Sunteți pe pagina 1din 22

I

Title n o 9269

Code Background Paper:*

Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete

A tucrfiendh high/) rransparenr modeljor rhc design ofpossinnalIed

rs or cnrt.hploce headed sruds or bola renned rhe concrete, sign ICCD) oppmoch ispnscrircd. appmach ircompared *nown pmvisionr o/'AC,!,34fE T h r ~ o c f both nuthods to rr conc~i~/niltrre load of'/faeningr y + k r c d r o n m t iunder or~ic loa& for iizporra"r & ~ ~ C ~ I I O N u crnp~md %riables rded si& anchors a$+ f&K&d ; l + o r i10 I @ edge. &chm gmups. re~rrio loading ~ and ihea<ldnding Ad+ b~thcludfig a p p m d ~ e l y 1 2 W Eirmpcnn nndAtnericM'r~5rsw~ F e c+puiwn shows rltm rhe C'CD,,prhody accumrely prcdicl h e con~n(c/allrurloud o f enbtgs /or the full range ?/ Invcrrigmed npplicorions On Jle orhcr d. de&dina dn rhc a ~ o l i c d . r i ooucsrion. ~I~ the ~ i i d i d $ACX o ~ 349

Tu

i=

~13ufc'$

"

increased use of metallic anchoring systems Currently employed are cast-in situ anchors such ? headed studs [Fig l(a)] or headed bolts and fastening systems to be in-. stalled in hardened concrete. such as torqueanrrotled expansion anchors [Fig l(b)l. deformation-controlled expan.. sion anchors [Fig. I(c)], undercut anchors f i g . 1(d)], and adhesive anchors [Fig. I(e)l are fastened to the formwork &d -elements cart into the concrete. A common example is a plate with weided-on headed studs Fig,: ](a)] which produces hechanicai interlocking with the concrete., f & & & & & anchors can be fasrencd in almost any position desired in hardened concrete by installing them in a hole drilled after concrete curing. A distinction is dra& between @eta1 exbansion ancho@ndercut anchor?@nd ,. . bonded inchon. according to their principles of'opention. produce expansion forces &d thereby (frictional) holding forces in the c o n k t e base &erial,, Wirh torque.controlled expansion anchors f i g , l(b)!. a
'

specified Ihereby. one cone or - . installation torque is applied .. two cones. &co+ng to the type of anchor, idare drawn into the expandins sleeve,or segments Tbrque~controlledanchok should expand further under load ~efomation trolled anchors [(Fig l(c)] are expanded by driving the into the sleeve [dropin anchor,'~ig l(cJ or onto the con [Fig, i(cz), (self-drilling inchor) and Fig. 1(c3) (steel chor)] through a specified displacement Deformation-con trolled anchon cannot exuand further under.load., are anchors with parts that spread and 0 mechanically interlock with the concrete base material After ~roductidn of the cvlindrical hole bv drillinrr. -. the . under- ., cutting is produced in a second opention before installation ,$. of the anchor Fig. I(d,) chiough l(dJ or during ihtallation '2 : of the anchor$@(&f~&$~d5)] . . *.. . ... '~uch lower expansion forces are hdduced duling installation andloading than with expansion anchors..In fact, certain undercut anchors can act. .virtually identically to c a b i n anchors if' the angle and diam- : eter at the undercut are within certain limits., q [Fig l(e)] depends on gluing together a threaded rod and the wall of the drilled hole with reacting resins Ihe load is transferred to the concrete base material by chemical bonding. Adhesive anchors a r i not covered in this paper:.
:

'

Fig 2). each with very different loaddefomtion patterns, as shown in Fig 3 Fig 3 is valid for anchors with relatively low remaining pmtnssing

.$;::.,;:;i.:,.:.:

i,....,

:,.,;;;

, : .. . ; ; , . ; . . ,

< . :% < ;~ ,;

: . ; <

::~,;,

. :

ACI .. Structural . ., Journal / January-Feb~ary !995 .__. . ,.

%rmr I h h s i . 7Al~mox im ~m ~ nit~r ,y ~ ,he Ilrl,; 11,~~1~~~~~~~~~~~ C,,?IV, K,n,fcrin~, Gllman?. ilr rrrrilrrl h h df;!ltmm JCRW hl <isilrnfi~srr;nx fmnr rho U n i w r d c ~ o f Xorl.!nthhr and P1,lJ fnmr thr U u i w r ~ i r ~ Swpnn Genna,,c Ajlrr a purrdodnrol /dl"" d>ip01 ,In< uUiver,rit! <fn,rtu0, A " n i , ~ he ]##i",diri11i. it< I,<,.,<,",d"c,,cr rcscwx h md d n m * ~ I o w i< % I ! on to~?ics m h t d t,, rc, hr8;qwsfo,Jmt# ah8 to con.. rnrr llc ir s n r n ! b r r f l A ( l V 5 In.l?oln$r to C'iw,m

,,

Ifa) -Fa'orre~ttr~gI) steins headed rmds

bt 1 bz b3 ) . ,, .rg I(h) ---Ftelre,tirrg s,yrte~rrs: rorqlte-corr!rolled espairsio~l rtchor (ifpper sketcher rltolv arrerrrbled ortchorr, lower letcher slto~v a ~ ~ c l t nretl~a~rien or acriotrr)

Fig. I(e) -Fosrenb~g syrrerm boitdedoradl~esive orrctor:s xce after losses due to rcla.talion and other similar effects (1~9-dde sketcher sltu~v hole slrape; righr..,ride sketclte,~ lie rnaznilude of the prestressing force will id-e the rhow iirsrnllcd antho; s) levels CC but has practi. h v i o r of the anchor R L ( ~ T Y ~ ~lly no influence at failurc load I& Forexpansio~~ ancl~ors, thc failure load depcnds on the dePrillol~t orprrllrhrouqh failures are failure by sliding outof sign of' the expansion nicclianisnl, method of drilling the e fasteni~ig device or parts of it h & concrete (pullQIID hole, condition of tlie drilled liole, and deformability of the by pulling the cone tlp~~&hJ~e sleeve l o u l l t l i r o ~ w i l l ~ concrete Currently, i l w e is no esmblished procedure to de11 thc breaking out of a fairly substantial portioti of the surtermine theoretically the ultimate load to bc expected of fas.. undinr! concrete [Fig 2(c)J For defor~~~ation-co~~trolled teniligs in the pullout or pulltl~roughtype of failure It nwst stcners, only thepullout failure mode is possible, be determined ill co~liprel~ensive prequaiification tests, such

. ,, ,, ,. , .., .,.,, :
\

, "

: : ' " ' , , . : Tm;mnn7n1:, r , , 77ii.,,. . ., .,,8,,lh;!


