Concrete capacity design of Cazaly hangers in shallow members

Westin T. Joy, Charles W. Dolan, and Donald F. Meinheit

Connections play an important role in building construction for all materials. Field-installed connections used in precast concrete systems are often much simpler than those required in steel, timber, or even some cast-in-place concrete systems. This simplicity gives precast concrete an important advantage over other building systems by allowing shorter building assembly and, ultimately, early completion of the building project. However, the simplicity and history of use may lead the engineer to assume that connections are as robust as the rest of the structural system. Thus, connection design becomes routine. If the underlying design theory is based on incomplete assumptions, the boundaries of application of the design method may be exceeded, which could lead to unexpected performance. One connection that gained popularity in the 1960s and has been in continuous use in the precast concrete industry since is the Cazaly hanger. Developed by Laurence Cazaly, the Cazaly hanger was first used in 1957 in the construction of a precast concrete warehouse building. The Cazaly hangers were used as purlin-to-girder connections and allowed the members to be erected much more quickly and economically.1 The three main components of the Cazaly hanger are a cantilevered top bar, a strap, and dowel anchorage in the top and bottom of the member (Fig. 1). In the original design, the cantilevered bar serves as the main supporting element for the member, while the strap transfers the vertical load to the member web. The bottom dowel provides anchorage for the strap to avoid rotational pullout of the

Editors quick points

n The PCI design guidelines for the Cazaly hanger connection are based on a series of tests conducted by the Canadian Precast/ Prestressed Concrete Institute (CPCI) in 1965. n Little research or review of the test results and failure models has been performed since the CPCI reports were published. n This research and reporting of test results focuses on updating the PCI design guidelines for the Cazaly hanger connection.

100

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Cantilevered top bar Top dowel

Strap Vu Bottom dowel anchor

Figure 1. This diagram shows the main components of a Cazaly hanger. Source: PCI Industry Handbook Committee 2004. Note: Vu = ultimate factored shear load.

strap, and the top dowel aids in transferring any horizontal force to the rest of the member.2 Note that the sketches in Fig. 1 and 2 are simplified because the top dowel is shown without cover. In the usual case, the top bar is embedded in concrete. The Cazaly hanger is cast into a concrete member, leaving the cantilevered top bar extended beyond the member end. The precast concrete piece is then placed so that the protruding bar rests on the supporting member. Figure 1 is a sketch of a typical system in which the hanger is placed on a transverse member. Typically, a Cazaly hanger is a gravity connection; however, the exposed portion of the top bar may be connected to the supporting member either through bolting or welding to embedded steel plates in the supporting concrete girder or to a steel support member to make it function as a bracing element. One advantage of the Cazaly hanger is its ability to minimize the overall structural depth, leading to a decrease in floor-to-floor height. By decreasing the floor-to-floor height, less material is used both inside and outside the structure and an economical savings for the building project may result, or more floors can be placed within the code building-height restrictions. The PCI design guidelines for the Cazaly hanger connection are based on a series of tests conducted for the Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institutes (CPCIs)

1965 research program on hanger connections. Little research or review of the test results and failure models has been performed since these reports were published.1,2 Beginning with the third edition of the PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete,3 a shear-friction calculation for the bottom-dowel anchorage of the hanger has been included as one of the design checks to establish the connection strength. Concrete capacity design (CCD) for concrete inserts was introduced in the 1990s and has solidified the procedures for design and evaluation of anchorage in concrete. In the current study, the CCD models of ACI 318-08 appendix D4 and the PCI design method5 are applied to the original 1965 research-program specimens as well as recently tested specimens, reported herein, to evaluate the Cazaly hanger for both shear friction and CCD failure modes. This research and reporting of test results focuses on updating the PCI design guidelines for the Cazaly hanger connection. Proposed revisions to the current design guidelines include removing unnecessary or noncritical design checks and unifying deep- and shallow-section design methodologies to provide consistent, safe strength predictions.

Background
PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010 101

Supporting member

Hung member

Figure 2. This schematic sketch shows how a Cazaly hanger is placed on a support girder.

In 1965, CPCI funded a research program to study hanger connections.1 CPCI chose to focus this research program on hanger connections because at the time the Cazaly hanger was widely used throughout Canada. Tests for the CPCI research program were carried out at the University of Alberta in Calgary, the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, and the University of Toronto in Ontario. CPCI suggested that the following variables be studied throughout the testing process: shear spantodepth ratio web reinforcement along the top bar beam depth fabrication tolerances concrete strength prestressing horizontal forces

Of these seven hanger variables, one variable stood out as needing further attention. The unstudied variable was the beam and corresponding hanger depth, and therefore, research on shallow sections remained an open issue. Those test specimens with hanger depths of 10 in. (250 mm) or less failed to reach the ultimate load calculated using the CPCI handbook first-edition recommendations.1 To account for this shortcoming, a strength-reduction factor, based on hanger depth, was proposed to be included in the design procedure. The steel area required for the bottom-dowel anchor depended on the concrete key (the area of concrete within the enclosed U-shaped strap) and the tension force in the strap at failure of the concrete key. A shallow hanger depth means a smaller concrete key, so the researchers developed a so-called key factor. The key factor was to address designing shallow hangers by adjusting the strength of the concrete key downward when designing the bottom-dowel anchor. Ife, Uzumeri, and Huggins2 presented the results of tests performed at the University of Toronto for the CPCI 1965 research program on hanger connections. The University of Toronto tested a total of 52 hangers, 8 of which were part of a pilot test series to gather insight on possible failure modes and variables potentially affecting the hanger capacity.

102

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

102

All 52 hangers used a closed, U-shaped strap, as shown in Fig. 1. The top bar and strap were overdesigned and were not the critical components of the hanger system. Tests performed on hangers without a bottom dowel resulted in failure by shearing of the concrete key on a plane flush with the back of the strap (Fig. 3). This failure further supported the thesis that the strength of the concrete key plays an important role in the overall capacity of the hanger. When the bottom dowel was included in the test specimen, all of the tests resulted in ultimate failure only when the bottom-dowel anchorage of the strap failed.2 Failure of the strap anchorage was characterized by the failure of the bottom dowel welded to the strap, allowing the hanger to rotate away from the member. The hanger capacity was attributed to the combination of shear strength of the concrete key infill within the strap and the strength of the bottom dowel in shear. In cases where the specimens used two dowels for the bottom anchorage (one on each leg of the strap), the hanger capacity was reportedly controlled not only by the concrete key and the dowels but also the bearing capacity of the concrete above the dowels.2 Observations by the University of Toronto research team reinforced the importance of hanger depth on the hanger capacity. A series of 14 hanger specimens in the test program were identical except for the variation of strap depth, which varied from 10 in. to 16 in. (250 mm to 400 mm). These 14 specimens were all in beams 20 in. (500 mm) in depth. The decrease in strap depth from 16 in. to 10 in. (400 mm to 250 mm) caused a reduction in hanger capacity of 38%, despite a 6% increase in concrete strength.

Figure 3. Shown is what Ife et al. described as a shear-friction failure. Source: Ife, Uzumeri, and Huggins 1968. Note: V = shear force on insert.

3a

1.33V

0.33V

Figure 4. Assumed loads are given for the Cazaly hanger components. Note: V = shear force on insert. PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010 103

Cantilever bar yielding

Weld failure

Shear of concrete key

Strap yielding Concrete breakout V V Shear-friction failure

Centerline of strap Steel failure

Figure 5. This sketch shows possible failure modes for a Cazaly hanger.

