigid base plate (Nu(2-TG-0-50-0)/
Nu(2-TS-0) = 1.78 instead of the calculated ΨA,N = 2.14). This may be
partly attributed to the scatter in the test results and partly to the
possibility that the t1 = 50 mm thick base plate was also not sufficiently
rigid and the central anchor was loaded more than the outer anchors
leading to a negative influence of the not sufficiently rigid base plate.
This argument is supported by the analysis by Li (2017) [21] who
showed that particularly the groups with bonded anchors, which dis-
play a stiff behavior, require a rather high thickness of the base plate to
be considered as sufficiently rigid.
However, comparing the ultimate mean load of single anchor tests
and group tests in SFRC, the ratio of Nu(2-TG-0-50-50)/Nu(2-TS-
50) = 1.94 was determined. This ratio shows that the behavior of the
tested anchor group in SFRC is more favorable than that in PC, which
can be explained by the better load redistribution of the loads among
the individual anchors of the anchor group in SFRC. If the steel plate is
not sufficiently rigid, the central anchor is loaded more than the outer
anchors and therefore reaches its capacity first. If the behavior of the
anchor is ductile (as in SFRC), it can still carry a significant portion of
the load while the other anchors take up higher forces. However, it
72
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
must be noted that the extent of the load redistribution cannot be
generalized based on this tested anchor group configuration because it
is strongly dependent on the anchor spacing, anchor stiffness and base
plate stiffness. Furthermore, the better performance of the investigated
centric loaded group in SFRC is also underlined by the fact that the
capacity of the anchor groups in SFRC was 29% higher than the capa-
city of the corresponding group in plain concrete (Fig. 15b).
6.3.2. Eccentrically loaded anchor groups
The influence of eccentric loading was investigated on anchor
groups with base plates of two different thickness, namely t1 = 50 mm
and t2 = 25 mm in PC and in SFRC. The eccentricity was e1 = 60 mm
and e2 = 120 mm, which is defined in this paper as the distance be-
tween the point of load application and the center of gravity of all
anchors within the group.
The test results of eccentrically loaded anchor groups confirmed
that the anchor groups installed in SFRC display a higher relative in-
crease in the failure loads (26–42%) relative to those installed in PC
(Fig. 16).
The influence of base plate thickness on the load-displacement be-
havior was tested solely on eccentrically loaded anchor groups. It was
observed that due to using a flexible base plate (t2 = 25 mm) instead of
a base plate assumed to be rigid (t1 = 50 mm), the peak loads decreased
significantly (by 12%) in PC but only 1% in SFRC. This shows that the
base plate stiffness has lesser negative influence on the load-displace-
ment behavior of anchor groups in SFRC than in PC. In other words,
comparing the relative increase in the failure loads for the anchorages
in SFRC, it was found that the failure loads increased by 26% for the
anchorages with 50 mm base plate while by 42% for the anchorages
with 25 mm base plate, compared to the corresponding anchorages in
PC (Fig. 16). This is attributed to a better redistribution of forces among
anchors of a group in SFRC once an anchor loses stiffness due to
overloading. The results show that the relative increase of the mean
ultimate load due to fiber addition is more pronounced if flexible base
plate is applied. Since the fracture area of both concrete cones is
identical, the assumed number of fibers located on the fracture surface
should also be identical. Therefore, a higher increase in the failure loads
obtained using the flexible base plate is considered as a further evidence
for a load redistribution among the individual anchors of the anchor
group.
M. Tóth et al. Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75

Fig. 16. Increase in ultimate loads and assumed deformation profile of base plate.

6.3.3. Theoretical examples on the anchor group performance in SFRC
Two theoretical examples are given in Fig. 17 to explain the concept
how the anchor group performance is influenced by the load-displace-
ment behavior of the individual anchors. Two cases are considered here;
namely, the anchor group with a sufficiently rigid base plate and the
anchor group with a flexible base plate, loaded eccentrically with the
eccentricity equal to the spacing of the anchors such that the load is
applied directly on one of the outer anchors (see Fig. 17). For the reason
of simplicity, in this theoretical example, spacing equal to the critical
spacing is assumed (s = scr = 3.0⋅hef), the stiffness of anchors is con-
sidered equal for all the anchors and the displacement profile of the base
plate is also idealized. In this example, two extreme cases of the load-

Fig. 17. Elasto-brittle and elasto-plastic anchor behavior in case of eccentric tension loading on a 1 × 3 anchor group – (a) using rigid base plate, (b) using flexible
base plate.

