Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Drilling in Cracked and Uncracked Concrete Anchor Test

    Uploaded by

    Prayush Rajbhandari
    10 views12 pages

    Original Title

    Drilling in cracked and uncracked concrete anchor test

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views12 pages

    Drilling in Cracked and Uncracked Concrete Anchor Test

    Uploaded by

    Prayush Rajbhandari

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    (creck for updates TECHNICAL PAPER (fib Witey Influence of different drilling methods on the behavior of post-installed mechanical fasteners in uncracked and cracked concrete Michael Schwenn | Oliver Zeman ® | JosefSchorn | Konrad Bergmeister Institute of Structural Engineering Department of Civil Engineering and Natural Hazards, University of Natural Resources and Life Science (BOKU, ‘Vienna, Austia Abstract Innovative drilling methods gain importance in the field of post-installed fas- teners, For this reason, users, customers and manufacturers demand methods other than the standard drilling procedure of hammer drilling, as they are hol- ow drilling with included cleaning and diamond drilling without emitting drill dust. One open question regarding these drilling methods is the equiva- lence of the behavior under the conditions of cracked concrete over the entire Correspondence Oliver Zeman, Insitute of Structural Bngineering, Department of Civil Engineering and Natural Hazar University of Natural Resources and Life Science (BOKU), Vienna 1190, Austria, Ema: oliverzemangbokuacat lifetime. These conditions are typically tested in the crack movement test, which simulates the real behavior of a fastener in cracked concrete over a designed lifetime of 50 years. In this contribution, the example of @ post- installed mechanical bolt anchor is used to explain how a difference in the behavior is a consequence of different drilling methods in noncracked con- ‘rete, in cracked concrete and in cracked concrete in which the crack is cycled, Additionally, itis observed that the behavior in the erack eyeling testis signifi- cantly influenced by the drilling method, KEYWORDS amond drilling, ding methods, fastening systems, hollow drilling, 1 | INTRODUCTION new challenges as well as an increased demand for alterna- tive drilling methods which are already well known as hol- Innovative drilling methods in structural concrete are get- ting more and more important. Regarding the installation of anchors, current standard assessment procedures permit hammer drilled bore holes for fasteners only. Recently, technical innovations and altered conditions have led to Discussion on this paper mus be submitted within two months ofthe print publiction. The dzcusion will then be publehed in print, slong with the authors closure fany, approximately nine months after the plat publication low drilling and diamond drilling, see Reference 1 For this reason, the current study aims to increase the knowledge in this field? and to examine the influence of different drilling methods on the behavior of mechanical fasteners in uncracked and in cracked conerete and on the behavior of anchors in cracks which are cycled. These investigations exemplarily are done with a post-installed bolt anchor. ‘The first part includes a comprehensive comparison of boreholes with five different drilling tools: drill bit edi provided the aiginal works ropedy ced, he ue i non-emmerial and no madeatone o adaptations ae mide, (© 2001 The Authors Stra Conette published by John Wiley Sons Lon behalf of nternaional 1600 T wileyontinelibrary.comijournal/suco “Scral Coer Dai 6D IE fib with 2-cutting edges, drill bit with 3-cutting edges, drill bit with 4-cutting edges, hollow drill bit, and diamond drill bit. The parameters ofthe drilling tools and the test- ing procedures are described. Second, test results are presented for pull-out tension tests on postinstalled mechanical bolt anchors in uncracked conerete and in cracked concrete of a crack width of 0.3mm. These tests have been performed in using the different drilling methods mentioned before. As a result of the different drilling methods the load bearing behavior and the displacement behavior are presented in a normalized way taking into account the 2-cutting edge hammer drilling method Additionally, the test results of performed crack movernent tests (1000 crack cycles) on the same bolt anchor using different previously mentioned drilling methods are studied as well. In all the tests, the same constant tension load is applied during the tests under the same test conditions (concrete member, age of con- crete, used test setup) Inthe third part of this contribution, the observed test results are used to show how the diferent drilling methods may have an influence on (a) the displacement behavior and (b) on the load bearing behavior of the considered mechanical anchor. In addition, a conteibution has been elaborated, on whether diferent drilling methods should be considered ina farther asessment procedure. 