Centerline of strap Concrete failure

The conclusion drawn from these test results was that the hanger capacity depends more on the hanger depth than on the strength of the concrete, and the relationship between hanger depth and capacity is not linear.2 The Canadian research team concluded that the decrease in capacity for the shallow hangers is partly due to the decrease in the concrete shear-key area. The sixth edition of the PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete5 (the edition to which we are henceforth referring as the PCI Design Handbook) relies on various simplifying and presumably conservative assumptions about the hanger and incorporated shear-friction behavior for the design of the Cazaly hanger. The PCI Design Handbook states that the cantilevered top bar is typically proportioned such that the hanger strap is subjected to, and thus designed for, 1.33 times the ultimate shear force on the hanger. The 1.33 factor results from the statics of the bearing reaction on the hanger and proportioning the top bar such that the bearing load at the interior end of the top bar is 33% of the applied load (Fig. 4). The PCI Design Handbook design procedure assumes that the ultimate shear force acts at the middle of the bearing length on the supporting member, an assumption that affects the moment in the cantilevered bar. The PCI Design Handbook allows the cantilevered bar to be designed in one of two manners: for the moment combined with axial and shear forces for the moment at yield by using elastic section properties, ignoring the shear and axial force contributions

The bearing pressure on the interior portion of the cantilever bar can be conservatively based on the hanger width. The top dowel is sized to carry axial force (that is, the tension usually associated with time-dependent deformations of the beam member), while the bottom dowel is designed using shear-friction concepts.

Cazaly hanger failure modes

The Cazaly hanger consists of multiple parts, leading to two global failure modes: steel failure of the hanger and concrete failure of the connection unit. Each of the conditions is evaluated, and the lowest capacity establishes the strength of the connection. This is consistent with the ACI 318-08 appendix D4 design method. The steel failure modes include yielding of the cantilevered top bar due to bending (Fig. 5), yielding of the strap in tension, failure of the bottom anchorage, or failure of the weld between the strap and the cantilevered top bar. Because the design approach requires the hanger to be stronger than the concrete capacity, the PCI Design Handbook design method is adequate for bending of the top bar about the centerline of the strap as well as strap yielding. In all connection designs, the weld strength should be stronger than the rest of the connection components. This ensures that the connection will not fail due to a brittle weld fracture. Failure of the concrete may be reached through one of several different failure modes: shear across the entire concrete section

104

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Figure 6. These photographs show side and end views of the failure of a shallow member with modified Cazaly hangers.

shear friction concrete breakout

Shear across the full concrete cross section is generally addressed with the inclusion of shear stirrups, and the cross-section shear strength is based on ACI 318-08. Shear-friction failure is controlled by the capacity of the concrete in shear in the key area and the bottom dowel, as proposed by Ife, Uzumeri, and Huggins.2 Figure 3 shows an example of what the original researchers described as a shear-friction failure. In the 1965 CPCI research program,

test specimens without bottom dowels failed by shear-friction failure where the capacity was limited to the strength of just the concrete key. Without dowels, the shearing of the concrete key occurred on a vertical plane flush with the back of the strap. Sketches of the concrete failure modes are shown in Fig. 5. ACI 318-08 appendix D4 describes CCD for headed studs cast in concrete. Appendix D uses a 35 deg failure plane for the concrete-breakout prism for both tension and shear loading of the anchors. The concrete tension breakout capacity is dependent on the area of the failure plane,

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

105

which is highly dependent on the depth of the embedment. Correction factors are included to account for anchors near edges or corners and also for eccentricity in loading. While the CCD methods are prescribed for headed studs and expansion anchors, Fig. 6 suggests that the behavior of the shallow Cazaly hanger follows one of the concretebreakout behavior modes instead of a shear-friction failure mode. CCD breakout failure, when applied to this case, is either a tension or shear mode. Tension and shear failures appear similar but occur for two distinct reasons. ACI 318-08 appendix D4 contains pictorial examples of the concrete breakout of headed studs due to tension and shear, as well as design strength models for the prediction of the two failure modes. Tension breakout and shear breakout are shown pictorially in Fig. 7. In the Cazaly hanger, concrete breakout due to tension would be caused by pulling on the hanger strap (Fig. 8). The mechanical anchorage of the strap to the concrete would lead a section of the concrete to break out from the parent member. For the CCD methodology, the strap acts similarly to a cast-in headed anchor in tension. The ACI 318-08 prediction of concrete-breakout strength, based on headed cast-in-place anchors, should be conservative for the strap because the strap contact area in the bottom bend is larger than the bearing area of the typical head of a headed anchor. Breakout due to shear can be viewed as the strap transferring tension to the bottom of the strap and loading the bottom dowel in shear (Fig. 9). The shear on the bottom dowel thus causes a failure plane at about 35 deg and appears

Figure 7. These sketches show the concrete breakout of headed anchors in tension and shear. Note: N = tensile force on insert; V = shear force on insert.

identical to the failure plane caused by tension breakout. For the CCD analogy, the bottom dowel acts similarly to a cast-in headed anchor in shear. Anderson and Meinheit6 conducted numerous tests on headed studs in shear to determine capacity and develop design methods. Anderson and Meinheit compared different behavior models to predict their test results, one of which was the ACI 318-08 appendix D method. The results obtained demonstrate the variation in test-toprediction ratios for different tests when using the ACI 318-08 appendix D shear-prediction method void of the reduction to get a 5% fractile characteristic equation. A histogram of the variation of the ACI prediction of capacity in uncracked concrete was adapted from Anderson and Meinheits work (Fig. 10). The ACI 318-08 appendix D approach resulted in an average test-to-predicted failure load in uncracked concrete of 1.25 with a standard deviation of 0.245. A test-to-predicted

Figure 8. This sketch shows the tension breakout model applied to the Cazaly hanger and the concrete capacity design equivalent. Note: N = tensile force on insert. 106 Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Figure 9. This sketch shows the shear-breakout model applied to the Cazaly hanger and the concrete capacity design equivalent. Note: V = shear force on insert.

ratio of 1.25 implies that the ACI 318-08 shear model, without phi factors, when applied to headed-stud concretebreakout failures in uncracked concrete, is conservative. The design procedure for headed studs loaded in shear in the sixth edition of the PCI Design Handbook modified the

ACI 318-08 appendix D CCD model to remove the conservative nature of the ACI 318-08 model to make the design model more consistent with test data.

20 ACI-CCD Avg. = 1.25 SD = 24.5% 5% fractile = 0.78 15 Number of occurances - n

10

0
Frequency

0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 2.15 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 3 8 14 13 11 9 15 5 9 6 4 6 5 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1

Test/predicted failure load

Figure 10. This histogram shows shear test results on headed studs loaded toward a free edge compared with ACI 318-08 appendix D equations. Note: Avg. = average; CCD = concrete capacity design; SD = standard deviation. PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010 107

Concrete-breakout strength: tension

ACI 318-08 appendix D method ACI 318-08 appendix D provides the 5% fractile design equations to use when predicting the concrete-breakout strength of headed studs in shear or tension. These equations can be applied directly to the traditional Cazaly hanger with some minor redefinitions of parameters as summarized here. The nominal concrete-breakout strength for tension of a single Cazaly hanger is predicted by Eq. (1) (Eq. D-4 in ACI 318-08). ANc } } } N ANco ed, N c, N cp, N b (1)

breakout strength for the 1965 CPCI specimens, a value of c,N = 1.25 was used based on the assumption of no cracking in the connection under service-level loads. For embedment less than 11 in. (280 mm), Nb is calculated by Eq. (3) (Eq. D-7 in ACI 318-08):
1.5 Nb = kc m fcla hef k

(3)

where kc = 24 for cast-in-place anchors hef = embedment depth of the anchor = a modification factor addressing lightweight concrete

