Dissertation Grosser 2012 PDF

Load-bearing behavior and design of
anchorages subjected to shear and torsion loading

in uncracked concrete
Von der Fakultät für Bau- und Umweltingenieurwissenschaften

der Universität Stuttgart zur Erlangung der Würde eines
Doktor-Ingenieurs (Dr.-Ing.) genehmigte Abhandlung
vorgelegt von
Philipp R. Grosser
aus Karlsruhe
Hauptberichter: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rolf Eligehausen

Mitberichter: Ronald A. Cook, Ph.D., P.E. Byron D Spangler Professor
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jan Hofmann
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 31.07.2012
Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart

2012
To my family,
whose love, support and understanding

sustained me throughout and
who always believed in me.
This work is dedicated to you.

Acknowledgements
This research would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of nu-
merous people. It is to them that I owe my deepest gratitude.
First of all I would like to give my special thanks to my PhD advisor Prof. Rolf Eligehausen
for his guidance, support and immense knowledge in fastening technology he shared with me.
He encouraged me not only to grow as a researcher but also gave me the opportunity to place
my research in the context of code development and design work. As a member of the SAG4
fib group which develops design guidance for anchorages to concrete he always let me look
beyond the horizon and gave me the chance to take part in various and interesting group meet-
ings all over the world. I am sure that not many PhD students are given the opportunity to
develop their own individuality by being allowed to work with such independence. Thank you
for paving the way for my professional career, for training me to become a good and critical
engineer and for always believing in me.
Secondly, but not less important, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Ronald
Cook for being my co-advisor. For me he is not only a part of my committee, but he also
played a major part in the success of my research. Prof. Cook gave me the opportunity of a
research stay at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering at the University of Florida.
It was a great experience and honor for me to work under his supervision. I learned a lot about
the “American way” of performing tests. Thank you for providing this interesting research
environment and that you always had an open door for me and my problems. A PhD student
simply could not wish for a better and friendlier co-advisor.
As a third member of my committee I would like to deeply thank Prof. Jan Hofmann for the
technical and financial support of my research in the final phase. I always enjoyed the meet-
ings with him and I very much appreciate his contribution to my research. Due to his enor-
mous experience in anchorages loaded in shear he always gave me good advice and helped
me to improve my work. Thank you not only for the enjoyable time I had with you at the
IWB, but also for being a friend when I needed personal advice in my life.
I am very much indebted to many people who all helped and supported me in various ways.
Some of them became really good friends over the years. I would like to thank Jörg Appl,
Jörg Asmus, Zlatko Biocic, Sylvia Choynacki, Todd Davis, Werner Fuchs, Matthew Hoehler,
Thorsten Hueer, Rainer Mallée, Anita Negele, Thilo Pregartner, Klaus Schmid, John Silva
and Mark Ziegler. Thanks to Peter Scherf, Eugen Lindenmeier and Chuck Broward for their
help in the laboratory. I thank Prof. Joško Ožbolt, Goran Periškić and Stefan Fichtner who
always had a sympathetic ear for me when I was stuck in a numerical problem. Special thanks
to my colleagues and friends Christian Fischer, Giovaccino Genesio and Georg Welz for the
long and gainful discussions we had over the past years. Thanks to Monika Werner for her
friendship and unlimited help over the last couple of years with providing me with nearly eve-
ry literature I needed. Thanks to my Diploma students Emire Sulejmani and Sabrina
Senftleben for the support of my research and their friendship. Thanks to my undergraduate
students Jakob Mettler and Jason Golzbein for their help in the laboratory. Thanks to Neal
Anderson and Don Meinheit for making available for me all in-depth documentation of their
research related to shear loaded anchorages.
Thanks to my friends Sandra Müller-Krebs and Bernhard Krebs who encouraged me to write
a dissertation instead of directly start to work in the industry after the graduation.
I would also like to thank my new colleagues at Hilti Ulrich Bourgund and Fritz Wall. They
helped me to be able to cope with my dissertation and job at the same time in a way which
cannot be taken for granted. A big thanks to Fritz for the technical review of the dissertation.
Thanks to the companies Hilti, fischerwerke, Würth and Powers for the financial and tech-
nical support of my research.
Philipp Grosser
Stuttgart, July, 2012
ABSTRACT
Fastening Technology with cast-in and post-installed anchors has found widespread use in
concrete construction due to their numerous fields of applications. Since the 1970’s research
has been conducted in this area to learn more about the load-bearing behavior of anchorages
installed in hardened concrete and to develop design recommendations. For design, it has to
be distinguished if the anchorage is loaded in tension, shear or a combined tension and shear
loading. This dissertation concentrates on the load-bearing behavior of post-installed and cast-
in anchorages loaded in shear under arbitrary load direction. This includes anchorages loaded
by a torsional moment.
Shear loaded anchorages have been investigated in the past by different authors and design
provisions are available to calculate the resistance for most of the standard applications. How-
ever, it is known that some existing calculation methods are quite conservative due to missing
experimental and numerical investigations. These methods have been developed with engi-
neering judgment and are not verified for all anchor configurations covered in design. Fur-
thermore, it is assumed that for some anchor applications loaded in shear the design provi-
sions lead to unconservative results. The aim of this dissertation is to answer these open ques-
tions and to improve existing design recommendations based on engineering models. Moreo-
ver, anchor configurations are investigated which are not covered in design. In particular, this
is a step to extending the CCD-method for larger anchor groups.
This dissertation covers the investigation of single anchors and anchor groups.
Terminology used in various references which are discussed in this research work is quite
different for same parameters. Therefore, notations and symbols are replaced by the notations
and symbols used in this document. The terminology is defined at the beginning of the work.
In Chapter 1 the problem is defined and the context for research is pointed out.
The starting point of a research project is an in-depth study of the literature. Therefore, in
Chapter 2 the research activities related to shear loaded anchorages are summarized. This
chapter also presents a discussion of existing design provisions and explains the load-bearing
behavior and possible failure modes for shear loaded anchorages.
In Chapter 3 the experimental investigations are presented and the results are discussed. In
addition, numerical simulations were performed within the scope of this dissertation. An ex-
planation of the developed FE-models and a discussion of the results of the simulations can be
found in Chapter 4.
Based on the experimental and numerical investigations new prediction equations and calcu-
lation models are developed for single anchors and groups loaded in shear and torsion which
can be found in Chapter 5.
Finally, in Chapter 6 design recommendations are given for anchorages loaded in shear in
arbitrary direction. The calculation is explained for both anchorages located far away from the
edge and anchorages located close to concrete edges.
Closing, in chapter 7 a summary of the dissertation is given and open questions for future re-
search are pointed out.
KURZFASSUNG (German Abstract)
Die Befestigungstechnik mit Dübeln und Einlegeteilen ist im Bauwesen weit verbreitet. Seit
den siebziger Jahren wird in diesem Gebiet intensiv Forschung betrieben, um den Tragverhal-
ten von Befestigungsmitteln besser zu verstehen und darauf aufbauend Bemessungsrichtlinien
erarbeiten zu können. Hierfür wird unterschieden, ob die Befestigung durch eine Zugkraft,
Querkraft oder eine kombinierte Zug- und Querlast beansprucht wird. Diese Forschungsarbeit
beschäftigt sich mit dem Tragverhalten von Befestigungsmitteln, die durch eine Querlast un-
ter beliebiger Belastungsrichtung beansprucht werden. Dies schliesst Befestigungen ein, die
durch ein Torsionsmoment beansprucht werden. Solche Befestigungen werden in der Praxis
sowohl am Bauteilrand als auch mit grossem Randabstand angeordnet. Abhängig von den
materiellen und geometrischen Eigenschaften von Stahl und Beton können die Befestigungen
durch Stahlbruch, Betonausbruch auf der lastabgewandten Seite (Pryout) oder Betonkanten-
bruch versagen.
In der Literatur existieren Untersuchungen zum Verständnis des Tragverhaltens von querbe-
anspruchten Befestigungen am Bauteilrand und in der Bauteilfläche. Bestehende Bemes-
sungsrichtlinien basieren sowohl auf diesen Untersuchungen sowie auf ingenieurmässigen
Annahmen und Vereinfachungen. Insbesondere zum Verständnis des Gruppentragverhaltens
von Befestigungen unter Quer- und Torsionsbeanspruchung wurden bislang nur wenige Un-
tersuchungen durchgeführt. Aufgrund fehlender experimenteller und numerischer Untersu-
chungen liefern die Bemessungsrichtlinien für viele Anwendungsfälle stark konservative
Traglasten. Allerdings ist auch bekannt, dass die Bemessung für bestimmte Anwendungsfälle
zur unsicheren Berechnung der Traglasten führen kann. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist somit das besse-
re Verständnis des Tragverhaltens von Einzel- und Gruppenbefestigungen zur Verbesserung
bestehender Bemessungsrichtlinien. Darüber hinaus werden grössere Befestigungsgruppen
untersucht, die momentan von den Bemessungsrichtlinien nicht abgedeckt werden. Hierdurch
soll eine Erweiterung der bestehenden CCD-Methode (Concrete Capacity Design) für grösse-
re Ankergruppen angestrebt werden.
In der Literatur werden häufig für gleiche Parameter unterschiedliche Formelzeichen verwen-
det. In dieser Arbeit werden die Formelzeichen entsprechend der in der Befestigungstechnik
üblichen Bezeichnungen ersetzt. Diese Bezeichnungen werden am Anfang der Arbeit be-
schrieben.
Die Ausgangssituation, Problemstellung und Zielsetzung der Arbeit ist in Kapitel 1 diskutiert.
In Kapitel 2 werden die in der Literatur vorhandenen Untersuchungen sowie derzeitige Be-
messungsrichtlinien diskutiert.
In Kapitel 3 und Kapitel 4 werden die durchgeführten experimentellen und numerischen Un-
tersuchungen beschrieben sowie die Ergebnisse diskutiert. Aufbauend auf diesen Ergebnissen
werden in Kapitel 5 neue Berechnungsgleichungen und -modelle für Einzelbefestigungen und
Ankergruppen entwickelt.
In Kapitel 6 ist die Bemessung von querbeanspruchten Befestigungen unter beliebiger Last-
richtung für Befestigung in der Bauteilfläche und am Bauteilrand beschrieben.
Abschliessend werden in Kapitel 7 die Ergebnisse der Arbeit zusammengefasst und die offe-
nen Fragen für weiterführende Forschung dargestellt.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TERMINOLOGY................................................................................................................... xv
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 CONTEXT FOR THE RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Fastening applications covered in current design standards........................................... 2
1.2.3 Fastening applications not covered in current design standards .................................... 4
2 STATE OF THE ART .................................................................................................... 7
2.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 9
2.3 FAILURE MODES UNDER SHEAR LOADING ......................................................................... 29

2.3.1 Steel rupture and local failure in front of the anchorage .............................................. 29
2.3.2 Concrete pryout failure ................................................................................................. 31
2.3.3 Concrete edge breakout failure ..................................................................................... 32
2.4 DETERMINATION OF ANCHORS PARTICIPATING IN SHEAR ................................................. 36
2.5 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN PROVISIONS................................................................................. 37

2.5.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 37
2.5.2 ETAG 001 Annex C ..................................................................................................... 38
2.5.3 Technical Report TR029 .............................................................................................. 39
2.5.4 CEN Technical Specification ....................................................................................... 40
2.5.5 ACI 318-08 Appendix D – Anchoring to Concrete...................................................... 41
2.5.6 ACI 349-06 Appendix D – Anchoring to Concrete...................................................... 42
2.5.7 fib design guide (2011) – Design of anchorages in concrete ....................................... 43
3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................... 47
3.1 SCOPE .............................................................................................................................. 47
3.2 SINGLE ANCHOR TESTS .................................................................................................... 47

3.2.1 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded perpendicular to the free edge in
low strength concrete without influence of member thickness .................................... 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.2.1.1 Investigated fasteners ........................................................................................................... 48

3.2.1.2 Base material and anchor installation .................................................................................. 49
3.2.1.3 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................... 50
3.2.1.4 Results and discussion ......................................................................................................... 52
3.2.2 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded parallel to the free edge in low
strength concrete without influence of the member thickness ..................................... 65
3.2.2.1 Investigated fasteners and base material .............................................................................. 66
low strength concrete with influence of the member thickness ................................... 80
strength concrete with influence of member thickness ................................................ 85
3.2.5 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear towards the edge in low
strength concrete members of different concrete mix compositions ............................ 88
3.2.6 Anchors arranged close to the edge in high strength concrete members ..................... 91
3.2.7 Anchors arranged far away from the edge ................................................................... 94
3.2.7.1 Test program I ...................................................................................................................... 95
3.2.7.2 Test program II .................................................................................................................... 99
3.2.7.3 Test program III ................................................................................................................. 105
3.3 GROUP TESTS ................................................................................................................. 107

3.3.1 Connections engaging multiple anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge and
loaded perpendicular to the free edge ......................................................................... 108
3.3.1.1 Investigated fasteners and base material ............................................................................ 108
3.3.1.2 Loading setup and testing procedure ................................................................................. 109
3.3.1.3 Results and discussion ....................................................................................................... 110
3.3.2 Connections engaging multiple anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge and
loaded parallel to the free edge ................................................................................... 114
3.3.2.3 Anchor installation ............................................................................................................. 117
3.3.2.4 Validation of load application and pin measurements ....................................................... 118
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.3.3 Anchors groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded perpendicular to
the free edge ............................................................................................................... 128
3.3.3.3 Anchor installation ............................................................................................................. 133
3.3.4 Anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge .......................................................... 146
3.3.5 Anchorages arranged in narrow concrete members ................................................... 158
3.3.6 Shear collectors loaded far away from the edge ......................................................... 165
3.3.6.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 165
3.3.7 Anchor groups (n = 2) loaded under torsion close to the edge and in a corner .......... 168
3.3.8 Multiple anchor groups (n > 2) loaded under torsion close to the edge ..................... 176
3.3.9 Anchorages loaded in shear and torsion far away from the edge ............................... 185
4 NUMERICAL STUDIES ........................................................................................... 193
4.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 193
4.2 THE FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM MASA – BASICS AND FUNDAMENTALS ........................ 193
4.2.1 Constitutive law for concrete – Microplane material model ...................................... 193
4.2.2 Localization limiter .................................................................................................... 194
4.3 NUMERICAL MODEL FOR SHEAR LOADED ANCHORAGES CLOSE TO THE EDGE................. 195
4.3.1 Geometry and FE discretization ................................................................................. 195
4.3.2 Model details of the anchorage................................................................................... 196
4.3.3 Verification of the numerical model........................................................................... 198
4.4 NUMERICAL MODEL FOR SHEAR COLLECTORS (NONLINEAR SPRING MODEL).................. 200
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.5 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATIONS ...................................................................................... 202

4.5.1 Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear towards the edge ...... 202
4.5.1.1 Influence of the concrete fracture properties on ultimate strength .................................... 202
4.5.1.2 Influence of the anchor diameter on ultimate strength....................................................... 205
4.5.1.3 Influence of the stiffness ratio on ultimate strength ........................................................... 206
4.5.1.4 Influence of edge distance on ultimate strength................................................................. 208
4.5.2 Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear parallel to the edge .. 212
4.5.2.1 Influence of the concrete compressive strength ................................................................. 212
4.5.2.2 Influence of anchor diameter on ultimate strength ............................................................ 212
4.5.2.3 Influence of the stiffness ratio on ultimate strength ........................................................... 213
4.5.2.4 Influence of edge distance on ultimate strength................................................................. 214
4.5.3 Determination of critical anchor spacing scr and critical edge distance ccr ................ 215
4.5.3.1 Evaluation of single anchors (n = 1) affected by more than one edge ............................... 216
4.5.3.2 Evaluation of anchor pairs (n = 2) arranged parallel to the edge ....................................... 218
4.5.3.3 Evaluation of multiple anchor connectors (n ≥ 2) arranged parallel to the edge ............... 220
4.5.4 Determination of critical member thickness hcr ......................................................... 223
4.5.4.1 Evaluation of single anchors (n = 1) loaded towards the edge .......................................... 224
4.5.4.2 Evaluation of single anchors (n = 1) loaded parallel the edge ........................................... 225
4.5.5 Groups with more than one anchor arranged perpendicular to the edge (s1-spacing
effect) .......................................................................................................................... 227
4.5.5.1 Load applied perpendicular to the edge ............................................................................. 227
4.5.5.2 Load applied parallel to the edge ....................................................................................... 232
4.5.5.3 Group loaded in torsion close to the edge .......................................................................... 236
4.5.6 Shear collectors .......................................................................................................... 240
5 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PREDICTION MODELS ......................................... 245
5.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 245
5.2 MEAN PREDICTION EQUATION TO CALCULATE THE CONCRETE EDGE BREAKOUT

LOAD OF A SINGLE ANCHOR SUBJECTED TO SHEAR LOAD TOWARDS THE EDGE ............... 246
5.3 MEAN PREDICTION EQUATION TO CALCULATE THE CONCRETE EDGE BREAKOUT

LOAD OF A SINGLE ANCHOR SUBJECTED TO SHEAR LOAD PARALLEL TO THE EDGE ......... 251
5.4 MEAN PREDICTION EQUATION TO CALCULATE STEEL RUPTURE OF A SINGLE ANCHOR

SUBJECTED TO SHEAR FAR AWAY FROM THE EDGE ......................................................... 257
5.5 MODIFICATION FACTOR TO CONSIDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIMITED MEMBER

THICKNESS ON THE CONCRETE EDGE BREAKOUT LOAD .................................................. 258
5.6 MODIFICATION FACTOR TO CONSIDER THE SPACING EFFECT PARALLEL TO THE EDGE .... 260
5.7 MODIFICATION FACTOR TO CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE CONCRETE

EDGE BREAKOUT LOAD IN CASE OF SHEAR LOADS WITH OPPOSED DIRECTIONS .............. 264
5.8 VERIFICATION OF GROUPS ARRANGED PERPENDICULAR TO THE EDGE AND LOADED

IN SHEAR TOWARDS TO THE EDGE .................................................................................. 265
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.8.1 Anchor groups without hole clearance ....................................................................... 265

5.8.2 Anchor groups with normal hole clearance ................................................................ 266
5.9 VERIFICATION OF GROUPS ARRANGED PERPENDICULAR TO THE EDGE AND LOADED

IN SHEAR PARALLEL TO THE EDGE .................................................................................. 269
5.10 VERIFICATION OF ANCHORAGES CLOSE TO THE EDGE LOADED IN SHEAR INCLINED TO

THE EDGE ....................................................................................................................... 273
5.11 VERIFICATION OF ANCHOR GROUPS CLOSE TO THE EDGE LOADED IN TORSION ............... 274
5.12 VERIFICATION OF ANCHORAGES CLOSE TO THE EDGE FOR COMBINED TENSION AND
SHEAR LOAD .................................................................................................................. 276
5.12.1 Shear resisted by the front anchors ............................................................................. 276

5.12.2 Shear resisted by the back anchors ............................................................................. 276
5.13 EVALUATION OF SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT FAILURE TO DETERMINE DISTRIBUTION

OF ANCHOR SHEAR LOADS .............................................................................................. 278
5.14 DERIVATION OF MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE TO AVOID CONCRETE EDGE FAILURE ........... 280
6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 283
6.1 DESIGN FORMAT ............................................................................................................ 283
6.2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 284
6.3 REQUIRED VERIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 284
6.4 RESISTANCE TO SHEAR LOAD ......................................................................................... 284

6.4.1 Steel rupture without lever arm .................................................................................. 285
6.4.2 Steel rupture with lever arm ....................................................................................... 286
6.4.3 Pullout failure ............................................................................................................. 286
6.4.4 Concrete pryout failure ............................................................................................... 286
6.4.5 Concrete edge failure .................................................................................................. 287
7 SUMMARY AND OPEN QUESTIONS ................................................................... 291
7.1 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 291
7.2 OPEN QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 294
8 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 297
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 313
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 314

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................ 325

TERMINOLOGY
TERMINOLOGY
The definitions, notations and symbols frequently used in this dissertation are listed below.
Further notation is given in the appropriate sections of this research work.
ACTIONS AND RESISTANCES
F = force
N = axial force (positive denotes tension force, negative denotes compression force)
R = resistance
S = action effects
T = torsional moment on fixture, tension force on anchor, pretension force
V = shear force
INDICES
R = resistance; restraint
S = action effects
c = concrete, concrete cone breakout (tension), concrete edge breakout (shear)
cb = concrete blowout
cl = clearance hole
cp = concrete pryout
cr = cracked
d = design value
el = elastic
f = action in general, friction, fixture
fix = fixture
g = group of anchors in context of load or resistance
h = highest loaded anchor in a group
inst = installation
k = characteristic value
max = maximum
min = minimum
nom = nominal
p = pullout or pull-through
pl = plastic
re = reinforcement
s = steel
sp = splitting
u = ultimate
uncr = uncracked
y = yield
0 = reference value
 / 0° = load applied perpendicular to the edge
‖ / 90° = load applied parallel to the edge
TERMINOLOGY
CONCRETE AND STEEL
As = stressed cross section of steel

A5 = rupture elongation measured over a length of five bolt diameter
CX/Y = concrete strength class where X is given as the characteristic concrete compres-
sion cylinder strength in MPa and Y is given as the characteristic concrete
compression cube strength in MPa.
fck = characteristic compressive strength of concrete (strength class) measured on
cylinders 150 mm x 300 mm, according to CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB,
1993)
fck,cube = characteristic compressive strength of concrete (strength class) measured on
cubes with a side length of 150 mm (usually the word “cube” is substituted by
the side length measured in mm)
fc = mean concrete compressive strength measured on cylinders 150 mm x 300 mm
(6 in. x 12 in.) at the time of the test
fcc,150 = mean concrete cube compressive strength measured on cubes with a side length
of 150 mm at the time of the test
fcc,200 = mean concrete cube compressive strength measured on cubes with a side length
of 200 mm at the time of the test
ft = mean concrete ultimate tensile strength at the time of the test
fu = measured steel ultimate tensile strength
fuk = characteristic steel ultimate tensile strength (nominal value)
fyk = characteristic steel yield strength or steel proof strength respectively (nominal
value)
Gf = fracture energy
Iy = moment of inertia relative to the y-axis
Ip = radial moment of inertia
Wel = elastic section modulus of anchor calculated from the stressed cross section of
steel
DIMENSIONS AND AREAS
a1 (a2) = distance between the outer anchors in adjoining anchorages in direction 1 (direc-
tion 2)
a3 = distance between concrete surface and point of assumed restraint of an anchor
loaded by a shear force with lever arm
acl = hole clearance (acl = df - dnom)
acl,1 = normal hole clearance according to design provisions (see Table 5.1)
b = width of concrete member
bfix = width of fixture
c = distance from the axis of an anchor to the edge of the concrete member
c1 = edge distance of a single anchor, index 1 denotes the direction perpendicular to
the edge for which the verification of concrete edge breakout is made
c2 = edge distance of a single anchor perpendicular to the edge distance c1, only ap-
plicable for an anchor located in a corner
c1,i = edge distance of the individual anchors in a group, index 1 denotes the direction
perpendicular to the edge for which the verification of concrete edge breakout is
made (see Figure 0.1) (i = anchor which is considered)
TERMINOLOGY
c2,j = edge distance of anchors in a group perpendicular to the edge distance c1,i, only
applicable for an anchor group located in a corner (see Figure 0.1) (j = anchor
which is considered)
ccr = characteristic edge distance for ensuring the transmission of the characteristic
resistance of a single anchor
cmin = minimum allowed edge distance
c1,red = reduced edge distance in case of a shear loaded anchorage in a thin, narrow con-
crete member
d = diameter of anchor bolt or thread diameter, diameter of the stud or shank of
headed anchors
df = diameter of clearance hole in fixture
df,1 = normal diameter of clearance hole in fixture according to design provisions
dh = diameter of anchor head (headed anchor)
d0 = nominal diameter of drilled hole
dnom = outside diameter of anchor
= d for anchors without sleeve
e1 = distance between shear load and concrete surface
eV = eccentricity of resultant shear force of sheared anchors in respect to the center of
gravity of sheared anchors
h = thickness of concrete member in which the anchor is installed
hef = effective embedment depth
hnom = nominal anchor length
l = lever arm of the shear force acting on an anchor; length of concrete member
lf = influence length of the anchor loaded in shear (value is given in relevant approv-
als or is determined from the results of prequalification tests)
= hef for anchors with constant diameter over the embedment depth (e.g. threaded
rods)
n1 (n2) = number of anchors in a group in direction 1 (direction 2)
n = total number of anchors in a group
s = center to center spacing of anchors in a group (see Figure 0.1)
s1 (s2) = individual spacing of anchors in a group, index 1 and 2 depend on the edge for
which the verification for concrete edge breakout is made (see Figure 0.1)
s1,i = spacing between the anchors, index 1 denotes the direction perpendicular to the
edge for which the verification of concrete edge breakout is made (see Figure
0.1) (i = anchor which is considered)
s2,j = spacing between the anchors perpendicular to the spacing s1 (see Figure 0.1)
(j = anchor which is considered)
s1,t (s2,t) = center-to-center spacing of the outermost anchors in a group = ∑s1,i (∑s2,j), index
1 and 2 depend on the edge for which the verification for concrete edge breakout
is made (see Figure 0.1)
scr = characteristic spacing for ensuring the transmission of the characteristic re-
sistance of a single anchor
smin = minimum allowed anchor spacing
tfix = thickness of fixture
th = thickness of anchor head
TERMINOLOGY
c2,3
c2,2
c2,1
VS
edge 2
section 1
s1,2
s1,t section 2
s1,1 c1,3
c1,2 section 3
c1,1
edge 1
direction 1
s2,1 s2,2
direction 2 s2,t
Figure 0.1: Definitions related to concrete member dimensions (example of an anchor group locat-
ed in a corner with n = 9 anchors loaded in shear; verification considered for edge 1)
For anchorages located far away from edges, so that edge distance has no influence on the
anchor capacity, the terminology “in-the-field” is used. This terminology was introduced by
Anderson and Meinheit (2006) for the shear tests failed by either pryout or steel rupture.
STRESSES, STRAINS AND DEFORMATIONS
δ, ∆ = displacement
ε = strain
σ = stress
FURTHER GREEK SYMBOLS
α = factor for interaction equation; shear load direction

αV = angle between resultant shear load on anchors and a line perpendicular to the
edge for which the verification for concrete edge failure is made
α'V = angle between resultant shear load on fixture and a line perpendicular to the
edge for which the verification for concrete edge failure is made
γ = partial factor
μ = coefficient of friction
ψ = factor to account for various influences in the calculation of concrete failure
modes
TERMINOLOGY
FURTHER NOTATIONS
k = coefficient
p = concrete pressure
t = loading time
COV = coefficient of variation [%]
Ø = mean value
w = crack width
UNITS
In this dissertation SI units are used. Unless stated otherwise in the equations, the following
units are used: dimensions are given in mm, cross sections in mm2, section modulus in mm3,
forces and loads in N, moments in Nmm and stresses in MPa (N/mm2).
In the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 5 in this dissertation different
units are used. Furthermore, experimental investigations described in Chapter 3 were carried
out at the Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Germany as well as at
the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida, USA. This requires
the conversion of US units to SI units according to Table 0.1.
Equations containing the concrete compression strength assume the use of cube strength
(fcc,200). For the determination of the concrete compressive strength in experimental testing
performed at the University of Stuttgart, cubes with a side length of 150 mm are used. The
concrete strength may be calculated according to the following conversion:
fcc,200 = 0.95 fcc,150
The concrete compressive strength in the experimental tests performed at the University of
Florida was measured on cylinders 6 inches x 12 inches (150 mm x 300 mm). Cylinder
strength may be converted to cube strength using the conversion according to EN 206-1
(2000) and CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB, 1993):
C20/25: fcc,200 = fc / 0.84

C50/60: fcc,200 = fc / 0.875
The conversion of US units to SI equivalent units is shown in the following table.
Table 0.1: Conversion factors
US units equivalent SI units

1 in. (1”) = 25.4 mm
1 sq. in. = 645.16 mm2
1 cu. in. = 16387.06 mm3
1 lb = 4.448 N
1 psi = 0.006895 MPa (N/mm2)
1 in. pounds = 0.113 Nm
TERMINOLOGY
Since the conversion between equations in US units and SI units often leads to confusion, an
explanatory example is given. It is noted that the reference Fuchs et al. (1995a) which is often
used for conversion shows a mistake for the conversion of the concrete compressive
strength1). The following example should help to avoid misunderstanding in conversion.
Example: Mean concrete breakout equation for a single anchor (CCD-method*))

*)
CCD (CC) = Concrete Capacity (Design) Method
US units (fractional) SI units (imperial)
0.2 0.2
 h   h 
Vu ,c  Y  d nom   ef   c11.5  f ck (1) Vu ,c  X  d nom   ef   c11.5  f cc ,200 (2)
 d nom   d nom 
Conversion by equating (1) and (2):
Y  X  25.4   25.4 25.4    25.4   0.006895  1 0.84   1 4.448 

0.2 1.5
 13.13  X
→ Y = 13 (fractional) / X = 1.0 (imperial)
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
fcc'  1.18  fc' should be replaced by fcc'  1.18  fc'
INTRODUCTION 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem statement

Cast-in and post-installed anchorages are used extensively in civil and structural engineering
worldwide in both structural and nonstructural concrete construction. Such anchorages allow
a high variability of applications and are flexible in dimensions such as edge distances and
anchor spacings. Structural applications are for example column to beam, wall or slab connec-
tions, connecting elements to foundations, column corbels or spandrel beams. Typical non-
structural applications are connections of mechanical and electrical elements, pipe hangers or
connections of secondary structure such as ventilation systems. Hereby, the attachment is ei-
ther directly fixed to the concrete member or includes a fixture which is fastened to the main
structure. In general, the actions on the fastened structure are axial tension or shear. Applying
the action with a lever arm or with an eccentricity to the center of the anchorage the loading
results in a bending or torsional moment.
In order to understand the load-bearing behavior of fastening systems and to give guidance for
design, research in the field of fastening technology has been done over the past 40 years.
Design recommendations are available for common standard applications used in practice.
However, a lot of assumptions are still based on theoretical considerations which are quite
conservative due to missing investigations. Even more serious is the fact that preliminary tests
have shown that for some anchorages the provisions given in design overestimate the actual
load bearing behavior. This gap of knowledge needs to be filled.
Furthermore, many applications are not covered in design due to lack of research. For exam-
ple, even though it is obvious that the ultimate strength can be strongly increased by increas-
ing the number of fastening points, in design the number of anchors in a group is restricted
since limited research is available. However, such multiple anchor connections can be often
found in practice which were designed with engineering judgment.
Most of the research has been done in the past with respect to anchorages loaded in tension. In
many cases, the understanding of the load-bearing behavior was transferred to anchorages
loaded in shear. Experimental investigations have shown that this does not always lead to rea-
sonable results. The most in-depth studies on anchorages loaded in shear have been performed
by Fuchs (1990), Hofmann (2005) and Anderson and Meinheit (2006). However, many ques-
tions related to anchorages loaded in shear remain open. If for example, larger anchor groups
are loaded in torsion (the anchors in the group are loaded in shear in different directions), de-
sign is currently based solely on theoretical considerations. Further research is required to
provide specific guidance for both anchorages loaded in shear and torsion.
Therefore, the research work reported herein focuses on the behavior of anchorages loaded in
shear and torsional moments. Experimental investigations and numerical studies are per-
formed and design recommendations are proposed. The main focus of this study is the critical
case of shear loaded anchorages arranged close to the edge. The primary goal of this work is
not only a better understanding of the behavior of anchorages loaded in shear, but also to give
more easy and understandable guidance for the design of shear loaded anchorages in concrete
construction. A crucial aspect is to pool the knowledge of testing from all over the world and
to provide the base to unify design of anchorages in different standards.
2 INTRODUCTION
1.2 Context for the Research

