vorgelegt von
Philipp R. Grosser
aus Karlsruhe
This research would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of nu
merous people. It is to them that I owe my deepest gratitude.
First of all I would like to give my special thanks to my PhD advisor Prof. Rolf Eligehausen
for his guidance, support and immense knowledge in fastening technology he shared with me.
He encouraged me not only to grow as a researcher but also gave me the opportunity to place
my research in the context of code development and design work. As a member of the SAG4
fib group which develops design guidance for anchorages to concrete he always let me look
beyond the horizon and gave me the chance to take part in various and interesting group meet
ings all over the world. I am sure that not many PhD students are given the opportunity to
develop their own individuality by being allowed to work with such independence. Thank you
for paving the way for my professional career, for training me to become a good and critical
engineer and for always believing in me.
Secondly, but not less important, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Ronald
Cook for being my coadvisor. For me he is not only a part of my committee, but he also
played a major part in the success of my research. Prof. Cook gave me the opportunity of a
research stay at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering at the University of Florida.
It was a great experience and honor for me to work under his supervision. I learned a lot about
the “American way” of performing tests. Thank you for providing this interesting research
environment and that you always had an open door for me and my problems. A PhD student
simply could not wish for a better and friendlier coadvisor.
As a third member of my committee I would like to deeply thank Prof. Jan Hofmann for the
technical and financial support of my research in the final phase. I always enjoyed the meet
ings with him and I very much appreciate his contribution to my research. Due to his enor
mous experience in anchorages loaded in shear he always gave me good advice and helped
me to improve my work. Thank you not only for the enjoyable time I had with you at the
IWB, but also for being a friend when I needed personal advice in my life.
I am very much indebted to many people who all helped and supported me in various ways.
Some of them became really good friends over the years. I would like to thank Jörg Appl,
Jörg Asmus, Zlatko Biocic, Sylvia Choynacki, Todd Davis, Werner Fuchs, Matthew Hoehler,
Thorsten Hueer, Rainer Mallée, Anita Negele, Thilo Pregartner, Klaus Schmid, John Silva
and Mark Ziegler. Thanks to Peter Scherf, Eugen Lindenmeier and Chuck Broward for their
help in the laboratory. I thank Prof. Joško Ožbolt, Goran Periškić and Stefan Fichtner who
always had a sympathetic ear for me when I was stuck in a numerical problem. Special thanks
to my colleagues and friends Christian Fischer, Giovaccino Genesio and Georg Welz for the
long and gainful discussions we had over the past years. Thanks to Monika Werner for her
friendship and unlimited help over the last couple of years with providing me with nearly eve
ry literature I needed. Thanks to my Diploma students Emire Sulejmani and Sabrina
Senftleben for the support of my research and their friendship. Thanks to my undergraduate
students Jakob Mettler and Jason Golzbein for their help in the laboratory. Thanks to Neal
Anderson and Don Meinheit for making available for me all indepth documentation of their
research related to shear loaded anchorages.
Thanks to my friends Sandra MüllerKrebs and Bernhard Krebs who encouraged me to write
a dissertation instead of directly start to work in the industry after the graduation.
I would also like to thank my new colleagues at Hilti Ulrich Bourgund and Fritz Wall. They
helped me to be able to cope with my dissertation and job at the same time in a way which
cannot be taken for granted. A big thanks to Fritz for the technical review of the dissertation.
Thanks to the companies Hilti, fischerwerke, Würth and Powers for the financial and tech
nical support of my research.
Philipp Grosser
Stuttgart, July, 2012
ABSTRACT
Fastening Technology with castin and postinstalled anchors has found widespread use in
concrete construction due to their numerous fields of applications. Since the 1970’s research
has been conducted in this area to learn more about the loadbearing behavior of anchorages
installed in hardened concrete and to develop design recommendations. For design, it has to
be distinguished if the anchorage is loaded in tension, shear or a combined tension and shear
loading. This dissertation concentrates on the loadbearing behavior of postinstalled and cast
in anchorages loaded in shear under arbitrary load direction. This includes anchorages loaded
by a torsional moment.
Shear loaded anchorages have been investigated in the past by different authors and design
provisions are available to calculate the resistance for most of the standard applications. How
ever, it is known that some existing calculation methods are quite conservative due to missing
experimental and numerical investigations. These methods have been developed with engi
neering judgment and are not verified for all anchor configurations covered in design. Fur
thermore, it is assumed that for some anchor applications loaded in shear the design provi
sions lead to unconservative results. The aim of this dissertation is to answer these open ques
tions and to improve existing design recommendations based on engineering models. Moreo
ver, anchor configurations are investigated which are not covered in design. In particular, this
is a step to extending the CCDmethod for larger anchor groups.
This dissertation covers the investigation of single anchors and anchor groups.
Terminology used in various references which are discussed in this research work is quite
different for same parameters. Therefore, notations and symbols are replaced by the notations
and symbols used in this document. The terminology is defined at the beginning of the work.
In Chapter 1 the problem is defined and the context for research is pointed out.
The starting point of a research project is an indepth study of the literature. Therefore, in
Chapter 2 the research activities related to shear loaded anchorages are summarized. This
chapter also presents a discussion of existing design provisions and explains the loadbearing
behavior and possible failure modes for shear loaded anchorages.
In Chapter 3 the experimental investigations are presented and the results are discussed. In
addition, numerical simulations were performed within the scope of this dissertation. An ex
planation of the developed FEmodels and a discussion of the results of the simulations can be
found in Chapter 4.
Based on the experimental and numerical investigations new prediction equations and calcu
lation models are developed for single anchors and groups loaded in shear and torsion which
can be found in Chapter 5.
Finally, in Chapter 6 design recommendations are given for anchorages loaded in shear in
arbitrary direction. The calculation is explained for both anchorages located far away from the
edge and anchorages located close to concrete edges.
Closing, in chapter 7 a summary of the dissertation is given and open questions for future re
search are pointed out.
KURZFASSUNG (German Abstract)
Die Befestigungstechnik mit Dübeln und Einlegeteilen ist im Bauwesen weit verbreitet. Seit
den siebziger Jahren wird in diesem Gebiet intensiv Forschung betrieben, um den Tragverhal
ten von Befestigungsmitteln besser zu verstehen und darauf aufbauend Bemessungsrichtlinien
erarbeiten zu können. Hierfür wird unterschieden, ob die Befestigung durch eine Zugkraft,
Querkraft oder eine kombinierte Zug und Querlast beansprucht wird. Diese Forschungsarbeit
beschäftigt sich mit dem Tragverhalten von Befestigungsmitteln, die durch eine Querlast un
ter beliebiger Belastungsrichtung beansprucht werden. Dies schliesst Befestigungen ein, die
durch ein Torsionsmoment beansprucht werden. Solche Befestigungen werden in der Praxis
sowohl am Bauteilrand als auch mit grossem Randabstand angeordnet. Abhängig von den
materiellen und geometrischen Eigenschaften von Stahl und Beton können die Befestigungen
durch Stahlbruch, Betonausbruch auf der lastabgewandten Seite (Pryout) oder Betonkanten
bruch versagen.
In der Literatur existieren Untersuchungen zum Verständnis des Tragverhaltens von querbe
anspruchten Befestigungen am Bauteilrand und in der Bauteilfläche. Bestehende Bemes
sungsrichtlinien basieren sowohl auf diesen Untersuchungen sowie auf ingenieurmässigen
Annahmen und Vereinfachungen. Insbesondere zum Verständnis des Gruppentragverhaltens
von Befestigungen unter Quer und Torsionsbeanspruchung wurden bislang nur wenige Un
tersuchungen durchgeführt. Aufgrund fehlender experimenteller und numerischer Untersu
chungen liefern die Bemessungsrichtlinien für viele Anwendungsfälle stark konservative
Traglasten. Allerdings ist auch bekannt, dass die Bemessung für bestimmte Anwendungsfälle
zur unsicheren Berechnung der Traglasten führen kann. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist somit das besse
re Verständnis des Tragverhaltens von Einzel und Gruppenbefestigungen zur Verbesserung
bestehender Bemessungsrichtlinien. Darüber hinaus werden grössere Befestigungsgruppen
untersucht, die momentan von den Bemessungsrichtlinien nicht abgedeckt werden. Hierdurch
soll eine Erweiterung der bestehenden CCDMethode (Concrete Capacity Design) für grösse
re Ankergruppen angestrebt werden.
In der Literatur werden häufig für gleiche Parameter unterschiedliche Formelzeichen verwen
det. In dieser Arbeit werden die Formelzeichen entsprechend der in der Befestigungstechnik
üblichen Bezeichnungen ersetzt. Diese Bezeichnungen werden am Anfang der Arbeit be
schrieben.
Die Ausgangssituation, Problemstellung und Zielsetzung der Arbeit ist in Kapitel 1 diskutiert.
In Kapitel 2 werden die in der Literatur vorhandenen Untersuchungen sowie derzeitige Be
messungsrichtlinien diskutiert.
In Kapitel 3 und Kapitel 4 werden die durchgeführten experimentellen und numerischen Un
tersuchungen beschrieben sowie die Ergebnisse diskutiert. Aufbauend auf diesen Ergebnissen
werden in Kapitel 5 neue Berechnungsgleichungen und modelle für Einzelbefestigungen und
Ankergruppen entwickelt.
In Kapitel 6 ist die Bemessung von querbeanspruchten Befestigungen unter beliebiger Last
richtung für Befestigung in der Bauteilfläche und am Bauteilrand beschrieben.
Abschliessend werden in Kapitel 7 die Ergebnisse der Arbeit zusammengefasst und die offe
nen Fragen für weiterführende Forschung dargestellt.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TERMINOLOGY................................................................................................................... xv
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
3.3.3 Anchors groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded perpendicular to
the free edge ............................................................................................................... 128
3.3.3.1 Investigated fasteners and base material ............................................................................ 128
3.3.3.2 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................. 131
3.3.3.3 Anchor installation ............................................................................................................. 133
3.3.3.4 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 134
3.3.4 Anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge .......................................................... 146
3.3.4.1 Investigated fasteners and base material ............................................................................ 146
3.3.4.2 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................. 148
3.3.4.3 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 149
3.3.5 Anchorages arranged in narrow concrete members ................................................... 158
3.3.5.1 Investigated fasteners and base material ............................................................................ 159
3.3.5.2 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................. 160
3.3.5.3 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 161
3.3.6 Shear collectors loaded far away from the edge ......................................................... 165
3.3.6.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 165
3.3.6.2 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 166
3.3.7 Anchor groups (n = 2) loaded under torsion close to the edge and in a corner .......... 168
3.3.7.1 Investigated fasteners and base material ............................................................................ 168
3.3.7.2 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................. 169
3.3.7.3 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 170
3.3.8 Multiple anchor groups (n > 2) loaded under torsion close to the edge ..................... 176
3.3.8.1 Investigated fasteners and base material ............................................................................ 176
3.3.8.2 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................. 176
3.3.8.3 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 178
3.3.9 Anchorages loaded in shear and torsion far away from the edge ............................... 185
3.3.9.1 Investigated fasteners and base material ............................................................................ 185
3.3.9.2 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................. 186
3.3.9.3 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 187
4.2 THE FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM MASA – BASICS AND FUNDAMENTALS ........................ 193
4.2.1 Constitutive law for concrete – Microplane material model ...................................... 193
4.2.2 Localization limiter .................................................................................................... 194
4.3 NUMERICAL MODEL FOR SHEAR LOADED ANCHORAGES CLOSE TO THE EDGE................. 195
4.3.1 Geometry and FE discretization ................................................................................. 195
4.3.2 Model details of the anchorage................................................................................... 196
4.3.3 Verification of the numerical model........................................................................... 198
4.4 NUMERICAL MODEL FOR SHEAR COLLECTORS (NONLINEAR SPRING MODEL).................. 200
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.6 MODIFICATION FACTOR TO CONSIDER THE SPACING EFFECT PARALLEL TO THE EDGE .... 260
5.11 VERIFICATION OF ANCHOR GROUPS CLOSE TO THE EDGE LOADED IN TORSION ............... 274
5.12 VERIFICATION OF ANCHORAGES CLOSE TO THE EDGE FOR COMBINED TENSION AND
SHEAR LOAD .................................................................................................................. 276
5.14 DERIVATION OF MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO AVOID CONCRETE EDGE FAILURE ........... 280
8 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 297
TERMINOLOGY
The definitions, notations and symbols frequently used in this dissertation are listed below.
Further notation is given in the appropriate sections of this research work.
F = force
N = axial force (positive denotes tension force, negative denotes compression force)
R = resistance
S = action effects
T = torsional moment on fixture, tension force on anchor, pretension force
V = shear force
INDICES
R = resistance; restraint
S = action effects
c = concrete, concrete cone breakout (tension), concrete edge breakout (shear)
cb = concrete blowout
cl = clearance hole
cp = concrete pryout
cr = cracked
d = design value
el = elastic
f = action in general, friction, fixture
fix = fixture
g = group of anchors in context of load or resistance
h = highest loaded anchor in a group
inst = installation
k = characteristic value
max = maximum
min = minimum
nom = nominal
p = pullout or pullthrough
pl = plastic
re = reinforcement
s = steel
sp = splitting
u = ultimate
uncr = uncracked
y = yield
0 = reference value
/ 0° = load applied perpendicular to the edge
‖ / 90° = load applied parallel to the edge
TERMINOLOGY
a1 (a2) = distance between the outer anchors in adjoining anchorages in direction 1 (direc
tion 2)
a3 = distance between concrete surface and point of assumed restraint of an anchor
loaded by a shear force with lever arm
acl = hole clearance (acl = df  dnom)
acl,1 = normal hole clearance according to design provisions (see Table 5.1)
b = width of concrete member
bfix = width of fixture
c = distance from the axis of an anchor to the edge of the concrete member
c1 = edge distance of a single anchor, index 1 denotes the direction perpendicular to
the edge for which the verification of concrete edge breakout is made
c2 = edge distance of a single anchor perpendicular to the edge distance c1, only ap
plicable for an anchor located in a corner
c1,i = edge distance of the individual anchors in a group, index 1 denotes the direction
perpendicular to the edge for which the verification of concrete edge breakout is
made (see Figure 0.1) (i = anchor which is considered)
TERMINOLOGY
c2,j = edge distance of anchors in a group perpendicular to the edge distance c1,i, only
applicable for an anchor group located in a corner (see Figure 0.1) (j = anchor
which is considered)
ccr = characteristic edge distance for ensuring the transmission of the characteristic
resistance of a single anchor
cmin = minimum allowed edge distance
c1,red = reduced edge distance in case of a shear loaded anchorage in a thin, narrow con
crete member
d = diameter of anchor bolt or thread diameter, diameter of the stud or shank of
headed anchors
df = diameter of clearance hole in fixture
df,1 = normal diameter of clearance hole in fixture according to design provisions
dh = diameter of anchor head (headed anchor)
d0 = nominal diameter of drilled hole
dnom = outside diameter of anchor
= d for anchors without sleeve
e1 = distance between shear load and concrete surface
eV = eccentricity of resultant shear force of sheared anchors in respect to the center of
gravity of sheared anchors
h = thickness of concrete member in which the anchor is installed
hef = effective embedment depth
hnom = nominal anchor length
l = lever arm of the shear force acting on an anchor; length of concrete member
lf = influence length of the anchor loaded in shear (value is given in relevant approv
als or is determined from the results of prequalification tests)
= hef for anchors with constant diameter over the embedment depth (e.g. threaded
rods)
n1 (n2) = number of anchors in a group in direction 1 (direction 2)
n = total number of anchors in a group
s = center to center spacing of anchors in a group (see Figure 0.1)
s1 (s2) = individual spacing of anchors in a group, index 1 and 2 depend on the edge for
which the verification for concrete edge breakout is made (see Figure 0.1)
s1,i = spacing between the anchors, index 1 denotes the direction perpendicular to the
edge for which the verification of concrete edge breakout is made (see Figure
0.1) (i = anchor which is considered)
s2,j = spacing between the anchors perpendicular to the spacing s1 (see Figure 0.1)
(j = anchor which is considered)
s1,t (s2,t) = centertocenter spacing of the outermost anchors in a group = ∑s1,i (∑s2,j), index
1 and 2 depend on the edge for which the verification for concrete edge breakout
is made (see Figure 0.1)
scr = characteristic spacing for ensuring the transmission of the characteristic re
sistance of a single anchor
smin = minimum allowed anchor spacing
tfix = thickness of fixture
th = thickness of anchor head
TERMINOLOGY
c2,3
c2,2
c2,1
VS
edge 2
section 1
s1,2
s1,t section 2
s1,1 c1,3
c1,2 section 3
c1,1
edge 1
direction 1
s2,1 s2,2
direction 2 s2,t
Figure 0.1: Definitions related to concrete member dimensions (example of an anchor group locat
ed in a corner with n = 9 anchors loaded in shear; verification considered for edge 1)
For anchorages located far away from edges, so that edge distance has no influence on the
anchor capacity, the terminology “inthefield” is used. This terminology was introduced by
Anderson and Meinheit (2006) for the shear tests failed by either pryout or steel rupture.
δ, ∆ = displacement
ε = strain
σ = stress
FURTHER NOTATIONS
k = coefficient
p = concrete pressure
t = loading time
COV = coefficient of variation [%]
Ø = mean value
w = crack width
UNITS
In this dissertation SI units are used. Unless stated otherwise in the equations, the following
units are used: dimensions are given in mm, cross sections in mm2, section modulus in mm3,
forces and loads in N, moments in Nmm and stresses in MPa (N/mm2).
In the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 5 in this dissertation different
units are used. Furthermore, experimental investigations described in Chapter 3 were carried
out at the Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany as well as at
the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida, USA. This requires
the conversion of US units to SI units according to Table 0.1.
Equations containing the concrete compression strength assume the use of cube strength
(fcc,200). For the determination of the concrete compressive strength in experimental testing
performed at the University of Stuttgart, cubes with a side length of 150 mm are used. The
concrete strength may be calculated according to the following conversion:
The concrete compressive strength in the experimental tests performed at the University of
Florida was measured on cylinders 6 inches x 12 inches (150 mm x 300 mm). Cylinder
strength may be converted to cube strength using the conversion according to EN 2061
(2000) and CEBFIP Model Code 1990 (CEB, 1993):
1 lb = 4.448 N
1 psi = 0.006895 MPa (N/mm2)
1 in. pounds = 0.113 Nm
TERMINOLOGY
Since the conversion between equations in US units and SI units often leads to confusion, an
explanatory example is given. It is noted that the reference Fuchs et al. (1995a) which is often
used for conversion shows a mistake for the conversion of the concrete compressive
strength1). The following example should help to avoid misunderstanding in conversion.
0.2 0.2
h h
Vu ,c Y d nom ef c11.5 f ck (1) Vu ,c X d nom ef c11.5 f cc ,200 (2)
d nom d nom
13.13 X
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
fcc' 1.18 fc' should be replaced by fcc' 1.18 fc'
INTRODUCTION 1
1 INTRODUCTION
In order to understand the loadbearing behavior of fastening systems and to give guidance for
design, research in the field of fastening technology has been done over the past 40 years.
Design recommendations are available for common standard applications used in practice.
However, a lot of assumptions are still based on theoretical considerations which are quite
conservative due to missing investigations. Even more serious is the fact that preliminary tests
have shown that for some anchorages the provisions given in design overestimate the actual
load bearing behavior. This gap of knowledge needs to be filled.
Furthermore, many applications are not covered in design due to lack of research. For exam
ple, even though it is obvious that the ultimate strength can be strongly increased by increas
ing the number of fastening points, in design the number of anchors in a group is restricted
since limited research is available. However, such multiple anchor connections can be often
found in practice which were designed with engineering judgment.
Most of the research has been done in the past with respect to anchorages loaded in tension. In
many cases, the understanding of the loadbearing behavior was transferred to anchorages
loaded in shear. Experimental investigations have shown that this does not always lead to rea
sonable results. The most indepth studies on anchorages loaded in shear have been performed
by Fuchs (1990), Hofmann (2005) and Anderson and Meinheit (2006). However, many ques
tions related to anchorages loaded in shear remain open. If for example, larger anchor groups
are loaded in torsion (the anchors in the group are loaded in shear in different directions), de
sign is currently based solely on theoretical considerations. Further research is required to
provide specific guidance for both anchorages loaded in shear and torsion.
Therefore, the research work reported herein focuses on the behavior of anchorages loaded in
shear and torsional moments. Experimental investigations and numerical studies are per
formed and design recommendations are proposed. The main focus of this study is the critical
case of shear loaded anchorages arranged close to the edge. The primary goal of this work is
not only a better understanding of the behavior of anchorages loaded in shear, but also to give
more easy and understandable guidance for the design of shear loaded anchorages in concrete
construction. A crucial aspect is to pool the knowledge of testing from all over the world and
to provide the base to unify design of anchorages in different standards.
2 INTRODUCTION
As indicated in Section 1.1 the research work is focused on two essential goals:
(1) Fastening applications covered in current design with single anchors and anchor groups
loaded in shear are often based on theoretical considerations due to missing investigations of
the real loadbearing behavior. Design recommendations should be improved, and more easy
and understandable guidance should be given. Therefore, based on experimental and numeri
cal investigations the loadbearing behavior of anchorages loaded both in shear and torsion is
analyzed for different anchor configurations and loading cases.
(2) Research is provided for multiple fastening applications which are not covered in current
design standards since it is known that such anchor configurations are used in practice even
though specific design guidance is missing. This is a worthwhile step in order to extend the
applicability of current design methods for larger anchor groups.
Experimental testing forms a significant part of this dissertation. The numerical studies were
especially used to understand the loadbearing behavior and to analyze aspects which cannot
be investigated in experimental testing or which are challenging such as the measurement of
anchor shear forces when multiple anchors are placed in an anchorage.
The design of single anchors and groups with limited number of anchors loaded in shear are
regulated in standards. Depending on the location of the anchorage (infield or close to a con
crete edge) and geometrical and material properties of the anchors the failure is governed ei
ther by steel rupture, concrete edge breakout or pryout failure. Recommendations are availa
ble to calculate the resistance for all three failure modes. However, in some cases the calculat
ed resistances deviate highly from the tested resistances due to missing knowledge about the
real loadbearing behavior.
Basic equations to calculate the strength of single anchors fail in concrete edge breakout and
the application limits differ depending on the design standard which is used for the verifica
tion. In particular, for a load direction parallel to the edge the calculated resistances can highly
differ. Moreover, in design the basic equations are often too complicated and not explainable
to a designing engineer since mostly the equations are based only on multiple regression anal
ysis and best curve fitting with test data.
In case of anchor groups loaded in shear under arbitrary direction, many questions are still
open despite the fact that they are covered in current design standards. A discussion of open
questions can be found in the following.
For anchor groups loaded perpendicular to the edge, it is not clear if a redistribution of the
shear load to the back anchors after crack formation at the front anchors is reasonable. In par
ticular for groups with hole clearance and small edge distance, the applied hole clearance can
be larger than the displacement at failure of the front anchors (no activation of the back an
chors). Therefore in design, it is often assumed that shear loads are only resisted by the front
anchors. Thus, the resistance of the group equals the resistance of the front anchors. The in
INTRODUCTION 3
fluence of the back anchors on the concrete breakout strength is neglected. In particular for
larger edge distances, the calculated resistances are assumed to be very conservative. Howev
er, if redistribution to the back anchors is taken into account, it is not clear if the concrete
breakout strength calculated by the resistance of the remote anchors needs to be reduced. It is
merely assumed that the resistance of the back anchors limits the resistance of the entire
group. Moreover, allowing a redistribution to the back anchors, the resistance for the failure
mode „steel rupture“ should be determined assuming the front anchors do not take up shear
forces due to the prior edge breakout. Likely, this assumption is conservative.
In design for anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge, it is assumed that the resistance for
concrete edge breakout can be calculated by multiplying an increase factor to the resistance of
the same group loaded perpendicular to the edge. Thereby, it is indirectly assumed that the
loadbearing behavior of a group loaded perpendicular to the edge corresponds to that of a
group loaded parallel to the edge. However, it is obvious that the loadbearing behavior is
different. Whereas for an anchor group loaded perpendicular to the edge the back anchors
limit the resistance for the failure mode concrete edge failure, first investigations indicate that
an anchor group subjected to a shear load acting parallel to the edge seems to be able to carry
higher loads compared to the back anchors loaded parallel to the edge. In design, it is assumed
that all anchors in the group take up shear forces if the load is applied parallel to the edge. For
this assumption, the resistance equals at least two times the resistance of the front anchors. It
is not known if this is conservative in particular for small anchor spacing. Likely, for large
anchor spacing perpendicular to the edge this assumption is too conservative. Moreover, it is
not known if a redistribution of the shear load to the back anchors after failure of the front
anchors leads to an increase of the ultimate strength and how the back anchor resistance needs
to be calculated. After formation of a failure crack at the front anchors, the back anchors are
loaded eccentrically (Figure 1.1). If a rotation of the anchorage plate is restrained due to a stiff
connection to the attachment, it is assumed that the back anchors are loaded in pure shear. If
the rotation is not restrained, the back anchors are assumed to be loaded by a secondary tor
sion moment. However, this differentiation is not implemented in design standards since the
loadbearing behavior for both load applications is not known.
TS
VS VS
VS VS
or
edge
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 1.1: Anchor group loaded parallel to the edge (a) Action (b) Failure of the front anchors
(c) Loading of the back anchors without torsional restraint (d) Loading of the back an
chors with torsional restraint
The design concept according to the CCDmethod (Concrete Capacity Design Method)
(Fuchs et al., 1995a) only covers shear loads in one direction. In case of a torsional moment
the group is loaded in shear in opposed directions. First preliminary experimental investiga
tions on anchor pairs arranged parallel to the edge and loaded in pure torsion were performed
by Mallée (2001). The tests indicate that the anchor which is loaded away from the edge has
no influence on the breakout of the anchor which is loaded towards the edge. Therefore in
design, components directed away from the edge are neglected. However, presumably this is
4 INTRODUCTION
not conservative in all cases. Moreover, no investigations exist to explain the loadbearing
behavior of larger groups such as quadruple fastenings loaded in torsion close to the edge.
Summarizing, current design recommendations are not consistent and free of contradictions.
For many applications, the calculated resistances are conservative, but presumably for some
applications the calculated resistances are too liberal. This dissertation aims at capturing the
loadbearing behavior of anchorages loaded in shear and torsion with the primary goal to pro
pose realistic and consistent models for calculating the resistances for the failure modes “con
crete edge breakout” and “steel rupture”.
For anchors loaded in tension, design theoretically applies to any number of anchors in a
group provided that the fixture is sufficiently stiff to ensure that the distribution of loads to the
anchors is in conformity with the theory of elasticity (fib, 2011). However, for anchorages
loaded in shear, the number of anchors in a group is limited to prevent excessive shear lag
(nonuniform shear distribution in the direction of the shear load over the length of the con
nection).
In Section 2.5, a discussion can be found how different design standards define the scope of
permissible anchor configurations. In case the groups exceed the limiting number of anchors,
design should be done with engineering judgment. In order to show that multiple anchor con
nections, which are not covered in design, are used in practice despite of the fact that the load
bearing behavior is only poorly understood and to underline the necessity of improved design
recommendations, Figure 1.2 shows an example of anchorages exceeding the number of an
chors covered in current standards.
Figure 1.2: Anchorage with n=8 anchors (photographs courtesy of application technology, fischer
werke GmbH & Co. KG)
INTRODUCTION 5
Connections are also found in practice where the individual anchors are arranged in line (so
called shear collectors). The behavior of such connections is poorly understood. In particular,
the load distribution to the individual anchors is not known. Examples of such fastening ap
plications are shown in Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4 with and without influence of concrete edg
es.
(a) Typical sill plate application (Grosser, 2009) (b) Experimental test (Senftleben, 2010)
(a) Ductile Steel EccentricallyBraced System (b) Numerical simulation (Grosser, 2008d)
(Bouwkamp, 2001)
2.1 General
Due to the complexity of fastening applications various types of fastening systems exist on
the market. Depending on the anchor type, fasteners transfer applied tension load to the base
material either by mechanical interlock, friction, bond or a combination of these loadtransfer
mechanisms. Furthermore, the fastening systems can be distinguished by the way they are
installed. Hereby, the systems are classified in castin anchorages which are placed into the
formwork before pouring the concrete and postinstalled anchorages which are installed into
the hardened concrete. The various types of fastening systems are associated with different
failure mechanisms and ultimate strengths. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the
type of fastener for tension loaded anchorages (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Anchor loadtransfer mechanisms (Eligehausen et. al, 2006) and examples of fastening
systems for mechanical interlock, friction and bond
If the system is loaded in shear, it is assumed that the behavior of postinstalled anchors cor
responds to that of castinplace anchors. In general, the same failure modes can occur for
both postinstalled and castin anchors. Numerous experimental investigations show that no
significant influence of the anchor type on the failure load is observed (Hofmann, 2005).
However, essential differences between castinplace and postinstalled anchors are expected
in particular for the restraint intensity and the surface condition since castin anchors are often
welded to the fixture and are not preloaded by an additional external force. In case of post
installed anchorages, the presence of a clearance hole in the fixture often leads to an uneven
loading of the anchors. Therefore, these factors need to be considered to evaluate the anchor
behavior in shear. A typical loaddisplacement curve of a fastener subjected to shear is shown
in Figure 2.2 to demonstrate the differences in comparison to an anchor loaded in tension.
8 STATE OF THE ART
1,25
Applied load
Tension Shear
Failure Failure
1 N
Last F [kN]
Contact of anchor
0,5 with baseplate
0
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 displacement
Anchor 1 1,25
Verschiebung δ [mm]
Figure 2.2: Idealized loaddisplacement behavior of a preloaded fastener loaded in tension and
shear with no proximate edges
Whereas the anchor loaded in tension resists the applied load via one or more of the above
mentioned loadtransfer mechanisms, an anchor loaded in shear resists the load by bearing
against the concrete in the upper part in load direction and in the lower part in opposite direc
tion. At the onset of loading the shear load of a preloaded fastener is transferred between the
rough concrete surface and the anchorage plate via friction. If the applied load exceeds the
friction resistance, the anchorage plate slips and the anchor is fully activated. At increased
load, the concrete spalls in front of the anchorage which leads to a loss of stiffness. After
reaching the ultimate load, the post peak resistance depends on several parameters such as
concrete compressive strength or embedment depth of the anchor. Compared to an anchor
loaded in tension the loaddisplacement behavior is less stiff.
The loaddisplacement behavior of a castinplace headed stud not welded to the anchorage
plate and loaded in shear is similar to that of a postinstalled anchor (such as expansion an
chor, undercut anchor or bonded anchor) loaded in shear (Eligehausen et al., 2006).
Possible failure modes associated with anchors subjected to shear loading valid for both cast
inanchors and postinstalled anchors are illustrated in Figure 2.3. Anchors loaded in shear
close to one or more edges may fail by a breakout of the concrete (Figure 2.3a1a4). If the an
chorage is located far away from concrete edges, the anchor loaded in shear exhibits steel
rupture provided the embedment depth is sufficiently large (Figure 2.3b). Mostly, this is asso
ciated with concrete spalling in front of the anchor. For small embedment depth and low con
crete strength, spalling in front of the anchor can lead to a pullout failure (Figure 2.3c). How
ever, it is noted that the pullout failure mode is highly unlikely for castinheaded anchors.
Typically, the anchorage loaded in shear fails by a pryout failure in case of short embedment
depth. Such a failure can occur both for anchorages arranged close to the edge if the load is
applied away from the edge and for “infield anchorages” (Figure 2.3d1d3). A detailed dis
cussion of the failure modes can be found in Section 2.3.
STATE OF THE ART 9
(a1) Corner edge breakout (a2) Edge breakout (a3) Thin member edge breakout
(a4) Narrow member edge breakout (b) Steel rupture (c) Pullout failure (catenary action)
Figure 2.3: Failure modes associated with shear loading (fib, 2011)
Some of the investigations described in this section are analyzed in Chapter 5 in addition to
the experimental and numerical investigations performed within the scope of this dissertation.
10 STATE OF THE ART
c1 h2 f cc ,200
2
Load direction perpendicular to the edge (α = 0°): Vu ,0° 1.8 1 (Eq. 2.1)
c1 h 2
2
20
4c1 h2
2
f
Load direction parallel to the edge (α = 90°): Vu ,90° 1.8 2 2 1 cc ,200 (Eq. 2.2)
4c1 h 20
c1 h2
2
The knowledge obtained from these tests was implemented into design (e.g. EOTA (1997):
ETAG 001, Annex C; and ACI 31808). For shear parallel to an edge, the capacity can be con
servatively assumed to be twice the capacity of this anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge.
Although testing was performed in concrete slabs with limited member depth, no conclusion
can be drawn for the influence of the member thickness because no comparable tests were
performed in thick members with same parameters.
Moreover, recommendations are given how to calculate the resistance of an anchor group.
The critical anchor spacing in a group with two anchors at which twice the resistance of a
single anchor is assumed can be taken as s2 = 3c1. For an anchor group with two anchors ar
ranged perpendicular to the edge, the resistance equals the minimum of the sum of both an
chor forces and twice the capacity of the front anchor.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
Steel rupture occurred in most of the tests since the anchor diameter was only 3 mm or 6 mm
2)
Splitting failure was observed in some tests due to the small member thickness of only 40 mm or 80 mm
(a) (b)
Figure 2.4: Typical specimen for the failure mode (a) concrete failure, sawed section of slab and
connector to identify the failure crack (b) stud shear failure
The shear strength was found to be primarily influenced by the compressive strength and the
modulus of elasticity of the concrete. Other concrete properties such as tensile strength and
density were found not to influence the shear strength significantly. Based on the results,
Equation 2.4 was proposed for studs welded to a baseplate when concrete spalling occurs.
For design purposes, the authors simplified the equation above to:
The shear strength was found to be approximately proportional to the crosssectional area of
the studs. Pushout specimens with either one or two rows of studs per slab exhibited the same
average strength per stud.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that the concrete failure observed by Ollgard et al. (1971) is defined as pryout failure in current
design. Often these tests are found for evaluating the concrete edge breakout load which is not reasonable.
Therefore, the tests are sorted out in the database for the evaluation of the concrete edge failure load in this
dissertation.
The authors proposed a shear equation (Equation 2.6) in which concrete strength, edge dis
tance, anchor diameter and breakout angle are assumed to control the ultimate strength.
c d /2
2
The breakout angle towards the edge was found to increase with increasing edge distance. For
a theoretical edge distance c1 = 0, the angle α = 25° increases linear to α = 45° for larger edge
distances. This is expressed by Equation 2.7.
The concrete breakout strength is proportional to the edge distance. Steel rupture gov
erns the ultimate load for large edge distances which is 8 in. [203.2 mm] for the 1 in.
diameter bolts and 24 in. [609.6 mm] for the 2 in. diameter bolts.
The use of hairpin reinforcement around the bolt can change the load behavior signifi
cantly, depending upon bolt diameter and edge distance, but more importantly in
creases system ductility and ultimate load substantially regardless of bolt diameter and
edge distance.
For the anchor bolt pairs, it is concluded that the critical bolt spacing to develop twice
the capacity of a comparable single bolt is four times the edge distance.
Effect of surface condition and loading plate size: Three different surface conditions were
used between the concrete surface and the loading plate (1) normal (steeltroweled, no curing
STATE OF THE ART 13
compound) (2) a thin sandcement mortar coating and (3) a teflon sheet. The bolts were tight
ened snug tight with a hand wrench and then tested using loading plates measuring 6x6 in.
and 12x12 in. All bolts failed by shear in the steel at the interface between the concrete block
and the baseplate. The failure loads for the mortar and teflon surfaces were about 5 and 10
percent less, respectively, than those for normal surface preparation. The effects of loading
plate size and surface preparation were therefore concluded to be predictable and compara
tively minor.
Effect of edge distance on bolt shear resistance: Bolts at small edge distances failed by crack
ing of concrete in a semiconical failure surface whereas bolts with large edge distances failed
by steel rupture. An understrength factor of 0.65 was proposed for concrete failure since a
comparison with the ACI 34976 (1976) shear equation has shown that the predicted failure
loads are unconservative for larger edge distances. For steel failure, the authors suggest that
the ultimate load should be taken as 0.75 times the minimum specified ultimate tensile
strength of the anchor.
c
sin 0.91 2 for c2/c1 ≤ 1.73 (Eq. 2.9)
c1
Moreover, the influence of distance between applied shear and concrete surface on the con
crete breakout capacity was investigated in limited experiments. The load was applied with
anchorage plates of different thicknesses. The rotation of the anchor rod was not restraint. The
results show that the concrete breakout strength is decreasing with increasing distance of
shear load to the concrete surface. Therefore, Paschen and Schönhoff proposed to reduce the
concrete edge breakout capacity for increasing distance e between shear load and concrete
surface. Failure loads were related to a distance of e = 20 mm. The conversion of the failure
loads was done according to Friberg (1938). A first approximation of the reduction in con
crete edge breakout capacity is given by Equation 2.10.
Two basic equations are proposed. Equation 2.11 is recommended for the shear strength of
studs located away from concrete member edge whereas Equation 2.12 is considered for an
chorages placed near to the edge. The factor λ considers the influence of various types of con
crete (λ = 1.0 for normal weight concrete).
The authors suggest that a better fit might be obtained by considering an equation in which
the power of the edge distance is 1.5 for near edge anchorages. Therefore, Equation 2.13 is
given as an alternative to Equation 2.12. However, due to the desirability of consistency be
tween different procedures, Equation 2.12 is included in ACI 34985 (1985).