Ncb = where ANc

fcl = concrete strength in psi For hef between 11 in. and 25 in. (280 mm to 635 mm) the 5% fractile design strength of a single anchor can be expressed as Eq. (4) (Eq. D-8 in ACI 318-08): N b = 16m fcl ^h ef h 3
5

= projected area of failure surface for an anchor or group of anchors considering limitations due to size of member in which anchor is located

ed,N = a modification factor for edge effects c,N = a modification factor addressing concrete cracking at service loads cp,N = a modification factor addressing splitting of postinstalled anchor, which does not occur here, thus cp,N = 1.0 Nb = basic concrete 5% fractile breakout design strength of a single anchor in tension in cracked concrete

(4)

These equations are based on the cracked-concrete tension breakout frustum developed by either the head of a headed anchor or the expansion force from a post-installed anchor. Both of these equations include a reduction in strength to get a 5% fractile load. The average capacities are about 4/3 of the fractile values. These models do not account for the size of the head on the headed anchor or plate washers. Further research is needed to confirm the actual effective load-bearing capacity of the anchor straps acting as headed bearing if the behavior model is one of tension. PCI method for tension breakout The PCI tensile breakout capacity is given as fcl AC } hef n crb ed, N (5)

The calculation for ANco is similar to ANc except that it is not limited by edge or corner influences, spacing, or member thickness. In other words, it assumes full development of the concrete capacity based on a single anchor, as is calculated in Eq. (2) (Eq. D-6 in ACI 318-08). ANco = 9 a hef k where hef = equivalent to the depth to the bottom anchor of the Cazaly hanger in the present context
2

(2)

Ncb = 3.33m where

The ratio of ANc /ANco therefore gives the influence of edges, corners, spacing, and number of anchors in a group in a relatively straightforward manner. When analysis indicates no cracking at service loads, as would be the case for a Cazaly hanger at the end of a beam without shear cracking, c,N = 1.25. In calculating the
108 Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

An = projected surface area of insert or group of inserts Ccrb = cracking factor = 1.0 for uncracked section The PCI formulation assumes that a precast concrete section is uncracked. Hence, Ccrb is 1.0 and Ccrb decreases for

a cracked section. ACI 318-08 assumes a cracked section and increases capacity if the section is uncracked. The difference is reflected in the initial coefficient in Eq. (5). Equations (1) and (5) provide identical strength predictions when the appropriate correction factors are applied.

C3 = PCI correction for edge effects Ch = PCI correction for thickness Cev = PCI correction for eccentric load Cvcr = PCI correction if the section is cracked For a Cazaly hanger Ch, Cev, and Cvcr = 1.0. The PCI uncracked average strength equation Vco3 from the Anderson and Meinheit research is: Vco3 = 22 a fclk BED 1.33
0.5

Concrete-breakout strength: shear

ACI 318-08 appendix D method The shear-breakout model is similar to the tension model, as shown in Fig. 8 and 9. The cracked concrete, single anchor ACI 318-08 appendix D basic shear-strength calculation model is partially dependent on the bottom-dowel embedment length e as depicted in Eq. (6) (ACI 318-08 Eq. D-25). R V S , 0.2 W 1.5 Vb = S8 f e p da W m fcla ca1 k S da W S W T X where da ca1 = outside diameter of anchor = distance from center of anchor shaft to edge of concrete in one direction, taken in the direction of the applied shear (6)

where BED = the basic embedment depth of the Cazaly hanger If the 5% fractile value is used, which is what the ACI 318-08 design equation represents, then the coefficient 22 reduces to 16.5, as used in the design example. Last, the edge correction factor C3 is given by: C3 = 0.7 3 where SED = the side-edge distance to the first anchor plus half the center-to-center spacing of inserts SED # 1.0 BED

For the calculations within this research, the maximum limit on the e /da ratio of 8 was used for the bottom dowel. Because the shear-breakout capacity depends on the dowel length, the calculated strength can be changed by modifying the dowel embedment. Equation (6) is also the 5% fractile design strength for an anchor in cracked concrete. The average cracked strength is about 4/3 times the 5% fractile strength. PCI method for shear The PCI shear-strength-prediction equation does not have the anchor embedment e term included because the research found that embedment did not have a significant effect on strength. Diameter, likewise, was not found to be very influential for the test results reviewed on diameter of headed anchors. The PCI formulation for shear capacity, as presented in the PCI Design Handbook, is: Vc3 = Vco3 C3 Ch Cev Cvcr where Vco3 = PCI basic shear-breakout strength of an insert

Anchor reinforcement
Reinforcement immediately adjacent to the anchor affects the connection strength. ACI 318-08 appendix D4 addresses anchor reinforcement in a straightforward manner. Section D.6.2.9 of ACI 318-08 states the following: Where anchor reinforcement is either developed in accordance with Chapter 12 on both sides of the breakout surface, or encloses the anchor and is developed beyond the breakout surface, the design strength of the anchor reinforcement shall be permitted to be used instead of the concrete-breakout strength in determining Vn. A strength reduction factor of 0.75 shall be used in the design of the anchor reinforcement. ACI 318-08 allows anchor reinforcement to be designed for a capacity greater than concrete breakout. When the member cracks in a manner that looks like a concretebreakout crack, anchor reinforcement provides an alternative load path and assumes the entire load that the anchor was carrying before cracking. To ensure strength and ductile behavior, it is recommended that the minimum anchorage reinforcement capacity equal the CCD capacity.

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

109

CPCI research and shear friction

The results of the 1965 CPCI research program on hanger connections show that in all cases the ultimate load of the connection was reached when the bottom-dowel anchor failed and allowed the hanger strap to rotate away from the member.2 However, the researchers described a slightly different behavior for test specimens with differing bottomdowel configurations. Hangers with a single bottom dowel attached to the bottom of the strap failed due to combined shear on the concrete key and the bottom dowel. Those test specimens with two bottom dowels attached to the bottom of the strap failed when the concrete bearing capacity above the bottom dowels was exceeded, in addition to the shear capacity of the concrete key. The inclusion of two bottom dowels on the vertical sides of the strap, as opposed to a single bottom dowel at the bottom of the strap, resulted in a much more complex cracking pattern throughout the tests, as shown in Fig. 11. Last, three hangers without bottom-dowel anchors were tested and failed due to shear on the concrete key alone. The vertical failure plane for the hangers without bottom anchorage was flush with the back of the hanger strap (Fig. 3). While shear friction as a possible behavior-prediction mode for the Cazaly hanger, the hangers from the 1965 CPCI research program violate important requirements of shear-friction behavior. In Fig. 3, it appears that when the weld between the strap and the bottom dowel failed, the hanger strap rotated away from the member face. For shear friction to occur, the cracked concrete must remain in full contact with the rest of the member to generate friction across the crack interface. This condition is not the observed behavior for the hanger in Fig. 3. Furthermore, the researchers reported that hanger depth greatly affected the hanger capacity. Shear-friction theory is independent of depth and relies only on the area of steel crossing an assumed crack to create the normal force for shear friction. While shear friction is a convenient tool, the observed failure mechanism does not meet the basic assumptions of shear-friction theory.

Figure 11. Concrete failure is shown for a Canadian PCI specimen with two bottom dowels.