1.2.1 General
As indicated in Section 1.1 the research work is focused on two essential goals:
(1) Fastening applications covered in current design with single anchors and anchor groups
loaded in shear are often based on theoretical considerations due to missing investigations of
the real load-bearing behavior. Design recommendations should be improved, and more easy
and understandable guidance should be given. Therefore, based on experimental and numeri-
cal investigations the load-bearing behavior of anchorages loaded both in shear and torsion is
analyzed for different anchor configurations and loading cases.
(2) Research is provided for multiple fastening applications which are not covered in current
design standards since it is known that such anchor configurations are used in practice even
though specific design guidance is missing. This is a worthwhile step in order to extend the
applicability of current design methods for larger anchor groups.
Experimental testing forms a significant part of this dissertation. The numerical studies were
especially used to understand the load-bearing behavior and to analyze aspects which cannot
be investigated in experimental testing or which are challenging such as the measurement of
anchor shear forces when multiple anchors are placed in an anchorage.
1.2.2 Fastening applications covered in current design standards
The design of single anchors and groups with limited number of anchors loaded in shear are
regulated in standards. Depending on the location of the anchorage (in-field or close to a con-
crete edge) and geometrical and material properties of the anchors the failure is governed ei-
ther by steel rupture, concrete edge breakout or pryout failure. Recommendations are availa-
ble to calculate the resistance for all three failure modes. However, in some cases the calculat-
ed resistances deviate highly from the tested resistances due to missing knowledge about the
real load-bearing behavior.
Basic equations to calculate the strength of single anchors fail in concrete edge breakout and
the application limits differ depending on the design standard which is used for the verifica-
tion. In particular, for a load direction parallel to the edge the calculated resistances can highly
differ. Moreover, in design the basic equations are often too complicated and not explainable
to a designing engineer since mostly the equations are based only on multiple regression anal-
ysis and best curve fitting with test data.
In case of anchor groups loaded in shear under arbitrary direction, many questions are still
open despite the fact that they are covered in current design standards. A discussion of open
questions can be found in the following.
For anchor groups loaded perpendicular to the edge, it is not clear if a redistribution of the
shear load to the back anchors after crack formation at the front anchors is reasonable. In par-
ticular for groups with hole clearance and small edge distance, the applied hole clearance can
be larger than the displacement at failure of the front anchors (no activation of the back an-
chors). Therefore in design, it is often assumed that shear loads are only resisted by the front
anchors. Thus, the resistance of the group equals the resistance of the front anchors. The in-
INTRODUCTION 3
fluence of the back anchors on the concrete breakout strength is neglected. In particular for
larger edge distances, the calculated resistances are assumed to be very conservative. Howev-
er, if redistribution to the back anchors is taken into account, it is not clear if the concrete
breakout strength calculated by the resistance of the remote anchors needs to be reduced. It is
merely assumed that the resistance of the back anchors limits the resistance of the entire
group. Moreover, allowing a redistribution to the back anchors, the resistance for the failure
mode „steel rupture“ should be determined assuming the front anchors do not take up shear
forces due to the prior edge breakout. Likely, this assumption is conservative.
In design for anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge, it is assumed that the resistance for
concrete edge breakout can be calculated by multiplying an increase factor to the resistance of
the same group loaded perpendicular to the edge. Thereby, it is indirectly assumed that the
load-bearing behavior of a group loaded perpendicular to the edge corresponds to that of a
group loaded parallel to the edge. However, it is obvious that the load-bearing behavior is
different. Whereas for an anchor group loaded perpendicular to the edge the back anchors
limit the resistance for the failure mode concrete edge failure, first investigations indicate that
an anchor group subjected to a shear load acting parallel to the edge seems to be able to carry
higher loads compared to the back anchors loaded parallel to the edge. In design, it is assumed
that all anchors in the group take up shear forces if the load is applied parallel to the edge. For
this assumption, the resistance equals at least two times the resistance of the front anchors. It
is not known if this is conservative in particular for small anchor spacing. Likely, for large
anchor spacing perpendicular to the edge this assumption is too conservative. Moreover, it is
not known if a redistribution of the shear load to the back anchors after failure of the front
anchors leads to an increase of the ultimate strength and how the back anchor resistance needs
to be calculated. After formation of a failure crack at the front anchors, the back anchors are
loaded eccentrically (Figure 1.1). If a rotation of the anchorage plate is restrained due to a stiff
connection to the attachment, it is assumed that the back anchors are loaded in pure shear. If
the rotation is not restrained, the back anchors are assumed to be loaded by a secondary tor-
sion moment. However, this differentiation is not implemented in design standards since the
load-bearing behavior for both load applications is not known.
TS
VS VS
VS VS
or
edge
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 1.1: Anchor group loaded parallel to the edge (a) Action (b) Failure of the front anchors
(c) Loading of the back anchors without torsional restraint (d) Loading of the back an-
chors with torsional restraint
The design concept according to the CCD-method (Concrete Capacity Design Method)
(Fuchs et al., 1995a) only covers shear loads in one direction. In case of a torsional moment
the group is loaded in shear in opposed directions. First preliminary experimental investiga-
tions on anchor pairs arranged parallel to the edge and loaded in pure torsion were performed
by Mallée (2001). The tests indicate that the anchor which is loaded away from the edge has
no influence on the breakout of the anchor which is loaded towards the edge. Therefore in
design, components directed away from the edge are neglected. However, presumably this is
4 INTRODUCTION
not conservative in all cases. Moreover, no investigations exist to explain the load-bearing
behavior of larger groups such as quadruple fastenings loaded in torsion close to the edge.
Summarizing, current design recommendations are not consistent and free of contradictions.
For many applications, the calculated resistances are conservative, but presumably for some
applications the calculated resistances are too liberal. This dissertation aims at capturing the
load-bearing behavior of anchorages loaded in shear and torsion with the primary goal to pro-
pose realistic and consistent models for calculating the resistances for the failure modes “con-
crete edge breakout” and “steel rupture”.
1.2.3 Fastening applications not covered in current design standards
For anchors loaded in tension, design theoretically applies to any number of anchors in a
group provided that the fixture is sufficiently stiff to ensure that the distribution of loads to the
anchors is in conformity with the theory of elasticity (fib, 2011). However, for anchorages
loaded in shear, the number of anchors in a group is limited to prevent excessive shear lag
(non-uniform shear distribution in the direction of the shear load over the length of the con-
nection).
In Section 2.5, a discussion can be found how different design standards define the scope of
permissible anchor configurations. In case the groups exceed the limiting number of anchors,
design should be done with engineering judgment. In order to show that multiple anchor con-
nections, which are not covered in design, are used in practice despite of the fact that the load-
bearing behavior is only poorly understood and to underline the necessity of improved design
recommendations, Figure 1.2 shows an example of anchorages exceeding the number of an-
chors covered in current standards.
Figure 1.2: Anchorage with n=8 anchors (photographs courtesy of application technology, fischer-
werke GmbH & Co. KG)
INTRODUCTION 5
Connections are also found in practice where the individual anchors are arranged in line (so-
called shear collectors). The behavior of such connections is poorly understood. In particular,
the load distribution to the individual anchors is not known. Examples of such fastening ap-
plications are shown in Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4 with and without influence of concrete edg-
es.
(a) Typical sill plate application (Grosser, 2009) (b) Experimental test (Senftleben, 2010)
Figure 1.3: Shear connections close to concrete egdes
(a) Ductile Steel Eccentrically-Braced System (b) Numerical simulation (Grosser, 2008d)
(Bouwkamp, 2001)
Figure 1.4: Shear connections far away from concrete egdes
Experimental and numerical investigations on groups with increased number of anchors,

which are described in this dissertation, are a step towards extending the applicability of the
CCD-method for larger anchor groups. It is noted that only shear connections loaded mono-
tonically are investigated in this dissertation. However, the developed numerical models can
be also used to investigate the behavior of shear connections under cyclic loading.
STATE OF THE ART 7
2 STATE OF THE ART
2.1 General
Due to the complexity of fastening applications various types of fastening systems exist on
the market. Depending on the anchor type, fasteners transfer applied tension load to the base
material either by mechanical interlock, friction, bond or a combination of these load-transfer
mechanisms. Furthermore, the fastening systems can be distinguished by the way they are
installed. Hereby, the systems are classified in cast-in anchorages which are placed into the
formwork before pouring the concrete and post-installed anchorages which are installed into
the hardened concrete. The various types of fastening systems are associated with different
failure mechanisms and ultimate strengths. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the
type of fastener for tension loaded anchorages (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Anchor load-transfer mechanisms (Eligehausen et. al, 2006) and examples of fastening
systems for mechanical interlock, friction and bond
If the system is loaded in shear, it is assumed that the behavior of post-installed anchors cor-
responds to that of cast-in-place anchors. In general, the same failure modes can occur for
both post-installed and cast-in anchors. Numerous experimental investigations show that no
significant influence of the anchor type on the failure load is observed (Hofmann, 2005).
However, essential differences between cast-in-place and post-installed anchors are expected
in particular for the restraint intensity and the surface condition since cast-in anchors are often
welded to the fixture and are not preloaded by an additional external force. In case of post-
installed anchorages, the presence of a clearance hole in the fixture often leads to an uneven
loading of the anchors. Therefore, these factors need to be considered to evaluate the anchor
behavior in shear. A typical load-displacement curve of a fastener subjected to shear is shown
in Figure 2.2 to demonstrate the differences in comparison to an anchor loaded in tension.
8 STATE OF THE ART
1,25
Applied load
Tension Shear
Failure Failure
1 N
Last F [kN]
0,75 Concrete spalling

V
Contact of anchor
0,5 with baseplate
Slippage of base plate

0,25
Tension Shear
Load transfer via friction
0
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 displacement
Anchor 1 1,25
Verschiebung δ [mm]
Figure 2.2: Idealized load-displacement behavior of a preloaded fastener loaded in tension and
shear with no proximate edges
Whereas the anchor loaded in tension resists the applied load via one or more of the above
mentioned load-transfer mechanisms, an anchor loaded in shear resists the load by bearing
against the concrete in the upper part in load direction and in the lower part in opposite direc-
tion. At the onset of loading the shear load of a preloaded fastener is transferred between the
rough concrete surface and the anchorage plate via friction. If the applied load exceeds the
friction resistance, the anchorage plate slips and the anchor is fully activated. At increased
load, the concrete spalls in front of the anchorage which leads to a loss of stiffness. After
reaching the ultimate load, the post peak resistance depends on several parameters such as
concrete compressive strength or embedment depth of the anchor. Compared to an anchor
loaded in tension the load-displacement behavior is less stiff.
The load-displacement behavior of a cast-in-place headed stud not welded to the anchorage
plate and loaded in shear is similar to that of a post-installed anchor (such as expansion an-
chor, undercut anchor or bonded anchor) loaded in shear (Eligehausen et al., 2006).
Possible failure modes associated with anchors subjected to shear loading valid for both cast-
in-anchors and post-installed anchors are illustrated in Figure 2.3. Anchors loaded in shear
close to one or more edges may fail by a breakout of the concrete (Figure 2.3a1-a4). If the an-
chorage is located far away from concrete edges, the anchor loaded in shear exhibits steel
rupture provided the embedment depth is sufficiently large (Figure 2.3b). Mostly, this is asso-
ciated with concrete spalling in front of the anchor. For small embedment depth and low con-
crete strength, spalling in front of the anchor can lead to a pullout failure (Figure 2.3c). How-
ever, it is noted that the pullout failure mode is highly unlikely for cast-in-headed anchors.
Typically, the anchorage loaded in shear fails by a pryout failure in case of short embedment
depth. Such a failure can occur both for anchorages arranged close to the edge if the load is
applied away from the edge and for “in-field anchorages” (Figure 2.3d1-d3). A detailed dis-
cussion of the failure modes can be found in Section 2.3.
STATE OF THE ART 9
(a1) Corner edge breakout (a2) Edge breakout (a3) Thin member edge breakout
(a4) Narrow member edge breakout (b) Steel rupture (c) Pullout failure (catenary action)
(d1) Pryout at an edge (d2) Pryout (d3) Group pryout
Figure 2.3: Failure modes associated with shear loading (fib, 2011)
2.2 Literature review and discussion

Shear loaded anchorages with either cast-in-place anchors or post-installed systems mounted
in hardened structural concrete, have been investigated in the past by different authors. A
summary of all research performed in this field would extend the scope of this work and is not
reasonable. Therefore, this section gives an overview of selected investigations related to the
research performed within the scope of this dissertation. Investigations and the main conclu-
sions derived from testing are summarized chronologically. More detailed information can be
found in the individual publications and testing reports listed in Chapter 8. The equations of
the original publications are converted to the equivalent SI-units according to Table 0.1 to
make comparison easier.
Some of the investigations described in this section are analyzed in Chapter 5 in addition to
the experimental and numerical investigations performed within the scope of this dissertation.
10 STATE OF THE ART
Stichting Bouwresearch (1971)

The Dutch Foundation for Building Research performed the first experimental investigations
on single anchors loaded both perpendicular and parallel to the edge. In total, 75 tests (45 tests
with load direction perpendicular and 30 tests with load direction parallel to the edge) with
through-slab bolts (h = hef) were performed. Anchors failed in steel1), by concrete breakout
failure or by a splitting failure2) of the concrete member. In the report, proposals to calculate
the resistance for both load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge for the concrete
breakout failure mode are given. It is indicated that twice the edge distance for c1 should be
inserted in Equation 2.1 if the load is applied parallel to the edge. Therefore, the load increase
can be expressed by the factor ψ90°,V (Equation 2.3).
c1  h2  f cc ,200 
2
Load direction perpendicular to the edge (α = 0°): Vu ,0°  1.8    1   (Eq. 2.1)
c1  h 2 
2
20 
4c1  h2  
2
f
Load direction parallel to the edge (α = 90°): Vu ,90°  1.8  2 2  1  cc ,200  (Eq. 2.2)
4c1  h  20 
c1  h2
2
Load increase (α = 0° → α = 90°):  90°,V  2 (Eq. 2.3)

c1  0.25h 2
The knowledge obtained from these tests was implemented into design (e.g. EOTA (1997):
ETAG 001, Annex C; and ACI 318-08). For shear parallel to an edge, the capacity can be con-
servatively assumed to be twice the capacity of this anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge.
Although testing was performed in concrete slabs with limited member depth, no conclusion
can be drawn for the influence of the member thickness because no comparable tests were
performed in thick members with same parameters.
Moreover, recommendations are given how to calculate the resistance of an anchor group.
The critical anchor spacing in a group with two anchors at which twice the resistance of a
single anchor is assumed can be taken as s2 = 3c1. For an anchor group with two anchors ar-
ranged perpendicular to the edge, the resistance equals the minimum of the sum of both an-
chor forces and twice the capacity of the front anchor.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
Steel rupture occurred in most of the tests since the anchor diameter was only 3 mm or 6 mm
2)
Splitting failure was observed in some tests due to the small member thickness of only 40 mm or 80 mm
Ollgard, Slutter and Fisher (1971)

Ollgard et al. (1971) performed pushoff tests to investigate the shear strength, and behavior of
connectors welded to a steel beam embedded in both normal-weight and lightweight concrete.
The work is a continuation of the research work performed by Viest (1965). Main purpose
was to determine the influence of stud diameter, number of connectors per slab and type of
aggregate. All studs were embedded 3 in. [76.2 mm] deep into the concrete. Two stud diame-
ters were tested (5/8 in. [15.9 mm] (hef/d = 4.8) and 3/4 in. [19.1 mm] (hef/d = 4.0), tensile
strength of 70.5 ksi [486 MPa]). Two failure modes were identified (see Figure 2.4). In some
tests the studs were sheared off the steel beam, in other tests the concrete failed in the region
of the shear connector1). Concrete crushing in front of the stud was observed. Ollgard et al.
(1971) identified concrete spalling as a failure criterion in addition to pure steel failure.
STATE OF THE ART 11
(a) (b)
Figure 2.4: Typical specimen for the failure mode (a) concrete failure, sawed section of slab and
connector to identify the failure crack (b) stud shear failure
The shear strength was found to be primarily influenced by the compressive strength and the
modulus of elasticity of the concrete. Other concrete properties such as tensile strength and
density were found not to influence the shear strength significantly. Based on the results,
Equation 2.4 was proposed for studs welded to a baseplate when concrete spalling occurs.
Vu  1.106  AS  Ec0.44  f c0.3 (Eq. 2.4)
For design purposes, the authors simplified the equation above to:
Vu  0.5  AS  Ec  f c (Eq. 2.5)
The shear strength was found to be approximately proportional to the cross-sectional area of
the studs. Pushout specimens with either one or two rows of studs per slab exhibited the same
average strength per stud.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that the concrete failure observed by Ollgard et al. (1971) is defined as pryout failure in current
design. Often these tests are found for evaluating the concrete edge breakout load which is not reasonable.
Therefore, the tests are sorted out in the database for the evaluation of the concrete edge failure load in this
dissertation.
Cannon, Burdette and Funk (1975)

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) performed a research project to determine the ulti-
mate strength of anchorages loaded in direct tension, direct shear, and combined tension and
shear. The effect of edge conditions, strength of concrete, size, steel strength, number, and
spacing of anchors was found to control the ultimate shear strength. In this section, only an-
chorages loaded in direct shear are discussed. Typically the failure occurred in the shank of
the studs at a point just below the weld at average shear strength about 94 percent of the aver-
age tensile strength of the anchorage. For small edge distance, the anchors failed in concrete
edge breakout.
12 STATE OF THE ART
The authors proposed a shear equation (Equation 2.6) in which concrete strength, edge dis-
tance, anchor diameter and breakout angle are assumed to control the ultimate strength.
c d /2
2
Vu  0.48   1   f cc ,200 (Eq. 2.6)

 tan  
The breakout angle towards the edge was found to increase with increasing edge distance. For
a theoretical edge distance c1 = 0, the angle α = 25° increases linear to α = 45° for larger edge
distances. This is expressed by Equation 2.7.
  0.158   c1  d / 2  25°  45° (Eq. 2.7)
Swirsky, Dusel, Crozier, Stoker and Nordlin (1977)

In Swirsky et al. (1977) a study on ninety-two lateral shear tests with cast-in-place, large di-
ameter anchor bolts is presented. Single anchor bolts and groups were loaded in shear (78
tests) and combined shear and bending (14 tests). Ten of the specimens were subjected to
low-cycle loading without stress reversal. The parameters investigated were edge distance,
type and configuration of reinforcement, method of installation, bolt diameter, bolt strength
and method of loading. The anchor bolts used in this study had a 1 and 2 in. [25.4 and
50.8 mm] diameter. Embedment depth was 10 bolt diameters. Edge distance investigated was
4, 6, 8 and 12 in. [101.6, 152.4, 203.2 and 304.8 mm]. In the group tests the ratio bolt spacing
to edge distance was 1.5, 2, 2.25 and 3 in. [38.1, 50.8, 57.15 and 76.2 mm]. The following
conclusions were drawn:
 The concrete breakout strength is proportional to the edge distance. Steel rupture gov-
erns the ultimate load for large edge distances which is 8 in. [203.2 mm] for the 1 in.
diameter bolts and 24 in. [609.6 mm] for the 2 in. diameter bolts.
 The use of hairpin reinforcement around the bolt can change the load behavior signifi-
cantly, depending upon bolt diameter and edge distance, but more importantly in-
creases system ductility and ultimate load substantially regardless of bolt diameter and
edge distance.
 For the anchor bolt pairs, it is concluded that the critical bolt spacing to develop twice
the capacity of a comparable single bolt is four times the edge distance.
Klingner, Mendonca and Malik (1982)

A three-phase experimental study on shear loaded anchorages was conducted. In phase 1, the
effect of edge distance on the shear strength of A307 bolts embedded in normal weight unre-
inforced concrete and the effect of surface condition and loading plate size were investigated.
In phase 2, bolts were placed into reinforced concrete with small edge distance to get infor-
mation about the effect of reinforcement on the shear resistance and in phase 3, the behavior
under reversed cyclic shear loads was investigated. In the following, only the conclusions
drawn from phase 1 are summarized since reinforcement and cyclic loading is not discussed
in this dissertation.
Effect of surface condition and loading plate size: Three different surface conditions were
used between the concrete surface and the loading plate (1) normal (steel-troweled, no curing
STATE OF THE ART 13
compound) (2) a thin sand-cement mortar coating and (3) a teflon sheet. The bolts were tight-
ened snug tight with a hand wrench and then tested using loading plates measuring 6x6 in.
and 12x12 in. All bolts failed by shear in the steel at the interface between the concrete block
and the baseplate. The failure loads for the mortar and teflon surfaces were about 5 and 10
percent less, respectively, than those for normal surface preparation. The effects of loading
plate size and surface preparation were therefore concluded to be predictable and compara-
tively minor.
Effect of edge distance on bolt shear resistance: Bolts at small edge distances failed by crack-
ing of concrete in a semiconical failure surface whereas bolts with large edge distances failed
by steel rupture. An understrength factor of 0.65 was proposed for concrete failure since a
comparison with the ACI 349-76 (1976) shear equation has shown that the predicted failure
loads are unconservative for larger edge distances. For steel failure, the authors suggest that
the ultimate load should be taken as 0.75 times the minimum specified ultimate tensile
strength of the anchor.
Paschen and Schönhoff (1982)

In 1982, investigations on shear connectors made of reinforcing steel embedded in concrete
were published by Paschen and Schönhoff. Tests were performed in both reinforced and unre-
inforced concrete members with different ratios c2/c1 (c1 = edge distance in loading direction,
c2 = edge distance parallel to the loading direction (corner distance)). Failure was observed
either by concrete edge breakout, steel rupture of the shear connector, or failure of the rein-
forcement. Detailed information about the tests can be found in Paschen and Schönhoff
(1983). The tests are the only known investigations of anchorages loaded in shear in narrow
members and are therefore the basis for the current design concept for such a loading case
(see Section 2.3.3). The prediction of ultimate strength governed by concrete edge breakout in
unreinforced concrete is proposed according to Equation 2.8. In case of limited corner dis-
tance the capacity should be reduced according to Equation 2.9. The results of the shear tests
in unreinforced concrete are discussed in Section 3.3.5.3.1.
Vu  190  0.23c12   fcc,200

2/ 3
(Eq. 2.8)
 c 
  sin  0.91 2  for c2/c1 ≤ 1.73 (Eq. 2.9)
 c1 
Moreover, the influence of distance between applied shear and concrete surface on the con-
crete breakout capacity was investigated in limited experiments. The load was applied with
anchorage plates of different thicknesses. The rotation of the anchor rod was not restraint. The
results show that the concrete breakout strength is decreasing with increasing distance of
shear load to the concrete surface. Therefore, Paschen and Schönhoff proposed to reduce the
concrete edge breakout capacity for increasing distance e between shear load and concrete
surface. Failure loads were related to a distance of e = 20 mm. The conversion of the failure
loads was done according to Friberg (1938). A first approximation of the reduction in con-
crete edge breakout capacity is given by Equation 2.10.
 e  110  e  / 90 1.0 for c2/c1 ≤ 1.73 (Eq. 2.10)

14 STATE OF THE ART
Martin and Schwarzkopf (1985)

To the author’s knowledge, Martin and Schwarzkopf (1985) performed the first experimental
studies on anchor groups arranged both perpendicular and parallel to the edge and loaded in
shear towards the free edge for both arrangements with and without hole clearance. The tests
are evaluated in Fuchs, Eligehausen (1986c). The tests cover anchor groups with two and four
anchors in a group. All tests were performed with M12 mechanical anchors embedded 80 mm
deep into the concrete. Groups were tested with ratios s1/c1 equals 0.4, 1.0, 1.5 and ratios
s2/c1 equals 1.0 and 1.5. Different failure modes were observed. Most of the anchor groups
failed in concrete edge breakout failure, steel rupture or combined concrete and steel failure.
The groups with ratio s1/c1 = 0.4 failed by splitting of the concrete slab. The results (besides
anchorages failed in splitting) are analyzed in Section 5.6 and Section 5.8.
Shaikh and Yi (1985)

In 1985, Shaikh and Yi published an in-depth study about the in-place strength of welded
headed studs. They analyzed the investigations of single stud anchorages and stud groups of
various U.S. references. A new rational approach that resulted in changes to the PCI formula
at this time is given for the tension and shear strength, and combined tension and shear ef-
fects. In the following, only the conclusions for shear strength related to this work are summa-
rized.
Two basic equations are proposed. Equation 2.11 is recommended for the shear strength of
studs located away from concrete member edge whereas Equation 2.12 is considered for an-
chorages placed near to the edge. The factor λ considers the influence of various types of con-
crete (λ = 1.0 for normal weight concrete).
Vu  60.91 AS    fcc ,200 (Eq. 2.11)
Vu  0.48  c12  f cc,200 (Eq. 2.12)
The authors suggest that a better fit might be obtained by considering an equation in which
the power of the edge distance is 1.5 for near edge anchorages. Therefore, Equation 2.13 is
given as an alternative to Equation 2.12. However, due to the desirability of consistency be-
tween different procedures, Equation 2.12 is included in ACI 349-85 (1985).
Vu  4.8  c11.5  f cc,200 (Eq. 2.13)
The limiting value of the edge distance which dictates use of either Equation 2.11 or 2.12, is
obtained by equating the two. Consequently, if c1 > 10d, the shear strength is governed by
Equation 2.11, if c1 < 10d, the shear strength is governed by Equation 2.12.
A significant improvement to the design equations of stud groups is given as well. Examining
an anchor group with two rows parallel to the free edge, the following observations can be
made:
 If the edge distance of the front row c1,1 > 10d and the spacing between the front row
and the back row (s1) is large enough, it is proposed to take the shear strength equal to
n-times Equation 2.11 (n = number of anchors in the group). If the spacing is too small
STATE OF THE ART 15
(no criteria is given by Shaikh and Yi), it is recommended to replace n by n1

(n1 = number of anchors in the front row).
 If the strength is affected by the edge (c1,1 < 10d), it is assumed that cracking at the
front row negatively influences the strength of the back row unless the spacing be-
tween the front and the back row is large. It is recommended to calculate the strength
of the back row with an idealized shifted edge c1,2 = s1. Thus, the shear strength of an
anchor group close to the edge can be taken as the minimum of the strength of row 1
and the strength of row 2 calculated with the edge distance c1,2 = s1.
Kuhn and Buckner (1986)

In current design, the development length for a top cast, horizontal reinforcing bar is in-
creased because of the so-called “top bar effect”. Kuhn and Buckner (1986) assumed that sim-
ilar effects could have an influence on the shear strength for top-placed connections. The tests
were performed in normal-weight concrete with 1 inch maximum size round gravel aggregate.
The concrete compressive strength ranged between 4950 to 5790 psi [34.1 to 39.9 MPa]. Each
plate contained two 1/2 in. [127 mm] diameter headed studs with a length of 6 in. [152.4 mm]
spaced 3 in. [76.2 mm] apart. The studs had a tensile strength of 70.2 ksi [484 MPa].
Four different positions of the anchorage were investigated. Position 1 was a “bottom” test.
Here the anchorage was positioned on the bottom face so that 16 in. [406.4 mm] of concrete
was cast above the studs. Position 2 labeled “side”, had the anchorage located on the side face
during casting. Two other specimens were cast with the anchorage on the top face so that
16 in. [406.4 mm] of concrete was beneath it. One of the top specimens labeled “top loose”,
was worked into the previously placed concrete after the top surface was screeded and floated.
The other top plate labeled “top fixed”, was secured to the formwork prior to casting the con-
crete.
All specimens except one failed by stud steel shear. Both top positioned connections showed
an average 30 percent reduction in ultimate strength, accompanied by a loss in stiffness com-
pared to the bottom and side positioned anchorages. The reduction was attributed to the lack
of complete concrete consolidation directly below the anchorage plate. No significant differ-
ence in shear strength was observed in the top positioned connections between “top fixed”
and “top loose” position. The behavior between “bottom” and “side” position was practically
the same.
Cruz (1987) and Wong (1988)

There have been a number of studies into the behavior and strength of single studs loaded in
shear. Group effects have not been well evaluated at this time, particulary for stud groups near
a free edge. Therefore, Cruz (1987) investigated the behavior of stud groups under centric
shear and torsion loading (eccentric shear) close to the edge. This work was continued by
Wong (1988). The main results of the shear study are summarized in Wong et al. (1998).
Three types of loading configurations are distinguished: type I tests with loading the groups
towards a free edge, type II tests with location of the group in a corner and loading towards a
free edge and type III tests with loading the group in shear parallel to the edge with an eccen-
tricity which generates combined torsion and shear.
Tests by Cruz (1987) were performed with ½ in. [12.7 mm] diameter headed studs welded to
a steel plate. Stud length was either 1.94 or 5.94 in. [49.3 and 151 mm] resulting in hef/d = 3.9
16 STATE OF THE ART
and 11.9. Different anchor configurations were tested with one to six studs either placed in
one or two rows parallel to the edge. The edge distance of the back anchors in the group was
either 2.5 or 5 in. [63.5or 127 mm]. In case of short embedment depth, the anchors failed in
pryout. For larger embedment depth the anchorage failed in concrete edge breakout with ca-
pacity of the group controlled by the back anchor edge distance.
Tests by Wong (1988) were also performed with ½ in. [12.7 mm] diameter headed studs
welded to a steel plate. However, embedment depth was 1.63 in. [41.4 mm] resulting in
hef/d = 3.26. Groups of two, three, and four studs were placed in one or two rows parallel to
the edge. In these tests, the slab thickness was varied between 4 and 12 in. [102 and 305 mm].
Additionally to the investigations of edge distance, corner effect, stud spacing, embedment
depth, and slab thickness, the influence of casting position and the influence of supplementary
reinforcement were investigated. The main results relevant for this dissertation can be sum-
marized as follows:
 The edge distance term (c1) was found to be the primary factor in determing the shear
strength of the group.
 With decreasing distance of the group to the corner, the group capacity decreases.
 Whereas the number of bolts was found to be of minor significance, the concrete
breakout capacity increases with the outer spacing of the anchors parallel to the edge.
 In case of a limited member depth, it was found that the breakout capacity is reduced.
To avoid a capacity reduction, a minimum slab thickness of 1.4 times the edge dis-
tance plus the distance to the base of the stud head was proposed.
 It was found that shear capacity for the concrete edge failure mode is not affected by
the casting position when low slump, properly consolidated concrete is used.
 Hairpin reinforcement was found to increase shear capacity in case of small edge dis-
tance. However, in case of large edge distance the effect is not significant. In either
case, hairpin reinforcement provides a more ductile failure.
Conclusions drawn from the results of the study were incorporated into the shear design pro-
visons for groups contained in the PCI Handbook 4th Edition (1992). Based on the tests three
modification factors were added.
h
Influence of the member thickness1):  h,V   1.0 (Eq. 2.14)
1.3c
c2
Influence of corner:  C ,V  0.4  0.7   1.0 (Eq. 2.15)
c1
s2,t
Influence of the spacing (s2):  n2  s 2,V  1.0 
(Eq. 2.16)
3.5c1
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that this factor only takes into account the reduction of the breakout surface. No increase factor as
found in current design to take into account that reduction of the capacity is less than considered by the ratio
of the projected area, is considered. The critical member thickness for which a negative influence on the an-
chor capacity needs to be taken into account is h = 1.3c1.
STATE OF THE ART 17
Ling (1988) and Matupayont (1989)

Ling (1988) investigated the shear strength of bolt anchorages at the Asian Institute of Tech-
nology. This study was continued by Matupayont (1989). Test programs were conducted with
double bolt and 4-bolt anchorages in a group with varied edge distances and bolt spacings.
Double bolt anchorages were arranged perpendicular and parallel to the edge. All anchor con-
figurations were loaded towards the free edge. Reference tests with single bolts were conduct-
ed as well to compare the results of the group tests. Moreover, single anchor tests were con-
ducted to investigate the effects of the test setup of the concrete blocks, casting direction,
support spacing, plate size and torque applied to the anchors. All findings of the research pro-
jects are published in various journals (Ueda et al., 1989, 1990 and 1991). The main results
can be summarized as follows:
 Matupayont (1989) showed that the shear resistance increases with greater torque and
greater loading plate size since more friction between steel plate and concrete surface
is induced1).
 From the results of single bolt anchorages, it was observed that the effect of casting di-
rection on the shear strength is negligible.
 The support condition of the test specimen was found to have an influence on the
shear strength. Support spacings smaller than twice the edge distance induce signifi-
cantly larger shear strength of the single bolt anchorage since the close spacing create
a confined condition. It is believed that the shear strength is almost constant in case
the anchor spacing is larger than four times the edge distance.
 Since no design guidelines existed for calculating the shear resistance of anchor bolt
groups arranged parallel to the edge at this time, the concept of wedge cone interac-
tions for predicting the shear strength of bolt groups has been applied to the tested
double bolt anchorages. A nonlinear relationship between the shear capacity of the an-
chor group and the anchor spacing normal to load direction as a function of the edge
distance is shown. No capacity increase of the double bolt anchorage with a spacing
s = 0.4c1 over an equivalent single anchor capacity is found. Increasing the spacing to
s = 4c1 did not produce a capacity twice the capacity of a single anchor with the same
edge distance. The critical anchor spacing for which the capacity of the anchor group
produces twice the capacity of a single anchor with the same edge distance equals 8c1.
However, it is noted that the reason for the quite large critical spacing may be an une-
qual load sharing between the two anchor bolts. This assumption was verified by
comparing the results with tests where the load was applied with two cylinders to the
individual anchors to ensure equal loading of the anchors2). In this case, the shear
strength was significantly higher than the shear strength obtained in tests where the
load was applied with a common plate. In Section 3.3.1, such anchor groups with an-
chor bolts arranged parallel to the edge and loaded towards the edge are discussed.
 In Ueda et al. (1991), guidance is also given for anchor groups with two rows of an-
chors into the direction of the applied shear load. An anchor spacing of three times the
edge distance was found to be sufficient to avoid interaction between anchor bolts and
thus to generate twice the capacity of a single bolt anchorage. It was also found that
shear strength could be larger than twice the single bolt anchorage, especially for
small edge distances. This fact is explained with a delay in failure crack which usually
started from the bolt located closer to the free edge. It should be critically noted that
the load was applied independently to each anchor without the use of a steel plate
18 STATE OF THE ART
which allows a redistribution of the shear load. Therefore, each anchor received an
equal load fraction. The loading condition was load control rather than displacement
control and any record of the load after reaching the peak load was not taken since it
was the interest to know the peak load3).
Based on the observed shear strength-spacing relation in both normal and parallel to loading
direction Ueda et al. (1991) proposed an empirical method to calculate the resistance of an
anchor group loaded in shear close to the edge. The proposal to calculate the resistance is giv-
en in Equation 2.17. The measured shear strengths were modified to eliminate the effect of
concrete compressive strength on the shear capacity by V0 = (Observed Vu)·(20/fc’).
Vu ,c  K s1  K s 2 V0 ( V0  11.37  c11.71 ) (Eq. 2.17)
Ks1 = 0.393  s1 - 0.380  s1 + 1.221 s1 + 1  2.3 for edge distance of 50 mm