73
M. Tóth et al.
displacement behavior of the individual anchors are considered, namely,
perfectly elasto-brittle and perfectly elasto-plastic. However, these ex-
treme scenarios are only theoretical. In reality, the fracture behavior is
always quasi-brittle and lies in between these two extremities.
In case of rigid base plate (Fig. 17a), a linear profile of the base plate
is assumed with the middle anchor having 50% of the displacement of
the most-loaded anchor and the anchor farthest from the point of load
application has zero displacement. According to current design
methods, for such cases, the load carrying capacity of the anchor on
which the load is directly applied is considered as the failure load of the
group. Under the assumptions made (equal stiffness and linear base
plate profile), in case of elasto-brittle load-displacement behavior,
when the most-loaded anchor reaches its peak load, the neighboring
anchor would carry 50% of its peak load, while the farthest anchor
would not be loaded. Thus, the peak group capacity would reach a
value of 1.5 times the failure load of the single anchor. However, in case
of an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior with no limit on displacements,
as the first anchor reaches its peak load, it continues to deform at this
load while the other anchors take up more loads. In such an ideal case,
the anchorage would reach its maximum possible capacity of three
times the capacity of a single anchor.
In the case of flexible base plate (Fig. 17b), a parabolic profile of the
base plate is assumed with the middle anchor having 25% of the dis-
placement of the most-loaded anchor and the anchor farthest from the
point of load application has zero displacement. Under the assumptions
made (equal stiffness and parabolic base plate profile), in case of elasto-
brittle load-displacement behavior, when the most-loaded anchor
reaches its peak load, the neighboring anchor would carry 25% of its
peak load, while the farthest anchor would not be loaded. Thus, the
peak group capacity would reach a value of 1.25 times the failure load
of the single anchor. However, in case of an elastic-perfectly plastic
behavior with no limit on displacements, due to the redistribution of
the forces among anchors, the anchorage would again reach its max-
imum possible capacity of three times the capacity of a single anchor.
As mentioned before, the cases considered here are extreme and
idealized and are used only for explanation purpose. The real behavior
of anchorages lies in between these extremes, however, the more duc-
tile the fracture, the higher is the redistribution and higher would be
the failure load of the anchorage. Therefore, the behavior of anchor
groups in SFRC, which has significantly higher fracture energy and a
comparatively ductile load-displacement behavior in tension compared
to plain concrete should result in higher failure loads for such anchor
groups. This improved behavior was also shown by the tests in this
work (see Fig. 16). However, the experimental investigated groups
cannot directly be compared to the idealized theoretical examples,
since the anchor spacing in the tests was less than the critical spacing
(s < scr = 3.0⋅hef) and the fracture parameters of the used SFRC are
not elastic-perfectly plastic.
Depending on the anchorage configuration, base plate stiffness,
point of load application and concrete material properties, the bene-
ficial effect of the fibers could be further increased for anchor groups
(compared to the single anchors). The current formulations for an-
chorages consider only the resistance (force-based approach), which
cannot take into account all of these parameters. To consider these
aspects, a displacement-based approach considering the load-displace-
ment behavior of the anchors would be needed. Nevertheless, Eq. (6) is
conservatively applicable to consider the beneficial effect of steel fibers
on the load-carrying capacity of anchor groups as well.
Note that the example shown in Fig. 17 is used only to explain the
concept of redistribution of forces in the anchors and its effect on the
group behavior. The values shown in Fig. 17 are valid only for the
extreme case with anchor spacing more than the critical spacing and
ideally brittle or ideally ductile material. This should not be compared
with the actual experimental results, since in the tests, the spacing is
less than the critical spacing and the material displays a quasi-brittle
behavior.
74
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
7. Conclusions
In this work, 62 tension and shear tests on single anchors and an-
chor groups in plain and steel fiber reinforced concrete are performed
and reported. Additionally, the paper summarizes and discusses the
results of previous experimental studies carried out on anchorages in
SFRC. Based on the new test results reported as well as the tests re-
ported in the literature [6–9], the following conclusions are made:
1. The experiments carried out within the scope of this study and in
the literature clearly showed the beneficial effect of the steel fibers
on the concrete cone capacity (under tension loading) and concrete
edge capacity (under shear loading towards the edge) of the an-
chorages. The new results fit well to the previous findings given in
[6–9].