, ,.
,

(..:...... ,.,
,

ACI Structural Journal 1 January-Feb ..,, . , ,... ,


:r,

:'

Axial Deformation Fig. 3-Ideali~edload.deformarion curves forfasrenerr under tension load

ing further and developing a higher load capacity.This be., havior is influenced considerably by the installation procedure and is highly undesirable It must be prohibited by performance requirements in prequalification testing of the fastening device With expansion anchors, the depth of' embedment can control the type of failure. As shown in Fig. 4, there is a critical embedment depth later termed /I+ the effective embedment depth, at which the mode of failure changes fiom concrete failure to pullout. 'This depends on the expansion mechanism and he, is determined in prequnlification tests,, The concrete bearing area of undercut anchors and headed studs is usually large enough to prevent pullout failure. re failure by yielding of'the fastening de.. vice or system fastened to the concrete before any breakout of concrete occurs [Fig,2(a)]. Under conditions that the steel miterial is sufficiently ductile aid the Ienothof the fasteneior attachment over which

he,
Embedment Depth Fig 4--Role oj'effecrive deprk herfor expansion anchors

failures are failure by concrete breakout or splitting of the structural concrete member before yielding of the fastener or fastened element [Fig 2(b) and (d)] or by steel failure when the length over which inelastic steel suains appear is rather small.. For nonductile fasteners and cases where the concrete capacity is less ti-& the fastener device capacity, a brittle fail*
to determine theoretically the failure of failure in the '-type
.. . .
. ,

75

In pmc~icc, nt:t~tyfa~tc~tings or i l t l : ~ ~ l ~ ~ arc t t lhccd e~~l~ on :I grout fa~lure niny a rrour bed. h r this t y e of inst;~llalion. occur beforc an! otl~er type of failurc I n this case. thc s1tc:tr 10.~1tn~tsthe tr;urd'erred into the base by bending the anchors 1ltis ma) reduce tltc 1o:td trnnsfcr cap:t<itywhen con).. on tl~e p~rcil to :I hstcning or :~lt:tcltnienl inst:~llcddi~cvtly base 1n:1tcrial'1 11eeffect of tlie grout bed on load tr:~nsfcrcnpacity is not discussed in this paper

fizm%e *\,*
? . . > ." .

c..;
'

c )

Fig. 5-Failrrre mo~felerforfnsto~i~~gr urtdcr. shear loading: (a)steelfniltrre preceded by co~rcrete spall, (6) concrete

breakotrt; fc) c o w . edge [ ~ i 2(d)l g 'This ty n~inintu~t~ values of center-torcenter and edge spacings, as well as c'omponcnt 'tliickness ;\gain, prequalification testing under ASTM ZXXX' is'designed to preclude such failures, Concrete breakout failure [Fig 2(bI) through 2(b3)] is a very impor@ntpractical dcsign case, because many fasteners are mnde such Illat a concrete failure will occur before yield.. ing of steel. lit fasteners with deeper embedment but thinner side cover, concrete blowout [Fig 2(b4)Jcan govem This latter case is not covered it;'this paper. . . ..

1be ~clcvant literature contail~s several approacl~es for the calculntion of concrete failure load i n uncrackcd concrete. The most inrportant examples are dcsign reco~~n~endations of ACI Committee 34gS4PC1 design proccdurc~that are son~cwltnr sintilnr to those of ACI 349? and tlie'co~tcrete capacity design (CCD) ntethod based on the so-called K-ntctliod Jevcloped a ! the University of S t u t t g i ~ l'lte l ~ ~ CCD method provides a clear visual expl:matio~~ of calculatio~i of the K-factors used in the ~-,method. It contbines~he trails.. parency (ease of visualization of a physical ntotlel. making it readily undc~stood by designers for application) uf the ACI and a user-friendly 349 method, accuracy of the ~..nietl~od, rectang&r failure surface calculalion procedtm.'A comparison of tltc CcD method with the K -method is given in References 9 and 10,From this comparison. it is evident that the CCD and K-ntethods p;edict almost identical failure loads. lniltis paper, t h i pro\;isions of ACI 349-85 in? he CCD metltdd to predict the fastening c a p & & of britlle (c&;cte breakout) failures in &cracked concrete arc c,oinpa;ed with a large 'number pf test results 'To f$cilirate direct cotnpsrison, the capacity reductionfactor $ of ACI 349 and pariinl taken material safety factor y, of the CCD method k c botil . . .. . as I 0 'I'he comparison is lnade for f&tenikgs both under tension load (single fasteners close to and f:tr from tlie'edge, as well as anchor groubs wiih up to 36 fa&ners far fro&the edge) and under shear load toward the edge (single fasteners ind double f'asteningsinstalled close to the edge in wide and narrow as well as thick and thin ntenibcrs) Rased on this comparison, tile accuracy of the two design app~oaches is de. , termined,,

loading can be observed..H0wever.a pullout failure may theoretically occur only if the ratio of anchorage depth to anchor diameter is very small and the tensile capacity is very low In contrast. in shear. a brittle concrete failure will occur for fastenings located close to the edge [Fig 5(b)J and cannot be avoided by increasing anchorage deljth. Steel failure, often proceeded by a local concrete spill in 'front of the anchor [Fig S(a)], will be observed for fasteners sufficiently far away from the edge Forthat case, the load-displacement behavior will depend on ductility of tlie anchor steel A conc e r t o -f fasteningslocated quite far away from the edge [Fig. 5(c)J ntay occur for single anchors and especially for groups of anchors with a small ratio ofembedment depth to anchor diameter and high tensile capacity The critical ratio depends on the anchor strengih. concrete strength, and nurnber and spacing of fasteners This failure mode is not covered in this paper,

Wl~ile ductility is hiphly desirn e III npplications where there are substantial lire safety concerns. a brittle failure mode covered by a sufficient safety factor is often acceptable In both cases. concrete capacity must be predicted as accurately as possible to insure a ductile failure (ductile de. sign) or sufficiently low probability of failure (hrittlc design). respectively.In many applications, the relevant design methods (ACI 349-85 and CCD method) will predict rather different concrete capacities Therefore, screening of both methods based on an extensive data base is netded Comparable earlier studies'' l 2 are based on a small number of test 1 ; include the newly developed CCD tnctlt~l, data and did 1 DESIGN PROCEDURES Fig 6 shows concrete breakout cones for si~tgle anchors under tension or shear load, respectively. idealized accord ing to ACI 349 From this figure, it is evident that the concrete cone failure load depends on tensile capacity of the ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1995

axsT -..* '


4

.4

~ ( j ~b r ~ ~. ) II ~ (4h ~4 r k~& he! ~ yd u -g 1 4


2

idu2.

