Article

Advances in Structural Engineering

2017, Vol. 20(3) 288298
Long-term performance of The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
mechanically post-installed anchor sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369433216649396

systems journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Minho Kwon1, Jinsup Kim1, Hyunsu Seo2 and Wooyoung Jung3

Abstract
A mechanically post-installed anchor, which is one of the most widely used post-installed anchors in South Korea, was selected to eval-
uate long-term usage through a pullout test. Two types of specimens were constructed: the original specimens and freeze and thaw
specimens. Mechanically post-installed anchors were installed in both of them. A freeze and thaw test method was utilized to consider
the long-term usage. The compressive strength of concrete during the freeze and thaw test method is reduced by about 20% com-
pared to that of the original concrete. From the pullout test results, the pullout strength of the freeze and thaw specimen was smaller
by about 50% than that of the original specimens. Furthermore, the failure mode of the freeze and thaw specimens was changed.
Cone shape destruction of anchors and anchor pullout destruction occurred in the original specimens; concrete pullout destruction
occurred dominantly in the freeze and thaw specimens. Based on the comparison results, the reduction factor (l) for long-term usage
of the mechanically post-installed anchor was derived using a probability function and was proposed to modify the concrete capacity
design equation.

Keywords
concrete, freezethaw, long term, post-installed anchor, pullout test

Introduction connecting systems. Among all available methods of

Many kinds of anchor systems have been used to con-
nect concrete structures in the construction field.
Anchor systems can be divided into two main cate-
gories: cast-in place anchors and post-installed
anchors. Furthermore, post-installed anchors can be
divided according to installation method into chemical
anchors and mechanical anchors (ACI Committee 355,
1997; Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB),
1994). The performance of both cast-in place anchors
and post-installed anchors depends on the installation
depth, anchor diameter, material properties of the
anchors, adhesive strength, strength of base structure,
and so on (Cook et al., 1998; Cook and Konz, 2001;
Gesoglu and Guneyisi, 2007; Hwang, 2011; Jin, 2011).
In recent years, demands for safety of the existing
infrastructure have rapidly increased. However, rou-
tine maintenance and awareness of threats are not suf-
ficient, in spite of the increasing demand for safety.
Furthermore, reinforced concrete (RC) structures have
become more complex due to the use of connecting sys-
tems. RC structures include many kinds of systems to
connect structural parts, for example, there are steel-
to-concrete, concrete-to-concrete, and steel-to-steel
connection, the anchor system is used worldwide in the
construction field (Kim et al., 2013). For these reasons,
the importance of various types of study of anchor sys-
tems has significantly increased in hopes of securing
the reliability and serviceability of concrete structures
(Jang and Suh, 2006).
A post-installed anchor system, the most widely
used anchor system in the South Korea, is installed in
existing structures in order to connect new structural
elements such as steel braces or infill wall system,
which are used to strengthen and reinforce existing pri-
mary structures. Research into post-installed anchor
systems has been performed in both the United States
1
Department of Civil Engineering, ERI, Gyeongsang National University,
Jinju, South Korea
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju,
South Korea
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Gangneung-Wonju National
University, Gangneung, South Korea
Corresponding author:
Jinsup Kim, Department of Civil Engineering, ERI, Gyeongsang National
University, Jinju, South Korea.
Email: jskim0330@gmail.com
Kwon et al. 289