The limiting value of the edge distance which dictates use of either Equation 2.11 or 2.12, is
obtained by equating the two. Consequently, if c1 > 10d, the shear strength is governed by
Equation 2.11, if c1 < 10d, the shear strength is governed by Equation 2.12.
A significant improvement to the design equations of stud groups is given as well. Examining
an anchor group with two rows parallel to the free edge, the following observations can be
made:
If the edge distance of the front row c1,1 > 10d and the spacing between the front row
and the back row (s1) is large enough, it is proposed to take the shear strength equal to
ntimes Equation 2.11 (n = number of anchors in the group). If the spacing is too small
STATE OF THE ART 15
If the strength is affected by the edge (c1,1 < 10d), it is assumed that cracking at the
front row negatively influences the strength of the back row unless the spacing be
tween the front and the back row is large. It is recommended to calculate the strength
of the back row with an idealized shifted edge c1,2 = s1. Thus, the shear strength of an
anchor group close to the edge can be taken as the minimum of the strength of row 1
and the strength of row 2 calculated with the edge distance c1,2 = s1.
Four different positions of the anchorage were investigated. Position 1 was a “bottom” test.
Here the anchorage was positioned on the bottom face so that 16 in. [406.4 mm] of concrete
was cast above the studs. Position 2 labeled “side”, had the anchorage located on the side face
during casting. Two other specimens were cast with the anchorage on the top face so that
16 in. [406.4 mm] of concrete was beneath it. One of the top specimens labeled “top loose”,
was worked into the previously placed concrete after the top surface was screeded and floated.
The other top plate labeled “top fixed”, was secured to the formwork prior to casting the con
crete.
All specimens except one failed by stud steel shear. Both top positioned connections showed
an average 30 percent reduction in ultimate strength, accompanied by a loss in stiffness com
pared to the bottom and side positioned anchorages. The reduction was attributed to the lack
of complete concrete consolidation directly below the anchorage plate. No significant differ
ence in shear strength was observed in the top positioned connections between “top fixed”
and “top loose” position. The behavior between “bottom” and “side” position was practically
the same.
Tests by Cruz (1987) were performed with ½ in. [12.7 mm] diameter headed studs welded to
a steel plate. Stud length was either 1.94 or 5.94 in. [49.3 and 151 mm] resulting in hef/d = 3.9
16 STATE OF THE ART
and 11.9. Different anchor configurations were tested with one to six studs either placed in
one or two rows parallel to the edge. The edge distance of the back anchors in the group was
either 2.5 or 5 in. [63.5or 127 mm]. In case of short embedment depth, the anchors failed in
pryout. For larger embedment depth the anchorage failed in concrete edge breakout with ca
pacity of the group controlled by the back anchor edge distance.
Tests by Wong (1988) were also performed with ½ in. [12.7 mm] diameter headed studs
welded to a steel plate. However, embedment depth was 1.63 in. [41.4 mm] resulting in
hef/d = 3.26. Groups of two, three, and four studs were placed in one or two rows parallel to
the edge. In these tests, the slab thickness was varied between 4 and 12 in. [102 and 305 mm].
Additionally to the investigations of edge distance, corner effect, stud spacing, embedment
depth, and slab thickness, the influence of casting position and the influence of supplementary
reinforcement were investigated. The main results relevant for this dissertation can be sum
marized as follows:
The edge distance term (c1) was found to be the primary factor in determing the shear
strength of the group.
With decreasing distance of the group to the corner, the group capacity decreases.
Whereas the number of bolts was found to be of minor significance, the concrete
breakout capacity increases with the outer spacing of the anchors parallel to the edge.
In case of a limited member depth, it was found that the breakout capacity is reduced.
To avoid a capacity reduction, a minimum slab thickness of 1.4 times the edge dis
tance plus the distance to the base of the stud head was proposed.
It was found that shear capacity for the concrete edge failure mode is not affected by
the casting position when low slump, properly consolidated concrete is used.
Hairpin reinforcement was found to increase shear capacity in case of small edge dis
tance. However, in case of large edge distance the effect is not significant. In either
case, hairpin reinforcement provides a more ductile failure.
Conclusions drawn from the results of the study were incorporated into the shear design pro
visons for groups contained in the PCI Handbook 4th Edition (1992). Based on the tests three
modification factors were added.
h
Influence of the member thickness1): h,V 1.0 (Eq. 2.14)
1.3c
c2
Influence of corner: C ,V 0.4 0.7 1.0 (Eq. 2.15)
c1
s2,t
Influence of the spacing (s2): n2 s 2,V 1.0
(Eq. 2.16)
3.5c1
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that this factor only takes into account the reduction of the breakout surface. No increase factor as
found in current design to take into account that reduction of the capacity is less than considered by the ratio
of the projected area, is considered. The critical member thickness for which a negative influence on the an
chor capacity needs to be taken into account is h = 1.3c1.
STATE OF THE ART 17
Matupayont (1989) showed that the shear resistance increases with greater torque and
greater loading plate size since more friction between steel plate and concrete surface
is induced1).
From the results of single bolt anchorages, it was observed that the effect of casting di
rection on the shear strength is negligible.
The support condition of the test specimen was found to have an influence on the
shear strength. Support spacings smaller than twice the edge distance induce signifi
cantly larger shear strength of the single bolt anchorage since the close spacing create
a confined condition. It is believed that the shear strength is almost constant in case
the anchor spacing is larger than four times the edge distance.
Since no design guidelines existed for calculating the shear resistance of anchor bolt
groups arranged parallel to the edge at this time, the concept of wedge cone interac
tions for predicting the shear strength of bolt groups has been applied to the tested
double bolt anchorages. A nonlinear relationship between the shear capacity of the an
chor group and the anchor spacing normal to load direction as a function of the edge
distance is shown. No capacity increase of the double bolt anchorage with a spacing
s = 0.4c1 over an equivalent single anchor capacity is found. Increasing the spacing to
s = 4c1 did not produce a capacity twice the capacity of a single anchor with the same
edge distance. The critical anchor spacing for which the capacity of the anchor group
produces twice the capacity of a single anchor with the same edge distance equals 8c1.
However, it is noted that the reason for the quite large critical spacing may be an une
qual load sharing between the two anchor bolts. This assumption was verified by
comparing the results with tests where the load was applied with two cylinders to the
individual anchors to ensure equal loading of the anchors2). In this case, the shear
strength was significantly higher than the shear strength obtained in tests where the
load was applied with a common plate. In Section 3.3.1, such anchor groups with an
chor bolts arranged parallel to the edge and loaded towards the edge are discussed.
In Ueda et al. (1991), guidance is also given for anchor groups with two rows of an
chors into the direction of the applied shear load. An anchor spacing of three times the
edge distance was found to be sufficient to avoid interaction between anchor bolts and
thus to generate twice the capacity of a single bolt anchorage. It was also found that
shear strength could be larger than twice the single bolt anchorage, especially for
small edge distances. This fact is explained with a delay in failure crack which usually
started from the bolt located closer to the free edge. It should be critically noted that
the load was applied independently to each anchor without the use of a steel plate
18 STATE OF THE ART
which allows a redistribution of the shear load. Therefore, each anchor received an
equal load fraction. The loading condition was load control rather than displacement
control and any record of the load after reaching the peak load was not taken since it
was the interest to know the peak load3).
Based on the observed shear strengthspacing relation in both normal and parallel to loading
direction Ueda et al. (1991) proposed an empirical method to calculate the resistance of an
anchor group loaded in shear close to the edge. The proposal to calculate the resistance is giv
en in Equation 2.17. The measured shear strengths were modified to eliminate the effect of
concrete compressive strength on the shear capacity by V0 = (Observed Vu)·(20/fc’).
The comparison between the measured and calculated shear strength of double and four bolt
anchorages shows a mean value of 0.994 with a coefficient of variation of 6.1%.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
Only the size was varied and not the thickness of the plate. No experimental comparison of test results is
known for the shear strength obtained with loading plates of different thicknesses. Such tests were per
formed within the scope of this work (see Section 3.2.7.2.2)
2)
It is noted that this may not be representative of the true loadbearing behavior of an anchorage.
3)
At this point, it is referred to Section 3.3.3, where a discussion of the load bearing behavior of anchorages
arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the free edge can be found. In this section, an expla
nation of the interaction of the anchors when loading the anchors with a common plate is given.
1/3
1.5c1
h,V 1.0 (Eq. 2.18)
h
STATE OF THE ART 19
Cook (1989)
Cook (1989) investigated the behavior of ductile multipleanchor steeltoconcrete connec
tions within the scope of his dissertation. The overall objectives of this study were to deter
mine the characteristic behavior and to develop a rational design procedure for calculating the
steel strength of such connections. A steeltoconcrete connection was defined as ductile if its
ultimate strength is controlled by the strength of the steel and not by other failure modes such
as concrete failure. Experimental tests were performed to investigate the influence of the coef
ficient of friction between steel plate and concrete and the baseplate flexibility on the strength
of the multipleanchor connection. Different tension/shear interaction relationships for various
types of anchors (castinplace, undercut and adhesive) were tested. A special device was built
to measure the distribution of forces among the anchors. The study involved 44 friction tests
and 46 ultimate load tests. 18 twoanchor, 13 fouranchor, and 12 sixanchor ultimate load
tests were performed with a rigid baseplate, and 3 sixanchor tests with a flexible baseplate.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.5: (a) Schematic diagram of test setup (b) Typical contact zone for flexible baseplate tests
It was found that the frictional force which develops between the baseplate and the concrete
surface significantly contributes to the shear strength. The anchors in the connection trans
ferred shear primarily by bending. Anchors in shear failed by kinking and bending whereas
the anchors in combined tension and shear failed by kinking, bending and stretching. The
conclusions of this research work can be summarized as follows:
The average coefficient of friction between the surface mounted steel baseplate and
the hardened concrete was 0.43. No significant influence of the surface condition
was found.
The baseplate flexibility affects the assumed location of the compressive reaction
from the applied moment. It is noted that the compressive reaction should be located
in a conservative manner since it directly affects the calculated tensile forces in the
anchors. Recommendations are given where to assume the location of the compres
sive reaction.
Fuchs (1990)
In his dissertation, Fuchs (1990) investigated the behavior of single anchors and groups with
two and four anchors under shear in uncracked concrete. Experimental and numerical studies
to anchorages located close to the edge and far away from edges were performed. The results
are a substantial basis for the development of the concrete capacity design (CCD) approach,
which was published in a code background paper by Fuchs et al. (1995). In the scope of his
dissertation, Fuchs (1990) primarily analyzed the influence of edge distance, anchor spacing
and member thickness. Moreover, the influence of drilling and support spacing was studied.
The results can be summarized as follows:
In general, anchorages arranged close to the edge fail in concrete edge breakout. The
breakout angle is slightly increasing with increasing edge distance. For small edge dis
tance, the breakout angle was about α = 30° and for larger edge distance between
α = 40° and 45°. The average breakout angle is specified between 35° and 40°.
A support spacing of three times the edge distance is recommended not to influence
the concrete edge breakout load. Preliminary tests with a support spacing of 4c1 up to
9.5c1 were performed. However, no change in ultimate load was observed1).
The concrete breakout load can be calculated according to the following equation:
Considering that c1 is a multiple of the anchor diameter dnom, Equation 2.19 can be
simplified to Equation 2.20 in which the exponent of the edge distance is 1.6.
Vu k * dnom c1 f cc ,200
0.5 1.6
k* = constant (not specified in Fuchs, 1990) (Eq. 2.20)
For an anchor group with two anchors arranged parallel to the edge and loaded to
wards the edge, the resistance can be taken as two times the resistance of a single an
chor for anchor spacings s ≥ 2.5c1. For an anchor group with two anchors arranged
perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge, the resistance can be taken as
the resistance of a single anchor with the edge distance of the back anchor. This is also
valid for anchor groups with 2 mm hole clearance. No negative influence on the ulti
mate load was observed due to cracking of the front anchor3).
STATE OF THE ART 21
The critical member thickness for which the ultimate load for concrete edge failure is
negatively influenced was determined in experimental tests as hcr = 1.4c1 and in nu
merical studies as hcr = c1 + 2dnom. Based on numerical studies a reduction of the con
crete breakout load close to the edge in case of thin members was proposed (Equation
2.21).
red h / c1 2dnom
0.75
(Eq. 2.21)
Single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge were only investigated numerically.
The obtained ultimate load is about three to four times higher compared to the ultimate
load of a single anchor with the same edge distance loaded perpendicular to the edge.
The loadbearing behavior is comparable to tendons where a tension force is generated
into the direction of the free edge. Therefore, Fuchs (1990) transferred the knowledge
for prestressed concrete constructions to anchorages loaded parallel to the concrete
edge. It is noted that for an edge distance larger than 100 mm no load increase could
be observed due to a local failure of the concrete in front of the anchorage4).
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
No information is given about the change of the breakout angle for increasing support spacing.
2)
It is noted that the scatter of the ultimate loads is very high.
3)
No information is given in Fuchs (1990) about the failure mode of the back anchor. A reanalysis of the re
sults shows that the back anchor failed due to steel rupture in most of the tests. The results are discussed in
Section 5.8.
4)
It is a numerical problem that no cracking into the direction of the free edge can be observed for larger edge
distances. The concrete fails in compression in front of the anchor. This failure mechanism is not observed
in experimental investigations described in Section 3.2.2. Local spalling in front of the anchor is typical of
an anchorage loaded parallel to the edge. However, concrete edge failure in the single anchor tests was ob
served up to an edge distance of 200 mm.
Kummerow (1996)
Kummerow (1996) investigated the behavior of adhesive anchors under shear close to the
edge. The single anchor tests were carried out with 8 and 12 mm threaded rods embedded into
the concrete with a ratio hef/d between 4 and 16. To consider the parameters hef and d more
realistically, Kummerow (1996) proposed two different modifications for the concrete edge
breakout equation. Compared to the CCDmethod, the ratio hef/d is considered with an expo
nent 0.3 instead of 0.2. The influence of the edge distance is reduced in both equations from
1.5 to 1.35 respectively to 1.1.
0.3
h
V 0
u ,c 1.6 d nom ef f cc ,200 c11.35 (Eq. 2.22)
d nom
22 STATE OF THE ART
0.3
h
V 0
u ,c 7.0 d nom ef f cc ,200 c11.1 (Eq. 2.23)
d nom
Kreismer (1999)
An experimental program with single adhesive anchors and headed anchors was performed by
Kreismer (1999). The intent of this work was to investigate the influence of the diameter, em
bedment depth and the edge distance on the concrete breakout failure load. Tests were per
formed with 70, 100 and 200 mm edge distance. The diameter was varied between 8 and
40 mm with a ratio of embedment depth and anchor diameter between 4.1 and 12.5.
Testing was only summarized in a test report which is unfinished and not published. However
an analysis is possible and can be summarized as follows: The tests show that the failure load
is increasing with increasing edge distance. The influence of the diameter and the embedment
depth on the failure load is decreasing with increasing edge distance. No load increase was
observed for large edge distances when increasing the ratio between embedment depth and
anchor diameter. A load increase was only found for small edge distances with small diame
ters. However, it is noted that a direct comparison of the load increase is only possible for
ratios hef/d in the range between 4.1 and 8. The tests are considered in Section 5.2.
Wüstholz (1999)
This research work is a continuation of the single adhesive anchor and headed stud tests per
formed by Kreismer (1999). Wüstholz (1999) recommended weakening the influence of the
edge distance with a tangens hyberbolicus function since the analysis of the tests has shown
that the CCD method overestimates the resistance for large edge distances. The coefficient α
is taken as 1.4 and ε as 0.22 for adhesive anchors. It should be noted that the empirical regres
sion analysis leads to considerably different factors α and ε for other types of anchors. How
ever, this is explained in Wüstholz (1999) with the low range of variation for the parameters lf,
d and c1 in shear tests with varying types of anchors.
0.23
l
d nom f f cc ,200 c11.5
0 0.34
Vu ,c (Eq. 2.24)
d nom
1 for c1 160mm
with: = c1
1 tanh 80 2 for c1 >160mm
In addition, Wüstholz (1999) performed tests to investigate the influence of different ways of
supporting the concrete member on the concrete breakout failure load. The influence of the
supporting width of a compression support was analyzed, and tests were performed to com
pare the load bearing behavior when restraining the concrete slab at the backside (tension
support). The results show that a narrow compression support at the lower edge of the slab in
front of the anchor reduces the mean failure by about 10% compared to a wide support. A
comparable test series with the tension support shows a reduction of the mean failure load by
about 15%. The way of supporting the slab also influences the breakout width. This width
equals the spacing of the support for a support spacing of 4c1 as it could be found in most the
STATE OF THE ART 23
shear tests given in the literature. For a wide support respectively the tension support the
breakout width is approximately 8c1.
Hofmann (2004)
Hofmann (2004) performed numerical investigations1) with single bolts located in slabs with
limited member depth. Five simulations were performed with ratios h/c1 = 1.5, 1.2, 0.75, 0.5
and 0.242). These are the first known investigations which provide information about the shear
strength in the range 0 < h/c1 ≤ 0.5. The single bolts had the shape of a truncated cone with a
steel plate at the end (d1 = 53 mm, d2 = 40 mm, hef = 125 mm). The member thickness was
chosen to h = 240 mm. Based on the results the exponent in the factor ψh,V proposed by Zhao
and Eligehausen (1992) was modified according to Equation 2.25. This factor was adopted
into current design (e.g. ACI 31808, Appendix D; CEN/TS 19924 (2009)).
0.5
1.5c1
h,V 1.0 (Eq. 2.25)
h
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
The tested parameters are lacking of practical relevance. To verify the conclusions drawn for h/c1 ≤ 0.5 and
to check Equation 2.25, tests should be carried out with more realistic parameters (see Section 3.2.3) which
meet the conditions according to current approvals.
2)
The obtained ultimate load for c1 = 1000 mm (h/c1 = 0.24) is questionable. The load is relatively high com
pared to the results of the simulations with smaller edge distances. Further investigations should be carried
out to provide information for the range 0 < h/c1 ≤ 0.5 (see Section 3.2.3).
24 STATE OF THE ART
With respect to the improvement of design recommendations testing performed by the Korean
Power Engineering Company provides information which is very important, since no experi
mental investigations currently exist for such large anchor bolts. The results are discussed in
Section 4.5.1.
Hofmann (2005)
Hofmann (2005) performed the most indepth study of adhesive anchors loaded in shear under
arbitrary direction close to the edge in uncracked concrete. Numerical and experimental inves
tigations have been performed to determine the parameters controlling the loadbearing be
havior. The main results can be summarized as follows:
It was found that the influence of anchor diameter and embedment depth on the capac
ity for the concrete edge failure mode is decreasing with increasing edge distance.
Therefore, a modified equation compared to the CCDmethod was proposed (Equation
2.42). If the load is applied parallel to the edge, a new increase factor ψ90°,V was pro
posed to consider that the ratio V90°/V0° is not constant, but increases with increasing
anchor diameter and decreases with increasing edge distance (Equation 2.26). This
approach is derived theoretically and was only verified with few tests. For n, the num
ber of anchors in the group is recommended to be inserted.
0.5
n d nom f cc ,200
90°,V 20 5.0 (Eq. 2.26)
Vu0,c
A new ψfactor was introduced to consider the restraint intensity (ψf,V = 1.0 for fasten
ings where the clearance hole in the fixture is larger than the anchor diameter,
ψf,V = 1.2 for welded connections or fastenings where the clearance hole in the fixture
fits the anchor diameter).
Recommendations are given to calculate the resistance of anchor groups with a spac
ing perpendicular to the edge. It has to be distinguished between groups with and
without hole clearance. The proposals are discussed in Table 2.1 for a group with two
anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge.
STATE OF THE ART 25
Table 2.1: Recommendations for calculating the resistance of a group with two anchors arranged
perpendicular to the edge (Hofmann, 2005)
Verification of concrete
Factor ψ which has to be multiplied with the resistance of a single
edge failure assumed to
be generated ... anchor which is controlling the failure
Fastenings without hole clearance
Notes: This approach indirectly considers that
2.0 for s1/c1 > 0.75 the resistance calculated with 2 times the
… at the front anchor resistance of the front anchor has to be lim
1 + (s1/(0.75c1)) for s1/c1 < 0.75 ited by the resistance of the back anchor for
s1/c1 < 0.75.
Notes: For s1/c1 ≤ 0.5, it is assumed that
cracking at the front anchor influences the
… at the back anchor 2s1/c1 ≤ 1.0 capacity of the back anchor. This was not
observed in tests (see Section 3.3.3.4.4).
Fastenings with hole clearance
Notes: This is a quite conservative approach,
… at the front anchor 1.0 since no redistribution of the load is consid
ered
Notes: For s1/c1 ≥ 2.0, it is assumed that there
is no influence of cracking at the front anchor
to the resistance of the back anchor. Howev
er, for s1/c1 < 2.0, this approach is extremely
… at the back anchor 0.5s1/c1 ≤ 1.0 conservative, in particular for small ratios
s1/c1 (e.g. for s1/c1 = 0.5, the resistance equals
only 25% of the back anchor resistance. Such
a reduction was not observed in tests (see
Section 3.3.3.4.5).
For anchor groups with a spacing parallel to the edge, the critical anchor spacing to
avoid an influence of the anchors for the concrete edge failure mode was taken over
from the CCDmethod as s2 = 3c1. However, for such a group with two anchors loaded
parallel to the edge, it was found that the anchors are loaded unevenly. The anchor
remote to the load application resisted only 70% of the anchor close to the load appli
cation. Therefore, for a connection with 5 anchors in a row, it is assumed that the last
anchor is not resisting a part of the applied shear load. This is discussed in Section
3.3.2.
If an anchorage is located close to the edge and the load is applied away from the
edge, it was found that the anchor fails either in steel or by a pryout failure. Therefore,
it is recommended that concrete edge failure does not need to be verified for a load di
rection away from the edge.
If an anchor group is arranged parallel to the edge and is loaded in torsion only, a sin
gle anchor loaded towards the edge has to be verified for the concrete edge failure
mode. It is assumed that the anchor loaded away from the edge has no negative influ
ence on the concrete breakout resistance of the anchor loaded towards the edge1).
If the applied shear load acts inclined to the edge, a quadratic interaction is recom
mended. For a combined shear and torsion loading, it is proposed to use a linear inter
action relation.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that this approach is not conservative for all configurations. This is discussed in Section 3.3.7.
26 STATE OF THE ART
Anchor diameter and embedment depth were found to have very little influence on the
breakout capacity of a single anchor loaded towards the edge. Therefore, a mean pre
dictor equation simply considers the concrete compressive strength and the edge dis
tance as variables was proposed (Equation 2.27).
In case of a limited member depth, a corner influence or more than one anchor present
in the anchorage, modification factors are proposed which have to be multiplied to the
single anchor resistance. It is noted that for c the edge distance of the back anchor has
to be inserted. Therefore, no ψs1,Vfactor needs to be considered.
h
Influence of the member thickness1): h,V 0.75 1.0 (Eq. 2.28)
c1
c2
Influence of corner2): C ,V 0.7 3
1.0 (Eq. 2.29)
c1
s
Influence of the spacing (s2)3): s 2,V 0.85 2,t n2 (Eq. 2.30)
3c1
The spacing s2,t is the overall outtoout dimension of the outermost studs. The factor
ψs2,V equals 1.0 for a single stud connection.
For a load direction parallel to the edge, defined as side edge distance, an equation
was proposed considering anchor diameter and edge distance as the influencing pa
rameters on the capacity (Equation 2.31)4).
In case of more than one anchor present in the anchorage, increase factors for the spac
ing s1 and s2 are proposed. Additionally, the load needs to be reduced if there is more
than one edge (e.g. side edge column). This is considered by the number of edges (ns).
n1 s1
Influence of the spacing (s1): s1,V 2 ns n1 (Eq. 2.32)
2.5c1
STATE OF THE ART 27
n s2,t
0.25
For the steel failure mode, two equations are proposed which have been found imple
mentation in ACI318.
where fu shall not be taken greater than 1.9fy or 125,000 psi (~862 MPa).
___________________________________________________________________________
2)
It is noted that the ratio of the projected areas which reduces the capacity of the anchor is already included in
Equation 2.28. The critical member thickness for which a negative influence on the anchor capacity needs to
be taken into account is h = 1.75c.
3)
The evaluation of the corner tests clearly shows a nonlinear reduction in capacity with decreasing corner
distance c2 for a given edge distance c1. This is in contrast with the current design recommendation accord
ing to the CCDmethod described in Section 2.3.3.
4)
Interestingly, it was found that the anchors can influence each other negatively. Therefore, the capacity of
the anchor group can be less than the capacity of a single stud at the same edge distance. The s2spacing ef
fect is discussed in Section 5.6.
5)
It is noted that only a limited number of tests for the concrete edge failure mode is available since steel rup
ture occurred in most of the tests with a side edge distance. Anderson and Meinheit (2006) showed that steel
failure occurred at very small edge distance. The transition from concrete edge failure to steel rupture was
observed at about c1 = 6dnom, whereas this transition was observed at about c1 = 12dnom, for a load direction
towards the edge.
Periškić (2006a,b)
For the case of a double fastening arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the
free edge, the influence of cracking at the front anchor on the resistance of the anchor group
was investigated. Therefore, in particular, the behavior of anchorages having a very small
ratio between the anchor spacing and the edge distance of the front anchor was studied. Tests
were performed with double fastenings with and without hole clearance. The anchors were
arranged perpendicular to the edge with varied edge distances and anchor spacings. Reference
tests with single anchors were conducted as well to compare the results of the group tests. All
tests were carried out with adhesive bonded anchors. Anchor groups without hole clearance
were installed into the hardened concrete member with a ratio s1/c1 between 0.31 and 0.5 and
the anchor groups with hole clearance were installed with a ratio s1/c1 between 0.33 and 1.52.
It is noted that in some tests an influence of the member thickness is present since the height
of the concrete blocks is constant with h = 160 mm. The main results can be summarized as
follows:
For the tested double fastenings without hole clearance, the resistance is governed by
the back anchor. No cracking was observed at the anchor closer to the free edge.
For the tested double fastenings with hole clearance a failure crack at the front anchor
is often observed which influences the capacity of the back anchor negatively. The
maximum reduction of the group capacity was found for a ratio s1/c1 = 1.0. For both
28 STATE OF THE ART
decreasing and increasing ratio s1/c1 the reduction of the group capacity compared to
the capacity of a single anchor with the edge distance of the back anchor is decreasing.
No reduction of the capacity was observed for s1/c1 = 0.33 and for s1/c1 = 1.5.
It is noted that this approach is based on a reduction of the load side and not as considered in
other approaches by an increase of the strength equation for a load direction parallel to the
edge. However, for the same assumptions for the load distribution of shear loads to the indi
vidual anchors in a group the factor α0°,V can be converted in an increase factor ψ90°,V accord
ing to Equation 2.37.
Taking into account practical cases where dnom/(2c1) varies very little, one can simplify ψ90°,V
to a constant value of 2.7.
Unterweger (2008)
In order to understand the loadbearing behavior of anchor groups close to the edge with hole
clearance, Unterweger (2008) performed tests with quadruple fastenings installed in unfavor
able anchor configuration (maximum hole clearance at back anchors, front anchors are acti
vated at the onset of loading). Bonded anchors M12 (hef = 70 mm) and M20 (hef = 140 mm)
were tested with hole clearance of 2 mm. The group capacity obtained in tests was compared
with the calculated concrete edge failure load of the back anchors. No direct reference tests
with the back anchors failed in concrete edge breakout were performed. All anchor configura
tions were performed with equal spacings s1 = s2 (quadratic anchor pattern) with either a ratio
s1/c1,1 = 1.0 or 2.0 in concrete slabs with sufficient thickness to avoid an influence on the
breakout strength. It was shown that the breakout strength is higher compared to the calculat
ed breakout strength of the front anchors. This load increase is not considered in current de
sign standards (e.g ETAG 001, Annex C, see Section 2.5.2). Unterweger (2008) proposed a
new design concept to take into account a redistribution of the load to the back anchors as
suming the failure crack at the back anchors is controlling the ultimate strength. The model is
based on reduced projected areas. For the calculation of the back anchor resistance, the
breakout body of the back anchors is reduced by the concrete breakout body of the front an
STATE OF THE ART 29
chors. Since this calculation can lead to lower capacities compared to the ultimate strength
calculated with the front anchors, the model is limited by the breakout strength of the front
anchors. This is expressed by Equation 2.38 1).
A c Ac,V c1.1
Vu ,c max Vu ,c c1.2 c,V 1.20 ;Vu ,c c1.1 1) (Eq. 2.38)
A c,V c1.2
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that this calculation approach is a userfriendly calculation method to increase the concrete capacity
compared to current design guidelines. However, it does not describe the loadbearing behavior realistically. The
loadbearing behavior of such anchor configurations is explained in detail in Section 3.3.3 and Section 4.5.5.1.
For anchorages located far away from concrete edges, the anchor fails in steel provided that
the anchor is embedded deep enough into the concrete member to avoid a pryout failure. Steel
rupture of a shear loaded anchor embedded in concrete – as simple as it seems to be – is a
quite complex failure mode due to the interaction of shear, tension and bending forces devel
oped in the anchor. Therefore, at present, no generally acknowledged theoretical approach for
calculating the mean shear capacity of the steel bolt is available. The assumption that the fail
ure occurs when the bending stresses in the anchor exceed the tensile strength of the steel,
leads to solutions based on the classical indeterminate problem of a beam on an elastic or
elastoplastic foundation. Table 2.2 summarizes calculation models found in literature.
Table 2.2: Calculation approaches using the theory of a beam on an elastic foundation and semi
empirical approaches based on geometrical models found in literature
With: G = bedding factor of concrete (400 N/mm³ (Friberg), 500 N/mm³ (Basler,Witta))
a = cantilever of applied load, d = anchor diameter
E = Young’s modulus of steel, I = moment of inertia
σc = acceptable concrete stress, σs = acceptable steel stress
fc = concrete cylinder strength, fy = yield strength of steel
c = 1.3 (not restraint), c = 2.5 (restraint and a = 0)
30 STATE OF THE ART
However, using the prediction equations proposed by Friberg (1938) and Wiedenroth (1971)
the deviations to measured failure loads in experimental investigations are not acceptable
(Eligehausen et al., 2006). Therefore, following the assumptions made in steel design, a sim
ple and straightforward approach is proposed by Fuchs, Eligehausen (1986a) to calculate the
shear strength of an anchor embedded in concrete (Equation 2.39).
where: α = 0.6 for anchors and 0.7 for headed studs welded to the baseplate
fu = measured tensile strength
The coefficient α is calculated using regression analysis. Fuchs, Eligehausen (1986a) deter
mined the coefficient α = Vu,test / (AS ∙ fu) as 0.68 whereby the tensile strength was taken as the
nominal value. Assuming an overstrength of 15% the mean value α = 0.6. However, the pre
diction according to Equation 2.39 is verified only for the parameters present in tests (headed
studs: d ≤ 22 mm, fu ≤ 500 MPa; postinstalled anchors: d ≤ 20 mm, fu ≤ 1000 MPa). In litera
ture, various recommendations are given how to estimate the prefactor α (see Table 2.3).
Reference α Background
Klingner, Mendonca (1982) 0.675
Experimental investigations on headed
Roik (1982) 0.7
anchors welded to baseplates
Anderson, Meinheit (2006) 1.0
Experimental investigations with ma
Valtinat (1982) 0.625
chine bolts
0.67 for grade 4.6 and 5.6
Schmidt, Knobloch (1982) Double shear connection, pure shear tests
0.6 for grade 8.8 and 10.9
0.5 for castinplace and Experimental investigations on ductile
Cook (1989) adhesive anchors multipleanchor steeltoconcrete connec
0.6 for undercut anchors tions
The yield strength τy in shear is √3 times lower than the yield strength
HuberHenckyMises yield σy in tension (α = 1/√3 = 0.58). This was verified for various ductile
criterion materials. The ratio τy/σy was computed in the range from 0.55 to 0.60
(Beer, 2009).
For concentrically loaded anchor groups which fail in steel, the resistance can be taken as n
times the resistance of a single anchor. It is noted that for groups with anchors in a row the
individual anchors can be unevenly loaded. A uniform load distribution can only be assumed
if there is no hole clearance present. Tests with anchor groups with n ≥ 3 anchors in a row are
not known. However, it is assumed that uniform load distribution can be assumed for groups
with up to three anchors in a row if the anchors have sufficient plastic deformation capacity
and are installed with standard hole clearance (Eligehausen et al., 2006). When anchors are
made of brittle steel (rupture elongation A5 < 8%), a 20% reduction should be assumed to take
into account the limited anchor deformability (αred = 0.5) (Fuchs, Eligehausen, 1990).
For anchorages with small ratio hef/dnom, the group can fail by a socalled pryout failure. If the
tensile force generated in the anchorage exceeds the tensile capacity associated with the max
imum fracture surface that can be activated by the anchorage, a fracture surface originating at
the lower end of the anchors and projecting in conical fashion behind the anchors forms. More
details about the loadbearing mechanism are given in Eligehausen et al. (2006). In general,
pryout failure occurs for anchorages located far away from edges. However, this failure mode
can also be observed for anchorages arranged close to the edge if the pryout resistance is
smaller than the concrete edge breakout resistance. The average ultimate load for concrete
pryout failure can be calculated according to Equation 2.40.
Determination of the actual projected area of the anchorage which needs to be taken into ac
count for the pryout failure mode is described in Figure 2.6.
Pryout resistance of
anchorages located close
to edges is reduced com
pared to the pryout re
sistance of anchorages
located far away from
edges
(a) Reduction of actual area Ac,N if the anchorage is located close to an edge or in a corner
(b) Calculation of actual area Ac,N if the anchors in a group are loaded in opposing directions
(torsional moments)
Figure 2.6: Calculation of actual area Ac,N for anchorages located close to edges and/ or loaded by
a torsional moment (fib, 2011)
32 STATE OF THE ART
For groups loaded by a torsional moment (shear forces acting on the individual anchors in
opposing directions), the most unfavorable anchor should be verified. When calculating the
area Ac,N, a virtual edge in the direction of adjacent anchors is assumed. However, it is noted
that no investigations exist for such a loading case. Experimental investigations to verify this
calculation approach are discussed in Section 3.3.9.
Anchorages located close to the edge may fail in concrete edge breakout provided the tensile
steel strength is high enough to avoid premature rupture of the anchorage. Concrete edge fail
ure mode is characterized by the formation of a halfconeshaped breakout propagating from
the anchor towards the edge. Equation 2.41 was proposed by Fuchs et al. (1995) based on the
evaluation of tests with single anchors having dnom ≤ 25 mm and lf ≤ 8dnom in thick uncracked
structural members under shear loading towards the edge. Note, the basic equation 2.41 is
often found with a prefactor k = 0.9 since few additional tests indicated that a better correla
tion with test results is obtained if this equation is reduced by 10%. In US standards (e.g. ACI
318) the characteristic concrete edge breakout resistance is directly based on Equation 2.41.
No reduction of 10% is taken into account. Note that the determination of the prefactor is
based on SI units.
0.2
l
V 0
u ,c k d nom f f cc ,200 c11.5 with: k 1.0 (Eq. 2.41)
d nom
Hofmann (2005) modified Equation 2.41 in order to extend the range of dnom and lf. The ma
jority of tests on which the modified Equation 2.42 is based were performed with single an
chors having dnom ≤ 40 mm and lf ≤ 12.5dnom. However, the development of Equation 2.42 is
mainly based on numerical simulations with anchor diameters up to 190 mm and lf to 16dnom.
Vu0,c 3.0 dnom l f fcc ,200 c11.5 (Eq. 2.42)
0.5 0.2
l d
with: = 0.1 f and = 0.1 nom
c1 c1
Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42 represent the mean ultimate load of a single anchor loaded
towards the edge in uncracked concrete without influence of further edges or member thick
ness. In case of more than one anchor in direction 2, further edges of the concrete member or
limited member thickness, the mean ultimate load of the single anchor needs to be multiplied
with the ratio of the projected areas to take into account the reduced fracture surface. The cal
culation of the areas is based on the 35°cone model. Detailed examples of the calculation of
Ac,V are given in Eligehausen et al. (2006).
Ac0,V area of the fully developed failure surface for a single anchor idealized as a half
pyramid with height equal to c1 and base lengths of 1.5c1 and 3c1 = 4.5c12
STATE OF THE ART 33
Ac ,V actual area of the failure surface for the anchorage as defined by overlapping concrete
cones of adjacent anchors (s2 < 3c1), by edges in direction 2 (c2 < 1.5c1) and by limited
member thickness (h < 1.5c1).
The various effects on the shear resistance which are considered by different influence factors
are described in the following. The effect of edge reinforcement and anchorages in cracked
concrete are not investigated in this dissertation.
As aforementioned, in case the anchorage is located in a thin member (h < 1.5c1) the fracture
surface is reduced by the ratio of the projected areas. However, tests have shown that the re
duction is less than assumed by the factor ψA,V. This is taken into account by multiplying the
resistance with the increase factor ψh,V. The factor can be calculated according to Equation
2.18 or Equation 2.25.
If an anchorage is placed near a corner (c2 < 1.5c1), or if two further edges restrict the fracture
surface (narrow member), the disturbance of the distribution of stresses in the concrete is tak
en into account by the factor ψs,V. In case of a narrow member, c2 should be taken as the min
imum of c2,1 and c2,2.