3 2
with:
Ks1 = 0.219  s1 - 0.254  s1 + 0.930  s1 + 1  2.1 for edge distance of 100 mm

3 2
Ks 2 = 0.001545  s2 - 0.0403  s2 + 0.349  s2 + 1  2.0

3 2
The comparison between the measured and calculated shear strength of double and four bolt
anchorages shows a mean value of 0.994 with a coefficient of variation of 6.1%.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
Only the size was varied and not the thickness of the plate. No experimental comparison of test results is
known for the shear strength obtained with loading plates of different thicknesses. Such tests were per-
formed within the scope of this work (see Section 3.2.7.2.2)
2)
It is noted that this may not be representative of the true load-bearing behavior of an anchorage.
3)
At this point, it is referred to Section 3.3.3, where a discussion of the load bearing behavior of anchorages
arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the free edge can be found. In this section, an expla-
nation of the interaction of the anchors when loading the anchors with a common plate is given.
Zhao, Fuchs and Dieterle (1988)

Zhao et at. (1988) investigated the behavior of single anchors loaded in shear in concrete
slabs with limited depth. The experimental studies are the first known investigations with sys-
tematic variation of the ratio h/c1. The tests have shown that the anchor shear resistance de-
creases compared to slabs with sufficient member thickness. In total, 37 tests have been per-
formed within the range 0.5 ≤ h/c1 < 1.5 and 39 tests within the range 1.5 ≤ h/c1 < 5.33. Thus,
it was possible to determine the transition point at which an influence of the member depth on
the anchor resistance exists. The tests are analyzed in Zhao et at. (1989). The reduction of the
anchor resistance in a thin concrete member is taken into account by the ratio of the projected
areas ψA,V. However, the evaluation of the test results has shown that the resistance does not
decrease linearly with the member thickness. This is taken into account by multiplying the
resistance with the increase factor ψh,V. Zhao and Eligehausen (1992) summarized a document
in which proposals for modification of the CCD-method are given. In this document, the ψh,V-
factor is proposed according to Equation 2.18. This factor was adopted into design (e.g. EOTA
(1997): ETAG 001, Annex C).
1/3
 1.5c1 
 h,V     1.0 (Eq. 2.18)
 h 
STATE OF THE ART 19
Cook (1989)
Cook (1989) investigated the behavior of ductile multiple-anchor steel-to-concrete connec-
tions within the scope of his dissertation. The overall objectives of this study were to deter-
mine the characteristic behavior and to develop a rational design procedure for calculating the
steel strength of such connections. A steel-to-concrete connection was defined as ductile if its
ultimate strength is controlled by the strength of the steel and not by other failure modes such
as concrete failure. Experimental tests were performed to investigate the influence of the coef-
ficient of friction between steel plate and concrete and the baseplate flexibility on the strength
of the multiple-anchor connection. Different tension/shear interaction relationships for various
types of anchors (cast-in-place, undercut and adhesive) were tested. A special device was built
to measure the distribution of forces among the anchors. The study involved 44 friction tests
and 46 ultimate load tests. 18 two-anchor, 13 four-anchor, and 12 six-anchor ultimate load
tests were performed with a rigid baseplate, and 3 six-anchor tests with a flexible baseplate.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.5: (a) Schematic diagram of test setup (b) Typical contact zone for flexible baseplate tests
It was found that the frictional force which develops between the baseplate and the concrete
surface significantly contributes to the shear strength. The anchors in the connection trans-
ferred shear primarily by bending. Anchors in shear failed by kinking and bending whereas
the anchors in combined tension and shear failed by kinking, bending and stretching. The
conclusions of this research work can be summarized as follows:
 The average coefficient of friction between the surface mounted steel baseplate and
the hardened concrete was 0.43. No significant influence of the surface condition
was found.
 For the tension/shear interaction, an elliptical relationship is proposed. A linear in-

teraction is too conservative. The ratio between shear and tension can be taken as 0.5
for cast-in-place and adhesive anchors, and 0.6 for undercut anchors.
 For the design procedure, it has to be distinguished if the load-bearing behavior is

dominated by the applied moment or by the applied shear. Cook (1989) gives rec-
ommendations how to distribute the tensile and shear forces for both areas of behav-
ior.
20 STATE OF THE ART
 The baseplate flexibility affects the assumed location of the compressive reaction
from the applied moment. It is noted that the compressive reaction should be located
in a conservative manner since it directly affects the calculated tensile forces in the
anchors. Recommendations are given where to assume the location of the compres-
sive reaction.
Fuchs (1990)
In his dissertation, Fuchs (1990) investigated the behavior of single anchors and groups with
two and four anchors under shear in uncracked concrete. Experimental and numerical studies
to anchorages located close to the edge and far away from edges were performed. The results
are a substantial basis for the development of the concrete capacity design (CCD) approach,
which was published in a code background paper by Fuchs et al. (1995). In the scope of his
dissertation, Fuchs (1990) primarily analyzed the influence of edge distance, anchor spacing
and member thickness. Moreover, the influence of drilling and support spacing was studied.
The results can be summarized as follows:
 In general, anchorages arranged close to the edge fail in concrete edge breakout. The
breakout angle is slightly increasing with increasing edge distance. For small edge dis-
tance, the breakout angle was about α = 30° and for larger edge distance between
α = 40° and 45°. The average breakout angle is specified between 35° and 40°.
 A support spacing of three times the edge distance is recommended not to influence
the concrete edge breakout load. Preliminary tests with a support spacing of 4c1 up to
9.5c1 were performed. However, no change in ultimate load was observed1).
 Tests were performed in concrete with a compressive strength of 25 and 55 MPa. In

all tests, no influence of the drilling method on the load-bearing capacity was ob-
served. However, a comparison of the ultimate loads in concrete B25 and B55 shows
only a minor load increase2) which is explained by Fuchs (1990) with the damage of
the matrix due to drilling.
 The concrete breakout load can be calculated according to the following equation:
Vu  0.6  dnom  c1   c1  2dnom   f cc,200

0.5 0.85 0.75
(Eq. 2.19)
Considering that c1 is a multiple of the anchor diameter dnom, Equation 2.19 can be
simplified to Equation 2.20 in which the exponent of the edge distance is 1.6.
Vu  k *  dnom  c1  f cc ,200
0.5 1.6
k* = constant (not specified in Fuchs, 1990) (Eq. 2.20)
 For an anchor group with two anchors arranged parallel to the edge and loaded to-
wards the edge, the resistance can be taken as two times the resistance of a single an-
chor for anchor spacings s ≥ 2.5c1. For an anchor group with two anchors arranged
perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge, the resistance can be taken as
the resistance of a single anchor with the edge distance of the back anchor. This is also
valid for anchor groups with 2 mm hole clearance. No negative influence on the ulti-
mate load was observed due to cracking of the front anchor3).
STATE OF THE ART 21
 The critical member thickness for which the ultimate load for concrete edge failure is
negatively influenced was determined in experimental tests as hcr = 1.4c1 and in nu-
merical studies as hcr = c1 + 2dnom. Based on numerical studies a reduction of the con-
crete breakout load close to the edge in case of thin members was proposed (Equation
2.21).
 red   h /  c1  2dnom  
0.75
(Eq. 2.21)

Single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge were only investigated numerically.
The obtained ultimate load is about three to four times higher compared to the ultimate
load of a single anchor with the same edge distance loaded perpendicular to the edge.
The load-bearing behavior is comparable to tendons where a tension force is generated
into the direction of the free edge. Therefore, Fuchs (1990) transferred the knowledge
for prestressed concrete constructions to anchorages loaded parallel to the concrete
edge. It is noted that for an edge distance larger than 100 mm no load increase could
be observed due to a local failure of the concrete in front of the anchorage4).
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
No information is given about the change of the breakout angle for increasing support spacing.
2)
It is noted that the scatter of the ultimate loads is very high.
3)
No information is given in Fuchs (1990) about the failure mode of the back anchor. A reanalysis of the re-
sults shows that the back anchor failed due to steel rupture in most of the tests. The results are discussed in
Section 5.8.
4)
It is a numerical problem that no cracking into the direction of the free edge can be observed for larger edge
distances. The concrete fails in compression in front of the anchor. This failure mechanism is not observed
in experimental investigations described in Section 3.2.2. Local spalling in front of the anchor is typical of
an anchorage loaded parallel to the edge. However, concrete edge failure in the single anchor tests was ob-
served up to an edge distance of 200 mm.
Fuchs, Kob (1990)

An experimental study on shear loaded anchor groups with two anchors arranged parallel to
the concrete edge and loaded towards the free edge was performed. All groups failed by con-
crete edge breakout failure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the critical spacing be-
tween the anchors to obtain two times the capacity of a single anchor with the same edge dis-
tance. Reference tests with single anchors for the concrete edge breakout failure mode were
performed as well to evaluate the group capacity. Tests were performed with mechanical an-
chors with edge distances c1 = 100 mm and c1 = 200 mm with ratios anchor spacing to edge
distance s2/c1 between 0.5 and 3.0. The tests are considered in Section 5.6.
Kummerow (1996)
Kummerow (1996) investigated the behavior of adhesive anchors under shear close to the
edge. The single anchor tests were carried out with 8 and 12 mm threaded rods embedded into
the concrete with a ratio hef/d between 4 and 16. To consider the parameters hef and d more
realistically, Kummerow (1996) proposed two different modifications for the concrete edge
breakout equation. Compared to the CCD-method, the ratio hef/d is considered with an expo-
nent 0.3 instead of 0.2. The influence of the edge distance is reduced in both equations from
1.5 to 1.35 respectively to 1.1.
0.3
 h 
V 0
u ,c  1.6  d nom   ef   f cc ,200  c11.35 (Eq. 2.22)
 d nom 
22 STATE OF THE ART
0.3
 h 
V 0
u ,c  7.0  d nom   ef   f cc ,200  c11.1 (Eq. 2.23)
 d nom 
Kreismer (1999)
An experimental program with single adhesive anchors and headed anchors was performed by
Kreismer (1999). The intent of this work was to investigate the influence of the diameter, em-
bedment depth and the edge distance on the concrete breakout failure load. Tests were per-
formed with 70, 100 and 200 mm edge distance. The diameter was varied between 8 and
40 mm with a ratio of embedment depth and anchor diameter between 4.1 and 12.5.
Testing was only summarized in a test report which is unfinished and not published. However
an analysis is possible and can be summarized as follows: The tests show that the failure load
is increasing with increasing edge distance. The influence of the diameter and the embedment
depth on the failure load is decreasing with increasing edge distance. No load increase was
observed for large edge distances when increasing the ratio between embedment depth and
anchor diameter. A load increase was only found for small edge distances with small diame-
ters. However, it is noted that a direct comparison of the load increase is only possible for
ratios hef/d in the range between 4.1 and 8. The tests are considered in Section 5.2.
Wüstholz (1999)
This research work is a continuation of the single adhesive anchor and headed stud tests per-
formed by Kreismer (1999). Wüstholz (1999) recommended weakening the influence of the
edge distance with a tangens hyberbolicus function since the analysis of the tests has shown
that the CCD method overestimates the resistance for large edge distances. The coefficient α
is taken as 1.4 and ε as 0.22 for adhesive anchors. It should be noted that the empirical regres-
sion analysis leads to considerably different factors α and ε for other types of anchors. How-
ever, this is explained in Wüstholz (1999) with the low range of variation for the parameters lf,
d and c1 in shear tests with varying types of anchors.
0.23
 l 
    d nom  f   f cc ,200  c11.5
0 0.34
Vu ,c (Eq. 2.24)
 d nom 
 1 for c1  160mm 
 
with:  =   c1  
 1-  tanh  80 -2  for c1 >160mm 
   
In addition, Wüstholz (1999) performed tests to investigate the influence of different ways of
supporting the concrete member on the concrete breakout failure load. The influence of the
supporting width of a compression support was analyzed, and tests were performed to com-
pare the load bearing behavior when restraining the concrete slab at the backside (tension
support). The results show that a narrow compression support at the lower edge of the slab in
front of the anchor reduces the mean failure by about 10% compared to a wide support. A
comparable test series with the tension support shows a reduction of the mean failure load by
about 15%. The way of supporting the slab also influences the breakout width. This width
equals the spacing of the support for a support spacing of 4c1 as it could be found in most the
STATE OF THE ART 23
shear tests given in the literature. For a wide support respectively the tension support the
breakout width is approximately 8c1.
Mallée (2001, 2002)

In order to understand the load-bearing behavior of anchorages loaded in torsion, Mallée
(2002) performed tests with pairs of injection anchors arranged parallel to the edge. These are
the first known investigations where the anchors were loaded in opposed directions and com-
pared with reference single anchor tests to evaluate the group behavior. Threaded rods with
12 mm anchor diameter were tested with embedment depth of 50 mm (hef/dnom = 4.17) and
100 mm (hef/dnom = 8.3), and anchor diameter 20 mm with embedment depth of 100 mm
(hef/dnom = 5) and 200 mm (hef/dnom = 10). The anchors were installed at edge distance of
60 mm (M12) and 120 mm (M20). Spacing was varied between 50 mm and 200 mm. No sig-
nificant reduction compared to the reference single anchor tests1) was found. Therefore, Mal-
lée (2002) proposed to neglect the shear component acting away from the edge in the assess-
ment of the concrete breakout resistance.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
The reference single anchor tests were compared with Equation 2.41 with a prefactor 0.9. The calculated
ultimate loads for anchor diameter M12 are in average 20% lower than the ultimate loads measured in the
tests whereas the calculated ultimate loads for anchor diameter M20 are in average 20% higher than the ul-
timate loads measured in the tests. Comparison with Equation 2.42 also shows a deviation of 20% for an-
chor diameter M20. Comparing the group test results with the calculated single anchor resistances would
lead to the conclusion that there is an influence of the anchors in case of torsion loaded anchorages. Further
tests should be performed to clarify the load-bearing behavior in particular for more critical cases (small ra-
tio s2/c1) (see Section 3.3.7).
Hofmann (2004)
Hofmann (2004) performed numerical investigations1) with single bolts located in slabs with
limited member depth. Five simulations were performed with ratios h/c1 = 1.5, 1.2, 0.75, 0.5
and 0.242). These are the first known investigations which provide information about the shear
strength in the range 0 < h/c1 ≤ 0.5. The single bolts had the shape of a truncated cone with a
steel plate at the end (d1 = 53 mm, d2 = 40 mm, hef = 125 mm). The member thickness was
chosen to h = 240 mm. Based on the results the exponent in the factor ψh,V proposed by Zhao
and Eligehausen (1992) was modified according to Equation 2.25. This factor was adopted
into current design (e.g. ACI 318-08, Appendix D; CEN/TS 1992-4 (2009)).
0.5
 1.5c1 
 h,V     1.0 (Eq. 2.25)
 h 
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
The tested parameters are lacking of practical relevance. To verify the conclusions drawn for h/c1 ≤ 0.5 and
to check Equation 2.25, tests should be carried out with more realistic parameters (see Section 3.2.3) which
meet the conditions according to current approvals.
2)
The obtained ultimate load for c1 = 1000 mm (h/c1 = 0.24) is questionable. The load is relatively high com-
pared to the results of the simulations with smaller edge distances. Further investigations should be carried
out to provide information for the range 0 < h/c1 ≤ 0.5 (see Section 3.2.3).
24 STATE OF THE ART
Korea Power Engineering Company (2004)

Anchor bolts with large diameters (d ≥ 2 in. [50.8 mm]) and deep embedments (hef ≥ 21 in.
[525.0 mm]) are commonly used, for example, in power plants or for the anchorage of tanks.
Design provisions have not been validated for such extreme geometrical parameters. There-
fore, the Korean Hydro and Nuclear Power Co. Ltd. and the Korea Electric Power Research
Institute financed a test program to get experimental information about the behavior of such
anchor bolts. Headed bolts with diameters of 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 in. [63.5, 76.2 and 88.9 mm],
embedment depths of 25 and 30 in. [635 and 762 mm] and edge distances of 15, 20 and 30 in.
[381, 508 and 762 mm] were tested. The shear behavior of anchors with supplementary rein-
forcement was investigated as well. The findings of this research project were published by
Lee, Park and Suh (2007) and (2010). Summarizing, the tests show that the concrete breakout
failure of the tested large anchors is influenced by edge distance, but not by embedment depth
or anchor diameter. It is highly recommended by the authors to limit the influence of the load
bearing length and anchor diameter. Moreover, the shear strength appears to increase in pro-
portion to c12 for large anchors.
With respect to the improvement of design recommendations testing performed by the Korean
Power Engineering Company provides information which is very important, since no experi-
mental investigations currently exist for such large anchor bolts. The results are discussed in
Section 4.5.1.
Hofmann (2005)
Hofmann (2005) performed the most in-depth study of adhesive anchors loaded in shear under
arbitrary direction close to the edge in uncracked concrete. Numerical and experimental inves-
tigations have been performed to determine the parameters controlling the load-bearing be-
havior. The main results can be summarized as follows:
 It was found that the influence of anchor diameter and embedment depth on the capac-
ity for the concrete edge failure mode is decreasing with increasing edge distance.
Therefore, a modified equation compared to the CCD-method was proposed (Equation
2.42). If the load is applied parallel to the edge, a new increase factor ψ90°,V was pro-
posed to consider that the ratio V90°/V0° is not constant, but increases with increasing
anchor diameter and decreases with increasing edge distance (Equation 2.26). This
approach is derived theoretically and was only verified with few tests. For n, the num-
ber of anchors in the group is recommended to be inserted.
0.5
 n  d nom  f cc ,200 
 90°,V  20     5.0 (Eq. 2.26)
 Vu0,c
 
 A new ψ-factor was introduced to consider the restraint intensity (ψf,V = 1.0 for fasten-
ings where the clearance hole in the fixture is larger than the anchor diameter,
ψf,V = 1.2 for welded connections or fastenings where the clearance hole in the fixture
fits the anchor diameter).
 Recommendations are given to calculate the resistance of anchor groups with a spac-
ing perpendicular to the edge. It has to be distinguished between groups with and
without hole clearance. The proposals are discussed in Table 2.1 for a group with two
anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge.
STATE OF THE ART 25
Table 2.1: Recommendations for calculating the resistance of a group with two anchors arranged
perpendicular to the edge (Hofmann, 2005)
Verification of concrete
Factor ψ which has to be multiplied with the resistance of a single
edge failure assumed to
be generated ... anchor which is controlling the failure
Fastenings without hole clearance
Notes: This approach indirectly considers that
2.0 for s1/c1 > 0.75 the resistance calculated with 2 times the
… at the front anchor resistance of the front anchor has to be lim-
1 + (s1/(0.75c1)) for s1/c1 < 0.75 ited by the resistance of the back anchor for
s1/c1 < 0.75.
Notes: For s1/c1 ≤ 0.5, it is assumed that
cracking at the front anchor influences the
… at the back anchor 2s1/c1 ≤ 1.0 capacity of the back anchor. This was not
observed in tests (see Section 3.3.3.4.4).
Fastenings with hole clearance
Notes: This is a quite conservative approach,
… at the front anchor 1.0 since no redistribution of the load is consid-
ered
Notes: For s1/c1 ≥ 2.0, it is assumed that there
is no influence of cracking at the front anchor
to the resistance of the back anchor. Howev-
er, for s1/c1 < 2.0, this approach is extremely
… at the back anchor 0.5s1/c1 ≤ 1.0 conservative, in particular for small ratios
s1/c1 (e.g. for s1/c1 = 0.5, the resistance equals
only 25% of the back anchor resistance. Such
a reduction was not observed in tests (see
Section 3.3.3.4.5).
 For anchor groups with a spacing parallel to the edge, the critical anchor spacing to
avoid an influence of the anchors for the concrete edge failure mode was taken over
from the CCD-method as s2 = 3c1. However, for such a group with two anchors loaded
parallel to the edge, it was found that the anchors are loaded unevenly. The anchor
remote to the load application resisted only 70% of the anchor close to the load appli-
cation. Therefore, for a connection with 5 anchors in a row, it is assumed that the last
anchor is not resisting a part of the applied shear load. This is discussed in Section
3.3.2.
 If an anchorage is located close to the edge and the load is applied away from the
edge, it was found that the anchor fails either in steel or by a pryout failure. Therefore,
it is recommended that concrete edge failure does not need to be verified for a load di-
rection away from the edge.
 If an anchor group is arranged parallel to the edge and is loaded in torsion only, a sin-
gle anchor loaded towards the edge has to be verified for the concrete edge failure
mode. It is assumed that the anchor loaded away from the edge has no negative influ-
ence on the concrete breakout resistance of the anchor loaded towards the edge1).
If the applied shear load acts inclined to the edge, a quadratic interaction is recom-
mended. For a combined shear and torsion loading, it is proposed to use a linear inter-
action relation.
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that this approach is not conservative for all configurations. This is discussed in Section 3.3.7.
26 STATE OF THE ART
Anderson and Meinheit (2006)

The objective of the research performed by Anderson and Meinheit (2006) was to improve
design of headed stud anchorages welded to a baseplate for use by the Precast-Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI). An in-depth study to cast-in single anchors and stud groups loaded
in shear under arbitrary direction was carried out for both edge and “in-the field” tests. Ob-
served failure was steel rupture, concrete breakout or concrete pryout. Experimental investiga-
tions were performed with up to three anchors in both directions perpendicular and parallel to
the free edge. The research performed by Anderson and Meinheit (2006) is of great interest
for this dissertation. The results are summarized and published in various journals listed in
Chapter 8. In the following, only the findings which are related to the research described in
this dissertation are discussed. For better comparison, terminology and units are transferred to
those used in this dissertation. The main results relevant for this dissertation can be summa-
rized as follows:
 Anchor diameter and embedment depth were found to have very little influence on the
breakout capacity of a single anchor loaded towards the edge. Therefore, a mean pre-
dictor equation simply considers the concrete compressive strength and the edge dis-
tance as variables was proposed (Equation 2.27).
Vu0,c,0°  14.47  c14/ 3  f cc,200 (Eq. 2.27)
In case of a limited member depth, a corner influence or more than one anchor present
in the anchorage, modification factors are proposed which have to be multiplied to the
single anchor resistance. It is noted that for c the edge distance of the back anchor has
to be inserted. Therefore, no ψs1,V-factor needs to be considered.
h
Influence of the member thickness1):  h,V  0.75   1.0 (Eq. 2.28)
c1
c2
Influence of corner2):  C ,V  0.7  3
 1.0 (Eq. 2.29)
c1
s
Influence of the spacing (s2)3):  s 2,V  0.85  2,t  n2 (Eq. 2.30)
3c1
The spacing s2,t is the overall out-to-out dimension of the outermost studs. The factor
ψs2,V equals 1.0 for a single stud connection.
 For a load direction parallel to the edge, defined as side edge distance, an equation
was proposed considering anchor diameter and edge distance as the influencing pa-
rameters on the capacity (Equation 2.31)4).
Vu0,c,90°  6.51 c14/ 3  d 0.75  f cc,200 (Eq. 2.31)
In case of more than one anchor present in the anchorage, increase factors for the spac-
ing s1 and s2 are proposed. Additionally, the load needs to be reduced if there is more
than one edge (e.g. side edge column). This is considered by the number of edges (ns).
n1  s1
Influence of the spacing (s1):  s1,V   2  ns  n1 (Eq. 2.32)
2.5c1
STATE OF THE ART 27
n  s2,t 
0.25
 s 2,V   0.15 for n2 ≥ 1.0

2
Influence of the spacing (s2): (Eq. 2.33)
0.053c1
The spacings s1 and s2 are the individual spacings, whereas the spacing s2,t is the over-
all out-to-out dimension of the outermost studs. The factors ψs1,V and ψs2,V are 1.0 for a
single stud connection.
 For the steel failure mode, two equations are proposed which have been found imple-
mentation in ACI-318.
Vu , S  n  AS  fu for cast-in headed stud anchors (Eq. 2.34)

Vu , S  n  0.6  AS  fu for cast-in headed bolt and hooked bolt anchors (Eq. 2.35)
where fu shall not be taken greater than 1.9fy or 125,000 psi (~862 MPa).
___________________________________________________________________________
2)
It is noted that the ratio of the projected areas which reduces the capacity of the anchor is already included in
Equation 2.28. The critical member thickness for which a negative influence on the anchor capacity needs to
be taken into account is h = 1.75c.
3)
The evaluation of the corner tests clearly shows a non-linear reduction in capacity with decreasing corner
distance c2 for a given edge distance c1. This is in contrast with the current design recommendation accord-
ing to the CCD-method described in Section 2.3.3.
4)
Interestingly, it was found that the anchors can influence each other negatively. Therefore, the capacity of
the anchor group can be less than the capacity of a single stud at the same edge distance. The s2-spacing ef-
fect is discussed in Section 5.6.
5)
It is noted that only a limited number of tests for the concrete edge failure mode is available since steel rup-
ture occurred in most of the tests with a side edge distance. Anderson and Meinheit (2006) showed that steel
failure occurred at very small edge distance. The transition from concrete edge failure to steel rupture was
observed at about c1 = 6dnom, whereas this transition was observed at about c1 = 12dnom, for a load direction
towards the edge.
Periškić (2006a,b)
For the case of a double fastening arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the
free edge, the influence of cracking at the front anchor on the resistance of the anchor group
was investigated. Therefore, in particular, the behavior of anchorages having a very small
ratio between the anchor spacing and the edge distance of the front anchor was studied. Tests
were performed with double fastenings with and without hole clearance. The anchors were
arranged perpendicular to the edge with varied edge distances and anchor spacings. Reference
tests with single anchors were conducted as well to compare the results of the group tests. All
tests were carried out with adhesive bonded anchors. Anchor groups without hole clearance
were installed into the hardened concrete member with a ratio s1/c1 between 0.31 and 0.5 and
the anchor groups with hole clearance were installed with a ratio s1/c1 between 0.33 and 1.52.
It is noted that in some tests an influence of the member thickness is present since the height
of the concrete blocks is constant with h = 160 mm. The main results can be summarized as
follows:
 For the tested double fastenings without hole clearance, the resistance is governed by
the back anchor. No cracking was observed at the anchor closer to the free edge.
 For the tested double fastenings with hole clearance a failure crack at the front anchor
is often observed which influences the capacity of the back anchor negatively. The
maximum reduction of the group capacity was found for a ratio s1/c1 = 1.0. For both
28 STATE OF THE ART
decreasing and increasing ratio s1/c1 the reduction of the group capacity compared to
the capacity of a single anchor with the edge distance of the back anchor is decreasing.
No reduction of the capacity was observed for s1/c1 = 0.33 and for s1/c1 = 1.5.
Mallée and Pusill-Wachtsmuth (2007a,b)

An engineering approach for consideration of the shear load direction was proposed by Mal-
lée and Pusill-Wachtsmuth (2007a,b) in various journals. When calculating shear loads on the
anchors, it is recommended to substitute the shear component acting parallel to the edge by a
lateral force acting towards the edge, and add this load to the shear component acting towards
the edge. Thus, after substitution, the anchors are only loaded by shear into the direction of
the free edge. The determination of the virtual substituted loads is based on theoretical con-
siderations of Leonhardt (1986) who developed an approach for calculating the magnitude of
lateral forces induced by concentrated compression forces. The compression force is assumed
to act via a stiff plate. In this case the stresses below the plate are parallel to the acting force.
Assuming that the load application with an anchor bolt creates additional lateral forces due to
the semicircle load transfer area, the authors increased the pre-factor proposed by Leonhardt
with 0.3 to 0.4. The factor α0°,V can be calculated according to Equation 2.36.
 0°,V  0.4  1  dnom /  2c1   (Eq. 2.36)
It is noted that this approach is based on a reduction of the load side and not as considered in
other approaches by an increase of the strength equation for a load direction parallel to the
edge. However, for the same assumptions for the load distribution of shear loads to the indi-
vidual anchors in a group the factor α0°,V can be converted in an increase factor ψ90°,V accord-
ing to Equation 2.37.
 90°,V  1/  0°,V  2.5/ 1  dnom /  2c1   (Eq. 2.37)
Taking into account practical cases where dnom/(2c1) varies very little, one can simplify ψ90°,V
to a constant value of 2.7.
Unterweger (2008)
In order to understand the load-bearing behavior of anchor groups close to the edge with hole
clearance, Unterweger (2008) performed tests with quadruple fastenings installed in unfavor-
able anchor configuration (maximum hole clearance at back anchors, front anchors are acti-
vated at the onset of loading). Bonded anchors M12 (hef = 70 mm) and M20 (hef = 140 mm)
were tested with hole clearance of 2 mm. The group capacity obtained in tests was compared
with the calculated concrete edge failure load of the back anchors. No direct reference tests
with the back anchors failed in concrete edge breakout were performed. All anchor configura-
tions were performed with equal spacings s1 = s2 (quadratic anchor pattern) with either a ratio
s1/c1,1 = 1.0 or 2.0 in concrete slabs with sufficient thickness to avoid an influence on the
breakout strength. It was shown that the breakout strength is higher compared to the calculat-
ed breakout strength of the front anchors. This load increase is not considered in current de-
sign standards (e.g ETAG 001, Annex C, see Section 2.5.2). Unterweger (2008) proposed a
new design concept to take into account a redistribution of the load to the back anchors as-
suming the failure crack at the back anchors is controlling the ultimate strength. The model is
based on reduced projected areas. For the calculation of the back anchor resistance, the
breakout body of the back anchors is reduced by the concrete breakout body of the front an-
STATE OF THE ART 29
chors. Since this calculation can lead to lower capacities compared to the ultimate strength
calculated with the front anchors, the model is limited by the breakout strength of the front
anchors. This is expressed by Equation 2.38 1).