2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 | Drilling methods 2.1.1 | General Drilling methods in conerete can be divided into rota- tional, impact, and diamond drilling methods. Most methods of drilling concrete are a combination of grind- ing, scraping, and chiseling. Due to the high recommendations on fastening tech- nology and the advantage of a flexible positioning, @ vari- ety of drilling systems is available. Post-installed fasteners, which are not casted into the base material before the installation are based on three different working princi- ples: (a) mechanical interlock, (b) friction, and (¢) bond. In the drilling installation method, the drill holes are drilled as the initial step of the later anchorage. Possible drilling methods are the impact drilling method, the ham- mer drilling method, the compressed air drilling method and the diamond drilling method. Tae application of these different drilling methods is a consequence of the base material and the requirements of the drill hole, In Ger- many, the PGM-Masonry Drill Bit Certification Board is established which defines requests for some of the consid- ered drilling tools? but does not cover all of them. ‘The currently most used method in drilling circular cylindrical boreholes is hammer drilling, Alternative methods such as diamond and hammer drilling with integrated drill hole cleaning (using so-called hollow drills) are increasingly being used. The reasons for the application and the increased use of these drilling methods are (a) legal framework considering worker pro- tection by preventing dust emission by hammer drilling or blowing out and brushing out the borehole, (b) avoidance of structure-borne noise and vibrations through the use of diamond drilling systems, (c) the pos- sibility to drill through reinforcement layers in the reinforced concrete component by means of diamond drilling systems, (d) less impact on the drilling base mate- rial in the drilling procedure due to less fore. ‘The basic difference between rotating and impact dril ling systems is depicted schematically in Figure 1. Figure 1 (@) shows in detail the mechanistn ofa rotating drilling pro- cess, such as used for wood or steel, but also for diamond drilling in concrete, As a result of the rotational forces, the driling base material is crushed by the shear effect of the hard metal cutting edge or carbide tip. The material is also slightly damaged by the short-term loss of contact of the cutting edge after tie base material has flaked off and the drill it has subsequently risen again. In case of hammer drilling, as depicted in Figure 1(b), additional impact forces release energy on the base mate- rial, which can be distinguished into three phases‘: the first phase induces an elastic deformation of the concrete, the second phase is characterized as local damage to the base material and radial cracks develop below the drill, the third and final phase results in larger areas breaking out due to the radial cracks that run in the direction of, the maximum shear stresses. 2.12 | Hammer drilling For drilling methods that accelerate the driling progress with an impulse in the longitudinal direction of the drill, spring hammer mechanisms, or pneumatic hammer mechanisms are mainly used. These drillers are typically made of tool steels (high-speed steels) and carbide metals with higher compressive strength or hardness and hot ‘wear resistance. The design of twist drills is varying ‘widely, depending on the application and the material.” ‘As a result of this, the shape of the shank, the shape of the spiral, the length of the cutting part and above all, the cutting-edge geometry differ. Hard metal drills are exemplarily used as double-edged, three-edged, or four- edged drills, see Figure 2 2 é i { i i r_| SCHEWENN a (a) () FIGURE 1 (@) mechanism hard metal tip hard meta tip ofthe rotary dal, : (©) mechanism of the hammer 1 fracture formation damage of basement spac, based on Reference 4 basement radial crack formation basement FIGURE 2 Exemplary hammer ding bits (a)2-culting edge dil (b) cutting edge dil (6) 4-cuttng edge dil &, FIGURE 3 Exemplary drilling bits (a) hollow dil bit (©) diamond core bit 2.1.3 | Hollow drilling Hollow drilling consists of hammer drilling (usually 2-cutting edge drill or 4-cutting edge drill) with integrated dri hole cleaning. The principle of action and the material ofthe drillers obviously do not seem to differ from hammer drilling. The main difference to be considered is that the drilling dust is not conveyed out of the borehole via a spin- dle, but is sucked into the hollow shaft ofthe drill by vac- uum and sucked out of it at the rear end, see Figure 3(a) Instead of the spindle there is a smooth bar on the driller. 