Figure 2.7: Fracture pattern of a shear loaded anchorage affected by further edges
For the special case that the anchorage is located in a narrow, thin member the edge distance
should be limited to c1,red (Equation 2.45). This is explained in Figure 2.8.
c2,max h s2,max
c1,red max ; ; (Eq. 2.45)
1.5 1.5 3.0
34 STATE OF THE ART
Example:
c1,red = 100 mm
Figure 2.8: Determination of reduced edge distance c1,red for a pair of anchors loaded in shear to
wards the edge in a thin, narrow member (Fuchs, Eligehausen, 1995)
If an anchorage is loaded in shear parallel to the free edge, a splitting force in front of the
anchor is generated which is a fraction of the applied shear force. Stichting Bouwresearch
(1971) and Fuchs (1990) determined the splitting force to be about 50% of the applied shear
load. Therefore, the increase factor ψ90°,V for a load direction parallel to the edge is often tak
en as 2.0. Riemann (1990) proposed a linear interaction equation to cover a shear load under
arbitrary direction (Equation 2.46).
0°
0°
α α 0° ≤≤ααVV≤≤55°
0° 55°
αV α
αV 0° ≤ α55°
V ≤<
55° ααVV ≤ 90°
<55° 90°
αV ≤
90°
55° <90° ααVV≤≤180°
<<90° 180°
55° 55°
V 90° < αV ≤ 180°
55° 55°
V
1.0 for 0° V 55°
90°
90°
90°
90°
,V 1/(cosV + 0.5sinV ) for 55° < V 90° (Eq. 2.46)
2.0 for 90° < 180°
edge V
edge
180°
180°
Figure 2.9: Definition of shear load direction α and increase factor according to Riemann (1990)
According to Hofmann (2005), the calculation with a constant increase factor ψ90°,V equals 2.0
leads only to a rough estimation of the resistance of an anchorage loaded parallel to the edge.
In order to take into account that the ratio between splitting force and applied shear is mainly
influenced by anchor diameter and edge distance, Equation 2.47 is proposed.
0.5
n d nom
2
f cc ,200
90°,V 4.0 k4 5.0 (Eq. 2.47)
Vu0,c
Equation 2.47 equals Equation 2.26 proposed by Hofmann (2005) for dnom = 25 mm. Howev
er, in Equation 2.47 n is the number of anchors for which concrete edge failure is verified and
not the total number of anchors in the group as proposed by Hofmann (2005).
2 2
Vu cos V Vu sin V
1.0 (Eq. 2.48)
Vu ,c ,0° Vu ,c ,90°
The factor ψα,V which is based on the quadratic interaction is derived from Equation 2.48.
1
,V 2
1.0 (Eq. 2.49)
sin V
cos V
2
90°,V
Note that the resistance of an anchorage affected by more than one edge is difficult to predict.
Therefore, both the resistance for a load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge
should be calculated and the minimum should be assumed to control the capacity of the an
chorage.
If an anchorage is subjected to a shear load acting not in the center of gravity of sheared an
chors, the individual anchors in a group are unevenly loaded. This is taken into account by an
eccentricity factor. An eccentric shear load is also present if the anchorage is loaded by com
bined torsion and shear. However, it is noted that a combined torsion and shear action can
lead to shear loading on the individual anchors in opposed directions. Such loading cases are
discussed in Section 3.3.7.
1
ec ,V 1.0 (Eq. 2.50)
1 2eV / 3c1
If an anchor group is loaded in shear where the anchors are arranged perpendicular to the free
edge, no influence factor is applied to take into account the spacing effect in direction 1. It has
to be distinguished if the failure is assumed to occur at the front or the back anchors. This is
shown for instance for a group with four anchors loaded towards the edge in Figure 2.10. Of
ten in the ultimate limit state the formation of a crack at the front anchors is taken as the fail
ure crack. It is assumed that this leads to conservative results for the concrete edge failure
mode. However, due to limited investigations, redistribution of the load to the back anchors is
not seen to be conservative for all anchor configurations. A detailed discussion about the the
oretical background for the redistribution of shear forces for both load directions perpendicu
lar and parallel to the edge can be found in Section 3.3.3.4.1 and Section 3.3.4.3.1.
36 STATE OF THE ART
Figure 2.10: Example of a group where the anchors are arranged perpendicular to the edge
In order to determine the transition between anchorages arranged far away from concrete edg
es (steel rupture or pryout governs the failure) and anchorages arranged close to the edge
(concrete edge breakout governs the failure), Balogh and Eligehausen (1992) performed cal
culations to show at which edge distance no proof for concrete edge breakout is necessary.
The resistances were calculated with a group of six anchors (n1 = 3, n2 = 2) with concrete
compressive strength assumed as fcc,200 = 30 MPa and steel strength as fu = 800 MPa. The an
chor geometry was varied between M6/40 and M20/125. For all anchors, the ratio hef/d ~ 6.5.
For deep concrete members, the limiting value at which no concrete edge failure occurs is
c1 = 5hef (uncracked concrete) and c1 = 6.5hef (cracked concrete). For thin concrete members
(h = 2hef), it is c1 = 17hef (uncracked concrete) and c1 = 26hef (cracked concrete). No calcula
tions were performed in a corner. Based on the calculations in deep concrete members a limit
ing value c1 = 10hef was proposed. For thin members, this value is also justified if reinforce
ment is provided to take up the shear load. Since especially with bonded anchors short stocky
anchors are permitted, a further criterion which depends on the anchor diameter was imple
mented in design. With the limitation of the edge distance to a multiple of the embedment
depth alone, no steel rupture can be guaranteed. Therefore, in current design one can find the
condition that a check for concrete edge failure can be omitted for groups with 4 or less an
chors having an edge distance c1 ≥ max{10hef, 60dnom} in all directions.
In design, the limiting value for c1 is used to determinate the distribution of shear loads in an
anchor group with normal hole clearance.
It is assumed that the shear displacement at failure is much larger than the provided
hole clearance if c1 ≥ max{10hef, 60dnom}. Therefore, for large edge distance all an
chors are assumed to take up shear loads.
STATE OF THE ART 37
If c1 < max{10hef, 60dnom} for anchor groups loaded perpendicular to the edge, the
displacement at failure may be smaller than the provided hole clearance. Therefore, in
such cases only the near edge anchors are assumed to take up shear loads.
If c1 < max{10hef, 60dnom} for anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge, the displace
ment at failure is about two to three times the failure displacement of an anchor group
loaded under otherwise constant conditions perpendicular to the edge. Therefore, for
shear loading parallel to the edge all anchors are assumed to take up shear loads.
This guidance given in design is only a rough estimation based on theoretical considerations.
More accurate guidance based on experimental investigations is given in Section 5.14.
A designer may be confused with the different regulations for the design of anchorages when
going through the various design standards and guidelines for the verification of an anchor
age. Often the regulations are not consistent with one another and vary depending on the
standard. This is mainly based on different design philosophies although they have the same
underlying loadbearing behavior. For example, in the US the design of anchorages is based
on simplifications to allow hand calculations and an easy estimation of the failure loads. In
Europe, the design philosophy is more based on the fact that such anchorage solutions are
calculated with computer programs. Hence, in some cases this leads to more complex design
procedures. In particular, for anchorages loaded in shear, where many simplifications are
made due to missing investigations, design recommendations differ in the various standards.
Therefore, it seems to be meaningful to briefly discuss the various design standards and
guidelines for anchorages loaded in shear and torsion. This should help the reader to get an
overview of different design and to understand the background and differences in their respec
tive implementation provisions.
In the US, provisions for anchoring to concrete are given in ACI 318 “Building Code Re
quirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary” Appendix D  Anchoring to Concrete.
Appendix D applies to both castin anchors and postinstalled anchors. Up to and including
version ACI 31808 (2008) adhesive anchors have been outside the scope of this appendix
although they are widely used and can perform adequately. Acceptance criteria for bonded
anchors can be found in ICCES AC308 (2001). However, design recommendations for adhe
sive anchors are included for the first time in ACI 31811 (2011). In case of anchorages in
stalled in concrete structures that form part of a nuclear power plant or that have nuclear safe
tyrelated functions, ACI 349 “Code Requirements for Nuclear SafetyRelated Concrete
Structures and Commentary” applies for the design. The design recommendations are based
on the CCDmethod which is a further development of the Kappamethod (Eligehauen et al.,
1987, 1988). It is noted that older versions of ACI 318 and ACI 349 are based on the Kappa
method.
In the European landscape of design standards, ETAG 001 “Guideline for European Tech
nical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete” Annex C was the first standard availa
ble for the design of anchorages based on the CCDmethod. However, although the CCD
method is basically valid for all anchor types regulated in the guideline, it was found that ad
hesive anchors have special characteristics which need to be considered in the design. There
38 STATE OF THE ART
fore, a technical report (TR029) was worked out by the taskgroup for fasteners in the Europe
an Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA). In the technical report TR029 “Design of
Bonded Anchors” not only the special loadbearing behavior of adhesive anchors is taken into
account but also the knowledge gained from basic research within the past 10 years since the
first publication of the Annex C. In order to unify the design of fastenings in Europe, the
Technical Specification CEN/TS 19924 Part 1 to 5 “Design of fastenings for use in con
crete” has been developed, basically incorporating both Annex C and TR029. Moreover, the
CEN/TS 19924 applies to both castin fasteners such as headed fasteners, anchor channels
with rigid connection between fastener and channel, and postinstalled anchors such as expan
sion anchors, undercut anchors, concrete screws, bonded anchors, bonded expansion anchors
and bonded undercut anchors. Therefore, this standard provides comprehensive information
about the design of fastenings.
In the above mentioned design standards many simplifications are made and the background
for the development of design equations and models is not explicitly traceable for the reader
without deep knowledge in fastening technology. Therefore, designers are often confronted
with problems where fastening applications go beyond the scope of the standards. In order to
cover this gap, to give a designer the confidence to safely calulcate the resistances and to pro
vide detailed background information the Task Group III/5: “Fastenings to reinforced con
crete and masonry structures” was formed within the Comité Euro International du Béton
(CEB) in 1987. In 1997 the group published the CEB design guide “Design of Fastenings in
Concrete” (CEB, 1997). It covers expansion, undercut and headed anchors in concrete under
predominately static loading, and has been a widelyreferenced resource document for code
development in this area. Following the transformation of the CEB into the International Fed
eration for Structural Concrete (fib) in 1998, the group was renamed as Special Activity
Group (SAG) 4 “Fastenings to Structural Concrete and Masonry Structures”. Since the publi
cation of the original CEB guide, ongoing research and additional application experience has
led to an improved understanding and deepened knowledge in various areas of fastening tech
nology. The publication fib (2011) “Design of Anchorages in Concrete” represents a substan
tial revision of the original 1996 design guide. One significant improvement are the design
provisions for the critical case of shear loaded anchorages close to edges. It is noted that some
results and design recommendations developed within the research leading to this dissertation
and described therein, are already incorporated partly or in full extent in this fib design guide.
The fib document is recognized as a guideline to provide more indepth information about the
loadbearing behavior in cases where fastening solutions need to be designed with engineer
ing judgment.
In the following, the various standards and guidelines are discussed concerning the differ
ences in design of anchorages loaded in shear and torsion. Differences in design which are not
related to this dissertation are not discussed (e.g. tension loading, fatigue loading, seismic
loading, durability, exposure to fire, etc.).
In ETAG 001, Annex C (EOTA, 2010) the design of single anchors and anchor groups is regu
lated. In this section the regulations according to the 3rd amendment (August 2010) are de
scribed. If anchors are situated far from edges (c ≥ max (10hef, 60d)), anchor configurations
according to Figure 2.11a) are covered for all loading direction. If these anchor configurations
are situated close to edges (c < max (10hef, 60d)), only tensile loading is allowed. In case of
shear loading close to edges, the number of anchors is limited to a maximum of two anchors
STATE OF THE ART 39
in a row (Figure 2.11b). No distinction is made for anchorages with and without hole clear
ance. It is merely mentioned that the design method is valid only if the diameter df of the
clearance hole in the fixture is not larger than a specified value.
The concrete member shall be of normal weight concrete of at least strength class C20/25 and
at most strength class C50/60 according to EN 2061 (2000).
(a) Anchorages arranged far from edges (b) Anchorages arranged close to edges
Figure 2.11: Shear loaded anchorages covered by the design methods according to ETAG 001,
Annex C
The distribution of shear loads depends on the mode of failure. For anchorages far away from
concrete edges which fail in steel or pryout, it is assumed that all anchors of a group take up
shear loads for no or normal hole clearance (df ≤ specified value). For the concrete edge fail
ure mode, only the most unfavorable anchors are assumed to take up shear loads if the shear
acts perpendicular towards the edge. It is noted that this approach is conservative especially
for groups with no hole clearance. If the shear load acts parallel to the edge, all anchors are
assumed to take up shear loads. Shear loads acting away from the edge may be neglected for
the verification of concrete edge failure. Concrete edge failure need not to be verified for
groups with not more than 4 anchors when the edge distance in all directions is c > 10hef and
c > 60d. This is different to the scope of this document which defines an anchorage as “inthe
field anchorage” for c ≥ max (10hef, 60d).
For the calculation of the characteristic resistance for concrete edge failure, the basic equation
corresponds to Equation 2.42. However, Annex C (EOTA, 2010) provides characteristic re
sistance and the compressive strength is based on measurements with cubes of side length
150 mm. Consequently, the prefactor assumes values of 1.7 for cracked concrete and 2.4 for
uncracked concrete. For anchors with uniform crosssection over their length, the embedment
depth has to be used as effective anchorage depth, and for anchors with several sleeves and
throats of crosssection, for example, only the length from the concrete surface up to the rele
vant sleeve would govern. No general limitation of the effective anchorage depth and the an
chor diameter is given. The anchor diameter is only limited indirectly to 30 mm in terms of
clearance hole and external diameter (see Table 4.1 in ETAG 001, Annex C). It is noted that
Annex C is not consistent with the description of the load transfer length. It mixes hef and lf.
If the load acts parallel to the edge, a constant increase factor ψ90°,V = 2.5 is applied. In case of
an inclined shear load, the resistance is calculated using a quadratic interaction.
The scope of TR029 (EOTA, 2007) corresponds to the ETAG 001, Annex C (refer to Figure
2.11). TR029 applies to the design of bonded anchors. Design methods used so far are based
on tests with bonded anchor having bond strength up to 15 MPa. According to TR029 also
40 STATE OF THE ART
bonded anchors with higher bond strength are allowed. The embedment depth allowed was
extended to a wider range (4d to 20d) which allows a high flexibility compared to other an
chor types. Here, for the emdedment length hef is consistently used.
The knowledge gained from basic research, as applicable to mechanical anchors, was also
implemented into Annex C since the release of TR029. Therefore, the distribution of shear
loads and the calculation of the resistances primarily correspond to the 3 rd amendment of An
nex C described in Section 2.5.2.
Compared to the ETAG 001 and TR029, in the Technical Specification CEN/TS 199241 to 5
“Design of fastenings for use in concrete” the scope was changed with respect to shear close
to the edge. Whereas anchorages with three anchors in a row were allowed close to the edge
only for pure tension loading, CEN/TS 19924 allows these configurations for shear loaded
anchorages as well provided no hole clearance is present. This requires that the gaps between
fixture and anchors are filled appropriately or the anchors are welded to the plate respectively
screwed in the plate. Anchorages covered by CEN/TS 19924 are shown in Figure 2.12.
steel plate
fastener
(b) With hole clearance, far from edges (c) With hole clearance, near to an edge
Figure 2.12: Anchorages covered by the design methods according to CEN/TS 19924
The concrete strength class was extended to a wider range. The CEN/TS 19924 is valid for
members using normal weight concrete with strength classes in the range C12/15 to C90/105
all in accordance with EN 2061 (2000). However, it is required that the anchors are approved
for these concrete strength classes in the relevant European Technical Specifications.
Basically, the calculation approaches for the resistances correspond with ETAG 001 and
TR029. However, the CEN/TS 19924 provides more detailed guidance.
The initial value of the characteristic resistance for concrete edge failure for cracked concrete
corresponds to Equation 2.42. However, as in Annex C (EOTA, 2010), the CEN/TS 19924
provides characteristic resistance and the compressive strength is based on measurements
with cubes of side length 150 mm. Consequently, the prefactor assumes a value of 1.6 for
STATE OF THE ART 41
cracked concrete. For fastenings in uncracked concrete members, the characteristic resistance
can be increased by a factor 1.4. Because of the prefactor, slight differences between ETAG
001 (EOTA, 2010) and CEN/TS 19924 (2009) result for the initial value of the characteristic
resistance for concrete edge failure.
For the effective anchorage length and the anchor diameter, it is referred to the European
Technical Specification. However, the effective anchorage depth shall not exceed 8dnom and
the anchor diameter is limited to 60 mm.
If the shear load acts inclined to the edge, the verification agrees to ETAG 001, Annex C.
ACI 31808 Appendix D (ACI 31808, 2008) is restricted in scope to structural anchors that
transmit structural loads related to strength, stability, or life safety. Two types of applications
are envisioned. The first is connections between structural elements where the failure of an
anchor or an anchor group could result in loss of equilibrium or stability of any portion of the
structure. The second is where safetyrelated attachments that are not part of the structure
(such as sprinkler systems, heavy suspended pipes, or barrier rails) are attached to structural
elements. The provisions are given to design single anchors and anchor groups. Compared to
European standards no information is given about the limitation of anchor configurations. The
concrete strength used for calculation purposes shall not exceed 10,000 psi (69 MPa) for cast
in anchors, and 8000 psi (55 MPa) for postinstalled anchors. Special testing is required for
postinstalled anchors when used in concrete with strength greater than 8000 psi. The com
panion ACI 355.207 (2007) does not require testing of postinstalled anchors in concrete with
strength greater than 8000 psi because some postinstalled anchors may have difficulty ex
panding in very highstrength concretes. Because of this, the concrete compressive strength is
limited to 8000 psi in the design of postinstalled anchors unless special testing is performed.
The basic shear equation for single anchors which fail in concrete edge breakout for a load
direction perpendicular to the edge is based on the CCDmethod according to Equation 2.41
(mean equation). It is noted that the calculated characteristic resistance can lead to much
higher values for large edge distances than the values calculated according to the European
standards. This is discussed in Section 3.2.1.4.6. For castin headed studs, headed bolts, or
hooked bolts that are continuously welded to the steel attachment, ACI 318 allows an increase
of the characteristic value of about 15%. The loadbearing length of an anchor in shear equals
the embedment depth in case of anchors with a constant stiffness over the full length of em
bedded section, such as headed studs or postinstalled anchors with one tubular shell over the
full length of the embedment depth. For torquecontrolled expansion anchors with a distance
sleeve separated from expansion sleeve, the loadbearing length is limited to twice the anchor
diameter. In no case, the loadbearing length used in shear strength calculations shall exceed
8dnom. For anchors with diameters not exceeding 2 in., the concrete breakout strength re
quirements shall be considered satisfied by the design procedure. However, no general limita
tion of the anchor diameter in the basic concrete breakout strength equation of a single anchor
is given. This is changed in the ACI 31811 (2011) version with a limitation equation (see
discussion in Section 5.2).
For shear load applied parallel to the edge, the characteristic resistance for concrete edge
breakout of an anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge is simply doubled. No approach is
42 STATE OF THE ART
given for an inclined shear load which leads to a step function. This is neither logical nor ex
plainable to an engineer and often leads to problems when designing an anchorage.
For the concrete edge breakout verification of anchor groups, two cases are distinguished in
ACI 31808. This is illustrated in Figure 2.13. One assumption of the distribution of forces
indicates that half the shear would be critical on the front anchor(s) (case 1). Another assump
tion of the distribution of forces indicates that the total shear would be critical on the rear an
chor(s) (case 2). Because the anchors nearest to the edge could fail first by concrete breakout
failure or the whole group could fail as a unit with the failure surface originating from the
anchors farthest from the edge, both assumptions for load distribution should be considered.
The minimum value of case 1 and case 2 is controlling for design.
If the anchors are welded to a common plate, only the assumption needs to be considered that
the total shear would be critical on the rear anchors and its projected area. This is considered
to be justified because when the anchors nearest the edge begin to form a failure cone, shear
load is assumed to be transferred to the stiffer and stronger rear anchors. In this case, it shall
be permitted to base the value of the edge distance on the distance from the edge to the axis of
the farthest anchor row that is selected as critical, and all of the shear shall be assumed to be
carried by this critical anchor row alone (verification of steel and pryout failure).
In general, the provisions for shear loaded anchorages comply with ACI 31808. However,
slight differences exist which are pointed out in the following.
Regarding the ψh,Vfactor for concrete edge breakout in shear, this parameter is not addressed
in ACI 34906. It is neglected that the reduction of the capacity is less than assumed by the
ratio of the projected areas. Note that this leads to quite conservative results for small ratios
h/c1.
Whereas ACI 31808 limits the loadbearing length le of an anchor for shear to twice the an
chor diameter in case of torquecontrolled expansion anchors with a distance sleeve separated
from expansion sleeve, ACI 34906 allows to set this value to le = hef in this case. In no case,
the loadbearing length used in shear strength calculations shall exceed 8dnom.
STATE OF THE ART 43
The fib Design Guide for Anchorages in Concrete (fib, 2011) is a guideline which gives more
detailed information about the verification of anchorages. The latest research results are in
cluded in this document.
In principle, the scope agrees with the CEN/TS 19924 standard. Anchor configurations cov
ered by the fib design guide are illustrated in Figure 2.14.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.14: Anchor configurations covered by the design methods according to fib (2011) (a) An
chorages with normal hole clearance having an edge distance c1 < max(10hef, 60dnom)
(b) Anchorages without hole clearance, all edge distances and anchorages with nor
mal hole clearance situated far from edges (c1 ≥ max(10hef, 60dnom))
The number of anchors that may be considered as effective in resisting the shear load should
be limited depending on considerations of hole clearance and edge distance. Close to the edge
not more than 2 anchors in a row in the direction of loading are allowed for anchor groups
with normal hole clearance. For all other anchor configurations, the number of anchors is lim
ited to three anchors in a row in the direction of loading to prevent excessive shear lag (non
uniform shear distribution in the direction of the shear load over the length of the connection).
The design guide applies to anchorages in structural normal weight concrete of strength class
C20 to C50 in accordance with CEBFIP Model Code 1990 (CEB, 1993). Anchorages in both
uncracked and cracked concrete are addressed.
The distribution of shear forces and/or torsional moments acting on the fixture is described in
detail in the fib design guide based on the theory of elasticity. Clear instructions are given
also for complex loading conditions both for anchorages with and without hole clearance in
the fixture. Detailed information is provided on how to distribute the forces to the anchors and
which forces need to be taken into account depending on the failure mode that is verified.
Moreover, for anchorages loaded in torsion where only the distribution of forces on the an
chors is explained in current standards (e.g. CEN/TS 19924), the fib design guide also gives
information about the calculation of the resistance.
Additionally, in the fib design guide, information is given about the way the load is applied
and the effect on the verification. For example, for anchor groups loaded in shear parallel to
the edge, it is distinguished whether the fixture provided torsional restraint or a free rotation is
possible. This distinction comes from research described in Grosser, Eligehausen (2008). See
also Section 3.3.4.3.3.
44 STATE OF THE ART
In the following, the initial value of the characteristic resistance for concrete edge breakout of
a single anchor with no influence of further edges and member thickness loaded in shear per
pendicular to the edge is shown. Equation 2.51 is given in the fib design guide (fib, 2011).
Even though the equation is based on the same mean equation, differences to ETAG 001, An
nex C and CEN/TS 19924 exist. This simply is due to the fact that the prefactor in ETAG
001, Annex C and in CEN/TS 19924 are not strictly consistent.
VRk0 ,c kv dnom l f f ck c11.5 (Eq. 2.51)
The derivation of the correct prefactor is explained in the following for the characteristic
equation based on both the concrete compressive strength defined as strength determined on
cubes with side length of 150 mm (ETAG 001 and CEN/TS 19924) and on cylinders (fib de
sign guide (fib, 2011)).
VRk0 ,c 3.0 0.75 0.7 1/ 0.84 f ck X 1.7 f ck X (based on concrete cylinder stength)
VRk0 ,c 3.0 0.75 0.7 0.95 fcc,150 X 1.5 fcc,150 X (based on concrete cube strength)
Note that this inconsistency can lead to differences of about 15% depending on the design
method which is used for the verification.
Furthermore, in the fib design guide the following limitations for the effective anchorage
length and the anchor diameter are given. For anchors having dnom > 60 mm, the limiting val
ue of dnom = 60 mm should be inserted in Equation 2.51. The following limits on the influ
ence length, which are mainly based on research described in Grosser (2011a), apply:
(lf ≤ 12dnom for dnom ≤ 24 mm) and (lf ≤ 8dnom for dnom > 24 mm)
Following the approach in European standards, a quadratic interaction (ψα,V) applies if the
shear load acts inclined to the edge. However, the basic value ψ90°,V inserted in ψα,V can be
taken as a constant depending on the number of anchors for which concrete edge failure is
verified (ψ90°,V = 1.5 for n2 = 1; ψ90°,V = 2.0 for n2 = 2; ψ90°,V = 2.5 for n2 = 3) or calculated
according to a more precise function, as shown in the following.
0.5
n d2 f
90°,V 4.0 k4 2 nom ck 4.0 (Eq. 2.52)
VRk ,c
STATE OF THE ART 45
with:
k4 = 1.0 for anchorages without hole clearance and single anchors with hole clearance
= 0.8 for anchorages with normal hole clearance (acl ≤ acl,1)
In order to obtain conservative results for all edge distances, the constant value valid for sin
gle anchors was reduced compared to European standards (e.g. CEN/TS 19924) since test
results have shown that for larger edge distances where the concrete edge resistance is close to
the anchor steel resistance, the increase factor ψ90°,V is better predicted by a value 1.5.
In the following, the verification of anchor groups arranged close to the edge for both anchor
ages with and without hole clearance is explained in more detail.
For anchorages without hole clearance close to the edge, the shear force is initially distributed
to all anchors. One assumption is to calculate the resistance for concrete edge failure only
considering the front anchors. This assumption leads to a conservative estimation of the re
sistance for large ratios s1/c1,1 with respect to concrete edge failure, but is conversely associat
ed with the maximum resistance with respect to steel and pryout failure (all anchors are ac
tive). However, the concrete edge resistance of the front anchors with half the shear load on
the anchors should be limited by the concrete edge resistance of the back anchors with the
total load, in order to take into account that the whole group can fail first. Another assumption
is to calculate the resistance of the back anchors. This assumption leads to the maximum re
sistance in the ultimate limit state with respect to concrete edge failure. Assuming that the
front anchors do not participate due to the fact that a crack could occur first at the front an
chors, the resistance with respect to steel and pryout failure should be calculated with the back
anchors only.
Note that in current standards the utilization of increased concrete resistance calculated at the
back anchors is only allowed for anchorages without hole clearance. For anchorages with
normal hole clearance, the fib design guide is the only document which allows the verification
of the concrete edge failure load at the back anchors. Specific information is given about the
crack propagation and the redistribution of forces. In case of anchorages with unfavorable
anchor configuration, the shear force is initially distributed only to the front anchors. For
small edge distances, the first crack occurs at the anchors close to the edge. Therefore, in cur
rent design standards only the anchors closest to the edge are assumed to carry shear loads
when checking the resistance against concrete edge failure. This approach is conservative in
cases, where the anchor displacement may be estimated to be much larger than the provided
hole clearance. For the verification of steel and pryout failure, anchor shear displacement
may be expected to be much larger than the allowable hole clearance. Therefore, all anchors
may be assumed to resist shear forces. As with anchorages without hole clearance, the maxi
mum resistance with respect to concrete edge failure is reached when the load is redistributed
to the back anchors. Because the front anchor could have lost its resistance, only the back
anchors should be taken into account, when calculating the resistance against steel, pryout
and concrete edge failure. However, according to results of tests described in Grosser, Cook
(2009) for anchorages with small edge distance and a ratio s1/c1,1 ≤ 1, the concrete edge fail
46 STATE OF THE ART
ure load of the back anchors may be influenced negatively by the crack generated at the front
anchors. In the fib design guide, a reduction of 20% is proposed for such a case.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 47
3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 Scope
In this chapter, the experimental investigations carried out at the Institute of Construction Ma
terials, University of Stuttgart, Germany as well as at the Department of Civil and Coastal
Engineering, University of Florida, USA are described. Details to the experimental investiga
tions can be found in Eligehausen, Grosser (2007); Grosser, Cook (2009) and in the individu
al test reports Grosser (2007) to Grosser (2011). The tests which provide information about
the loadbearing behavior of single anchors are summarized in Section 3.2. Section 3.3 focus
es on the behavior of anchor groups. Single anchor tests described in Section 3.3 are needed
as reference to verify the group results and are therefore performed with the same parameters,
such as edge distance, anchor diameter and embedment depth. If not otherwise stated the in
formation about the base material given in Section 3.2.1.2 apply for all subsections in Section
3.2 and Section 3.3. In order to make the test results comparable, the ultimate loads are nor
malized by multiplying with (30 MPa / fcc,200,test)0.5.
1412
fcc,200 = 22.9 MPa (6)
1210
(5)
Load V [kN]
10
8
Load V [kN]
(3) (1)
8
6 (2)
6
4 (4)
4
2 (1) – (3): M10/12
2
(4) – (6): M10/28
0 0
0 0 1 12 3 24 5 6 3 7 84 9 105 11 12 6
Displacement δ [mm]
[ m m ]
Figure 3.1: Single anchor tests with M10 threaded rods installed in 12 mm and 28 mm drilled holes
(c1 = 50 mm), (α = 0°)
48 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
In all tests with 12 mm diameter drilled holes, the crack started in the axis of the anchor (see
for example failure pattern 3). The same failure was observed in two of the tests with 28 mm
diameter drilled holes. The load is not significantly higher. In one of the tests the concrete
edge breakout started behind the mortar (see failure pattern 6). In this case the measured ulti
mate load was about 20% higher. However, since it cannot be guaranteed that the mortar acts
to improve the load distribution, it is proposed to follow the recommendation by Hofmann
(2005) to use the diameter of the rod.
3.2.1 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded perpendicular to the free edge in
low strength concrete without influence of member thickness
Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded towards the free edge have been tested
in the past by different authors (see Section 2.2). In design (e.g. CEN/TS 19924, ACI 318
08), the equation to calculate the strength for concrete breakout is valid for dnom ≤ 60 mm and
lf ≤ 8dnom, because the majority of the tests has been performed in this range of dnom and lf.
Limited test data (Kummerow, 1996; Kreismer, 1999; Wüstholz, 1999; Hofmann, 2005) indi
cate that the limitation of the embedment depth could lead to conservative results. Hofmann
(2005) proposed Equation 2.42 with an extended limitation lf ≤ 16dnom which is mainly based
on numerical studies. However, this extended limitation is not adopted into design, since ex
perimental testing with a systematic variation of the parameters is not available up to now and
therefore the influence of an increased ratio lf/dnom cannot be verified.
To provide information about the influence of anchor diameter and embedment depth for var
ying edge distances, single bonded anchors loaded close to the free edge are tested. Note that
for bonded anchors with a constant diameter over the embedment depth the influence length lf
equals the embedment depth hef. As described in Section 2.2, a lot of factors influence the
loadbearing capacity. Therefore, the test program is carried out in one concrete batch with
the same test setup, same loading and same support described below.
Table 3.1: Test program for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the free edge
The test program was planned so that for every tested diameter both the embedment depth and
the ratio lf/dnom is approximately the same. A stepwise increase of the ratio lf/dnom between 5.0
and 20.0 was tested. With such a systematic variation of the parameters, it is possible getting
information about the influence of diameter and embedment depth for different edge distanc
es. The tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with anchor diameters dnom = 10 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm. All anchors had a
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 49
steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa). For the anchor diameter of
24 mm, testing was only performed up to a ratio lf/dnom = 18.81).
The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete. 18 concrete slabs with
three different slab thicknesses are selected for the investigations (300, 400 and 500 mm).
Width and length were taken as 1635 mm. All test slabs are reinforced at the bottom with two
6 mm bars in every direction. Reinforcement in these slabs was only used for handling the
slabs with the crane. In these slabs, the reinforcement was placed so as not to provide con
finement to the anchorage (see Figure 3.2).
1 Ø 6 mm
Ø 6 mm
c= 20 mm
The fresh concrete was prepared using weight percentages of the component materials, taking
into account the moisture content of the aggregate. The slabs were produced according to the
requirements of DIN 10452 (2001) and DIN 10481 (1991). The concrete was processed to a
consistency of F2 (DIN 10452, 2001). The spreading width measured during the slump test
was 40 cm. The composition of the aggregates was chosen so that a grading curve between
the standard grading curves A16 and B16 according to DIN 1045 was obtained. The concrete
mix composition is provided in Table 3.2.
All slabs were cast in horizontal position in rigid forms with smooth surfaces. The fresh con
crete was poured in layers and compacted using a vibrator. To determine the compression
50 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
strength of the hardened concrete at the time of testing, concrete cubes with a side length of
150 mm were poured as well for every concrete cast in the same manner as the slabs. The
initial curing of the slabs and cubes took place inside of a closed warehouse and began imme
diately after casting the concrete. All specimens were allowed to airdry inside of the ware
house.
The tests were performed on the concrete surface encased by the formwork. The holes were
drilled with a rotary hammer drill (HILTI TE35). A drill rig was used to make sure that the
bore hole is aligned exactly perpendicular to the concrete surface. Furthermore, a depth stop
was fixed to the drill rig to set the required embedment depth precisely. The correct depth was
adjusted with a caliper. Additionally, concrete dust was removed continuously with an indus
trial vacuum while drilling. Using oilfree compressed air, the concrete dust was removed
from the hole. The hole was then brushed using a hand wire brush (4x), respectively a wire
brush screwed into a rechargeable driller, and any residual concrete dust was again removed
with oilfree compressed air. After cleaning, the embedment depth was measured with a cali
per and the temperature in the bore hole was checked to determine the correct curing time.
The thoroughly cleaned hole was filled with adhesive. An anchor was placed into the hole and
slowly rotated by hand until it reached the bottom of the hole. The spare adhesive was then
removed from the mouth of the bore hole and the rod was adjusted with a 90° steel angle. The
drill rig and cleaning equipment are shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Drill rig with rotary hammer drill (HILTI TE35) and cleaning equipment
The concrete compressive strength was determined at the beginning of testing. Strength tests
were performed at the Institute of Construction Materials (IWB) in accordance with the rele
vant testing standards. The measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scat
tered between 23.3 and 29.9 MPa (average 26.2 MPa).
The tests were carried out on the strong floor in the laboratory of the Institute of Construction
Materials (IWB). To ensure a horizontal positioning of the load apparatus and the support of
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 51
the concrete slab, the strong floor is placed on air pillows. To avoid a lift up of the concrete
member, it is necessary to hold down the slab. The tiedown was realized by fixing the con
crete slab to the strong floor with a steel rod. All loading of the anchors was done with suffi
cient support spacing (six times the edge distance) so that the expected failure body could
develop completely. The supports react against the shear apparatus. A schematic sketch of the
strong floor and the moveable loading apparatus is shown in Figure 3.4.
The load was applied to the anchors by pulling on a steel plate using a hydraulic cylinder
(max load 400 kN). Depending on the tested diameter, different sleeves can be inserted into
the shear plate. To avoid a failure of the inserts, case hardened steel (16MnCr5) was used
(hardened and tempered to HRC60, max. case depth). The clearance hole of the inserts fit
tight to the anchor diameter (M12, 12 mm; M16, 16 mm; M24, 24 mm). The clamping thick
ness is 10 mm. In every test, a friction reducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete
surface and the baseplate. All anchors were tightened snug tight with a torque wrench prior to
testing (Tinst = 5 Nm).
The applied load and the anchor displacement as well as the crack propagation were measured
continuously and recorded on a PC using a data acquisition system with appropriate software.
The load was measured with calibrated load cells (load range according to the expected load).
Peak loads were reached in approximately 1 to 3 minutes.
Figure 3.4: Shear test frame (loading and tie down system) and photograph of the load application
Anchorage plate displacement was measured with linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDT). The LVDTs were glued to the concrete surface (see Figure 3.4). The displacement
of the shear plate was measured into the direction of loading (LVDT (1)). In order to get in
formation about the crack propagation, additional LVDTs were glued to the concrete member
to determine the crack opening (LVDT (2) and (3)). The location of the LVDTs is shown in
Figure 3.5. The LVDTs were glued in a distance of 100 mm to the anchor. Cracking in front
of the anchor was measured along the embedment length on the front side (LVDT (4) and
(5)).
52 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
LVDT
(1)
LVDT LVDT
(2) (3)
LVDT (4) 15
LVDT (5)
Figure 3.5: Location of the LVDTs for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the free edge
In the following, the main results of the single anchor tests are discussed. Details to the exper
imental tests can found in the test report Grosser (2011a). The measured data are summarized
in Table A1 (Appendix A).
Representative curves observed in the experimental tests were chosen to evaluate the influ
ence of embedment depth, diameter and edge distance on the loaddisplacement behavior. The
comparison of averaged loaddisplacement curves seems not to be reasonable since an aver
aged curve can falsify the real behavior. This is shown for example in Figure 3.6. The aver
aged curve is not representative since no first load plateau was observed in all three tests.
50
45
40
35
30
Load V [kN]
25
20
15 test No.1
10 test No.2 First load plateau (not observed in tests)
test No.3 → Falsification due to averaging of the
5
averaged loaddisplacement curves
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement δ [mm]
In Figure 3.7, the loaddisplacement behavior is plotted for example for an edge distance of
50 mm and 100 mm. Figure 3.7a) and b) show the influence of different embedment depths
on the ultimate load and the deflection. No influence can be observed on the initial stiffness.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 53
Independent of the embedment depth, the slope is nearly the same for all curves. The dis
placement at failure increases with increasing embedment depth. It can be also observed that
the post peak behavior is influenced by the embedment depth. With decreasing embedment
depth, the descending branch is steeper compared to larger embedment depth. The reason is
the ability of redistribution of the load along the embedment depth after initial cracking in
front of the anchor. This is explained by means of numerical simulations (see Section 4.5.1.3).