 A  c   Ac,V  c1.1  

Vu ,c  max Vu ,c  c1.2   c,V 1.20 ;Vu ,c  c1.1   1) (Eq. 2.38)

 A c,V  c1.2  

___________________________________________________________________________
1)
It is noted that this calculation approach is a user-friendly calculation method to increase the concrete capacity
compared to current design guidelines. However, it does not describe the load-bearing behavior realistically. The
load-bearing behavior of such anchor configurations is explained in detail in Section 3.3.3 and Section 4.5.5.1.
2.3 Failure modes under shear loading

2.3.1 Steel rupture and local failure in front of the anchorage
For anchorages located far away from concrete edges, the anchor fails in steel provided that
the anchor is embedded deep enough into the concrete member to avoid a pryout failure. Steel
rupture of a shear loaded anchor embedded in concrete – as simple as it seems to be – is a
quite complex failure mode due to the interaction of shear, tension and bending forces devel-
oped in the anchor. Therefore, at present, no generally acknowledged theoretical approach for
calculating the mean shear capacity of the steel bolt is available. The assumption that the fail-
ure occurs when the bending stresses in the anchor exceed the tensile strength of the steel,
leads to solutions based on the classical indeterminate problem of a beam on an elastic or
elasto-plastic foundation. Table 2.2 summarizes calculation models found in literature.
Table 2.2: Calculation approaches using the theory of a beam on an elastic foundation and semi-
empirical approaches based on geometrical models found in literature
Reference Prediction equation

2 1 Gd 25   fc  4.8   13.5d
Friberg (1938) V   3  EI   c with   4 and  c 
G 1   a 4 EI 0.9d  24
Rasmussen (1963) V  cd2 fc  f y  2


1     c     c with:  
3a
d

fc
fy
Basler, Witta (1967) V according to Friberg (1938) with  c  2 fc
Wiedenroth (1971) V  0.411  c   s  d 2 (for a = 0)
Cziesielski,
Friedmann (1983) 
V   f c / 3  d 2.1 / 333  12.2a 
Vintzeléou, Tassios V 2  10 fc  a  d  V  1.7d 4  f c  f y  0
(1987) for a = 0 the equation corresponds to the equation proposed by Rasmussen
With: G = bedding factor of concrete (400 N/mm³ (Friberg), 500 N/mm³ (Basler,Witta))
a = cantilever of applied load, d = anchor diameter
E = Young’s modulus of steel, I = moment of inertia
σc = acceptable concrete stress, σs = acceptable steel stress
fc = concrete cylinder strength, fy = yield strength of steel
c = 1.3 (not restraint), c = 2.5 (restraint and a = 0)
30 STATE OF THE ART
However, using the prediction equations proposed by Friberg (1938) and Wiedenroth (1971)
the deviations to measured failure loads in experimental investigations are not acceptable
(Eligehausen et al., 2006). Therefore, following the assumptions made in steel design, a sim-
ple and straightforward approach is proposed by Fuchs, Eligehausen (1986a) to calculate the
shear strength of an anchor embedded in concrete (Equation 2.39).
Vu0,S    AS  fu (Eq. 2.39)
where: α = 0.6 for anchors and 0.7 for headed studs welded to the baseplate
fu = measured tensile strength
The coefficient α is calculated using regression analysis. Fuchs, Eligehausen (1986a) deter-
mined the coefficient α = Vu,test / (AS ∙ fu) as 0.68 whereby the tensile strength was taken as the
nominal value. Assuming an overstrength of 15% the mean value α = 0.6. However, the pre-
diction according to Equation 2.39 is verified only for the parameters present in tests (headed
studs: d ≤ 22 mm, fu ≤ 500 MPa; post-installed anchors: d ≤ 20 mm, fu ≤ 1000 MPa). In litera-
ture, various recommendations are given how to estimate the pre-factor α (see Table 2.3).
Table 2.3: Various recommendations found in literature
Reference α Background
Klingner, Mendonca (1982) 0.675
Experimental investigations on headed
Roik (1982) 0.7
anchors welded to baseplates
Anderson, Meinheit (2006) 1.0
Experimental investigations with ma-
Valtinat (1982) 0.625
chine bolts
0.67 for grade 4.6 and 5.6
Schmidt, Knobloch (1982) Double shear connection, pure shear tests
0.6 for grade 8.8 and 10.9
0.5 for cast-in-place and Experimental investigations on ductile
Cook (1989) adhesive anchors multiple-anchor steel-to-concrete connec-
0.6 for undercut anchors tions
The yield strength τy in shear is √3 times lower than the yield strength
Huber-Hencky-Mises yield σy in tension (α = 1/√3 = 0.58). This was verified for various ductile
criterion materials. The ratio τy/σy was computed in the range from 0.55 to 0.60
(Beer, 2009).
For concentrically loaded anchor groups which fail in steel, the resistance can be taken as n-
times the resistance of a single anchor. It is noted that for groups with anchors in a row the
individual anchors can be unevenly loaded. A uniform load distribution can only be assumed
if there is no hole clearance present. Tests with anchor groups with n ≥ 3 anchors in a row are
not known. However, it is assumed that uniform load distribution can be assumed for groups
with up to three anchors in a row if the anchors have sufficient plastic deformation capacity
and are installed with standard hole clearance (Eligehausen et al., 2006). When anchors are
made of brittle steel (rupture elongation A5 < 8%), a 20% reduction should be assumed to take
into account the limited anchor deformability (αred = 0.5) (Fuchs, Eligehausen, 1990).
Experimental investigations to provide more information about the load-bearing behavior of

shear loaded anchorages for the steel failure mode are described in Section 3.2.7 for single
anchors and in Section 3.3.3.4.6 and Section 3.3.6 for groups.
STATE OF THE ART 31
2.3.2 Concrete pryout failure
For anchorages with small ratio hef/dnom, the group can fail by a so-called pryout failure. If the
tensile force generated in the anchorage exceeds the tensile capacity associated with the max-
imum fracture surface that can be activated by the anchorage, a fracture surface originating at
the lower end of the anchors and projecting in conical fashion behind the anchors forms. More
details about the load-bearing mechanism are given in Eligehausen et al. (2006). In general,
pryout failure occurs for anchorages located far away from edges. However, this failure mode
can also be observed for anchorages arranged close to the edge if the pryout resistance is
smaller than the concrete edge breakout resistance. The average ultimate load for concrete
pryout failure can be calculated according to Equation 2.40.
Vu ,cp  k1  Nu ,c (Eq. 2.40)
with: k1  2.0 for hef ≥ 60 mm and k1  1.0 for hef < 60 mm
Nu ,c  tension resistance in case of concrete cone failure
Determination of the actual projected area of the anchorage which needs to be taken into ac-
count for the pryout failure mode is described in Figure 2.6.
Pryout resistance of
anchorages located close
to edges is reduced com-
pared to the pryout re-
sistance of anchorages
located far away from
edges
(a) Reduction of actual area Ac,N if the anchorage is located close to an edge or in a corner
(b) Calculation of actual area Ac,N if the anchors in a group are loaded in opposing directions
(torsional moments)
Figure 2.6: Calculation of actual area Ac,N for anchorages located close to edges and/ or loaded by
a torsional moment (fib, 2011)
32 STATE OF THE ART
For groups loaded by a torsional moment (shear forces acting on the individual anchors in
opposing directions), the most unfavorable anchor should be verified. When calculating the
area Ac,N, a virtual edge in the direction of adjacent anchors is assumed. However, it is noted
that no investigations exist for such a loading case. Experimental investigations to verify this
calculation approach are discussed in Section 3.3.9.
2.3.3 Concrete edge breakout failure
Anchorages located close to the edge may fail in concrete edge breakout provided the tensile
steel strength is high enough to avoid premature rupture of the anchorage. Concrete edge fail-
ure mode is characterized by the formation of a half-coneshaped breakout propagating from
the anchor towards the edge. Equation 2.41 was proposed by Fuchs et al. (1995) based on the
evaluation of tests with single anchors having dnom ≤ 25 mm and lf ≤ 8dnom in thick uncracked
structural members under shear loading towards the edge. Note, the basic equation 2.41 is
often found with a prefactor k = 0.9 since few additional tests indicated that a better correla-
tion with test results is obtained if this equation is reduced by 10%. In US standards (e.g. ACI
318) the characteristic concrete edge breakout resistance is directly based on Equation 2.41.
No reduction of 10% is taken into account. Note that the determination of the prefactor is
based on SI units.
0.2
 l 
V 0
u ,c  k  d nom   f   f cc ,200  c11.5 with: k  1.0 (Eq. 2.41)
 d nom 
Hofmann (2005) modified Equation 2.41 in order to extend the range of dnom and lf. The ma-
jority of tests on which the modified Equation 2.42 is based were performed with single an-
chors having dnom ≤ 40 mm and lf ≤ 12.5dnom. However, the development of Equation 2.42 is
mainly based on numerical simulations with anchor diameters up to 190 mm and lf to 16dnom.
 
Vu0,c  3.0  dnom  l f  fcc ,200  c11.5 (Eq. 2.42)
0.5 0.2
l  d 
with:  = 0.1  f  and  = 0.1  nom 
 c1   c1 
Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42 represent the mean ultimate load of a single anchor loaded
towards the edge in uncracked concrete without influence of further edges or member thick-
ness. In case of more than one anchor in direction 2, further edges of the concrete member or
limited member thickness, the mean ultimate load of the single anchor needs to be multiplied
with the ratio of the projected areas to take into account the reduced fracture surface. The cal-
culation of the areas is based on the 35°-cone model. Detailed examples of the calculation of
Ac,V are given in Eligehausen et al. (2006).
 A,V  Ac,V / Ac0,V  Ac,V / 4.5c12 (Eq. 2.43)
Ac0,V  area of the fully developed failure surface for a single anchor idealized as a half-
pyramid with height equal to c1 and base lengths of 1.5c1 and 3c1 = 4.5c12
STATE OF THE ART 33
Ac ,V  actual area of the failure surface for the anchorage as defined by overlapping concrete
cones of adjacent anchors (s2 < 3c1), by edges in direction 2 (c2 < 1.5c1) and by limited
member thickness (h < 1.5c1).
The various effects on the shear resistance which are considered by different influence factors
are described in the following. The effect of edge reinforcement and anchorages in cracked
concrete are not investigated in this dissertation.
Limited member thickness
As aforementioned, in case the anchorage is located in a thin member (h < 1.5c1) the fracture
surface is reduced by the ratio of the projected areas. However, tests have shown that the re-
duction is less than assumed by the factor ψA,V. This is taken into account by multiplying the
resistance with the increase factor ψh,V. The factor can be calculated according to Equation
2.18 or Equation 2.25.
Influence of further edges
If an anchorage is placed near a corner (c2 < 1.5c1), or if two further edges restrict the fracture
surface (narrow member), the disturbance of the distribution of stresses in the concrete is tak-
en into account by the factor ψs,V. In case of a narrow member, c2 should be taken as the min-
imum of c2,1 and c2,2.
 s ,V  0.7  0.3c2 / 1.5c1   1.0 (Eq. 2.44)
(a) Corner of a concrete member (b) Narrow concrete member
Figure 2.7: Fracture pattern of a shear loaded anchorage affected by further edges
For the special case that the anchorage is located in a narrow, thin member the edge distance
should be limited to c1,red (Equation 2.45). This is explained in Figure 2.8.
 c2,max h s2,max 
c1,red  max  ; ;  (Eq. 2.45)
 1.5 1.5 3.0 
34 STATE OF THE ART
Example:
s = 100 mm, c1 = 100 mm, h = 120 mm
c2,1 = 150 mm, c2,2 = 100 mm
c1,red = max(150/1.5; 120/1.5;100/3)
c1,red = 100 mm
Figure 2.8: Determination of reduced edge distance c1,red for a pair of anchors loaded in shear to-
wards the edge in a thin, narrow member (Fuchs, Eligehausen, 1995)
Effect of load direction
If an anchorage is loaded in shear parallel to the free edge, a splitting force in front of the
anchor is generated which is a fraction of the applied shear force. Stichting Bouwresearch
(1971) and Fuchs (1990) determined the splitting force to be about 50% of the applied shear
load. Therefore, the increase factor ψ90°,V for a load direction parallel to the edge is often tak-
en as 2.0. Riemann (1990) proposed a linear interaction equation to cover a shear load under
arbitrary direction (Equation 2.46).
0°
0°
α α 0° ≤≤ααVV≤≤55°
0° 55°
αV α
αV 0° ≤ α55°
V ≤<
55° ααVV ≤ 90°
<55° 90°
αV ≤
90°
55° <90° ααVV≤≤180°
<<90° 180°
55° 55°
V 90° < αV ≤ 180°
55° 55°
V
1.0 for 0°  V  55°

90°
90°
90°
90°
  ,V  1/(cosV + 0.5sinV ) for 55° < V  90° (Eq. 2.46)
2.0 for 90° <   180°
edge  V
edge
180°
180°
Figure 2.9: Definition of shear load direction α and increase factor according to Riemann (1990)
According to Hofmann (2005), the calculation with a constant increase factor ψ90°,V equals 2.0
leads only to a rough estimation of the resistance of an anchorage loaded parallel to the edge.
In order to take into account that the ratio between splitting force and applied shear is mainly
influenced by anchor diameter and edge distance, Equation 2.47 is proposed.
0.5
 n  d nom
2
 f cc ,200 
 90°,V  4.0  k4     5.0 (Eq. 2.47)
 Vu0,c
 
with: k4  1.0 for anchorages without hole clearance
k4  0.75 for anchorages with hole clearance

STATE OF THE ART 35
Equation 2.47 equals Equation 2.26 proposed by Hofmann (2005) for dnom = 25 mm. Howev-
er, in Equation 2.47 n is the number of anchors for which concrete edge failure is verified and
not the total number of anchors in the group as proposed by Hofmann (2005).
According to Hofmann (2005), a linear interaction as proposed by Riemann (1990) is con-

servative. A more accurate prediction of the resistance of an anchorage loaded under inclined
shear is obtained by Equation 2.48.
2 2
 Vu  cos V   Vu  sin V 
      1.0 (Eq. 2.48)
 Vu ,c ,0°   Vu ,c ,90° 
The factor ψα,V which is based on the quadratic interaction is derived from Equation 2.48.
1
  ,V  2
 1.0 (Eq. 2.49)
 sin V 
 cos V   
2

  90°,V 
Note that the resistance of an anchorage affected by more than one edge is difficult to predict.
Therefore, both the resistance for a load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge
should be calculated and the minimum should be assumed to control the capacity of the an-
chorage.
Effect of load eccentricity
If an anchorage is subjected to a shear load acting not in the center of gravity of sheared an-
chors, the individual anchors in a group are unevenly loaded. This is taken into account by an
eccentricity factor. An eccentric shear load is also present if the anchorage is loaded by com-
bined torsion and shear. However, it is noted that a combined torsion and shear action can
lead to shear loading on the individual anchors in opposed directions. Such loading cases are
discussed in Section 3.3.7.
1
 ec ,V   1.0 (Eq. 2.50)
1  2eV /  3c1 
Group effect for spacing perpendicular to the edge
If an anchor group is loaded in shear where the anchors are arranged perpendicular to the free
edge, no influence factor is applied to take into account the spacing effect in direction 1. It has
to be distinguished if the failure is assumed to occur at the front or the back anchors. This is
shown for instance for a group with four anchors loaded towards the edge in Figure 2.10. Of-
ten in the ultimate limit state the formation of a crack at the front anchors is taken as the fail-
ure crack. It is assumed that this leads to conservative results for the concrete edge failure
mode. However, due to limited investigations, redistribution of the load to the back anchors is
not seen to be conservative for all anchor configurations. A detailed discussion about the the-
oretical background for the redistribution of shear forces for both load directions perpendicu-
lar and parallel to the edge can be found in Section 3.3.3.4.1 and Section 3.3.4.3.1.
36 STATE OF THE ART
V Failure assumed to occur at the

back anchors
Failure assumed to occur at the front

anchors
s1
c1,2
c1,1
s2
edge
Figure 2.10: Example of a group where the anchors are arranged perpendicular to the edge
2.4 Determination of anchors participating in shear

The anchors participating in the shear resistance in a group depend on a number of parameters
such as failure mode, hole clearance, edge distance of the anchors, and direction of the ap-
plied shear forces. For anchorages (with and without normal hole clearance (see Table 5.1))
located far away from the edge to avoid concrete edge failure, it is assumed that shear is even-
ly distributed to all anchors. For anchorages arranged close to the edge which fail in concrete
edge breakout, it needs to be distinguished between anchorages with and without hole clear-
ance. For anchorages without hole clearance, it is assumed that shear is initially distributed to
all anchors. For anchorages with hole clearance, often only the anchors closest to the edge are
conservatively assumed to carry the shear loads.
In order to determine the transition between anchorages arranged far away from concrete edg-
es (steel rupture or pryout governs the failure) and anchorages arranged close to the edge
(concrete edge breakout governs the failure), Balogh and Eligehausen (1992) performed cal-
culations to show at which edge distance no proof for concrete edge breakout is necessary.
The resistances were calculated with a group of six anchors (n1 = 3, n2 = 2) with concrete
compressive strength assumed as fcc,200 = 30 MPa and steel strength as fu = 800 MPa. The an-
chor geometry was varied between M6/40 and M20/125. For all anchors, the ratio hef/d ~ 6.5.
For deep concrete members, the limiting value at which no concrete edge failure occurs is
c1 = 5hef (uncracked concrete) and c1 = 6.5hef (cracked concrete). For thin concrete members
(h = 2hef), it is c1 = 17hef (uncracked concrete) and c1 = 26hef (cracked concrete). No calcula-
tions were performed in a corner. Based on the calculations in deep concrete members a limit-
ing value c1 = 10hef was proposed. For thin members, this value is also justified if reinforce-
ment is provided to take up the shear load. Since especially with bonded anchors short stocky
anchors are permitted, a further criterion which depends on the anchor diameter was imple-
mented in design. With the limitation of the edge distance to a multiple of the embedment
depth alone, no steel rupture can be guaranteed. Therefore, in current design one can find the
condition that a check for concrete edge failure can be omitted for groups with 4 or less an-
chors having an edge distance c1 ≥ max{10hef, 60dnom} in all directions.
In design, the limiting value for c1 is used to determinate the distribution of shear loads in an
anchor group with normal hole clearance.
 It is assumed that the shear displacement at failure is much larger than the provided
hole clearance if c1 ≥ max{10hef, 60dnom}. Therefore, for large edge distance all an-
chors are assumed to take up shear loads.
STATE OF THE ART 37
 If c1 < max{10hef, 60dnom} for anchor groups loaded perpendicular to the edge, the
displacement at failure may be smaller than the provided hole clearance. Therefore, in
such cases only the near edge anchors are assumed to take up shear loads.
 If c1 < max{10hef, 60dnom} for anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge, the displace-
ment at failure is about two to three times the failure displacement of an anchor group
loaded under otherwise constant conditions perpendicular to the edge. Therefore, for
shear loading parallel to the edge all anchors are assumed to take up shear loads.
This guidance given in design is only a rough estimation based on theoretical considerations.
More accurate guidance based on experimental investigations is given in Section 5.14.
2.5 Discussion of design provisions

2.5.1 General
A designer may be confused with the different regulations for the design of anchorages when
going through the various design standards and guidelines for the verification of an anchor-
age. Often the regulations are not consistent with one another and vary depending on the
standard. This is mainly based on different design philosophies although they have the same
underlying load-bearing behavior. For example, in the US the design of anchorages is based
on simplifications to allow hand calculations and an easy estimation of the failure loads. In
Europe, the design philosophy is more based on the fact that such anchorage solutions are
calculated with computer programs. Hence, in some cases this leads to more complex design
procedures. In particular, for anchorages loaded in shear, where many simplifications are
made due to missing investigations, design recommendations differ in the various standards.
Therefore, it seems to be meaningful to briefly discuss the various design standards and
guidelines for anchorages loaded in shear and torsion. This should help the reader to get an
overview of different design and to understand the background and differences in their respec-
tive implementation provisions.
In the US, provisions for anchoring to concrete are given in ACI 318 “Building Code Re-
quirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary” Appendix D - Anchoring to Concrete.
Appendix D applies to both cast-in anchors and post-installed anchors. Up to and including
version ACI 318-08 (2008) adhesive anchors have been outside the scope of this appendix
although they are widely used and can perform adequately. Acceptance criteria for bonded
anchors can be found in ICC-ES AC308 (2001). However, design recommendations for adhe-
sive anchors are included for the first time in ACI 318-11 (2011). In case of anchorages in-
stalled in concrete structures that form part of a nuclear power plant or that have nuclear safe-
ty-related functions, ACI 349 “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete
Structures and Commentary” applies for the design. The design recommendations are based
on the CCD-method which is a further development of the Kappa-method (Eligehauen et al.,
1987, 1988). It is noted that older versions of ACI 318 and ACI 349 are based on the Kappa-
method.
In the European landscape of design standards, ETAG 001 “Guideline for European Tech-
nical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete” Annex C was the first standard availa-
ble for the design of anchorages based on the CCD-method. However, although the CCD-
method is basically valid for all anchor types regulated in the guideline, it was found that ad-
hesive anchors have special characteristics which need to be considered in the design. There-
38 STATE OF THE ART
fore, a technical report (TR029) was worked out by the taskgroup for fasteners in the Europe-
an Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA). In the technical report TR029 “Design of
Bonded Anchors” not only the special load-bearing behavior of adhesive anchors is taken into
account but also the knowledge gained from basic research within the past 10 years since the
first publication of the Annex C. In order to unify the design of fastenings in Europe, the
Technical Specification CEN/TS 1992-4 Part 1 to 5 “Design of fastenings for use in con-
crete” has been developed, basically incorporating both Annex C and TR029. Moreover, the
CEN/TS 1992-4 applies to both cast-in fasteners such as headed fasteners, anchor channels
with rigid connection between fastener and channel, and post-installed anchors such as expan-
sion anchors, undercut anchors, concrete screws, bonded anchors, bonded expansion anchors
and bonded undercut anchors. Therefore, this standard provides comprehensive information
about the design of fastenings.
In the above mentioned design standards many simplifications are made and the background
for the development of design equations and models is not explicitly traceable for the reader
without deep knowledge in fastening technology. Therefore, designers are often confronted
with problems where fastening applications go beyond the scope of the standards. In order to
cover this gap, to give a designer the confidence to safely calulcate the resistances and to pro-
vide detailed background information the Task Group III/5: “Fastenings to reinforced con-
crete and masonry structures” was formed within the Comité Euro International du Béton
(CEB) in 1987. In 1997 the group published the CEB design guide “Design of Fastenings in
Concrete” (CEB, 1997). It covers expansion, undercut and headed anchors in concrete under
predominately static loading, and has been a widely-referenced resource document for code
development in this area. Following the transformation of the CEB into the International Fed-
eration for Structural Concrete (fib) in 1998, the group was re-named as Special Activity
Group (SAG) 4 “Fastenings to Structural Concrete and Masonry Structures”. Since the publi-
cation of the original CEB guide, ongoing research and additional application experience has
led to an improved understanding and deepened knowledge in various areas of fastening tech-
nology. The publication fib (2011) “Design of Anchorages in Concrete” represents a substan-
tial revision of the original 1996 design guide. One significant improvement are the design
provisions for the critical case of shear loaded anchorages close to edges. It is noted that some
results and design recommendations developed within the research leading to this dissertation
and described therein, are already incorporated partly or in full extent in this fib design guide.
The fib document is recognized as a guideline to provide more in-depth information about the
load-bearing behavior in cases where fastening solutions need to be designed with engineer-
ing judgment.
In the following, the various standards and guidelines are discussed concerning the differ-
ences in design of anchorages loaded in shear and torsion. Differences in design which are not
related to this dissertation are not discussed (e.g. tension loading, fatigue loading, seismic
loading, durability, exposure to fire, etc.).
2.5.2 ETAG 001 Annex C
In ETAG 001, Annex C (EOTA, 2010) the design of single anchors and anchor groups is regu-
lated. In this section the regulations according to the 3rd amendment (August 2010) are de-
scribed. If anchors are situated far from edges (c ≥ max (10hef, 60d)), anchor configurations
according to Figure 2.11a) are covered for all loading direction. If these anchor configurations
are situated close to edges (c < max (10hef, 60d)), only tensile loading is allowed. In case of
shear loading close to edges, the number of anchors is limited to a maximum of two anchors
STATE OF THE ART 39
in a row (Figure 2.11b). No distinction is made for anchorages with and without hole clear-
ance. It is merely mentioned that the design method is valid only if the diameter df of the
clearance hole in the fixture is not larger than a specified value.
The concrete member shall be of normal weight concrete of at least strength class C20/25 and
at most strength class C50/60 according to EN 206-1 (2000).
(a) Anchorages arranged far from edges (b) Anchorages arranged close to edges
Figure 2.11: Shear loaded anchorages covered by the design methods according to ETAG 001,
Annex C
The distribution of shear loads depends on the mode of failure. For anchorages far away from
concrete edges which fail in steel or pry-out, it is assumed that all anchors of a group take up
shear loads for no or normal hole clearance (df ≤ specified value). For the concrete edge fail-
ure mode, only the most unfavorable anchors are assumed to take up shear loads if the shear
acts perpendicular towards the edge. It is noted that this approach is conservative especially
for groups with no hole clearance. If the shear load acts parallel to the edge, all anchors are
assumed to take up shear loads. Shear loads acting away from the edge may be neglected for
the verification of concrete edge failure. Concrete edge failure need not to be verified for
groups with not more than 4 anchors when the edge distance in all directions is c > 10hef and
c > 60d. This is different to the scope of this document which defines an anchorage as “in-the-
field anchorage” for c ≥ max (10hef, 60d).
For the calculation of the characteristic resistance for concrete edge failure, the basic equation
corresponds to Equation 2.42. However, Annex C (EOTA, 2010) provides characteristic re-
sistance and the compressive strength is based on measurements with cubes of side length
150 mm. Consequently, the pre-factor assumes values of 1.7 for cracked concrete and 2.4 for
uncracked concrete. For anchors with uniform cross-section over their length, the embedment
depth has to be used as effective anchorage depth, and for anchors with several sleeves and
throats of cross-section, for example, only the length from the concrete surface up to the rele-
vant sleeve would govern. No general limitation of the effective anchorage depth and the an-
chor diameter is given. The anchor diameter is only limited indirectly to 30 mm in terms of
clearance hole and external diameter (see Table 4.1 in ETAG 001, Annex C). It is noted that
Annex C is not consistent with the description of the load transfer length. It mixes hef and lf.
If the load acts parallel to the edge, a constant increase factor ψ90°,V = 2.5 is applied. In case of
an inclined shear load, the resistance is calculated using a quadratic interaction.
2.5.3 Technical Report TR029
The scope of TR029 (EOTA, 2007) corresponds to the ETAG 001, Annex C (refer to Figure
2.11). TR029 applies to the design of bonded anchors. Design methods used so far are based
on tests with bonded anchor having bond strength up to 15 MPa. According to TR029 also
40 STATE OF THE ART
bonded anchors with higher bond strength are allowed. The embedment depth allowed was
extended to a wider range (4d to 20d) which allows a high flexibility compared to other an-
chor types. Here, for the emdedment length hef is consistently used.
The knowledge gained from basic research, as applicable to mechanical anchors, was also
implemented into Annex C since the release of TR029. Therefore, the distribution of shear
loads and the calculation of the resistances primarily correspond to the 3 rd amendment of An-
nex C described in Section 2.5.2.
2.5.4 CEN Technical Specification
Compared to the ETAG 001 and TR029, in the Technical Specification CEN/TS 1992-4-1 to 5
“Design of fastenings for use in concrete” the scope was changed with respect to shear close
to the edge. Whereas anchorages with three anchors in a row were allowed close to the edge
only for pure tension loading, CEN/TS 1992-4 allows these configurations for shear loaded
anchorages as well provided no hole clearance is present. This requires that the gaps between
fixture and anchors are filled appropriately or the anchors are welded to the plate respectively
screwed in the plate. Anchorages covered by CEN/TS 1992-4 are shown in Figure 2.12.
steel plate
fastener
(a) Without hole clearance, all edge distances
(b) With hole clearance, far from edges (c) With hole clearance, near to an edge
Figure 2.12: Anchorages covered by the design methods according to CEN/TS 1992-4
The concrete strength class was extended to a wider range. The CEN/TS 1992-4 is valid for
members using normal weight concrete with strength classes in the range C12/15 to C90/105
all in accordance with EN 206-1 (2000). However, it is required that the anchors are approved
for these concrete strength classes in the relevant European Technical Specifications.
Basically, the calculation approaches for the resistances correspond with ETAG 001 and
TR029. However, the CEN/TS 1992-4 provides more detailed guidance.
The initial value of the characteristic resistance for concrete edge failure for cracked concrete
corresponds to Equation 2.42. However, as in Annex C (EOTA, 2010), the CEN/TS 1992-4
provides characteristic resistance and the compressive strength is based on measurements
with cubes of side length 150 mm. Consequently, the pre-factor assumes a value of 1.6 for
STATE OF THE ART 41
cracked concrete. For fastenings in uncracked concrete members, the characteristic resistance
can be increased by a factor 1.4. Because of the pre-factor, slight differences between ETAG
001 (EOTA, 2010) and CEN/TS 1992-4 (2009) result for the initial value of the characteristic
resistance for concrete edge failure.
For the effective anchorage length and the anchor diameter, it is referred to the European
Technical Specification. However, the effective anchorage depth shall not exceed 8dnom and
the anchor diameter is limited to 60 mm.
If the shear load acts inclined to the edge, the verification agrees to ETAG 001, Annex C.
2.5.5 ACI 318-08 Appendix D – Anchoring to Concrete
ACI 318-08 Appendix D (ACI 318-08, 2008) is restricted in scope to structural anchors that
transmit structural loads related to strength, stability, or life safety. Two types of applications
are envisioned. The first is connections between structural elements where the failure of an
anchor or an anchor group could result in loss of equilibrium or stability of any portion of the
structure. The second is where safety-related attachments that are not part of the structure
(such as sprinkler systems, heavy suspended pipes, or barrier rails) are attached to structural
elements. The provisions are given to design single anchors and anchor groups. Compared to
European standards no information is given about the limitation of anchor configurations. The
concrete strength used for calculation purposes shall not exceed 10,000 psi (69 MPa) for cast-
in anchors, and 8000 psi (55 MPa) for post-installed anchors. Special testing is required for
post-installed anchors when used in concrete with strength greater than 8000 psi. The com-
panion ACI 355.2-07 (2007) does not require testing of post-installed anchors in concrete with
strength greater than 8000 psi because some post-installed anchors may have difficulty ex-
panding in very high-strength concretes. Because of this, the concrete compressive strength is
limited to 8000 psi in the design of post-installed anchors unless special testing is performed.
The basic shear equation for single anchors which fail in concrete edge breakout for a load
direction perpendicular to the edge is based on the CCD-method according to Equation 2.41
(mean equation). It is noted that the calculated characteristic resistance can lead to much
higher values for large edge distances than the values calculated according to the European
standards. This is discussed in Section 3.2.1.4.6. For cast-in headed studs, headed bolts, or
hooked bolts that are continuously welded to the steel attachment, ACI 318 allows an increase
of the characteristic value of about 15%. The load-bearing length of an anchor in shear equals
the embedment depth in case of anchors with a constant stiffness over the full length of em-
bedded section, such as headed studs or post-installed anchors with one tubular shell over the
full length of the embedment depth. For torque-controlled expansion anchors with a distance
sleeve separated from expansion sleeve, the load-bearing length is limited to twice the anchor
diameter. In no case, the load-bearing length used in shear strength calculations shall exceed
8dnom. For anchors with diameters not exceeding 2 in., the concrete breakout strength re-
quirements shall be considered satisfied by the design procedure. However, no general limita-
tion of the anchor diameter in the basic concrete breakout strength equation of a single anchor
is given. This is changed in the ACI 318-11 (2011) version with a limitation equation (see
discussion in Section 5.2).
For shear load applied parallel to the edge, the characteristic resistance for concrete edge
breakout of an anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge is simply doubled. No approach is
42 STATE OF THE ART
given for an inclined shear load which leads to a step function. This is neither logical nor ex-
plainable to an engineer and often leads to problems when designing an anchorage.
For the concrete edge breakout verification of anchor groups, two cases are distinguished in
ACI 318-08. This is illustrated in Figure 2.13. One assumption of the distribution of forces
indicates that half the shear would be critical on the front anchor(s) (case 1). Another assump-
tion of the distribution of forces indicates that the total shear would be critical on the rear an-
chor(s) (case 2). Because the anchors nearest to the edge could fail first by concrete breakout
failure or the whole group could fail as a unit with the failure surface originating from the
anchors farthest from the edge, both assumptions for load distribution should be considered.
The minimum value of case 1 and case 2 is controlling for design.
(a) Case 1 (b) Case 2
Figure 2.13: Concrete edge breakout verification according to ACI 318-08
If the anchors are welded to a common plate, only the assumption needs to be considered that
the total shear would be critical on the rear anchors and its projected area. This is considered
to be justified because when the anchors nearest the edge begin to form a failure cone, shear
load is assumed to be transferred to the stiffer and stronger rear anchors. In this case, it shall
be permitted to base the value of the edge distance on the distance from the edge to the axis of
the farthest anchor row that is selected as critical, and all of the shear shall be assumed to be
carried by this critical anchor row alone (verification of steel and pry-out failure).
2.5.6 ACI 349-06 Appendix D – Anchoring to Concrete
In general, the provisions for shear loaded anchorages comply with ACI 318-08. However,
slight differences exist which are pointed out in the following.
Regarding the ψh,V-factor for concrete edge breakout in shear, this parameter is not addressed
in ACI 349-06. It is neglected that the reduction of the capacity is less than assumed by the
ratio of the projected areas. Note that this leads to quite conservative results for small ratios
h/c1.
Whereas ACI 318-08 limits the load-bearing length le of an anchor for shear to twice the an-
chor diameter in case of torque-controlled expansion anchors with a distance sleeve separated
from expansion sleeve, ACI 349-06 allows to set this value to le = hef in this case. In no case,
the load-bearing length used in shear strength calculations shall exceed 8dnom.
STATE OF THE ART 43
2.5.7 fib design guide (2011) – Design of anchorages in concrete
The fib Design Guide for Anchorages in Concrete (fib, 2011) is a guideline which gives more
detailed information about the verification of anchorages. The latest research results are in-
cluded in this document.
In principle, the scope agrees with the CEN/TS 1992-4 standard. Anchor configurations cov-
ered by the fib design guide are illustrated in Figure 2.14.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.14: Anchor configurations covered by the design methods according to fib (2011) (a) An-
chorages with normal hole clearance having an edge distance c1 < max(10hef, 60dnom)
(b) Anchorages without hole clearance, all edge distances and anchorages with nor-
mal hole clearance situated far from edges (c1 ≥ max(10hef, 60dnom))
The number of anchors that may be considered as effective in resisting the shear load should
be limited depending on considerations of hole clearance and edge distance. Close to the edge
not more than 2 anchors in a row in the direction of loading are allowed for anchor groups
with normal hole clearance. For all other anchor configurations, the number of anchors is lim-
ited to three anchors in a row in the direction of loading to prevent excessive shear lag (non-
uniform shear distribution in the direction of the shear load over the length of the connection).
The design guide applies to anchorages in structural normal weight concrete of strength class
C20 to C50 in accordance with CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB, 1993). Anchorages in both
uncracked and cracked concrete are addressed.
The distribution of shear forces and/or torsional moments acting on the fixture is described in
detail in the fib design guide based on the theory of elasticity. Clear instructions are given
also for complex loading conditions both for anchorages with and without hole clearance in
the fixture. Detailed information is provided on how to distribute the forces to the anchors and
which forces need to be taken into account depending on the failure mode that is verified.
Moreover, for anchorages loaded in torsion where only the distribution of forces on the an-
chors is explained in current standards (e.g. CEN/TS 1992-4), the fib design guide also gives
information about the calculation of the resistance.
Additionally, in the fib design guide, information is given about the way the load is applied
and the effect on the verification. For example, for anchor groups loaded in shear parallel to
the edge, it is distinguished whether the fixture provided torsional restraint or a free rotation is
possible. This distinction comes from research described in Grosser, Eligehausen (2008). See
also Section 3.3.4.3.3.
44 STATE OF THE ART
In the following, the initial value of the characteristic resistance for concrete edge breakout of
a single anchor with no influence of further edges and member thickness loaded in shear per-
pendicular to the edge is shown. Equation 2.51 is given in the fib design guide (fib, 2011).
Even though the equation is based on the same mean equation, differences to ETAG 001, An-
nex C and CEN/TS 1992-4 exist. This simply is due to the fact that the pre-factor in ETAG
001, Annex C and in CEN/TS 1992-4 are not strictly consistent.
 