Tr(h;+4duh,C).
512b-er

-tTb2(\tdU;
heFi

I ..*-'&. .
1.h.

4. + . & . . a

h..q ,,ze
I *

d .

a) tension

Fig 7-Projected areas for mulriple fastenings under tensile loading according to ACI 349 (a) double fastening, (b) quadruple fmtening

N" = fc,
with
fc,

AN

(1)

,
.. .
,

the capaciiy when used in uncracked concrete This paper presents the resulu for uncracked concrete only and should be compared with design expressions for uncracked concrete The behavior of anchor groups is infuenced by stiffness of the base plate In this paper, a rigid base plate is presumed and no plastic action of the anchor group is considered with nuclear.related structures Because of concern with nuclear safety. the phiobtain losophy of ACI 349 is to design ductile fastenings 10 a limit to guard against brittle concrete failure, the cone model was developed.!,r4 l5 Under tension loading, the concrete capacity of' an arbi.. trary fastening is calculated assuming a constant tensile acting on the projected area of the stress equal to Q . 4 failure cone, taking the inclination between the failure sur.. face and concrete surface as 45 deg

= 0 4 = capacity reduction factor, here taken as 1 0 AN i . actual projected area of stress cones radiating ' toward attachment from bearing edge of anchors Effectivearea shall be limited by overlapping stress cones, intersection of cones with concrete surfaces, bearing area of anchor heads, and overall thickness of concrete member

In the following, it is assumed that member thickness is sufficientlylarge to avoid any reduction of the concrete cone failure load For a single anchor unlimited by edge influences or overlapping cones p i g 6(a)I

with ANo= projected area of a single anchor

fl

?he SI equivalent of Eq (2) was determined assgning that

77

f i g &Projected arearforfasteningr under shear loading according to A U ,349,(a) single fastening installed in thick concrete member;. (b).singlefastening in.stolled in thin concrete member (h S c,); (b)double fastening installed in thick concrete member is, < Zc,)

1 i n = 25 4 mm, 1 si = 0,006895 N/mm2, 1 lb = 4448 N, a n d E = l,i8 f , ' t

N" =

(4a)

Nno = 0 96

h ( 1

+ 5 ),

(3)

For fastenings with edge effects (c < h,/) andlor affected by other concrete breakout cones ( s < 2 he/). the average failure load follows from Eq (4) , , 7 , : *> : ! ,: ! , .

AN - -. Nn~~~gtz)~ AN0 C 4 (?)I, N


,,

(4b)

T o obtain the-failureload in SI units (N),Eq ( 3 ) may be use$ in place of E q (2) in Eq (4b).,

Fig 7 shows the detemlination of the projected areas AN for double and quadruple fastenings Note the computational complexity of determining O and AN ndividual anchor failing the concrete (Fig 8). provided that the concrete half-cone is fully developed, is

Again. with $r = I and the conversion factors given. the SI equivalent is

~f the depth of the concrete member is small (h < ~ 1 andl ) or the spacing is close ( s < 2 c , ) andor the edge distance perpendicular to the load direction is small (c2 < cl). then the load has to be reduced with the aid of the projected areas On the side of the concrete member

V, = A, 4

;',

lb

~ i g94dealized . concrete conefor individualfastening

: ; :
. ....

under tensile loading after CCD method where AV =

.. . ,,

actual projected area projected area of one fastener unlimited by edge A,~= SS influences, cone ove [Fig 8(a)I

fjstening is calculated assuming an inclination between horizontal extent of' the failure surface is abo the effective embed

= n/2 c , 10obtain the failure load in SI units (N). Eq (6) may be used in place of Eq (5) in Eq 7(b) Fig 8 shows the determination of Ihe projected areas Av for shear loading using the cone concept of ACI 349 Again. the computations are complex for the examples shown in Fig 8(b) and 8(c)

given by E q (8)

= JThe concrete capacity of arbitrary fastenings under tension or shear load can be calculated with the CCD method 1'0 predict the steel capacity, additional design models are necessay. such as the one proposed in Reference 8 for elastic design or ductile and nonductile fasteners, or in Reference 16 for plastic design of ductile m ~ l t i p k fistenings. Note that failure load of anchors by pullout is lower than the concrete breakout capacity. Equations for calcul* tion of pullout cap;sity are available but are not sufficiently accurate or general 'Therefore, the pullout failure loads must be evaluated and regulated by prequalification testing,

where kl, k2 k, are calibration factors, with

where

k,,, = 35. post-installed fasteners k,,, = 40 cast-in situ headed studs and headed anchor
bolts

ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1995

79

hef = effbctive anchorage depth (Fig. 10) For fastenings with three or four edges and c , 5 15hd(cm= largest edge distance), the embedment depth to be insened in Eq (10a) and (lob) is limited to htf= & c ,5 ,. This gives a constant failure load fordeep embedments2? Examples for calculation of projected areas are given in Fig 1 1 Note the relatively simple calculation for the CCD method compared to Fig 7 illusrnting the ACI 349 m e w . In E q (10). it is assumed that the failure load is linearly proponional to the projected area Ihis is &en into account by the fact0rA~4A,~, For fastenings close to an edge. the axisymmetric state of stress. which exists in concrete in the case of fastenings located far from theedge, will be disturbed by the e'dge. Due to this disturbance. the conmte cone failure load will be rehuced. (Ihis also occun in cracked concrete82-') 'Ihis is taken into account by the Nning factor y t . A linear reduction from y 2 = 1.0 for c1 2 15hd(no edge influence) to v2= 0 7 forthe theoreticalme c, = 0 has been assumed,, Up to this point, it has been assumed that anchor ,pups areloaded concentrically in tension. However.-

A.