The shear stirrup/anchorage reinforcement began 3 in. (75 mm) from the ends of the beams. This spacing effectively qualifies as anchor reinforcement placement according to Fig. RD.6.2.9 in ACI 318-08 appendix D.4 The longitudinal flexural reinforcement for the majority of the CPCI test specimens consisted of four no. 9 (29 mm) reinforcing bars. Failure modes, assuming the steel components of the hanger control the ultimate load on the test specimen, produced test-to-predicted values less than one. This indicates that the strap and the top bar are stronger than the concretebreakout capacity. That is, predicted concrete capacity greatly underestimates the test load. The test results are consistent with the approach of designing the bar and strap to have capacity greater than the concrete capacity. The remaining failure calculations in Table 1 consider the failure modes of the original shear-friction concept, concrete breakout due to shear, concrete breakout due to tension, and yielding or ultimate strength of the anchor reinforcement. The shear stirrups in the vicinity of the connection meet the requirements of ACI 318-08 appendix

Assessment of CPCI research program failure modes

An assessment of the possible failure modes, including steel failure, can demonstrate which failure mode controls the capacity of the Cazaly hanger. Ratios of test-to-predicted failure loads were tabulated to provide a means for comparison of the various failure modes. Table 1 presents the summary results. The test specimens used throughout the 1965 CPCI research program on hanger connections included stirrups, some of which can be considered anchorage reinforcement.

110

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table 1. Test-to-predicted failure loads for selected Canadian PCI specimens Concrete breakout: tension Vpredict, kip 5.66 5.66 5.66 5.66 8.44 8.44 8.88 9.04 9.04 10.19 9.62 10.50 10.46 8.68 8.72 Vtest Vpredict 3.22 3.06 2.55 2.95 3.97 4.00 4.43 4.80 4.04 4.35 4.86 4.52 3.82 4.06 5.77 4.78 2.46 0.51 Concrete breakout: shear Vpredict, kip 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 9.41 9.41 9.89 10.07 10.07 11.83 8.54 11.46 11.41 9.67 9.72 Vtest Vpredict 3.04 2.89 2.40 2.79 3.56 3.59 3.97 4.31 3.62 3.75 5.47 4.15 3.50 3.65 5.18 4.64 2.27 0.49 Anchor reinforcement Vpredict, kip 17.60 17.60 17.60 17.60 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 Vtest Vpredict 1.03 0.98 0.82 0.95 1.05 1.06 1.23 1.36 1.14 1.38 1.46 1.48 1.25 1.10 1.57 1.35 0.51 0.37 Shear friction Bending of top bar Vpredict, kip 26.67 26.67 26.67 26.67 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 30.30 47.62 47.62 Vtest Vpredict 0.68 0.65 0.54 0.63 0.70 0.71 0.83 0.91 0.77 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.32 0.74 1.06 0.78 0.25 0.32 Strap failure Vpredict, kip 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 65.00 65.00 62.50 62.50

Specimen

f c' , psi

Vtest, kip

Vpredict, kip 12.61 12.61 12.61 12.61 29.17 29.17 29.17 29.17 29.17 35.06 29.56 29.21 29.21 27.57 29.17

Vtest Vpredict 1.44 1.37 1.14 1.32 1.15 1.16 1.35 1.49 1.25 1.26 1.58 1.63 1.37 1.28 1.72 1.48 0.55 0.37

Vtest Vpredict 0.61 0.58 0.48 0.56 0.54 0.54 0.63 0.69 0.58 0.71 0.75 0.73 0.61 0.56 0.80 0.65 0.21 0.32

P-1-B P-2-A P-3-A P-4-A T-1-1 T-1-2 T-3-5 T-5-9 T-5-10 T-7-14 T-9-17 T-11-22 T-12-23 A-2-3 T-13-26 Average

8040 8040 8040 8040 4910 4910 5430 5630 5630 7160 6375 7280 7220 5820 5240

18.2 17.3 14.4 16.7 33.5 33.8 39.3 43.4 36.5 44.3 46.7 47.5 39.9 35.3 50.3

Standard deviation Coefficient of variation

Note: f 'c = compressive strength of concrete; Vpredict = shear force predicted from theory; Vtest = shear force obtained in experimental program. 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

D4 for anchor reinforcement, which allows the strength of the anchor reinforcement to be used in the analysis of the strength of this failure mode. The anchor reinforcement strength also exceeds the concrete-breakout strengths in shear or tension so that if cracking occurs the anchor steel is activated. Consistent with ACI 318-08, the shear reinforcement used for this calculation was the number of stirrups within a distance of half the strap depth from the centerline of the strap. For most of the test specimens, this provision permits at least two stirrups to be used for the anchorreinforcement-capacity calculation. For seven of the specimens, one stirrup falls completely within the specified range and the second stirrup falls just beyond half of the strap-depth limit.

The authors considered this second stirrup close enough to contribute to the anchor-reinforcement capacity. Therefore, the calculations use a minimum of two shear stirrups, each with two legs, for the anchor reinforcement. The CPCI report does not record the stirrup yield stress or ultimate, so the prediction calculations are based on an assumed 60 ksi (420 MPa) yield stress. At the time of the CPCI tests, it is equally possible that a 40 ksi (275 MPa) yield stress could have been used. The original paper does not provide this information. Figure 12 plots the test-to-predicted ratios for the CPCI test data. Any data that fall below the horizontal line of 1.0 mean that the prediction of capacity is unconservative; any data that plot above the 1.0 line imply that the prediction is conservative. The closer to the 1.0 line,

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

111

Figure 12. Test-to-predicted ratios are given for the Canadian PCI Cazaly hanger test program. Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

the better the prediction equation. However, the results in Table 1 and Fig. 12 suggest that the strength of the

anchor reinforcement is the best of the conservative prediction models.

Top anchor Cantilevered top bar

Straps

Bottom anchors

Figure 13. This modified Cazaly hanger was used in University of Wyoming tests. 112 Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Figure 14. These photographs show the test specimens and loading system for the University of Wyoming specimens. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

The anchor reinforcement model has an average test-topredicted ratio of 1.35, a standard deviation of 0.51, and coefficient of variation of 0.37. If the ultimate strength of the anchor steel were known, the authors believe that the average test-to-prediction ratio would be very close to 1. Therefore, the anchor reinforcement model is a reasonable predictor of strength for the 1965 CPCI Cazaly hanger test specimens. With the anchor reinforcement capacity exceeding the concrete-breakout capacity, the concretebreakout crack serves as the means of activation of the anchor steel. The crack pattern observed in Fig. 11 is consistent with the anchor reinforcement transferring the end shear load to the Cazaly hanger after the concrete cracks.

University of Wyoming test series

To supplement the 1965 CPCI research program, several new tests were conducted on shallow members using modified Cazaly hangers (Fig. 13). These hangers differ from the original Cazaly hanger in that the strap is not a closed loop and a hollow steel tube is used for the top bar instead of solid bar stock. This design precludes the need to thread prestressing strand through a closed loop, allowing easier member fabrication. The modified design used two separate steel straps, which curve away from the centerline of the hanger at their bottom

Table 2. Test-to-predicted failure loads for University of Wyoming test specimens Concrete breakout: tension Specimen f c' , psi 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6000 Vtest, kip 21.8 21.8 24.8 24.8 20.6 20.6 28.0 28.0 25.3 Vpredict, kip 18.71 21.84 21.84 18.71 13.17 13.17 23.32 19.88 12.95 Vtest Vpredict 1.16 1.00 1.13 1.32 1.56 1.56 1.20 1.41 1.95 1.37 0.29 0.21 Concrete breakout: shear Vpredict, kip 15.14 19.30 19.30 15.14 10.40 10.40 20.31 16.05 10.53 Vtest Vpredict 1.44 1.13 1.28 1.63 1.98 1.98 1.38 1.75 2.40 1.66 0.41 0.24

BS 17 N-L BS 17 N-R BS 17 S-L BS 17 S-R BS 34 N-L BS 34 N-R BS 34 S-L BS 34 S-R FS-143 N Average Standard deviation Coefficient of variation

Note: f 'c = compressive strength of concrete; Vpredict = shear force predicted from theory; Vtest = shear force obtained in experimental program. 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