VRk0 ,c  kv  dnom  l f  f ck  c11.5 (Eq. 2.51)
with: kv  1.7 (anchorages in cracked concrete)

α and β as defined in Equation 2.42
The derivation of the correct pre-factor is explained in the following for the characteristic
equation based on both the concrete compressive strength defined as strength determined on
cubes with side length of 150 mm (ETAG 001 and CEN/TS 1992-4) and on cylinders (fib de-
sign guide (fib, 2011)).
,c  3.0  f cc ,200  X (mean prediction equation based on tests in uncracked concrete)

0
VRm
with: X  f  d nom , l f , c1  (for more details see Equation 2.42)
VRk ,c  0.75 VRm,c assuming a COV = 15%
Characteristic resistance in cracked concrete:
VRk0 ,c  3.0  0.75  0.7  1/ 0.84  f ck  X  1.7  f ck  X (based on concrete cylinder stength)
VRk0 ,c  3.0  0.75  0.7  0.95  fcc,150  X  1.5  fcc,150  X (based on concrete cube strength)
Note that this inconsistency can lead to differences of about 15% depending on the design
method which is used for the verification.
Furthermore, in the fib design guide the following limitations for the effective anchorage
length and the anchor diameter are given. For anchors having dnom > 60 mm, the limiting val-
ue of dnom = 60 mm should be inserted in Equation 2.51. The following limits on the influ-
ence length, which are mainly based on research described in Grosser (2011a), apply:
(lf ≤ 12dnom for dnom ≤ 24 mm) and (lf ≤ 8dnom for dnom > 24 mm)
Following the approach in European standards, a quadratic interaction (ψα,V) applies if the
shear load acts inclined to the edge. However, the basic value ψ90°,V inserted in ψα,V can be
taken as a constant depending on the number of anchors for which concrete edge failure is
verified (ψ90°,V = 1.5 for n2 = 1; ψ90°,V = 2.0 for n2 = 2; ψ90°,V = 2.5 for n2 = 3) or calculated
according to a more precise function, as shown in the following.
0.5
 n d2  f 
 90°,V  4.0  k4   2 nom ck   4.0 (Eq. 2.52)
 VRk ,c 
 
STATE OF THE ART 45
with:
k4 = 1.0 for anchorages without hole clearance and single anchors with hole clearance
= 0.8 for anchorages with normal hole clearance (acl ≤ acl,1)
n2 = number of anchors for which concrete edge failure is verified
VRk,c = concrete breakout resistance for loading perpendicular to an edge
In order to obtain conservative results for all edge distances, the constant value valid for sin-
gle anchors was reduced compared to European standards (e.g. CEN/TS 1992-4) since test
results have shown that for larger edge distances where the concrete edge resistance is close to
the anchor steel resistance, the increase factor ψ90°,V is better predicted by a value 1.5.
In the following, the verification of anchor groups arranged close to the edge for both anchor-
ages with and without hole clearance is explained in more detail.
For anchorages without hole clearance close to the edge, the shear force is initially distributed
to all anchors. One assumption is to calculate the resistance for concrete edge failure only
considering the front anchors. This assumption leads to a conservative estimation of the re-
sistance for large ratios s1/c1,1 with respect to concrete edge failure, but is conversely associat-
ed with the maximum resistance with respect to steel and pry-out failure (all anchors are ac-
tive). However, the concrete edge resistance of the front anchors with half the shear load on
the anchors should be limited by the concrete edge resistance of the back anchors with the
total load, in order to take into account that the whole group can fail first. Another assumption
is to calculate the resistance of the back anchors. This assumption leads to the maximum re-
sistance in the ultimate limit state with respect to concrete edge failure. Assuming that the
front anchors do not participate due to the fact that a crack could occur first at the front an-
chors, the resistance with respect to steel and pryout failure should be calculated with the back
anchors only.
Note that in current standards the utilization of increased concrete resistance calculated at the
back anchors is only allowed for anchorages without hole clearance. For anchorages with
normal hole clearance, the fib design guide is the only document which allows the verification
of the concrete edge failure load at the back anchors. Specific information is given about the
crack propagation and the redistribution of forces. In case of anchorages with unfavorable
anchor configuration, the shear force is initially distributed only to the front anchors. For
small edge distances, the first crack occurs at the anchors close to the edge. Therefore, in cur-
rent design standards only the anchors closest to the edge are assumed to carry shear loads
when checking the resistance against concrete edge failure. This approach is conservative in
cases, where the anchor displacement may be estimated to be much larger than the provided
hole clearance. For the verification of steel and pry-out failure, anchor shear displacement
may be expected to be much larger than the allowable hole clearance. Therefore, all anchors
may be assumed to resist shear forces. As with anchorages without hole clearance, the maxi-
mum resistance with respect to concrete edge failure is reached when the load is redistributed
to the back anchors. Because the front anchor could have lost its resistance, only the back
anchors should be taken into account, when calculating the resistance against steel, pry-out
and concrete edge failure. However, according to results of tests described in Grosser, Cook
(2009) for anchorages with small edge distance and a ratio s1/c1,1 ≤ 1, the concrete edge fail-
46 STATE OF THE ART
ure load of the back anchors may be influenced negatively by the crack generated at the front
anchors. In the fib design guide, a reduction of 20% is proposed for such a case.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 47
3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 Scope
In this chapter, the experimental investigations carried out at the Institute of Construction Ma-
terials, University of Stuttgart, Germany as well as at the Department of Civil and Coastal
Engineering, University of Florida, USA are described. Details to the experimental investiga-
tions can be found in Eligehausen, Grosser (2007); Grosser, Cook (2009) and in the individu-
al test reports Grosser (2007) to Grosser (2011). The tests which provide information about
the load-bearing behavior of single anchors are summarized in Section 3.2. Section 3.3 focus-
es on the behavior of anchor groups. Single anchor tests described in Section 3.3 are needed
as reference to verify the group results and are therefore performed with the same parameters,
such as edge distance, anchor diameter and embedment depth. If not otherwise stated the in-
formation about the base material given in Section 3.2.1.2 apply for all subsections in Section
3.2 and Section 3.3. In order to make the test results comparable, the ultimate loads are nor-
malized by multiplying with (30 MPa / fcc,200,test)0.5.
3.2 Single anchor tests

In order to better understand the load-bearing behavior of single anchors which fail in con-
crete edge breakout as well as of single anchors fail in steel rupture, experimental investiga-
tions were performed in deep and thin concrete members. For the tests bonded anchors were
used since these anchors allow the most flexible adjustment of parameters like embedment
depth and anchor diameter. According to Fuchs, Eligehausen (1989) and Kummerow (1996),
for this type of anchors, the diameter d0 of the drilled hole can be taken for dnom since the mor-
tar acts to improve the load distribution. Hofmann (2005) proposed to use the diameter of the
rod. However, no experimental investigations exist to confirm this assumption. Therefore, in
advance to the experimental tests, M10 single anchors were tested in 12 mm diameter and
28 mm diameter drilled holes to clarify the influence of the drilled hole. The tests were per-
formed with a vinylester system. The load-displacement curves are shown in Figure 3.1. For
comparison, the breakout patterns are illustrated.
14
1412
fcc,200 = 22.9 MPa (6)
1210
(5)
Load V [kN]
10
8
Load V [kN]
(3) (1)
8
6 (2)
6
4 (4)
4
2 (1) – (3): M10/12
2
(4) – (6): M10/28
0 0
0 0 1 12 3 24 5 6 3 7 84 9 105 11 12 6
Displacement δ [mm]
[ m m ]
(a) Load-displacement curves (b) Failure patterns
Figure 3.1: Single anchor tests with M10 threaded rods installed in 12 mm and 28 mm drilled holes
(c1 = 50 mm), (α = 0°)
In all tests with 12 mm diameter drilled holes, the crack started in the axis of the anchor (see
for example failure pattern 3). The same failure was observed in two of the tests with 28 mm
diameter drilled holes. The load is not significantly higher. In one of the tests the concrete
edge breakout started behind the mortar (see failure pattern 6). In this case the measured ulti-
mate load was about 20% higher. However, since it cannot be guaranteed that the mortar acts
to improve the load distribution, it is proposed to follow the recommendation by Hofmann
(2005) to use the diameter of the rod.
low strength concrete without influence of member thickness
Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded towards the free edge have been tested
in the past by different authors (see Section 2.2). In design (e.g. CEN/TS 1992-4, ACI 318-
08), the equation to calculate the strength for concrete breakout is valid for dnom ≤ 60 mm and
lf ≤ 8dnom, because the majority of the tests has been performed in this range of dnom and lf.
Limited test data (Kummerow, 1996; Kreismer, 1999; Wüstholz, 1999; Hofmann, 2005) indi-
cate that the limitation of the embedment depth could lead to conservative results. Hofmann
(2005) proposed Equation 2.42 with an extended limitation lf ≤ 16dnom which is mainly based
on numerical studies. However, this extended limitation is not adopted into design, since ex-
perimental testing with a systematic variation of the parameters is not available up to now and
therefore the influence of an increased ratio lf/dnom cannot be verified.
To provide information about the influence of anchor diameter and embedment depth for var-
ying edge distances, single bonded anchors loaded close to the free edge are tested. Note that
for bonded anchors with a constant diameter over the embedment depth the influence length lf
equals the embedment depth hef. As described in Section 2.2, a lot of factors influence the
load-bearing capacity. Therefore, the test program is carried out in one concrete batch with
the same test setup, same loading and same support described below.
3.2.1.1 Investigated fasteners
Table 3.1: Test program for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the free edge
Anchor rod Edge distance [mm] Embedment depth [mm] (lf/dnom)

M10 50, 100 50 (5.0) / 80 (8.0) / 130 (13.0) / 200 (20.0)
M16 50, 100, 150, 200 80 (5.0) / 130 (8.1) / 200 (12.5) / 320 (20.0)
M24 50, 100, 150, 200 130 (5.4) / 200 (8.3) / 320 (13.3) / 450 (18.8)
___________________________________________________________________________
1)
The reason is that the shear test frame in the laboratory of the IWB is limited to a member thickness of
500 mm. The requirement according to approvals of adhesive anchors is h ≥ hef + 30 mm for M8 to M12 and
for M16 to M30 h ≥ hef + 2d0 (d0 = nominal diameter of drilled hole). To meet these requirements, the em-
bedment depth of the M24 anchor rods was limited to 450 mm, which is a ratio lf/dnom = 18.8.
The test program was planned so that for every tested diameter both the embedment depth and
the ratio lf/dnom is approximately the same. A stepwise increase of the ratio lf/dnom between 5.0
and 20.0 was tested. With such a systematic variation of the parameters, it is possible getting
information about the influence of diameter and embedment depth for different edge distanc-
es. The tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with anchor diameters dnom = 10 mm, 16 mm, and 24 mm. All anchors had a
steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa). For the anchor diameter of
24 mm, testing was only performed up to a ratio lf/dnom = 18.81).
3.2.1.2 Base material and anchor installation
The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete. 18 concrete slabs with
three different slab thicknesses are selected for the investigations (300, 400 and 500 mm).
Width and length were taken as 1635 mm. All test slabs are reinforced at the bottom with two
6 mm bars in every direction. Reinforcement in these slabs was only used for handling the
slabs with the crane. In these slabs, the reinforcement was placed so as not to provide con-
finement to the anchorage (see Figure 3.2).
1 Ø 6 mm
B [mm] L [mm] H [mm]

1635 1635 300
1635 1635 400
1635 1635 500
Transport anchors with swaged

threaded sleeves (spacing 500 mm)
Ø 6 mm
c= 20 mm
Figure 3.2: Schematic sketch of the concrete slabs
The fresh concrete was prepared using weight percentages of the component materials, taking
into account the moisture content of the aggregate. The slabs were produced according to the
requirements of DIN 1045-2 (2001) and DIN 1048-1 (1991). The concrete was processed to a
consistency of F2 (DIN 1045-2, 2001). The spreading width measured during the slump test
was 40 cm. The composition of the aggregates was chosen so that a grading curve between
the standard grading curves A16 and B16 according to DIN 1045 was obtained. The concrete
mix composition is provided in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Concrete mix composition
low aggregate [mm]

water
strength cement [kg/m³] 0-2 mm 2-8 mm 8-16 mm
concrete kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 w/z
CEM I
C20/25 219÷221 769÷794 495÷506 729÷744 160÷180 0.7÷0.8
32,5 R
All slabs were cast in horizontal position in rigid forms with smooth surfaces. The fresh con-
crete was poured in layers and compacted using a vibrator. To determine the compression
strength of the hardened concrete at the time of testing, concrete cubes with a side length of
150 mm were poured as well for every concrete cast in the same manner as the slabs. The
initial curing of the slabs and cubes took place inside of a closed warehouse and began imme-
diately after casting the concrete. All specimens were allowed to air-dry inside of the ware-
house.
The tests were performed on the concrete surface encased by the formwork. The holes were
drilled with a rotary hammer drill (HILTI TE35). A drill rig was used to make sure that the
bore hole is aligned exactly perpendicular to the concrete surface. Furthermore, a depth stop
was fixed to the drill rig to set the required embedment depth precisely. The correct depth was
adjusted with a caliper. Additionally, concrete dust was removed continuously with an indus-
trial vacuum while drilling. Using oil-free compressed air, the concrete dust was removed
from the hole. The hole was then brushed using a hand wire brush (4x), respectively a wire
brush screwed into a rechargeable driller, and any residual concrete dust was again removed
with oil-free compressed air. After cleaning, the embedment depth was measured with a cali-
per and the temperature in the bore hole was checked to determine the correct curing time.
The thoroughly cleaned hole was filled with adhesive. An anchor was placed into the hole and
slowly rotated by hand until it reached the bottom of the hole. The spare adhesive was then
removed from the mouth of the bore hole and the rod was adjusted with a 90° steel angle. The
drill rig and cleaning equipment are shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Drill rig with rotary hammer drill (HILTI TE35) and cleaning equipment
The concrete compressive strength was determined at the beginning of testing. Strength tests
were performed at the Institute of Construction Materials (IWB) in accordance with the rele-
vant testing standards. The measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scat-
tered between 23.3 and 29.9 MPa (average 26.2 MPa).
3.2.1.3 Loading setup and testing procedure
The tests were carried out on the strong floor in the laboratory of the Institute of Construction
Materials (IWB). To ensure a horizontal positioning of the load apparatus and the support of
the concrete slab, the strong floor is placed on air pillows. To avoid a lift up of the concrete
member, it is necessary to hold down the slab. The tie-down was realized by fixing the con-
crete slab to the strong floor with a steel rod. All loading of the anchors was done with suffi-
cient support spacing (six times the edge distance) so that the expected failure body could
develop completely. The supports react against the shear apparatus. A schematic sketch of the
strong floor and the moveable loading apparatus is shown in Figure 3.4.
The load was applied to the anchors by pulling on a steel plate using a hydraulic cylinder
(max load 400 kN). Depending on the tested diameter, different sleeves can be inserted into
the shear plate. To avoid a failure of the inserts, case hardened steel (16MnCr5) was used
(hardened and tempered to HRC60, max. case depth). The clearance hole of the inserts fit
tight to the anchor diameter (M12, 12 mm; M16, 16 mm; M24, 24 mm). The clamping thick-
ness is 10 mm. In every test, a friction reducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete
surface and the baseplate. All anchors were tightened snug tight with a torque wrench prior to
testing (Tinst = 5 Nm).
The applied load and the anchor displacement as well as the crack propagation were measured
continuously and recorded on a PC using a data acquisition system with appropriate software.
The load was measured with calibrated load cells (load range according to the expected load).
Peak loads were reached in approximately 1 to 3 minutes.
Figure 3.4: Shear test frame (loading and tie down system) and photograph of the load application
Anchorage plate displacement was measured with linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDT). The LVDTs were glued to the concrete surface (see Figure 3.4). The displacement
of the shear plate was measured into the direction of loading (LVDT (1)). In order to get in-
formation about the crack propagation, additional LVDTs were glued to the concrete member
to determine the crack opening (LVDT (2) and (3)). The location of the LVDTs is shown in
Figure 3.5. The LVDTs were glued in a distance of 100 mm to the anchor. Cracking in front
of the anchor was measured along the embedment length on the front side (LVDT (4) and
(5)).
LVDT
(1)
LVDT LVDT
(2) (3)
LVDT (4) 15
LVDT (5)
LVDT (4) + (5)
100 100 100 100
Figure 3.5: Location of the LVDTs for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the free edge
3.2.1.4 Results and discussion
In the following, the main results of the single anchor tests are discussed. Details to the exper-
imental tests can found in the test report Grosser (2011a). The measured data are summarized
in Table A-1 (Appendix A).
3.2.1.4.1 Load-displacement behavior
Representative curves observed in the experimental tests were chosen to evaluate the influ-
ence of embedment depth, diameter and edge distance on the load-displacement behavior. The
comparison of averaged load-displacement curves seems not to be reasonable since an aver-
aged curve can falsify the real behavior. This is shown for example in Figure 3.6. The aver-
aged curve is not representative since no first load plateau was observed in all three tests.
50
45
40
35
30
Load V [kN]
25
20
15 test No.1
10 test No.2 First load plateau (not observed in tests)
test No.3 → Falsification due to averaging of the
5
averaged load-displacement curves
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Figure 3.6: Example of an averaged load-displacement curve
In Figure 3.7, the load-displacement behavior is plotted for example for an edge distance of
50 mm and 100 mm. Figure 3.7a) and b) show the influence of different embedment depths
on the ultimate load and the deflection. No influence can be observed on the initial stiffness.
Independent of the embedment depth, the slope is nearly the same for all curves. The dis-
placement at failure increases with increasing embedment depth. It can be also observed that
the post peak behavior is influenced by the embedment depth. With decreasing embedment
depth, the descending branch is steeper compared to larger embedment depth. The reason is
the ability of redistribution of the load along the embedment depth after initial cracking in
front of the anchor. This is explained by means of numerical simulations (see Section 4.5.1.3).
Figure 3.7c) and d) show the influence of different diameters on the ultimate load and the de-
flection. With increasing diameter the initial slope is increasing, since the anchor system is
stiffer. This leads to smaller displacements at failure. For small edge distance (c1 = 50 mm),
the diameter influences the capacity. The ultimate load can be increased with increasing di-
ameter. However, the influence of the anchor diameter decreases with increasing edge dis-
tance (c1 = 100 mm).
14 35
12 hef = 320 mm 30 hef = 320 mm
10 25 hef = 200 mm
[kN]
[kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
8 hef = 200 mm 20
6 15
4 10 hef = 130 mm
hef = 130 mm
2 hef = 80 mm 5
hef = 80 mm
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement δδ [mm]
Displacement [mm] Displacement δδ [mm]
Displacement [mm]
(a) M16, c1 = 50 mm (b) M16, c1 = 100 mm

14 35
M24
12 M24 30
10 25
M10
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
8 M10 20
M16
6 15
4 M16 10
2 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
(c) hef = 130 mm, c1 = 50 mm (d) hef = 130 mm, c1 = 100 mm
Figure 3.7: Load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded perpendicular to the concrete edge
In Figure 3.8, the displacement at failure is evaluated for the tested diameters M10, M16 and
M24. This evaluation is of great significance when analyzing the load-bearing behavior of
anchor groups with hole clearance. With increasing edge distance, the displacement at failure
is increasing. This increase is more pronounced for small anchor diameter (Figure 3.8a). For
anchor diameters M16 and M24, nearly no difference in the displacement at failure was ob-
served for an edge distance of c1 = 50 mm and c1 = 100 mm (Figure 3.8b and c).
10 12
c = 50 mm c = 100 mm c = 50 mm c = 100 mm
10 c = 150 mm c = 200 mm
8
8
6
4
4
2
2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) M10 (b) M16

6
c = 50 mm c = 100 mm
5 c = 150 mm c = 200 mm
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom
(c) M24
Figure 3.8: Analysis of the displacements at ultimate load of anchors loaded towards the edge
3.2.1.4.2 Shear stiffness
Little information about the shear stiffness is available in literature. While it has long been
understood that the anchor capacity is associated with various levels of deformation and stiff-
ness, the implementation of deformation and stiffness criteria in anchor design is still largely
a theoretical exercise (Silva, 2007). However, in particular for anchor groups, the stiffness is a
criterion necessary for calculating the load distribution to the individual anchors (statically
indeterminate systems). This section should contribute to provide more information about the
parameters influencing the shear stiffness and gives a number for the kV-factors of adhesive
bonded anchors located close to the edge and loaded perpendicular to the edge (Table 3.3).
Embedment depth was not found to change the initial slope of the load-displacement curve
(Section 3.2.1.4.1). Therefore, the shear stiffness kV is only evaluated with respect to anchor
diameter and edge distance. Shear stiffness is assumed to be the ratio of 0.5Vmax / δ(0.5Vmax).
This secant stiffness can be taken as initial stiffness, since the evaluation has shown that in-
crease of the load-displacement curve up to 0.5Vmax is approximately in the elastic range
(Figure 3.9). The shear stiffness was found to be mainly influenced by the anchor diameter.
Edge distance seems only to influence the shear stiffness for increasing diameters if the dis-
tance of the anchorage to the free edge is small.
60 35
55 c = 50 mm
Average shear stiffness kV,m [kN/mm]
50
Vmax
30
c = 100 mm
45
c = 150 mm 25
40
c = 200 mm
35 20
30
25 0.5Vmax
15
20
10
15
kV
10
5
5
kV1
0 0
8 12 16 20 24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
δ(0.5Vmax ) δ(Vmax )
Diameter dnom [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.9: (a) Average shear stiffness kV,m evaluated at 0.5Vmax [kN/mm] plotted as a function of the
anchor diameter (b) Assumption for the determination of the shear stiffness
Table 3.3: Average shear stiffness and scatter range for single anchors loaded towards the edge
Edge distance c1 [mm]

kV [kN/mm]
50 100 150 200
M10 8.3÷10.6 (Ø9.5) 7.5÷10.7 (Ø9.0) - -
M16 14.1÷22.6 (Ø17.8) 28.4÷33.9 (Ø31.3) 25.3÷31.6 (Ø26.1) 20.8÷28.5 (Ø25.2)
M24 23.7÷36.3 (Ø28.5) 29.7÷48.1 (Ø39.6) 35.1÷40.0 (Ø37.0) 33.6÷48.4 (Ø43.3)
3.2.1.4.3 Crack pattern
The breakout observed in the experimental investigations was measured after the test and rec-
orded in a protocol. Figure 3.10 shows the description of the measured data. The results of
breakout width, breakout height and first cracking are summarized in Figure 3.11.
Whereas in general for mechanical anchors cracking into the direction of the free edge devel-
ops in front of the anchor, in the adhesive-bonded anchor tests, cracking was observed to start
behind the anchor rod due to bonding with the surrounding concrete. Independent of the ratio
lf/dnom, first cracking in front of the anchor started in a depth of about three to four times the
anchor diameter (Figure 3.11a). Therefore, a load increase for larger embedment depth after
first cracking in front of the anchor depends on the ability of load redistribution along the
lower part of the embedment length. Breakout width, which is assumed in current calculation
to be three times the edge distance, was observed to be between 1.5 and two times this value.
This agrees well with the findings obtained by Hofmann (2005) where an average breakout
angle of 23° was observed. With increasing edge distance, the ratio breakout width to edge
distance tends to decrease. This agrees with results exist in the literature (Fuchs, 1990; Hof-
mann, 2005). Breakout height is assumed to be 1.5 times the edge distance. It is neglected that
cracking starts in a certain depth in front of the anchor. The results show that the breakout
height is slightly increasing with increasing ratio lf/dnom. The averaged breakout height can be
assumed to be three times the edge distance (in accordance with the breakout width as well as
twice the value given in current calculation). The breakout height related to first cracking (as-
sumed to be ∆lf = 3dnom) is averaged twice the edge distance (Figure 3.11d).
First cracking
B B
∆lf ∆lf
α α
H H
β2 β2
β1 β1
Figure 3.10: Description of the measured data and photograph of a section through the breakout
body
20 10
c = 50 mm
18
c = 100 mm
16 8
c = 150 mm
14
c = 200 mm
12 6
∆lf / dnom
Linear
B/c
10 (Reihe5)
8 4
6 c = 50 mm
c = 100 mm
4 2
c = 150 mm
2
c = 200 mm
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) First cracking in front of the anchor (b) Breakout width
10 10
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
c = 100 mm c = 100 mm
8 8
c = 150 mm c = 150 mm
c = 200 mm c = 200 mm
6 6
(H-3dnom)/c
H/c
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(c) Breakout height (d) Breakout height related to first cracking
Figure 3.11: Dimensions of the breakout related to the edge distance

Table 3.4: Averaged breakout data and comparison with assumption in current calculation
c [mm] B/c α [°] H/c β1 [°] (H-3dnom)/c β2 [°]

50 6.0 18.5 3.4 17.9 2.4 24.9
100 5.7 19.6 2.6 24.4 2.1 27.4
150 5.6 20.2 2.4 23.3 2.0 27.4
200 4.7 24.3 2.0 27.3 1.7 31.8
Ø test 5.6 20.3 2.8 22.0 2.2 26.8
Calculation 3.0 35 1.5 35 - -
3.2.1.4.4 Crack propagation
The location of the LVDTs to measure the crack propagation is described in Section 3.2.1.3.
In the following, the results are discussed. When loading an anchor perpendicular to the edge
it is assumed that cracking propagates symmetrically towards the edge (LVDT2 ~ LVDT3).
The results confirm this assumption (Figure 3.12). The mean deviation is 19%. This can be
explained with the inhomogeneities of the concrete. It was found that movement of the
LVDTs starts by an average of about 0.006 mm. Therefore, this value was taken as a criterion
for starting crack opening. In Figure 3.13, the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3
of a single anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge are compared. The crack opening curves
shown in this graph are representative for the measured data of the single anchor tests with a
load direction perpendicular to the edge. Crack opening was found to start at about 40% of
ultimate load. This is in good correlation with Fuchs (1990).
Figure 3.14 shows the crack opening at ultimate load. The mean of LVDT2 and LVDT3 is
about 0.2 mm for a ratio lf/dnom = 5. For edge distances c1 = 50 mm and c1 = 100 mm, the
mean of LVDT2 and LVDT3 at ultimate load is increasing with increasing ratio lf/dnom. For
larger edge distances (c1 = 150 mm and c1 = 200 mm), the mean of LVDT2 and LVDT3 re-
mains constant. Cracking in front of the anchor was not observed in every test. Therefore the
crack width of LVDT4 scatters in a wide range (0.0 – 2.2 mm / Ø = 0.3 mm). In the lower
part of the embedment depth nearly no crack opening at ultimate load (LVDT5) was meas-
ured (0.0 – 0.17 mm / Ø = 0.07 mm).
4.0
3.5 Idealized symmetric cracking
3.0
2.5
LVDT2 [mm]
LVDT2 LVDT3
2.0
1.5
1.0
LVDT4 and 5
∆m = 19%
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
LVDT3 [mm]
Figure 3.12: Comparison of crack width of LVDT2 and LVDT3 at ultimate load
0.8 4.0
0.72 3.5
LVDT3
0.64
3.0
Crack opening Δw [mm]
0.56 LVDT2
0.48 2.5
0.4 2.0
∆w = 0.006 mm
0.32 1.5
~ 0.4Vmax
Measured load displacement
0.24
curve 1.0
0.16 Vmax
0.08 0.5
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Load V [kN]
Figure 3.13: Comparison of the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3
(example: M16, hef = 80 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
3,5 2,5
c = 50 mm LVDT4
3,0
c = 100 mm 2,0 LVDT5
Mean (LVDT2; LVDT3) [mm]
Crack opening ∆w [mm]
2,5 c = 150 mm
c = 200 mm 1,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
1,0
0,5
0,5
0,0 0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) mean (LVDT2; LVDT3) (b) LVDT4 and LVDT5
Figure 3.14: Crack opening at ultimate load
3.2.1.4.5 Ultimate strength
To evaluate the influence of anchor diameter, embedment depth and edge distance on the ul-
timate load, the measured loads were normalized to a compressive strength of 30 MPa accord-
ing to Section 3.1. Figure 3.15 shows the load increase for the tested diameters. Anchor tests
in which steel rupture occurred are not considered in the graphs (e.g. M16, c1 = 200 mm,
hef > 130 mm). The evaluation of the results shows that the influence of the anchor diameter
depends on the edge distance. With increasing edge distance the influence of the diameter
decreases. For an edge distance c1 = 150 mm, the failure load even dropped down for an an-
chor rod M24. The results show that the influence of the anchor diameter on the capacity
seems not to be affected by the embedment depth as assumed in Equation 2.42.
In order to evaluate the percentage increase of the ultimate load with increasing anchor di-
ameter, Figure 3.15b), d), f), and h) show the measured ultimate loads related to the measured
ultimate loads of an anchor bolt M16 (Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16) for the various edge distances and
embedment depths. The maximum increase of the load when increasing the anchor diameter
from dnom = 10 to 24 mm is about 25% for small edge distances (c1 = 50 mm). For larger edge
distances (c1 ≥ 150 mm), the load increase is negligible.
22 1.4
hef = 50mm
hef=50 mm
Normalized ultimate load V u,test [kN]
20 hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm 1.2
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
18 hef=200 1.0
hef = 200mm
mm
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,M16
hef=320
h mm
ef = 320 mm
16 hef=450
h = 450mm
mm 0.8
ef
14 0.6
hef = 80mm
hef=80 mm
12 0.4 hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
hef = 200mm
hef=200 mm
10 0.2
hef = 320mm
hef=320 mm
8 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Diameter dnom [mm] Diameter dnom [mm]
(a) c1 = 50 mm, ultimate load (b) c1 = 50 mm, related ultimate load
52 1.4
hef = 50mm
hef=50 mm
48
hef = 80mm
hef=80 mm 1.2
44
hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.0
40 hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm
0.8
hef=450
hef = 450mm
mm
36
0.6
32 hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
0.4 hef=130
28 hef = 130mm
mm
hef = 200mm
hef=200 mm
24 0.2
hef = 320mm
hef=320 mm
20 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
(c) c1 = 100 mm, ultimate load (d) c1 = 100 mm, related ultimate load
74 1.4
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
70 1.2
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm
66 1.0
hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm
62 hef=450
hef = 450mm
mm 0.8
58 0.6
hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
54 0.4
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm
50 0.2
hef=320
h mm
ef = 320 mm
46 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
(e) c1 = 150 mm, ultimate load (f) c1 = 150 mm, related ultimate load
130 1.4
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
120 1.2
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
110 hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.0
hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm
100 hef=450 0.8
hef = 450mm
mm
90 0.6
80 0.4
70 0.2
hef = 130mm
hef=130 mm
60 0.0
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
(g) c1 = 200 mm, ultimate load (h) c1 = 200 mm, related ultimate load
Figure 3.15: Influence of the anchor diameter on the ultimate load for different embedment depth
In Figure 3.16, the normalized ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the stiffness ratio
lf/dnom. For the tested edge distances, an increase of the ratio lf/dnom up to about 20 results in an
increase of the ultimate load. However, the influence of the ratio lf/dnom on the capacity de-
creases with increasing edge distance.
To get information about the percentage increase of the ultimate load with increasing embed-
ment depth, Figure 3.16b), d), f) and h) show the measured ultimate loads related to the meas-
ured ultimate loads of an anchor bolt with a stiffness ratio lf/dnom = 5 (Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5) for
the various edge distances and anchor diameters. The maximum increase of the load when
increasing the embedment depth from 5dnom to 20dnom is about 40% for small edge distances
(c1 = 50 mm). For larger edge distances (c1 ≥ 150 mm), the load increase is decreasing. More-
over, in particular for larger edge distances the influence of the stiffness ratio on the capacity
follows an exponential function. Only in case of small edge distances the influence can be
approximated by a linear function with sufficient accuracy.
22 2.0
M10 M10
1.8
20 M16 M16
1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5 (lf/d=5.4)
M24 M24
18 1.4
1.2
16
1.0
14
0.8
12 0.6
(M10 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
0.4
10
0.2 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
8 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom

50 2.0
M10 M10
1.8
45 M16 M16
1.6

M24 M24
1.4
40
1.2
35 1.0
0.8
30
0.6
0.4
25 (M16 related lf/dnom = 5.0)
20 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
75 2.0
M16 M16
1.8
70 M24 M24
1.6
1.4
65
1.2
60 1.0
0.8
55
0.6
0.4
45 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
120 2.0
115 M16 1.8 M16

110 M24 1.6 M24

105
1.4
100
1.2
95
1.0
90
0.8
85
0.6
80
75 0.4
70 0.2 (M24 related lf/dnom = 5.4)
65 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
Figure 3.16: Influence of the stiffness ratio on the ultimate load for different anchor diameters
The parameter most influencing the capacity of a single anchor for concrete edge breakout is
the distance of the anchorage to the concrete edge. The reason is that this parameter deter-
mines the size of the fracture surface. The area of this surface in which the power of the edge
distance is 2.0 is reduced to 1.5 in current calculation models. This is caused by the so-called
size effect which implies that at ultimate load the tensile stress taken as an average over the
fracture surface is not constant, but instead decreases as the size of the fracture area increases.
More details to the size effect are given in Eligehausen et al. (2006). The size effect was
found by theoretical arguments by Bažant (1984).
However, in the literature, the influence of edge distance on the ultimate load is considered in
different ways (see Section 2.2), because a better agreement with test results might be ob-
tained by considering an equation in which the power of the edge distance is some other value
for near edge anchorages.
Clear evidence about the influence of the edge distance is difficult to obtain, since the analysis
of the test results has shown that the influence of anchor diameter and embedment depth de-
pend on the distance of the anchorage to the concrete edge. However, knowing that this has an
influence on the evaluation, in Figure 3.17a), c), and e), the measured ultimate loads are plot-
ted as a function of the edge distance under otherwise same parameters. In the analysis, only
single anchor tests are considered where concrete edge failure occurred. The influence of the
edge distance on the ultimate strength can be evaluated in the range for different embedment
depth and diameter. In Figure 3.17b), d), and f), the measured ultimate loads are related to the
measured ultimate loads of single anchors with an edge distance c1 = 50 mm. For comparison,
the load increases in which the power of the edge distance is 1.33, 1.5 and 2.0 are illustrated.
The evaluation shows that an exponent 2.0 overestimates the ultimate loads and leads to un-
conservative results for all tested anchor diameters since the size effect is neglected. However,
with increasing anchor diameter the comparison shows that the edge distance term raised to
the 1.5 power also leads to unconservative results. According to Bazant’s size effect law the
greatest possible size effect which will be obtained when applying linear fracture mechanics
leads to a minimum exponent of 1.5 for the influence of the edge distance. Therefore, this
phenomenon may be explained by the combination of the size effect with other influencing
factors (e.g. concrete spalling). This is numerically discussed in Section 4.5.1.4.
Due to the experimental results, in summarizing, it can be stated that the edge distance term
raised to the 4/3 power is a better predictor of the capacity than this term raised to the 1.5
power. This is in good correlation with the proposed WJE prediction equation for anchorages
loaded perpendicular to the edge which is described in Anderson and Meinheit (2006) (see
Section 2.2).
40 4.0
hef
hef == 50 mm c2.0A
35 3.5
hef
hef == 80 mm c1.5A
30 3.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,c=50mm
hef
hef == 130 mm
c1.33A
25 2.5
hef
hef == 200 mm
20 2.0
hef = 50 mm
hef
15 1.5
hef = 80 mm
hef
10 1.0
hef = 130 mm
hef mm
5 0.5
hef
hef = 200 mm
mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 50 75 100 125 150
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [mm]
(a) M10, ultimate load (b) M10, related ultimate load

100 8.0
90 hef
hef = 80 mm c1.5A
7.0
80 hef
hef = 130 mm
mm c2.0A
6.0
70 hef
hef = 200 mm
mm
c1.33A
5.0
60 hef
hef = 320 mm
mm
50 4.0
40 hef = 80
hef 80 mm
mm
3.0
30 hef = 130
hef 130 mm
mm
2.0
20 hef = 200
hef 200 mm
mm
1.0
10 hef = 320
hef 320 mm
mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
(c) M16, ultimate load (d) M16, related ultimate load
130 8.0
120 hef
hef == 130 mm c1.5A
7.0
110
hef
hef == 200 mm c2.0A
100 6.0
90 hef == 320 mm
hef
c1.33A
80 5.0
hef
hef == 450 mm
70
4.0
60
50 hef = 130 mm
hef mm
3.0
40 hef = 200 mm
hef mm
30 2.0
hef = 320 mm
hef mm
20
1.0
10 hef = 450 mm
hef mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
(e) M24, ultimate load (f) M24, related ultimate load
Figure 3.17: Influence of the edge distance on the ultimate load for single anchorages loaded per-
pendicular to the concrete edge
3.2.1.4.6 Comparison of test results with prediction models
In Section 2.2, various recommendations for the calculation of the concrete edge breakout
failure mode of single anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge are discussed. In Table 3.5
the prediction equations are summarized and the mean value, standard deviation (SD) and
coefficient of variation (COV) are given for the ratio Vu,test/Vu,prediction. In Figure 3.18, the
comparison of test result to prediction equation is plotted as a function of edge distance, an-
chor diameter, embedment depth and stiffness ratio in order to evaluate how accurate the pa-
rameters are captured by the various equations. Anchor diameter and embedment depth are
not limited in the mean equations for the comparison.
Table 3.5: Comparison of various prediction equations to calculate the ultimate strength of a sin-
gle anchor fail in concrete edge breakout with test results (n = 104 tests)
Vu,test/Vu,prediction
Prediction equation
Mean SD COV

(1) Vu ,c  1.8  0.09 f cc ,200  c1  h  2 2
 / c 1
2

 h2 St. Bouwresearch (1971) 1.38 0.51 37.31%

(2) Vu ,c  0.48   c1  (d / 2)  / tan  
2
 f cc,200 Cannon et al. (1975) 0.83 0.15 17.71%

(3) Vu ,c  190  0.23c1  f cc ,200
2
 2/ 3
Paschen and Schönhoff (1982) 1.54 0.45 29.07%
(4) Vu ,c  4.8  c1 
1.5
f cc,200 Shaikh and Yi (1985) 1.36 0.27 19.61%
(5) Vu ,c  0.48  c1 
2
f cc,200 ACI 349-85 (1985) 1.48 0.58 39.22%
(6) Vu ,c  0.6  d  c1   c1  2d   fcc,200

0.5 0.85 0.75
Fuchs (1990) 1.29 0.24 18.36%
 
0.2
(7) Vu ,c  d  l f / d  f cc,200  c11.5 CCD approach (Fuchs, 1995a) 1.10 0.15 13.8%
  
0.3
(8) Vu ,c  1.6  d  l f / d f cc,200  c11.35 Kummerow (1996) 0.97 0.10 10.72%
d  l /d 
0.3
(9) Vu ,c  7.0  f f cc,200  c11.1 Kummerow (1996) 0.69 0.11 15.24%
 l / d 
0.23
(10) Vu ,c  1.4   d  f cc,200  c11.5 Wüstholz (1999)
0.34
f 1.06 0.12 11.39%
(11) Vu ,c  3.0  d  f 1   l f  1  
0.5
0.2
f cc ,200  c11.5 Hofmann (2005)

0.1 l / c 0.1 d / c
0.99 0.11 10.88%
(12) Vu ,c  14.47  c  f cc,200 Anderson and Meinheit (2006)

4/ 3
0.96 0.17 17.99%
f cc ,200   0.02d  0.5  l f /12d 

c10.4
(13) Vu ,c  16.5  c 4/ 3  Grosser (2011a) 1.01 0.08 8.04%
12 mean equations found in literature are compared. For every mean equation, the trendline is
plotted as a function of the various parameters for a total number of 104 tests (tests are sum-
marized in Table A-1 (Appendix A)). As expected, in order to predict the ultimate strength
accurately, the mean equation needs to consider the size effect and the influence of anchor
diameter and embedment depth. Equations which do not take into account these effects are
not suitable to predict the ultimate strength with sufficient accuracy for the entire range of
tested parameters. Therefore, complexity of the equations increases with increasing correla-
tion with test results. The shear equation developed by Hofmann (2005) (trendline 11) shows
the best correlation with test results since the evaluation has shown that anchor diameter and
embedment depth decrease with increasing edge distance. However, for increasing stiffness
ratio, in particular for small edge distance, the prediction leads to unconservative results. As a
drawback which brings this equation into discussion, is the fact that the equation is semi-
empirical which leads to complicated function terms and makes this equation not convertible
to inch-pound equivalent units.
A new proposal (Grosser, 2011a) is given (blue trendline (13)) which captures all relevant
parameters with good agreement to the test results. The average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.01
with a 0.08 standard deviation (COV = 8.04%). The equation is discussed in Section 5.2.
2.0 1.8
n = 104 tests n = 104 tests (5)
(3) (1)
1.8
1.6
(3)
1.6
(4) 1.4
Vu,test / Vu,prediction
(5) (1) (4) (6)
1.4
(7) 1.2
(10) (8) (10) (7)
1.2 (6)
(11) (12)
1.0
1.0
(12) (13)
(8) (11)
(13) 0.8
0.8 (9)
(2) (2)
(9)
0.6 0.6
50 75 100 125 150 175 200 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Edge distance c1 [mm] Anchor diameter dnom [mm]
(a) (b)
2.0 2.0
n = 104 tests (5) n = 104 tests
(3) (5)
1.8 1.8
(1) (3)
(1)
(4)
1.6 1.6
(4)
(6)
1.4 1.4
(6)
1.2
(7) (7)
(10) 1.2 (10)
(12)
1.0 1.0
(13) (2)
(13) (2) (12)
0.8 0.8
(9) (8) (11) (9) (8) (11)
0.6 0.6
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5 8 10 13 15 18 20
Embedment depth hef [mm] Stiffness ratio hef/dnom
(c) (d)
Figure 3.18: Ratio of test result to prediction equation for the concrete edge breakout failure mode
plotted as a function of the (a) edge distance (b) anchor diameter (c) embedment depth
(d) stiffness ratio
strength concrete without influence of the member thickness
The influence of a shear load applied parallel to the edge on the concrete edge breakout is
supported by limited test data only (Stichting Bouwresearch, 1971; Applied Research Labora-
tories, 2003a,b; Hilti, 2004; Hofmann, 2005; Anderson and Meinheit, 2006) (see Section 2.2).
Nevertheless, various recommendations based on theoretical considerations can be found in
the literature.
To provide more information about the parameters controlling the load-bearing behavior for a
load direction parallel to the edge for the concrete edge failure mode, experimental investiga-
tions were performed. Main focus in this section is the influence of edge distance, anchor di-
ameter, and embedment depth.
A discussion of equations proposed by different authors to consider a load direction parallel to

the edge, and a comparison with test data can be found in Section 3.2.2.3.6. A new shear
equation to calculate the breakout strength for a load direction parallel to the edge is presented
in Section 5.3.
3.2.2.1 Investigated fasteners and base material
Experimental testing with single anchors loaded parallel to the edge is only possible in a lim-
ited range since steel rupture even governs the ultimate load for small edge distances.
Testing described in this section was performed in the range where shear strength is con-
trolled by concrete edge breakout (limiting edge distance cmax = 200 mm). Shear tests were
also performed with very small edge distance since in particular for sill plate connections
edge distances of 1.75 in. (44.45 mm) with anchor diameters up to 1 in. (25.4 mm) are com-
mon applications. The tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with
continuously threaded rods with M12, M16, M20 and M24 anchor bolts. All anchors had a
steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa).
Results are taken from different research projects (Eligehausen, Grosser, 2007; Grosser,
2008a; Grosser, 2010a; Grosser, 2011b).
Table 3.6: Test program for single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge
Anchor rod Edge distance [mm] Embedment depth [mm] (lf/dnom)

M12 45 80 (6.7) / 130 (10.8)
451) 80 (5.0) / 130 (8.1)
M16 501), 1002) 80 (5.0) / 130 (8.1) / 200 (12.5) / 320 (20.0)
150 80 (5.0)
1003) 80 (4.0)
M20
1503) 80 (4.0) / 130 (6.5)
50, 100 130 (5.4) / 200 (8.3) / 320 (13.3) / 450 (18.8)
M24 150 80 (3.3), 130 (5.4)
200 130 (5.4) / 200 (8.3) / 320 (13.3)
1)
Tests with edge distance c1 = 45 mm and embedment depth lf = 80 mm and 130 mm are taken from Grosser
(2008a). Single anchor tests with nearly same parameters were replicated in Grosser (2011b) with slightly
increased edge distance c1 = 50 mm. The results agree well with the findings in Grosser (2008a).
2)
Tests series M16, c1 = 100 mm, lf = 130 mm is taken from Hofmann (2005). The tests were not replicated in
this research program.
3)
Tests with M20 anchors are taken from Grosser (2010a).
Testing was performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs. Width and length were
taken as 1635 mm with a slab thickness of h > 2c1. The measured compressive strength at the
beginning of testing scattered between 22.6 and 32.5 MPa (average 26.8 MPa). Detailed in-
formation about drilling and cleaning can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2.
Materials (IWB). The test setup for shear testing is described in detail in Section 3.2.1.3.
However, when applying a load parallel to the edge, some modifications in the test setup are
necessary. The modifications are described in the following. If not otherwise stated for de-
tailed information about the testing procedure, Section 3.2.1.3 applies.
When loading an anchor parallel to the edge, the concrete member is loaded eccentrically. To
avoid a rotation of the concrete slab in this case, a steel angle was mounted to the strong floor
and supported against the concrete slab. The failure body can develop completely without
influence of the support since the shear apparatus reacts against the edge not affected by the
breakout. A schematic sketch of the modified test setup is shown in Figure 3.19.
Figure 3.19: Modified shear test frame for a load direction parallel to the edge (loading and tie
down system) and photograph of the load application
Analogous to shear testing perpendicular to the edge, anchorage plate displacement was
measured with linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT). The displacement of the
shear plate was measured into the direction of loading (LVDT (1)). In order to get information
about the crack propagation, additional LVDTs were glued to the concrete member to deter-
mine the crack opening in front of the anchor (LVDT (2)) and behind the anchor (LVDT (3)).
The location of the LVDTs is shown in Figure 3.20. The LVDTs were glued in a distance of
100 mm to the anchor. Cracking at the front side was measured along the embedment length
(LVDT (4) and (5)). It is noted that in the single anchor tests with edge distance c1 = 45 mm
only the displacement (LVDT (1)) was measured.
LVDT LVDT LVDT (1)

(3) (2)
LVDT (4) 15
LVDT
(1)
LVDT (5)
edge
LVDT (4) + (5)
100 100 100 100
Figure 3.20: Location of the LVDTs for single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge
In the following, the main results for a load direction parallel to the edge are discussed. The
measured data are summarized in Table A-2 (Appendix A).
In Figure 3.21, typical load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded parallel to the edge
are plotted for example for an edge distance of 50 mm and 100 mm.
50 90
hef = 320 mm
45 80
40 hef = 320 mm hef = 200 mm
70
35
60
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
30
50
25 hef = 130 mm
hef = 200 mm 40
20 hef = 80 mm
30
15 hef = 130 mm
hef = 80 mm
10 20
5 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
[mm] Displacement δ [mm]
[mm]
(a) M16, c1 =50 mm (b) M16, c1 =100 mm
70 120
60 M24 M24
100
50
80
M16
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
40
60
30
M16
40
20
10 20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(c) hef = 200 mm, c1 = 50 mm (d) hef = 200 mm, c1 = 100 mm
Figure 3.21: Load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded parallel to the concrete edge
In Figure 3.21a) and b), the influence of different embedment depths on the ultimate load and
the deflection is illustrated. As for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, no influence
of the embedment depth on the initial stiffness can be observed for shear applied parallel to
the edge. Independent of the embedment depth, the slope is nearly the same for all curves.
Furthermore, the post peak behavior is influenced by the embedment depth. With decreasing
embedment depth, the descending branch is steeper compared to larger embedment depth.
The reason is that the residual strength is higher compared to small embedments, because the
load can be resisted in the lower part of the anchor rod. Figure 3.21c) and d) show the influ-
ence of the diameter on the ultimate load and the displacement for single anchors loaded par-
allel to the edge. Analog to the load-displacement behavior of single anchors loaded perpen-
dicular to the edge (Section 3.2.1.4.1), the initial slope is increasing with increasing diameter
since the anchor system is stiffer. It can be observed that the capacity increases with increas-
ing diameter strongly. This is discussed in Section 3.2.2.3.5.
As for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, the displacement at failure of single an-
chors loaded parallel to the edge is of great interest when analyzing the load-bearing behavior
of anchor groups with hole clearance. To get reliable information about the displacement at
failure, testing in only one concrete batch should be compared not to falsify the results. There-
fore, only the displacement behavior described in Grosser (2011b) is evaluated in the follow-
ing.
12 18
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
16
10 c = 100 mm
c = 100 mm
14
c = 150 mm
8 12
c = 200 mm
10
6
8
4 6
4
2
2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) M16 (b) M24
Figure 3.22: Analysis of the displacements at ultimate load of single anchors loaded parallel to the
edge
Pronounced
6 local spalling
5
δ(V90°,m) / δ(V0°,m)
4
3.4
3
2 δ (V0°)
δ (V90°)
1 c1
Large deformation
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
(a) (b)
Figure 3.23: Analysis of the displacements at ultimate load (a) Comparison of the displacements of
anchors loaded parallel and perpendicular to the edge (b) Close-up of an anchor with
an edge distance of c1 = 200 mm loaded parallel to the edge (M24, hef = 200 mm)
In Figure 3.22, the displacement at failure is evaluated for the tested diameters M16 and M24.
With increasing edge distance, the displacement at failure is increasing. Compared to a load
direction perpendicular to the edge, the displacement at failure is averaged 3.4 times higher
for a load direction parallel to the edge. This is shown in Figure 3.23. However, it is noted
that the ratio δ(V90°) / δ(V0°) is increasing with increasing edge distance. This is based on the
fact that for larger edge distances and a load direction parallel to the edge steel rupture is very
close to concrete edge failure. This leads to increased displacements for larger edge distances
when applying the load parallel to the edge compared to a load direction perpendicular to the
edge (see Figure 3.8).
3.2.2.3.2 Shear stiffness
In Section 3.2.1.4.2, it is discussed why information about shear stiffness is necessary. This
section provides information about the parameters influencing the shear stiffness and gives a
number for the kV-factors of adhesive bonded anchors located close to the edge and loaded
parallel to the edge (Table 3.7). As for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge, em-
bedment depth was not found to change the initial slope of the load-displacement curve (Sec-
tion 3.2.2.3.1). Therefore, the shear stiffness kV is only evaluated with respect to anchor diam-
eter and edge distance. Shear stiffness is assumed to be the ratio of 0.5Vmax / δ(0.5Vmax). This
secant stiffness can be taken as initial stiffness since the evaluation has shown that increase of
the load-displacement curve up to 0.5Vmax is in the elastic range (Figure 3.24). The shear stiff-
ness was found to be influenced by anchor diameter only. No influence of the edge distance
on the shear stiffness can be observed.
50 180
Vmax
45 c = 50 mm
160
Average shear stiffness kV,m [kN/mm]
40 c = 100 mm
140
c = 150 mm
35
120
c = 200 mm
30
100
25
0.5Vmax
80
20
60
15
10 40 kV
5 20
kV1
0 0
8 12 16 20 24 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Diameter dnom [mm] δ(0.5Vmax ) δ(Vmax )
(a) (b)
Figure 3.24: (a) Average shear stiffness kV,m evaluated at 0.5Vmax [kN/mm] plotted as a function of
the anchor diameter (b) Assumption for the determination of the shear stiffness
Mean shear stiffness for an anchor bolt M16 can be taken as 24 kN/mm and for an anchor bolt
M24 as 35 kN/mm. This is in good correlation with the results of single anchors loaded per-
pendicular to the edge. The load direction seems only to influence the shear stiffness for small
edge distance.
Table 3.7: Average shear stiffness and scatter range for single anchors loaded parallel to the edge

kV [kN/mm]
50 100 150 200
M16 21.2÷29.6 (Ø26.2) 19.9÷29.6 (Ø24.6) (Ø22.3) -
M24 30.4÷40.6 (Ø36.1) 23.2÷37.7 (Ø30.8) 31.4÷38.2 (Ø34.8) 33.0÷41.4 (Ø37.0)
Figure 3.25a) shows a typical crack pattern observed in the experimental investigations. The
breakout is not symmetrically as it is for an anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge. Fur-
thermore, the local spalling in front of the anchorage is more pronounced. Measuring first
cracking is challenging since the concrete in front of the anchor is crushed after testing. How-
ever, as shown in Figure 3.25b), cracking starts close to the concrete surface. Breakout width
in both directions (in front and behind the anchor) and breakout height were measured. Figure
3.26 shows the description of the measured data. The results are summarized in Figure 3.27.
(a) Crack pattern (b) Breakout removed
Figure 3.25: Breakout body observed in the single anchor tests (load direction parallel to the edge)
B1 B2
α1 α2
β1
H
Figure 3.26: Description of the measured data
Breakout width in front of the anchor (B1) is averaged about 1.7 times the breakout width be-
hind the anchor (B2). Therefore, the assumption that the breakout body of a single anchor
loaded perpendicular and parallel to the edge is identical for both cases (e.g. Mallée, Pusill-
Wachtsmuth, 2007a,b) is not justified. With increasing edge distance, the ratio breakout width
to edge distance tends to decrease. The results show that the breakout height increases with
increasing ratio lf/dnom. The averaged breakout height can be assumed to be three times the
edge distance. This is in good correlation with the results of single anchors loaded perpendic-
ular to the edge (Section 3.2.1.4.3). However, it is noted that due to redistribution of the load
along the embedment depth, the breakout height measured after testing is not necessarily re-
lated to the fracture surface correlated with the ultimate load. Moreover, it should be men-
tioned that in some cases no cracks at the front side were visible and therefore the height
could not be measured.
12 12
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
10 c = 100 mm 10 c = 100 mm
c = 150 mm c = 150 mm
8 8
c = 200 mm c = 200 mm
B2/c
B1/c
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) Breakout width B1 (b) Breakout width B2
10
c = 50 mm
c = 100 mm
8
c = 150 mm
c = 200 mm
6
H/c
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
lf/dnom
(c) Breakout height
Figure 3.27: Dimensions of the breakout related to the edge distance
Table 3.8: Averaged breakout data and comparison with assumption in current calculation
c [mm] B1/c α1 [°] B2/c α2 [°] H/c β1 [°]

50 5.0 12.6 2.7 24.1 3.5 18.0
100 3.6 16.7 2.2 27.1 2.4 25.3
150 3.2 17.4 2.5 21.5 2.0 26.6
200 3.0 20.9 1.8 35.1 1.3 38.4
Ø test 4.2 15.2 2.4 26.6 2.9 22.5
Calculation 1.5 35 1,5 35 1.5 35
3.2.2.3.4 Crack propagation
The location of the LVDTs to measure the crack propagation is described in Section 3.2.2.2.
In the following, the results are discussed.
In contrast to a load direction towards the edge (see Section 3.2.1.4.4), for a load direction
parallel to the edge, it can be seen that the crack opening of LVDT2 and LVDT3 is not sym-
metrically (LVDT2 > LVDT3). The mean deviation of the crack width of LVDT2 and
LVDT3 at ultimate load is about 240% (Figure 3.28).
3.5
3.0
2.5
LVDT2 [mm]
2.0 LVDT2 LVDT3
∆m = 243%
1.5
At LVDT3 = 2.4·LVDT2
1.0
0.5
Idealized symmetric cracking LVDT4 and 5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
LVDT3 [mm]
Figure 3.28: Comparison of crack width of LVDT2 and LVDT3 at ultimate load
As for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge, for single anchors loaded parallel to
the edge, it was also found that movement of the LVDTs starts by an average of about
0.006 mm. Therefore this value was taken as a criterion for starting crack opening. In Figure
3.29 the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3 of a single anchor loaded parallel to
the edge are compared. The crack opening curves shown in this graph are representative for
the measured data of the single anchor tests with a load direction parallel to the edge.
0.4 12
0.36 11
∆w = 0.006 mm 10
0.32
~0.8Vmax 9
0.28 LVDT2 Vmax

8
0.24 ∆w = 0.006 mm
~ 0.4Vmax 7
0.2 Measured load 6
0.16 displacement curve 5
4
0.12
3
0.08
2
0.04 1
LVDT3
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Load V [kN]
Figure 3.29: Comparison of the crack opening curves for LVDT2 and LVDT3
(example: M16, hef = 200 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
Crack opening for LVDT2 (in front of the anchor) was found to start at about 40% of the ul-
timate load. This is in good correlation with the crack opening measured in single anchor tests
with a load direction perpendicular to the edge. Crack opening for LVDT3 (behind the an-
chor) was found to start at about 80% of ultimate load.
Figure 3.30 shows the crack opening at ultimate load. Crack width for all LVDTs at ultimate
load is increasing with increasing ratio lf/dnom. At ultimate load, the crack width in front of the
anchor (LVDT2) is about 3.5 times the crack width measured behind the anchor bolt
(LVDT3). Cracking at the front side was not observed in every test. The crack width of
LVDT4 scatters in a wide range (0.0 – 1.1 mm / Ø = 0.3 mm). In the lower part of the em-
bedment depth nearly no crack opening at ultimate load (LVDT5) was measured (0.0 –
0.44 mm / Ø = 0.1 mm).
3.5 1.5
LVDT2 LVDT4
3.0
LVDT3 1.3 LVDT5

2.5
1.0
2.0
0.8
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.5 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) LVDT2 and LVDT3 (b) LVDT4 and LVDT5
Figure 3.30: Crack opening at ultimate load
To evaluate the influence of anchor diameter, embedment depth, and edge distance on the
ultimate load, the measured loads were normalized to a compressive strength of 30 MPa. Fig-
ure 3.31 a), c), and e) show the ultimate loads plotted as a function of the tested diameters.
Anchor tests in which steel rupture occurred prior to concrete edge failure are not considered
in the graphs. However, anchors which failed in steel rupture in the post peak due to large
deformations are considered as concrete failure (see Figure 3.32). The evaluation of the re-
sults shows that the ultimate load is strongly increasing with increasing anchor diameter. This
is in contrast to anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge where especially for increasing edge
distance the evaluation shows that the difference in capacity for an M16 and an M24 anchor
bolt is negligible (Section 3.2.1.4.5). The influence of anchor diameter on the capacity for
anchors loaded parallel to the edge is stronger for larger embedment depths, which indicate
that the area of the pressure zone in front of the anchor in the direction of loading depends on
anchor diameter and embedment depth (Figure 3.31b, d and f). In contrast, Hofmann (2005)
assumed this area only to be a function of the bolt diameter. The tests with edge distance
c1 = 150 mm and embedment depth hef = 130 mm are not related to an M20 anchor bolt since
no reference test with an M16 anchor bolt exists.
100 1.6
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm 1.5 hef=80mm
hef = 80 mm
90
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm 1.4 hef = 130 mm
hef=130mm
80
hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.3 hef = 200 mm
hef=200mm
70 hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm 1.2 hef = 320 mm
hef=320mm
60 hef=450
hef = 450mm
mm 1.1
1.0
50
0.9
40
0.8
30
0.7
20 0.6
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
155 1.6
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm 1.5 hef = 80 mm
hef=80mm
140
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm 1.4 hef=130mm
hef = 130 mm
125 hef=200
hef = 200mm
mm 1.3 hef=200mm
hef = 200 mm
hef=320
hef = 320mm
mm 1.2 hef=320mm
110 hef = 320 mm
hef=450 1.1
hef = 450mm
mm
95
1.0
80 0.9
0.8
65
0.7
50 0.6
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
165 1.6
1.5 hef=80mm
hef = 80 mm
hef=80
hef = 80mm
mm
150
1.4 hef = 130 mm
hef=130mm
hef=130
hef = 130mm
mm
135 1.3
1.2
120
1.1
105
1.0
90 0.9
0.8
75
0.7 (hef = 130 mm related to M20)
60 0.6
M8 M12 M16 M20 M24 8 12 16 20 24
Figure 3.31: Influence of the anchor diameter on the ultimate load for different embedment depth
(a) Crack pattern (b) Breakout removed
Figure 3.32: Failure observed for some tests with single anchors loaded parallel to the edge (ex-
ample: M16, hef = 320 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
In Figure 3.33, the normalized ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the stiffness ratio
lf/dnom. For the tested edge distances, an increase of the ratio lf/dnom results in an increase of
the ultimate load. The evaluation of the anchors loaded parallel to the edge shows that the
influence of the ratio lf/dnom on the capacity is nearly equal for all tested edge distances. This
is in contrast to anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge where the influence of the stiffness
ratio lf/dnom on the capacity decreases with increasing edge distance (Section 3.2.1.4.5).
To get information about the percentage increase of the ultimate load with increasing ratio
lf/dnom, in Figure 3.33 b), d), and f), the related ultimate loads (Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf~5dnom) are plot-
ted as a function of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom. The evaluation shows that the maximum increase
of the load when increasing the embedment depth from 5dnom to 20dnom is about 40%. For
very short embedment length of only lf = 3.3dnom, a reduction of the load of about 30% was
observed compared to an embedment length of lf = 5dnom. It is noted that for such short em-
bedment depth the failure changes from concrete edge breakout to a pryout failure close to the
edge. This is discussed in Section 3.3.4.3.2.
100 2.0
M12 M12
1.8
90
M16 M16
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5 (lf/d=5.4) (lf/d=6.7)
1.6
80 M24 M24
1.4
70
1.2
60 1.0
0.8
50
0.6
0.2
20 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom

155 2.0
M16 1.8 M16
140
M24 1.6 M24

125 1.4
1.2
110
1.0
95
0.8
80 0.6
0.4
50 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
155 2.0
M16 1.8 M20