.
5

Is,

1 5 h . 1 1 2 1m.l

1 1%.

al

Fig Il--Projecredareas for differentfasrenings under ren.. rile loading according lo CCD method

reiationship of the concrete capacity is proposed between these limiting cases f i g 14) and N , , as defined in Eq (10) with AN,AN,,. y I = factoftaking into account the eccentricity of the , : -.. ...I.I~-.~~c..~P resultant tensile force on tensioned fasteners..lnthe ; m q r . i ! o a d s ! $ The concrete c x & % individual anchor in a cask wheieeccentric Ioadine exists about two axis ., .,, uncracked suuctu.d meinber under shear loading towar (Fig 11). the modification factor y 1 shall be cornfree edge (Fig 15) is puted for each axis individually and the product of the factors used as y in Eq (I la)

v2.

'

where e,' = distance between the resultant tensile force of ten.. sioned fasieners of'a group and centroid of ten. sioned fasteners (Fig,.12) Fig. 12 shows examples of an eccentricaly loaded quadruple fsstening under tensile loading located close to a corner In Fig. 13. E q (Ila) is applied for the case of a double fastening. In this figure in Fig 12). it is assumed that the eccentricity e,; of the resultant tension force on the fistenen is equal to eccentricity e ~ o the f applied load.'Ibis is valid fbr eh, 5 r, 16 and for e,, > . . r,. 16 if the fatener displacements are neglected. If the load acrs concentrically on the anchor plate, Eq. (10) is valid ( y I = I) [Fig 13(a)l If only one. fastener is loaded p i g 13(c)J, the failure load of' .... the erouo is eaual to the conciiie $pacity of' one fastener
do = 1 =

(as

=
c, ,= 1n=$ith =;%is
m * ?

...

outside diameter of fastener. in: activatedload-bearing length of' fstener, in, 5 8d, (Reference25) he,forfastencrs with a constant overall stiffness, such as headed studs, undercut anchors, and torquecontrolled expansion anchors, where there is no disrance sleeve or the expansion sleeve also has the function of the dismce sleeve 2 4 for t'otque~conuolled expansion anchors with distance sleeve separated from the expansion sleeve edge dismce in loading direction, in m?. length quantities in:qnpd stress = -% . equation becomes

located c10,seto corner

ACI Structural Journal 1 Janua _. , yrr : , , - . * , '...".! ........... . . " . ..-.,. . .r . : ,-; . . . . :
?

_... ,
.

. .
,

..

.. ..
. ,

,:

. . .

....,......
.,

. (

. ............ .. . . . . .
!
,

.L,r-.,

failure load does not According to E~:. ( which is proponional incr;ase with the hilu .. Ibis is again due to to c.; .. Rather, it is pro size effect Funhermor.e, the failure load is influenced by the anchor. stiffness and diameter The size effect on the shew failure load has been verified theoretically and experimentally.? The shear load capacity of. single anchors and anchor groups loaded toward the edge can be evaluated from Eq, (13a) in the same general manner. as for tension loading by taking into account that the size of the failure cone is dependent on the edge distance in the loading direction. while in tension loading it is dependent on the anchonge depth Ftg, 16)

A,

where = actual projected area at side of concrete member idealizing the shape of the fracture area of individ-

Fig IbCbmparison of'rensionandshear loadingfor CCZ)


method
a

ACI Structural Journal I JanuaryFebruary 1995

83

A V = A,.

(single fastening] = 15c,(2 15cJ =4 5 4

A, = 15c,(15c, t cz) if: c, s 1 Sc,

C : :

A, = 2 1 Sc, h if: h s 15c,

'

unl nr1c.ho1s as n l1nl6pyran1idwith sidc length I 5 c I nnd 3cl (Fig 17) projected area of one fhstener unli~nitcdby corner . I , , = influences. spacing. or. member thickness, idealizing the sl~npe of the fracture area as a 11alf.pyramid with side length 1 5 q and 3 q [Fig 15(b) and 1W l yr, = effect o f eccentricity of shear load q

stress dist~ibution csilscd by a corner

'

= distatice between resultant shear force of f x t e n e ~ s


of group rcsisti~ig shear and centroid of slleared filstencrs (Fig 18) tuning factor co~~side~irlg disturb:mce of synmelric

'

= edgedistan& in loading dircction, in ( F i g 1'7): for k~steningsin a narrow, thin inember with e2.,,c 1 5c1 (q,,,, = maximunr value dredge distnnces perpendicular to the Ioxling direction) and 11< 1 5c1,the edge distance to bc insertcd in E q (131). ( I lb), anti (I 3c) is limited to c l = max (c2,,,/1 5; Irll 5 ) 1his gives a constant fnilurc load intlependent of'lllc edge distance c l (Refcrencc 21)

ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1995

.
Fig 18-Caniple o/'~ultrple faiteiing with cast..inrim headed sttrds close to edge under eccentric shear loading

= edge distance perpendicular to load direction (Fig 17) Examples for calculation of projected areas are shown in Fiz lo - 17 Note the relatively simple calculation com~ared the more complex geomeuy of the ACI 349 procedures illusc2

,
0

J
,

; (b) shear load parallel

19-~&ble fartening: (a) rhear 1oadperpendic.ularto to edge

.. . . load that can b.ikesisted iitiiediridtion perpeidiiular to &d toward the kdge (Fig. 19) A similai value can be conservatively used for resistance to loads in the direction perpendicular to but away f
,,

...

Comparison. of The main differences between these design approaches are summarized in Table 1 Thky are as follbws: . . 1 The way in which they consider influence of anchorage depth hg(tensile 'loading) and edge distance C I (shear loading),,
,

. The assumption of. ;lope of the f'iilure cone surface, distances his leads to differentminimumspacings and to divelop full anchor hpacily,: 3.. The assumption about' the shape of the fracture area (ACI 349: cone, CCD method: pyramid approximating an idealized cone). In both methods. the influence of' edges and overlapping cones is lakeninto account by projected ireas, bqed on circles (ACI 349)or rectangles (CCD method), re.. spectively dueto.this, calculation of' the projected area is rather simple in the case of the.CCDmethod and ofien rather iom$icated in rhe case of ACI 349 4, The CCD method takes intb a c c o k disturbance of the suesses in concrete caused by edges and influence of load

Table 1--Comparison of the influence of main parameters on maximum load predicted . by . ACI 349 a n d CCD methods
Anchorage dcprh, tension Edge dismcc shur Sloped fa~luue cone Rquind spacing to devclop full anchor clpacity
I

I
I

ACI 349-85

1
I

CCD ~&thcd
k.,
IJ

hi.

