AC232-1014-R1 #1

Reference Comme ents to letter from

m ICC-ES Stafff dated August 22,
2 2014
Departmennt BU Ancchors – Regulations and Approvvals
T +423-23
34 3052
F +423-23
34 7052
E mail philipp.g
grosser@hilti.co om
D Septemmber 12, 2014

Andra Hoermann-Ga ast

gineer
Staff Eng
ICC Evaaluation Service, LLC
3060 Saaturn Street, Suite
S 100

Brea, CA
A 92821

Re: Letteer from ICC-ES Staff date

ed August 222, 2014 regaarding Propos
sed Revisionns to the Acc
ceptance Critte-
ria for An
nchor Channnels in Concrrete Elementts, Subject AC232-1014-
A R1 (AHG/HS S)

Dear Andra,

This lettter is in response to the ICC-ES le etter dated August

A 22, 2014, regardding proposed revisionss to
AC232. In the staff leetter it is note
ed that:

The ICC
C-ES staff su upports the deletion
d of T
Test series 7 provided th hat CAMA caan provide supporting
s in
nfor-
mation (e
(e.g., test datta) confirming
g the assump
mption of cac = 1.4ccr,N .

In a lette
er from the Concrete
C Ancchor Manufaacturers Asso ociation (CAM MA) to ICC-E ES dated June 5, 2014, it is
noted that the propo osal for the minimum
m edgge distance cac to avoid splitting
s failurre is based on
o experimen ntal
investigaations perforrmed in a joint research project spo onsored by the firms Hiltti, Halfen an nd Jordahl. The
T
tests were performed d in an indep
pendent accrredited test laab, and the test results w were presenteed in the CA
AMA
AC232 T Task Group meeting
m on June
J 1, 20144 in Los Angeles. The pu urpose of thee research was to determ mine
whether anchor geom metry and ch hannel profile
e affect the splitting
s resis
stance assocciated with external
e loadiing.
Based o on the resultss of these te
ests, a conseervative value for the min nimum edge distance cacc has been pro-p
posed fo or designs in uncracked concrete
c wheere splitting is not decisiv
ve.

The ana alysis of tenssion tests pe erformed in tthe corner with w headed studs and w with anchor channels (ed dge
distancee c1 = c2 = ccrr,N) indicates that the spli tting failure load
l is not ne
egatively inflluenced by the channel pro-
p
file and the type of anchor.
a Howwever, the reesults also de emonstrate, that the asssumption of cac = ccr,N is un-
conserva ative for ancchor channels (Nu,test/Nu,ccalc = 0.6 - 0.7).
0 In order to assure tthe full calculated concrrete
breakoutt capacity for cases whe ere anchor ch hannels are designed forr uncracked concrete witthout other sup- s
plementa al reinforcing
g, a conserva ative value o
of cac = 1.4ccr,Nc is proposeed. It is note
ed that this approach is c
con-
servative
e relative to the assumpttions used fo or the design n of headed studs in ACII 318. Furthe er study mayy be
warranteed in this regard.

The officcial test report from the in

ndependent ttest lab as well
w as the pre
esentation giiven in the CAMA
C TG
AC232 m meeting June e 1, 2014 will be send to ICC-ES under separate cover.

Best reg
gards,

Dr. Philip
pp Grosser

cc : J. Siilva
1
 AC232-1014-R1 #1
AC232-1014-R1 #1
IEA GMBH & CO. KG
ELIGEHAUSEN - ASMUS - HOFMANN

IEA HAUPTSTRAßE 4
70563 STUTTGART

TELEFON 0049(0)711 677 19 08

IEA GMBH & CO. KG· HAUPTSTRAßE 4 · D-70563 STUTTGART TELEFAX 0049(0)711 677 19 27
ELIGEHAUSEN - ASMUS – HOFMANN INTERNET: WWW.I-EA.DE
E-MAIL: INFO@I-EA.DE
ICC-Evaluation Service
Attn. Mrs. Andra Hörmann-Gast *