113

ends. These are referred to as J-straps. The bottom-dowel bar may be welded to the bottom of the J-strap or just before the strap bend starts. The bottom-dowel bar welded to the strap adds additional anchorage to the J-strap and prevents the strap from rotating out of the concrete (Fig. 3). The University of Wyoming (UW) tests were designed to study the behavior and failure of wide, shallow sections with Cazaly hangers. Five full-scale test specimens (BS17, BS-34, FS-143, FS-143A, FS-143B) were fabricated and tested at the Rocky Mountain Prestress facility in Denver, Colo. The test procedure placed fixed weights on the specimens and used the cranes internal-load sensors as instrumentation for partial loads during testing. The test member was placed in such a manner that the cantilevered top bar of the Cazaly hanger rested on a large hollow structural section (HSS) tube, with steel shims used to level the test members. The clearance between the bottom of the member and the ground varied from 4 in. to 6 in. (100 mm to 150 mm). The test setup is illustrated in Fig. 14 with the photo on the right showing one of the fixed-weight test blocks being placed. Load application was achieved using 9-ton (18 kip or 80 kN) concrete blocks. A crane picked up the blocks and set them down on nominal 6 in. 6 in. (150 mm 150 mm) timber cribbing. The timber cribbing was used to avoid placing the test weights directly on the Cazaly hanger hardware or the projecting lifting devices. The first loading block was set on the test end of the member with the cribbing beneath the block. Then a second block was set at the same level at the opposite end of the specimen. The process was repeated until four total blocks were placed on the specimen. A fifth block, as well as the sixth block if needed, was slowly lowered onto the test end of the specimen in 1 kip or 2 kip (4.5 kN or 9.0 kN) increments until failure. Shear loads on the connectors were computed from the final static loading of the concrete blocks and the self-weight of the test specimen. Table 2 contains the test results and predictions, while Tables 3 through 5 contain the source information for the UW specimens.7 Tests conducted by UW with modified open straps demonstrated that the crack begins at the bottom of the strap even for the case where the bottom-dowel anchors were above the bottom of the strap. Therefore, if the bottom dowels were placed slightly above the bottom of the strap, the distance to the bottom of the strap was used as the embedment distance for calculations.

Evaluation of PCI Design Handbook shear friction method for CPCI specimens The PCI Design Handbook design equations were applied to the 1965 CPCI research specimens to calculate the capacity of the Cazaly hanger (Table 6). The phi factors were all taken as 1.0 for these calculations to allow a direct comparison of predicted and test results. The results are in the form of test-to-predicted failure-load ratios for the same specimens reviewed in Table 1. Figure 15 plots the ratio of the test failure loadtopredicted failure load for the each specimen based on the three PCI Design Handbook design checks of section 6.10.1. The solid line in the plot represents a unity ratio of test-to-predicted failure loads. Points lying above the line indicate that the predictor is conservative, whereas points below the line indicate an unconservative predictor. The plot in Fig. 15 shows that when the least-squares line is drawn through the test-to-predicted data for each failure mode, all prediction equations are unconservative, some by 30%. This indicates that the PCI Design Handbook capacities overpredicted the hanger capacity based on the 1965 CPCI research program test database. The points in Fig. 15 representing the shear-friction design capacity indicate that this computation is the least-conservative predictor of Cazaly hanger capacity. The PCI Industry Handbook Committee is addressing this situation. Evaluation of CPCI specimen concrete-breakout strength The strength of each test specimen from the 1965 CPCI research program database is also compared with the concrete-breakout predictions of ACI 318-08 appendix D4 in Table 1. The predictions are based on an uncracked concrete condition. Figure 12 shows the test-to-predicted ratios for the concrete-breakout models in shear and tension. Figure 12 also compares the capacity of the anchor reinforcement with the tested failure load for the 1965 CPCI specimens. As illustrated in Fig. 12, concrete breakout determined from tension or shear alone significantly underpredicted the strength for the hangers in all cases. Because all specimens considered in this 1965 CPCI database included anchorage reinforcement, test-to-predicted failure-load ratios for an anchorage-reinforcement-failure model were also calculated for all test specimens. The data plotted in Fig. 12 for the anchorage-reinforcement predictions lead to the conclusion that anchor reinforcement governs the capacity of these specimens and must be included in the PCI Design Handbook design procedure. A comparison of the results presented in Fig. 12 and 15 demonstrates that the shear-friction model is not a reliable predictor of the capacity of the shallow Cazaly hanger. Reevaluation of

Analysis of test results

The following sections examine the test database results from the perspective of the PCI Design Handbook and the ACI 318-08 CCD.

114

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table 3. Summary of hanger properties for University of Wyoming test specimens f c' psi BS 17 N-L BS 17 N-R BS 17 S-L BS 17 S-R BS 34 N-L BS 34 N-R BS 34 S-L BS 34 S-R FS-143 N 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6500 6000 Top bar L in. 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 L1 in. 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 13.25 L2 in. 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 e in. 2.875 2.875 2.875 2.875 2.875 2.875 2.875 2.875 2.875 b in. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 d in. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 f in. 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 t in. 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313 0.313 h' in. 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 11 Strap h in. 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 8.5 h" in. 7.25 7.25 7.25 7.25 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.25 7.25 s in. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Specimen

Note: ab = embedment length of bottom dowel; b = width of top bar in Cazaly hanger; bd = width of beam in University of Wyoming test; d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement or depth of top bar in Cazaly hanger; db = reinforcement bar diameter; dp = depth of prestress strand in University of Wyoming tests; e = eccentricity to applied load in University of Wyoming test hanger; f = concrete cover in front of hanger strap; f 'c = compressive strength of concrete; h = depth from bottom of top bar to bottom of strap in Cazaly hanger for Canadian PCI specimens, depth from top of beam to center of bottom anchor for use in PCI equations; h' = depth of embedment of J-strap; h" = depth of embedment of dowel reinforcement from top of concrete; L = length of top bar in University of Wyoming tests; L' = length of beams in University of Wyoming tests; L1 = distance from centerline of strap to end of top bar in University of Wyoming tests; L2 = distance from centerline of strap to cantilever end of top bar in University of Wyoming tests; n.a. = not applicable; s = width of strap in Cazaly hanger; s1 = center-to-center spacing of J-straps in University of Wyoming hanger specimens; se = half the distance of center-to-center spacing of interior J-straps of two individual hangers in University of Wyoming specimens; sc = edge spacing from centerline of J-strap in University of Wyoming hanger specimens. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

all of the design equations in the PCI Design Handbook is suggested because Fig. 15 shows the trend of all prediction models to be unconservative. The inclusion of anchor reinforcement as a design check predicts a conservative strength for most of the specimens. Evaluation of UW specimen concrete-breakout strength Initial UW tests were conducted without the inclusion of anchor reinforcement, allowing assessment of a pure concrete-breakout failure. The UW test specimens each contained four Cazaly hangers, two at each end of a beam. The first part of the test-specimen identification, BS 17, for example, refers to the test specimen itself, while the

second part, N-L for example, refers to the north end of the member and the left hanger. In some cases, the hangers are not completely symmetrical in the member, hence the dual identification. The difference in capacity between the left and right anchors reflects the asymmetric placement. In actuality, the lowest-strength hanger would fail first, but the individual values are provided for comparison. Table 2 presents the results of concrete-breakout-testtopredicted capacities due to tension and due to shear on the UW specimens using uncracked concrete-breakout capacities calculated using Eq. (1) and (5). Note that these are the calculated 5% fractile loads accounting for edge and spacing effects. The results in Table 2 and Fig. 16 suggest that the strength can be estimated for the Cazaly hanger using either the