Figure 3.7c) and d) show the influence of different diameters on the ultimate load and the de
flection. With increasing diameter the initial slope is increasing, since the anchor system is
stiffer. This leads to smaller displacements at failure. For small edge distance (c1 = 50 mm),
the diameter influences the capacity. The ultimate load can be increased with increasing di
ameter. However, the influence of the anchor diameter decreases with increasing edge dis
tance (c1 = 100 mm).
14 35
10 25 hef = 200 mm
[kN]
[kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
8 hef = 200 mm 20
6 15
4 10 hef = 130 mm
hef = 130 mm
2 hef = 80 mm 5
hef = 80 mm
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement δδ [mm]
Displacement [mm] Displacement δδ [mm]
Displacement [mm]
10 25
M10
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
8 M10 20
M16
6 15
4 M16 10
2 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
Figure 3.7: Loaddisplacement curves of single anchors loaded perpendicular to the concrete edge
In Figure 3.8, the displacement at failure is evaluated for the tested diameters M10, M16 and
M24. This evaluation is of great significance when analyzing the loadbearing behavior of
anchor groups with hole clearance. With increasing edge distance, the displacement at failure
is increasing. This increase is more pronounced for small anchor diameter (Figure 3.8a). For
54 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
anchor diameters M16 and M24, nearly no difference in the displacement at failure was ob
served for an edge distance of c1 = 50 mm and c1 = 100 mm (Figure 3.8b and c).
10 12
c = 50 mm c = 100 mm c = 50 mm c = 100 mm
10 c = 150 mm c = 200 mm
8
Displacement δ [mm]
Displacement δ [mm]
8
6
4
4
2
2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom
(c) M24
Figure 3.8: Analysis of the displacements at ultimate load of anchors loaded towards the edge
Little information about the shear stiffness is available in literature. While it has long been
understood that the anchor capacity is associated with various levels of deformation and stiff
ness, the implementation of deformation and stiffness criteria in anchor design is still largely
a theoretical exercise (Silva, 2007). However, in particular for anchor groups, the stiffness is a
criterion necessary for calculating the load distribution to the individual anchors (statically
indeterminate systems). This section should contribute to provide more information about the
parameters influencing the shear stiffness and gives a number for the kVfactors of adhesive
bonded anchors located close to the edge and loaded perpendicular to the edge (Table 3.3).
Embedment depth was not found to change the initial slope of the loaddisplacement curve
(Section 3.2.1.4.1). Therefore, the shear stiffness kV is only evaluated with respect to anchor
diameter and edge distance. Shear stiffness is assumed to be the ratio of 0.5Vmax / δ(0.5Vmax).
This secant stiffness can be taken as initial stiffness, since the evaluation has shown that in
crease of the loaddisplacement curve up to 0.5Vmax is approximately in the elastic range
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 55
(Figure 3.9). The shear stiffness was found to be mainly influenced by the anchor diameter.
Edge distance seems only to influence the shear stiffness for increasing diameters if the dis
tance of the anchorage to the free edge is small.
60 35
55 c = 50 mm
Average shear stiffness kV,m [kN/mm]
50
Vmax
30
c = 100 mm
45
c = 150 mm 25
40
c = 200 mm
35 20
30
25 0.5Vmax
15
20
10
15
kV
10
5
5
kV1
0 0
8 12 16 20 24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
δ(0.5Vmax ) δ(Vmax )
Diameter dnom [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.9: (a) Average shear stiffness kV,m evaluated at 0.5Vmax [kN/mm] plotted as a function of the
anchor diameter (b) Assumption for the determination of the shear stiffness
Table 3.3: Average shear stiffness and scatter range for single anchors loaded towards the edge
The breakout observed in the experimental investigations was measured after the test and rec
orded in a protocol. Figure 3.10 shows the description of the measured data. The results of
breakout width, breakout height and first cracking are summarized in Figure 3.11.
Whereas in general for mechanical anchors cracking into the direction of the free edge devel
ops in front of the anchor, in the adhesivebonded anchor tests, cracking was observed to start
behind the anchor rod due to bonding with the surrounding concrete. Independent of the ratio
lf/dnom, first cracking in front of the anchor started in a depth of about three to four times the
anchor diameter (Figure 3.11a). Therefore, a load increase for larger embedment depth after
first cracking in front of the anchor depends on the ability of load redistribution along the
lower part of the embedment length. Breakout width, which is assumed in current calculation
to be three times the edge distance, was observed to be between 1.5 and two times this value.
This agrees well with the findings obtained by Hofmann (2005) where an average breakout
angle of 23° was observed. With increasing edge distance, the ratio breakout width to edge
distance tends to decrease. This agrees with results exist in the literature (Fuchs, 1990; Hof
mann, 2005). Breakout height is assumed to be 1.5 times the edge distance. It is neglected that
cracking starts in a certain depth in front of the anchor. The results show that the breakout
height is slightly increasing with increasing ratio lf/dnom. The averaged breakout height can be
56 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
assumed to be three times the edge distance (in accordance with the breakout width as well as
twice the value given in current calculation). The breakout height related to first cracking (as
sumed to be ∆lf = 3dnom) is averaged twice the edge distance (Figure 3.11d).
First cracking
B B
∆lf ∆lf
α α
H H
β2 β2
β1 β1
Figure 3.10: Description of the measured data and photograph of a section through the breakout
body
20 10
c = 50 mm
18
c = 100 mm
16 8
c = 150 mm
14
c = 200 mm
12 6
∆lf / dnom
Linear
B/c
10 (Reihe5)
8 4
6 c = 50 mm
c = 100 mm
4 2
c = 150 mm
2
c = 200 mm
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom lf/dnom
10 10
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
c = 100 mm c = 100 mm
8 8
c = 150 mm c = 150 mm
c = 200 mm c = 200 mm
6 6
(H3dnom)/c
H/c
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom lf/dnom
Table 3.4: Averaged breakout data and comparison with assumption in current calculation
The location of the LVDTs to measure the crack propagation is described in Section 3.2.1.3.
In the following, the results are discussed. When loading an anchor perpendicular to the edge
it is assumed that cracking propagates symmetrically towards the edge (LVDT2 ~ LVDT3).
The results confirm this assumption (Figure 3.12). The mean deviation is 19%. This can be
explained with the inhomogeneities of the concrete. It was found that movement of the
LVDTs starts by an average of about 0.006 mm. Therefore, this value was taken as a criterion
for starting crack opening. In Figure 3.13, the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3
of a single anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge are compared. The crack opening curves
shown in this graph are representative for the measured data of the single anchor tests with a
load direction perpendicular to the edge. Crack opening was found to start at about 40% of
ultimate load. This is in good correlation with Fuchs (1990).
Figure 3.14 shows the crack opening at ultimate load. The mean of LVDT2 and LVDT3 is
about 0.2 mm for a ratio lf/dnom = 5. For edge distances c1 = 50 mm and c1 = 100 mm, the
mean of LVDT2 and LVDT3 at ultimate load is increasing with increasing ratio lf/dnom. For
larger edge distances (c1 = 150 mm and c1 = 200 mm), the mean of LVDT2 and LVDT3 re
mains constant. Cracking in front of the anchor was not observed in every test. Therefore the
crack width of LVDT4 scatters in a wide range (0.0 – 2.2 mm / Ø = 0.3 mm). In the lower
part of the embedment depth nearly no crack opening at ultimate load (LVDT5) was meas
ured (0.0 – 0.17 mm / Ø = 0.07 mm).
4.0
3.0
2.5
LVDT2 [mm]
LVDT2 LVDT3
2.0
1.5
1.0
LVDT4 and 5
∆m = 19%
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
LVDT3 [mm]
Figure 3.12: Comparison of crack width of LVDT2 and LVDT3 at ultimate load
58 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
0.8 4.0
0.72 3.5
LVDT3
0.64
3.0
Crack opening Δw [mm]
Displacement δ [mm]
0.56 LVDT2
0.48 2.5
0.4 2.0
∆w = 0.006 mm
0.32 1.5
~ 0.4Vmax
Measured load displacement
0.24
curve 1.0
0.16 Vmax
0.08 0.5
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load V [kN]
Figure 3.13: Comparison of the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3
(example: M16, hef = 80 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
3,5 2,5
c = 50 mm LVDT4
3,0
c = 100 mm 2,0 LVDT5
Mean (LVDT2; LVDT3) [mm]
2,5 c = 150 mm
c = 200 mm 1,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
1,0
0,5
0,5
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
To evaluate the influence of anchor diameter, embedment depth and edge distance on the ul
timate load, the measured loads were normalized to a compressive strength of 30 MPa accord
ing to Section 3.1. Figure 3.15 shows the load increase for the tested diameters. Anchor tests
in which steel rupture occurred are not considered in the graphs (e.g. M16, c1 = 200 mm,
hef > 130 mm). The evaluation of the results shows that the influence of the anchor diameter
depends on the edge distance. With increasing edge distance the influence of the diameter
decreases. For an edge distance c1 = 150 mm, the failure load even dropped down for an an
chor rod M24. The results show that the influence of the anchor diameter on the capacity
seems not to be affected by the embedment depth as assumed in Equation 2.42.
In order to evaluate the percentage increase of the ultimate load with increasing anchor di
ameter, Figure 3.15b), d), f), and h) show the measured ultimate loads related to the measured
ultimate loads of an anchor bolt M16 (Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16) for the various edge distances and
embedment depths. The maximum increase of the load when increasing the anchor diameter
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 59
from dnom = 10 to 24 mm is about 25% for small edge distances (c1 = 50 mm). For larger edge
distances (c1 ≥ 150 mm), the load increase is negligible.
22 1.4
hef = 50mm
hef=50 mm
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
20 hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm 1.2
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
18 hef=200 1.0
hef = 200mm
mm
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
hef=320
h mm
ef = 320 mm
16 hef=450
h = 450mm
mm 0.8
ef
14 0.6
hef = 80mm
hef=80 mm
12 0.4 hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
hef = 200mm
hef=200 mm
10 0.2
hef = 320mm
hef=320 mm
8 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
52 1.4
hef = 50mm
hef=50 mm
48
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
hef = 80mm
hef=80 mm 1.2
44
hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
40 hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm
0.8
hef=450
hef = 450mm
mm
36
0.6
32 hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
0.4 hef=130
28 hef = 130mm
mm
hef = 200mm
hef=200 mm
24 0.2
hef = 320mm
hef=320 mm
20 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
(c) c1 = 100 mm, ultimate load (d) c1 = 100 mm, related ultimate load
74 1.4
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
70 1.2
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm
66 1.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm
62 hef=450
hef = 450mm
mm 0.8
58 0.6
hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
54 0.4
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm
50 0.2
hef=320
h mm
ef = 320 mm
46 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
(e) c1 = 150 mm, ultimate load (f) c1 = 150 mm, related ultimate load
60 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
130 1.4
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
120 1.2
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
110 hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm
100 hef=450 0.8
hef = 450mm
mm
90 0.6
80 0.4
70 0.2
hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
60 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
(g) c1 = 200 mm, ultimate load (h) c1 = 200 mm, related ultimate load
Figure 3.15: Influence of the anchor diameter on the ultimate load for different embedment depth
In Figure 3.16, the normalized ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the stiffness ratio
lf/dnom. For the tested edge distances, an increase of the ratio lf/dnom up to about 20 results in an
increase of the ultimate load. However, the influence of the ratio lf/dnom on the capacity de
creases with increasing edge distance.
To get information about the percentage increase of the ultimate load with increasing embed
ment depth, Figure 3.16b), d), f) and h) show the measured ultimate loads related to the meas
ured ultimate loads of an anchor bolt with a stiffness ratio lf/dnom = 5 (Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5) for
the various edge distances and anchor diameters. The maximum increase of the load when
increasing the embedment depth from 5dnom to 20dnom is about 40% for small edge distances
(c1 = 50 mm). For larger edge distances (c1 ≥ 150 mm), the load increase is decreasing. More
over, in particular for larger edge distances the influence of the stiffness ratio on the capacity
follows an exponential function. Only in case of small edge distances the influence can be
approximated by a linear function with sufficient accuracy.
22 2.0
M10 M10
1.8
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
20 M16 M16
1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5 (lf/d=5.4)
M24 M24
18 1.4
1.2
16
1.0
14
0.8
12 0.6
(M10 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
0.4
(M16 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
10
0.2 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
8 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
50 2.0
M10 M10
1.8
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
45 M16 M16
1.6
35 1.0
0.8
30
0.6
(M10 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
0.4
25 (M16 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
0.2 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
20 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(c) c1 = 100 mm, ultimate load (d) c1 = 100 mm, related ultimate load
75 2.0
M16 M16
1.8
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
70 M24 M24
1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5 (lf/d=5.4)
1.4
65
1.2
60 1.0
0.8
55
0.6
0.4
50 (M16 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
0.2 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
45 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(e) c1 = 150 mm, ultimate load (f) c1 = 150 mm, related ultimate load
120 2.0
105
1.4
100
1.2
95
1.0
90
0.8
85
0.6
80
75 0.4
(M16 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
70 0.2 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
65 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(g) c1 = 200 mm, ultimate load (h) c1 = 200 mm, related ultimate load
Figure 3.16: Influence of the stiffness ratio on the ultimate load for different anchor diameters
The parameter most influencing the capacity of a single anchor for concrete edge breakout is
the distance of the anchorage to the concrete edge. The reason is that this parameter deter
mines the size of the fracture surface. The area of this surface in which the power of the edge
62 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
distance is 2.0 is reduced to 1.5 in current calculation models. This is caused by the socalled
size effect which implies that at ultimate load the tensile stress taken as an average over the
fracture surface is not constant, but instead decreases as the size of the fracture area increases.
More details to the size effect are given in Eligehausen et al. (2006). The size effect was
found by theoretical arguments by Bažant (1984).
However, in the literature, the influence of edge distance on the ultimate load is considered in
different ways (see Section 2.2), because a better agreement with test results might be ob
tained by considering an equation in which the power of the edge distance is some other value
for near edge anchorages.
Clear evidence about the influence of the edge distance is difficult to obtain, since the analysis
of the test results has shown that the influence of anchor diameter and embedment depth de
pend on the distance of the anchorage to the concrete edge. However, knowing that this has an
influence on the evaluation, in Figure 3.17a), c), and e), the measured ultimate loads are plot
ted as a function of the edge distance under otherwise same parameters. In the analysis, only
single anchor tests are considered where concrete edge failure occurred. The influence of the
edge distance on the ultimate strength can be evaluated in the range for different embedment
depth and diameter. In Figure 3.17b), d), and f), the measured ultimate loads are related to the
measured ultimate loads of single anchors with an edge distance c1 = 50 mm. For comparison,
the load increases in which the power of the edge distance is 1.33, 1.5 and 2.0 are illustrated.
The evaluation shows that an exponent 2.0 overestimates the ultimate loads and leads to un
conservative results for all tested anchor diameters since the size effect is neglected. However,
with increasing anchor diameter the comparison shows that the edge distance term raised to
the 1.5 power also leads to unconservative results. According to Bazant’s size effect law the
greatest possible size effect which will be obtained when applying linear fracture mechanics
leads to a minimum exponent of 1.5 for the influence of the edge distance. Therefore, this
phenomenon may be explained by the combination of the size effect with other influencing
factors (e.g. concrete spalling). This is numerically discussed in Section 4.5.1.4.
Due to the experimental results, in summarizing, it can be stated that the edge distance term
raised to the 4/3 power is a better predictor of the capacity than this term raised to the 1.5
power. This is in good correlation with the proposed WJE prediction equation for anchorages
loaded perpendicular to the edge which is described in Anderson and Meinheit (2006) (see
Section 2.2).
40 4.0
hef
hef == 50 mm c2.0A
35 3.5
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
hef
hef == 80 mm c1.5A
30 3.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,c=50mm
hef
hef == 130 mm
c1.33A
25 2.5
hef
hef == 200 mm
20 2.0
hef = 50 mm
hef
15 1.5
hef = 80 mm
hef
10 1.0
hef = 130 mm
hef mm
5 0.5
hef
hef = 200 mm
mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 50 75 100 125 150
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
100 8.0
90 hef
hef = 80 mm c1.5A
7.0
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
80 hef
hef = 130 mm
mm c2.0A
6.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,c=50mm
70 hef
hef = 200 mm
mm
c1.33A
5.0
60 hef
hef = 320 mm
mm
50 4.0
40 hef = 80
hef 80 mm
mm
3.0
30 hef = 130
hef 130 mm
mm
2.0
20 hef = 200
hef 200 mm
mm
1.0
10 hef = 320
hef 320 mm
mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
130 8.0
120 hef
hef == 130 mm c1.5A
7.0
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
110
hef
hef == 200 mm c2.0A
100 6.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,c=50mm
90 hef == 320 mm
hef
c1.33A
80 5.0
hef
hef == 450 mm
70
4.0
60
50 hef = 130 mm
hef mm
3.0
40 hef = 200 mm
hef mm
30 2.0
hef = 320 mm
hef mm
20
1.0
10 hef = 450 mm
hef mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
Figure 3.17: Influence of the edge distance on the ultimate load for single anchorages loaded per
pendicular to the concrete edge
In Section 2.2, various recommendations for the calculation of the concrete edge breakout
failure mode of single anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge are discussed. In Table 3.5
the prediction equations are summarized and the mean value, standard deviation (SD) and
coefficient of variation (COV) are given for the ratio Vu,test/Vu,prediction. In Figure 3.18, the
comparison of test result to prediction equation is plotted as a function of edge distance, an
chor diameter, embedment depth and stiffness ratio in order to evaluate how accurate the pa
rameters are captured by the various equations. Anchor diameter and embedment depth are
not limited in the mean equations for the comparison.
64 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Table 3.5: Comparison of various prediction equations to calculate the ultimate strength of a sin
gle anchor fail in concrete edge breakout with test results (n = 104 tests)
Vu,test/Vu,prediction
Prediction equation
Mean SD COV
(1) Vu ,c 1.8 0.09 f cc ,200 c1 h 2 2
/ c 1
2
h2 St. Bouwresearch (1971) 1.38 0.51 37.31%
(2) Vu ,c 0.48 c1 (d / 2) / tan
2
f cc,200 Cannon et al. (1975) 0.83 0.15 17.71%
(3) Vu ,c 190 0.23c1 f cc ,200
2
2/ 3
Paschen and Schönhoff (1982) 1.54 0.45 29.07%
(4) Vu ,c 4.8 c1
1.5
f cc,200 Shaikh and Yi (1985) 1.36 0.27 19.61%
(5) Vu ,c 0.48 c1
2
f cc,200 ACI 34985 (1985) 1.48 0.58 39.22%
0.2
(7) Vu ,c d l f / d f cc,200 c11.5 CCD approach (Fuchs, 1995a) 1.10 0.15 13.8%
0.3
(8) Vu ,c 1.6 d l f / d f cc,200 c11.35 Kummerow (1996) 0.97 0.10 10.72%
d l /d
0.3
(9) Vu ,c 7.0 f f cc,200 c11.1 Kummerow (1996) 0.69 0.11 15.24%
l / d
0.23
(10) Vu ,c 1.4 d f cc,200 c11.5 Wüstholz (1999)
0.34
f 1.06 0.12 11.39%
(11) Vu ,c 3.0 d f 1 l f 1
0.5
0.2
12 mean equations found in literature are compared. For every mean equation, the trendline is
plotted as a function of the various parameters for a total number of 104 tests (tests are sum
marized in Table A1 (Appendix A)). As expected, in order to predict the ultimate strength
accurately, the mean equation needs to consider the size effect and the influence of anchor
diameter and embedment depth. Equations which do not take into account these effects are
not suitable to predict the ultimate strength with sufficient accuracy for the entire range of
tested parameters. Therefore, complexity of the equations increases with increasing correla
tion with test results. The shear equation developed by Hofmann (2005) (trendline 11) shows
the best correlation with test results since the evaluation has shown that anchor diameter and
embedment depth decrease with increasing edge distance. However, for increasing stiffness
ratio, in particular for small edge distance, the prediction leads to unconservative results. As a
drawback which brings this equation into discussion, is the fact that the equation is semi
empirical which leads to complicated function terms and makes this equation not convertible
to inchpound equivalent units.
A new proposal (Grosser, 2011a) is given (blue trendline (13)) which captures all relevant
parameters with good agreement to the test results. The average testtopredicted ratio is 1.01
with a 0.08 standard deviation (COV = 8.04%). The equation is discussed in Section 5.2.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 65
2.0 1.8
n = 104 tests n = 104 tests (5)
(3) (1)
1.8
1.6
(3)
1.6
(4) 1.4
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
(5) (1) (4) (6)
1.4
(7) 1.2
(10) (8) (10) (7)
1.2 (6)
(11) (12)
1.0
1.0
(12) (13)
(8) (11)
(13) 0.8
0.8 (9)
(2) (2)
(9)
0.6 0.6
50 75 100 125 150 175 200 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Edge distance c1 [mm] Anchor diameter dnom [mm]
(a) (b)
2.0 2.0
n = 104 tests (5) n = 104 tests
(3) (5)
1.8 1.8
(1) (3)
(1)
(4)
1.6 1.6
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
(4)
(6)
1.4 1.4
(6)
1.2
(7) (7)
(10) 1.2 (10)
(12)
1.0 1.0
(13) (2)
(13) (2) (12)
0.8 0.8
(9) (8) (11) (9) (8) (11)
0.6 0.6
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5 8 10 13 15 18 20
Embedment depth hef [mm] Stiffness ratio hef/dnom
(c) (d)
Figure 3.18: Ratio of test result to prediction equation for the concrete edge breakout failure mode
plotted as a function of the (a) edge distance (b) anchor diameter (c) embedment depth
(d) stiffness ratio
3.2.2 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded parallel to the free edge in low
strength concrete without influence of the member thickness
The influence of a shear load applied parallel to the edge on the concrete edge breakout is
supported by limited test data only (Stichting Bouwresearch, 1971; Applied Research Labora
tories, 2003a,b; Hilti, 2004; Hofmann, 2005; Anderson and Meinheit, 2006) (see Section 2.2).
Nevertheless, various recommendations based on theoretical considerations can be found in
the literature.
To provide more information about the parameters controlling the loadbearing behavior for a
load direction parallel to the edge for the concrete edge failure mode, experimental investiga
tions were performed. Main focus in this section is the influence of edge distance, anchor di
ameter, and embedment depth.
equation to calculate the breakout strength for a load direction parallel to the edge is presented
in Section 5.3.
Experimental testing with single anchors loaded parallel to the edge is only possible in a lim
ited range since steel rupture even governs the ultimate load for small edge distances.
Testing described in this section was performed in the range where shear strength is con
trolled by concrete edge breakout (limiting edge distance cmax = 200 mm). Shear tests were
also performed with very small edge distance since in particular for sill plate connections
edge distances of 1.75 in. (44.45 mm) with anchor diameters up to 1 in. (25.4 mm) are com
mon applications. The tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with
continuously threaded rods with M12, M16, M20 and M24 anchor bolts. All anchors had a
steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa).
Results are taken from different research projects (Eligehausen, Grosser, 2007; Grosser,
2008a; Grosser, 2010a; Grosser, 2011b).
Table 3.6: Test program for single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge
Testing was performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs. Width and length were
taken as 1635 mm with a slab thickness of h > 2c1. The measured compressive strength at the
beginning of testing scattered between 22.6 and 32.5 MPa (average 26.8 MPa). Detailed in
formation about drilling and cleaning can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2.
The tests were carried out on the strong floor in the laboratory of the Institute of Construction
Materials (IWB). The test setup for shear testing is described in detail in Section 3.2.1.3.
However, when applying a load parallel to the edge, some modifications in the test setup are
necessary. The modifications are described in the following. If not otherwise stated for de
tailed information about the testing procedure, Section 3.2.1.3 applies.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 67
When loading an anchor parallel to the edge, the concrete member is loaded eccentrically. To
avoid a rotation of the concrete slab in this case, a steel angle was mounted to the strong floor
and supported against the concrete slab. The failure body can develop completely without
influence of the support since the shear apparatus reacts against the edge not affected by the
breakout. A schematic sketch of the modified test setup is shown in Figure 3.19.
Figure 3.19: Modified shear test frame for a load direction parallel to the edge (loading and tie
down system) and photograph of the load application
Analogous to shear testing perpendicular to the edge, anchorage plate displacement was
measured with linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT). The displacement of the
shear plate was measured into the direction of loading (LVDT (1)). In order to get information
about the crack propagation, additional LVDTs were glued to the concrete member to deter
mine the crack opening in front of the anchor (LVDT (2)) and behind the anchor (LVDT (3)).
The location of the LVDTs is shown in Figure 3.20. The LVDTs were glued in a distance of
100 mm to the anchor. Cracking at the front side was measured along the embedment length
(LVDT (4) and (5)). It is noted that in the single anchor tests with edge distance c1 = 45 mm
only the displacement (LVDT (1)) was measured.
LVDT (4) 15
LVDT
(1)
LVDT (5)
edge
LVDT (4) + (5)
Figure 3.20: Location of the LVDTs for single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge
68 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
In the following, the main results for a load direction parallel to the edge are discussed. The
measured data are summarized in Table A2 (Appendix A).
In Figure 3.21, typical loaddisplacement curves of single anchors loaded parallel to the edge
are plotted for example for an edge distance of 50 mm and 100 mm.
50 90
hef = 320 mm
45 80
40 hef = 320 mm hef = 200 mm
70
35
60
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
30
50
25 hef = 130 mm
hef = 200 mm 40
20 hef = 80 mm
30
15 hef = 130 mm
hef = 80 mm
10 20
5 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement δ [mm]
[mm] Displacement δ [mm]
[mm]
70 120
60 M24 M24
100
50
80
M16
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
40
60
30
M16
40
20
10 20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
Figure 3.21: Loaddisplacement curves of single anchors loaded parallel to the concrete edge
In Figure 3.21a) and b), the influence of different embedment depths on the ultimate load and
the deflection is illustrated. As for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, no influence
of the embedment depth on the initial stiffness can be observed for shear applied parallel to
the edge. Independent of the embedment depth, the slope is nearly the same for all curves.
Furthermore, the post peak behavior is influenced by the embedment depth. With decreasing
embedment depth, the descending branch is steeper compared to larger embedment depth.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 69
The reason is that the residual strength is higher compared to small embedments, because the
load can be resisted in the lower part of the anchor rod. Figure 3.21c) and d) show the influ
ence of the diameter on the ultimate load and the displacement for single anchors loaded par
allel to the edge. Analog to the loaddisplacement behavior of single anchors loaded perpen
dicular to the edge (Section 3.2.1.4.1), the initial slope is increasing with increasing diameter
since the anchor system is stiffer. It can be observed that the capacity increases with increas
ing diameter strongly. This is discussed in Section 3.2.2.3.5.
As for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, the displacement at failure of single an
chors loaded parallel to the edge is of great interest when analyzing the loadbearing behavior
of anchor groups with hole clearance. To get reliable information about the displacement at
failure, testing in only one concrete batch should be compared not to falsify the results. There
fore, only the displacement behavior described in Grosser (2011b) is evaluated in the follow
ing.
12 18
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
16
10 c = 100 mm
c = 100 mm
14
Displacement δ [mm]
Displacement δ [mm]
c = 150 mm
8 12
c = 200 mm
10
6
8
4 6
4
2
2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
Figure 3.22: Analysis of the displacements at ultimate load of single anchors loaded parallel to the
edge
Pronounced
6 local spalling
5
δ(V90°,m) / δ(V0°,m)
4
3.4
3
2 δ (V0°)
δ (V90°)
1 c1
Large deformation
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Edge distance c1 [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.23: Analysis of the displacements at ultimate load (a) Comparison of the displacements of
anchors loaded parallel and perpendicular to the edge (b) Closeup of an anchor with
an edge distance of c1 = 200 mm loaded parallel to the edge (M24, hef = 200 mm)
70 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
In Figure 3.22, the displacement at failure is evaluated for the tested diameters M16 and M24.
With increasing edge distance, the displacement at failure is increasing. Compared to a load
direction perpendicular to the edge, the displacement at failure is averaged 3.4 times higher
for a load direction parallel to the edge. This is shown in Figure 3.23. However, it is noted
that the ratio δ(V90°) / δ(V0°) is increasing with increasing edge distance. This is based on the
fact that for larger edge distances and a load direction parallel to the edge steel rupture is very
close to concrete edge failure. This leads to increased displacements for larger edge distances
when applying the load parallel to the edge compared to a load direction perpendicular to the
edge (see Figure 3.8).
In Section 3.2.1.4.2, it is discussed why information about shear stiffness is necessary. This
section provides information about the parameters influencing the shear stiffness and gives a
number for the kVfactors of adhesive bonded anchors located close to the edge and loaded
parallel to the edge (Table 3.7). As for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge, em
bedment depth was not found to change the initial slope of the loaddisplacement curve (Sec
tion 3.2.2.3.1). Therefore, the shear stiffness kV is only evaluated with respect to anchor diam
eter and edge distance. Shear stiffness is assumed to be the ratio of 0.5Vmax / δ(0.5Vmax). This
secant stiffness can be taken as initial stiffness since the evaluation has shown that increase of
the loaddisplacement curve up to 0.5Vmax is in the elastic range (Figure 3.24). The shear stiff
ness was found to be influenced by anchor diameter only. No influence of the edge distance
on the shear stiffness can be observed.
50 180
Vmax
45 c = 50 mm
160
Average shear stiffness kV,m [kN/mm]
40 c = 100 mm
140
c = 150 mm
35
120
c = 200 mm
30
100
25
0.5Vmax
80
20
60
15
10 40 kV
5 20
kV1
0 0
8 12 16 20 24 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Diameter dnom [mm] δ(0.5Vmax ) δ(Vmax )
(a) (b)
Figure 3.24: (a) Average shear stiffness kV,m evaluated at 0.5Vmax [kN/mm] plotted as a function of
the anchor diameter (b) Assumption for the determination of the shear stiffness
Mean shear stiffness for an anchor bolt M16 can be taken as 24 kN/mm and for an anchor bolt
M24 as 35 kN/mm. This is in good correlation with the results of single anchors loaded per
pendicular to the edge. The load direction seems only to influence the shear stiffness for small
edge distance.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 71
Table 3.7: Average shear stiffness and scatter range for single anchors loaded parallel to the edge
Figure 3.25a) shows a typical crack pattern observed in the experimental investigations. The
breakout is not symmetrically as it is for an anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge. Fur
thermore, the local spalling in front of the anchorage is more pronounced. Measuring first
cracking is challenging since the concrete in front of the anchor is crushed after testing. How
ever, as shown in Figure 3.25b), cracking starts close to the concrete surface. Breakout width
in both directions (in front and behind the anchor) and breakout height were measured. Figure
3.26 shows the description of the measured data. The results are summarized in Figure 3.27.
Figure 3.25: Breakout body observed in the single anchor tests (load direction parallel to the edge)
B1 B2
α1 α2
β1
H
Breakout width in front of the anchor (B1) is averaged about 1.7 times the breakout width be
hind the anchor (B2). Therefore, the assumption that the breakout body of a single anchor
loaded perpendicular and parallel to the edge is identical for both cases (e.g. Mallée, Pusill
Wachtsmuth, 2007a,b) is not justified. With increasing edge distance, the ratio breakout width
to edge distance tends to decrease. The results show that the breakout height increases with
increasing ratio lf/dnom. The averaged breakout height can be assumed to be three times the
72 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
edge distance. This is in good correlation with the results of single anchors loaded perpendic
ular to the edge (Section 3.2.1.4.3). However, it is noted that due to redistribution of the load
along the embedment depth, the breakout height measured after testing is not necessarily re
lated to the fracture surface correlated with the ultimate load. Moreover, it should be men
tioned that in some cases no cracks at the front side were visible and therefore the height
could not be measured.
12 12
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
10 c = 100 mm 10 c = 100 mm
c = 150 mm c = 150 mm
8 8
c = 200 mm c = 200 mm
B2/c
B1/c
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom lf/dnom
10
c = 50 mm
c = 100 mm
8
c = 150 mm
c = 200 mm
6
H/c
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom
Table 3.8: Averaged breakout data and comparison with assumption in current calculation
The location of the LVDTs to measure the crack propagation is described in Section 3.2.2.2.
In the following, the results are discussed.
In contrast to a load direction towards the edge (see Section 3.2.1.4.4), for a load direction
parallel to the edge, it can be seen that the crack opening of LVDT2 and LVDT3 is not sym
metrically (LVDT2 > LVDT3). The mean deviation of the crack width of LVDT2 and
LVDT3 at ultimate load is about 240% (Figure 3.28).
3.5
3.0
2.5
LVDT2 [mm]
∆m = 243%
1.5
At LVDT3 = 2.4·LVDT2
1.0
0.5
Idealized symmetric cracking LVDT4 and 5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
LVDT3 [mm]
Figure 3.28: Comparison of crack width of LVDT2 and LVDT3 at ultimate load
As for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge, for single anchors loaded parallel to
the edge, it was also found that movement of the LVDTs starts by an average of about
0.006 mm. Therefore this value was taken as a criterion for starting crack opening. In Figure
3.29 the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3 of a single anchor loaded parallel to
the edge are compared. The crack opening curves shown in this graph are representative for
the measured data of the single anchor tests with a load direction parallel to the edge.
0.4 12
0.36 11
∆w = 0.006 mm 10
0.32
~0.8Vmax 9
Crack opening Δw [mm]
Displacement δ [mm]
Load V [kN]
Figure 3.29: Comparison of the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3
(example: M16, hef = 200 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
74 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Crack opening for LVDT2 (in front of the anchor) was found to start at about 40% of the ul
timate load. This is in good correlation with the crack opening measured in single anchor tests
with a load direction perpendicular to the edge. Crack opening for LVDT3 (behind the an
chor) was found to start at about 80% of ultimate load.
Figure 3.30 shows the crack opening at ultimate load. Crack width for all LVDTs at ultimate
load is increasing with increasing ratio lf/dnom. At ultimate load, the crack width in front of the
anchor (LVDT2) is about 3.5 times the crack width measured behind the anchor bolt
(LVDT3). Cracking at the front side was not observed in every test. The crack width of
LVDT4 scatters in a wide range (0.0 – 1.1 mm / Ø = 0.3 mm). In the lower part of the em
bedment depth nearly no crack opening at ultimate load (LVDT5) was measured (0.0 –
0.44 mm / Ø = 0.1 mm).
3.5 1.5
LVDT2 LVDT4
3.0
LVDT3 1.3 LVDT5
Crack opening Δw [mm]
2.0
0.8
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.5 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
To evaluate the influence of anchor diameter, embedment depth, and edge distance on the
ultimate load, the measured loads were normalized to a compressive strength of 30 MPa. Fig
ure 3.31 a), c), and e) show the ultimate loads plotted as a function of the tested diameters.
Anchor tests in which steel rupture occurred prior to concrete edge failure are not considered
in the graphs. However, anchors which failed in steel rupture in the post peak due to large
deformations are considered as concrete failure (see Figure 3.32). The evaluation of the re
sults shows that the ultimate load is strongly increasing with increasing anchor diameter. This
is in contrast to anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge where especially for increasing edge
distance the evaluation shows that the difference in capacity for an M16 and an M24 anchor
bolt is negligible (Section 3.2.1.4.5). The influence of anchor diameter on the capacity for
anchors loaded parallel to the edge is stronger for larger embedment depths, which indicate
that the area of the pressure zone in front of the anchor in the direction of loading depends on
anchor diameter and embedment depth (Figure 3.31b, d and f). In contrast, Hofmann (2005)
assumed this area only to be a function of the bolt diameter. The tests with edge distance
c1 = 150 mm and embedment depth hef = 130 mm are not related to an M20 anchor bolt since
no reference test with an M16 anchor bolt exists.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 75
100 1.6
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm 1.5 hef=80mm
hef = 80 mm
90
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm 1.4 hef = 130 mm
hef=130mm
80
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.3 hef = 200 mm
hef=200mm
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
70 hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm 1.2 hef = 320 mm
hef=320mm
60 hef=450
hef = 450mm
mm 1.1
1.0
50
0.9
40
0.8
30
0.7
20 0.6
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
155 1.6
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm 1.5 hef = 80 mm
hef=80mm
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
140
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm 1.4 hef=130mm
hef = 130 mm
125 hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.3 hef=200mm
hef = 200 mm
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm 1.2 hef=320mm
110 hef = 320 mm
hef=450 1.1
hef = 450mm
mm
95
1.0
80 0.9
0.8
65
0.7
50 0.6
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
(c) c1 = 100 mm, ultimate load (d) c1 = 100 mm, related ultimate load
165 1.6
1.5 hef=80mm
hef = 80 mm
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
150
1.4 hef = 130 mm
hef=130mm
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
135 1.3
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
1.2
120
1.1
105
1.0
90 0.9
0.8
75
0.7 (hef = 130 mm related to M20)
60 0.6
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
(e) c1 = 150 mm, ultimate load (f) c1 = 150 mm, related ultimate load
Figure 3.31: Influence of the anchor diameter on the ultimate load for different embedment depth
76 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Figure 3.32: Failure observed for some tests with single anchors loaded parallel to the edge (ex
ample: M16, hef = 320 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
In Figure 3.33, the normalized ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the stiffness ratio
lf/dnom. For the tested edge distances, an increase of the ratio lf/dnom results in an increase of
the ultimate load. The evaluation of the anchors loaded parallel to the edge shows that the
influence of the ratio lf/dnom on the capacity is nearly equal for all tested edge distances. This
is in contrast to anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge where the influence of the stiffness
ratio lf/dnom on the capacity decreases with increasing edge distance (Section 3.2.1.4.5).