and Europe. A design equation to calculate the resis- Table 1. Specifications of MPI anchors.
tance capacity of an anchor system was proposed by
the ACI Committee (ACI Committee 349, 2011; ACI Anchor name Total Diameter of Installation
length (mm) anchor (mm) depth (mm)
Committee 355, 2001; ACI Committee 446, 2011;
Jensen and Brstrup, 1976). Moreover, a correction M10L50 150 9.45 50
factor has been introduced for use in the ACI design M10L100 200 9.45 100
equation to account for the size effects of test speci- M12L50 150 12.70 50
M12L100 200 12.70 100
mens. Recently, concrete capacity design (CCD) the-
ory, which is based on concrete fracture modes, has
also been employed to assess the strength of anchor
systems (Fuchs et al., 1995). However, previous
research into post-installed anchor systems was
focused on performance just after installation of a
post-installed anchor system. Thus, study about the
long-term performance and long-term reliability of
post-installed anchor systems is required.
Post-installed anchor systems can be divided
according to the mechanism of load transfer into either
mechanically post-installed (MPI) anchors or chemi-
cally post-installed (CPI) anchors. The performance of
a post-installed anchor system is determined by the
strength of the receiving concrete, friction, and inter- Figure 1. MPI anchor used in South Korea.
lock adhesive strength. Friction, which is very weak in
terms of environmental effect, may govern both MPI
anchors and CPI anchors. The performance of con-
crete structures is decreased during usage since the sur-
face of a concrete structure can become chemically
neutral as time goes by. In order to achieve a safe and
affordable design, it is important to evaluate the beha-
vior of the post-installed anchor systems under tensile
loading. It is also important to evaluate anchor inter-
action with the anchorage surface in the primary
structure.
In this study, the performance capacity of MPI
anchors, which are the most commonly used type in
Figure 2. Dimensions of concrete blocks (unit = mm).
South Korea (Kim et al., 2013), was performed using
design characteristics such as the diameter and installa-
tion depth of the MPI anchors. A freeze and thaw test
devices attached in the MPI anchors. One type of MPI
method was also used to evaluate the long-term perfor-
anchor, which is commonly used in South Korea, was
mance of the MPI anchors. A pullout test was per-
selected for this study. Details of the selected MPI
formed to evaluate the performance of the MPI anchor
anchor are shown in Figure 1. Information on the four
system. The experimental results were compared with
types of anchors used in this study is summarized in
the calculated results of the CCD equation and ana-
Table 1.
lyzed using a statistical method.

Experimental study Details of test specimen

MPI anchors
MPI anchors, which are post-installed anchor systems,
are placed into holes that are drilled into concrete
blocks. Axial loads applied by loading frames are
passed through the anchoring system into the receiving
system. Frictional forces are developed between the
surfaces of the holes and the mechanical locking
In order to consider the failure area of the MPI
anchors, the dimensions of the concrete blocks were
taken from ASTM E 488-96 (ASTM-E488/E488M-10,
2010). In this study, plain concrete blocks with dimen-
sions of 900 mm 3 1100 mm 3 300 mm were used, as
shown in Figure 2. The concrete blocks were made
with ready-mixed concrete. The design strength of the
ready-mixed concrete was 24 MPa at 28 days.
290 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)

Figure 3. Photo of chamber: (a) outside and (b) inside.

and after the MPI anchor installation was applied at

30% of the maximum torque for the MPI anchors
using a torque wrench (Kim et al., 2013).

Freeze and thaw test method

Figure 4. Freeze and thaw cycles during a week.
The MPI anchors were installed in concrete blocks.
In order to evaluate the long-term performance of the
MPI anchors, two groups of specimens that included
MPI anchors were considered. In order to consider
long-term durability, one group of specimens (the S1
series) was not subjected to the freeze and thaw test
method, while the other specimen group (the S2 series)
was subjected to the freeze and thaw test method
(ASTM C666, ASTM-C666/C666M-03, 2008). Detail
of the MPI anchors installation is shown in Table 2.
Testing was performed three times for each test speci-
men. The torque was applied to tighten the nuts during
ASTM C666, resistance of concrete rapid freezing and
thawing, is the most widely used standard for a freeze
and thaw test method (ASTM-C666/C666M-03, 2008;
Shang and Song, 2006). The center temperature of
concrete specimens is set below freezing at 18C, and
at thawing at +4C. Freeze and thaw is repeated for
more than 300 cycles of about 24 h per cycle. In this
study, the temperature was measured by an embedded
temperature sensor installed 50 mm from the surface
of the concrete block specimen.
Upper temperature limits were set at +4C or
higher, as decided; lower temperature limits were set at
18C or lower using the temperature sensor points.
The measured internal temperatures of the concrete
blocks were recorded by 5-min intervals using a tem-
perature recorder. Figure 3 provides the photograph
of the temperature chamber used in this study.
Figure 4 presents the temperature recording data for
1 week. In Figure 4, one cycle of temperature change
can be seen to take about 4 h; this cycle was constantly
maintained. The recorded temperature range was

Table 2. Design parameters of test specimens.