140
M20 1.6 M24
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5.4 (lf/d=6.5)
125 1.4
M24
1.2
110
1.0
95
0.8
80 0.6
0.4
0.2
50 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
230 2.0
M24 1.8 M24
215
1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,lf/d=5.4
1.4
200
1.2
185 1.0
0.8
170
0.6
0.4
155
0.2
140 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
Figure 3.33: Influence of the embedment depth on the ultimate load for different anchor diameters
Since the load bearing-behavior of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge is mainly controlled
by the pressure in front of the anchorage in the direction of loading, edge distance is not a
variable that significant as it is for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge. In Figure
3.34a) and c), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the edge distance under
otherwise same parameters. In the analysis, only single anchor tests evaluated as concrete
edge failure are considered. The evaluation shows that the ultimate load of an anchorage load-
ed parallel to the edge can be increased with increasing edge distance.
In the following, a discussion about the exponent on the edge distance is given. In the litera-
ture, the influence of edge distance on the ultimate load of an anchorage loaded parallel to the
edge is considered in different ways (see Section 2.2) because a better agreement with test
results might be obtained by considering an equation in which the power of the edge distance
is modified. Therefore, in Figure 3.34 b) and d), the measured ultimate loads are related to the
measured ultimate loads of single anchors with an edge distance c1 = 50 mm to evaluate the
real influence of the edge distance. For comparison, the load increases in which the power of
the edge distance is 0.5, 0.67, 0.75, 1.33, 1.5, and 2.0 are illustrated.
90 3.5
c1.5A c0.75A
80
3.0
70
c1.33A
2.5
60 c0.67A
50 2.0
40 hef = 80 mm
hef mm 1.5 hef = 80 mm
hef
30 hef = 130 mm
hef mm c0.5A
1.0
hef = 130 mm
hef
20 hef = 200 mm
hef mm hef = 200 mm
hef
0.5
10 hef = 320 mm
hef mm
hef = 320 mm
hef
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
(a) M16, ultimate load (b) M16, related ultimate load
240 3.5
220 c1.5A c0.75A
200 3.0
180 c1.33A
2.5
160 c0.67A
140 2.0
120
100 hef
h = 130
130 mm 1.5 hef = 130 mm
hef mm
ef =
80 c0.5A hef = 200 mm
hef mm
hef
h = 200
ef = 200 mm 1.0
60
hef =
hef = 320
320 mm hef = 320 mm
hef mm
40
0.5
20 hef
h = 450
ef = 450 mm hef = 450 mm
hef mm
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
(c) M24, ultimate load (d) M24, related ultimate load
Figure 3.34: Influence of edge distance on the ultimate load for single anchorges loaded parallel to
the concrete edge
The evaluation shows that an exponent 1.5 or 1.33 as it can be used with good agreement with
test results for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge clearly overestimates the ultimate
loads obtained in tests with single anchors loaded parallel to the edge. The comparison shows
that independent of anchor diameter and embedment depth the edge distance term raised to
the 0.67 or 0.75 power is a good predictor of the influence of edge distance on the capacity.
The theoretical background is discussed in Section 5.3.
3.2.2.3.6 Comparison of test results with prediction models
As for single anchors loaded towards the edge, in Section 2.2, various recommendations for
the calculation of the concrete edge breakout failure mode of single anchors loaded parallel to
the edge are given as well. In Table 3.9, the prediction equations are summarized and the
mean value, standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (COV) are given for the ratio
Vu,test/Vu,prediction. In Figure 3.35, the comparison of test result to prediction equation is plotted
as a function of edge distance, anchor diameter, embedment depth and stiffness ratio in order
to evaluate how accurate the parameters are captured by the various equations. Anchor diame-
ter and embedment depth are not limited in the mean equations for the comparison.
Table 3.9: Comparison of various prediction equations to calculate the ultimate strength of a sin-
gle anchor fail in concrete edge breakout with test results (n = 118 tests)
Vu,test/Vu,prediction
Prediction equation
Mean SD COV

(1) Vu ,c  1.8  0.09 f cc ,200  4c1  h 2 2
 /  4c 1
2
 h2  St. Bouwresearch (1971) 1.58 0.78 49.51%
 
0.2
(2) Vu ,c  2.0  d  l f / d  f cc,200  c11.5 ACI-318-08 (2008) 1.47 0.66 44,51%
(3) Vu ,c acc. to Eq. 2.42 with  90°,V acc. to Eq. 2.26 Hofmann (2005) 0.98 0.14 14.35%
(4) Vu ,c  7.5  d  f 1   l f  1  
0.5 0.2
f cc ,200  c11.5 CEN/TS 1992-4 (2009)

0.1 l / c 0.1 d / c
1.11 0.35 31.37%
(5) Vu ,c  6.51 c  d 0.75  f cc ,200

4/ 3
Anderson and Meinheit (2006) 0.69 0.28 40.31%
(6) Vu ,c acc. to Eq. 2.42 with  90°,V acc. to Eq. 2.37 Mallée, P.-W. (2007a,b) 0.96 0.25 25.66%
(7) Vu ,c acc. to Eq. 2.42 with  90°,V acc. to Eq. 2.47 fib (2011) 1.13 0.16 14.12%
fcc,200  d   l f /12d 
0.3
(8) Vu ,c  43  c 
2/ 3
Grosser (2011b) 1.00 0.12 12.46%
7 various proposals for calculating the resistance of a single anchor loaded parallel to the edge
are compared. For every mean equation, the trendline is plotted as a function of the various
parameters for a total number of 118 tests (tests are summarized Table A-2 (Appendix A)).
The evaluation of test results has shown that the ultimate strength is mainly controlled by
pressure in front of the anchorage and edge distance. Therefore, in order to accurately predict
the ultimate strength, the mean equation needs to consider anchor diameter and edge distance
as strong influencing parameters. Equations which do not take into account these effects are
not suitable to predict the ultimate strength with sufficient accuracy for the entire range of
tested parameters. The shear equation developed by Hofmann (2005) (trendline 3) respective-
ly the modified “Hofmann”-proposal (fib, 2011) (trendline 7) show the best correlation with
test results. Only for increasing stiffness ratios, the prediction is too conservative since the
pressure area in front of the anchorage is assumed to be the square of the anchor diameter in
which the positive effect of an increase of the pressure area with increasing embedment depth
is neglected. It is noted that these equations are quite complicated and not convertible to inch-
pound equivalent units. Moreover, the approach requires calculating the resistance of the
same anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge to determine the resistance for a load direction
parallel to the edge.
A new proposal (Grosser, 2011b) is given (blue trendline (8)) which captures all relevant pa-
rameters with good agreement to the test results. The average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.00
with a 0.12 standard deviation (COV = 12.46%). The equation is discussed in Section 5.3.
2.0 2.0
(2) n = 118 tests
1.8 n = 118 tests 1.8 (1)
(1)
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
(4) (7) (3) (4) (7) (8) (2)
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 (8) 0.8 (3) (6)

(6)
0.6 0.6
(5)
0.4 0.4
(5)
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
50 100 150 200 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Edge distance c1 [mm] Anchor diameter dnom [mm]
(a) (b)
2.0 2.4
(1) n = 118 tests 2.2 n = 118 tests
1.8
2.0
1.6 (1)
(2) 1.8
1.4
1.6
(7)
(4) (3) (2)

1.2 1.4 (3)
(8) (7) (4)
1.0 1.2
0.8 (6) 1.0

(8)
0.8 (6)
0.6 (5)
0.6
0.4 (5)
0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5 8 10 13 15 18 20
Embedment depth hef [mm] Stiffness ratio hef/dnom
(c) (d)
Figure 3.35: Ratio of test result to prediction equation for the concrete edge breakout failure mode
plotted as a function of the (a) edge distance (b) anchor diameter (c) embedment depth
(d) stiffness ratio
low strength concrete with influence of the member thickness
If an anchor which is loaded in shear towards the free edge is located in a thin member, the
anchor resistance decreases since the fracture surface is truncated by the lower edge of the
concrete slab. Experimental investigations with single anchors (Zhao et al., 1988) show that
the anchor capacity is reduced if the member thickness is smaller than about 1.3 times to 1.5
times the edge distance. However, the resistance is less pronounced than assumed by the ratio
of the projected area. This is taken into account by an increase factor ψh,V for thin members.
Additionally, testing with anchor groups loaded in shear towards the edge in thin members
was found in literature (Periškić (2006a,b) and Anderson and Meinheit (2006) (see Section
2.2). Tests described in Zhao et al. (1988), Periškić (2006a,b) and Anderson and Meinheit
(2006) were performed for ratios h/c1 ≥ 0.5. The smallest slab thickness in these tests was
150 mm. However, in current approvals, the minimum member thickness required is
hmin = 100 mm. In such thin slabs no shear tests close to the edge are available in literature.
Experimental investigations with ratios h/c1 < 0.5 are challenging since very large and thin
concrete slabs with extremely wide support spacings are necessary. Furthermore, steel rupture
needs to be avoided in spite of the large edge distances. Therefore, Hofmann (2004) per-
formed numerical investigations to provide first information for the range 0 < h/c1 ≤ 0.5 (see
Section 2.2). The failure load for the simulation with h/c1 = 0.24 is quite high compared to the
simulations with smaller edge distance. Experimental investigations were performed to pro-
vide more information for shear loaded anchorages in thin members, in particular for ratios
h/c1 < 0.5. The investigations are part of a research project described in detail in Eligehausen,
Grosser (2007). Testing was performed comparably to Section 3.2.1. Therefore, in the follow-
ing, only the differences are pointed out.
The tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with M16 and M20 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of hef = 80 mm and
90 mm in 110 mm and 120 mm thin concrete slabs. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nomi-
nal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa).
Table 3.10: Test program for single anchors loaded perpendicular to the free edge in thin slabs
Anchor rod hef [mm] h [mm] c1 [mm] (h/c1)

50 (2.4) / 80 (1.5) / 100 (1.2) / 200 (0.6) /
90 120
M16 300 (0.4) / 350 (0.34) / 400 (0.3)
80 110 100 (1.1)
M201) 90 120 400 (0.3)
1)
Additional tests with M20 anchor bolts and edge distance c1 = 400 mm were performed since steel rupture
occurred with M16 anchor bolts for an edge distance c1 = 400 mm.
As mentioned, testing has to be performed in large and thin concrete slabs to analyze the con-
crete edge breakout load in thin concrete members. Therefore, normal weight low strength
concrete slabs were poured with a width of up to 2500 mm for the tests with very small ratios
h/c1. The measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scattered between 24.7
and 33.7 MPa (average 26.1 MPa). For description of the concrete mix composition, and in-
formation about drilling and cleaning, it is referred to Section 3.2.1.2.
The test setup was slightly modified compared to the setup described in Section 3.2.1.3. The
concrete slabs were placed on concrete cubes and supported against a reaction beam in order
to allow support spacings of up to 1600 mm (four times the edge distance). A schematic
sketch of the modified test setup is shown in Figure 3.36. The displacement of the shear plate
was measured into the direction of loading (LVDT1). Crack propagation was not measured.
Figure 3.36: Modified shear test frame for testing in thin slabs (loading and tie down system) and
photograph of the load application
The results and the implementation in design are discussed in Section 5.5. Detailed infor-
mation to the experimental tests can found in the research report Eligehausen, Grosser
(2007). The measured data are summarized in Table A-3 (Appendix A).
70
M20, c1 = 400 mm M16, c1 = 400 mm
60
50
M16, c1 = 350 mm
[kN]
Load V [kN]
40 M16, c1 = 300 mm
30 M16, c1 = 200 mm
20 M16, c1 = 100 mm
10 M16, c1 = 80 mm
M16, c1 = 50 mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.37: (a) Load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded perpendicular to the concrete
edge in slabs with 120 mm member thickness (b) Breakout of a single anchor with
edge distance c1 = 200 mm (h/c1 = 0.6)
As for single anchors in concrete slabs with sufficient member thickness, the initial slope of
the load-displacement curve is influenced by the anchor diameter. The displacement at failure
increases with increasing edge distance and decreases with increasing anchor diameter (Figure
3.37a). Compared to shear loaded anchorages close to the edge located in slabs without influ-
ence of the member depth, the fracture surface is truncated by the lower edge of the concrete
slab when testing in concrete members with limited thickness (Figure 3.37b). The breakout
height equals the member thickness for all tests with h/c1 ≤ 1.5. The breakout width agrees
well with the measured breakout for single anchor tests without influence of the member
thickness (see Section 3.2.1.4.3). The breakout angle scatters for small edge distances be-
tween 14° and 25°, and for large edge distances between 24° and 27°. The average breakout
angle is 22°.
In Figure 3.38a), the measured ultimate loads normalized to a compressive strength of

fcc,200 = 30 MPa are plotted as a function of the edge distance. The ultimate loads (steel rupture
tests marked separately) increase roughly linearly with the edge distance. This observation
agrees well with the results obtained by Zhao et al. (1989).
80
70
60
50
40
M16, hhef=80mm
M16, ef
= 80 mm
30
M16, hhef=90mm
M16, ef
= 90 mm
20
M20, hhef=80mm
M20, ef
= 80 mm
10
Steel rupture
Steel rupture
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(a) (b)
Figure 3.38: (a) Normalized ultimate loads plotted as a function of the edge distance (b) Actual
area of a single anchor loaded in shear towards the free edge in a thin concrete mem-
ber
The member thickness limits the fracture surface since the breakout height is truncated by the
lower edge of the concrete slab. Figure 3.38b) shows the actual area of a single anchor loaded
in shear towards the free edge in a thin concrete member. Assuming a 35° breakout angle, the
breakout height in a concrete member not influenced by the member thickness is 1.5 times the
edge distance. In design, a factor ψh,V for thin members is proposed which takes into account
that the reduction of the ultimate load by the ratio of the projected areas ψA,V is less than pro-
portional to the member thickness. For the exponent in this increase factor, two different
numbers have been proposed. As described in Section 2.2, Zhao, Eligehausen (1992) pro-
posed to raise the term (1.5c1/h) to the 1/3 exponent whereas Hofmann (2004) indicated that
this term can be raised to the 1/2 exponent. In order to evaluate the influence of a limited
member depth on the anchor resistance, in Equation 3.1 all relevant parameters are considered
to determine the increase of the ultimate load in a thin concrete member with decreasing ratio
h/c1. It is noted that the Equations 3.1 to 3.3 only apply for h ≤ 1.5c1. In a concrete member
without influence of member thickness, the Equations 3.1 to 3.3 need to be taken as c11.5 for
shear loaded single anchors close to the edge.
x
Ac,V h  1.5c1  1.5
  c1.5
     c1 (Eq. 3.1)
Ac0,V h,V 1 1.5c1  h 
With x = 1/2, the load increase in a thin member can be expressed with Equation 3.2.
Ac,V
0
 h,V  c11.5  0.816  h1/ 2  c1 (Eq. 3.2)
Ac,V
With x = 1/3, the load increase in a thin member can be expressed with Equation 3.3.
Ac,V
  c1.5  0.763  h2 / 3  c15/ 6 (Eq. 3.3)
Ac0,V h,V 1
In Figure 3.39, the averaged ultimate loads are related to the test result of an anchorage with
an M16 anchor bolt, embedment depth hef = 80 mm and edge distance c1 = 50 mm. Single
anchors failed in steel are not considered in this analysis. It is noted that the difference in em-
bedment depth (between 80 mm and 90 mm) is neglected for comparison. Moreover, the test
results with M20 anchor bolts are also related to the test result of an anchorage with diameter
dnom = 16 mm since no reference test with edge distance c1 = 50 mm for the M20 anchor bolt
exists. However, this seems to be justified and is not falsifying the analysis since the single
anchor tests without member thickness have shown, that there is no influence of the anchor
diameter for large edge distances (see Section 3.2.1.4.5), even more for an edge distance
c1 = 400 mm. In Figure 3.39a), the related ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the edge
distance and in Figure 3.39b) as a function of the ratio h/c1. The dashed lines represent the
load increase in a concrete member without influence of the member thickness (c1.5) and the
load increase for an anchorage in a concrete member with limited member depth according to
Equation 3.2 respectively Equation 3.3. As mentioned, the anchor resistance in a thin concrete
member is reduced compared to the anchor resistance in a concrete member without influence
of the member depth. Therefore the dashed line for c11.5 does not fit the data points for
h/c1 < 1.5. Furthermore, Equation 3.3 (exponent 1/3) agrees suitably with the test data, where-
as Equation 3.2 (exponent 1/2) leads to unconservative prediction of the load increase. In par-
ticular for h/c1 = 0.3, Figure 3.39 shows a deviation of 35% to the unsafe side between Equa-
tion 3.2 and the test data point.
10.0 10.0
9.0 Eq. (3.2) 9.0

c11.5A
8.0 8.0
c11.5A
7.0 7.0
Eq. (3.2)
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
Eq. (3.3)
4.0 4.0
trendline
3.0 3.0
Eq. (3.3)
2.0 2.0
1.0 trendline
1.0
0.0 0.0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Edge distance c1 [mm] h/c1
(a) (b)
Figure 3.39: Related ultimate loads plotted as a function of the (a) edge distance (b) ratio of mem-
ber thickness to edge distance
strength concrete with influence of member thickness
In design, the influence of member thickness on the anchor resistance of an anchorage loaded
parallel to the edge is considered according to anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge.
That implies that the anchor resistance in case of a limited member thickness has to be multi-
plied with the reduced ratio of the projected areas and the increase factor ψh,V.
Anchorages loaded in shear parallel to the concrete edge in thin members have received near-
ly no research attention. The only investigations providing information about the influence of
the member thickness on the load-bearing behavior of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge
for the concrete breakout failure mode are described in Anderson and Meinheit (2006). The
main conclusions of this research study are described in Section 2.2. Based on the results it
appears that the thickness effect on the concrete breakout capacity can be neglected for an-
chorages loaded parallel to the edge.
Tests to capture a thickness influence for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge for the con-
crete breakout failure mode cannot be carried out straightforward since steel rupture occurs at
relatively close edge distances. However, single anchor tests were performed to evaluate the
influence of the member thickness on the capacity of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge.
Testing was performed comparably to Section 3.2.2. Therefore, in the following, only the
differences are pointed out.
The tests were carried out with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with M16 and M20 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of lf = 80 mm in
110 mm and 135 mm thick concrete slabs. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal steel
tensile strength of 1000 MPa).
Reference tests without influence of the member depth are described in Section 3.2.2.
Table 3.11: Test program for single anchors loaded parallel to the free edge in thin slabs
Anchor rod Slab thickness [mm] Edge distance [mm] (h/c1)

M16 135 100 (1.35) / 120 (1.125) / 150 (0.9)
M20 110 150 (0.73)
The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs. The measured com-
pressive strength at the beginning of testing scattered between 27.8 and 33.7 MPa (average
29.3 MPa). For description of the concrete mix composition and information about drilling
and cleaning it is referred to Section 3.2.1.2.
In principle, the tests were carried out according to Section 3.2.2.2. As for the shear tests in
thin slabs with a load direction perpendicular to the edge described in Section 3.2.3, the con-
crete slabs were placed on concrete cubes. The displacement of the shear plate was measured
into the direction of loading. Crack propagation was not measured.
Detailed information to the experimental tests can be found in the research report Grosser
(2010a). The measured data are summarized in Table A-4 (Appendix A).
Typical failure pattern are shown in Figure 3.40. Concrete edge failure was observed for rati-
os h/c1 = 1.35 and in some tests for h/c1 = 1.125. In all tests in which concrete edge failure
occurred, the failure surface was not truncated by the lower edge of the concrete member.
Even though the anchors were located far away from the supported edge (x > 4c1), splitting
failure into the direction of loading occurred for ratios h/c1 = 0.73 and in some tests for
h/c1 = 1.125. (see Figure 3.40b). In the M16 anchor bolt tests with ratio h/c1 = 0.9, either a
near-surface spalling failure occurred (see Figure 3.40c) or the anchor failed in steel (see Fig-
ure 3.40d).
(a) M16, c1 = 120 mm, h = 135 mm, h/c1 = 1.125 (b) M20, c1 = 150 mm, h = 110 mm, h/c1 = 0.73
(c) M16, c1 = 150 mm, h = 135 mm, h/c1 = 0.9 (d) M16, c1 = 150 mm, h = 135 mm, h/c1 = 0.9
Figure 3.40: Typical breakout pattern for single anchors loaded parallel to the edge in thin con-
crete members (a) concrete edge failure (b) splitting failure into the direction of the
supported concrete edge (c) concrete failure (spalling) (d) steel rupture of the anchor
As mentioned, capturing a thickness influence for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge for
the concrete breakout failure mode is not straightforward since either steel rupture or splitting
failure is controlling the failure for small ratios h/c1. This is discussed in Figure 3.41. Steel
rupture is shown in both diagrams for an anchor bolt with grade 10.9. However, tests de-
scribed in Section 3.2.7 have shown that the resistance for steel rupture is less than predicted
with Equation 2.39. For a better correlation with test results, the factor α was taken as 0.5
(solid line). Splitting failure was observed both for the M16 and the M20 anchor bolt at about
67 kN. It is assumed that the failure load for splitting increases with increasing edge distance.
However, for the theoretical discussion in Figure 3.41, a horizontal line for decreasing edge
distance is drawn since no further test results exist to verify this assumption. Numerical simu-
lations described in Section 4.5.4.2 show that an increase of the distance to the supported edge
does not change the failure mode from splitting failure to concrete edge failure. The splitting
failure mode in the single anchor tests has to be seen as an upper limit for the ultimate load.
This splitting failure mode can only be avoided when increasing the member depth or rein-
forcing the concrete slab. However, with increasing member depth (h > 1.5c1), no influence of
the lower edge of the slab is expected. The solid points in both diagrams show the ultimate
load for concrete edge failure in concrete slabs with sufficient member depth to avoid an in-
fluence of the member thickness. It is noted that all failure loads for concrete failure are nor-
malized to a compressive strength of 30 MPa. The intersection of splitting and concrete
breakout failure represents the transition point at which concrete breakout in thin slabs cannot
be obtained in experimental investigations. The discussion shows that concrete breakout fail-
ure in thin slabs can only be obtained for ratios h/c1 > 1.0. Moreover, it is stated that the re-
quirements in approvals only allow minimum member depths hmin ≥ hef + 2d0 for larger anchor
bolts. Furthermore, high strength steel (steel grade > 8.8) is not applicable.
100 140
122,50 kN
78,50 kN 120
80
74,46 kN
67,61 kN 100
60,13 kN 89,15 kN
60
80
66,37 kN
66,25 kN
39,16 kN
h/c1 > 1.0 60
40
h/c1 < 1.0 h/c1 > 1.1
40 h/c1 < 1.1
concrete edge failure in thick slabs concrete edge failure in thick slabs
20
steel rupture 20 steel rupture
x splitting failure x splitting failure
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(a) M16 (b) M20
Figure 3.41: Example of a single anchor with embedment depth hef = 80 mm loaded in shear paral-
lel to the free edge in a thin concrete member, transition of the observed failure modes
(a) anchor bolt M16, member thickness h = 135 mm (b) anchor bolt M20, member
thickness h = 110 mm
In the following, the influence of member thickness on the anchor resistance for the concrete
edge breakout failure mode with shear parallel to the edge is evaluated. Only single anchor
tests are considered for which reference tests in concrete slabs with sufficient member depth
are available. Reference tests are taken from Section 3.2.2. In Figure 3.42, the ultimate loads
measured in tests are shown both for thin-member tests and thick-member tests. For edge dis-
tance c1 = 100 mm all anchors failed by concrete edge failure. Interestingly, the normalized
ultimate loads were slightly greater in the 135 mm thick slab than in the 360 mm thick slab.
For edge distance c1 = 150 mm, the anchors in the 135 mm thick slab failed either by near-
surface spalling or steel rupture. However, the normalized ultimate loads in the thick slab
were reached in both cases in the thin slab. This indicates that there is no reduction in capacity
for the concrete edge failure mode in spite of the small ratio h/c1 = 0.9. Based on the results, it
appears that the thickness of the member is of minor significance for the concrete edge failure
mode for the case of a shear load direction parallel to the edge. This is in good correlation
with the results obtained by Anderson and Meinheit (2006).
80 1.5
concrete edge failure 1.4

75 h = 360 mm
1.3
Vu,test,h=135mm / Vu,test,h=360mm
concrete edge failure
h = 135 mm 1.2
70
1.10
near-surface spalling 1.1
h = 135 mm 1.02
65 1.0
steel failure
h = 135 mm 0.9
60
0.8
ratio (thin member /
thick member) 0.7
55 h/c1 = 3.6 h/c1 = 2.4 (thick member)
0.6
h/c1 = 1.35 h/c1 = 0.9 (thin member)
50 0.5
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Figure 3.42: Comparison of test results with shear parallel to the edge for the concrete edge failure
mode in slabs with sufficient member depth to avoid an influence of the member depth
and tests in slabs with limited member thickness (M16, hef = 80 mm)
3.2.5 Anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear towards the edge in low
strength concrete members of different concrete mix compositions
In current mean prediction equations to calculate the concrete edge failure load of anchorages
loaded in shear close to the edge (e.g. Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42), the only parameter
describing the base material characteristics is the concrete compressive strength. The influ-
ence of concrete mix composition is assumed not to influence the breakout strength for nor-
mal strength concrete. However, as shown in Section 3.3.3.4.2, the concrete edge breakout
load can highly differ from current prediction equations if the concrete mix composition is
modified (e.g. crushed aggregate instead of rounded aggregate). No systematic investigation
on the influence of concrete mix composition on the ultimate shear strength is known. Section
4.5.1.1 describes the numerically obtained influence of parameters like concrete tensile
strength fct, fracture energy Gf, and modulus of elasticity of the concrete EC since these factors
can change with varying concrete mix composition.
To provide experimental information about the influence of concrete mix composition, tests
on anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear towards the edge in different con-
crete slabs of comparable compressive strength are described in this section.
Table 3.12 shows the test program. All tests were carried out with a vinylester adhesive an-
chor system used with continuously threaded rods with M16 anchor bolts with an embedment
depth of hef = 100 mm. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of
1000 MPa). Four concrete slabs with different mix compositions were designed each for a
target compressive strength of fcc,150 = 30 MPa. Slab I consists of normal strength concrete
with round gravel aggregate comparable to the concrete typically used for the anchor tests at
IWB for which the mean prediction equations are developed. In slab II expanded clay aggre-
gate was used instead of normal strength aggregate. Slab III was designed to represent a con-
crete often used in the US with sharp crushed aggregate (granite). The concrete mix composi-
tion of slab IV is equivalent to slab I. However, steel fibers (type “krampe harex DE 50/1.0
N”) with a dosage of 25-35 kg/m³ were added. Anchors were tested with edge distances of
c1 = 50, 100 and 150 mm.
Table 3.12: Test program for single anchors loaded in shear towards the edge
Anchor
Concrete with … c1 [mm] hef [mm] fcc,200 [MPa]
rod
I - round gravel aggregate 30.3
50
II - expanded clay aggregate (Liapor) 27.9
M16 100 100
III - crushed rock aggregate 32.3
150
IV - round gravel aggregate / steel fiber reinforced 39.0
All tests were performed on the concrete surface encased by the formwork. Information about
drilling and cleaning can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2.
All anchors were loaded perpendicular towards the edge in slabs with sufficient member
thickness (h = 300 mm). The test setup for such a loading configuration is described in Sec-
tion 3.2.1.3.
Detailed information to the experimental tests can be found in Institute of Construction Mate-
rials (2010). The measured data are summarized in Table A-5 (Appendix A).
In Figure 3.43a), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the edge distance.
80 2.0
slab I slab I slab II
1.8
Measured ultimate load V u,test [kN]
70
slab II slab III slab IV
1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test (slab I)
60 1.49
slab III 1.4 1.34
50 1.20 1.22
slab IV 1.2 1.12
1.11
40 1.0
1.00 1.00 1.00
30 0.8
0.75
0.6 0.65
20 0.55
0.4
10
0.2
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(a) (b)
Figure 3.43: (a) Measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the edge distance (b) Normalized
ultimate loads related to the ultimate loads obtained in slab I as a function of the edge
distance
The mean ultimate loads are normalized to the same concrete compressive strength and relat-
ed to the mean ultimate loads obtained in slab I (reference concrete slab). The influence of the
concrete mix composition on the ultimate strength for the concrete edge failure mode is
shown in Figure 3.43b). It can be seen that this influence is higher for small edge distance and
is decreasing with increasing edge distance. For expanded clay aggregate (slab II), the ob-
tained ultimate loads in the tests are significantly lower. For small edge distance
(c1 = 50 mm), the mean ultimate strength is 45% lower, for large edge distance
(c1 = 150 mm), the mean ultimate strength is 25% lower compared to the mean ultimate
strength obtained in the reference slab (slab I) for the same anchor configuration. Using
crushed aggregate (granite) instead of round gravel aggregate, the ultimate strength can be
increased. This agrees with the experimental and numerical investigations described in Sec-
tion 3.3.3.4.2 and Section 4.5.1.1. The tests in slab IV show that the concrete breakout
strength can be highly increased by adding steel fibers to the concrete, in particular for small
edge distance. It is noted that the dosage and type of steel fibers was not varied. However, it is
assumed that the ultimate strength can be even more increased by optimizing the amount and
type of steel fibers.
In the following, the measured ultimate loads are compared with the mean predictions for
single anchors loaded in shear close to the edge for the concrete edge failure mode. In Figure
3.44a) the comparison is shown using Equation 2.41 as mean prediction equation with a pre-
factor k = 0.9. The measured ultimate loads in slab I (reference concrete slab with round grav-
el aggregate) agree well with the calculated values. For light weight aggregate a reduction
factor of 0.6 should be conservatively taken into account. Analog the comparison with Equa-
tion 2.42 is shown in Figure 3.44b). For small edge distance, the calculated values overesti-
mate the measured ultimate loads obtained in slab I.
2.0 2.0
1.8 slab I slab II 1.8 slab I slab II
1.51 slab III slab IV slab III slab IV

1.6 1.6
Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation
Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation
1.4 1.37 1.4

1.22 1.23 1.30
1.14 1.17 1.21
1.2 1.2
1.09
1.06 0.99 1.09
1.0 1.0
1.02 1.02 0.96 0.97 0.98
0.8 0.8
0.72 0.82 0.74
0.6 0.6
0.66 0.63
0.56
0.4 0.4 0.45
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(a) (b)
Figure 3.44: Comparison of test results with current calculation approaches for single anchors
loaded in shear perpendicular to the free edge for the concrete edge failure mode
(a) Comparison with Equation 2.41 (b) Comparison with Equation 2.42
Note that in ACI 318-08 a modification factor λ accounts for lightweight concrete. This value
λ = 0.75 for all-light-weight concrete. In European standards, no reduction factor is proposed
for lightweight concrete. Such base material is excluded and demands for a regulations in in-
dividual case. European standards (e.g. EOTA (1997): ETAG 001, Annex C) explicitly apply
to anchorages in structural normal weight concrete (concrete produced with normal weight
aggregates). Based on the current test results a reduction factor of 0.6 should be used for an-
chorages in lightweight concrete.
3.2.6 Anchors arranged close to the edge in high strength concrete members
The ultimate load of an anchor loaded perpendicular to the free edge for the concrete edge
failure mode is influenced by the tension capacity of the concrete, assumed to be proportional
to (fcc,200)0.5. For a load direction parallel to the edge, the anchor can resist a higher load com-
pared to an anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge. This is taken into account by multiplying
the resistance of an anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge with an increase factor. The in-
crease factor proposed by Hofmann (2005) (Equation 2.47) rises in proportion to (fcc,200)0.25.
Thus, the capacity of an anchor loaded parallel to the edge is proportional to (fcc,200)0.75. How-
ever, applying a constant increase factor ψ90°,V the edge breakout capacity of an anchor loaded
parallel to the edge only increases with (fcc,200)0.5.
Experimental studies to evaluate the influence of the concrete compressive strength on the
capacity of anchors in tension are described in Wörner and Zeitler (1994) and Zeitler and
Wörner (1995). The concrete strength ranged between 30 MPa [4350 psi] and 110 MPa
[15950 psi]. The test results indicate that the concrete cone breakout failure load rises roughly
in proportion to fc2/3. On the contrary, tests performed by Primavera et al. (1997) indicate that
the increase in the concrete cone breakout failure load is less than proportional to fc0.5. Tests
were performed in concrete slabs with compressive strength of 51.7 MPa [7500 psi] and
82.7 MPa [12000 psi]. Eligehausen et al. (2006) assumed the differences in results of Zeitler
and Wörner (1995) and Primavera et al. (1997) may be accounted for by differences in con-
crete mix composition. Pending clarification, it is recommended to take into account the in-
fluence of the concrete compressive strength on the cone breakout failure load to the power of
0.5 and to restrict the applications to concrete grades ≤ 70 MPa [10150 psi]. This knowledge
was transferred to shear loaded anchorages. However, no literature was found on investiga-
tions of anchors loaded in shear in concrete with varying compressive strength to verify that
this assumption is justified.
To provide information about the influence of compressive strength on the capacity of an-
chors loaded in shear close to the edge, experimental investigations were performed both for
single anchors loaded in shear perpendicular and parallel to the edge. A numerical discussion
about the influence of concrete fracture properties on the capacity of anchors loaded both per-
pendicular and parallel to the edge can be found in Section 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.2.1.
Experimental testing described in this section is divided into two test programs. Single anchor
tests in test program I were performed in high-strength concrete slabs in order to evaluate if
current prediction equations for concrete edge failure for both a load direction perpendicular
and parallel to the edge consider the influence of the concrete compressive strength correctly.
Since the tests in test program I show a deviation to the predicted capacity for anchors loaded
parallel to edge which leads to unconservative results (see Section 3.2.6.3), tests with varying
compressive strength – at otherwise constant parameters – were performed to evaluate the
influence of the compressive strength. These single anchor tests are summarized herein as test
program II.
Table 3.13: Test program I for single anchors loaded in high-strength concrete
fcc,200 [MPa] Anchor rod c1 [mm] hef [mm] Load direction 1)