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

115

concrete breakout in tension or shear when no anchor reinforcement is present. The statistical mean and coefficient of variation for these code equations are comparable to the Anderson-Meinheit6 data, further arguing that this is similar behavior. The tension breakout capacity used the recommendations of ACI 318-08 appendix D4 without any adjustment for the area of the base of the J- or U-strap. Without calibration-test data, the authors did not apply ACI 31808 recommended corrections for the larger head area. Inclusion of a larger bearing-area correction should increase the tensile breakout capacity, making the calculation more conservative. The shear-breakout capacity depends on the embedment of the shear stud e. The only guidance in ACI 318-08 on the maximum length of e is that e /da must be less than 8. Therefore, the PCI Design Handbook formulation for shear-breakout capacity is recommended for design. The bottom dowel does, however, prevent the tension strap from rotating outward and is, therefore, a necessary part of the design. The UW test specimens identified an additional case to consider in the Cazaly hanger design. Specimens were made with the hanger straps terminating just above the prestressing strand. In those instances, the end of the member experienced a premature failure when a splitting crack appeared due to the prestress transfer to the concrete. The test was aggravated by a splitting tension at the member end along the line of the prestressing strands (Fig. 17). A lateral, bursting tension stress is induced in the concrete as a result of prestressing-force transfer into the concrete in the beam. The bursting tension initiated premature cracking along the plane of the strand. Without the Cazaly hanger strap confining the strand, the cracks propagated through the width of the member. Members that failed in that fashion suggest that a provision requiring the hanger strap to be extended below the prestressing strand or to include the splitting tensile zone be included in the design provisions.

breakout capacity. If concrete-breakout capacity is insufficient to resist design loads, add anchor reinforcement for the required strength per ACI 318-08 section D.5.2.9. If space is not adequate for anchor reinforcement, increase the section size.

5. 6. 7.

Design the top bar for bending caused by the ultimate load with = 0.9. Design the strap(s) to yield at 133% of the ultimate load with = 0.9. Design the bottom dowel(s) to prevent strap rotation in the event that the cantilever bar bends at the top weld.

Once the concrete-breakout capacity in shear is found, the components of the hanger can be sized. The design procedure for the top bar and the hanger strap(s) is already included in the PCI Design Handbook sixth edition.5 The bottom dowel(s) shall be designed to prevent strap rotation in the event that the cantilever bar bends at the top weld. Vua hfy

Recommended design guidelines

This study suggests updates to the PCI Design Handbook for the Cazaly hanger. The principal revision is the inclusion of a CCD check for the hanger based on the concrete-breakout strength of an anchor in shear using the PCI Design Handbook headed-stud shear-breakout design.5 The top bar, strap(s), and bottom dowel(s) of the Cazaly hanger would then be designed based on the ultimate design load. The recommended design process is the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Assume hanger depth consistent with the member depth and a bar length such that the statics results in a force of 1.33Tu in the hanger. Verify that the termination of the hanger strap is not in the splitting tension zone of the beam web. Compute the concrete-breakout capacity in shear as the nominal capacity of the connection with = 0.75. Add anchor reinforcement. If concrete-breakout capacity is sufficient to resist design loads, add anchor reinforcement for 100% of the concrete-

(7) where a

Adowel =

= distance from ultimate beamshear load to centerline of strap

Adowel = area of bottom dowels in Cazaly hanger h fy Vu = depth to bottom dowel from the centerline of cantilever bar = yield strength of bottom dowel = ultimate factored shear load

Strap rotation can only occur if the bottom dowel fails and the plastic moment capacity of the top bar is exceeded. The calculation assumes that the total restraining force will be carried by the bottom dowel. Because the cantilever retains its plastic moment capac-

116

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table 4. ACI 318-08 appendix D calculations for concrete breakout due to tension on University of Wyoming specimens Specimen Concrete-breakout strength of anchor in tension hef in. BS 17 end 1 left BS 17 end 1 right BS 17 end 2 left BS 17 end 2 right BS 34 end 1 left BS 34 end 1 right BS 34 end 2 left BS 34 end 2 right FS-143 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 8.5 1.5hef in. 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 12.8 ca, min in. 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 ca, max in. 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 2.25 2.25 5.7 2.6 2.75 ANco in.2 650.3 650.3 650.3 650.3 992.3 992.3 992.3 992.3 650.3 ANc in.2 269.63 314.63 314.63 269.63 213.75 213.75 378.45 322.65 194.25 Nb kip 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 46.1 ed,N n.a. 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 c,N n.a. 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Ncb kip 18.71 21.84 21.84 18.71 13.17 13.17 23.32 19.88 12.95

Note: ANc = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor or group of anchors; ANco = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor if not limited by corner or edge influences; ca,max = maximum distance from center of an anchor strap to edge of concrete; ca,min = minimum distance from center of an anchor strap to edge of concrete; hef = effective embedment depth of anchor; n.a. = not applicable; Nb = basic concrete-breakout strength in tension of a single anchor in cracked concrete; Ncb = nominal concrete-breakout strength in tension of a single anchor; c,N = factor used to modify tensile strength of anchors based on presence or absence of cracks in concrete; ed,N = factor used to modify tensile strength of anchors based on proximity to edges of concrete member. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

ity to augment the dowel restraint, no is needed on the bottom-dowel capacity.

As previously stated, the welds in connections should be stronger than the joined components of the connection to

Table 5. ACI 318-08 appendix D calculations for concrete breakout due to shear on University of Wyoming specimens Specimen Concrete-breakout strength of anchor in shear ca1 in. BS 17 end 1 left BS 17 end 1 right BS 17 end 2 left BS 17 end 2 right BS 34 end 1 left BS 34 end 1 right BS 34 end 2 left BS 34 end 2 right FS-143 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 8.5 ca2 in. 2.6 5.6 5.6 2.6 1.75 1.75 5.7 2.6 2.75 da in. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 e in. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 c,V n.a. 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 AVco in.2 325.1 325.1 325.1 325.1 496.1 496.1 496.1 496.1 325.1 AVc in.2 269.6 314.6 314.6 269.6 213.8 213.8 378.5 322.7 194.3 Vb kip 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 28.39 28.39 28.39 28.39 19.87 ed,V n.a. 0.76 0.83 0.83 0.76 0.73 0.73 0.81 0.75 0.76 Vcb kip 18.28 23.31 23.31 18.28 12.56 12.56 24.52 19.38 12.71

AVc = projected concrete failure area for an anchor or group of anchors considering limitations due to size of the member in which anchor is located; AVco = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor if not limited by corner or edge influences; ca1 = distance from center of anchor shaft to edge of concrete in one direction, taken in the direction of the applied shear; ca2 = distance from the center of the anchor to the edge perpendicular to ca1; da = outside diameter of anchor; Vb = basic concrete-breakout strength in shear of a single anchor in cracked concrete; Vcb = predicted shear capacity using PCI formulation (Eq. [5]); e = load-bearing length of interior cantilever for use in PCI equations; c,V = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on presence or absence of cracks in concrete; ed,V = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on proximity to edges of concrete member. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010 117