Specimen Type 30% torque (N m) Installation depth (mm) Anchor diameter (mm)

S1M10L50 Original 18.2 50 M10

S1M10L100 17.4 100 M10
S1M12L50 22.0 50 M12
S1M12L100 38.7 100 M12
S2M10L50 FreezeThaw 18.2 50 M10
S2M10L100 17.4 100 M10
S2M12L50 22.0 50 M12
S2M12L100 38.7 100 M12
Kwon et al.
Figure 5. Pullout test setup of the MPI anchor.
found to exceed the set-up temperature range (+4C to
18C) of ASTM C666 during freeze and thaw test.
Pullout test setup
Figures 5 and 6 show the test setup for MPI anchors
installed in concrete blocks. Distance of the vertical
steel frames was determined from the failure area
length of the anchors. A linear variable differential
transformer (LVDT) was placed on the blocks to mea-
sure the pullout displacement of the anchors. Axial
load was applied through a hydraulic cylinder.
Experimental results
Compressive strength of concrete core
Three core specimens were collected from the concrete
blocks of each group. The core specimens had dia-
meters of 100 mm and heights of 200 mm height; speci-
mens were evaluated to determine compressive
Figure 6. Pullout test setup: (a) sketch of test setup (unit = mm) and (b) photo of test setup.
291
strength. Table 3 summarizes the compressive strength
of the tested core specimens from the concrete blocks.
The compressive strength of the core specimens from
the freeze and thaw group was found to have dropped
by approximately 20% compared to those of the origi-
nal concrete blocks.
Pullout strength of MPI anchor
Figure 7 presents the load and displacement relation-
ships for each group. The maximum load of the S2
series specimens was found to be smaller than that of
the S1 series specimens. Furthermore, the displacement
at maximum load of the S2 series specimens was larger
than that of the S1 series specimens. The averaged load
and displacement results were used for comparison.
The pullout test results are summarized in Table 4.
Failure mode of MPI anchor system
Figure 8 presents the representative failure modes for
the two groups of specimens. The cone-shape failure
mode was found to occur in the S1 series specimens;
however, this type of failure was not observed in the
S2 series specimens. In the S2 series specimens, the sur-
face of the concrete blocks was partially crushed, and
the MPI anchors slipped.
Discussion
Considering the results shown in Figure 7 and in
Table 4, it can be seen that even if the diameter and
length of insertion of the anchor are the same, the per-
formance is not. This is due to errors that occurred in
the construction process of installing an anchor. In
other words, depending on the strength and condition
of the concrete used as the base material and the tor-
que was applied to tighten the nut during and after
292 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)

Table 3. Compressive strength of concrete cores. are summarized in Table 5. Figure 9 presents the com-
parison of the results of pullout strength test. The
Type No. Compressive Ratio reduction of pullout strength was about 33% in the
strength (MPa)
SnM10L50 specimens. This value was 29% in the
Original 1 26.4 SnM10L100 specimens, 40% in the SnM12L50 speci-
2 24.3 mens, and 36% in the SnM12L100 specimens. The
3 22.6 pullout load of the post-installed anchor system was
Average 24.4 1 found to decrease due to deterioration of the concrete
Freezingthawing 1 17.5
2 22.2 by the freeze and thaw test method. Deterioration of
3 18.9 the concrete causes a reduction of concrete strength
Average 19.5 0.80 and decreases the friction strength between concrete
and anchor, creating localized crushing.
anchor installation, there can be cases in which the per-
formance of identical anchors is different. Therefore, Long-term usage
we used statistical analysis to evaluate the performance The standard deviation and coefficient of variation of
of the MPI anchors. pullout strength for specimens are shown in Table 6. It
seems that the deviation of the experimental results
increases due to freeze and thaw test method. In addi-
Pullout strength tion, coefficients of variations are found to increase
The freeze and thaw test method reduced the pullout with increases in the diameter of the MPI anchors.
strength of the post-installed anchor systems. Pullout With smaller installation depths, the coefficients of
strength results were compared to the test results and variation are shown to increase. According to these

Table 4. Summary of pullout test results.