To get information about the percentage increase of the ultimate load with increasing ratio
lf/dnom, in Figure 3.33 b), d), and f), the related ultimate loads (Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf~5dnom) are plot
ted as a function of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom. The evaluation shows that the maximum increase
of the load when increasing the embedment depth from 5dnom to 20dnom is about 40%. For
very short embedment length of only lf = 3.3dnom, a reduction of the load of about 30% was
observed compared to an embedment length of lf = 5dnom. It is noted that for such short em
bedment depth the failure changes from concrete edge breakout to a pryout failure close to the
edge. This is discussed in Section 3.3.4.3.2.
100 2.0
M12 M12
1.8
90
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
M16 M16
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5 (lf/d=5.4) (lf/d=6.7)
1.6
80 M24 M24
1.4
70
1.2
60 1.0
0.8
50
0.6
40 (M12 related lf/dnom = 6.7)
0.4 (M16 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
30 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
0.2
20 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
155 2.0
M16 1.8 M16
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
140
M24 1.6 M24
1.2
110
1.0
95
0.8
80 0.6
0.4
65 (M16 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
0.2 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
50 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(c) c1 = 100 mm, ultimate load (d) c1 = 100 mm, related ultimate load
155 2.0
140
M20 1.6 M24
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5.4 (lf/d=6.5)
125 1.4
M24
1.2
110
1.0
95
0.8
80 0.6
0.4
65 (M20 related lf/dnom = 6.5)
0.2
(M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
50 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(e) c1 = 150 mm, ultimate load (f) c1 = 150 mm, related ultimate load
230 2.0
M24 1.8 M24
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
215
1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5.4
1.4
200
1.2
185 1.0
0.8
170
0.6
0.4
155
0.2
140 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(g) c1 = 200 mm, ultimate load (h) c1 = 200 mm, related ultimate load
Figure 3.33: Influence of the embedment depth on the ultimate load for different anchor diameters
Since the load bearingbehavior of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge is mainly controlled
by the pressure in front of the anchorage in the direction of loading, edge distance is not a
variable that significant as it is for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge. In Figure
78 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.34a) and c), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the edge distance under
otherwise same parameters. In the analysis, only single anchor tests evaluated as concrete
edge failure are considered. The evaluation shows that the ultimate load of an anchorage load
ed parallel to the edge can be increased with increasing edge distance.
In the following, a discussion about the exponent on the edge distance is given. In the litera
ture, the influence of edge distance on the ultimate load of an anchorage loaded parallel to the
edge is considered in different ways (see Section 2.2) because a better agreement with test
results might be obtained by considering an equation in which the power of the edge distance
is modified. Therefore, in Figure 3.34 b) and d), the measured ultimate loads are related to the
measured ultimate loads of single anchors with an edge distance c1 = 50 mm to evaluate the
real influence of the edge distance. For comparison, the load increases in which the power of
the edge distance is 0.5, 0.67, 0.75, 1.33, 1.5, and 2.0 are illustrated.
90 3.5
c1.5A c0.75A
80
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
3.0
70
c1.33A
2.5
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,c=50mm
60 c0.67A
50 2.0
40 hef = 80 mm
hef mm 1.5 hef = 80 mm
hef
30 hef = 130 mm
hef mm c0.5A
1.0
hef = 130 mm
hef
20 hef = 200 mm
hef mm hef = 200 mm
hef
0.5
10 hef = 320 mm
hef mm
hef = 320 mm
hef
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
240 3.5
220 c1.5A c0.75A
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
200 3.0
180 c1.33A
2.5
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,c=50mm
160 c0.67A
140 2.0
120
100 hef
h = 130
130 mm 1.5 hef = 130 mm
hef mm
ef =
80 c0.5A hef = 200 mm
hef mm
hef
h = 200
ef = 200 mm 1.0
60
hef =
hef = 320
320 mm hef = 320 mm
hef mm
40
0.5
20 hef
h = 450
ef = 450 mm hef = 450 mm
hef mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
Figure 3.34: Influence of edge distance on the ultimate load for single anchorges loaded parallel to
the concrete edge
The evaluation shows that an exponent 1.5 or 1.33 as it can be used with good agreement with
test results for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge clearly overestimates the ultimate
loads obtained in tests with single anchors loaded parallel to the edge. The comparison shows
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 79
that independent of anchor diameter and embedment depth the edge distance term raised to
the 0.67 or 0.75 power is a good predictor of the influence of edge distance on the capacity.
The theoretical background is discussed in Section 5.3.
As for single anchors loaded towards the edge, in Section 2.2, various recommendations for
the calculation of the concrete edge breakout failure mode of single anchors loaded parallel to
the edge are given as well. In Table 3.9, the prediction equations are summarized and the
mean value, standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (COV) are given for the ratio
Vu,test/Vu,prediction. In Figure 3.35, the comparison of test result to prediction equation is plotted
as a function of edge distance, anchor diameter, embedment depth and stiffness ratio in order
to evaluate how accurate the parameters are captured by the various equations. Anchor diame
ter and embedment depth are not limited in the mean equations for the comparison.
Table 3.9: Comparison of various prediction equations to calculate the ultimate strength of a sin
gle anchor fail in concrete edge breakout with test results (n = 118 tests)
Vu,test/Vu,prediction
Prediction equation
Mean SD COV
(1) Vu ,c 1.8 0.09 f cc ,200 4c1 h 2 2
/ 4c 1
2
h2 St. Bouwresearch (1971) 1.58 0.78 49.51%
0.2
(2) Vu ,c 2.0 d l f / d f cc,200 c11.5 ACI31808 (2008) 1.47 0.66 44,51%
(3) Vu ,c acc. to Eq. 2.42 with 90°,V acc. to Eq. 2.26 Hofmann (2005) 0.98 0.14 14.35%
(4) Vu ,c 7.5 d f 1 l f 1
0.5 0.2
7 various proposals for calculating the resistance of a single anchor loaded parallel to the edge
are compared. For every mean equation, the trendline is plotted as a function of the various
parameters for a total number of 118 tests (tests are summarized Table A2 (Appendix A)).
The evaluation of test results has shown that the ultimate strength is mainly controlled by
pressure in front of the anchorage and edge distance. Therefore, in order to accurately predict
the ultimate strength, the mean equation needs to consider anchor diameter and edge distance
as strong influencing parameters. Equations which do not take into account these effects are
not suitable to predict the ultimate strength with sufficient accuracy for the entire range of
tested parameters. The shear equation developed by Hofmann (2005) (trendline 3) respective
ly the modified “Hofmann”proposal (fib, 2011) (trendline 7) show the best correlation with
test results. Only for increasing stiffness ratios, the prediction is too conservative since the
pressure area in front of the anchorage is assumed to be the square of the anchor diameter in
which the positive effect of an increase of the pressure area with increasing embedment depth
is neglected. It is noted that these equations are quite complicated and not convertible to inch
pound equivalent units. Moreover, the approach requires calculating the resistance of the
80 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
same anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge to determine the resistance for a load direction
parallel to the edge.
A new proposal (Grosser, 2011b) is given (blue trendline (8)) which captures all relevant pa
rameters with good agreement to the test results. The average testtopredicted ratio is 1.00
with a 0.12 standard deviation (COV = 12.46%). The equation is discussed in Section 5.3.
2.0 2.0
(2) n = 118 tests
1.8 n = 118 tests 1.8 (1)
(1)
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
(4) (7) (3) (4) (7) (8) (2)
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
50 100 150 200 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Edge distance c1 [mm] Anchor diameter dnom [mm]
(a) (b)
2.0 2.4
(1) n = 118 tests 2.2 n = 118 tests
1.8
2.0
1.6 (1)
(2) 1.8
1.4
1.6
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
(7)
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
(c) (d)
Figure 3.35: Ratio of test result to prediction equation for the concrete edge breakout failure mode
plotted as a function of the (a) edge distance (b) anchor diameter (c) embedment depth
(d) stiffness ratio
3.2.3 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded perpendicular to the free edge in
low strength concrete with influence of the member thickness
If an anchor which is loaded in shear towards the free edge is located in a thin member, the
anchor resistance decreases since the fracture surface is truncated by the lower edge of the
concrete slab. Experimental investigations with single anchors (Zhao et al., 1988) show that
the anchor capacity is reduced if the member thickness is smaller than about 1.3 times to 1.5
times the edge distance. However, the resistance is less pronounced than assumed by the ratio
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 81
of the projected area. This is taken into account by an increase factor ψh,V for thin members.
Additionally, testing with anchor groups loaded in shear towards the edge in thin members
was found in literature (Periškić (2006a,b) and Anderson and Meinheit (2006) (see Section
2.2). Tests described in Zhao et al. (1988), Periškić (2006a,b) and Anderson and Meinheit
(2006) were performed for ratios h/c1 ≥ 0.5. The smallest slab thickness in these tests was
150 mm. However, in current approvals, the minimum member thickness required is
hmin = 100 mm. In such thin slabs no shear tests close to the edge are available in literature.
Experimental investigations with ratios h/c1 < 0.5 are challenging since very large and thin
concrete slabs with extremely wide support spacings are necessary. Furthermore, steel rupture
needs to be avoided in spite of the large edge distances. Therefore, Hofmann (2004) per
formed numerical investigations to provide first information for the range 0 < h/c1 ≤ 0.5 (see
Section 2.2). The failure load for the simulation with h/c1 = 0.24 is quite high compared to the
simulations with smaller edge distance. Experimental investigations were performed to pro
vide more information for shear loaded anchorages in thin members, in particular for ratios
h/c1 < 0.5. The investigations are part of a research project described in detail in Eligehausen,
Grosser (2007). Testing was performed comparably to Section 3.2.1. Therefore, in the follow
ing, only the differences are pointed out.
The tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with M16 and M20 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of hef = 80 mm and
90 mm in 110 mm and 120 mm thin concrete slabs. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nomi
nal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa).
Table 3.10: Test program for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the free edge in thin slabs
As mentioned, testing has to be performed in large and thin concrete slabs to analyze the con
crete edge breakout load in thin concrete members. Therefore, normal weight low strength
concrete slabs were poured with a width of up to 2500 mm for the tests with very small ratios
h/c1. The measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scattered between 24.7
and 33.7 MPa (average 26.1 MPa). For description of the concrete mix composition, and in
formation about drilling and cleaning, it is referred to Section 3.2.1.2.
The test setup was slightly modified compared to the setup described in Section 3.2.1.3. The
concrete slabs were placed on concrete cubes and supported against a reaction beam in order
to allow support spacings of up to 1600 mm (four times the edge distance). A schematic
sketch of the modified test setup is shown in Figure 3.36. The displacement of the shear plate
was measured into the direction of loading (LVDT1). Crack propagation was not measured.
82 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Figure 3.36: Modified shear test frame for testing in thin slabs (loading and tie down system) and
photograph of the load application
The results and the implementation in design are discussed in Section 5.5. Detailed infor
mation to the experimental tests can found in the research report Eligehausen, Grosser
(2007). The measured data are summarized in Table A3 (Appendix A).
70
M20, c1 = 400 mm M16, c1 = 400 mm
60
50
M16, c1 = 350 mm
[kN]
Load V [kN]
40 M16, c1 = 300 mm
30 M16, c1 = 200 mm
20 M16, c1 = 100 mm
10 M16, c1 = 80 mm
M16, c1 = 50 mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement δδ [mm]
Displacement [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.37: (a) Loaddisplacement curves of single anchors loaded perpendicular to the concrete
edge in slabs with 120 mm member thickness (b) Breakout of a single anchor with
edge distance c1 = 200 mm (h/c1 = 0.6)
As for single anchors in concrete slabs with sufficient member thickness, the initial slope of
the loaddisplacement curve is influenced by the anchor diameter. The displacement at failure
increases with increasing edge distance and decreases with increasing anchor diameter (Figure
3.37a). Compared to shear loaded anchorages close to the edge located in slabs without influ
ence of the member depth, the fracture surface is truncated by the lower edge of the concrete
slab when testing in concrete members with limited thickness (Figure 3.37b). The breakout
height equals the member thickness for all tests with h/c1 ≤ 1.5. The breakout width agrees
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 83
well with the measured breakout for single anchor tests without influence of the member
thickness (see Section 3.2.1.4.3). The breakout angle scatters for small edge distances be
tween 14° and 25°, and for large edge distances between 24° and 27°. The average breakout
angle is 22°.
80
70
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
60
50
40
M16, hhef=80mm
M16, ef
= 80 mm
30
M16, hhef=90mm
M16, ef
= 90 mm
20
M20, hhef=80mm
M20, ef
= 80 mm
10
Steel rupture
Steel rupture
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Edge distance c1 [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.38: (a) Normalized ultimate loads plotted as a function of the edge distance (b) Actual
area of a single anchor loaded in shear towards the free edge in a thin concrete mem
ber
The member thickness limits the fracture surface since the breakout height is truncated by the
lower edge of the concrete slab. Figure 3.38b) shows the actual area of a single anchor loaded
in shear towards the free edge in a thin concrete member. Assuming a 35° breakout angle, the
breakout height in a concrete member not influenced by the member thickness is 1.5 times the
edge distance. In design, a factor ψh,V for thin members is proposed which takes into account
that the reduction of the ultimate load by the ratio of the projected areas ψA,V is less than pro
portional to the member thickness. For the exponent in this increase factor, two different
numbers have been proposed. As described in Section 2.2, Zhao, Eligehausen (1992) pro
posed to raise the term (1.5c1/h) to the 1/3 exponent whereas Hofmann (2004) indicated that
this term can be raised to the 1/2 exponent. In order to evaluate the influence of a limited
member depth on the anchor resistance, in Equation 3.1 all relevant parameters are considered
to determine the increase of the ultimate load in a thin concrete member with decreasing ratio
h/c1. It is noted that the Equations 3.1 to 3.3 only apply for h ≤ 1.5c1. In a concrete member
without influence of member thickness, the Equations 3.1 to 3.3 need to be taken as c11.5 for
shear loaded single anchors close to the edge.
x
Ac,V h 1.5c1 1.5
c1.5
c1 (Eq. 3.1)
Ac0,V h,V 1 1.5c1 h
84 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
With x = 1/2, the load increase in a thin member can be expressed with Equation 3.2.
Ac,V
0
h,V c11.5 0.816 h1/ 2 c1 (Eq. 3.2)
Ac,V
With x = 1/3, the load increase in a thin member can be expressed with Equation 3.3.
Ac,V
c1.5 0.763 h2 / 3 c15/ 6 (Eq. 3.3)
Ac0,V h,V 1
In Figure 3.39, the averaged ultimate loads are related to the test result of an anchorage with
an M16 anchor bolt, embedment depth hef = 80 mm and edge distance c1 = 50 mm. Single
anchors failed in steel are not considered in this analysis. It is noted that the difference in em
bedment depth (between 80 mm and 90 mm) is neglected for comparison. Moreover, the test
results with M20 anchor bolts are also related to the test result of an anchorage with diameter
dnom = 16 mm since no reference test with edge distance c1 = 50 mm for the M20 anchor bolt
exists. However, this seems to be justified and is not falsifying the analysis since the single
anchor tests without member thickness have shown, that there is no influence of the anchor
diameter for large edge distances (see Section 3.2.1.4.5), even more for an edge distance
c1 = 400 mm. In Figure 3.39a), the related ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the edge
distance and in Figure 3.39b) as a function of the ratio h/c1. The dashed lines represent the
load increase in a concrete member without influence of the member thickness (c1.5) and the
load increase for an anchorage in a concrete member with limited member depth according to
Equation 3.2 respectively Equation 3.3. As mentioned, the anchor resistance in a thin concrete
member is reduced compared to the anchor resistance in a concrete member without influence
of the member depth. Therefore the dashed line for c11.5 does not fit the data points for
h/c1 < 1.5. Furthermore, Equation 3.3 (exponent 1/3) agrees suitably with the test data, where
as Equation 3.2 (exponent 1/2) leads to unconservative prediction of the load increase. In par
ticular for h/c1 = 0.3, Figure 3.39 shows a deviation of 35% to the unsafe side between Equa
tion 3.2 and the test data point.
10.0 10.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,c=50mm
7.0 7.0
Eq. (3.2)
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
Eq. (3.3)
4.0 4.0
trendline
3.0 3.0
Eq. (3.3)
2.0 2.0
1.0 trendline
1.0
0.0 0.0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Edge distance c1 [mm] h/c1
(a) (b)
Figure 3.39: Related ultimate loads plotted as a function of the (a) edge distance (b) ratio of mem
ber thickness to edge distance
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 85
3.2.4 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded parallel to the free edge in low
strength concrete with influence of member thickness
In design, the influence of member thickness on the anchor resistance of an anchorage loaded
parallel to the edge is considered according to anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge.
That implies that the anchor resistance in case of a limited member thickness has to be multi
plied with the reduced ratio of the projected areas and the increase factor ψh,V.
Anchorages loaded in shear parallel to the concrete edge in thin members have received near
ly no research attention. The only investigations providing information about the influence of
the member thickness on the loadbearing behavior of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge
for the concrete breakout failure mode are described in Anderson and Meinheit (2006). The
main conclusions of this research study are described in Section 2.2. Based on the results it
appears that the thickness effect on the concrete breakout capacity can be neglected for an
chorages loaded parallel to the edge.
Tests to capture a thickness influence for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge for the con
crete breakout failure mode cannot be carried out straightforward since steel rupture occurs at
relatively close edge distances. However, single anchor tests were performed to evaluate the
influence of the member thickness on the capacity of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge.
Testing was performed comparably to Section 3.2.2. Therefore, in the following, only the
differences are pointed out.
The tests were carried out with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with M16 and M20 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of lf = 80 mm in
110 mm and 135 mm thick concrete slabs. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal steel
tensile strength of 1000 MPa).
Reference tests without influence of the member depth are described in Section 3.2.2.
Table 3.11: Test program for single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge in thin slabs
The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs. The measured com
pressive strength at the beginning of testing scattered between 27.8 and 33.7 MPa (average
29.3 MPa). For description of the concrete mix composition and information about drilling
and cleaning it is referred to Section 3.2.1.2.
In principle, the tests were carried out according to Section 3.2.2.2. As for the shear tests in
thin slabs with a load direction perpendicular to the edge described in Section 3.2.3, the con
crete slabs were placed on concrete cubes. The displacement of the shear plate was measured
into the direction of loading. Crack propagation was not measured.
86 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Detailed information to the experimental tests can be found in the research report Grosser
(2010a). The measured data are summarized in Table A4 (Appendix A).
Typical failure pattern are shown in Figure 3.40. Concrete edge failure was observed for rati
os h/c1 = 1.35 and in some tests for h/c1 = 1.125. In all tests in which concrete edge failure
occurred, the failure surface was not truncated by the lower edge of the concrete member.
Even though the anchors were located far away from the supported edge (x > 4c1), splitting
failure into the direction of loading occurred for ratios h/c1 = 0.73 and in some tests for
h/c1 = 1.125. (see Figure 3.40b). In the M16 anchor bolt tests with ratio h/c1 = 0.9, either a
nearsurface spalling failure occurred (see Figure 3.40c) or the anchor failed in steel (see Fig
ure 3.40d).
(a) M16, c1 = 120 mm, h = 135 mm, h/c1 = 1.125 (b) M20, c1 = 150 mm, h = 110 mm, h/c1 = 0.73
(c) M16, c1 = 150 mm, h = 135 mm, h/c1 = 0.9 (d) M16, c1 = 150 mm, h = 135 mm, h/c1 = 0.9
Figure 3.40: Typical breakout pattern for single anchors loaded parallel to the edge in thin con
crete members (a) concrete edge failure (b) splitting failure into the direction of the
supported concrete edge (c) concrete failure (spalling) (d) steel rupture of the anchor
As mentioned, capturing a thickness influence for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge for
the concrete breakout failure mode is not straightforward since either steel rupture or splitting
failure is controlling the failure for small ratios h/c1. This is discussed in Figure 3.41. Steel
rupture is shown in both diagrams for an anchor bolt with grade 10.9. However, tests de
scribed in Section 3.2.7 have shown that the resistance for steel rupture is less than predicted
with Equation 2.39. For a better correlation with test results, the factor α was taken as 0.5
(solid line). Splitting failure was observed both for the M16 and the M20 anchor bolt at about
67 kN. It is assumed that the failure load for splitting increases with increasing edge distance.
However, for the theoretical discussion in Figure 3.41, a horizontal line for decreasing edge
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 87
distance is drawn since no further test results exist to verify this assumption. Numerical simu
lations described in Section 4.5.4.2 show that an increase of the distance to the supported edge
does not change the failure mode from splitting failure to concrete edge failure. The splitting
failure mode in the single anchor tests has to be seen as an upper limit for the ultimate load.
This splitting failure mode can only be avoided when increasing the member depth or rein
forcing the concrete slab. However, with increasing member depth (h > 1.5c1), no influence of
the lower edge of the slab is expected. The solid points in both diagrams show the ultimate
load for concrete edge failure in concrete slabs with sufficient member depth to avoid an in
fluence of the member thickness. It is noted that all failure loads for concrete failure are nor
malized to a compressive strength of 30 MPa. The intersection of splitting and concrete
breakout failure represents the transition point at which concrete breakout in thin slabs cannot
be obtained in experimental investigations. The discussion shows that concrete breakout fail
ure in thin slabs can only be obtained for ratios h/c1 > 1.0. Moreover, it is stated that the re
quirements in approvals only allow minimum member depths hmin ≥ hef + 2d0 for larger anchor
bolts. Furthermore, high strength steel (steel grade > 8.8) is not applicable.
100 140
122,50 kN
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
78,50 kN 120
80
74,46 kN
67,61 kN 100
60,13 kN 89,15 kN
60
80
66,37 kN
66,25 kN
39,16 kN
h/c1 > 1.0 60
40
h/c1 < 1.0 h/c1 > 1.1
40 h/c1 < 1.1
concrete edge failure in thick slabs concrete edge failure in thick slabs
20
steel rupture 20 steel rupture
x splitting failure x splitting failure
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
Figure 3.41: Example of a single anchor with embedment depth hef = 80 mm loaded in shear paral
lel to the free edge in a thin concrete member, transition of the observed failure modes
(a) anchor bolt M16, member thickness h = 135 mm (b) anchor bolt M20, member
thickness h = 110 mm
In the following, the influence of member thickness on the anchor resistance for the concrete
edge breakout failure mode with shear parallel to the edge is evaluated. Only single anchor
tests are considered for which reference tests in concrete slabs with sufficient member depth
are available. Reference tests are taken from Section 3.2.2. In Figure 3.42, the ultimate loads
measured in tests are shown both for thinmember tests and thickmember tests. For edge dis
tance c1 = 100 mm all anchors failed by concrete edge failure. Interestingly, the normalized
ultimate loads were slightly greater in the 135 mm thick slab than in the 360 mm thick slab.
For edge distance c1 = 150 mm, the anchors in the 135 mm thick slab failed either by near
surface spalling or steel rupture. However, the normalized ultimate loads in the thick slab
were reached in both cases in the thin slab. This indicates that there is no reduction in capacity
for the concrete edge failure mode in spite of the small ratio h/c1 = 0.9. Based on the results, it
appears that the thickness of the member is of minor significance for the concrete edge failure
mode for the case of a shear load direction parallel to the edge. This is in good correlation
with the results obtained by Anderson and Meinheit (2006).
88 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
80 1.5
concrete edge failure 1.4
Vu,test,h=135mm / Vu,test,h=360mm
concrete edge failure
h = 135 mm 1.2
70
1.10
nearsurface spalling 1.1
h = 135 mm 1.02
65 1.0
steel failure
h = 135 mm 0.9
60
0.8
ratio (thin member /
thick member) 0.7
55 h/c1 = 3.6 h/c1 = 2.4 (thick member)
0.6
h/c1 = 1.35 h/c1 = 0.9 (thin member)
50 0.5
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Edge distance c1 [mm]
Figure 3.42: Comparison of test results with shear parallel to the edge for the concrete edge failure
mode in slabs with sufficient member depth to avoid an influence of the member depth
and tests in slabs with limited member thickness (M16, hef = 80 mm)
3.2.5 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear towards the edge in low
strength concrete members of different concrete mix compositions
In current mean prediction equations to calculate the concrete edge failure load of anchorages
loaded in shear close to the edge (e.g. Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42), the only parameter
describing the base material characteristics is the concrete compressive strength. The influ
ence of concrete mix composition is assumed not to influence the breakout strength for nor
mal strength concrete. However, as shown in Section 3.3.3.4.2, the concrete edge breakout
load can highly differ from current prediction equations if the concrete mix composition is
modified (e.g. crushed aggregate instead of rounded aggregate). No systematic investigation
on the influence of concrete mix composition on the ultimate shear strength is known. Section
4.5.1.1 describes the numerically obtained influence of parameters like concrete tensile
strength fct, fracture energy Gf, and modulus of elasticity of the concrete EC since these factors
can change with varying concrete mix composition.
To provide experimental information about the influence of concrete mix composition, tests
on anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear towards the edge in different con
crete slabs of comparable compressive strength are described in this section.
Table 3.12 shows the test program. All tests were carried out with a vinylester adhesive an
chor system used with continuously threaded rods with M16 anchor bolts with an embedment
depth of hef = 100 mm. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of
1000 MPa). Four concrete slabs with different mix compositions were designed each for a
target compressive strength of fcc,150 = 30 MPa. Slab I consists of normal strength concrete
with round gravel aggregate comparable to the concrete typically used for the anchor tests at
IWB for which the mean prediction equations are developed. In slab II expanded clay aggre
gate was used instead of normal strength aggregate. Slab III was designed to represent a con
crete often used in the US with sharp crushed aggregate (granite). The concrete mix composi
tion of slab IV is equivalent to slab I. However, steel fibers (type “krampe harex DE 50/1.0
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 89
N”) with a dosage of 2535 kg/m³ were added. Anchors were tested with edge distances of
c1 = 50, 100 and 150 mm.
Table 3.12: Test program for single anchors loaded in shear towards the edge
Anchor
Concrete with … c1 [mm] hef [mm] fcc,200 [MPa]
rod
I  round gravel aggregate 30.3
50
II  expanded clay aggregate (Liapor) 27.9
M16 100 100
III  crushed rock aggregate 32.3
150
IV  round gravel aggregate / steel fiber reinforced 39.0
All tests were performed on the concrete surface encased by the formwork. Information about
drilling and cleaning can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2.
All anchors were loaded perpendicular towards the edge in slabs with sufficient member
thickness (h = 300 mm). The test setup for such a loading configuration is described in Sec
tion 3.2.1.3.
Detailed information to the experimental tests can be found in Institute of Construction Mate
rials (2010). The measured data are summarized in Table A5 (Appendix A).
In Figure 3.43a), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the edge distance.
80 2.0
slab I slab I slab II
1.8
Measured ultimate load V u,test [kN]
70
slab II slab III slab IV
1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test (slab I)
60 1.49
slab III 1.4 1.34
50 1.20 1.22
slab IV 1.2 1.12
1.11
40 1.0
1.00 1.00 1.00
30 0.8
0.75
0.6 0.65
20 0.55
0.4
10
0.2
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.43: (a) Measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the edge distance (b) Normalized
ultimate loads related to the ultimate loads obtained in slab I as a function of the edge
distance
The mean ultimate loads are normalized to the same concrete compressive strength and relat
ed to the mean ultimate loads obtained in slab I (reference concrete slab). The influence of the
concrete mix composition on the ultimate strength for the concrete edge failure mode is
90 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
shown in Figure 3.43b). It can be seen that this influence is higher for small edge distance and
is decreasing with increasing edge distance. For expanded clay aggregate (slab II), the ob
tained ultimate loads in the tests are significantly lower. For small edge distance
(c1 = 50 mm), the mean ultimate strength is 45% lower, for large edge distance
(c1 = 150 mm), the mean ultimate strength is 25% lower compared to the mean ultimate
strength obtained in the reference slab (slab I) for the same anchor configuration. Using
crushed aggregate (granite) instead of round gravel aggregate, the ultimate strength can be
increased. This agrees with the experimental and numerical investigations described in Sec
tion 3.3.3.4.2 and Section 4.5.1.1. The tests in slab IV show that the concrete breakout
strength can be highly increased by adding steel fibers to the concrete, in particular for small
edge distance. It is noted that the dosage and type of steel fibers was not varied. However, it is
assumed that the ultimate strength can be even more increased by optimizing the amount and
type of steel fibers.
In the following, the measured ultimate loads are compared with the mean predictions for
single anchors loaded in shear close to the edge for the concrete edge failure mode. In Figure
3.44a) the comparison is shown using Equation 2.41 as mean prediction equation with a pre
factor k = 0.9. The measured ultimate loads in slab I (reference concrete slab with round grav
el aggregate) agree well with the calculated values. For light weight aggregate a reduction
factor of 0.6 should be conservatively taken into account. Analog the comparison with Equa
tion 2.42 is shown in Figure 3.44b). For small edge distance, the calculated values overesti
mate the measured ultimate loads obtained in slab I.
2.0 2.0
1.8 slab I slab II 1.8 slab I slab II
Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation
Figure 3.44: Comparison of test results with current calculation approaches for single anchors
loaded in shear perpendicular to the free edge for the concrete edge failure mode
(a) Comparison with Equation 2.41 (b) Comparison with Equation 2.42
Note that in ACI 31808 a modification factor λ accounts for lightweight concrete. This value
λ = 0.75 for alllightweight concrete. In European standards, no reduction factor is proposed
for lightweight concrete. Such base material is excluded and demands for a regulations in in
dividual case. European standards (e.g. EOTA (1997): ETAG 001, Annex C) explicitly apply
to anchorages in structural normal weight concrete (concrete produced with normal weight
aggregates). Based on the current test results a reduction factor of 0.6 should be used for an
chorages in lightweight concrete.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 91
3.2.6 Anchors arranged close to the edge in high strength concrete members
The ultimate load of an anchor loaded perpendicular to the free edge for the concrete edge
failure mode is influenced by the tension capacity of the concrete, assumed to be proportional
to (fcc,200)0.5. For a load direction parallel to the edge, the anchor can resist a higher load com
pared to an anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge. This is taken into account by multiplying
the resistance of an anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge with an increase factor. The in
crease factor proposed by Hofmann (2005) (Equation 2.47) rises in proportion to (fcc,200)0.25.
Thus, the capacity of an anchor loaded parallel to the edge is proportional to (fcc,200)0.75. How
ever, applying a constant increase factor ψ90°,V the edge breakout capacity of an anchor loaded
parallel to the edge only increases with (fcc,200)0.5.
Experimental studies to evaluate the influence of the concrete compressive strength on the
capacity of anchors in tension are described in Wörner and Zeitler (1994) and Zeitler and
Wörner (1995). The concrete strength ranged between 30 MPa [4350 psi] and 110 MPa
[15950 psi]. The test results indicate that the concrete cone breakout failure load rises roughly
in proportion to fc2/3. On the contrary, tests performed by Primavera et al. (1997) indicate that
the increase in the concrete cone breakout failure load is less than proportional to fc0.5. Tests
were performed in concrete slabs with compressive strength of 51.7 MPa [7500 psi] and
82.7 MPa [12000 psi]. Eligehausen et al. (2006) assumed the differences in results of Zeitler
and Wörner (1995) and Primavera et al. (1997) may be accounted for by differences in con
crete mix composition. Pending clarification, it is recommended to take into account the in
fluence of the concrete compressive strength on the cone breakout failure load to the power of
0.5 and to restrict the applications to concrete grades ≤ 70 MPa [10150 psi]. This knowledge
was transferred to shear loaded anchorages. However, no literature was found on investiga
tions of anchors loaded in shear in concrete with varying compressive strength to verify that
this assumption is justified.
To provide information about the influence of compressive strength on the capacity of an
chors loaded in shear close to the edge, experimental investigations were performed both for
single anchors loaded in shear perpendicular and parallel to the edge. A numerical discussion
about the influence of concrete fracture properties on the capacity of anchors loaded both per
pendicular and parallel to the edge can be found in Section 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.2.1.
Experimental testing described in this section is divided into two test programs. Single anchor
tests in test program I were performed in highstrength concrete slabs in order to evaluate if
current prediction equations for concrete edge failure for both a load direction perpendicular
and parallel to the edge consider the influence of the concrete compressive strength correctly.
Since the tests in test program I show a deviation to the predicted capacity for anchors loaded
parallel to edge which leads to unconservative results (see Section 3.2.6.3), tests with varying
compressive strength – at otherwise constant parameters – were performed to evaluate the
influence of the compressive strength. These single anchor tests are summarized herein as test
program II.
92 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Table 3.13: Test program I for single anchors loaded in highstrength concrete
Table 3.14: Test program II for single anchors loaded in lowstrength and highstrength concrete
All tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with either M16, M20 or M24 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of
hef = 80 mm or hef = 130 mm. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel
strength of 1000 MPa). Width and length of the concrete members were taken as 1635 mm
with a slab thickness of h > 2c1. Detailed information about drilling and cleaning can be taken
from Section 3.2.1.2.
The test setup for a load direction perpendicular to the edge is described in Section 3.2.1.3
and for a load direction parallel to the edge in Section 3.2.2.2.
Detailed information to the experimental investigations which are summarized in test program
I can be found in Grosser (2010b). The single anchor tests described in test program II are
taken from Senftleben (2010). The measured data are summarized in Table A6 and Table A7
(Appendix A).
The results of test program I are evaluated in Figure 3.45. In Figure 3.45a), on the primary
vertical axis, the measured ultimate loads are shown for fcc,200 = 66.6 MPa and in Figure
3.45b) for fcc,200 = 83.4 MPa. On the secondary vertical axis, the measured ultimate loads are
compared with current calculation approaches for a load direction perpendicular to the edge
(ratio 0°) and parallel to the edge (ratio 90°). The predicted capacity for a load direction per
pendicular to the edge is calculated according to Equation 2.42. The predicted capacity for a
load direction parallel to the edge is calculated by multiplying Equation 2.42 with Equation
2.47. Therefore, the predicted capacity of a single anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge
rises with the square root of the compressive strength (fcc,200)0.5 whereas the predicted capacity
for a single anchor loaded parallel to the edge rises with (fcc,200)0.75. The results show that for a
load direction perpendicular to the edge the mean ultimate loads agree suitable with the pre
dicted capacity (ratio 0° = Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq. 2.42) ~ 1.0). Ratios greater than unity repre
sent under predictions, and ratios less than unity depict over predictions. The ratio 90°
(Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq.2.42 ∙ Eq.2.47)) shows over prediction. The results indicate that the increase
of the anchor capacity for a load direction parallel to the edge is less than proportional to
(fcc,200)0.75.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 93
100
V
Vu,90°
u,test,90° 1.04 Vu,90°
V 1.3
140 u,test,90°
0.99 1.0
ratio 0° ratio 0° 1.2
80 120 1.14
ratio 90° ratio 90° 1.07 1.1
0.9 100
0.84
60 1.0
0.80 80
0.8
0.9
0.82
40 60
0.7 0.8
0.70
40 0.7
20
0.6
20 0.6
0 0.5 0 0.5
8 12 16 20 24 28 8 12 16 20 24 28
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.45: Measured failure loads in test program I and comparison with current calculation
approch for single anchors loaded both perpendicular and parallel to the free edge
for the concrete edge failure mode in concrete slabs with compressive strength
(a) fcc,200 = 66.6 MPa (b) fcc,200 = 83.4 MPa
In Figure 3.46, the results of test program II are evaluated. Figure 3.46a) shows the measured
ultimate loads for varying compressive strength at otherwise constant parameters. As for test
program I, the results show that for a load direction perpendicular to the edge the calculation
leads to a conservative prediction of the capacity (ratio 0° = Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq. 2.42) ~ 1.1).
Likewise the predicted capacity for a load direction parallel to the edge (ratio 90° =
Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq.2.42 ∙ Eq.2.47)) agrees well with the test result for a compressive strength of
fcc,200 = 32.4 MPa. However, for fcc,200 = 60.7 MPa, the prediction of the capacity is uncon
servative for a load direction parallel to the edge.
75 1.6 x = 0.5
ratio 0° ratio 90° 1.8
60.7
x
x = 0.75
1.4 =
32.4
1.7
60 1.60 1.60
1.2 1.6
1.09 1.10
45 1.5
0.99 1.0 1.38 1.37
1.4 1.37
30 0.79 1.27
0.8 1.3
1.2
15 0.6
1.1
0 0.4 1.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0° 90°
Compressive strength fcc,200 [MPa]
(a) Comparison with calculation approaches (b) Load increase with increasing fcc,200
Figure 3.46: (a) Comparison of test results from test program II with current calculation approach
for single anchors loaded both perpendicular and parallel to the free edge for the
concrete edge failure mode in concrete slabs with compressive strength fcc,200 = 32.4
MPa and fcc,200 = 60.7 MPa (b) Increase of failure load with increasing compressive
strength for both load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge
94 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Figure 3.46b) shows the increase of the failure loads in tests with increased compressive
strength fcc,200 from 32.4 MPa to 60.7 MPa. By comparison, the load increase in which the
compressive strength is considered to the power of 0.5 and 0.75 is illustrated. A discussion
about a new proposal for predicting the capacity of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge and
the implementation in design can be found in Section 5.3.