4
a = 45&s
Zh,!, tension
? c ., . r h~ cu
~

c:J

a-35deg

3k,,.tcluion
I

3c. . s k

Required edxe diiuncc to develop full anchor upcity . . Smallspacingor d o = to edge


I dirccrion 2 dirrcrions : ' Eccenlricity of load .'
'

I h , , tension I c, shear
Nonlinear (area-proponiond) reducdan
I

1.5 h,.msion
1 5 c, .shear

..

... .

Linev rcduclion Nonlineunducrion

..

-.; .%Taken into account ... . .. .,,. .. ., .

ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1995

>

85

Table 2---Single fastenings with post-Installed f a s t e n e r s far from edge, t e s t series-'Tenslle

loadlng

e c c c ,hies These influe&ing factors are neptected hy ACI 349 TEST DATA In the following sections, some extracts of'the data base Ire reproduced to give the reader a sense ofthe large number 11' test series, individual tests. and range of'variables consid:red The original sumnary of' test results is pixen in ieference 1 0 Only tests where a concrete breakout fXlure xcurred were taken into account In respnse to review omalents after submission of' this paper for. publication, hta from the Pragne tests reported by Eligeliausen et a1 .nd the Arkansas Nuclear One tests28were added -ensile loadlng 5 give an overvicw of the number of ten., 'Tables 2 tl~rougll ile tests and range of the varied paranleters No diflcrence 7 the procedure of perf'orming tests with anchors under tcn.. ile loading between Europe and the U S could be discovred,,

I
8 give an overvicw of the number of shear tests and ralge ofthe varied parameteis - In European tests with anchors under sllear loading, a fluoropolylner sheet was always inserted between the concrete surface and steel plate Illis is to sitnulale reduction in friction betwee11 the steel plate and concrcte surface caused by reduction of thc prestressing force with time9 and by use of a plate wit11 a relatively smooth surface (c g . a painted, colddrawn, or greased plate) In the U S , tests are usunlly performed with an unpainted steel plnte attncl~cd directly on the concrete surface with no fluoropolymer sheet in between Illis increases friction resistance and causes the U S test values to be higher,
I

COMPARISON O F DESIGN METHODS WITH TEST DATA 111this section. test data from the wide range of tcsts shown in t$e previous section will be cotnpared with the CCD and ACI design procedures ACI Slructural Journal I JanuaryFebruary 1995 .. , . . .

\!

'Table 4-Single
Edxe spacing Country oflcrl GB

fastenings with post-installed fasteners close to edge, test series-Tensile

loading
C,

L.::~. ~ / m m ~
n

h,j mm

mm blximum 1200 63 5 330.0 330 0

F
CI

s 1.54,

D EL'R

3 2 36 41

Mnimum 3 0 IS4 24.0 184 17.2 172

Avcnpe

hlzximum

Minimum 37 0 63 5 30.0 30 0 34.2 300 53 0 34.2 342

Avenge 67 3 63 5 81.5 79 6 118.0 99 0 IW9 137.8 128 6

ZIximum 100 0 63 5 220.0 2200 12.3 233 2200 2213 223

Minimum 50 0 63 5 30.0 300 31.8 300 30 0 31.8 30 0

Avernge 83 3 63 5 95.6 931


'

2,s

25 5
18 4 59.0 590 34.1 590 37 7 W. I 377

us.+
cl 5 I 0 hd

184 25.7 l 79 17.1 26 3 27.7 27 3

nj

96.0 946 93 5 1W.8 989

USA

30

240 18.6 18 6

1n.8 3300 220 0 158.8 2200

2 ,

l o

Table +Quadruple
Edqe Counrzy rpau~ng of lest Quadn

fastenings with cast-in situ headed studs, single tests-Tensile

& , ,.X/mm2
1
281

loading

Itel,

mm

c 1mm,

I,mm

-'4330

Minimum/ AvarJgc ~I&ximun(hlinimumAverJpe Plasimumhlinimum Avengc j\l&ximumhlinimuml Avenge hluimurn 1016

35

179

389

673

177 9

360 3

508 1 1 4 6 0

.. Table 7-Single fastenings with post-installed fasteners in concrete members with limited thickness, single tests-Shear loading
Country ot'tcrt

1
n

. f r. :. ~ ~.lv/mm~ . . . .

. hd. mm

MmiMaximum Avcmcc mum

MiniMaxzmum Avcnne mum

MiniMa,imum Avenne mum

h.liniMaw mum Averaqe mum

Mint- Avensc Mzximum mum

Tabie 8-Double
Anchor.. age Cduntry device oftesr n

fasteninas sinole s t-s -~~ - in thick concrete members. ~, - ~ ~t -e ~~~

~ -

fc&.

N/m2

h4m MiniiVa.ximum Avmpc mum

d m
MaxiMinimum Average mum

c , m

c? mm Wini- Average M u i mum mum

MiniMaximum Averrge mum

x i Minimum Avmgs mum

Expansion anchor

36

20.5

24.8

27.1

80.0

81.7

100.0

18.0

20.7

24.0

80.0

172.1

200.0

80.0

190.0

1W.O

Tensile loading In Fig. 20 and 21. measured failure loads of'individual an.. chors are plotted as a function ofembedment depth. The tests !\ere pertormed on concrete with dimrent compression strengths. Iherefbre. the measured failure loads were normalized to /' ,: = 25 Nlmm' (f,' = 3070 psi) by multiplying them with the factor(2~//,,,,~,,)~~, In addition predicted failure loids according to ACI and the CCD methods are plot-

ted As can be seen,the tension failure loads predicted by the CCD method compare rather well with the mean test results over the total m g e of embedmentdepths, with the exception ofthe tuo post-insralled fasteners at the deepest embedment,, In conmst. anchor suengths predicted by ACI 349 can be considered as a lower bund for shallow embedments and give quire unconservatiue results for the deepest embedded headed studs 'Thisis probably due to the fact that size effect