Type of specimen Specimen Pullout displacement (mm) Pullout strength (kN)

Original S1M10L50 6.6 29.0

S1M10L50 7.4 28.8
S1M10L50 5.9 28.0
Average 6.6 28.6
S1M10L100 10.6 43.3
S1M10L100 13.7 48.9
S1M10L100 9.1 38.2
Average 11.1 43.4
S1M12L50 13.7 32.7
S1M12L50 15.0 42.1
S1M12L50 14.4 37.4
Average 14.4 37.4
S1M12L100 27.8 93.2
S1M12L100 15.3 92.6
S1M12L100 10.5 91.9
Average 17.9 92.6
FreezingThawing S2M10L50 20.1 15.5
S2M10L50 14.1 23.8
S2M10L50 24.1 18.4
Average 19.4 19.2
S2M10L100 42.8 32.5
S2M10L100 11.5 28.9
S2M10L100 35.5 31.6
Average 29.9 31.0
S2M12L50 29.5 19.3
S2M12L50 38.9 20.7
S2M12L50 15.9 26.9
Average 28.1 22.3
S2M12L100 16.3 54.2
S2M12L100 28.4 70.0
S2M12L100 25.4 52.4
Average 23.4 58.9
Kwon et al. 293

Figure 7. Loaddisplacement relation of the experimental results: (a) M10L50, (b) M10L100, (c) M12L50, and (d) M12L100.

Figure 8. Representative failure modes of MPI anchor: (a) original specimens and (b) freeze and thaw specimens.

results, it can be seen that the performance of any two diameter. Therefore, since uncertainties such as the
MPI anchors can be different, even when the same above must be considered, reliable performance based
conditions are obtained, such as installation depth and on probability is proposed as follows.
294
Table 5. Comparison results of pullout strength.
Specimen Original specimen (S1, kN)
SnM10L50 28.6
SnM10L100 43.4
SnM12L50 37.3
SnM12L100 92.6
Figure 9. Comparison of the experimental results.
Figure 10. Boxplot and probability density function of a
normal distribution.
Normal distribution
When the experimental results of the MPI anchors are
based on standard normal distribution, it is possible to
express them as N(m, s) with two parameters, the
mean values and the deviations. The area of normal
distribution is a probability. Therefore, it is possible to
determine the performance of the MPI anchor, which
corresponds to the probability that such an occurrence
is possible. Such probability was defined using the
interquartile range (IQR).
The IQR, called the middle fifty, is the first quartile
subtracted from the third quartile. The lower quartile,
Q1, is a number for which the integral of the probabil-
ity density function (PDF) from N to Q1 equals 0.25
(25%), while the upper quartile, Q3, is a number for
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)
Freezingthawing specimen (S2, kN) Ratio (S2/S1)
19.2 0.67
31.0 0.71
22.3 0.60
58.9 0.64
which the integral of the PDF from N to Q3 equals
0.75 (75%). Thus, the IQR is often used to find out-
liers in data. Outliers are defined as being below Q1
1.5IQR or Q3 + 1.5IQR. These quartiles and outliers
can be seen in the boxplot on the data, shown in
Figure 10.
Component fragility function
The component fragility function was defined as the
probability that a component of a given type would
reach or exceed a particular damage state level, as a
function of probability of failure (PF; Cook et al.,
1998). As shown in equation (1), the fragility curve
was assumed by researchers to follow the log-normal
cumulative distribution function (CDF) (Salas et al.,
2002)
 
ln (x)  xm
P(FjPF = x = F 1
b
where P(F|PF = x) is the probability of failure given a
certain pullout force of the MPI anchor, F[] is the nor-
mal CDF, x is the PF value, xm is the mean value, and
b is the standard deviation, which is known as the loga-
rithmic standard deviation.
To identify the fragility function, the maximum like-
lihood estimation (MLE) approach was used in this
study. The MLE approach identifies that value which
yields the highest probability of observed failure data.
If we have analysis data for multiple PF levels, we can
take the product of the binomial probabilities at each
level in order to obtain the likelihood function, such as
equation (2) (Eem et al., 2013)
Yk  
ni
L= pmi (1  pi )ni m1 2
i=1
mi i
Based on the fragility function of equation (1), we
propose a design force or limit state using the compo-
nent fragility curve as the median pullout strength; the
median pullout strength is the values corresponding to
a 50% PF (Kim et al., 2013). For a fragility function,
the necessary parameters are the median values and the
logarithmic standard deviations of pullout strength for
the MPI anchor systems. The parameters are shown in
Kwon et al. 295

Table 6. Comparison results of mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation.

Type of specimen Specimen Mean value (kN) Standard deviation (kN) Coefficient of variation

Original S1M10L50 28.6 0.58 0.020

S1M10L100 43.4 5.35 0.123
S1M12L50 37.3 4.71 0.126
S1M12L100 92.6 0.64 0.007
Freezethaw S2M10L50 19.2 4.22 0.219
S2M10L100 31.0 1.87 0.060
S2M12L50 22.3 4.07 0.183
S2M12L100 58.9 9.70 0.165

Table 7. Lognormal median values and logarithmic standard deviations by MLE.