2.14 | Diamond drilling Diamond drilling on the construction side is realized as core drilling, The working principle of diamond drilling is based ‘on a pure rotation of the drill bit compared to hammer dril- ling. The dril bit is hollow and set with diamonds, see Figure 3(b). Due to the hollow design of the drill and the round cutting of the drill head, a drill core remains during drilling inside the drilling tool or must be removed from the borehole, Advantages of diamond drilling compared to con- ventional drilling methods are the high strength and the low friction of the drill bit, and the more favorable thermal conductivity. However, there are also disadvantages: The ‘most important disadvantage to be mentioned is usually the need for water cooling, This is caused by the reactivity of, the diamonds with the elements of groups IVB to VIII of, the periodic table of elements at high temperatures. This is the case when drilling boreholes in reinforced concrete, whereby the carbon of the diamonds may bind to the iron in the reinforcing steel*” Aso, diamond drilling without water cooling is available, but only for certain applications with small diameters and small drilling depths 2.1.5 | Determination of the diameter of drilling bits ‘As mentioned above, in Germany the PGM-Masonry Drill Bit Certification Board provides regulations for wall drills which may be used for structural applications of fasten- ings mainly based on ISO 5468.5 There is an influence assumed of the drill on the borehole geometry and subse- quently on the reliability of the anchorages itself as also stated in Reference 9, Within these rules masonry drills consisting of hard metals, polycrystalline diamonds or ceramics ate covered, whereby the term masonry drill includes the principles of hammer, hammer and rotary drilling and the drilling of holes in concrete and masonry. Permissible drilling dimensions ate defined for 2-cutting edged hammer drills and multiple-cutting edged hammer drills, The measurement of the drilling dimension on the cutting edge is exemplarily shown in Figure 4.> Due to the same assumed principle of action, these regulations are also applied to hollow drills; however, the influence on the borehole shape is not considered. i i i i i i } i i i i i £ ' : i cut FIGURE 4 Cutting diameter (dil dlameter) ofa 2cutting crdge drill, modified from Reference 3 ‘Additionally, there is no comparable regulation for dia- mond drills. The question whether the same tolerances of the drilling dimension for hammer drills or hollow drills or diamond drills produce comparable drill holes is dis- cussed in this artile, 2.2 | Testing methods 2.21 | Tension tests ‘Asa test method to determine the ultimate tension load of post-installed fasteners in uncracked and cracked concrete the proposal in accordance with EAD 330232-00-0601, table ALL,” line AI and line A3 has been used. Construction ele- ments are installed in the concrete base material and loaded up to failure by an external applied axial tension force. Fail- ure can be caused by different failure modes, for example, failure of the fastener itself or by exceeding the pull-out, pull-through or concrete capacity of the anchorage. In case of concrete cone failure, the ultimate tension load is deter- mined as a function of the embedment depth and the con- crete compressive strength, see References 11,12. Figure 5 shows the test setup schematically according to the specifications provided in the corresponding Tech- nical Report TR 048, figure 3.3,"” which provides “Details of tests for post-installed fasteners in concrete”. The dis- placements while loading the anchor are measured in a ‘way that the behavior of the anchor itself is measured excluding influences from the test setup. 2.2.2 | Crack movement test The intention of the crack movement tests in accordance with EAD 330232-00-0601, table AL.1,"° line F3 is to fib Bearing Hinge i ‘Anoror Crack Concrete Specimen FIGURES capacity of the anchors ‘Schematic test setup for determining the tension simulate the effects due to crack opening and closing as it might occur over the entire service life time of an anchor- age being used in cracked concrete. If 20 crack cycles per year of service life are assumed, with a design period of SOyears, which is usually intended in the design approach," the tests require 1000 cyeles of opening and closing the crack up to the values specified below. Other regulations as for instance ACI 255.2"° require similar testing conditions, not being conform in all points.” After installation of the anchor in a test member with ‘unidirectional cracks, the crack shall be opened to a value of Aw = 0.3mm and then the anchor shall be loaded up to Np which is defined as follows: Np=0.5Nxx/Yins (a) Where Nyx is the characteristic tensile resistance in cracked concrete 20/25 to be stated in the manufacturer's declaration of performance or in the corresponding Buropean Technical Assessment and Ying > 10 is the robustness factor (formerly known as the installation safety factor) determined from other test series in accor- dance with EAD 330232-00-0601, table A1.1.! The cracked concrete members of class C20/25 used {or these tests may have crack inducers for a better crack formation which is required to be approximately constant over the entire member thickness. A thickness of the test member