2. Based on the reviewed literature data as well as considering the
new results with bonded anchors, the greatest potential in the
utilization of fiber reinforcement is in the cast-in type headed-an-
chors as well as in bonded anchors with rather small hef/d ratios.
The latter is due to the fact that according to Eligehausen et al.
[10], the conical tensile cracks originate from the bottom end of the
anchors if the hef/d ratio ranges between 3 and 5. With higher hef/d
ratios the mixed bond/concrete cone failure may develop, thus the
number of the fibers located on the fracture surface may not be
sufficient to ensure a significant increase of the ultimate load.
3. The choice of installation parameters such as embedment depth,
steel strength, anchor diameter, bond strength in the case of ad-
hesive type anchors is extremely important for the utilization of
improved concrete properties, which may lead to higher concrete
cone and concrete edge capacities.
4. If anchors are installed into the zone of non-isotropic fiber or-
ientation, no significant increase of the concrete cone capacity and
concrete edge capacity is expected. The literature predicts the
thickness of the non-isotropic layer for at least Lfiber/2 [16]. Based
on the investigation of the hef/Lfiber and c1/Lfiber ratios, the effective
embedment depth of at least 1.7 times the fiber length is re-
commended for anchors loaded in tension (hef.min > 1.7⋅Lfiber). For
shear loading, when the anchors are installed close to the edge, the
edge distance must be at least 1.7 times the fiber length
(c1.min > 1.7⋅Lfiber). These requirements are to be met for sufficient
utilization of the better concrete mechanical properties in SFRC.
Note that these critical values are recommended based on the
evaluation of existing database including new test results. The va-
lues may change in future if supported by more experimental data.
5. Based on the presented new results and on the comparison shown
in [9], the applicability of the CCD-Method is shown to be suitable
and conservative for anchorages in SFRC.
6. Based on the total number of 129 test results (62 new results, 67
from literature) available for fiber contents 0; 20; 25; 30; 40; 50; 60
and 80 kg/m3, a modification factor γfiber for increasing the con-
crete cone and concrete edge capacity was proposed, which is re-
lated to the amount of steel fibers dispersed in the concrete and is to
be considered as a multiplicative factor to the strength in plain
concrete. The proposed modification factor (γfiber) is valid for
conventional steel fiber reinforced concrete with hooked-end steel
fibers in a fiber content range of 30–80 kg/m3 and is limited to 1.25
based on the available database. If the fiber content is less than
30 kg/m3, the factor γfiber shall assume a value of 1.0. It is re-
commended to perform further systematic tests for further ver-
ification and specifically to address the influence of different fiber
geometries and concrete mixes.
7. It is intuitive that the steel resistances and pull-out resistance of the
anchorages remains unchanged in SFRC compared to that in PC. It
is expected that the blow-out capacity of tension loaded headed
studs may also increase in SFRC if c1 > 1.7⋅Lfiber. However, no
investigation addresses this issue. It is also expected that the pry-
M. Tóth et al.
out capacity shows an increase similar to the tension capacity if
hef > 1.7⋅Lfiber.
8. It is expected that the critical edge distance for tension loads (ccr,N)
may be reduced due to the presence of steel fibers in the concrete.
However, this may only be valid if the proposed requirement
(c1 > 1.7 Lfiber) is met. Due to the lack of data, it is recommended
to use the ccr,N = 1.5⋅hef values valid for PC. In future, research is
needed on the splitting failure in SFRC that may lead to the opti-
mization of the critical edge distance.
9. Generally, it can be concluded that the adequate compaction, vi-
bration (no table vibrating [15]) is crucial to ensure to homo-
genous, isotropic fiber distribution in the concrete, which is a
prerequisite for the anchors to work efficiently in SFRC.
10. The test results on anchor groups in SFRC showed that the anchor
group behavior is affected not only by the load-bearing capacity of
the anchors and their geometrical arrangement but also by the load
displacement behavior of the anchors. The extent of force redis-
tribution depends on the load-displacement behavior of the in-
dividual anchors, on the thickness of base plate and the fracture
properties of concrete.
8. Declarations of interest
None.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.007.
References
[1] Balaguru PN, Shah SP. Fiber-reinforced cement composites. New York (USA):
McGraw-Hill; 1992.