Type of specimen Specimen xm b

Original S1M10L50 3.35 0.0165

S1M10L100 3.77 0.1009
S1M12L50 3.62 0.1034
S1M12L100 4.53 0.0056
Freezingthawing S2M10L50 2.94 0.1765
S2M10L100 3.43 0.0499
S2M12L50 3.09 0.1439
S2M12L100 4.07 0.1294

Table 7. The MPI anchor fragility evaluations with
respect to pullout strength are shown in Figure 11.
Proposed design coefficient
In the CCD method, the capacity of a single anchor in
tension is calculated based on 45 inclination of the
failure surface of the concrete (ACI Committee 446,
2011). This corresponds to the assumption that the fail-
ure surface is approximately twice the effective embed-
ment depth of the anchor. The failure load, N (kN),
corresponds to the concrete cone breakout of a single
anchor, given by equation (3)
q meter of the MPI anchors increased. On the other
Nu = k f 0c h1:5
ef
where k is 13.5 for post-installed anchors, k is 15.5 for
cast-in situ headed anchors bolts, fc0 is concrete com-
pressive strength measured on cubes, and hef is the
effective embedment depth, in mm.
The CCD design method only has a coefficient k
value corresponding to the type of the anchor.
Therefore, we provide the coefficient of variable,
including its value in a freeze and thaw test method, in
this article. The coefficient k was replaced by k0 in the
CCD design method (equation (4)); k0 was set equal to
kl. l is derived using probability methods that are pre-
sented in the previous sections; this is a reduction fac-
tor for the freeze and thaw specimens
q p 1:5
Nu = k 0 f 0c h1:5 0 4
ef = kl f c hef
The reduction factor l is distributed between
0.290 and 0.895, as can be seen in the values shown in
Table 8. The reliability of the reduction factor, derived
from Q1 1.5IQR using the normal distribution since
the reliability has a wide probability distribution range,
is found to be reduced. Therefore, it is more reasonable
to consider the reduction factor that is derived from
Q1 using a normal distribution and the 50% failure val-
ues by fragility function. In other words, the reduction
factor l is distributed between 0.57 and 0.75. In addi-
tion, the reduction factor was reduced when the dia-
3 hand, the reduction factor increased when the insertion
depth of the anchors increased. After determining the
reduction factor l that reflects these results, it is possi-
ble to make a reasonable design for the performance of
MPI anchors considering long-term usage.
Conclusion
In this study, the pullout strength of an MPI anchor
system for long-term usage was evaluated through an
experimental program. The long-term usage of con-
crete was considered through a freeze and thaw test
method. The CCD equation was modified based on an
evaluation of the pullout strength of MPI anchor sys-
tems installed in both the original and the freeze and
296 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)

Figure 11. Fragility evaluations for tests of the MPI anchor system: (a-1) S1M10L50, (a-2) S1M10L100, (a-3) S1M12L50, (a-4)
S1M12L100, (b-1) S2M10L50, (b-2) S2M10L100, (b-3) S2M12L50, and (b-4) S2M12L100.

thaw specimens. Furthermore, a coefficient that can be system using the probabilistic method was proposed.
reflected in the performance design of the MPI anchor The conclusions of this article are as follows:
Kwon et al. 297

Table 8. Performance evaluation of pullout strength (unit = kN).

Specimen Type of specimen Mean (1) Q1 (2) Q1 1.5IQR (3) Fragility 50% failure (4) Ratio
(2)/(1) (3)/(1) (4)/(1)

S1M10L50 Original (a) 28.6 28.2 27.1 28.6 0.986 0.945 1.000
Freezingthawing (b) 19.2 16.4 7.8 18.9 0.852 0.408 0.984
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.67 0.58 0.29 0.66
S1M10L100 Original (a) 43.4 39.8 29.0 43.2 0.917 0.668 0.995
Freezingthawing (b) 31.0 29.7 26.0 31.0 0.959 0.837 0.999
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.71 0.75 0.90 0.72
S2M12L50 Original (a) 37.3 34.2 24.6 37.2 0.915 0.660 0.996
Freezingthawing (b) 22.3 19.6 11.3 22.1 0.877 0.507 0.989
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.60 0.57 0.46 0.59
S2M12L100 Original (a) 92.6 92.1 90.8 92.6 0.995 0.981 1.000
Freezingthawing (b) 58.9 52.4 32.7 58.4 0.889 0.556 0.991
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.64 0.57 0.36 0.63