ht > (2 hy or 10 em) is stated to be used in TR (048. In order to control the crack development a speci- fied reinforcement ratio of = 0.01 (ratio of steel eross- section and concrete cross-section) and spacing of the reinforcement bars s < 25 cm should be used. A sketch of the used test member is shown in Figure 6. ‘The criteria defined for the crack movement tests are the displacements after both the 20th and 1000th cycle and the ratio of the residual tension loads after ' i i : : | i rack induce oat = fp fp 5, 4 z ZL ZL reinforcement bare reinforcement bars g95 rin rack wan 215 ret rata en FIGURE 6 Schematic cross section of test member for crack onein ovement tats FIGURE 7 Upperand lowerlimit of the crack width for completion of the tests to the reference values from tests in cracked concrete. The pass-fail criteria for a successful assessment of an anchor for usage in concrete is as fol- lows for a sample size of five to nine tests: 8,) <2 mm and 8,oap $3 mm, for a larger number of performed tests, some outliers may occur, as specified in section 2.2.2.4 of EAD 330252-00.0601..° In each single test, the rate of increase of the displacements, plotted on a semilogarith- mic scale, shall either decrease or be almost constant ‘within a defined number of the last cycles. Further specifications for the tests include drilling the hole with a maximum drilling diameter of dager f0r torque-controlled and deformation-controlled fasteners and with an average drilling diameter doyyned in actor- dance with figure 3.5 of TR 048.” In addition to the specifications given in EAD 330232-00-0601, TR 048,"° the lower crack width of the tests may be controlled according to the equation pro- vided in Figure 7 in accordance with recommendations provided in Reference 17, under the fulfillment of the requirements given in EAD 330232-00-0601, TR 048." 3 | TEST PROGRAM AND RESULTS 3.1 | Testing program The tests reported in the following section were per- formed with a torque-controlled expansion anchor of size M10 made of galvanized steel, The working principle of these type of anchorages is friction based, as the load is transferred into the base material by friction of the expansion sleeve. In the tests anchors of the same prod- uct have been used. The anchor itself was taken ran- domly from various possible products of bolt anchors intended for use in uncracked and cracked concrete, in unreinforced and reinforced concrete of the concrete sttength classes C20/25 to C50/60, not considering any preliminary information on this anchor. The test results performing the crack movement tests in accordance Reference 17 are shown in normalized form using the hammer drilling method with a drill bit with a 2-cutting edge as a refer- cence value. As the main target of this study is to elaborate the differences between the drilling methods, the values themselves are not shown for a better readability. Design of anchorages has to be done in accordance with EN 1992-4" based on the semiprobabilistic safety concept. Hence for tension loads, a value of the charac- teristic tension loads Nax depending on the failure modes for each product is defined in the corresponding Techni- cal Assessments. The essential characteristics are defined in table 2.1 of EAD 330232-00-0601) which have to be determined by testing or theoretical calculation to be stated in the Technical Assessment or the declaration of, performance of the manufacturer. Based on these charac- teristic values, the design approach of EN 1992-4"* con- sidering the partial safety factors can be applied. In the crack movement tests, the constant tension load Np used in the tests was set to a constant value of, 0.5 X Nap taken from the declaration of performance of, the considered post-installed fastener using a robustness factor of ying = 10. For a better comparability all drilling tools were intended to be in the medium range of the drill bits according to TR 048, 3.5 In order to avoid other known uncertainties, the same concrete specimen was used in all directly compared test series (different specimens used for the tests in uncracked concrete, cracked concrete and crack movement), the same test setup for applying the constant tension load in the crack movement tests (pneumatic system). Addition- ally, the same drilling machine (BOSCH GBH 2-28 DV) and the same vacuum cleaner (Hilti VC40-U) were used. As given in Table 1, the different drilling methods of hammer drilling (2-edged, 3-edged, 4-edged), hollow dri ling (2-edged) and diamond drilling were investigated. The observed failure modes of the tests provided in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 have been steel failure, : : | i i i fib TABLE 1 Test program with bolt anchor M10 in uncracked and cracked concrete Al: tension test in ‘Aa: tension test in cracked tuneracked concrete concrete FS: erack movement test do, Seto =32.0Nimam? after fry =289N/mm* after finns = 30.4N/mnr? after Drilling method mearasea 620 days 1102 days 325 days Hammer drilling - 1030 C20/25(n 20/25 (n= 5) Ne= 05x