Table 6. Test-to-predicted failure loads of Canadian PCI specimens using PCI design checks Concrete breakout: tension Specimen f c' , psi Vtest, kip Vpredict, kip P-1-B P-2-A P-3-A P-4-A T-1-1 T-1-2 T-3-5 T-5-9 T-5-10 T-7-14 T-9-17 T-11-22 T-12-23 A-2-3 T-13-26 Average Standard deviation Coefficient of variation 8040 8040 8040 8040 4910 4910 5430 5630 5630 7160 6375 7280 7220 5820 5240 18.2 17.3 14.4 16.7 33.5 33.8 39.3 43.4 36.5 44.3 46.7 47.5 39.9 35.3 50.3 20.30 20.30 20.30 20.30 42.29 42.29 42.29 42.29 42.29 42.29 42.29 43.98 43.98 42.29 42.29 Vtest Vpredict 0.90 0.85 0.71 0.82 0.79 0.80 0.93 1.03 0.86 1.05 1.10 1.08 0.91 0.83 1.19 0.96 0.31 0.32 Concrete breakout: shear Vpredict, kip 26.67 26.67 26.67 26.67 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 47.62 30.30 47.62 47.62 Vtest Vpredict 0.68 0.65 0.54 0.63 0.70 0.71 0.83 0.91 0.77 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.32 0.74 1.06 0.78 0.25 0.32 Anchor reinforcement Vtest Vpredict 0.64 0.61 0.51 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.71 0.78 0.66 0.61 0.83 0.86 0.72 0.64 0.91 0.76 0.41 0.53

Vpredict, kip 28.23 28.23 28.23 28.23 55.34 55.34 55.34 55.34 55.34 72.28 56.47 55.34 55.34 55.34 55.34

Note: The hanger strap provides the lowest predicted strength capacity and is therefore the most critical element. The moment in the top bar and the dowel are over strength and hence have the lower Vtest /Vpredict . f 'c = compressive strength of concrete; Vpredict = shear force predicted from theory; Vtest = shear force obtained in experimental program. 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

avoid a brittle fracture of the weld. Therefore, at a minimum, the weld between the strap and the bar should be designed to resist the maximum possible load that the strap can transfer to the weld. This will ensure that the hanger will never be critical at the weld.

fy fy

= 36 ksi (250 MPa) (strap) = 46 ksi (320 MPa) (HSS tube)

futa = 90 ksi (620 MPa) Zyy = 5.56 in.3 (91,000 mm3) Vu = 6.7 kip (29.8 kN) = 0.75 (for concrete breakout)

Example
The proposed design methodology is demonstrated here through a design example using a modified J-strap Cazaly hanger in a 12-in.-wide (300 mm) shallow beam (Fig. 18).

Given
fcl = 6500 psi (44.8 MPa) fy
118

Solution
From statics, the tensile force on the strap is Tu = 1.33Vu = 1.33(6.7 kip) = 8.91 kip (39.7 kN).

= 60 ksi (420 MPa) (reinforcing bars)

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Figure 15. Test-to-predicted failure-load ratios are given for PCI Design Handbook equations. Note: 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

40 35 Test failure load, kip 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Predicted failure load, kip

Tension breakout Shear breakout

Figure 16. Test-to-predicted failure-load ratios are given for concrete breakout on the University of Wyoming tests. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN. PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010 119

Splitting tension zone

Figure 17. The location of the splitting tension zone is shown in the University of Wyoming test specimens.

1.

Calculate the concrete-breakout strength in shear using the PCI Design Handbook shear equations and notation and assumed hanger embedment depth BED. The depth to the bottom of the inside of the strap is used as the effective depth, while any edge distances are taken from the centerline of the strap:

2.

Check the capacity of the top bar. Mu = 6.7 kip(5.25 in.) = 35.2 kip-in. (3.97 kN-m)

Mn = fy(Zyy) = 0.9(46 ksi)(5.56 in.2) = 230 kip-in. (26 kN-m) > Mu OK 3. Check the capacity of the straps. Tu = 1.33Vu = 1.33(9.0 kip) = 12.0 kip (53.4 kN)

BED = 11 in. (280 mm) SED = SED = 12 - 6 2 5 16 = 2.84 in. (72.2 mm)
0.5

Tn = fyAst = 0.9(2)(36 ksi)(3 in. 5/16 in.) = 60.8 kip (270 kN) > Tu OK 4. Check the capacity of the lower dowels. = AAreq = req Vua 9.0 kip a 5.25 in. k = (70 mm2) hfy 7.25 in. a 60 ksi k

VVco = 16.5 a fclk BED 1.33 = 32.3 kip (144 kN) co3 = C3C = 0.7 3 SED = 0.446 = a BED Ch Vc3 = Ceva = Cvcr = 1.0 = Vco3C3ChCev3Cvcr = (32.3)(0.446)(1)(1)(1) = 14.4 kip (64.1 kN)

Adowel = 2 (0.2 in.2) = 0.4 in.2 (258 mm2) > 0.11 in.2 OK 5. Design anchor reinforcement. Anchor reinforcement strength should be equal to the shear capacity required within hef /2 of the end of the beam. Thus, the anchor reinforcement for hef = 11 in. is Av = 1.33 Vu /fy = 1.33 6.7/(0.75 60) = 0.20 in.2 (129 mm2)

Vc3 = 0.75(14.4) = 10.8 kip (48 kN) Based on the given concrete properties and dimensions of the hanger components, the breakout capacity is 10.8 kip (41.4 kN), which is greater than the ultimate load of 8.9 kip (39.7 kN). Therefore, the hanger breakout is satisfactory.

120

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

1'-0" 2" 51/4" HSS 6 3 5/16"

5

/16"

6"

/16"

3"

Anchor reinforcement

Anchor reinforcement

Vu
3

1" 4"

/4"

#4 1'-8"

25/8"

Outline of concrete

Figure 18. This sketch shows the Cazaly hanger used in the example problem. Note: HSS = hollow structural section; Vu = ultimate, factored shear load. 1 = 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1' = 1 ft = 0.305 m; #4 = no. 4 = 25 mm.

One no. 4 stirrup (Av = 2 0.20 in.2 = 0.40 in.2 [260 mm2]) is sufficient for anchor reinforcement. The stirrup should be located within 51/2 in. (140 mm) of the center of the strap.

Deep sections and strengthening existing hangers

This research focused on shallow sections. As the sections become deeper, the breakout strength increases to the point that the hanger bar or the strap becomes the critical limiting capacity. Thus, each possible failure mechanism must be checked for a valid design; however, no key depth correction is required. In most applications, the anchor reinforcement complements the concrete-breakout capacity, which means that older installations would be safe. If evaluation of an existing installation results in insufficient capacity, a Cazaly hanger can be strengthened by through-bolting a plate above and below the hanger such that the bolts provide the anchor reinforcement.

are analogous to the strap of the Cazaly hanger, though additional modeling of the anchor is needed for direct comparison. The equations for concrete-breakout capacity in ACI 318-08, or the PCI Design Handbook, can be applied directly to the Cazaly hanger, except that the embedment depth is taken to the bottom of the hanger plate. Thus, the bottom of the strap is used for determining the embedment depth and the bottom-dowel anchor prevents the rotation of the hanger after the concrete has failed. Calculation using the PCI Design Handbook equations for shear is simpler than using the ACI 318-08 equations for shear. Evaluation of the test results from the CPCI 1965 research program on hanger connections established that anchor reinforcement resisted the end shear load after the concrete cracked in a concrete-breakout mode. If the yield strength of the anchor reinforcement is used for design, the anchor reinforcement is an accurate and conservative approach to finding the capacity of the 1965 CPCI Cazaly hanger test specimens. The UW tests demonstrated the application of a concrete-breakout model to accurately and conservatively predict the capacity of the connection in shallow, unreinforced members. This is in contrast to the shear-friction design currently included within the PCI Design Handbook,5 which overpredicts the capacity of the hanger. A statistical analysis of the test data for concrete breakout was similar to the results of the tension breakout strength as conducted by Anderson and Meinheit6 and further suggests that a strengthreduction factor of = 0.75 is appropriate for the design. This is consistent with the methods of ACI 318-08 appendix D.4

Conclusion
Testing on full-scale Cazaly hangers revealed that concrete breakout is the predominant failure mode of the shallow Cazaly hanger under vertical load and that this behavior does not conform to the originally postulated shear-friction behavior forming the basis of the longstanding design methodology. ACI 318-08 appendix D4 specifies methods for CCD of headed studs in concrete. Headed studs in tension or shear

Recommendations for future work

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

11"

3' 5/16"

71/4"

121

The calculations, assessments, and recommended design guidelines presented in this research were calibrated on work conducted in 1965. The UW test specimens demonstrated the ability of the CCD approach from ACI 318-08 appendix D4 to predict the capacity of the connection. However, current test-specimen data are limited and additional testing on numerous specimens with a wider range of hanger depths, as well as different variations of anchor reinforcement, would provide confirmation and better statistical reliability for todays practice. Additional testing and calibration would provide greater assurance for the precast concrete industry and would possibly adjust the phi factor used for these connections.

Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Laramie, Wyoming.

Notation
a = distance from location of application of load to location of support reaction for use in Canadian PCI test setup or distance from support reaction to centerline of strap for use in PCI equations = embedment length of bottom dowel

ab

Adowel = area of bottom dowels in Cazaly hanger An = area of upper dowel in Cazaly hanger for use in PCI Design Handbook equations or projected area of an insert or group of inserts = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor or group of anchors = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor if not limited by corner or edge influences = required area of bottom dowels in Cazaly hanger to prevent pryout = area of strap cross section = area of anchor reinforcement = projected concrete failure area for an anchor or group of anchors considering limitations due to size of the member in which anchor is located = projected concrete failure area of a single anchor if not limited by corner or edge influences = width of top bar in Cazaly hanger = width of beam containing Cazaly hanger, for use in PCI equations = width of beam in University of Wyoming test

Acknowledgments
The UW specimens for this research, as well as assistance with testing, were provided by Rocky Mountain Prestress of Denver, Colo., and their input on specimen design and testing are greatly appreciated. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Rocky Mountain Prestress. The authors also extend their appreciation to John Hanlon, the members of the PCI Industry Handbook Committee, and the PCI Technical Activities Council, whose review and comments improved this paper.

ANc ANco Areq Ast Av AVc

References
1. Slater, W. M. 1966. Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institutes 1965 Research Program on Hanger Connections. PCI Journal, V. 11, No. 3 (June): pp. 7282. Ife, J. S., S. M. Uzumeri, and M. W. Huggins. 1968. Behavior of the Cazaly Hanger Subjected to Vertical Loading. PCI Journal, V. 13, No. 6 (December): pp. 4866. PCI Industry Handbook Committee. 1985. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. MNL120. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: PCI. ACI Committee 318. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute (ACI). PCI Industry Handbook Committee. 2004. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. MNL120. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: PCI. Anderson, N. S., and D. F. Meinheit. 2006. Design Criteria for Headed Stud Groups in Shear. Final report. Chicago, IL: PCI. Joy, W. T. 2008. Concrete Capacity Design of the Cazaly Hanger. MS thesis. University of Wyoming,

2.

AVco b b1 bd

3.

4.

BED = depth of embedment of the Cazaly hanger c ca1 = clear cover of strap in Cazaly hanger = distance from center of anchor shaft to edge of concrete in one direction, taken in the direction of the applied shear = distance from the center of the anchor to the edge perpendicular to ca1

5.

6.

ca2

7.

ca,max = maximum distance from center of anchor strap to

122

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

edge of concrete ca,min = minimum distance from center of anchor strap to edge of concrete C3 Ccrb Cev Ch Cvcr d = PCI correction for edge effects = coefficient for cracked section in PCI formulation of tensile capacity of insert = PCI correction for eccentric load

kc b e p L

= coefficient for basic concrete-breakout strength in tension = load-bearing length of interior cantilever for use in PCI equations = load-bearing length of anchor for shear = bearing length of exterior cantilever for use in PCI equations = length of top bar in University of Wyoming tests = length of beams in University of Wyoming tests = distance from centerline of strap to end of top bar in University of Wyoming tests = distance from centerline of strap to cantilever end of top bar in University of Wyoming tests = nominal flexural strength = ultimate factored moment at section = tensile force on insert = basic concrete-breakout strength in tension of a single anchor in cracked concrete = nominal concrete-breakout strength in tension of a single anchor = width of strap in Cazaly hanger = center-to-center spacing of J-straps in University of Wyoming hanger specimens = edge spacing from centerline of J-strap in University of Wyoming hanger specimens = half the distance of center-to-center spacing of interior J-straps of two individual hangers in University of Wyoming specimens

= PCI correction for thickness L' = PCI correction if the section is cracked = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement or depth of top bar in Cazaly hanger = outside diameter of anchor = reinforcing-bar diameter = depth of prestress strand in University of Wyoming tests = eccentricity to applied load in University of Wyoming test hanger = concrete cover in front of hanger strap = bearing pressure created by interior cantilever for use in PCI equations = compressive strength of concrete = specified tensile strength of anchor steel = yield strength of steel, varies for reinforcement, strap, top bar = gap between member and support, for use in PCI equations = depth from bottom of top bar to bottom of strap in Cazaly hanger for Canadian PCI specimens or depth from top of beam to center of bottom anchor for use in PCI equations = depth of embedment of J-strap = depth of embedment of dowel reinforcement from top of concrete = effective embedment depth of anchor Vc3 = PCI shear breakout capacity sc se Mn Mu N Nb Ncb s s1 L1 L2

da db dp e f fbu fcl futa fy g h

SED = side edge distance to centerline of insert Tn Tu V = nominal tensile strength of hanger strap = ultimate factored tensile force on hanger strap = shear force on insert = basic concrete-breakout strength in shear of a single anchor in cracked concrete

h' h" hef

Vb

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

123

Vcb Vco3 Vn

= predicted shear capacity using PCI formulation (Eq. [5]) = PCI basic shear breakout strength of an insert = nominal shear strength

Vpredict = shear force predicted from theory Vtest Vu Zyy = shear force obtained in experimental program = ultimate factored shear load = plastic section modulus = strength-reduction factor = modification factor reflecting reduced mechanical properties of lightweight concrete relative to normalweight concrete of same compressive strength = factor used to modify tensile strength of anchors based on presence or absence of cracks in concrete

c,N

c,V = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on presence or absence of cracks in concrete cp,N = factor used to modify tensile strength of postinstalled anchors intended for use in uncracked concrete without supplementary reinforcement ed,N = factor used to modify tensile strength of anchors based on proximity to edges of concrete member ed,V = factor used to modify shear strength of anchors based on proximity to edges of concrete member

124

Fall 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

About the authors

Westin T. Joy is a civil engineer with the Materials Engineering and Research Laboratory of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Lakewood, Colo. Charles W. Dolan, FPCI, is the H. T. Person Professor of Engineering at the University of Wyoming in Laramie.

Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. Current tests show that in shallow sections the hanger does not follow shear-friction behavior but instead behaves more closely to a concrete-breakout model. Reassessment of the 1965 specimens revealed shearfriction to be a poor predictor of capacity in shallow sections, while the concrete-breakout models provide conservative predictions. A proposed revision to the sixth edition of the PCI Design Handbook based on concrete-breakout capacity is recommended for Cazaly hanger design method.

Keywords
Cazaly hanger, design, vertical load.

Donald F. Meinheit, FPCI, is an affiliated consultant with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc. in Chicago, Ill.

Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institutes peer-review process.

Reader comments Synopsis

This paper evaluates the behavior of the Cazaly hanger under vertical load and proposes an additional design requirement for the connection. In 1965, Canadian PCI instigated a research program to evaluate the behavior of the hanger, which led to the shear-friction design basis for the hanger in the third edition of the PCI Please address any reader comments to journal@pci .org or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal, 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606. J

PCI Journal | Fa l l 2010

125