[2] Mechtcherine V. Rissbeherrschung durch Faserbewehrung, Beherrschung von
Rissen in Beton, 7. Symposium Baustoffe und Bauwerkserhaltung, Karlsruher
Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany, 23. März 2010, Müller HS, Nolting U,
Haist M, editors. Karlsruhe (Germany): KIT Scientific Publishing, p. 83–94.
[3] Døssland ÄL. Fibre reinforcement in load carrying concrete structures Thesis for the
degree of philosophiae doctor Norway: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology; February 2008
[4] Schulz M. Stahlfasern: Eigenschaften und Wirkungsweisen. Beton-Düsseldorf
75
Engineering Structures 181 (2019) 60–75
2000;50:382–7.
[5] Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW. International workshop series on high performance
fiber reinforced cement composites (HPFRCC): history and evaluation. In: Reinhardt
HW, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Garrecht H, editors. Proceedings of 7th RILEM Workshop
on High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites, Stuttgart, Germany.
Germany: Department of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart; 2015. p.
3–10. ISBN 978-2-35158-145-2.
[6] Klug Y, Holschemacher K, Wittmann F. Tragverhalten von Befestigungselementen in
Stahlfaserbeton. In: König G, Holschemacher K, Dehn K, editors. Faserbeton.
Germany: Bauwerk Verlag Berlin; 2002. p. 89–105. ISBN 3-89932-019-0.
[7] Kurz C, Thiele C, Schnell J, Reuter M, Vitt G. Tragverhalten von Dübeln in
Stahlfaserbeton. Bautechnik 2012;89(8):545–52.
[8] Coventry K, Richardson A, Intyre CM, Aresh B. Pullout performance of chemical
anchor bolts in fibre concrete. Fibre concrete 2011–6th international conference.
Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic, 8–9 September 2011.
[9] Nilforoush R, Nilsson M, Elfgren L. Experimental evaluation of tensile behaviour of
single cast-in-place anchor bolts in plain and steel fibre-reinforced normal- and
high-strength concrete. Eng Struct 2017;147:195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.05.062.
[10] Eligehausen R, Mallée R, Silva JF. Anchorage in concrete construction. Berlin: Ernst
& Sohn; 2006.
[11] Fuchs W, Eligehausen R, Breen JE. Concrete capacity design (CCD) approach for
fastening to concrete. ACI Struct J 1995;92:73–94.
[12] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib): Design of Anchorages in Concrete: Part
I–V. Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2011. (fib
Bulletin 58).
[13] EN 1992-4 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures - Part 4 Design of fastenings for
use in concrete, European committee for standardization, CEN/TC 250, Brussels,
FprEN 1992–4:2015.
[14] Eligehausen R, Sawade G. A fracture mechanics based description of the pull-out
behavior of headed studs embedded in concrete. In: Elfgren L, editor. RILEM report-
fracture mechanics of concrete structures: from theory to applications London:
Chapman and Hall; 1989. p. 281–99. https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-7930. ISBN 0-
412-30680-8.
[15] Gettu R, Gardner DR, Saldívar H, Barragán BE. Study of distribution and orientation
of fibers in SFRC specimens. Mater Struct 2005;38:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1617/
14021.
[16] Martinie L, Roussel N. Simple tools for fiber orientation prediction in industrial
practice. Cem Concr Res 2011;41:993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.
2011.05.008.
[17] ETAG 001 Guideline for European technical approval of metal anchors for use in
concrete, Edition 1997, Annex A: Details of tests, Brussels, EOTA, 3rd Amended
April 2013.
[18] Technical data sheet: Hooked-end steel fibers HE 75/35, ArcelorMittal, http://ds.
arcelormittal.com/wiresolutions/steelfibres/products/hooked_end_fibres_he/
language/ENCopyright ArcelorMittal 07/2014 (accessed on 7th April 2017).
[19] DIN EN 12390-1:2012-12 Prüfung von Festbeton – Teil 1: Form, Maße und andere
Anforderungen für Probekörper und Formen; Deutsche Fassung EN 12390-1:2012.
[20] RILEM TC 162-TDF. Recommendations of RILEM TC 162-TDF: test and design
methods for steel fibre reinforced concrete: bending test. Materials and Structures
November 2002;35:S579–82.
[21] Li L. Required thickness of flexurally rigid baseplate for anchor fastenings.
Proceedings of the 2017 fib Symposium, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2017.