Ney ‘eutting edge €20/25 (a= 3) Hammer drilling — 1044 20/25 (n 20/25 (n= 5) Ne=05% Nacp Seutting edge €20/25 (a= 3) Hammer drilling — 1023 c20725(n=5) 20925 (n= 3) Ne=05%Neep ‘cutting edge €20/25 (n= 3) Hollow deiling 1033 €20/25 (a 20125 (n= 5) Ne=05%Naxp €20/25 (n= 5) Diamond dailing 1035 C2025 (n 20/25 (a =5) Np=05%Nacp ©20/25 (n= 5) TARLE 2 Test results of pull-out teste in uncracked concrete using different criling methods 20/25 fore «32.0 Nima? eumess Famtea/Famacauing CVeu PmenlPmacacing Vp Failure mod Drilling method (mm) © oO @ oO Hammer drilling -2-cutting edge 10.30 1.00 09 100 303 4xs/l xe Hammer drilling -3-cutting edge 10.48 096, 47080 BS 3 xecaxs Hammer dling ~4-cuting edge 10.23 094 36 a8 379 3xsi2xe0 Hollow dling 1033 096 34087 302 4xex/Lxs Diamond deilling 1035, 092 23083 047 sxec/txpt “ec, conctecone flue, pt, pullahrough flue, steel flue. concrete cone failure and pull-through failure, examples are shown in Figure 8. 3.2 | Test results of pull-out tests in uncracked concrete In this section, the results ofthe performed pull-out tests in umneracked concrete ate reported, The texts were performed in concrete members ofthe strength class C20/25. Higher concrete compressive strengths have not been considered in this investigation. The actual concrete compressive stength measured on cubes of 150mm was determined by facn = 320 Noam? afer 620 days, the dimensions ofthe concrete slabs were 100 x 100 x 15 cm’ which fulfilled the requirement of h > 2 he forthe considered bolt anchor. The test resulls including the mean value of the ulti mate loads Fy the corresponding scatter CV, the failure mode and the anchor sfinessf and its corresponding scat- ter are given in Table 2 and graphically provided in Figure 9. The 2cutting edge hammer drilling test results are used as reference as follows: ultimate load Fu cutiag displacements dpym22casing- AS it can be seen from the results in Table 2, the only recognizable difference can be observed for diamond drilling, whereas the other drilling methods behave the same, 3.3. | Test results of pull-out tests in cracked concrete In this section, the results of the performed standard pull-out tests in cracked concrete with a crack width of ‘Aw = 0.3 mm are reported. The tests were performed in concrete members of the strength class C20/25. The actual concrete compressive strength measured on cubes of 150 mm was determined by fe = 289 N/mm” after 1102 days, the dimensions of the concrete slabs were 195x128x26 cm which fulfilled the requirement of h > 2 for the considered bolt anchor. The test results including the mean value of the ulti- mate loads F,», the corresponding scatter CV, the failure : : | i i i TABLE 3 Test results of pull-out tests in cracked concrete using different drilling methods (€20/25 fete = 28.9 Nizam? Goatmest — Famset/Famacaning CVeu PmcnlDBmacating CVp_—_‘Failure mode” Drilling method (mm) © © ® © Hammer drilling ~2-cutting ge 10.20 1.00 871.00 87 Sxee Hammer drilling ~S-cutting edge 1044097 14096 64 sxcel2xpt Hammer drilling ~4-cutting edge 10.23 099 174 095 1S 3x ec/2xpt Hollow driling 1033 oss 6s oss 90 3xplaxee Diamond dling 1035 0.90 16s ost si sxpt “ee, coneretecone fallure, pt, pll-heoug fue. TABLE 4 Test results of crack movement tests using different drilling methods Sram! Core Lhe) Aston 1 Baasamaenting _Btommesting Pamacutting CV Failure mode* Drilling method @m © © oO oO o OO Hammer drilling ~2-cuttng edge 1030 $82 1.00 1.00 12 2xe0/txpt Hammer drilling ~3-cutting edge 1044 30.50 4a 109 67 2xee/xpt Hammer drilling -4-cutting edge, 1023384 us 105 156 2xec/Lx pt Hollow ailing 10 56 204 os 75 5xpt Diamond driling ss 5s 202 075 184 Sxpt “ee, conereteconefallure, pl, pll-heoug flue, FIGURES mode and the anchor stiffness and its corresponding scatter are given in Table 3 and graphically provided in Figure 10. The test results are all normalized to the mean values of the tests with hammer drilling, 2-cutting edge as follows: ultimate load Fasieutiag displacements Samia. 2sting ‘The same way as it was observed by the tests in tuncracked concrete, also for the tests in cracked concrete presented in Table 3 differences in the ultimate loads can ‘Overview of relevant failure modes (ef: concrete cone failure, middle: pull-through-fallur, right stel failure) be observed for diamond drilling, the other drilling methods behave the same 3.4 | Test results of crack movement tests in cracked concrete Preliminary tests have shown a high sensitivity to the behavior of post-installed anchors in crack movement : : | i i i 4 i } joe —— { 818 pmnaaing FIGURE 11 Ratio ofthe measured displacement during the FIGURE 9 Results ofthe pull-out tension tests in uncracked lovestrength concrete 5 1B. FIGURE 10 Results of the pull-out tension tests in cracked Tovestrength concrete tests, Therefore this section provides the results of the performed crack movement tests in low-strength concrete €20/25 of one concrete member (as depicted in Figure 6) at the same comparable age with a concrete compressive strength of fer = 30.4 N/mm? after 325 days and the same test setup. ‘The test results of the crack movement tests are shown in a normalized way in Table 4. As the reference value for the displacements in the cycles the mean value of the dis- placements after 1000 cycles 5.0 Of the tests with 2-cutting edge hammer drilling was used. The measured value of the displacements after 1000 cycles was in the range of the upper limit (approx. 