This section discusses tests with single anchors installed with sufficient distance to the con
crete edge to avoid a concrete breakout failure in shear. Various aspects related to the steel
failure mode are addressed in this section. Therefore, different research works are summa
rized in three test programs which are described in the following. In test program I, the load
displacement behavior of anchors with brittle failure at relatively small displacements at steel
rupture is discussed. Test program II provides information about the influence of tensile steel
strength and rupture elongation on the shear capacity. In test program III, experimental inves
tigations are analyzed to evaluate the influence of embedment depth on the shear strength. For
most of the anchors identification, tests were performed to determine the actual tensile steel
strength of the threaded rods. Fuchs, Eligehausen (1986a) assumed overstrength of the anchor
between 10% and 20%. With this overstrength, the mean value for the coefficient α in Equa
tion 2.39 was determined as 0.6, since actual steel strength was not measured. In Figure
3.47a), the overstrength of the steel which is the ratio between measured (actual) tensile steel
strength and nominal tensile steel strength is plotted as a function of the nominal steel
strength. It is shown that the calculated overstrength for the experimental investigations de
scribed in this section increases with decreasing steel grade. The highest overstrength with
43% was found for an anchor bolt with a nominal steel strength of 400 MPa. This should be
considered when evaluating the coefficient α in Equation 2.39 with the nominal tensile
strength. However, it is noted that this is only necessary in case the tensile strength is not
measured.
1.5
Overstrength (ratio measured / nominal)
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9 no overstrength
0.8
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Nominal steel strength [MPa]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.47: (a) Ratio between actual tensile strength and nominal tensile strength (calculated
overstrength) of anchors summarized in test program I, II and III (b) Test setup to
determine the tensile steel strength
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 95
Within the scope of this dissertation experimental (Section 3.3.6) and numerical (Section
4.5.6) investigations were performed to provide information about the loadbearing behavior
of shear collectors. The loaddisplacement behavior of single anchors is a very important as
pect to evaluate the behavior of such connections. Parameters like steel grade, anchor diame
ter, and concrete compressive strength were identified to mainly control the behavior of the
anchorage for the steel failure mode. Anchors made of ductile steels can develop relatively
large displacements at failure. In this case, it is assumed that at failure the load is distributed
equally to the anchors in a multiple anchor connection. The most negative effect on the group
behavior is assumed for anchors with a very brittle failure at relatively small displacements at
steel rupture. Tests found in the literature show very ductile behavior of the anchors. There
fore, a test program was carried out to provide information for anchors that fail in steel with a
relatively brittle failure (Table 3.15). Testing was performed with a vinylester adhesive an
chor system with continuously threaded rods taken from one batch. The embedment depth
was chosen sufficiently large to avoid a pryout failure. Detailed information to the single an
chor tests can be found in Grosser (2008b). The measured data are summarized in Table A8
(Appendix A).
The loaddisplacement curves were used as input data for the shear collector simulations
(spring model). The numerical model and the implementation of the loaddisplacement curves
are described in Section 4.4.
slab tiedown
LVDT
roller bearing
Inserts, tfix = 5 mm
M20 M16 M12
steel block
concrete slab
(a) (b)
Figure 3.48: Test setup for pure shear loading (a) in low strength and high strength concrete slabs
(b) in steel blocks
Single anchors loaded in pure shear were tested in low strength (fcc,200 = 31.9 MPa) and in
high strength (fcc,200 = 66.7 MPa) concrete. The load was applied by pulling on a threaded rod
screwed into a steel element. The steel element was hold in horizontal position with a roller
bearing to avoid a “liftoff” while loading the anchor (Figure 3.48a). In every test, a friction
96 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
reducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the steel plate. Additional
ly, reference tests with the anchors screwed in a steel block were carried out (Figure 3.48b).
Additional testing was performed with a constant compression force on the baseplate while
loading the anchor in shear. These tests should provide information if the displacement at
failure can be reduced in case the concrete is under compression. The tests were performed in
low strength (fcc,200 = 34.1 MPa) and in high strength (fcc,200 = 67.3 MPa) concrete slabs. The
applied compression force in low strength concrete was constant 280 kN and in high strength
concrete 360 kN.
hydraulic jack
roller bearing
shear load
LVDT
(a) (b)
Figure 3.49: Test setup for anchors loaded in shear with an additional constant compression force
on the baseplate (a) Shear test setup (b) Detailed compression setup
Figure 3.50 shows typical loaddisplacement curves for the tested anchors. It can be seen that
the initial stiffness up to about 10 kN for the M12 threaded rods, up to about 15 kN for the
M16 threaded rods, and up to about 25 kN for the M20 threaded rods is independant of the
base material. When increasing the load differences in slope due to the stiffness of the sur
rounding material can be seen. The difference in stiffness increases with increasing steel
grade. This results in different shear strength for higher steel grade, whereas the shear strength
is nearly not affected by the base material for a steel grade 8.8. The evaluation shows that the
displacement at failure increases with decreasing strength of the base material. The tests with
an additional compression force on the baseplate show only a decrease of the displacement at
failure in low strength concrete. In high strength concrete the displacement at failure can not
be reduced if the concrete is under compression. The ultimate load is higher by the magnitude
of the additional friction force which is added to the ultimate shear strength of the anchor bolt.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 97
M12, steel grade 8.8 M12, steel grade 10.9 M12, steel grade 12.9
70 70 70
(3) (2)
60 60 (3) (2) 60
(3)
(2)
50 50 50
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
40 40 40
(1)
30 30 30
(1)
20 20 20
(1)
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
M16, steel grade 8.8 M16, steel grade 10.9 M16, steel grade 12.9
160 160 160
(5) (4)
140 (5) (4) 140 140
(3)
120 120 (3) (2) 120 (2)
(2)
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
100 100 100
80 80 80
(1)
60 (1) 60 60
(1)
40 40 40
20 (3) 20 20
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
M20, steel grade 8.8 M20, steel grade 10.9 M20, steel grade 12.9
180 180 180
160 160 (3) (2) 160 (3) (2)
(3)
(2)
140 140 140
120 120 120
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
Notation:
(1) = low strength concrete, shear load
(2) = high strength concrete, shear load
(3) = steel block, shear load
(4) = low strength concrete, shear load + constant compression load (280 kN)
(5) = high strength concrete, shear load + constant compression load (360 kN)
In Figure 3.51, the failure patterns are compared for example for an M20 threaded rod loaded
in shear. For anchors with steel grade 8.8, there is no concrete spalling visible in front of the
anchor for both tests in low strength and high strength concrete. This explains that there is no
98 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
difference in shear strength compared to the same anchor loaded in shear in a steel block. For
steel grade 12.9, concrete spalling is pronounced in front of the anchor loaded in shear in low
strength concrete (Figure 3.51c). This explains the reduction of 14% in shear strength com
pared to the same anchor loaded in shear in high strength concrete or in a steel block.
Figure 3.51: Failure patterns of single anchors under shear failed in steel (a) M20, steel grade 8.8,
sheared off in low strength concrete (b) M20, steel grade 8.8, sheared off in high
strength concrete (c) M20, steel grade 12.9, sheared off in low strength concrete
(d) M20, steel grade 12.9, sheared off in high strength concrete
As explained in Section 2.3.1, steel failure of anchors loaded in shear is a quite complex fail
ure mode due to the interaction of shear, tension and bending forces developed in the anchor.
This was first described by Pauley et al. (1974) who pointed out that these three mechanisms
are controlling the shear strength compared to a pure steel rupture (Figure 3.52a). The differ
ence in the failure section observed in the single anchor tests is shown in Figure 3.52b)  e).
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Concrete surface
(a)
Figure 3.52: Failure mechanism of single anchors under shear failed in steel (a) Dowel action
according to Pauley et al. (1974) (b) Anchor was loaded in shear in low strength
concrete, test stopped just before steel rupture and anchor was removed out of the
borehole (c) Anchor was loaded in shear in low strength concrete and sheared off
(d) Anchor was loaded in shear in a steel block and sheared off (e) Anchor was loaded
in pure tension to determine the actual steel strength
In Figure 3.53, the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the nominal tensile
steel strength. Moreover, the percentage increase of the mean ultimate load related to the
mean ultimate load of anchors with a steel grade 8.8 is shown. The simplified calculation ap
proach according to Equation 2.39 considers the ultimate load to be proportional to the nomi
nal steel strength. This assumption is unconservative in low strength concrete, in particular for
larger diameters with high steel grade.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 99
7% 24%
140 140 140
80 80 80
15% 31% 27% 40% 29% 50%
60 60 60
Figure 3.53: Measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the nominal tensile steel strength (a)
tests in low strength concrete (b) tests in high strength concrete (c) reference tests in a
steel block
As shown in Section 2.3.1 the mean prediction equation of a single anchor only considers the
cross section of the anchor rod and the tensile steel strength as variables influencing the fail
ure load for the steel failure mode. No tests are known to provide information about the influ
ence of the anchor ductility on the loadbearing behavior. Therefore, tests with adhesive
bonded anchors were performed with measured tensile steel strength of the threaded rods
ranging between 451 MPa and 1513 MPa with various ductilities. For definition of ductility,
the rupture elongation measured over a length of five bolt diameter was taken as criterion.
The measured rupture elongation A5 ranged between 5.9% and 26.7%. The material properties
of the tested anchors and the individual test results are summarized in Table A9 and Table A
10 (Appendix A). More details are given in Sulejmani (2011). Threaded anchor rods M8, M12
and M16 were tested both in low strength (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) and high strength
(fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) concrete. The anchors were embedded 8dnom deep into the hardened con
crete.
Figure 3.54: Two types of test setup for the steel rupture shear tests
100 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Two types of test setup shown in Figure 3.54 were used to investigate the influence of loading
condition. Test setup I is comparable to the test setup described in Figure 3.48a. The steel
beam was replaced by a steel angle screwed into the strong floor. The roller bearing is mount
ed to the steel angle and is adjustable in height to optimize testing procedure. Test setup II is
comparable to the test setup described in Section 3.2.1.3. The load was applied to the anchors
by pulling on a threaded rod screwed into a steel plate. Difference is that the fixture is re
straint in horizontal position and no rotation of the fixture is possible in test setup I whereas
the fixture can rotate and can lift off while loading the anchor in test setup II.
In Figure 3.55, the influence of loading condition is compared for test setup I and test setup II.
Based on the comparison, it appears that the loading condition has no significant influence on
the steel capacity. The average of the ratio Vu,m,test (test setup I) / Vu,m,test (test setup II) is 1.02
and the standard deviation is 0.04 with a coefficient of variation of 3.71% (n = 276). Moreo
ver, no significant influence of the load application on the displacement at failure could be
observed. The average of the ratio δu,m,test (test setup I) / δu,m,test (test setup II) is 1.05 and the
standard deviation is 0.2 with a coefficient of variation of 19.15%.
100 12
9
δm,test (test setup II) [mm]
70
8
60 7
50 6
40 5
4
30
M8 3 M8
20
M12 2 M12
10 M16 1 M16
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Vu,m,test (test setup I) [kN] δm,test (test setup I) [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.55: Comparison between test results obtained with test setup I and test results obtained
with test setup II (a) average ultimate loads (b) average displacements at failure
A series of shear tests was performed with two plate thicknesses to investigate the effect on
shear strength. Tests were performed with M8 and M16 anchor bolts with a plate thickness of
10 mm and 30 mm. The clearance hole in the plate was 9 mm for M8 bolts and 18 mm for
M16 bolts. All anchors failed in steel. No influence on the shear strength could be observed
for the M16 anchors. The mean shear strength of the M8 anchors is 7% lower for the tests
performed with the 30 mm thick plate. The displacements at failure are slightly increased with
reduced plate thickness for both the M8 and M16 anchors. Due to the little influence, it seems
to be justified neglecting the effect of plate thickness on the shear capacity and analyze the
results together in a database for the evaluation of shear tests found in literature.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 101
25 100
(1)
(1) 90
(2) (2)
20 80
70
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
15 60
50 ∆V = 0%
∆V = 7%
∆δ = 10%
10 ∆δ = 24% 40
30
5 (1) t = 10 mm 20 (1) t = 10 mm
(2) t = 30 mm 10 (2) t = 30 mm
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.56: Loaddisplacement curves for varying plate thickness (a) M8 (b) M16
In Figure 3.57, the influence of the compressive strength of the concrete (influence of the an
chorage component) is compared for fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa and fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa.
100 12
80
δm,test (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) [kN]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.57: Comparison between test results obtained in concrete with various compressive
strengths (a) average ultimate loads (b) average displacements at failure
An influence of the compressive strength on the shear capacity could not be observed in the
tests. The average of the ratio Vu,m,test (fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) / Vu,m,test (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) is 1.04,
and the standard deviation is 0.05 with a coefficient of variation of 5.15% (n = 276). Howev
er, the evaluation of the results shows an influence of the compressive strength on the dis
placement at failure. In concrete with fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa, the displacement at failure is higher
compared to the displacement at failure for concrete with fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa. The average of
the ratio δm,test (fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) / δm,test (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) is 0.83 and the standard deviation
is 0.11 with a coefficient of variation of 13.89%.
102 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Based on the results described in Section 3.2.7.2.1 and Section 3.2.7.2.3, it seems to be justi
fied to group and analyze the ultimate loads together for the evaluation of the influence of
tensile strength and rupture elongation on the shear steel strength.
In Figure 3.58a), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the measured tensile
steel strength. With increasing tensile steel strength, the ultimate loads increase by tendency.
However, it can also be seen that some anchors fail in steel at a higher load compared to oth
ers with higher tensile steel strength. This effect can be explained by the rupture elongation
which influences the shear capacity. The influence of the rupture elongation is discussed in
Section 3.2.7.2.5. Figure 3.58b) shows the comparison of the measured ultimate loads with
the tensile capacity (Nu = AS ∙ fu). This evaluation allows a verification of the coefficient α in
Equation 2.39. The coefficient α decreases with increasing tensile steel strength and is not
constant as assumed in Equation 2.39. The values scatter between 0.4 and 0.72. This observa
tion correlates with the prediction for shearing of bolts for steel structures where the coeffi
cient α depends on the steel grade. This is discussed in Section 5.4.
100 1.0
M8 M8
90 0.9
Predicton according
M12 M12 to Equation 2.39
80 0.8
M16 M16
70 0.7
Vu,test /(As*fu)
60 0.6
Vu,test [kN]
50 0.5
40 0.4
30 0.3
(a) (b)
Figure 3.58: Evaluation of the influence of tensile steel strength (a) measured ultimate loads plot
ted as a function of the measured tensile strength (b) measured ultimate loads related
to the tensile capacity plotted as a function of the measured tensile strength
The rupture elongation is assumed not to affect the steel capacity. Therefore, as described in
Section 2.3.1, the prediction equation for steel rupture considers tensile steel strength as the
only material property to influence the steel capacity. Rupture elongation is assumed only to
have an influence on the displacement behavior of the anchorage. In order to provide infor
mation for the influence of the rupture elongation, in the following, the loaddisplacement
behavior of anchors with various rupture elongations is discussed.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 103
25 90
(1)
80
20 70
(2)
60
(2)
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
15 ∆V = 27%
(1) 50
∆V = 37% ∆δ = 134%
∆δ = 222% 40
10
30
5 20
(1) M8_862.66_5.85 (1) M16_781.67_21.37
10 (2) M16_829.86_9.36
(2) M8_863.8_18.29
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.59: (a) Loaddisplacement curves for anchors with varying rupture elongation at compa
rable tensile steel strengths (a) M8 (b) M16
In Figure 3.59, selected loaddisplacement curves with comparable tensile steel strength are
compared for the M8 and M16 anchor tests. Interestingly, the results show that there is a sig
nificant influence of the rupture elongation on the shear steel strength. Differences in ultimate
strength of up to 40% for same anchor diameter and same actual tensile steel strength were
observed in the experimental investigations. The loaddisplacement behavior for same anchor
size and comparable tensile steel strength is congruent up to the rupture of the anchor with
more brittle steel. For anchors with higher ductility, the inclined tension (kinking effect de
scribed in Pauley et al., 1974) can be resisted by the anchor.
In Figure 3.60, an idealization of the loaddisplacement behavior of anchors with a large rup
ture elongation is shown. For tests where Point A can be identified, the evaluation shows that
this point represents a load of about 40% of the tensile steel strength (V = 0.4 ∙ AS ∙ fu).
20 20
Point B
18 18 “Tensile tie”
16 16
14 14 Point A
Load increase with
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
12 12
“Idealization” increasing rupture
10 10 elongation
8 8
Figure 3.60: Idealization of the loaddisplacement behavior of anchors with large rupture elonga
tion
Figure 3.61a) shows the comparison of the measured ultimate loads with the tensile capacity
(Nu = AS ∙ fu) plotted as a function of the measured rupture elongation. The coefficient α in
104 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
creases with increasing rupture elongation. Equation 2.39 leads to unconservative prediction
of the steel failure load for anchors with a rupture elongation smaller than about 16%.
As described in Section 2.3.1, a 20% reduction should be assumed when anchors are made of
brittle steel (rupture elongation A5 < 8%) to take into account the limited plastic deformation
capacity of the anchors (αred = 0.5) (Fuchs, Eligehausen, 1990). Figure 3.61b) shows the ratio
of measured ultimate loads to the prediction equation 2.39 taking into account a reduced coef
ficient αred = 0.5 for anchors with rupture elongation A5 < 8%. However, the comparison
shows that the prediction equation 2.39 is not acceptable, even if a reduced coefficient
αred = 0.5 is used for anchors with brittle steel.
1.0 1.5
M8 M8 Mean = 0.95
0.9 1.4
Prediction according Standard deviation = 0.11
M12 M12
0.8 to Equation 2.39 1.3
COV [%] = 11.82
M16 M16
0.7 1.2
Vu,test /(α*As*fu)
Vu,test /(As*fu)
0.6 1.1
0.5 1.0
0.4 0.9
0.3 0.8
(a) (b)
Figure 3.61: Evaluation of the influence of rupture elongation (a) measured ultimate loads related
to the tensile capacity plotted as a function of the measured rupture elongation (b)
ratio between measured ultimate loads and prediction equation 2.39 taking into ac
count a 20% reduction for brittle steel plotted as a function of the measured rupture
elongation
The derivation of the constant coefficient α = 0.6 is explained in Section 2.3.1. However, the
analysis of the experimental investigations (see Figure 3.58b) and Figure 3.61a)) has shown
that this factor is not sufficiently accurate to describe the failure load. Therefore, in the fol
lowing a modified equation is proposed to consider both measured steel strength and rupture
elongation of the steel.
For the total number of n = 276 tests, the comparison of the tests results with Equation 3.4
shows a good correlation with an average testtopredicted ratio of 0.98 and a 0.07 standard
deviation (COV = 7.33%).
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 105
2.0 2.0
1.8 Ø = 0.98 SD = 0.07 COV = 7.33 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 n = 276 0.2
0.0 0.0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Measured tensile strength fu [MPa] Measured rupture elongation A5 [%]
Figure 3.62: Evaluation of the mean prediction for steel rupture according to Equation 3.4
Anchors located far away from concrete edges fail in steel provided the embedment depth is
sufficiently large to avoid a pryout failure. Numerical investigations by Utescher and
Herrmann (1983) and Fuchs (1990) identify the ratio hef/d = 5 to be large enough to obtain
steel failure. For ratios hef/d < 5, the anchor might fail by a pryout failure. For ratios hef/d > 5,
steel rupture occurs. The results show that the embedment depth does not influence the capac
ity. However, no investigations exist to verify the influence of the embedment depth for vari
ous compressive strength of the concrete. The tests described in Section 3.2.7.1 and Section
3.2.7.2 were performed in concrete slabs with a compressive strength fcc,200 > 30.0 MPa with
out variation of the embedment depth. In order to evaluate the influence of the embedment
depth on the shear steel strength related to the compressive strength of the concrete in test
program III single anchor tests with adhesive bonded anchors with different embedment depth
and various concrete strengths are summarized. The material properties of the tested anchors
and the individual test results are summarized in Table A11 (Appendix A).
Concrete strength
Anchor rod Steel grade Embedment depth [mm] (hef/d) Reference
fcc,200
M16 10.9, 12.9 80 (5.0), 130 (8.1) 22.7 MPa Grosser (2008c)
5/8’’ (~M16) 76.2 (4.8), 127 (8.0) Grosser, Cook
B7 (~8.8) 34.6 MPa
7/8’’ (~M22) 76.2 (3.5), 127 (5.8), 203.2 (9.2) (2009)1)
1)
Tests were performed at the University of Florida, dimensions converted in SIunits
In Figure 3.63 and Figure 3.64, the failure patterns are compared for different embedment
depth in concrete slabs with various compressive strengths. All anchors failed in steel with
prior concrete spalling in front of the anchor. In the concrete slab with compressive strength
fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa, the concrete spalling is more pronounced for the shorter embedment depth
whereas no difference for tests with shorter embedment depth can be observed in the concrete
106 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
slab with fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa. However, concrete spalling is more pronounced for larger anchor
diameter. The influence on the capacity is evaluated in the Section 3.2.7.3.2.
Figure 3.63: Failure patterns of single anchors under shear in concrete with compressive strength
fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa (a) M16, hef = 80 mm, grade 10.9 (b) M16, hef = 130 mm, grade
10.9 (c) M16, hef = 80 mm, grade 12.9 (d) M16, hef = 130 mm, grade 12.9
Figure 3.64: Failure patterns of single anchors under shear in concrete with compressive strength
fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa (a) 5/8’’, hef = 76.2 mm, grade B7 (b) 5/8’’, hef = 127 mm, grade B7
(c) 7/8’’, hef = 127 mm, grade B7 (d) 7/8’’, hef = 203.2 mm, grade B7
In Figure 3.65a), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the embedment
depth for the various concrete compressive strengths. For the tests performed in the concrete
slab with fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa, the capacity decreases with decreasing embedment depth, even
though all anchors failed in steel. This agrees with the failure pattern discussed in Figure 3.63.
For the tests performed in concrete with fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa, no reduction with decreasing em
bedment depth for the anchors failed in steel can be observed. The percentage decrease in
capacity can be seen in Figure 3.65b). The average ultimate loads are related to the averaged
ultimate loads for anchors with embedment depth hef = 130 mm (127 mm). A 20% load reduc
tion was observed for short embedment depth. Therefore, in concrete with lower compressive
strength a reduction of steel capacity seems to be necessary to take into account that the con
crete spalling is more pronounced. This leads to a reduction of the capacity since the anchor
experiences additional bending stresses.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 107
160 1.5
M16,10.9, 22.7 MPa
1.4
140
Measured ultimate load V u,test [kN]
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,hef~130mm
pryout 1.2
100 7/8'', B7, 34.6 MPa
1.1
80 1.0
0.9
60 No change in capacity
0.8 for fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa
40
M16, 10.9, 22.7 MPa M16, 12.9, 22.7 MPa 0.7 ~20% decrease for
20 fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa
5/8'', B7, 34.6 MPa 7/8'', B7, 34.6 MPa 0.6
0 0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Embedment depth hef [mm] Embedment depth hef [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.65: (a) Measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the embedment depth (b) Average
ultimate loads for anchors failed in steel related to the average ultimate loads for an
embedment depth hef = 130 mm (127 mm)
Moreover, depending on the anchor configuration and shear loading condition, the individual
anchors in a group may be unevenly loaded which can lead to a total anchor group capacity
significantly smaller than the sum of the individual anchor capacities. Therefore, the number
of anchors is restricted, since only limited knowledge is available regarding the load distribu
tion to the individual anchors. A better understanding of the distribution of shear loads to the
individual anchors is one key aspect which is addressed in this dissertation. Special devices
are presented to measure both axial and shear loads on the anchors.
The loadbearing behavior of anchor groups under shear and torsion loading is very complex
since many influencing parameters are controlling the capacity, e.g. number of anchors, geo
metrical configuration (edge distance and spacing in both directions), location of the group
(“inthefield”, close to an edge or in a corner), and load condition (shear perpendicular, paral
lel or inclined to the edge, torsional moment).
For a better understanding of the group behavior, it is necessary to provide more information
about the influencing parameters. Therefore, various experimental investigations have been
performed to evaluate the influencing parameters isolated from other parameters. The results
are described separately in several sections according to the investigated parameter. The
knowledge about the influence of several parameters is assembled in a consistent design con
cept discussed in Chapter 5.
108 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
The main focus of this study is the critical case of shear loaded anchorages arranged close to
the edge in order to develop “safe” design recommendations.
3.3.1 Connections engaging multiple anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge
and loaded perpendicular to the free edge
All tests were carried out with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with M12 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of hef = 80 mm. All anchors
had a steel grade 8.8 (nominal tensile steel strength of 800 MPa).
Table 3.17: Test program for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded perpendicular to
the free edge
The tests were performed in normalweight lowstrength concrete slabs on the concrete surface
encased by the formwork. Width and length of the slabs were taken as 1635 mm with a slab
thickness of 400 mm. The description of the base material is provided in Section 3.2.1.2. The
measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scattered between 22.9 and
26.7 MPa (average 24.5 MPa).
For the group tests, it is necessary to adjust the position of the holes accurately. Therefore, the
baseplate was aligned in the correct position and glued to the concrete surface using a hot
glue gun. All holes were predrilled with a drill bit fitting the clearance hole in the plate. After
predrilling all holes to a depth of about 20 mm, the plate was removed and the holes were
drilled to the required embedment depth of hef = 80 mm. General information about drilling
and cleaning can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2. After cleaning the holes, the anchors were
installed and adjusted in the correct position using the baseplate again.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 109
The general test setup can be seen in Figure 3.4 (Section 3.2.1.3). However, for the anchor
tests with 3 and 5 anchors, the load application was modified according to Figure 3.66. The
load was applied to the anchors by pulling on a steel element attached to the baseplate. With
this loading plate a stiff and a hinged load application can be realized. This is explained in
Figure 3.67. Steel strips on both sides of the connection between tension rod and steel element
can be removed to allow the loading plate to rotate while loading. If not otherwise stated the
load was applied with a stiff load application to compare the results with tests where the load
was applied with a tension rod screwed into the baseplate.
Hardened steel parts with an inner diameter fitting tight the M12 anchor rods were inserted
into the shear plate to avoid hole clearance. The clamping thickness is 30 mm. In every test a
friction reducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All
anchors were tightened snug tight with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 5 Nm). The
applied load and the anchor displacement as well as the crack propagation were measured
continuously and recorded on a PC using a data acquisition system with appropriate software.
The load was measured with calibrated load cells (load range according to the expected load).
Peak loads were reached in approximately 1 to 3 minutes.
LVDT(3)
LVDT(2)
LVDT(1)
Load washer
LVDT(4)
LVDT(5)
Spherical cap
Figure 3.66: Test setup for groups arranged parallel to the edge and loaded towards the free edge
Anchorage plate displacement was measured with two linear variable displacement transduc
ers (LVDT) into the direction of loading. The LVDTs were glued to the concrete surface (see
Figure 3.66a). In order to get information about the crack propagation, additional LVDTs
were glued to the concrete member to determine the crack opening (LVDT 3, 4 and 5). The
LVDTs 3 and 4 were glued in a distance of 100 mm to the outermost anchors. Axial anchor
load measurements were achieved using commercially available throughhole load washers
(see Figure 3.66b). Therefore, the anchors had a free length of 100 mm measured from the
concrete surface to the tip of the anchor.
Detailed information to the experimental tests can be found in Grosser (2011c) and are sum
marized in Table B1 (Appendix B). In Section 3.3.1.3.1 a discussion of the results for the
group tests with two anchors is given to verify the CCDmethod for small edge distances. In
Section 3.3.1.3.2, the results of the groups with more than two anchors are presented to pro
vide information about the feasibility of extending the CCDmethod to connections engaging
multiple (n ≥ 2) anchors in a row.
An indepth evaluation of the measured axial loads is not given in this section since the analy
sis of the data shows that there is no benefit for the discussion of the influence of anchor spac
ing and number of anchors on the group capacity. At this point, it is merely mentioned that
the total axial loads on the anchorage at failure were measured with a value about 20% of the
ultimate shear load for an edge distance c1 = 50 mm and with a value about 35% of the ulti
mate shear load for an edge distance c1 = 100 mm. However, it is noted that the scatter of the
measured axial loads is quite high which is a further reason not to evaluate the results more
detailed since only less reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the data.
In all tests a concrete edge breakout failure was observed. Typical breakout pattern for a
group with two anchors with close and wide anchor spacings are shown in Figure 3.68. A
common failure body was observed for both close and wide anchor spacings. Cracking be
tween the anchors is nearly parallel to the edge for close anchor spacing whereas for anchor
spacing of 200 mm cracking in between the anchors tends to incline towards the free edge.
(a) s2 = 50 mm (s2/c1 = 1.0) (b) s2 = 140 mm (s2/c1 = 2.8) (c) s2 = 200 mm (s2/c1 = 4.0)
Figure 3.68: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with two anchors with an edge distance
c1 = 50 mm and different anchor spacings s2
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 111
In Figure 3.69a), typical loaddisplacement curves of the single anchor and group tests with
two anchors are shown for an edge distance c1 = 50 mm. The ultimate load increases with
increasing anchor spacing. For comparison, the “doubled” single anchor loaddisplacement
curve is shown which agrees well with the group result for an anchor spacing of 200 mm.
Initial stiffness for the group tests is about two times the initial stiffness of the single anchor
tests.
To evaluate at which anchor spacing s2 the group capacity is not reduced, the averaged ulti
mate loads of the group tests are compared with the averaged ultimate load of the single an
chor tests with same edge distance. For comparison the increase of the group resistance ac
cording to the CCDmethod is plotted (Figure 3.69b). The anchor group capacity equals two
times the capacity of a single anchor with the same edge distance for a spacing of s2 = 4c1.
Moreover, the evaluation shows that the group capacity does not increase linearly with in
creasing anchor spacing for edge distance c1 = 50 mm.
25 2.5
s2 = 200 mm
ψA,V (CCDmethod)
2*Single anchor
20 2.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test (s=0mm)
15 s2 = 140 mm 1.5
Load V [kN]
10 1.0
5 s2 = 100 mm 0.5
Single anchor n = 2, c = 50 mm
s2 = 50 mm
0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement δ [mm] s2/c1
(a) (b)
Figure 3.69: (a) Typical loaddisplacement curves of the anchors with c1 = 50 mm (b) Ratio of the
measured ultimate loads in the group tests to the measured ultimate loads in the single
anchor tests plotted as a function of the ratio s2/c1
Typical breakout pattern for the groups with three and five anchors in a row are shown in
Figure 3.70. In most of the tests an unsymmetrical cracking towards the edge was observed.
In some tests not all anchors failed in concrete edge breakout (e.g. test No.2, Figure 3.70a).
This is confirmed by the measurements of the LVDTs (3) and (4) which measured the crack
opening close to the outermost anchors. Although the tests were performed without hole
clearance, even breakout of the anchors cannot be guaranteed.
112 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
(a) n = 3, s2,t = 400 mm (s2,t/c1 = 8.0) (b) n = 5, s2,t = 400 mm (s2,t/c1 = 8.0)
Figure 3.70: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with three and five anchors with edge
distance c1 = 50 mm
Breakout patterns of preliminary tests with uneven anchor spacings for a stiff and a hinged
load application are shown in Figure 3.71. Differences in the crack pattern can be seen in the
post peak. However, the measurements of the LVDTs (3) and (4) show that in both cases the
two anchors with closer spacing fail prior to the third anchor. This is to be expected as the
single anchor acts as one anchor and the group of two anchors gets a reduction (i.e. less than
two times the load of a single anchor). The anchor configuration is actually a single anchor
and a group of two anchors loaded with one baseplate.
Since there is only little difference in ultimate strength between stiff and hinged load applica
tion, for the evaluation of the ultimate loads, the tests are analyzed together.
Figure 3.71: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with three anchors with edge distance
c1 = 50 mm and uneven anchor spacing s2,1 = 100 mm and s2,2 = 300 mm
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 113
A further test series with an anchor group with five anchors was performed with stiff and
hinged load application. Only little difference in ultimate strength was observed. Summariz
ing, it can be stated that the load application as varied in the tests is a parameter which is of
minor influence on the ultimate breakout strength of an anchorage loaded concentrically to
wards the free edge.
In Figure 3.72a), typical loaddisplacement curves of single anchor and group tests with three
and five anchors are shown. For comparison, the “tripled” and “quintupled” single anchor
loaddisplacement curves are plotted. The initial stiffness in the group tests is about n2times
the initial stiffness measured in the single anchor tests (n2 = number of anchors in the row
parallel to the edge). The ultimate load of the group increases with increasing anchor spacing
of the outermost anchors (s2,t).
60 140
5*Single anchor
5*Single anchor
50 120
3*Single anchor
s2 = 100 mm, n = 5 100
40
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
s2 = 100/300 mm, n = 3 80
30 s2 = 100 mm, n = 5
s2 = 200 mm, n = 3 60
20 s2 = 100 mm, n = 3
40
10
20
Single anchor Single anchor
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
Figure 3.72: Typical loaddisplacement curves observed in the anchor tests with three and five
anchors compared with the loaddisplacement curve of a single anchor with same
edge distance
The load increase of the anchor group compared to the single anchor is shown in Figure
3.73a). It is noted that the load increase is plotted as a function of the ratio s2,t/c1 which repre
sents the spacing of the outermost anchors to the edge distance. For comparison, the load in
crease according to the ratio of the projected areas limited to the actual number of anchors in
the group is plotted (extended CCDmethod for more than two anchors). According to the
extended CCDmethod, a ratio s2,t/c1 = 6.0 is required to obtain an ultimate load of three times
the single anchor capacity for an anchor group with three anchors and a ratio s2,t/c1 = 12.0 to
obtain an ultimate load of five times the single anchor capacity for an anchor group with five
anchors.
The results of groups with two anchors show a critical spacing of s2,crit = 4c1 for an edge dis
tance c1 = 50 mm (Figure 3.69b). Therefore, the capacity of a group with three anchors is
expected to be three times the single anchor capacity for s2,t/c1 = 8.0, which is 2s2,crit. Howev
er, the observed group capacity is only about two times the single anchor capacity. This can
be explained by the fact that the anchors in the group are unevenly loaded. The group capacity
with 5 anchors is only slightly increased compared to the group with three anchors with the
same outermost anchor spacing.
114 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
For an anchor group with five anchors having an edge distance c1 = 100 mm, the results agree
much better with the extended CCDmethod. This is explained by means of numerical simula
tions described in Section 4.5.3.
6.0 3.0
n = 3, c = 50 mm 25% load reduction
n=5
5.0 2.5
n = 5, c = 50 mm
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test (s=0mm)
n=3
3.0 1.5
2.0 1.0
ψA,V s2 = 100 mm
s2 mm
1.0 0.5
(CCDmethod
s2 = 200 mm
s2 mm
extended)
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s2,t/c1 Number of anchors
(a) (b)
Figure 3.73: Ratio of the measured ultimate loads in the group tests to the measured ultimate loads
in the single anchor tests plotted as a function of (a) the ratio of the outermost anchor
spacing to the edge distance s2,t/c1 (b) the number of anchors in the group for the indi
vidual anchor spacings s2
In Figure 3.73b), the load increase of the group capacity compared to the single anchor re
sistance for the individual spacings is plotted as the number of anchors in the group. The ca
pacity increases when adding an anchor with the same individual anchor spacing since the
outermost anchor spacing increases. However, for constant outermost anchor spacing, the
load decreases when adding an anchor in between the outer anchors if the spacing is smaller
than the critical anchor spacing s2,cr. For example, the ultimate load of the group with three
anchors and an outermost anchor spacing s2,t = 200 mm is about 25% lower than the ultimate
load of a group with two anchors having the same outermost anchor spacing. This is discussed
in Section 4.5.3.2.
3.3.2 Connections engaging multiple anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge
and loaded parallel to the free edge
In case a multiple anchor connection is arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
free edge, it is assumed that the anchor spacing influences the capacity in the same manner as
for the same connection loaded perpendicular to the free edge. Therefore, likewise a critical
spacing of scr ≥ 3c1 applies for a connection loaded parallel to the edge. The increase in capac
ity due to the changed load direction is taken into account by simply multiplying the re
sistance of the group with a constant factor ψ90°,V. This is explained in Section 2.3.3. Conse
quently, the loadbearing behavior is considered to be the same for the connection loaded per
pendicular and parallel to the edge. In case the factor ψ90°,V is applied according to Equation
2.47, the s2spacing effect is assumed to be different for a group loaded parallel to the edge
compared to the same group loaded perpendicular to the edge. This is explained in Section
3.3.2.5.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 115
In this section the influence of anchor spacing s2 and number of anchors n2 on the capacity of
connections loaded parallel to the edge are discussed. A special loading device, described in
Section 3.3.2.2, was constructed in order to measure the individual anchor shear forces. To
provide information about larger anchor groups, tests were performed with up to 5 anchors in
a row.
According to Section 3.3.1, the tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system
with the same anchor parameters (M12, hef = 80 mm) as for the connections loaded towards
the edge (see Section 3.3.1) in order to allow an evaluation of the influence of the load direc
tion. However, threaded rods with steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000
MPa) were used since anchors with steel grade 8.8 would fail in steel for the tested edge dis
tances of 100 mm for a load direction parallel to the edge. The test program is summarized in
Table 3.18. The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs on the
concrete surface encased by the formwork. Width and length were taken as 1635 mm with a
slab thickness of 400 mm. For the description of the base material, it is referenced to Section
3.2.1.2. The measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scatters between 28.3
and 31.8 MPa.
Table 3.18: Test program I for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
free edge
Test program II shows experimental investigations with M20 anchor bolts with an embedment
depth hef = 130 mm. It is noted that no load distribution was measured in these tests. Howev
er, the results extend the results obtained in test program I to analyze the effect of anchor
spacing s2 and number of anchors n2. The tests were performed in normal weight low strength
(fcc,200 = 32.4 MPa) and high strength (fcc,200 = 60.7 MPa) concrete slabs.