1. Both larger anchor diameter and deeper
installed depth lead to large pullout strength of
anchor systems.
2. The compressive strength of the freeze and
thaw concrete was reduced by about 20% com-
pared to that of the original concrete due to the
freeze and thaw test method.
3. The pullout strength of the freeze and thaw spe-
cimen is reduced by about 50% compared to
that of the original specimens.
4. The pullout strength of the anchor system and
the failure mode of the specimens were changed
using the freeze and thaw test method. Cone
shape destruction of anchors and anchor pull-
out destruction occurred in the original speci-
mens; concrete pullout destruction occurred
dominantly in the freeze and thaw specimens.
5. The CCD equation can be changed using k0 ,
including the reduction factor l, for long-term
usage; this value is derived using a probability
function. The reduction factors are distributed
between 0.57 and 0.75.
6. By applying a probabilistic method to anchor
design, we have shown the possibility of deriv-
ing a more economical and reasonable design
equation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article: This research was supported by a grant
(15SCIP-B065985-03) from Smart Civil Infrastructure
Research Program (SCIP) funded by Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government.
References
ACI Committee 349 (2011) Code Requirement for Nuclear
Safety Related Concrete Structures and Commentary.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 355 (1997) State-of-the-Art Report on Ancho-
rage to Concrete (1991, Reapproved). Detroit, MI: Ameri-
can Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 355 (2001) Evaluating the Performance of
Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (Report).
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 446 (2011) Fracture Mechanics of Concrete.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ASTM-C666/C666M-03 (2008) Standard Test Method for
Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing.
West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing
and Materials.
ASTM-E488/E488M-10 (2010) Standard Test Method for
Strength of Anchor in Concrete Element. West Consho-
hocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB) (1994) Task
Group VI/5: Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Struc-
tures. London: Thomas Telford Services Ltd.
Cook RA and Konz RC (2001) Factors affecting bond
strength of adhesive anchors. ACI Structural Journal
98(1): 7686.
Cook RA, Kunz J, Fuchs W, et al. (1998) Behavior and
design of single adhesive anchors under tensile load in
uncracked concrete. ACI Structural Journal 95: 926.
Eem SH, Jung HJ, Kim MK, et al. (2013) Seismic fragility
evaluation of isolated NPP containment structure consid-
ering soil-structure interaction effect. Journal of Earth-
quake Engineering 17(2): 5359.
Fuchs W, Eligehausen R and Breen JE (1995) Concrete
capacity design (CCD) approach for fastening to con-
crete. ACI Structural Journal 92: 7394.
298
Gesoglu M and Guneyisi E (2007) Prediction of load-
carrying capacity of adhesive anchors by soft computing
techniques. Materials and Structures 40(9): 939951.
Hwang Y (2011) A study on the fracture resistance character-
istics of post-installed anchor. Master Degree Thesis,
Structural Engineering, Seoul National University of Sci-
ence and Technology, Seoul, South Korea.
Jang JB and Suh YP (2006) The experimental investigation
of a cracks influence on the concrete breakout strength
of a cast-in-place anchor. Nuclear Engineering and Design
236(9): 948953.
Jensen BC and Brstrup MW (1976) Lok-Test Determine the
Compressive Strength of Concrete. Stockholm: Nor- Disk
Betong, #2.
Jin SH (2011) Tension and shear strength evaluation of large
size concrete anchor bolt. Masters Thesis, Graduate
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pusan
National University, Busan, South Korea.
Kim JS, Jung WY, Kwon MH, et al. (2013) Performance
evaluation of the post-installed anchor for sign structure
in South Korea. Construction and Building Materials 44:
496506.
Salas JD, Smith RA, Tabios GQ III, et al. (2002) Statistical
computing techniques in water resources and environmen-
tal engineering. Unpublished book in CE622, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Shang HS and Song YP (2006) Experimental study of
strength and deformation of plain concrete under biaxial
compression after freezing and thawing cycles. Cement
and Concrete Research 36(10): 18571864.