Senior Staff Engineer

5360 Workman Mill Road * VALID FOR ACCREDITED ACTIVITIES.

Whittier, CA 90601

Stuttgart, September 13, 2014

SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to the Acceptance Criteria for Anchor Channels in

Concrete Elements, AC232, your letter dated August 22, 2014
—

Dear Andra,
We would like to comment to your letter as follows:

1) Section 7.3.3, Exception

According to this section, it is allowed to perform test no. 2 (channel lip strength) with anchor
channels with 2 anchors and s ≥ smin ≥ 4 inches (100 mm) cast into low-strength concrete.
The channel bolt shall be inserted over one anchor.

We support this provision.

2) Section 7.4.2.1
It is proposed to delete this section. We propose to keep the original intent of this provision
by the following modified text:

7.4.2.1 If the failure load in the bending tests, Ns,flex, computed in accordance with Eq. (7.1)
is smaller than 85% of the nominal strength Nsl (Section 8.6 of this annex), then additional
tests with s < smax shall be performed. The anchor spacing shall be chosen such that the
failure load for the failure modes “bending of channel” and “local failure of channel lips” are
about equal computed in accordance with Eq. (7.1) is not smaller than 85% of the nominal
strength Nsl (Section 8.6 of this annex).

Ns,flex = ar·Spl,nom·fyc/smins lb (N) (7.1)

GESCHÄFTSFÜHRER: SITZ DER GESELLSCHAFT: IEA GMBH & CO. KG BANKVERBINDUNG: STUTTGARTER VOLKSBANK AG
PROF. DR. -ING. ROLF ELIGEHAUSEN 70563 STUTTGART, HAUPTSTR. 4 KONTO-NR.: 153631007
DR. -ING. JÖRG ASMUS AMTSGERICHT STUTTGART: HRA 727094 BANKLEITZAHL: 600 901 00
PROF. DR. -ING. JAN HOFMANN UST-ID.NR.: DE 280812259 IBAN: DE22 600 901 000 153631 007
KOMPLEMENTÄR SWIFT/BIC CODE: VOBADESS
IEA INGENIEURBÜRO ELIGEHAUSEN UND ASMUS GMBH
 2/6

where
ar = factor, evaluated in accordance with Section 8.8 of this annex
Spl,nom = plastic section modulus of channel around y-axis (see Fig. 1 of this annex)
computed with the specified channel dimensions, in³ (mm³)
s = anchor spacing specified by the manufacturer used in test no. 4, in. (mm)
= smax, if tests have been performed in accordance with 7.4.2
< smax, if tests have been performed in accordance with 7.4.2.1

In the following the reasons for this proposal are given:

The intent of the provisions in Section 7.4.2.1 was to ensure that bending tests are
performed with an anchor spacing which gives about equal failure loads for the failure modes
“bending of channel” and “local failure of channel lips”. This requirement is justified by the
behavior of an anchor channel in a bending test (compare Figure 1).

Figure 1: Behavior of anchor channel loaded in bending, schematic ([1])

With increasing loading compression forces develop at the toe of the channel where it
projects beyond the anchors, which provide some degree of fixity (Figure 1 a)). When the
yield moment is reached, a plastic hinge forms in the center of the span. Subsequent loading
is mainly resisted via cable tension in the channel balanced by shear and tension forces in
 3/6

the anchors (Figure 1 b)). The cable action increases with increasing displacement, that
means with increasing anchor spacing. When testing anchor channels with a very large
anchor spacing, a restraint factor ar ≥ 8 is determined. The restraint factor ar will decrease if
the tests are performed with a reduced anchor spacing which ensures that the failure loads
for the failure modes “bending strength” and “local lip failure” are about equal.