ACI Structural Journal / Januarv-Februaw 1995

Fig 21.-Cotroere 6rcoliorrr l&d for tosr-in si'rrr h d e d a~rds, trrro/fecred by edges or sjmcing cj/rc 1s.-'re res~rlrs amipredic~iorrs

';i'g, 20-~orrorle Oreokorrr load for,mr. Brsmlledfnslcnr r, mrtrfle~~ed /Ir. edges o t spzcitrg ej/ror-7knrilc resf csrrlrs ondpr.cdic~i(m s neglected by ACI 349, Suhstaatial scatter exists wit11 the leep embedment data. jostifj:ing a conservative approach irt his region. Fi 3 :shows tlie results of all evaluations forte~isile loadng ~ ~ l " t - i ~ ~ s t a l l cfasteners d far from [he edge Average to N,,,,,,, , ,,,p, dnt~d correspondingcoalues of the ratios N u,,,,,, :ficients of variation for botli methods arc plotted The av:rage and coefficient of variation are substantially beuer for he CCD tnetliod tlmi for ACI 349'This is also true when tlie lata arc subdivided into five different anchor types (fig 23) ind for headed studs without edge or spacing influences Fig 24). Eq (9) uses the same coefliciet~tk,, for undercut ~rrchorsas for other post-instnlled anchors 'The results illown in Fig 23 support this procedure 'These undercut an+or tests were typically for undcrcut anchors with l~ead learing pressures greater than 13f: Bclter values would be :xpectcd if the undercuts were proponioned for l o w r bcarng pressures 1he coelficient of variation ofthe r:~tios of measured fail.. Ire load to the value predicted by the CCD method is ahobt IS percent for headed studs and undercut anchors, nhich lgrees with the coefficient of variation of the concrcte tensile

tlie CCD method This is doe to !lie fact that tile majority of the ev;~lunteddata 11ap an efkctive e~~l~edrncrit depth Ifcf s"ia1ler than 150 tnm (6 in). F& headed studs with embedme& greater t h i n 300 mtii (12 in ), ACI 349 predictions hecome unco~iser~ative(Fig 21). Thus, the average vaiues do not indicate local unconservitive cases, la Fi$ 25, results of tcsts with quadr~~plc fastenings with h&detl stnds are evalunt ed in the sa111eway as in Fig 2 2 The figure indicates that spacing irtflucnce is tnore easily arid accurately takci~ into account by the CCV mcth?d tlian by ACI 349, Wl~ile tlie average failure load is predicted correctly by the CCD method, it is significantly overestittmtcd by ACI 349 Tltis can also be seen from Fig 226, which sflows failure loads of groups as a function of the distarice r; betweeii the outermost anchors Groups with 4 lo 36 anchors were installed in very thick concrete spcci~nerls loaded concentrical-, ly in tension through a rigid load frame to assure an alniost equal load dist~ihutionto tlre ancllors I.,ight skin rrinforcement was present near the top and 11ottot11 surfaces of the speciri~ens and light stint~ps were present near the cdges in some specimcnf for handling The sti~rups did not intcrsecl the concrete conc No rcinlorcc~ncntw;:s present near the fastct~ing i~eadsThese specimens represent h e capacity of' groups of' I;is!cncrs iristalled in plain concrete 13nhcdment depth and concrete stre~igtl~ were kept colist:lnt 1 1 1a11 tcsts a

ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1995

ACI 349

CC-Method

Frg 23- Comparison o/ design procedures forposrinstalkd fnsreners. unaffecred b> edges or spacing effects. divided into different fastening sjsrems-Tensile loading

lows from the assumption of'a45-deg cone is toosmall Obviously, provision of special reinforcement designed to engage the hilure cones and anchor fastenings back into the block could provide substantial increase in load. ?his was not investigated in these tests and such increases are not treated in this paper In Fig' 27, resulu of' tests with single post-installed fasteners close to the edge are evaluated. The average ntio to I V , , , ~ is ~~ approximately ~, the same for boh methods. Howeber. the coefficient of' variation is much smallei for the CCD method and amounts to about the same value as for single fbteners away' from edges 'This shows that assumptions about the critical edge distance c , = 1 Sh@and the stress disturbance factor yf are correct Note that most of the tests were done with rather shallow anchors (Sable :4). For deeper anchors. it would be expected that the CCD method would predict more accurate capacities due to its consideration of

size effect and effect of stress disturbance. as well as itsas; , = 1 5 hij , sumption of a chamtenstic edge distance c Influence of'load eccentricity on the failure load of'anchor heeccentricity ' I e,' is calculated groups is shown in Fig. % using the general assumptions of the theory of elasticity, ie.., stiff'anchorplate anchordisplacement equal to steel eiorigation. and linear elastic behavior. of concrete. It can be seen that the CCD method yields conservative results 'This effect is also neglected by ACI 349
,

S h e a r loading F i g 29 shows a comparison of results of U S and European shear t<srs performed with single post-installed anchor fastenings in thick concrete members with the design procedure of the CCD method and hd1349 'The tests were performed on concrete with different concrete suengths, different anchor diameters, and different ratios of embedment depth to anchor diameter 'T herefbre. the measured failure loads were cnnsf'ormed to a concrete strength / ; , ' = 25 Nlmm' ( j'.' = 3070 psi), anchor diameter do = IS mm (071 in), and a ratio //do= 8 by multiplying them with the factor (25/f,, , t , , )05 ( I U d o,,,,, ) 0 5 , [8/ ( l / d ) ] On the average the concrete breakout loads of dte U S tests are higher than those of the European tests. especially at smaller edge

Ptt,.

ACI Structural ~ 6 u r n a lJanu&y-iebwary l 1995


.
.

ACI 349

CC-Method

ler

O r .
tar:
ag;

Du
dal

1
Bit

SIB

230

400

600

800

1000[mm]

res 7h ed1
ti01

7.9

15.7

'
St

23,s

31,5

39,4 [ i n ]

1
all1
tes!

(Fi
m e

ACI Slructural Journal 1 JanuaryFebruaty 1995


.
,,

AC:
.,

,.

, ,

..

.,.,.. .,

,.

.,,

w....