3 mm) for the reference method, For the residual loads after eycling, the mean value of the ten- sion capacities of the tests with 2-cutting edge hammer dril- ling also applied. The test results of the residual loads are normalized to the mean values of the ultimate loads with 2- cutting edge hammer drilling, Femacaing Figure 11 provides graphically the mean values of the measured displacement over the whole 1000 cycles, cycles based on the mesa values ofthe performed tests whereas Figure 12 gives this information for each single test. The results are shown separately for each drilling method in Figure 11 and for each single test combined with the drilling method in Figure 12, 4 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In general, the ultimate load and the displacement behav- ior are the most significant parameters for identifying fas- tening systems. The results provided in Section 3 of this contribution (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4) show a signifi- cant influence of the drilling method on the load bearing and displacement behavior of postinstalled mechanical fasteners. As the comparison of the tested tension loads in Figure 13 depicts, this reduction is not obvious to the ulti- mate loads of the tension pull-out tests in uncracked and cracked concrete. In these tests, the hammer drilling methods with 3-cutting edges and 4-cutting edges and the hollow drilling method do not differ more than approx. 5% from the hammer drilling with 2-cutting edges. The 2cutting edge method is seen as the reference method, ‘This aberration is within the range of the SD observed in the tests. On the contrary, the diamond drilling method shows slight deviations from the standard drilling method in both uncracked and cracked concrete as a result of the different shape of the drill hole.* Regarding the evaluation of the different load bearing and displacement behavior, the anchor stiffness reacts very sensitively. Therefore, from the tested values pro- vided in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, the mean axial anchor stiffness for each test series is derived in accor- dance with section 5.5.2 of ACI 355.2" as follows: (N soz, ~ Nioz)/(Bso2 ~ 6:02) in which N defines the load. and 6 defines the displacement at the specified level. The comparison of the values (for the axial anchor stiffness 2 i = > SCHWENN FIGURE 12 Ratio ofthe measured digplacement during the cyeles based on the single values of the performed tests —biamend dling 4s —Hotiow ding treating eee renee / Bnanscoaeine cee] cele Diamond driling Hollow driling eut=10, 5 /5/5 ‘cutting edge Ai (low-strength, uncracked) m3 (low-strength, cracked) is graphically shown in Figure 14, The results show that in uncracked concrete (test series Al) no significance in the anchor stifiness can be observed, as all mean values of the drilling methods hollow drilling and diamond dril- ling are within the range of the reference method ham- mer drilling with 2-cutting edges and the aberrations of, the other hammer drilling methods are larger. For tests in cracked concrete (test series A3), only a deviation of, ‘max 20% from the reference drilling method for diamond drilling can be derived when comparing the mean values. ‘This difference can be explained by the more cylinder- like shape of the borehole in the diamond drilled hole.* A significant influence of the drilling method on the displacement behavior of the anchorage can be observed from the results provided in Table 4, Figure 11 and Figure 12, especially for hollow drilling and diamond S-cutting edge —scuttne eae acute edge 8 1000 FIGURE 13 Ratio ofthe residual capacities aftr the cycles as result of different driling methods 2eeuting edge deut=10,30 n=5/5/3 3 (lowstrength, crack eyeing) drilling. If one takes the mean value of the measured anchor displacements at the 20th and the 1000th cycles for comparison, hollow drilling and diamond drilling behave comparably. After 20 cycles there is an increased mean value of approx. 25% and after 1000 cycles of approx. 100% compared to the reference method of hammer drilling with 2-cutting edges, as shown in Figure 15, As result of the higher displacements during the cycles for the hollow drilling and diamond drilling methods, and therefore a lower remaining embedment depth, the residual capacities are lower for these methods, too. Additionally, for hollow drilling and diamond drilling, the failure modes are always pull-through failure of the anchor. This might be caused in a different geometrical shape of the borehole, although this type of failure also occurs in the hammer-

    You might also like