3) Section 8.4.3 “Load displacement behavior at service load”

It is proposed to delete this section. We are of the opinion, that this section should not be
deleted but modified as follows:

For each test in test series no. 7 4, Table 4.1 (combination of channel size and
corresponding anchor), determine the mean stiffness…

where
Nu = mean failure load of test no. 7 4, Table 4,1, lbf (N)

The minimum, mean and maximum stiffness b shall be reported in Section 9.5. It shall be
stated that the stiffness values b are valid for the anchor spacing smax and loading at
midspan.

Add lines in Table 9.1 for reporting the stiffness values b.

Reasoning:
The designer needs to know the displacement of the anchor channel at a given load level to
determine if this displacement is compatible with the application in question. This information
is also given for other types of anchors (e.g. post-installed anchors) in the approval. It should
also be given for anchor channels. Because test no. 7 will be deleted, the information on the
displacement behavior should be taken from the results of test no. 4 and should be reported
in the ESR
.
4) Deletion of test no. 7
It is proposed to delete test no. 7 and to replace it by a default value cac = 1,4ccr,N. We agree
with this proposal.
 4/6

Based on the power-point presentation given at a CAMA TG Meeting on June 1, 2014 the
results of the performed tests with headed studs and with anchor channels at a corner with
edge distances c1 = c2 = ccr,N show, that the splitting failure load is not negatively influenced
by an anchor channel and the type of anchor (round, square). In addition, they demonstrate,
that the provisions in ACI 318, App. D for headed studs (cac = ccr,N) are not conservative
(Nu,test/Nu,calc ≈ 0.6). With the proposed default value cac = 1.4ccr,N it is ensured that the
splitting failure load of anchor channels with c1 = c2 = cac is about 80% to 90% of the concrete
cone failure load measured in tests with anchor channels with a large edge distance.

We are the opinion, that the test conditions (dimensions of test members, headed bolts and
anchor channels, concrete composition and strength, test set-up) and main test results
(failure loads and failure modes) and the evaluation of the test results should be published to
allow a proper public discussion of the proposal and of the implication of the test results for
ACI 318, App. D in respect to splitting of cast-in headed anchors.

5) Proposal by Halfen
a) Item 1
It is proposed to define as strength reduction factor for welded connections F = 0.75.
Furthermore, it is proposed to give as strength reduction factor for flexural failure of
the channel F = 0.9. We agree with both proposals.
b) Item 2
It is proposed to omit the reporting of the steel cross section reduction for the channel.
We agree with this proposal.

6) Adding of Section 6.2.2

According to the proposed text, at least 3 tests shall be conducted for each profile size to
determine the material properties of the channel.

We are of the opinion, that this proposal is excessive because of the following reasons.

a) According to applicable ASTM Standards and European Material Standards only one
tension test is required to determine the material properties of steel sheets, if the
amount of finished products from a heat is less than 50 tons. This is generally the
case for anchor channels.
 5/6

b) The scatter of the failure loads of tension tests on samples taken from the channel
back is small. If a sample of 3 is tested, in general the individual strength values do
not differ more than about 5% from the mean value.
c) The measured steel strength of the channel is used to normalize the results of tests
under tension and shear loading with failure of the channel lips or failure of the
connection between anchor and channel. It is assumed, that the failure load decrease
with the ratio fu/fu,test (fu = nominal steel strength, fu,test = measured steel strength).
Tests presented by Halfen at a meeting of the CAMA TG “Anchor channels”
demonstrate, that this assumption is rather conservative, because in reality the
strength of the channel lips or of the connection is not much influenced by the actual
steel strength of the channel.
d) Because of b) and c) above, even if the steel strength used for the normalization is
taken as the lowest value of a sample of 3, the calculated channel strength is still
conservative.
e) The strength of the channel under tension load (Nsc, Nsl) stated in the ESR is checked
continuously during production by quality control tests.

We are of the opinion that it is sufficient to determine the steel strength of the channel by
testing at least one sample taken from the channel back for each profile size, production
method and type of material.

According to your remark on page 3 of your letter, this new requirement has to be met by
applicants even if the tests have been performed some while ago.