ACI 349

CC-Method

30

83

Fig 28-Comparison o f resf rerrrlrr on eccenrrically loaded line farreni~ur composed offi~rcre m . in siru headed rntcls wirl; loadpredicted by ~ ~ ~ r n e r h o d - ~ u n rloading" ile ropolymer sheet in the U S tests and resulting friction contribution leading to higher shear capacity The friction contcibution relative to the failure loadis large for small edge distances Failure loads predicted by the CCD method agree well with the average failure loads measured in European tests. On the contrary, ACI 349 is conservative for small edge distances and unconservative for l u g e edge distances This is, again. probably due to the neglect of' size effect by AC1349,, Due to the fiction contribution just mentioned. the U S test data are predicted more conservatively by both methods In ~ i30 and ~ 31. , average values ofthe ntios V, ,JV , , , , dirtinnand corresponding coefficients of variation for post..installed fasteners are given for European and'^^ test data, respectively The ACI 349 averages are more conservative,, 'This is due to the fact that most tests were done with small edge distances However. the AC1349 coefficients of'varia.. lion are larger A similarresult was found for headed studs 'O The results of' European tests with double fastenings parallel to the edge and loaded toward the edge (Fig 32) and tests with single fiistenings in thin concrete members ( F i g 33) are similarly evaluated. As can be seen, the CCD method comphres more favorabl) with the test data For both ACI Structural Journal 1January-February 1995 applications, avenge ffailure loads predicted by ACI 349 . are ..: unconservative and coefficients of variation are much larger':.',
..
'-

-1

CONCL.USIONS In this study, the concrete capacity of fastenings with cast.' in situ headed studs and post-installed anchors in uncracked plain concrete predicted by ACI' 349 and the CCD method has been compared with the results of a large number of tests (see Tables 2 through 8 ) Based on this comparison, the fbllowing conclusions can be drawn: 1 . 'The average capacities of' single anchors without edge and spacing effects loaded in tension are predicted accurately by the CCD method over a wide range of' embedment depths [20 mm (0 8 i n ) < h,,S525 mm (207 in ) ] Fora few post..installed anchors with embedment depths in the 250mm (10-in.) range. the CCD method was quiie conservative. Conversely, ACI 349 underestimates the strength of'shallow anchors and is unconservative for quite a number of' deep embedments The same result was found f'or tlir predicted capacities of single anchors loaded in shear toward the edge with small or large edge distances, respectively, This result is due to the fact that AC1349 assumes the fail.. ure load to be proponional to a failure area that increases with the square ofthe embedment depth On the other hand. the CCD method takes size effect into account and assumes

. ,

1750

tY)O

100.0
75,O

.,

w.0

- 10

.O

w.0

too

m.0

100.0 -0

m . 0

Fig 29-Compari~ron of shear test results wit11ACI 349 and ? IC member:^: (a) European rests;.(b) U S resrr
ZOO

.v . .. ...: ..-. , . 1:so

$2 . 2
.Z

-' 0 u

-2
1.00

"
00
ACI 349
CC-Mclhod
-,

ACI 349
84 0
s

CC.,Melhod
84

loo .. , - 20.0
0

.-

C
0

;30,O
U

Z " .-

40 0

i g 30-Co~nparison of design procedurrs for. European rrs ni111sirtgleposr.~i'nna/led fasteners in thick concrere ember:s-Shear loading roward edge

Fig. 31-Co~npari:son of design prat e d u mfor U S tests 1citIl si~~glepost~~i~~rtalled fasrener:s in rllick concrete n~ernberrS11earloading roward edge
ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1995

ACI ,349

CC-Method

99

a9

rocedurer for double fa,$steners in thick concrete memloading toward edge . ,

F i g , .3.3-Cbmpari.son of design procedures for European in rhin concrete tests wirh singlepost..i,~smlledfasrene~~ members-Shear. loading toward edge

failure load to be proponional to the embedment depth to the 1 5 power 2 In many applications (for example, anchor groups away from edges loaded in tension single anchors in thin concrete members loaded in shear. double fastenings in thick concrete members loaded in shear). the capacity is predicted more accuratcly by the CCD method Failureloads predicted by ACI 3-19 for these cases are significantly unconservative, This is mainly due to the fact that ACI 349 assumes a 45-deg failure cone. The CCD method is based on an assumed inclination of the failure surface of about 35 deg. which produces better agreement wirh test results, . 3 In some applications, such as single anchors at the edge loaded in tension. the mean capacity is predicted accurately by both methods However. thecoefficient of variation of the ratio of' measured failure load to the value predicted by ACI 349 is rather large ( V = 45 percent), 4 In all applications investigated. concrete capacity is predicted with consistent accuracy by the CCD method The coet'ficient of' variation of' the ratios between measured and predicted chpacities is about 15 to 20 percent. 'This coefficient of variation is equal toor not much larger than the value expected for concrete tensile strength %hen the lest specimens are produced from many different concrete mixes.

l y In contrast, the circular.areas of ACI 349 result in consi erable computational comple~ity,~ Summarizing. the CCD methodis a relatively sim transparent, user-friendly. and accurate method for efficient calculation of concrete f'ailuk loads for fastenings in uncrackedconcrete.It is based on a physical model to assist designers in extrapolating the empirical results to other applications,'Iheref'ore, this method is recommended for the design of fastenings It is riot inco~ect to use the ACI 349 method for. many fastening applications,.However. since it does not seem universally advantageous and in some applications produces unconservative values, the authors suongly recommend use of' the CCD procedures CAUTION It is known that the presence of tensile cracks :an subsrantially reduce the concrete capacity of fasteners Some fasteners are nor suimble for use in cracked concrete FOIthose fasteners suitable for use in cracked concrete, it is possible to adjust the uncracked concrete failure loads predicted by the CCD method by using an additional multiplicative factor This factor results in cracked concrete capacities around 70 percent of uncracked concrete capacitiest Similarly, it is

k n o w t t 1It;tI tltc cottctcie c:tp:tcily of f:~slettcts ~ 1 1 1 hc en.. It:tttced by p t t y x r l y del:tilctl l o c a l ~ e i t ~ ~ o r c e t t tS cut c th ~ cnh:tttcetacttl c a n he i t t c l u d v d i n d e s i g n provisiotts b u t i s o u t s i d e l l l c scopc nf titis p:tper,