Table 3.19: Test program II for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
free edge
In order to evaluate the influence of hole clearance on the loadbearing behavior of groups
loaded parallel to the edge, two comparable test series with and without hole clearance were
performed. This test program is summarized in Table 3.20 as test program III. The analysis of
the results is given in Section 3.3.2.5.5. Tests were performed with M12 anchor rods with an
embedment depth of 80 mm in normal weight low strength concrete with measured compres
sive strength fcc,200 = 32.9 MPa.
Table 3.20: Test program III for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to
the free edge
Edge distance c1 [mm] Number of anchors Spacing s2 [mm] s2/c1 Hole clearance acl [mm]
50, 100 2 100 2.0, 1.0 0, 2
The general test setup can be seen in Figure 3.19 (Section 3.2.2.2). However, the baseplate
was replaced by a loading plate with a special shear measurement device for test program I. In
Figure 3.74a), the loading setup is shown for example for an anchor connection with five an
chors in a row.
LVDT(2)
LVDT(3)
Load pins
Hardened collar
LVDT(1)
V1
Y
Load pin
X
2 mm
80 100 100 100 100 80
Load pin
V1
120
45°
5/8’’ – 18 threads for pin (UNF)
Z Y
30 15
(c) (d)
Figure 3.74: Test setup for anchor groups arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
Z
free edge (a) Loading setup (b) Detail (c) Sketch of loading plate (d) Load pin
X Y
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 117
Hardened steel collars with an outside diameter of 32 mm and an inner diameter fitting tight
the M12 anchor rods were placed centrically into the 40 mm holes in the shear plate (Figure
3.74b). Load pins hardened to a Rockwell Hardness of RHC ~ 48 were screwed into the plate
45° inclined to the axis perpendicular to the loading direction. For every anchor bolt two pins
were screwed into the plate in a certain depth to contact the steel collars (Figure 3.74c). The
installation of the anchor bolts to avoid incorrect positioning of the pins is described in Sec
tion 3.3.2.3. Strain gages are centrically mounted to the load pins (Figure 3.74d) to measure
the axial compression force in pin direction. The individual anchor shear forces are gained by
averaging the two corresponding pin forces. For calibration of the pins and detailed infor
mation about correction for pin bending and transformation to global shear force, it is refer
enced to Hoehler (2011). Axial anchor load measurements were achieved using commercially
available throughhole load washers (see Figure 3.66b).
Anchorage plate displacement was measured with a linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT) into the direction of loading. Additional LVDTs were used to determine the dis
placement and the rotation of the baseplate perpendicular to the load direction. A friction re
ducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All anchors
were tightened snug tight with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 5 Nm).
Since imprecisely positioned loading pins would falsify the test results, an accurate installa
tion of the anchors is absolutely necessary. A template was built with precise hole spacing and
inner diameter of the holes fitting tight the drill bit. The template was glued to the concrete
surface using a hotglue gun. All holes were predrilled to a depth of about 20 mm. After pre
drilling, the plate was removed and the holes were drilled to the required embedment depth of
hef = 80 mm with a 14 mm diameter drill bit. General information about drilling and cleaning
can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2. The anchors were installed, spare adhesive was removed,
and the anchors were adjusted with the loading plate, collars and pins in the testing position.
load pins
mounted in
testing position
during curing
process of the
adhesive
load pins
template
Figure 3.76 shows the difference between a load application according Figure 3.19 (Section
3.2.2.2) and the load application with the special shear measurement device (Figure 3.74). In
order to verify the results obtained with the load pins (type II), the normalized ultimate loads
at failure and the displacements at failure are compared with results obtained with a “normal”
baseplate (type I) for same tested parameters (Figure 3.77a). No significant influence of the
load application was observed for the obtained failure load. The results can be seen as compa
rable with anchors tested with a baseplate. Moreover, the influence of load application on the
displacement at failure can be seen as negligible since for the concrete edge failure mode dis
placements scatter in a wide range. Furthermore, it is stated that the reference tests (type I)
were performed in a concrete slab having a slightly lower compressive strength which also
influences the displacement behavior. In all tests, a good agreement was observed between
the shear force measured by the load cell and the sum of pin forces after correction for bend
ing including frictional effects. The effect of friction is calculated to n2times 0.4 kN. The
mean error is 3% with a standard deviation of 2.49 (maximum error 12%). Figure 3.77b)
shows typical results of the measurements for a single anchor loaded parallel to the free edge
having an edge distance c1 = 50 mm.
Anchor
Anchor
Type I Type II Load washer
Load washer
Load pin
Baseplate Baseplate
Concrete Concrete
(a) Load application with “normal” baseplate (b) Load application with load pins
2.0 40
30
1.4 Loads normalized to a compressive
strength of fcc,200 = 30 MPa
1.2 25
Load V [kN]
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4 mean ultimate load
Pin left
5
0.2 displacement at failure
Pin right
0.0 0
0 50 100 150 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Edge distance [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
Detailed information to the “load pin” tests (test program I) can be found in Grosser (2011d)
and are summarized in Table B2 (Appendix B). The test results of test program II are part of
a research work described in Senftleben (2010). In this section only the tests performed in
normal weight low strength concrete are analyzed. However, all experimental investigations
(tests in high strength concrete slabs included) are summarized in Table B3 (Appendix B).
The test results of test program III are summarized in Table B4 (Appendix B).
In Section 3.3.2.5.1, the load distribution of the total load on the individual anchors in the
multiple anchor connection for both axial and shear forces is analyzed. Section 3.3.2.5.2 dis
cusses the results for the group tests with two anchors in order to verify the influence of an
chor spacing s2 on the load bearing capacity. In Section 3.3.1.3.2, the discussion is extended
for groups with more than two anchors to provide information about the influence of the
number of anchors on the capacity and about the feasibility of extending design to connec
tions engaging multiple (n ≥ 2) anchors in a row.
Movement of the fixture vertical to loading direction was not observed. Therefore, no analysis
of the LVDT (2) and LVDT (3) is shown. Note, however, this is an important aspect not to be
neglected for more than one anchor perpendicular to the concrete edge (direction 1) which
represents the spacing effect s1. Especially for a hinged load application where the loading
plate can rotate after failure of the front row, movement of the fixture vertical to the direction
of loading needs to be taken into account. This is discussed in Section 3.3.4.
As shown in Section 3.3.2.4, the pin measurements validated for the anchor tests agree suita
bly with the measurements of the shear force measured by the load cell. Therefore, reliable
information about the load distribution of the total load on the individual anchors can be as
sumed. Figure 3.78 shows the measurements of axial and shear forces on the individual an
chors and the total load of shear and tension in the connection. On the left vertical axis the
percentage distribution of shear load related to the sum of measured pin forces is plotted for
the individual anchors. The individual axial forces are related to the total shear load measured
by the load cell (referred to as tension load in the diagrams). On the right vertical axis, the
sum of pin forces including effect of friction (solid line) and the sum of axial forces (dashed
line) are related to the total shear load measured by the load cell. The data depict the average
of three tests. In all groups, anchor 1 is the anchor closest to the load application.
In the single anchor tests, the axial loads at failure were measured with a value about 40% of
the ultimate shear load. In the group tests with two anchors, the axial load in the anchor re
mote to the load application is higher compared to the axial load in the anchor closer to the
load application. In groups with more than two anchors in a row, the “last” anchor resists
most of the tension load to avoid a “liftoff” of the loading plate. Therefore, the middle an
chors are slightly released and are loaded lower in tension.
In anchor groups (n ≤ 3) with spacing s2 = 100 mm, shear is distributed equally to the anchors.
For increasing anchor spacing (s2 = 200 mm), the shear load is slightly unevenly distributed to
the individual anchors (Figure 3.78b). This can be also seen for the group tests where
s2,1 ≠ s2,2 (Figure 3.78g, h). In groups with five anchors in a row, the outermost anchors resist
a slightly higher load at failure which can be explained by the fact that these anchors are in
120 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
fluenced by cracking of adjacent anchors only on one side. However, it is stated that the per
centage difference is very small. Taking into account the error of measuring forces in the in
dividual anchors and the scattering for testing anchors in concrete, it can be summarized that
shear load is almost distributed equally to the anchors in case of equal individual anchor spac
ing in the group.
60 120 60 120
55.0
55 55
51.0 102.2
50 100 50 96.2 100
49.0
45 45 45.0
Distribution of load [%]
40 shear load 80 80
Total load [%]
80 shear load 80
shear load
Total load [%]
25 25
tension load tension load
20 60 20 60
total shear + friction total shear + friction
15 total tension 15
40 total tension 40
9.7 10.3
10 10 23.4
5.1 18.2 20 7.0 20
5 5 6.1
3.4
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Anchor Anchor
45 120 45 120
42.1
40 102.8 40 38.7
100.0
100 100
35 35
Distribution of load [%]
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Anchor Anchor
80 80
Total load [%]
Figure 3.78: Axial and shear load distribution to the individual anchors at ultimate load
Hofmann (2005) performed comparable tests with two anchors in a row loaded parallel to the
edge. Arrays of strain gages were attached to the loading fixture to determine the individual
anchor shear load distribution. The results of the strain gages show an unequal load distribu
tion to the anchors. The anchor remote to the load application is loaded 30% less compared to
the anchor closer to load application. Therefore, the conclusion is drawn that for a connection
with multiple anchors the load resisted by the anchors stepwise decreases. For a connection
with five anchors, the last anchor would be nearly unloaded and would not resist a part of the
applied shear load. A limit of three anchors in a row was proposed by Hofmann (2005). How
ever, this negative effect of unequal loading of the anchors cannot be confirmed by the tests
shown in Figure 3.78. Measuring load distribution with strain gages attached to the baseplate
is subject to high inaccuracies since the complete stress flow is not fully captured. Moreover,
bending effects cannot be considered with suitable accuracy to obtain reliable results. There
fore, based on the results described in this section, for the following discussion of the group
tests an equal distribution of shear to the individual anchors is assumed.
122 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
In Figure 3.79a), typical loaddisplacement curves of the single anchor and group tests with
two anchors are shown for instance for edge distance c1 = 50 mm. As for anchor groups load
ed perpendicular to the edge, the ultimate load increases with increasing anchor spacing. For
comparison, the “doubled” single anchor loaddisplacement curve is shown. Initial stiffness
for the group tests is about two times the initial stiffness of the single anchor tests.
In all tests a concrete breakout failure was observed. Typical breakout pattern for a group with
two anchors is shown in Figure 3.79b). A common failure body was observed in all tests.
Compared to anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, local spalling in front of the an
chors is more pronounced.
70
s2 = 200 mm 2*Single anchor
60 Local spalling
s2 = 100 mm
50
Load V [kN]
40
30
20
Single anchor
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement δ [mm]
Figure 3.79: (a) Typical loaddisplacement curves (b) Typical breakout pattern for anchor groups
with two anchors
To evaluate the influence of anchor spacing s2, the averaged ultimate loads of the group tests
are compared with the averaged ultimate load of the single anchor tests with same edge dis
tance (Figure 3.80).
3c1
1.5
n A,V
0.5
A,V
*
A,V
n = 2, c 1==100
100mm
mm
0.0 A,V
0 1 2 3 4 5
s2/c1
Figure 3.80: Ratio of the measured ultimate loads in the group tests (n = 2) to the measured ulti
mate loads in the single anchor tests plotted as a function of the ratio s2/c1
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 123
The increase of the group resistance according to the CCDmethod considering both a con
stant factor ψ90°,V (solid line) and a ψ90°,Vfactor according to Equation 2.47 (dashed line) is
plotted for comparison. The analysis shows that the load increase in an anchor group com
pared to a single anchor with same edge distance is not represented realistically by the CCD
method. The results indicate that the load increase for an anchor group loaded parallel to the
edge does not depend on the ratio s2/c1 but on the spacing s2. This can be seen, for instance,
for an anchor spacing s2 = 100 mm for a group with edge distance c1 = 50 mm, which shows
the same group effect as a group with edge distance c1 = 100 mm. Taking into account the
increase factor ψ90°,V according to Equation 2.47 does not describe the loadbearing behavior
for groups realistically. The s2spacing effect is discussed in Section 5.6.
In Figure 3.81, typical breakout patterns for the groups with three and five anchors in a row
are shown. In all tests a concrete breakout failure was observed. Compared to anchorages
loaded perpendicular to the edge, local spalling in front of the anchors is more pronounced.
Figure 3.81: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with three and five anchors loaded paral
lel to the edge
Typical loaddisplacement curves of the single anchor and groups with three and five anchors
are shown for instance for edge distance c1 = 50 mm in Figure 3.82. For comparison, the “tri
pled” and “quintupled” single anchor loaddisplacement curves are plotted. The initial stiff
ness for the group tests is about n2times the initial stiffness of the single anchor tests
(n2 = number of anchors in the row parallel to the edge). Only for anchor groups with three
anchors and an overall spacing s2,t = 400 mm, the initial stiffness in all tests was observed to
be slightly less than three times the stiffness of the single anchor. The ultimate load of the
group increases with increasing anchor spacing of the outermost anchors (s2,t). For groups
loaded perpendicular to the edge where increasing number of anchors can lead to a reduction
in capacity, increasing number of anchors was not observed to have a negative effect on the
group capacity when the load is applied parallel to the edge.
124 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
120 180
3*Single anchor 5*Single anchor
s2 = 200 mm, n = 3 160
100
s2 = 300/100 mm, n = 3 140
80 120
s2 = 100/300 mm, n = 3
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
s2 = 100 mm, n = 5
100
60
80
40 60
40
20 s2 = 100 mm, n = 3
20
Single anchor Single anchor
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
Figure 3.82: Typical loaddisplacement curves for groups with three and five anchors compared
with the loaddisplacement curve of a single anchor with same edge distance
The load increase of the anchor group compared to the single anchor results is shown in Fig
ure 3.83a). It is noted that the load increase is plotted as a function of the ratio s2,t/c1 which
represents the spacing of the outermost anchors to the edge distance. The increase of the
group resistance according to the CCDmethod (extended for more than two anchors) consid
ering both a constant factor ψ90°,V (solid line) and a ψ90°,Vfactor according to Equation 2.47
(dashed line) is plotted for comparison. For explanation of these assumptions see Figure 3.80.
A ratio s2,t/c1 = 6.0 is assumed to be necessary to obtain an ultimate load of three times the
single anchor capacity for an anchor group with three anchors and a ratio s2,t/c1 = 12.0 to ob
tain an ultimate load of five times the single anchor capacity for an anchor group with five
anchors. However, this was observed not to be sufficient for all edge distances. The prediction
of load increase according to the extended CCDmethod for more than two anchors is uncon
servative for small edge distance. As mentioned for groups with two anchors, the results indi
cate that critical spacing is not significantly influenced by the edge distance c1 of the anchor
group. If the critical spacing were influenced by the edge distance, the ratio between the fail
ure loads for anchor groups to the failure load of single anchors with the same edge distance
would reach the same value for same ratio between anchor spacing and edge distance.
The influence of increasing number of anchors on the group capacity is shown in Figure
3.83b) and c). The increase was observed to be nearly proportional to (n21) times the indi
vidual anchor spacing effect s2. In tests with unequal individual anchor spacing in the group,
the load was observed to be slightly decreasing compared to a group having the same outer
most anchor spacing but equal individual anchor spacing between the anchors. This is shown
in Figure 3.83d). At this point it is referenced to Section 3.3.2.5.1 where the load distribution
on the anchors is evaluated. The results show that in case of unequal individual anchor spac
ing an even load distribution cannot be assumed.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 125
6.0 3.0
n = 3, c = 45 mm
n = 3, c = 50 mm n=5 2.5
5.0 n = 5, c = 50 mm
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test (s=0mm)
(n·ψA,V)0.5 1.5
n=3
3.0
1.0
2.0 ψA,V
0.5 s2 = 100 mm
s2 mm
s2
s2 = 200 mm
mm
1.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s2,t/c1 Number of anchors
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test (s=0mm)
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 s2 = 100 mm
s2 mm 0.5
s2
s2 = 200 mm
mm s2,t == 400
S2 400mm
mm
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 100/300
1 200/200
2 300/100
3 4
Number of anchors Spacing s2 [mm]
Figure 3.83: Ratio of the measured ultimate loads in the group tests to the measured ultimate loads
in the single anchor tests plotted as a function of (a) the ratio of the outermost anchor
spacing to the edge distance s2,t/c1 (b) the number of anchors in the group for edge
distance c1 = 100 mm (c) the number of anchors in the group for edge distance c1 =
50 mm (d) the influence of unequal anchor spacing
In Figure 3.84a), the obtained factors ψ90°,V for the tested anchorages are plotted as a function
of the numbers of anchors in the connection. The obtained factor ψ90°,V equals the ratio be
tween failure load of the anchorages loaded parallel to the edge (Section 3.3.2) and the failure
load of the anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge (Section 3.3.1) for the same tested
parameters. For comparison, a constant increase factor ψ90°,V = 2.0 (CCDmethod) is plotted
which shows that this assumption leads to conservative results for small edge distances. In
order to evaluate the increase factor ψ90°,V according to Equation 2.47 in Figure 3.84b) the
ratio between experimentally obtained ψ90°,Vfactor and Equation 2.47 is shown. It is noted
that in the calculated increase factor ψ90°,V according to Equation 2.47 the resistance obtained
in the experimental investigations (Section 3.3.1) is inserted in the denominator. Inserting the
calculated resistance for the anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge would falsify the
evaluation of the factor ψ90°,V since tests have shown that the critical spacing is not considered
126 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
realistically. In Figure 3.84b), it is shown that the influence of number of anchors is less than
assumed in Equation 2.47.
3.5 1.4
3.0 1.2
ψ90°,V,test = V u,m,test,90° / Vu,m,test,0°
2.5 1.0
ψ90°,V,test / ψ90°,V,calc
2.0 0.8
1.5 0.6
1.0 0.4
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
0.5 0.2
c = 100 mm c = 100 mm
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of anchors Number of anchors
(a) (b)
Figure 3.84: (a) Increase factor ψ90°,V obtained in the experimental investigations (b) Comparison
with calculated increase factor ψ90°,V,calc
The displacement at failure for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge is significantly larger
compared to the same anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge. In general, the displace
ment at failure is larger than the allowable hole clearance. For this reason, in design it is as
sumed that all anchors resist shear loads. However, no experimental investigations exist to
evaluate the influence of hole clearance on the loadbearing behavior of anchorages loaded
parallel to the edge. Therefore, in fib (2011) a general reduction of 20% is assumed in case of
anchors with normal hole clearance. The reduction is based on theoretical considerations by
Hofmann (2005) who superimposed loaddisplacement curves of single anchors loaded paral
lel to the edge for maximum allowable hole clearance. However, it is noted that this falsifies
the conclusion in case of groups with s2 < scr (for a group with two anchors twice the capacity
of a single anchor can only be assumed if s2 ≥ scr). Therefore, for the evaluation of hole clear
ance the “real” spacing effect needs to be considered when superimposing the load
displacement curves.
Since it is assumed that maximum reduction of group capacity is obtained for small displace
ments at failure, testing was performed with small edge distance of 50 mm. The test series
with an edge distance of 100 mm was performed in order to evaluate if reduction of group
capacity is also necessary for increased edge distance. Figure 3.85 shows typical load
displacement curves for groups tested with and without hole clearance. The activation of an
chor 2 in case of anchorages tested with hole clearance can be clearly seen in the load
displacement curve by the change of the slope. For an edge distance of 50 mm, anchor 2 is
activated slightly below the load level where a single anchor with the same edge distance
loaded parallel to the free edge fails. Therefore, the group capacity is reduced compared to the
capacity of the same group tested without hole clearance. For increased edge distance
(c1 = 100 mm), no reduction was observed since the displacement at failure is significantly
larger compared to small edge distance. An evaluation of the ultimate loads and displace
ments at failure of single anchors loaded parallel to the edge is described in Section 3.2.2.3.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 127
70 90
without hole clearance without hole clearance
80
60
Load reduction 70
50
60
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
40 50
30
20
with hole clearance 20 Anchor 2 is activated
10
10
Anchor 2 is activated c1 = 50 mm c1 = 100 mm
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
Figure 3.85: Loaddisplacement behavior of groups with two anchors with spacing of 100 mm
loaded parallel to the edge with and without hole clearance
In Figure 3.86, the observed ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the applied hole clear
ance for both edge distance of 50 mm and 100 mm. On the right vertical axis the mean ratio
between the capacity of the group tested with hole clearance to the capacity of the same group
tested without hole clearance is shown. For an edge distance of 100 mm, no difference in
shear strength was observed due to the different activation of the anchors whereby for small
edge distance of 50 mm a mean reduction of 16% was observed.
100 1.1
1.02
80 1.0
60 0.9
0.84
40 0.8
20 c = 50 mm 0.7
c = 100 mm
Unfavorable anchor
0 0.6 configuration
0 10 2 3
Hole clearance acl [mm]
2 mm 2 mm
(a) (b)
Figure 3.86: (a) Evaluation of capacity of groups with two anchors loaded parallel to the edge in
case of hole clearance acl = 2 mm (b) test setup and anchor configuration for unfavor
able anchor configuration
128 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.3.3 Anchors groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded perpendicular to
the free edge
The information provided in this section represents the results of shear tests with anchor
groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the free edge in order to under
stand the effect of different edge distancetospacing ratios (c1/s1) on the loadbearing behav
ior of groups with and without hole clearance.
Such anchor groups have been tested in the past by different authors (Martin and Schwarz
kopf, 1985; Wong et al., 1998, Fuchs and Eligehausen, 1990; Ueda et al., 1991; Hofmann,
2005, Anderson and Meinheit, 2006; Periskic, 2006a,b and Unterweger, 2008) (see Section
2.2). The knowledge gained from these tests provides the basis for current design recommen
dations, such as ACI 318 or CEN/TS 19924. However, design is still based on simplifications
for groups with more than one anchor row in direction 1 (effect of anchor spacing s1) since
there is lack of knowledge regarding the redistribution of load after formation of a shear crack
at the nearedge anchors. In particular, for groups with unfavorable anchor configuration (an
chor group with hole clearance, only the front anchors are loaded in shear up to a displace
ment where the back anchors are in contact with the fixture), it is not sufficiently investigated
if the load can be redistributed to the back anchors without negative influence of the for
mation of the failure crack at the front anchors. Moreover, combined failure mode in the
group (concrete edge failure at the front anchors and steel rupture of the back anchors) has
received little research attention. A systematic variation of the edge distancetospacing ratio
for concrete edge failure mode, steel rupture, and combination of these failure modes, de
scribed in this section, should provide information about the s1spacing effect.
Experimental testing described in this section was performed at the Department of Civil and
Coastal Engineering at the University of Florida. Anchor groups with two and three anchors
arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge were tested. For the individu
al edge distances of the anchors in the group, reference tests with single anchors were carried
out to allow an evaluation of the group resistance. This is shown in Figure 3.87.
Reference tests
”concrete edge failure“ Reference tests
”steel rupture“
edge
The test program is summarized in Table 3.21 to Table 3.23 for the group tests and the corre
sponding reference tests with single anchors. For tests where concrete edge failure should be
obtained, 7/8” diameter threaded rods were used to avoid premature steel rupture. Tests to
evaluate mixed failure mode in the group were performed with 5/8” threaded rods. All tests
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 129
were carried out with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously threaded
rods with grade B7 steel because of its high strength. Actual tensile steel strength was meas
ured prior to shear testing. The measured strength equals 137.7 ksi (946 MPa).
Table 3.21: Test program I (reference tests with single anchors loaded towards the free edge)
Table 3.22: Test program I (anchor groups with two anchors loaded towards the free edge)
Anchor diameter Embedment depth hcl ac,l Edge distance Individual anchor spacing
d [in.] (mm) hef [in.] (mm) [in.] (mm) c1,1 [in.] (mm) s1 [in.] (mm)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)

5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 4 (101.6) 2 (50.8), 4 (101.6)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 4 (101.6)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 6 (152.4) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127), 8 (203.2)  2 (50.8) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127)  4 (101.6) 4 (101.6), 6 (152.4), 8 (203.2)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 2 (50.8) 2 (50.8), 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 2 (50.8), 4 (101.6), 6 (152.4)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 8 (203.2) 2 (50.8)
hcl = max. value for hole clearance as allowed according to current design specifications
Table 3.23: Test program I (anchor groups with three anchors loaded towards the free edge)
Anchor diameter Embedment depth hcl ac,l Edge distance Individual anchor spacings
d [in.] (mm) hef [in.] (mm) [in.] (mm) c1,1 [in.] (mm) s1,1 = s1,2 [in.] (mm)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127)  4 (101.6) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127)  3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)
Testing was performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs with sufficient slab
thickness to avoid influence of the member thickness on the breakout capacity. Concrete used
in the US differs from the concrete used for the shear tests performed at the Institute of Con
struction Materials (see Table 3.2). Therefore, for the shear tests performed at the University
of Florida, the concrete mix composition for the slabs and detailed information about the ag
gregates are provided in Table 3.24.
130 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Table 3.24: Concrete mix composition and statistical analysis of the aggregates
All test slabs were reinforced at the bottom with two #3 (3/8 in.) bars in every direction. Rein
forcement in these slabs was only used for handling the slabs with the crane and the fork lift.
In these slabs, the reinforcement was placed so as not to provide confinement to the anchor
age. All anchorages were tested on the surface not encased by the formwork. Therefore the
concrete surface was screed to produce a smooth surface area. The free edges of the slabs
were used for the tests with edge influence whereas the large interior areas of these slabs were
used for “inthefield” tests. The spreading width measured during the slump test was 4“. The
fresh concrete was poured in layers and compacted using a vibrator. To determine the com
pression strength of the concrete slabs, cylinders (6“x12“) were poured as well and sampled
continuously to monitor the strength development. Compression tests were performed in ac
cordance with ASTM C3905e2 (2005) “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens”. The initial curing of the slabs and cylinders took place in a
humid environment inside of the research laboratory and began immediately after pouring the
concrete. Additionally, the fresh concrete slabs were covered with constant wet sheets and
plastic films over a period of the first 28 days. The formworks were removed after 6 days.
This was necessary to build together the new formworks for the next cast. The plastic molds
of the concrete cylinders were removed on the same day as well to ensure the same curing
conditions. The concrete compressive strength decisive for the corresponding testing day was
measured on cylinders (6”x12”). The measured compressive strength is approximately the
same for all casts (fc = 4218 psi (fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa)). For more details, it is referenced to the
test report Grosser, Cook (2009).
Additionally, two test series were performed at the Institute of Construction Materials, re
ferred to as test program II in this section, to provide additional information about the load
distribution and increased number of anchors in the group. The test series with two anchors
was performed with the steel plate with loading pins described in Section 3.3.2.2 in order to
measure the load distribution to the anchors. The test series with five anchors was performed
with small spacings in order to evaluate if load redistribution to the rearmost anchor without
negative influence of crack formation at the anchors closer to the edge is possible. All anchors
had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa).
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 131
Table 3.25: Test program II (anchor groups loaded towards the free edge)
Number of Anchor diameter Embedment depth Edge distance Individual anchor spacings
anchors d (mm) hef (mm) c1,1 (mm) s1,1 = (s1,2 = s1,3 = s1,4) (mm)
2 12 80 50 100
5 16 130 50 50
For information about the base material for test program II, it is referenced to Section 3.2.1.2.
The concrete slabs in which the tests with two anchors were performed had a compressive
strength of fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa, and the slabs in which tests with five anchors were performed
had a compressive strength of fcc,200 = 24.4 MPa.
A special load frame was built and fixed to the strong floor and the reaction wall (see Figure
3.88). The basic loading and support mechanism was constructed in accordance with the test
setup described in Section 3.2.1.3 (Figure 3.4). The tiedown was realized by means of a steel
beam tightened to the strong floor with two threaded steel rods. The load was applied using a
hydraulic cylinder (ENERPAC RCH603 max 10.000 psi/700 bar) and a cylinder pump (EN
ERPAC P802 max 10.000 psi/700 bar). The load was applied to the anchors by pulling on a
baseplate with a thickness of 30 mm. In every test a friction reducing teflon sheet (ptfe) was
placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All anchors were tightened snug tight
with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 50 inch pounds). Generally, peak loads were
reached in approximately 1 to 3 minutes. The baseplate was of case hardened steel to apply
loads up to 50 kips. All loading of the anchors was done with sufficient support spacing (four
times the edge distance) so that the expected failure body was not affected by the support.
Anchorage plate displacement was measured with a linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT). The LVDT was glued to the concrete surface and fixed with a wire and a magnet to
the end of the base plate. This setup was chosen to avoid a damage of the LVDT in case of
steel rupture.
base plate
reaction
teflon sheet tension rod hydraulic jack wall
Slab tiedown
load cell
strong floor
supports
Figure 3.88: Shear test frame (loading and tie down system)
132 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Five holes in a distance of 2” from centerline to centerline were drilled into the steel plate.
This is shown in Figure 3.89a). Depending on the tested diameter, different inserts were used.
With this plate, it was possible to test all anchor groups with spacings of 2”, 4”, 6”, 8” and
diameters of 5/8” and 7/8” for anchorages with and without hole clearance. To avoid a failure
of the inserts, case hardened steel (16MnCr5) was used (hardened and tempered to HRC60,
max. case depth). In order to verify the activation of the individual anchors, strain gages were
applied to the baseplate and the inserts (Figure 3.89). The polytetrafluorethene (ptfe) film was
cut out to bring out the wires connected to the strain gages.
Strain gage
Center to center spacing of 2“
protected
strain gage
(a) (b)
Figure 3.89: (a) Baseplate with applied strain gages (b) Strain gage application to the inserts
In addition, the individual anchor tension forces were measured by specially constructed an
chor load cells and anchor load cell adapters. The overall objective in the development of this
setup was to measure the anchor tension without interfering with the anchor behavior. The
principal idea was taken from Cook (1989) and was enhanced for this shear project. The setup
is shown in Figure 3.90. All load cells were calibrated frequently during the testing program
to ensure reliable measurements.
anchor
Figure 3.90: Setup for the measurement of axial forces in the individual anchors
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 133
Installing anchors when multiple anchors in the group are present is challenging in particular
when anchors should be installed with hole clearance. An inaccurate position or inclination of
the anchor can falsify the result. Therefore, an accurate installation of the anchors is absolute
ly necessary. All holes were predrilled through a template with precise hole spacing for an
chorages with and without hole clearance. The inner diameter of the holes fitted tight the drill
bit. After predrilling the template was removed and the holes were drilled to the required
embedment depth with 11/16” drill bit for the 5/8” anchor rods and 15/16” drill bit for the
7/8” anchor rods. A drill rig was used to ensure that the bore hole is aligned exactly perpen
dicular to the concrete surface. General information about drilling and cleaning can be taken
from Section 3.2.1.2. After cleaning, the anchors were installed, spare adhesive was removed,
and the anchors were adjusted with the baseplate and inserts fitting tight the anchor rod. For
detailed description of the setting process, it is referenced to the test report Grosser, Cook
(2009). For testing, inserts in the steel plate for setting the anchors were replaced by inserts
with a clearance hole 2 mm larger than the anchor diameter.
Figure 3.91: Anchor configuration and testing position for groups with two and three anchors
134 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Anchor configuration and testing position can be seen in Figure 3.91 for both anchor groups
with and without hole clearance for groups with two and three anchors. For anchor groups
without hole clearance, the anchors were installed so that all anchors are in contact with the
baseplate. Therefore, the shear force is initially distributed to all anchors. In case of anchor
groups with hole clearance the anchors are randomly located in the clearance hole of the plate.
It cannot be guaranteed that all anchors are activated at the same time. For instance, in case of
an anchor group with two anchors it is possible that either the first anchor is in contact with
the plate and takes up the entire load (most unfavorable load case) or the back anchor is in
contact with the plate and takes up the entire load (most favorable load case). In all tests the
most unfavorable load case was investigated for groups with hole clearance to evaluate the
highest reduction in ultimate load.
Anchor groups failed either in concrete edge breakout, steel failure or a combination of con
crete edge failure and steel rupture. The failure in the different sections (front anchor, middle
anchor, back anchor) and the failure loads and displacements at failure for the individual an
chor tests are summarized in Table B5 and Table B6 (Appendix B).
Before analyzing the group behavior, the theoretical background for the distribution of the
applied shear load and the assumptions for calculating the resistance are discussed for a group
with two anchors (see Table 3.26).
In accordance with the theory of elasticity, equal stiffness of all anchors in the group is as
sumed. For anchorages without hole clearance, the shear load is initially distributed to all an
chors. For anchorages with hole clearance (unfavorable anchor configuration), the entire shear
load is initially distributed only to the front anchor. For verification of concrete edge failure
and steel rupture, the resistance can be calculated assuming that either the front anchor or the
back anchor is controlling the failure. For large ratios s1/c1,1, the assumption that the failure
crack occurs at the front anchor leads to conservative results in respect to concrete breakout,
but is conversely associated with the maximum resistance for steel rupture since both anchors
are assumed to take up the shear load. In particular, for anchorages with hole clearance, it is
not known if redistribution to the back anchor is conservative for the concrete edge failure
mode since the formation of a failure crack at the front anchor may negatively influence the
group capacity. Moreover, for verification of steel rupture (only back anchors are taken into
account), this assumption leads to conservative results. It is not known if the front anchor can
resist a part of the shear load to increase the steel resistance.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 135
Table 3.26: Example of distribution of applied shear load and verification of resistance for
concrete edge failure and steel rupture
s1
Vs/2
c1,1
s1
Vs/2 Vu ,c 2 Vu ,c,0 c1,1
c1,1 Vu ,S 2 Vu ,S n 1 c1,2
In order to allow an evaluation of the group resistance, reference tests with single anchors
were carried out for the individual edge distances. Anchors failed either in concrete edge fail
ure or steel rupture.
Figure 3.92a) shows the measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the edge distance. It
is distinguished between anchors failed in concrete failure and anchors failed in steel rupture
to show the transition between the failure modes. For the 5/8 inches diameter threaded rods,
steel rupture occurred for edge distances larger than 6 inches. For the 7/8 inches diameter
threaded rods, concrete edge failure could be obtained up to an edge distance of 8 inches.
However, for the evaluation of the group resistance, the concrete edge breakout resistance of
single anchors with larger edge distances is required. Therefore, in Figure 3.92b), the obtained
ultimate loads for the concrete edge breakout failure mode are compared with the mean pre
diction according to Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42. It is shown that neither Equation 2.41
nor Equation 2.42 agrees suitable with the single anchor test results. In average the measured
loads are 20% higher compared to Equation 2.41 and 30% higher compared to Equation 2.42.
The high deviation can be explained by the concrete used for the experimental investigations.
The mean prediction equations were developed from tests performed in concrete with round
gravel aggregate. In general, shear tests performed in the “US” show higher breakout strength
compared to “European” testing since often crushed aggregate is used. However, no systemat
136 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
ic investigation on the influence of concrete mix composition on the ultimate shear strength is
known. The aggregate mix composition for testing described in this section is shown in Table
3.24. Broken and sharp aggregate (granite) was used. In concrete with broken aggregate
(crushed rock) the fracture energy for concrete strength fcc < 60 MPa can be up to 50% higher
than that associated with round gravel aggregate (Eligehausen et al., 2006). For anchorages
loaded in tension, the results have shown that the ultimate load increases with increasing frac
ture energy Gf (Elfgren, Ohlsson, 1986; Sawade, 1994; Ožbolt, 1995). This is assumed to ap
ply also for shear loaded anchorages. However, the mean prediction according to Equation
2.41 and Equation 2.42 consider the concrete compressive strength as the only material prop
erty influencing ultimate strength since this is better suited for design purpose. The influence
of concrete mix composition is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.5.
1.8
35
Measured ultimate load V u,test [kips]
1.6
30
1.4
Vu,test / Vu,calculation
25
1.2
20 1.0
y = 1,58x1,39
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4 Equation 2.41
5 7/8" CE 7/8" S
0.2 Equation 2.42
5/8" CE 5/8" S
0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Edge distance c1 [in.] Edge distance c1 [mm]
Figure 3.92: (a) Evaluation of ultimate loads obtained in the single anchor tests and determination
of transition between concrete edge failure and steel rupture (b) Ratio of ultimate
loads obtained in the single anchor tests for the concrete edge failure mode with mean
prediction according to Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42
For extrapolating the data points for larger edge distances, an equation needs to be found pre
dicting the concrete breakout strength with sufficient accuracy not to falsify the comparison
with the group resistance. Figure 3.92a) shows a potential regression of the ultimate loads for
the concrete edge failure mode. In addition, considering the concrete compressive strength
this regression leads to Equation 3.5. Figure 3.93a) shows the comparison of this equation
with the single anchor test results for an embedment depth of 5 inches. It is shown that the
prediction Equation 3.5 is accurate enough for extrapolation of the missing data points for
concrete edge failure.
In Figure 3.93b), the extrapolation for edge distance of 6 inches for the 5/8 inches diameter
threaded rods and for edge distances of 10 and 11 inches for the 7/8 inches diameter threaded
rods is shown. For comparison, the ultimate loads for the concrete edge failure mode obtained
in the single anchor tests are plotted.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 137
2.0 45
1.8 n = 31 40
1.6
35
1.2
25
1.0
20
0.8
15
0.6
0.4 10
Tests
0.2 Ø = 1.02 SD = 0.09 COV = 8.45 5
Extrapolation
0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [in.]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.93: (a) Ratio of ultimate loads obtained in the single anchor tests for the concrete edge
failure mode with mean prediction according to Equation 3.5 (b) Extrapolation of the
concrete edge breakout resistance for larger edge distances
In Figure 3.94a) the measured axial force compared to the shear load at ultimate load is plot
ted as a function of the edge distance.