Until now no requirements for the determination of the channel steel strength are given in
AC232 and in the European CUAP for anchor channels (which is the basis for AC232).
Therefore, tests might have been performed in the past in which the channel steel
strength was not measured on 3 samples. According to your proposal, these tests have
to be repeated, which for the technical reasons given above is not necessary. It would be
more beneficial to spent the money needed to repeat the tests for much needed
research.

As explained above, we are of the opinion that for technical reasons the determination of
the channel steel strength on 3 samples is not needed. However, we would not oppose
 6/6

this procedure, if it will only be required for tests performed after acceptance of the new
criteria, because the testing costs will not be increased significantly.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards

Prof. Rolf Eligehausen Dr. Jörg Asmus Dr. Klaus Schmid

Used document

[1] Wohlfahrt, R.: Tragverhalten von Ankerschienen ohne Rückhängebewehrung,

Dissertation am Institut für Werkstoffe und Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart, 1996.
 AC232-1014-R1 #1

Andra Hoermann-Gast
Staff Engineer
ICC-ES Evaluation Service
5360 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
Florian Julier
Tel +49 30 68283-441
Florian.julier@johrdal.de
September 14th 2014

Subject: ICC-ES staff letter dated August 22 2014 regarding Proposed Revisions to the Acceptance Criteria
for Anchor Channels in Concrete Elements, Subject AC232-1014-R1 (AHG/HS)

Dear Andra

We are writing in response to the ICC-ES letter dated August 22nd 2014. In the letter changes to section
6.2.2.are proposed:

6.2.2 The material properties of the channel profile, anchor, and channel bolt shall be
determined on specimens that have been sampled in accordance with section 5.1 of this
Annex, after they have undergone all regular manufacturing processes for which recognition is
sought (e.g. hot-rolling, cold forming, heat treating). The samples used for identification shall be tak-
en from the same production run as those used for the qualification tests. At least three tests shall be
conducted for each profile size, anchor, and channel bolt for each material.

The proposal includes a requirement to perform a minimum of three test for identification of the steel strength
and yield for normalization purposes during assessment of the test data.

It might be noted that identification test are usually not assessed statically. The frequency of tests required in
accordance with ASTM A370 -Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products - de-
pends on the tonnage of the production lot. For usual production runs of hot rolled and cold formed anchor
channels, ASTM requires a single test for identification of the material properties. The small scatter of results
for multiple steel test from one production lot can explain this. In general the deviation from the mean value
to the single data points in below 5%.

During assessment in accordance with AC 232, the results of the identification tests are used for a linear
normalization. Extensive tests from internal and third party quality control from the company Halfen shows
that the linear normalization as used in AC 232 is very conservative. This has been published in a separate
letter from Halfen to the ICC-ES in the past. The assessment of the tests in this letter shows, that the current
rules for normalization provide enough reserve to compensate potential imprecision with steel identification.
In addition, all test-series related to the proposed changes are under continuous quality control as described
in AC 232. It is in the best interest of the manufacturer, that the products comply with the specified nominal
load capacities.

Summarizing the above, normalization based on a single identification provides a sufficient level of infor-
mation for the normalization when assessing test data. Since the proposed change to AC 232 would invali-
date existing test data, manufactures would have to repeat numerous tests, without technical or safety relat-
ed need.

JORDAHL GmbH www.jordahl.de Page 1 of 2

We therefore ask to modify the proposed change and either delete the requirement to perform a number of
three tests or make an addition that this will become only effective for tests performed after the upcoming
ICC-ES hearing in October 2014.

We thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Best Regards

Florian Julier

JORDAHL GmbH www.jordahl.de Page 2 of 2

 AC232-1014-R1 #1

Institut für Werkstoffe im

Bauwesen
Abt. Befestigungs- und
Verstärkungsmethoden
Universität Stuttgart
Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen 70550 Stuttgart
Ansprechpartner
Dr. Werner Fuchs
Telefon
Andra Hoermann-Gast 0711 / 685-62795
Telefax
Senior Staff Engineer
0711 / 685-62285
ICC Evaluation Services, Inc. e-mail
5360 Workman Mill Road Werner.Fuchs@
Whittier, CA 90601 iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
Aktenzeichen
Fs
Datum
12.09.2014

SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to the Acceptance Criteria for Anchor Channels in

Concrete Elements, Subject AC232-1014-R1 (AHG/HS)

Dear Ms. Hoermann-Gast,

This letter is in response to the ICC-ES staff memo dated August 22, 2014, regarding
technical changes proposed by CAMA and Halfen.

The following discussion is assigned to the structure used in the letters from CAMA and
Halfen.

General:
CAMA and Halfen as well as the current AC232 use the term 'failure load' for the ultimate
capacity observed in tests. The used term is technically not correct since it describes the
load at failure which is normally lower than the ultimate load and depends on the test
procedure. Technically correct would be e.g. the term 'peak load ' as it is used throughout
AC308 to describe the ultimate load measured in tests. It is highly recommended amend
AC232 in this regard.

Letter by CAMA:

 Item 1 Test series 2 (Bending… ) and Test series 3 (Channel bolt head)
The following change to is proposed:
…
For Test No. 3, channel bolts with smallest ratio of head thickness multiplied by the width of the
channel bolt head to most stressed cross section of the shaft of the channel bolt bolt diameter for a
given channel size shall be used as components of the test specimens. If it is not obvious which
channel bolt is unfavorable, all channel bolt sizes shall be tested.

Additionally at the option of the manufacturer, in case of failure of the head, the channel bolt with the
next larger ratio of head thickness multiplied by the width of the channel bolt head to most stressed

Instituts-Anschrift:
akkreditiert durch / accredited by
Pfaffenwaldring 4
70569 Stuttgart
http://www.iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
DAP-PL-3297.00
 cross section of the shaft of the channel bolt for a given channel size may be tested until failure of
the shaft of the channel bolt is observed.

Reason: The shape of the channel bolt is not explicitly described in AC232, 1.3.

7.3.3 – General: The described test procedure excludes the failure mode 'thread
failure – stripping of the threads'. Therefore the following addition for AC232, 1.3 is
recommended:

1.3.4 Channel bolts: The threads of the channel bolts shall comply with the provisions of ISO965
and ISO898.

Renumber the sections following 1.3.4

…
7.3.47.3.3 Conduct of tests: For test No. 1 and test No.2, tThe anchors shall be tested in a
tension test rig without being cast into concrete (See Figure 5.5). Insert the channel bolt over one
anchor and apply the load directly to channel bolt without a plate washer. For test No. 3, test the
channel bolts in a section of channel that is sufficiently

restrained to cause failure of the channel bolt. If the channel bolt is intended to be used for different
channel sizes, conduct the tests in the channel profile with the maximum width of the slot.
Alternatively, channel bolts may be tested in a steel template. This template shall represent the inner
contour profile of the corresponding channels (angle of channel lips and maximum width of the slot)
to be included for recognition. Insert the channel bolt in the channel profile and apply the load with a
coupling nut to avoid thread failure.

Reason: The requirement 'shall represent… ' gives mandatory information.

Therefore no further information is necessary and the text within the
parentheses can be deleted. Furthermore there is no definition of 'angle of
channel lips' given.

Exception: In tTest No. 2 (determination of the channel lip strength), tests (determination of the
channel lip strength) shall be permitted to be performed with anchor channels with two anchors cast
into low-strength concrete with maximum anchor spacing s ≥ smin where smin shall be taken from
as the value which shall be published in the ICC-ES Evaluation Service Report but shall not be
taken less than 4 inches (100 mm). Insert the channel bolt over one anchor and apply the load
directly to channel bolt without a plate washer. The test shall be conducted according to Figure 5.4.
However, the support spacing may be reduced to ≥ hef in every direction. Direct contact between
the test stand and the channel profile is not permitted.