(hstcning Tichniqucl ' Rrmnloknd<, I Y V 2 V II firm1 8: Suhu I k r l i n 1992 pp 597.~7l.5(in Grrmm) 9 Eligchnuscn R , , ""Vcrglciel~ dcs K .Verfahrens mil der CC..hlcthodc (Compnriron ofthe K ,Jdelhnl r i l h lhc CC.Metlml),, 'Rrpovl No IU16.. Stntlgan 1912 (in 9 2 n lnrtilul filr \\crkstoffc iiln Dauucscn L~nivcrsilSt Gernran) I 0 Fuchs W.. "Enluicklung cirlcs Vorschlogs fllr die Bctncssung r o n Refestigungen (I>ereloprncnl o f r Proposal for the Dcrigtc o f Faacninpr lo Feh I991 Conrrcle)," Repon to the Deutschc Foncl~usgsgemeinscI~nft, (in German) II Kiingner, R, E nnd hicnd~mcaJ A . "lcnsilc Capacity o f Shod Pm,. Anchor Bolls and Welded Studs: A Literalarc Rcvicw," ACI JOLIRNAI. cwdings V 79, N o 4. July-Aug. 1982. pp 270..279,, 12 Klingncr R. E. and Mcntlonca J A,. "Shcar Cnpwily o f Shod Anchor Bola and Welded S~uds:A I.ilcrnture Revieu:' A C l J o y n ~ n t Pm. crtdir~jis V. 7 9 Nd.5. Sept.-%I. 19 I 3 ACf Committee ,318. I.ctlc Chapter 22. Faslcning to.Concrclc. I 14 ACI ~ ~ o i n m i ~ 349. ee ' Related Concrcte Structures (ACI 34976)" American Concrete Institute. : Detroit, 1976. I S A C I Commitlei 349 Wesign Guide to ACI 319..85,' ~ k e r i c a n Concrca Iwtitute, Detroit. 1988. 16. C w k R A,. and Klingncr R E.. 'Uchmior dnd Design of Ductile hfultiplcAnchor~~ToOOSt~~IIIConnectio~ Rcsrorch, Report N o 1126..3, Ccnter for Tmsspoitation Rcwarclt. University of'Rxas 01Austin. 1989 1 7 R m n t Z. P. "Size Elfccl i n Blunt Frncturc. Cbncrctc. Rock hktnl.

r
6

= = = = =

NO'TATION'
dinanec frnw center a f a fassnrr to cdgc o f concrete distnncr frwn centcr o f a fi~slener to edge ofconcrete in onc dircctiu~~ \ V h m s h m is prcscnt,,c 1 is in thc dircctint~ of ~ h c shcm fonc diannce fnrm ccntrr nf a faslcncr to cdgc ofconcnte i n dirce.. lion onhogwal lo rl Where shenr is prescnl, g is i n the direc. lion perpcndiculnr to shear force outsidcdinn~ctcr of fmtcncr or shnfi dinmttcr of iacadcd slnd or headed nnrlrw hslt head dinnwcr 6fhmJrd st~sls or hendcd =?chon
C O ~ C R ~~ E~ n ~ p r c s s strtngth ive measured an 6 hy 12 in cylinders concrclc amprcssi\r strcng~h, rncmrcd on 2CU-mn1cubcs conerule tensile strength thickness ofconcrete memhcr i n uhich a fasteuer is anchored cflective ~mbcdment tlepth nu,nhry or tcst rcsults distance ktween fasteners spacing distrnce bctwcn ?atermost fasteners o f a proup CocfIkient of vnriation ~ l io of nclual lo predicted load tuenn value of r projected area tension projected nrrn shear , . Euro.hlcrnational Concrctc Comn~i~tee Crceh~rslu\akin Gcrmony Europc France Great llrilnin lc%silcI w d Snedcn United States o f Amrrica shear load s l q x ofe;mcrete breakbut cone

cz

do d ,

1 , ' =
, f
h
\

=
=

(,3/ s =
' , s,
V

= = =

=
=

r
.x 4 A "

= = =
=

C I 3 CS

EUR = F = GB = N = .5 = LSA =

= = =

i.and K o i L K "llcid{d ~Iuds-~n&dded in c&& and 18, Bnle. l Loaded in'Tcnsion~ncltorcrgc r o Cirtnrrti, ed Amcn'can,'C?ncrctc Institute. Detroit.l98 :19. 'Eligchahen. R ; and ~awsdc.G.. "F Dc&ipiion'of~hc PullOnl Beltaviour of llcadcd Studs En~he+cd in Con. cretc.", From& hfcrbbni<:s of Conirere Structwrr, F k m Tltrorr. 10 Application~.L Elfgrm ed Chapman & llall. Inndon 1989. pp 263-28 1 20. Elinebausen. R. and Orboll. J 'Sizc Effccl i n Anchorage Rchnviour.' Pmcndirgr D m p c o n Coufirc scr 08, f n a t w c hf<rhnnicr. Fmc Udtmiow wd Dc+qn of hi<treridtmd ~ t r ltvin. ~ Oct ~ I991 t ~

'

,=

r snfcty conridcratiow
, ,

on the C ~ ~ F&; I e O Load o f Awhor~olts: Fna titre hlwhoni,:r o / Concrete ~ ~ h r m ~ & E l s e y iApplied er Sci:8?cc. 1997 pp. 517.425 22. Eligehauscn.'~, and Rologh. T 'CC-hldhcd ( C a n c i e Cnpacity Mcthal):' R C ~ & No 12/15.92/). Inailnl fur \\'crkstoffc i m llnuwesen. . UnivciritSt Stuttrm. 1992,

ilicntion for Performance o f ~ n c b b r r cue lilr.twnlr." Dmfi I.hlnr 21. tY9,1,, 2. Furthc J and Eligelmuscn. K 'I.:sternl Rlowavl Failurc'of llended Stllds ncnr a fiec Edge " Arahorr irr Conrnlr-Deri.q!r and &bowor,, SIL 130 Anicrican Concrete Institute iktroit 1991, pp 2.35..252, 3 7hm. G ,, "'lJefcstigsnpen mil Kopflrolzen itn ungerisscnen Brton t~aslcnings with llendcd Studs it! U w r x k e d Concrete)? I'ltl) thesis,,Uni.. Wrsily o f Slullg:rt,, 1993, 4 A C I Cnmmittcc 319 Cmlc Rcpuiren~cnls for Nr&r Safety Rclatrd C~ncretc SI~UCIIICS fACI 319.85) " Alnrrieaa Coocrcle ltlailsle,,Detroit 1985

ACI Struclural Journal / January-February 1995