70
Load washer
60 to measure
axial force
50
Axial/shear [%]
Applied
40
Baseplate shear
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Edge distance c1
Edge distance c1 [in.]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.94: (a) Evaluation of measured axial forces at ultimate load (b) Loadbearing mechanism
of a single anchor loaded in shear
High axial forces can develop in the anchors when loading the anchors in pure shear. The
loadbearing mechanism of a single anchor loaded in shear towards the edge is shown in Fig
ure 3.94b). Due to the eccentricity between applied shear load and stress resultant in the con
crete the resulting moment generates a compression force between baseplate and concrete
surface and an axial force in the anchor bolt. This mechanism is explained in detail in Zhao
(1993). In the tests performed by Zhao (1993) the axial force in the anchor was measured with
strain gages. All anchors were tested without influence of edge distance. On average, the axial
force at ultimate load was about 35% of the applied shear load. By means of numerical simu
lations, Fuchs (1990) specified this value to be 40% of the applied shear load. The single an
chor tests evaluated in Figure 3.94a) show that the percentage axial force increases with in
138 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
creasing edge distance. For small edge distance, the mean axial force is about 20% of the
shear load, and for large edge distance (anchor failed in steel rupture) about 60% of the ap
plied shear load. The lower axial forces for large edge distances in the tests performed by
Zhao (1993) can be explained by the fact that the baseplate was welded to the anchor bolt
which increases the transverse stiffness, and therefore reduces the resulting axial force in the
anchor.
In this section the basic load distribution of axial and shear forces on the individual anchors in
a group with two anchors without hole clearance arranged perpendicular to the edge and load
ed towards the edge is discussed. The shear load distribution at ultimate load for different
anchor configurations with and without hole clearance is explained in Sections 3.3.3.4.4 and
3.3.3.4.5 for groups failed in concrete edge failure and Section 3.3.3.4.6 for groups failed in
steel.
In Hofmann (2005), groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge were loaded
towards the edge. To get an idea of the load distribution on the individual anchors, strain gag
es were attached to the baseplate. The results indicate that the front anchor takes up a higher
load than the back anchor at initial loading. At a load about 50% of the ultimate capacity, the
load is redistributed to the back anchor due to a loss of stiffness caused by cracking at the
front anchor. No theoretical explanation can be found for the fact that the front anchor is
higher loaded at the onset of loading. It is assumed that the stress flow in the steel plate falsi
fies the results. In order to evaluate the loadbearing behavior and to verify the distribution of
forces, a test series comparable to the anchor configuration tested in Hofmann (2005) was
performed (test program II). The load was applied with the plate described in Section 3.3.2.2.
The results are shown in Figure 3.95a).
50
Load cell measurement
45
Sum of load
40 pins + friction
35
30
Load V [kN]
25
Shear A2
20
15 Single A1 Shear A1
10 Axial A2
5 Axial A1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement δ [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.95: Anchor group with two anchors with c1,1 = 50 mm and s1 = 100 mm (a) Load distribu
tion of axial and shear forces on the individual anchors (b) Loading setup
As expected, both anchors take up the same shear force at the onset of loading. The initial
slope of measurement of the shear anchor forcedisplacement curve is half the measurement
of the load cell which represents the group behavior. The sum of pin forces (friction included)
agrees well with the load cell measurement. For comparison, the loaddisplacement curve of a
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 139
single anchor with the edge distance of the front anchor loaded towards the edge is plotted.
The front anchor in the group failed at its concrete breakout strength with good correlation
with the single anchor test result. The load was redistributed to the back anchor. At failure of
the entire group, the front anchor still resisted a part of the shear load. Additionally, the axial
forcedisplacement behavior for both anchors is shown. Compared to the shear load distribu
tion, the back anchor takes up a higher axial force at the onset of loading. This was observed
in all tests and can be explained with the liftoff of the plate when applying the load.
The distribution of axial and shear forces at ultimate load for the test series with two anchors
is shown in Figure 3.96a). On the left vertical axis the percentage distribution of shear load
related to the sum of measured pin forces is plotted for the individual anchors. The individual
axial forces are related to the total shear load measured by the load cell (referred to as tension
load). On the right vertical axis the sum of pin forces including effect of friction (solid line)
and the sum of axial forces (dashed line) are related to the total shear load measured by the
load cell. The data depict the average of three tests. At ultimate load, the back anchor resists
most of the total shear load (~90%) whereas the front anchor only takes up a small part in its
post peak (~10%). The mean axial load in the back anchor is about 40% of the total shear load
at ultimate load. Nearly no axial force in the front anchor at ultimate load was measured.
In all tests no influence of crack formation at the front anchor on the crack propagation at the
back anchor was observed (see Figure 3.96b).
100 120
89.1
90
99.2
100
80
shear load
Distribution of load [%]
60
total shear + friction
50 total tension 60
40
32.8 35.5 40
30 Front anchor (A1)
20
10.9 20
10
2.7
0 0
0 1 2 3
Anchor
(a) (b)
Figure 3.96: (a) Load distribution of axial and shear forces in a group with two anchors for an
edge distance c1,1 = 50 mm and spacing s1 = 100 mm at ultimate load (b) Typical
breakout pattern (post peak)
For the following evaluation of the test results, it is distinguished if the failure of the entire
group after redistribution of forces was caused by concrete or steel failure.
3.3.3.4.4 Analysis of groups without hole clearance failed by concrete edge failure
In this section the question is discussed if there is a negative influence of the crack formation
at the front anchor on the group capacity. Only groups failed in concrete edge failure after
redistribution to the back anchor are considered.
140 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Figure 3.97 shows typical breakout pattern of groups with two anchors tested without hole
clearance and the corresponding measured loaddisplacement curves. When the distance be
tween front anchor and back anchor is large enough (s1,1 ≥ c1,1), a crack first occurred at the
front anchor since two times the front anchor resistance observed in the single anchor tests is
smaller than the resistance of the back anchor. No intersection between the failure cracks at
front and back anchor was observed. For anchor groups where the back anchor resistance is
smaller than two times the front anchor resistance, the group failed without a crack visible at
the front anchor. The measurement of the strain gages shows that at ultimate load the anchors
share the load equally. To evaluate the group capacity the single anchor results for the corre
sponding edge distances for two times the front anchor and the back anchor are plotted in
Figure 3.97b). The evaluation shows that for groups without hole clearance good agreement
with the group capacity can be obtained by calculating the resistance with the edge distance of
the back anchor. It appears that the formation of a failure crack at the front anchor can be ne
glected for the verification in the ultimate limit state. However, it should be noted at this point
that the failure of the front anchor has to be taken into account from a serviceability stand
point.
30
test 2
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 4“ 10
5/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“
5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement δ [in.]
s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0
(a) (b)
Figure 3.97: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with two anchors without hole clearance
(b) Corresponding loaddisplacement curves
The loadbearing behavior of groups with three and five anchors in a row without hole clear
ance is shown in Figure 3.98. For the group with a ratio s1,t/c1,1 = 1.0, no crack at the front
anchor was observed since n1times the front anchor resistance is larger than the back anchor
resistance. For the tested group with three anchors with a ratio s1,t/c1,1 = 2.67, a first crack at
the front anchor was observed since the “tripled” single anchor resistance is smaller than the
back anchor resistance. However, no further crack opening at the front anchor was observed.
Accelerated crack opening was observed for the middle and the back anchor. The comparison
of the group capacity with the back anchor resistance shows a good agreement. In order to
verify the assumption that the back anchor resistance can be taken as the failure criterion for
groups without hole clearance is valid also for groups with more than three anchors, a test
series was performed with a connection engaging five anchors in a row. This connection was
tested at the IWB. Therefore, measurements are shown in SI units. The resistances of the in
dividual anchors are calculated with Equation 2.42. Even though the initial load distribution
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 141
shows that five times the front anchor resistance is smaller than the resistance of the anchor
rearmost to the free edge, no crack at the front anchor was observed. The group capacity cor
relates well with the calculated resistance of the rearmost anchor.
50
45
Vu,c (c1,3 = 11“) (test 2)
40
35
3∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 4“) (test 1)
Load V [kips]
30
s1,t/c1,1 = 1.0 Vu,c (c1,3 = 8“) (test 1)
25
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement δ [in.]
s1,t/c1,1 = 2.67
120
test 3 4∙Vu,c (c1,2 = 100 mm)
M16, c1,1 = 50 mm, s1,t = 200 mm
100
Vu,c (c1,5 = 250 mm)
80
Load V [kN]
40
20
M16, c1,1 = 50 mm, s1,t = 200 mm
s1,t/c1,1 = 4.0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement δ [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.98: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with more than two anchors without hole
clearance (b) Corresponding loaddisplacement curves
Summarizing, taking into account all tests performed without hole clearance, a good predic
tion of the group resistance can be obtained when assuming a redistribution of the shear load
to the back anchor without negative influence of premature cracking at the anchors closer to
the free edge. All tests are considered in Section 5.8.
3.3.3.4.5 Analysis of groups with hole clearance failed by concrete edge failure
The formation of a failure crack at the front anchor is assumed to have a more significant in
fluence on the group capacity for anchorages with hole clearance since the crack can open at a
load equals the resistance of the front anchor in case its displacement at failure is smaller than
142 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
the hole clearance. It is not known if for all ratios s1,1/c1,1 redistribution of the shear load to
the back anchor leads to conservative prediction of the concrete edge breakout capacity.
Figure 3.99 shows typical breakout pattern of groups with two anchors tested with hole clear
ance and the corresponding measured loaddisplacement curves for different ratios s1,1/c1,1.
60
2∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 8“) (test 1)
50
7/8“, c1,1 = 8“, s1,1 = 2“
40
Vu,c (c1,2 = 10“) (test 1)
Load V [kips]
s1,1/c1,1 = 0.25
2∙Vu,c (c1,1) (test 2)
30
Vu,c (c1,1 = 8“) (test 1)
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“ test 2
20 Vu,c (c1,2 = 6“) (test 2)
Load reduction
30
0
0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 0.45
Displacement δ [in.]
Anchor 2 is activated
s1,1/c1,1 = 2.0
(a) (b)
Figure 3.99: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with two anchors with hole clearance (b) Cor
responding loaddisplacement curves
For the group with a ratio s1,1/c1,1 = 0.25 (test 1), the displacement at failure of the front an
chor is larger than the hole clearance. Therefore, the back anchor is activated without prior
failure of the front anchor. At this point, the shear load is redistributed to the back anchor and
both anchors are equally loaded. The group capacity is reached at a load equal to the back
anchor resistance. Since two times the front anchor resistance is larger than the back anchor
resistance, no crack at the front anchor is observed. For the tested anchor group with a ratio
s1,1/c1,1 = 0.5 (test 2), the displacement at failure of the front anchor is about equal to the hole
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 143
clearance. The crack at the front anchor opens at this point and the load is redistributed to the
back anchor. The formation of the crack at the front anchor influences the loadcarrying be
havior negatively which leads to a reduction of the group capacity compared to the back an
chor resistance. This was also observed for the anchor group tested with a ratio s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0
(test 3). Note that the breakout angle of the crack at the front anchor was observed to be
steeper if both anchors are activated in the group at the onset of loading (compare Figure 3.97
test 2). The mean reduction of the breakout capacity of the groups, referred to as test 2 and
test 3 in Figure 3.99, is about 20% compared to the breakout resistance of the back anchor. In
test 4, the ratio s1,1/c1,1 was increased to a value 2.0. The crack opening at the front anchor
started at a displacement smaller than the hole clearance. However, no negative influence on
the back anchor crack was observed since the spacing between the anchors is large enough.
Therefore, no significant reduction of the group capacity due to premature cracking at the
front anchor was obtained.
Anchorages with three anchors according to the anchor configuration described in Figure 3.98
were tested with hole clearance as well. The anchor location is shown in Figure 3.91. At the
onset of loading, the front anchor is in contact with the baseplate, and the middle and the back
anchor are installed with a gap of 2 mm to the baseplate. In both cases a failure crack was
observed at the front anchor since the displacement at failure of the front anchor is smaller or
about equal the provided hole clearance (Figure 3.100). At this point where anchor 2 and 3 are
activated, the load is partially redistributed to the middle and the back anchor. Accelerated
crack opening at the front anchor was observed in test 2. At ultimate load, the total shear load
was mainly resisted by the middle and the back anchor since the front anchor has lost its re
sistance compared to test 1 where the front anchor resisted a part of the shear force at ultimate
load. The capacity of the group was reached after failure of the rearmost anchor without nega
tive influence of premature cracking within the breakout body. Interestingly, it was found that
the capacity of these groups is slightly higher compared to the same anchor configuration
tested without hole clearance.
35
3∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 4“) (test 1)
Load V [kips]
30
Vu,c (c1,3 = 8“) (test 1)
s1,t/c1,1 = 1.0 25
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Displacement δ [in.]
Anchor 2 and 3 are
activated
s1,t/c1,1 = 2.67
(a) (b)
Figure 3.100: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with three anchors with hole clearance (b)
Corresponding loaddisplacement curves
144 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Summarizing, for groups with two anchors tested with unfavorable anchor configuration, not
in all cases, the group capacity was observed to be equal the resistance of the back anchor.
Therefore, for ratios 0.5 ≤ s1/c1,1 ≤ 1.33 a mean reduction of 20% in ultimate shear strength
can be expected when the load is assumed to be redistributed to the back anchor. All tests are
considered in Section 5.8.
When the failure is assumed to occur at the front anchor, this is associated with the maximum
resistance with respect for steel rupture since the maximum number of anchors is active.
However, when assuming a successive redistribution of the shear load from the front anchor
to the rearmost anchor, the resistance should be calculated with the back anchor only since it
is assumed that the anchors closer to the edge do not take up a significant part of the shear
load. The experimental investigations described in this section show that this leads to very
conservative prediction of the steel resistance for some anchor configurations. For the tested
anchor groups, hole clearance was not found to have an influence on the number of anchors
active if the resistance is calculated assuming a redistribution to the back anchor. Therefore,
in the following discussion, the observations described are valid for groups with and without
hole clearance. Figure 3.101 shows typical failure patterns of groups failed either in steel or a
combined concrete edge and steel failure.
4“ 4“ 4“
2“ 6“
4“
4“ 4“
2“
Figure 3.101: Typical failure patterns of groups with and without hole clearance for groups with
two and three anchors
For groups with a small ratio s1,1/c1,1, no formation of a failure crack at the front anchor prior
to steel rupture of the group was observed. The measured group capacity is two times the sin
gle anchor steel shear strength obtained in the reference tests. For large ratios s1,1/c1,1 (e.g.
s1,1/c1,1 = 2.0), a failure crack at the front anchor occurred. Because the front anchor has lost
its resistance, the group capacity was measured with only one times the single anchor steel
shear strength. For ratios s1,1/c1,1 lying in between (e.g. s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0), the front anchor still
resists a fraction of the total shear force. The measured ultimate strength is about 1.5 times the
single anchor capacity. For the group with three anchors, the front anchor failed in concrete
edge failure and the middle and the back anchor failed in steel. Group capacity was measured
with 2.5 times the single anchor capacity. Figure 3.102 shows the comparison of measured
group capacity with the steel rupture load obtained in the single anchor tests for all tested con
figurations with two anchors.
It is noted that the fraction the front anchor can resist in its post peak depends on different
parameters (e.g. tensile steel strength, rupture elongation, edge distance, embedment depth,
member thickness). It is assumed that for common applications in members with sufficient
member thickness (front anchor breakout is not affected by the lower edge of the slab) and
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 145
anchors having sufficient embedment depth to avoid an accelerated drop down of the load
displacement curve in the post peak, the loadbearing mechanism according to Figure 3.102
provides good prediction of the failure load. However, an increase of the capacity over the
steel resistance of the back anchors is not recommended in design.
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5 acl==00mm
mm
acl==22mm
mm
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
s1,1/ c1
Figure 3.102: Comparison of obtained group capacity with steel shear resistance of a single an
chor with same anchor diameter
As for single anchors, the percentage axial force related to the total shear force increases with
increasing edge distance. In Figure 3.103, the mean percentage axial forces at ultimate load
are shown. For groups with two anchors having a small ratio s1,1/c1,1 where no failure crack at
the front anchor was observed, the axial force in anchor 1 and anchor 2 is about the same val
ue. For increasing ratio s1,1/c1,1, the axial force in the anchors closer to the edge is smaller than
the axial force in the anchors further away from the edge. In case the front anchor has lost its
resistance due to formation of a failure crack at the front anchor, no axial force was measured
at this anchor at ultimate load.
80 30
crack at the front 7/8" concrete breakout
70 anchor
25
no crack at the 5/8" steel rupture
60 front anchor
Axial/total shear [%]
Axial/total shear [%]
30
10
20
5
10
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4
Anchor Anchor
(a) groups with two anchors (b) groups with three anchors
As described in Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.3.2 the influence of a shear load applied parallel
to the edge on the loadbearing behavior has received little research attention in the past. In
particular, for the effect of spacing s1 on the group capacity there are only few experimental
results published by Hofmann, 2005 and Anderson and Meinheit, 2006. In current design, it is
assumed that the anchor spacing s1 influences the capacity in the same manner as for the same
anchor group loaded perpendicular to the free edge. Therefore, the increase in capacity due to
the changed load direction is taken into account by simply multiplying the resistance of the
group with a factor ψ90°,V. Consequently, the loadbearing behavior is considered to be the
same for the group loaded perpendicular and parallel to the edge. In this section the influence
of anchor spacing s1 and number of anchors on the capacity of groups loaded parallel to the
edge is discussed and it is shown that a different loadbearing mechanism for the s1effect
needs to be considered when the load is applied parallel to the edge.
Experimental testing described in this section is taken from two different research activities,
Grosser, 2007a which is summarized in test program I and Grosser, Eligehausen, 2008 which
is summarized in test program II. Additionally, one test series was carried out to analyze neg
ative effect of very small ratio s1,1/c1,1 (see test program III).
Comparative calculations with current design recommendations for different fastening sys
tems (see Grosser, 2007a) have shown that anchor groups fail by concrete edge failure for
short embedment depth if the load is applied parallel to the edge. Therefore, a study of groups
with four anchors loaded parallel to the concrete edge was performed with short stiff threaded
rods (hef/dnom = 5.0). With this project the question should be answered if concrete pryout or
concrete edge breakout is controlling the failure for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge.
All tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system with M16 threaded rods
having a steel grade 10.9. The test program is summarized in Table 3.27. The tests were per
formed in normal weight low strength concrete with measured compressive strength at the
beginning of testing of fcc,200 = 30.3 MPa. Width and length of the concrete slabs were taken
as 1285 mm with a slab thickness of 495 mm. For the description of the base material it is
referenced to Section 3.2.1.2.
Table 3.27: Test program I (groups with four anchors loaded parallel to the free edge)
In order to clarify the loadbearing behavior for the concrete edge failure mode of anchor
groups loaded parallel to the edge a comprehensive test program was carried out (see Figure
3.104 and Table 3.28).
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 147
s2
s1 s1
c1,2
c1,1 c1,1
Anchors were installed with an embedment depth of hef = 9.75dnom to avoid concrete pryout
failure. By means of this test program, the influence of spacing s1 on the group capacity and
the ability of load redistribution to the back anchors after failure of the front anchors should
be analyzed. Reference tests for groups with two and four anchors having a spacing s2 were
performed for both the front edge distance and the back edge distance. Such reference testing
is necessary since experimental tests have shown that the s2spacing effect and the load direc
tion are not considered with sufficient accuracy in current equations to calculate realistic ref
erence values.
All tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system with M20 threaded rods
having a steel grade 10.9. The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete
slabs with width and length of 1635 mm and a slab thickness of 400 mm. For the description
of the base material, it is referred to Section 3.2.1.2. The measured compressive strength at
the beginning of testing scatters between 26.9 and 33.9 MPa (average 30.5 MPa).
Table 3.28: Test program II (anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge and corresponding
reference tests)
In order to analyze the negative effect of small spacing s1 on the loadbearing behavior, a
group with M24 anchors and embedment depth of 130 mm arranged perpendicular to the edge
was tested with a ratio s1/c1,1 = 0.33 (Table 3.29).
148 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Table 3.29: Test program III (group with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge and load
ed parallel to the free edge)
The anchors were installed as described in Section 3.3.1.1. The baseplate was aligned in the
correct position and glued to the concrete surface using a hotglue gun. All holes were pre
drilled, the plate was removed, and the holes were drilled to the required embedment depth of
hef = 195 mm. After drilling and cleaning, the anchors were installed and adjusted in the cor
rect position using the baseplate.
The test setup can be seen in Figure 3.19 (Section 3.2.2.2). Depending on the tested anchor
configuration, different anchorage plates were used. In general, the load was applied by pull
ing on a tension rod screwed into the baseplate (Figure 3.105a). Such a load application, in
the following referred to as “stiff” load application, allows limited rotation of the fixture after
failure of the front anchors. To investigate the difference in the loadbearing behavior in case
the fixture can rotate, a “hinged” load application was realized in some tests (Figure 3.105b).
Therefore, a semicircle steel plate (1) was screwed in the backside of the baseplate. The load
was applied by pulling on a steel ring (2). Additionally, the tension rod (3) screwed into the
steel ring was attached to the shear loading apparatus with a further hinge. Figure 3.105
shows the position of the fixture at post peak load, for instance, for a group with four anchors
having an edge distance c1,1 = 70 mm and spacings s1 = s2 = 70 mm. In case of a “hinged”
shear load application, the back anchors are loaded by an additional torsion moment caused
by the twisting behavior of the anchorage plate after failure of the front anchors, which can be
seen in Figure 3.105b).
(2)
(3)
(1)
Figure 3.105: Test setup for anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge
Anchorage plate displacement was measured with a linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT) into the direction of loading. Additional LVDTs were used to determine the dis
placement and the rotation of the baseplate perpendicular to the load direction. Crack opening
was measured in a distance of 100 mm to the outermost anchors. A friction reducing teflon
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 149
sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All anchors were tightened
with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 60 Nm).
Figure 3.106: Location of the LVDTs for anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge
Detailed information to the experimental tests is given in Grosser, 2007a and Grosser,
Eligehausen, 2008. A summary of the test results is shown in Table B7, Table B8 and Table
B9 (Appendix B). Section 3.3.4.3.1 gives a discussion about the verification of anchor
groups loaded parallel to the edge for the concrete edge failure mode in order to understand
the theoretical background. In Section 3.3.4.3.2 and Section 3.3.4.3.3, the experimentally ob
served loadbearing behavior of groups loaded parallel to the edge is analyzed.
In Section 3.3.3.4.1, the theoretical background for the calculation of an anchor group loaded
towards the edge is explained. Either the verification for concrete edge failure can be done for
the front anchors or the back anchors. Transferring this calculation approach to anchor groups
loaded parallel to the edge, three different calculation models described in the following, can
be assumed for predicting the resistance for the concrete edge failure mode. It is assumed that
all anchors resist shear forces when the load is applied parallel to the edge. This is shown in
Figure 3.107.
s2
Figure 3.107: Distribution of applied shear load to anchors in a group arranged close to the edge
and loaded parallel to the free edge for an anchorage without hole clearance
One assumption is that the failure is controlled by the anchors nearest the edge (front an
chors). Therefore, the resistance equals two times the front anchor resistance (Figure 3.108).
Another assumption is that the failure is controlled by the anchors furthest from the edge
(back anchors). The front anchors are assumed to have failed. Hereby, the back anchors are
150 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
loaded additionally by a torsion moment. This calculation approach is not reasonable for
groups with two anchors since the back anchor is not able to resist the torsional moment after
formation of a failure crack at the front anchor. Therefore, this calculation approach is only
shown for a group with four anchors (Figure 3.109).
s2
Figure 3.108: Calculation of the resistance for concrete edge failure according to model 1
s2 s1 s1 s2
TS VS VV VS
2 2 s2
Vs,res
VH VS VH VS
Vs Vs Vs
s1 s1
c1,1 c1,1
VS,res eV
αV
αV
αV VS,res
c1,2
edge s2/2 s2
s2 eV cos V
2
Vu ,c, c1,2 Vu ,c,0° c1,2 ,V ec,V
Vu ,c , c1,2
Vu ,c VS
VS ,res
s12 VH 2s2
VS ,res V V VS 1 2
2
H V
2
V arctan arctan
4s2 VV s1
Figure 3.109: Calculation of the resistance for concrete edge failure according to model 2
In calculation model 3 the failure is also assumed to be controlled by the back anchors. How
ever, in comparison to calculation model 2 the torsional moment is neglected assuming the
rotation is restrained (Figure 3.110).
s2
Vs Vs
Resistance for verification at the
back anchors:
s1 s1
Figure 3.110: Calculation of the resistance for concrete edge failure according to model 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 151
In general, the calculated failure loads according to model 2 are smaller than the calculated
failure loads according to model 1. This implies that for most of the anchorages model 2 can
not be verified in experimental investigations, since failure according to model 1 leads to fail
ure of the entire group. In model 2, it is assumed that the rotation of the anchorage plate is not
restrained, and that the front anchors have lost their resistance. Likely, this is not realistic,
since applying the load with a tension rod screwed into the baseplate restrains a “free” twist
ing behavior. Moreover, it is assumed that the front anchors resist a significant part of the
shear load in its post peak after formation of a failure crack at the front anchors. Hence, calcu
lation model 3 seems to be a realistic model for predicting the failure loads for concrete edge
failure.
In the following, the experimentally observed loadbearing behavior is analyzed and the theo
retical background according to calculation model 1, 2 and 3 is discussed.
3.3.4.3.2 Analysis of anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge with small ratio hef/dnom
A typical loaddisplacement curve is shown in Figure 3.111 for an anchor group with small
ratio hef/dnom loaded parallel to the edge. The failure occurred suddenly without pronounced
formation of cracks. The groups failed “explosively”. No descending branch of the load
displacement curves is observed after reaching the ultimate load. For a better understanding of
the failure, the tests were filmed in real time. The individual pictures taken from the recording
can be allocated to the several steps in the loaddisplacement curve. At point A (just before
failure), no cracks were visible. Point B is the last measured data (failure of the entire group).
200
180
160
140 Point B
Point A
Load V [kN]
120
100
(Point A) Ultimate load (Point B)
80
60
40
c1,1 = 100 mm
20 s1,1 = 50 mm
s2,1 = 100 mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement δ [mm]
Figure 3.111: Typical loaddisplacement curve of an anchor group with small ratio hef/dnom loaded
parallel to the edge and failure pattern at different time steps (M16, hef = 80 mm)
In some tests the ultimate load was detected in the loaddisplacement curve prior to failure of
the entire group. At this point, these tests were stopped to analyze the crack propagation.
However, this was only possible in a few tests. For tests where cracking could be evaluated,
the failure crack was observed at the front anchors (see Figure 3.112, test No. 1).
152 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
250
200
150
Load V [kN]
test No.1
test No.2 (test
100 not stopped)
test No.2
Figure 3.112: Loaddisplacement curves of an anchor group with small ratio hef/dnom loaded paral
lel to the edge for anchor configuration with c1,1 = s1,1 = s2,1 = 100 mm and corre
sponding failure pattern
By means of the breakout pattern, the failure cannot be associated to either concrete pryout
failure or concrete edge failure. This was also observed in experimental investigations per
formed by Hofmann (2005) for groups having ratios hef/dnom = 5.0 and 8.0. Therefore, in Fig
ure 3.113, the test results are compared with the current calculation approach for concrete
pryout failure according to Equation 2.40 and with the calculation models 1 to 3 for the con
crete edge failure mode according to Section 3.3.4.3.1. The increase factor ψ90°,V is calculated
according to Equation 2.47 with n taken as the number of anchors for which concrete edge
failure is verified. In this case, for groups with four anchors n = 2.
The tests agree well with the calculation approach for concrete pryout failure assuming this
failure mode governs the failure observed in tests (see Figure 3.113a). Figure 3.113b) shows
that calculation model 1 overestimates the resistance for concrete edge failure for decreasing
ratio s1/c1,1. Figure 3.113c) and d) show the comparison of the test results with the calculation
model 2 and 3 for concrete edge failure assuming the back anchors controlling the failure of
the group. In this case a redistribution of the shear load after formation of a failure crack at the
front anchors is necessary. However, according to the theoretical background described in
Section 3.3.4.3.1, this is only possible if the resistance of the back anchors is higher than two
times the resistance of the front anchors. For instance for the group shown in Figure 3.112 the
calculated resistance according to model 3 is higher compared to the calculated resistance
according to model 1. Hence, in the loaddisplacement curves, a change in slope where the
front anchors fail should be visible. However, in the measured loaddisplacement curves, the
failure of the front anchors could not be detected. Moreover, no formation of cracks at the
back anchors was observed. It is striking that the measured ultimate loads are higher than the
calculated resistance according to model 3. Assuming concrete breakout governs the failure
observed in tests, the back anchors do not limit the resistance if the load is applied parallel to
the edge. However, note that there are a lot of factors considered in the calculation of a group
loaded parallel to the edge which are assumed not to be captured with sufficient accuracy.
Therefore, in Section 3.3.4.3.3, the group resistance is compared with reference tests for front
and back anchors, and not with calculated resistance.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 153
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
Vu,m,test,90°,group / Vu,c,model 1
1.4 1.4
Vu,m,test / Vu,c,pryout
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
(a) (b)
3.0 2.0
2.8 1.8
2.5
1.6
Vu,m,test,90°,group / Vu,c,model 3
Vu,m,test,90°,group / Vu,c,model 2
2.3
1.4
2.0
1.8 1.2
1.5 1.0
1.3 0.8
1.0
0.6
0.8
Mean = 2.03 0.4 Mean = 1.48
0.5
Standard deviation = 0.35 Standard deviation = 0.23
0.3 COV [%] = 17.16 0.2
COV [%] = 15.80
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
s1/c1,1 [] s1/c1,1 []
(c) (d)
Figure 3.113: Comparison of test results with calculation approach for (a) pryout failure (b) con
crete edge failure according model 1 (c) concrete edge failure according model 2 (d)
concrete edge failure according model 3
Summarizing, the tests described in this section confirm the observations by Hofmann (2005).
In general, for groups with four anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded parallel to the
edge, the failure is governed by concrete pryout for small ratios hef/dnom. However, the results
show an influence of the ratio s1/c1,1 on the ultimate load. Therefore, a realistic model for con
crete edge failure is needed. Based on the test results, for small ratio s1/c1,1 the resistance of
the group cannot be assumed to be twice the resistance of the front anchors. This is discussed
in Section 3.3.4.3.3 for groups which failed without doubt in concrete edge breakout.
3.3.4.3.3 Analysis of s1spacing effect in anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge
In this section test program II and III are analyzed. In Figure 3.114, the load application is
theoretically discussed for a group with two anchors.
154 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
δ2 δ2 δ2
V V2 V V2 V2
e
V
V1 V1 V1
δ1 δ1 δ1
δ 1 = δ2 δ1 > δ2 δ1 > δ2
V 1 < V2 V1 = V2 V1 > V2
(a) Idealized stiff (b) Idealized hinged (c) Hinged load application in tests
In case the load is applied stiff, no rotation of the anchorage plate is possible. The displace
ment of the front anchor equals the displacement of the back anchor. When the front anchor
loses its stiffness, the back anchor gets higher loaded than the front anchor. In contrast, when
the load is applied “idealized” hinged, the anchorage plate rotates, and both anchors are even
ly loaded up to that point where the front anchor fails. However, an “idealized” hinged load
application is hard to realize in an experimental investigation, in particular, for a group with
closely spaced anchors, which is assumed to be the critical case. For the “hinged” load appli
cation used in the tests, a further aspect needs to be considered. With increasing load, the rota
tion of the plate leads to an eccentricity between the center axis of the anchors and the point
where the load is applied. Hence, the front anchor is more highly loaded than the back anchor.
The load fraction which is resisted by the anchors was not measured in the tests described in
this section. Therefore, the load distribution in a group loaded parallel to the edge for anchor
ages with and without torsional restraint is numerically discussed in Section 4.5.5.2. It is
shown that for idealized stiff load application at ultimate load the back anchors take up a
higher load than the front anchors, which explains that also for the case where redistribution
to the back anchors is not possible the resistance of the group can be higher than two times the
resistance of the front anchors.
In Figure 3.115, the loaddisplacement curves of groups with two and four anchors loaded
both with a “stiff” and a “hinged” load application are shown. Anchor 1 and anchor 2 take up
the same load at initial loading. For a group with two anchors, the hinged load application
leads to an averaged reduction of the ultimate load of 24% compared to the stiff load applica
tion. As aforementioned, the load is lower since the front anchor is higher loaded compared to
the stiff load application, where no rotation of the anchorage plate is possible. For an anchor
group with four anchors, the mean reduction of ultimate load is only 6%. The reason is that
the back anchors restrain the rotation of the plate, and the eccentricity is smaller. Therefore,
the load is distributed to the anchors more evenly.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 155
180 250
“stiff“ load application 6% reduction
160
“stiff“ load application
24% reduction 200
140 2*Vu,test (c1,1)
2*Vu,test (c1,1)
120
150 “hinged“ load
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
“hinged“ load
100 application
application
80
Vu,test (c1,2) 100
60 Vu,test (c1,2)
40 Vu,test (c1,1)
50
Vu,test (c1,1)
20
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
(a) Anchor group with two anchors (b) Anchor group with four anchors
s2 s2 s2
s1 s1
c1,2 c1,2
c1,1 c1,1
Figure 3.115: Loaddisplacement curves of anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge with “stiff”
and “hinged” load application and corresponding reference tests
In both diagrams, the loaddisplacement curves of the reference tests for the front and the
back anchors are shown. The loaddisplacement curves clearly show that the back anchors do
not limit the resistance of the group as it does for groups loaded perpendicular to the edge.
The different loadbearing mechanism is also indicated by the failure pattern shown in Figure
3.116. At the front anchors, an unsymmetrical concrete breakout is observed. However, the
breakout at the back anchors is not characterized by a typical concrete edge breakout. In front
and in the back of the remote anchors, local spalling is particularly pronounced. Cracks are
influenced by the breakout at the front anchors.
(a) n = 2 (b) n = 4
Figure 3.116: Typical failure patterns of anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge for the con
crete edge failure mode
156 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Anchor groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge were tested with spacings
70 mm and 100 mm. In Figure 3.117a), the measured ultimate load of the group tests is com
pared with twice the measured ultimate load of a single anchor with the edge distance of the
front anchor. An increase of the spacing s1 at constant edge distance of the front anchor did
not increase the ultimate load of the group. This was observed for both an edge distance of
70 mm and 100 mm. This shows that a redistribution of the load to the back anchor after the
formation of an edge breakout at the front anchor did not increase the ultimate load. The front
anchor is controlling the ultimate strength. However, for comparison, in Figure 3.117b), the
measured ultimate load of the group is compared with the measured ultimate load of a single
anchor with the edge distance of the back anchor. The group resistance is much higher than
the resistance of the back anchor. This shows that the front anchor resistance is not limited by
the resistance of the back anchor.
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.62
1.6
1.55
Vu,m,test,group / 2Vu,m,test (c1,1)
1.0 1.0
1.08 1.05
0.8 0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4 cc1,1
1,1 ==70
70mm
mm cc1,1
1,1 ==70
70mm
mm
0.3
0.2
cc1,1 = 100 mm
1,1 = 100 mm cc1,1 = 100 mm
1,1 = 100 mm
0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 25 50 75 100 125
Anchor spacing s1 [mm] Anchor spacing s1 [mm]
(a) Failure assumed at the front anchor (b) Failure assumed at the back anchor
Figure 3.117: Comparison of groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge and
loaded parallel to the edge with corresponding reference tests for front and back
anchor
That the back anchor is not controlling the ultimate load can be also seen by the fact that the
mean resistance of the anchor group with c1,1 = 100 mm and s1 = 70 mm is about 30% higher
than the mean resistance of the anchor group with c1,1 = 70 mm and s1 = 100 mm even though
both groups have the same edge distance of the back anchor.
Anchor groups with four anchors were tested with various anchor spacings in both directions.
For every anchor group with four anchors, reference tests for the front anchors for the con
crete edge failure mode are available. Direct comparison with the back anchor resistance is
not possible for all tested anchor groups since steel rupture governs the resistance of the back
anchors for larger edge distance. The comparison for the assumption that the failure crack
occurs at the front anchors is shown in Figure 3.118a). The resistance of the groups with four
anchors is for all tested anchor configurations higher than twice the resistance of the front
anchors. With decreasing edge distance, the assumption that the front anchors control the ul
timate load is more conservative. This indicates that for these groups the load can be redis
tributed to the back anchors after formation of a failure crack at the front anchors. As for
groups with two anchors (see Figure 3.117), redistribution of the load to the back anchors is
only possible if the resistance of the back anchors is larger than twice the capacity of the front
anchors. Taking into account a redistribution of the load to the back anchors, the ultimate load
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 157
equals the sum of the back anchor resistance and the fraction of the shear load the front an
chors resist in its post peak (Figure 3.118b).
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
Vu,m,test,group / 2Vu,m,test (c1,1)
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 s1 = 70 mm
s1 mm s2 == 70
s2 70 mm
mm 0.6 ss1 = 70 mm
1 = 70 mm ss2 = 70 mm
2 = 70 mm
s1 = 100
s1 100 mm
mm s2
s2 == 100
100 mm
mm ss1
1 ==100
100 mm
mm ss2
2 == 100
100 mm
0.4 0.4
s1 = 70 mm
s1 mm s2 == 140
s2 140 mm
mm ss1
1 ==70
70 mm
mm ss2
2 == 140
140 mm
0.2 0.2
s1 = 140
s1 140 mm
mm s2
s2 == 70
70 mm
mm ss1
1 ==140
140 mm
mm ss2
2 == 70
70 mm
mm
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Edge distance c1,1 [mm] Edge distance c1,1 [mm]
(a) Failure assumed at the front anchors
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.