Reason: At the time when the prequalification tests are performed no ICC-ES
Evaluation Service Report is available for the corresponding anchor
channel.

 Item 2 8.4.3 – Removal of the section

8.4.3 Load-displacement Behavior at service Load:

For each test in Test Series No. 7, Table 4.1 (combination of channel size and corresponding
anchor), determine the…..

-2-
 Reason: The removal of this section should be reconsidered. The engineering
community in ACI318 and ACI355.2 required the inclusion of information on
the stiffness of a product during the development of ACI355.2. ACI355.2,
Section 5.5.2 states:

5.5.2 Load-displacement behavior at service loads—For each reference test series

(combination of anchor diameter and embedment depths), determine the mean anchor
stiffness value β from Eq. (5-1) and coefficient of variation ν in the service-load range,
and report these values in Table 11.1 or Table 11.2, as applicable

(5-1)

This information helped to differentiate between products with the same

capacity by clearly indicating differences in terms of serviceability. The same
is valid in case of anchor channels. Since ICC-ES staff is well connected with
ACI and fib it is highly recommended to ask for respective information in these
committees before removal of this section.

In case that 8.4.3 remains as it is Table 4.1, Test Series No. 7, it is proposed to
replace Test series No. 7 by a tension test performed in accordance with Table 4.1,
Test Series No. 12 but under monotonic loading with a crack width w = 0.012 in.

Letter by Halfen

 Item 1
In section D.4.1.1 of AC232 no strength reduction factors for welded connections between anchor and
channel is stated. I am proposing to use the strength reduction factor for welded joints as given in
ANSI/AISC 360 “Specification for Structural Steel Buildings”, Table J2.5, which is =0.75.

This proposal should not be accepted.

Reason: The materials and dimensions of the steel components to be welded and
welding methods specified by ANSI/AISC 360 might differ significantly from
the materials used for the production of anchor channels and anchors and
their connection. This topic requires further consideration.

Furthermore the reduction factor for the flexural strength of the anchor channel is missing. As the
verification is comparable to steelworks, it seems appropriate to use the strength reduction factor as
given in ANSI/AISC 360 “Specification for Structural Steel Buildings”, F. Design of Members for Flexure
or AISI S100 “North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members”,
C3. Members, C3 Flexural Members, which is =0.9.

This proposal should not be accepted.

Reason: AISI S100 covers cold-formed steel and is quiet on hot-rolled and heat
treated steel which is also used for anchor channels. Furthermore stainless
steel and e.g. A283C and A633A steels are not covered used for the
production of anchor channels are not covered. AISI S100 covers steel
components such as sheet metal and metal decks. Due to the flexural
behavior of such components possible failure is announced by large
deformations and therefore can be assumed ductile.

-3-
 The field of application and the geometrical dimensions of anchor channels
do not comply with AISI S100. The failure is not announced by large
deformations and therefore less ductile compared to components covered
by AISI S100. Further study is necessary.

 Item 2
…..
The channel profile can be considered as steelworks. There are no requirements regarding the cross-
section reduction at break. The mechanical properties of the I-shaped anchors are very close to the
requirements of ASTM A307, and therefore these anchors can be considered ductile according to ACI
318, Appendix D, D.1- Definitions.
I am proposing to omit the reporting of the steel cross-section reduction for those components of anchor
channels where only tests on flat samples are feasible.

This proposal should not be accepted.

Reason: The materials used for I-shaped anchors for anchor channels do not
correspond or are not similar to ASTM A307 and are not to be considered
as ductile according to ACI 318 in every case. Anchors of other shapes
and materials could be used for anchor channel production since AC232 is
quiet on the materials covered.

I would like to ask that ICC-ES staff considers these comments for the June 2014
ICC-ES Hearing.

Thank you!

Sincerely

(Werner Fuchs)

-4-