M16 70 80 0° / 90°
66.6
M20 70 130 0° / 90°
M16 70 130 0° / 90°
85.4
M24 100 130 0° / 90°
Table 3.14: Test program II for single anchors loaded in low-strength and high-strength concrete
fcc,200 [MPa] Anchor rod c1 [mm] hef [mm] Load direction 1)

32.4
M20 45 130 0° / 90°
60.7
1)
0° = shear load applied towards the free edge / 90° = shear load applied parallel to the free edge
All tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with either M16, M20 or M24 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of
hef = 80 mm or hef = 130 mm. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel
strength of 1000 MPa). Width and length of the concrete members were taken as 1635 mm
with a slab thickness of h > 2c1. Detailed information about drilling and cleaning can be taken
from Section 3.2.1.2.
The test setup for a load direction perpendicular to the edge is described in Section 3.2.1.3
and for a load direction parallel to the edge in Section 3.2.2.2.
Detailed information to the experimental investigations which are summarized in test program
I can be found in Grosser (2010b). The single anchor tests described in test program II are
taken from Senftleben (2010). The measured data are summarized in Table A-6 and Table A-7
(Appendix A).
The results of test program I are evaluated in Figure 3.45. In Figure 3.45a), on the primary
vertical axis, the measured ultimate loads are shown for fcc,200 = 66.6 MPa and in Figure
3.45b) for fcc,200 = 83.4 MPa. On the secondary vertical axis, the measured ultimate loads are
compared with current calculation approaches for a load direction perpendicular to the edge
(ratio 0°) and parallel to the edge (ratio 90°). The predicted capacity for a load direction per-
pendicular to the edge is calculated according to Equation 2.42. The predicted capacity for a
load direction parallel to the edge is calculated by multiplying Equation 2.42 with Equation
2.47. Therefore, the predicted capacity of a single anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge
rises with the square root of the compressive strength (fcc,200)0.5 whereas the predicted capacity
for a single anchor loaded parallel to the edge rises with (fcc,200)0.75. The results show that for a
load direction perpendicular to the edge the mean ultimate loads agree suitable with the pre-
dicted capacity (ratio 0° = Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq. 2.42) ~ 1.0). Ratios greater than unity repre-
sent under predictions, and ratios less than unity depict over predictions. The ratio 90°
(Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq.2.42 ∙ Eq.2.47)) shows over prediction. The results indicate that the increase
of the anchor capacity for a load direction parallel to the edge is less than proportional to
(fcc,200)0.75.
Vu,test [kN] Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation Vu,test [kN] Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation

120 1.2 180 1.5
Vu,0°
V Vu,0°
V 1.4
u,test,0° 160 u,test,0°
1.1

100
V
Vu,90°
u,test,90° 1.04 Vu,90°
V 1.3
140 u,test,90°
0.99 1.0
ratio 0° ratio 0° 1.2
80 120 1.14
ratio 90° ratio 90° 1.07 1.1
0.9 100
0.84
60 1.0
0.80 80
0.8
0.9
0.82
40 60
0.7 0.8
0.70
40 0.7
20
0.6
20 0.6
0 0.5 0 0.5
8 12 16 20 24 28 8 12 16 20 24 28
(a) (b)
Figure 3.45: Measured failure loads in test program I and comparison with current calculation
approch for single anchors loaded both perpendicular and parallel to the free edge
for the concrete edge failure mode in concrete slabs with compressive strength
(a) fcc,200 = 66.6 MPa (b) fcc,200 = 83.4 MPa
In Figure 3.46, the results of test program II are evaluated. Figure 3.46a) shows the measured
ultimate loads for varying compressive strength at otherwise constant parameters. As for test
program I, the results show that for a load direction perpendicular to the edge the calculation
leads to a conservative prediction of the capacity (ratio 0° = Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq. 2.42) ~ 1.1).
Likewise the predicted capacity for a load direction parallel to the edge (ratio 90° =
Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation (Eq.2.42 ∙ Eq.2.47)) agrees well with the test result for a compressive strength of
fcc,200 = 32.4 MPa. However, for fcc,200 = 60.7 MPa, the prediction of the capacity is uncon-
servative for a load direction parallel to the edge.
Vu,test [kN] Vu,m,test / Vu,calculation Load increase ∆

90 1.8 2.0
V
Vu,0°
u,test,0° V
Vu,90°
u,test,90° Vu,test,fcc=60,71/32,42
V u,m,test, fcc,200=60.7 / Vu,m,test, fcc,200=32.4
1.9
75 1.6 x = 0.5
ratio 0° ratio 90° 1.8
 60.7 
x
x = 0.75
1.4 = 
 32.4 
1.7
60 1.60 1.60
1.2 1.6
1.09 1.10
45 1.5
0.99 1.0 1.38 1.37
1.4 1.37
30 0.79 1.27
0.8 1.3
1.2
15 0.6
1.1
0 0.4 1.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0° 90°
Compressive strength fcc,200 [MPa]
(a) Comparison with calculation approaches (b) Load increase with increasing fcc,200
Figure 3.46: (a) Comparison of test results from test program II with current calculation approach
for single anchors loaded both perpendicular and parallel to the free edge for the
concrete edge failure mode in concrete slabs with compressive strength fcc,200 = 32.4
MPa and fcc,200 = 60.7 MPa (b) Increase of failure load with increasing compressive
strength for both load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge
Figure 3.46b) shows the increase of the failure loads in tests with increased compressive
strength fcc,200 from 32.4 MPa to 60.7 MPa. By comparison, the load increase in which the
compressive strength is considered to the power of 0.5 and 0.75 is illustrated. A discussion
about a new proposal for predicting the capacity of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge and
the implementation in design can be found in Section 5.3.
3.2.7 Anchors arranged far away from the edge
This section discusses tests with single anchors installed with sufficient distance to the con-
crete edge to avoid a concrete breakout failure in shear. Various aspects related to the steel
failure mode are addressed in this section. Therefore, different research works are summa-
rized in three test programs which are described in the following. In test program I, the load-
displacement behavior of anchors with brittle failure at relatively small displacements at steel
rupture is discussed. Test program II provides information about the influence of tensile steel
strength and rupture elongation on the shear capacity. In test program III, experimental inves-
tigations are analyzed to evaluate the influence of embedment depth on the shear strength. For
most of the anchors identification, tests were performed to determine the actual tensile steel
strength of the threaded rods. Fuchs, Eligehausen (1986a) assumed overstrength of the anchor
between 10% and 20%. With this overstrength, the mean value for the coefficient α in Equa-
tion 2.39 was determined as 0.6, since actual steel strength was not measured. In Figure
3.47a), the overstrength of the steel which is the ratio between measured (actual) tensile steel
strength and nominal tensile steel strength is plotted as a function of the nominal steel
strength. It is shown that the calculated overstrength for the experimental investigations de-
scribed in this section increases with decreasing steel grade. The highest overstrength with
43% was found for an anchor bolt with a nominal steel strength of 400 MPa. This should be
considered when evaluating the coefficient α in Equation 2.39 with the nominal tensile
strength. However, it is noted that this is only necessary in case the tensile strength is not
measured.
1.5
Overstrength (ratio measured / nominal)
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9 no overstrength
0.8
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Nominal steel strength [MPa]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.47: (a) Ratio between actual tensile strength and nominal tensile strength (calculated
overstrength) of anchors summarized in test program I, II and III (b) Test setup to
determine the tensile steel strength
3.2.7.1 Test program I
Within the scope of this dissertation experimental (Section 3.3.6) and numerical (Section
4.5.6) investigations were performed to provide information about the load-bearing behavior
of shear collectors. The load-displacement behavior of single anchors is a very important as-
pect to evaluate the behavior of such connections. Parameters like steel grade, anchor diame-
ter, and concrete compressive strength were identified to mainly control the behavior of the
anchorage for the steel failure mode. Anchors made of ductile steels can develop relatively
large displacements at failure. In this case, it is assumed that at failure the load is distributed
equally to the anchors in a multiple anchor connection. The most negative effect on the group
behavior is assumed for anchors with a very brittle failure at relatively small displacements at
steel rupture. Tests found in the literature show very ductile behavior of the anchors. There-
fore, a test program was carried out to provide information for anchors that fail in steel with a
relatively brittle failure (Table 3.15). Testing was performed with a vinylester adhesive an-
chor system with continuously threaded rods taken from one batch. The embedment depth
was chosen sufficiently large to avoid a pryout failure. Detailed information to the single an-
chor tests can be found in Grosser (2008b). The measured data are summarized in Table A-8
(Appendix A).
The load-displacement curves were used as input data for the shear collector simulations
(spring model). The numerical model and the implementation of the load-displacement curves
are described in Section 4.4.
Table 3.15: Test program I
Anchor rod1) Steel grade Base material Loading condition

low strength concrete, high
M12, M16, M20 8.8, 10.9, 12.9 pure shear
strength concrete, steel block
low strength concrete, high combined shear and
M16 8.8, 12.9
strength concrete compression
1)
Tinst = 40 Nm (M12), 80 Nm (M16), 120 Nm (M20)
slab tie-down
load direction LVDT
LVDT
roller bearing
Inserts, tfix = 5 mm
M20 M16 M12
steel block
concrete slab
(a) (b)
Figure 3.48: Test setup for pure shear loading (a) in low strength and high strength concrete slabs
(b) in steel blocks
Single anchors loaded in pure shear were tested in low strength (fcc,200 = 31.9 MPa) and in
high strength (fcc,200 = 66.7 MPa) concrete. The load was applied by pulling on a threaded rod
screwed into a steel element. The steel element was hold in horizontal position with a roller
bearing to avoid a “liftoff” while loading the anchor (Figure 3.48a). In every test, a friction
reducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the steel plate. Additional-
ly, reference tests with the anchors screwed in a steel block were carried out (Figure 3.48b).
Additional testing was performed with a constant compression force on the baseplate while
loading the anchor in shear. These tests should provide information if the displacement at
failure can be reduced in case the concrete is under compression. The tests were performed in
low strength (fcc,200 = 34.1 MPa) and in high strength (fcc,200 = 67.3 MPa) concrete slabs. The
applied compression force in low strength concrete was constant 280 kN and in high strength
concrete 360 kN.
compression load load cell
hydraulic jack
roller bearing
shear load
LVDT
(a) (b)
Figure 3.49: Test setup for anchors loaded in shear with an additional constant compression force
on the baseplate (a) Shear test setup (b) Detailed compression setup
Figure 3.50 shows typical load-displacement curves for the tested anchors. It can be seen that
the initial stiffness up to about 10 kN for the M12 threaded rods, up to about 15 kN for the
M16 threaded rods, and up to about 25 kN for the M20 threaded rods is independant of the
base material. When increasing the load differences in slope due to the stiffness of the sur-
rounding material can be seen. The difference in stiffness increases with increasing steel
grade. This results in different shear strength for higher steel grade, whereas the shear strength
is nearly not affected by the base material for a steel grade 8.8. The evaluation shows that the
displacement at failure increases with decreasing strength of the base material. The tests with
an additional compression force on the baseplate show only a decrease of the displacement at
failure in low strength concrete. In high strength concrete the displacement at failure can not
be reduced if the concrete is under compression. The ultimate load is higher by the magnitude
of the additional friction force which is added to the ultimate shear strength of the anchor bolt.
M12, steel grade 8.8 M12, steel grade 10.9 M12, steel grade 12.9
70 70 70
(3) (2)
60 60 (3) (2) 60
(3)
(2)
50 50 50
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
40 40 40
(1)
30 30 30
(1)
20 20 20
(1)
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
160 160 160
(5) (4)
140 (5) (4) 140 140
(3)
120 120 (3) (2) 120 (2)
(2)
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
100 100 100
80 80 80
(1)
60 (1) 60 60
(1)
40 40 40
20 (3) 20 20
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
180 180 180
160 160 (3) (2) 160 (3) (2)
(3)
(2)
140 140 140
120 120 120
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
100 100 100

80 80 80 (1)
(1)
60 (1) 60 60
40 40 40
20 20 20
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Notation:
(1) = low strength concrete, shear load
(2) = high strength concrete, shear load
(3) = steel block, shear load
(4) = low strength concrete, shear load + constant compression load (280 kN)
(5) = high strength concrete, shear load + constant compression load (360 kN)
Figure 3.50: Load-displacement curves of single anchors failed in steel
In Figure 3.51, the failure patterns are compared for example for an M20 threaded rod loaded
in shear. For anchors with steel grade 8.8, there is no concrete spalling visible in front of the
anchor for both tests in low strength and high strength concrete. This explains that there is no
difference in shear strength compared to the same anchor loaded in shear in a steel block. For
steel grade 12.9, concrete spalling is pronounced in front of the anchor loaded in shear in low
strength concrete (Figure 3.51c). This explains the reduction of 14% in shear strength com-
pared to the same anchor loaded in shear in high strength concrete or in a steel block.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 3.51: Failure patterns of single anchors under shear failed in steel (a) M20, steel grade 8.8,
sheared off in low strength concrete (b) M20, steel grade 8.8, sheared off in high
strength concrete (c) M20, steel grade 12.9, sheared off in low strength concrete
(d) M20, steel grade 12.9, sheared off in high strength concrete
As explained in Section 2.3.1, steel failure of anchors loaded in shear is a quite complex fail-
ure mode due to the interaction of shear, tension and bending forces developed in the anchor.
This was first described by Pauley et al. (1974) who pointed out that these three mechanisms
are controlling the shear strength compared to a pure steel rupture (Figure 3.52a). The differ-
ence in the failure section observed in the single anchor tests is shown in Figure 3.52b) - e).
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Concrete surface
(b) (c) (d) (e)
(a)
Figure 3.52: Failure mechanism of single anchors under shear failed in steel (a) Dowel action
according to Pauley et al. (1974) (b) Anchor was loaded in shear in low strength
concrete, test stopped just before steel rupture and anchor was removed out of the
borehole (c) Anchor was loaded in shear in low strength concrete and sheared off
(d) Anchor was loaded in shear in a steel block and sheared off (e) Anchor was loaded
in pure tension to determine the actual steel strength
In Figure 3.53, the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the nominal tensile
steel strength. Moreover, the percentage increase of the mean ultimate load related to the
mean ultimate load of anchors with a steel grade 8.8 is shown. The simplified calculation ap-
proach according to Equation 2.39 considers the ultimate load to be proportional to the nomi-
nal steel strength. This assumption is unconservative in low strength concrete, in particular for
larger diameters with high steel grade.
180 180 180

36%
19%
160 160 32% 160
22%

7% 24%
140 140 140
120 120 120

29% 36%
14% 24% 29% 26%
100 100 100
80 80 80
15% 31% 27% 40% 29% 50%
60 60 60
40 M12 40 M12 40 M12
M16 M16 M16

20 20 20
M20 M20 M20
0 0 0
800 1000 1200 800 1000 1200 800 1000 1200
Nominal strength [MPa] Nominal strength [MPa] Nominal strength [MPa]
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3.53: Measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the nominal tensile steel strength (a)
tests in low strength concrete (b) tests in high strength concrete (c) reference tests in a
steel block
3.2.7.2 Test program II
As shown in Section 2.3.1 the mean prediction equation of a single anchor only considers the
cross section of the anchor rod and the tensile steel strength as variables influencing the fail-
ure load for the steel failure mode. No tests are known to provide information about the influ-
ence of the anchor ductility on the load-bearing behavior. Therefore, tests with adhesive
bonded anchors were performed with measured tensile steel strength of the threaded rods
ranging between 451 MPa and 1513 MPa with various ductilities. For definition of ductility,
the rupture elongation measured over a length of five bolt diameter was taken as criterion.
The measured rupture elongation A5 ranged between 5.9% and 26.7%. The material properties
of the tested anchors and the individual test results are summarized in Table A-9 and Table A-
10 (Appendix A). More details are given in Sulejmani (2011). Threaded anchor rods M8, M12
and M16 were tested both in low strength (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) and high strength
(fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) concrete. The anchors were embedded 8dnom deep into the hardened con-
crete.
(a) test setup I (b) test setup II
Figure 3.54: Two types of test setup for the steel rupture shear tests
Two types of test setup shown in Figure 3.54 were used to investigate the influence of loading
condition. Test setup I is comparable to the test setup described in Figure 3.48a. The steel
beam was replaced by a steel angle screwed into the strong floor. The roller bearing is mount-
ed to the steel angle and is adjustable in height to optimize testing procedure. Test setup II is
comparable to the test setup described in Section 3.2.1.3. The load was applied to the anchors
by pulling on a threaded rod screwed into a steel plate. Difference is that the fixture is re-
straint in horizontal position and no rotation of the fixture is possible in test setup I whereas
the fixture can rotate and can lift off while loading the anchor in test setup II.
3.2.7.2.1 Influence of loading condition
In Figure 3.55, the influence of loading condition is compared for test setup I and test setup II.
Based on the comparison, it appears that the loading condition has no significant influence on
the steel capacity. The average of the ratio Vu,m,test (test setup I) / Vu,m,test (test setup II) is 1.02
and the standard deviation is 0.04 with a coefficient of variation of 3.71% (n = 276). Moreo-
ver, no significant influence of the load application on the displacement at failure could be
observed. The average of the ratio δu,m,test (test setup I) / δu,m,test (test setup II) is 1.05 and the
standard deviation is 0.2 with a coefficient of variation of 19.15%.
100 12
90 Mean = 1.02 11 Mean = 1.05

Standard deviation = 0.04 10 Standard deviation = 0.2
80
COV [%] = 3.71 COV [%] = 19.15
Vu,m,test (test setup II) [kN]
9
δm,test (test setup II) [mm]
70
8
60 7
50 6
40 5
4
30
M8 3 M8
20
M12 2 M12
10 M16 1 M16
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Vu,m,test (test setup I) [kN] δm,test (test setup I) [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.55: Comparison between test results obtained with test setup I and test results obtained
with test setup II (a) average ultimate loads (b) average displacements at failure
3.2.7.2.2 Influence of thickness of the plate
A series of shear tests was performed with two plate thicknesses to investigate the effect on
shear strength. Tests were performed with M8 and M16 anchor bolts with a plate thickness of
10 mm and 30 mm. The clearance hole in the plate was 9 mm for M8 bolts and 18 mm for
M16 bolts. All anchors failed in steel. No influence on the shear strength could be observed
for the M16 anchors. The mean shear strength of the M8 anchors is 7% lower for the tests
performed with the 30 mm thick plate. The displacements at failure are slightly increased with
reduced plate thickness for both the M8 and M16 anchors. Due to the little influence, it seems
to be justified neglecting the effect of plate thickness on the shear capacity and analyze the
results together in a database for the evaluation of shear tests found in literature.
25 100
(1)
(1) 90
(2) (2)
20 80
70
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
15 60
50 ∆V = 0%
∆V = 7%
∆δ = 10%
10 ∆δ = 24% 40
30
5 (1) t = 10 mm 20 (1) t = 10 mm
(2) t = 30 mm 10 (2) t = 30 mm
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(a) (b)
Figure 3.56: Load-displacement curves for varying plate thickness (a) M8 (b) M16
3.2.7.2.3 Influence of base material
In Figure 3.57, the influence of the compressive strength of the concrete (influence of the an-
chorage component) is compared for fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa and fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa.
100 12
90 Mean = 1.04 11 Mean = 0.83

Standard deviation = 0.05 10 Standard deviation = 0.11
Vu,m,test (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) [kN]
80
δm,test (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) [kN]
COV [%] = 5.15 9 COV [%] = 13.89

70
8
60 7
50 6
trendline
40 5
4
30
M8 3 M8
20
M12 2 M12
10 M16 1 M16
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Vu,m,test (fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) [kN] δm,test (fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) [kN]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.57: Comparison between test results obtained in concrete with various compressive
strengths (a) average ultimate loads (b) average displacements at failure
An influence of the compressive strength on the shear capacity could not be observed in the
tests. The average of the ratio Vu,m,test (fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) / Vu,m,test (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) is 1.04,
and the standard deviation is 0.05 with a coefficient of variation of 5.15% (n = 276). Howev-
er, the evaluation of the results shows an influence of the compressive strength on the dis-
placement at failure. In concrete with fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa, the displacement at failure is higher
compared to the displacement at failure for concrete with fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa. The average of
the ratio δm,test (fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa) / δm,test (fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa) is 0.83 and the standard deviation
is 0.11 with a coefficient of variation of 13.89%.
3.2.7.2.4 Influence of tensile steel strength
Based on the results described in Section 3.2.7.2.1 and Section 3.2.7.2.3, it seems to be justi-
fied to group and analyze the ultimate loads together for the evaluation of the influence of
tensile strength and rupture elongation on the shear steel strength.
In Figure 3.58a), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the measured tensile
steel strength. With increasing tensile steel strength, the ultimate loads increase by tendency.
However, it can also be seen that some anchors fail in steel at a higher load compared to oth-
ers with higher tensile steel strength. This effect can be explained by the rupture elongation
which influences the shear capacity. The influence of the rupture elongation is discussed in
Section 3.2.7.2.5. Figure 3.58b) shows the comparison of the measured ultimate loads with
the tensile capacity (Nu = AS ∙ fu). This evaluation allows a verification of the coefficient α in
Equation 2.39. The coefficient α decreases with increasing tensile steel strength and is not
constant as assumed in Equation 2.39. The values scatter between 0.4 and 0.72. This observa-
tion correlates with the prediction for shearing of bolts for steel structures where the coeffi-
cient α depends on the steel grade. This is discussed in Section 5.4.
100 1.0
M8 M8
90 0.9
Predicton according
M12 M12 to Equation 2.39
80 0.8
M16 M16
70 0.7
Vu,test /(As*fu)
60 0.6
Vu,test [kN]
50 0.5
40 0.4
30 0.3
20 0.2 Mean = 0.55

Standard deviation = 0.07
10 0.1
COV [%] = 13.22
0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Measured tensile strength fu [MPa] Measured tensile strength fu [MPa]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.58: Evaluation of the influence of tensile steel strength (a) measured ultimate loads plot-
ted as a function of the measured tensile strength (b) measured ultimate loads related
to the tensile capacity plotted as a function of the measured tensile strength
3.2.7.2.5 Influence of rupture elongation
The rupture elongation is assumed not to affect the steel capacity. Therefore, as described in
Section 2.3.1, the prediction equation for steel rupture considers tensile steel strength as the
only material property to influence the steel capacity. Rupture elongation is assumed only to
have an influence on the displacement behavior of the anchorage. In order to provide infor-
mation for the influence of the rupture elongation, in the following, the load-displacement
behavior of anchors with various rupture elongations is discussed.
25 90
(1)
80
20 70
(2)
60
(2)
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
15 ∆V = 27%
(1) 50
∆V = 37% ∆δ = 134%
∆δ = 222% 40
10
30
5 20
(1) M8_862.66_5.85 (1) M16_781.67_21.37
10 (2) M16_829.86_9.36
(2) M8_863.8_18.29
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(a) (b)
Figure 3.59: (a) Load-displacement curves for anchors with varying rupture elongation at compa-
rable tensile steel strengths (a) M8 (b) M16
In Figure 3.59, selected load-displacement curves with comparable tensile steel strength are
compared for the M8 and M16 anchor tests. Interestingly, the results show that there is a sig-
nificant influence of the rupture elongation on the shear steel strength. Differences in ultimate
strength of up to 40% for same anchor diameter and same actual tensile steel strength were
observed in the experimental investigations. The load-displacement behavior for same anchor
size and comparable tensile steel strength is congruent up to the rupture of the anchor with
more brittle steel. For anchors with higher ductility, the inclined tension (kinking effect de-
scribed in Pauley et al., 1974) can be resisted by the anchor.
In Figure 3.60, an idealization of the load-displacement behavior of anchors with a large rup-
ture elongation is shown. For tests where Point A can be identified, the evaluation shows that
this point represents a load of about 40% of the tensile steel strength (V = 0.4 ∙ AS ∙ fu).
20 20
Point B
18 18 “Tensile tie”
16 16
14 14 Point A
Load increase with
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
12 12
“Idealization” increasing rupture
10 10 elongation
8 8
6 6 Brittle steel without

4 4 plastic deformation
capacity
2 M8_774.93_20.71 2 idealized l-d curve
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 3.60: Idealization of the load-displacement behavior of anchors with large rupture elonga-
tion
Figure 3.61a) shows the comparison of the measured ultimate loads with the tensile capacity
(Nu = AS ∙ fu) plotted as a function of the measured rupture elongation. The coefficient α in-
creases with increasing rupture elongation. Equation 2.39 leads to unconservative prediction
of the steel failure load for anchors with a rupture elongation smaller than about 16%.
As described in Section 2.3.1, a 20% reduction should be assumed when anchors are made of
brittle steel (rupture elongation A5 < 8%) to take into account the limited plastic deformation
capacity of the anchors (αred = 0.5) (Fuchs, Eligehausen, 1990). Figure 3.61b) shows the ratio
of measured ultimate loads to the prediction equation 2.39 taking into account a reduced coef-
ficient αred = 0.5 for anchors with rupture elongation A5 < 8%. However, the comparison
shows that the prediction equation 2.39 is not acceptable, even if a reduced coefficient
αred = 0.5 is used for anchors with brittle steel.
1.0 1.5
M8 M8 Mean = 0.95
0.9 1.4
Prediction according Standard deviation = 0.11
M12 M12
0.8 to Equation 2.39 1.3
COV [%] = 11.82
M16 M16
0.7 1.2
Vu,test /(α*As*fu)
Vu,test /(As*fu)
0.6 1.1
0.5 1.0
0.4 0.9
0.3 0.8
0.2 Mean = 0.55 0.7

Standard deviation = 0.07 α = 0.5
0.1 0.6
COV [%] = 13.22 α = 0.6
0.0 0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Measured rupture elongation A5 [%] Measured rupture elongation A5 [%]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.61: Evaluation of the influence of rupture elongation (a) measured ultimate loads related
to the tensile capacity plotted as a function of the measured rupture elongation (b)
ratio between measured ultimate loads and prediction equation 2.39 taking into ac-
count a 20% reduction for brittle steel plotted as a function of the measured rupture
elongation
3.2.7.2.6 Evaluation of the coefficient α
The derivation of the constant coefficient α = 0.6 is explained in Section 2.3.1. However, the
analysis of the experimental investigations (see Figure 3.58b) and Figure 3.61a)) has shown
that this factor is not sufficiently accurate to describe the failure load. Therefore, in the fol-
lowing a modified equation is proposed to consider both measured steel strength and rupture
elongation of the steel.
Vu0,S  1   2  AS  fu (fu = measured tensile strength) (Eq. 3.4)
with: α1 = 0.65 for fu < 500 MPa α2 = 0.9 for A5 < 8%

= 0.55 for 500 MPa ≤ fu ≤ 1000 MPa = 1.0 for 8% ≤ A5 ≤ 16%
= 0.5 for fu > 1000 MPa = 1.1 for A5 > 16%
For the total number of n = 276 tests, the comparison of the tests results with Equation 3.4
shows a good correlation with an average test-to-predicted ratio of 0.98 and a 0.07 standard
deviation (COV = 7.33%).
2.0 2.0
1.8 Ø = 0.98 SD = 0.07 COV = 7.33 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 n = 276 0.2
0.0 0.0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Measured tensile strength fu [MPa] Measured rupture elongation A5 [%]
Figure 3.62: Evaluation of the mean prediction for steel rupture according to Equation 3.4
A simplified equation for design purpose is proposed in Section 5.4.
3.2.7.3 Test program III
Anchors located far away from concrete edges fail in steel provided the embedment depth is
sufficiently large to avoid a pryout failure. Numerical investigations by Utescher and
Herrmann (1983) and Fuchs (1990) identify the ratio hef/d = 5 to be large enough to obtain
steel failure. For ratios hef/d < 5, the anchor might fail by a pryout failure. For ratios hef/d > 5,
steel rupture occurs. The results show that the embedment depth does not influence the capac-
ity. However, no investigations exist to verify the influence of the embedment depth for vari-
ous compressive strength of the concrete. The tests described in Section 3.2.7.1 and Section
3.2.7.2 were performed in concrete slabs with a compressive strength fcc,200 > 30.0 MPa with-
out variation of the embedment depth. In order to evaluate the influence of the embedment
depth on the shear steel strength related to the compressive strength of the concrete in test
program III single anchor tests with adhesive bonded anchors with different embedment depth
and various concrete strengths are summarized. The material properties of the tested anchors
and the individual test results are summarized in Table A-11 (Appendix A).
Table 3.16: Test program III
Concrete strength
Anchor rod Steel grade Embedment depth [mm] (hef/d) Reference
fcc,200
M16 10.9, 12.9 80 (5.0), 130 (8.1) 22.7 MPa Grosser (2008c)
5/8’’ (~M16) 76.2 (4.8), 127 (8.0) Grosser, Cook
B7 (~8.8) 34.6 MPa
7/8’’ (~M22) 76.2 (3.5), 127 (5.8), 203.2 (9.2) (2009)1)
1)
Tests were performed at the University of Florida, dimensions converted in SI-units
In Figure 3.63 and Figure 3.64, the failure patterns are compared for different embedment
depth in concrete slabs with various compressive strengths. All anchors failed in steel with
prior concrete spalling in front of the anchor. In the concrete slab with compressive strength
fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa, the concrete spalling is more pronounced for the shorter embedment depth
whereas no difference for tests with shorter embedment depth can be observed in the concrete
slab with fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa. However, concrete spalling is more pronounced for larger anchor
diameter. The influence on the capacity is evaluated in the Section 3.2.7.3.2.
Figure 3.63: Failure patterns of single anchors under shear in concrete with compressive strength
fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa (a) M16, hef = 80 mm, grade 10.9 (b) M16, hef = 130 mm, grade
10.9 (c) M16, hef = 80 mm, grade 12.9 (d) M16, hef = 130 mm, grade 12.9
Figure 3.64: Failure patterns of single anchors under shear in concrete with compressive strength
fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa (a) 5/8’’, hef = 76.2 mm, grade B7 (b) 5/8’’, hef = 127 mm, grade B7
(c) 7/8’’, hef = 127 mm, grade B7 (d) 7/8’’, hef = 203.2 mm, grade B7
In Figure 3.65a), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the embedment
depth for the various concrete compressive strengths. For the tests performed in the concrete
slab with fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa, the capacity decreases with decreasing embedment depth, even
though all anchors failed in steel. This agrees with the failure pattern discussed in Figure 3.63.
For the tests performed in concrete with fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa, no reduction with decreasing em-
bedment depth for the anchors failed in steel can be observed. The percentage decrease in
capacity can be seen in Figure 3.65b). The average ultimate loads are related to the averaged
ultimate loads for anchors with embedment depth hef = 130 mm (127 mm). A 20% load reduc-
tion was observed for short embedment depth. Therefore, in concrete with lower compressive
strength a reduction of steel capacity seems to be necessary to take into account that the con-
crete spalling is more pronounced. This leads to a reduction of the capacity since the anchor
experiences additional bending stresses.
160 1.5
M16,10.9, 22.7 MPa
1.4
140
M16,12.9, 22.7 MPa

1.3
120 5/8'', B7, 34.6 MPa
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test,hef~130mm
pryout 1.2
100 7/8'', B7, 34.6 MPa
1.1
80 1.0
0.9
60 No change in capacity
0.8 for fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa
40
M16, 10.9, 22.7 MPa M16, 12.9, 22.7 MPa 0.7 ~20% decrease for
20 fcc,200 = 22.7 MPa
5/8'', B7, 34.6 MPa 7/8'', B7, 34.6 MPa 0.6
0 0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Embedment depth hef [mm] Embedment depth hef [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.65: (a) Measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the embedment depth (b) Average
ultimate loads for anchors failed in steel related to the average ultimate loads for an
embedment depth hef = 130 mm (127 mm)
3.3 Group tests

Only a limited number of experimental investigations exist to analyze the load-bearing behav-
ior of anchor groups under shear and torsion loading. Therefore, calculation approaches are
based on simplifications which may not describe the load-bearing behavior realistically for all
anchor configurations. In particular, for multiple anchor connections with more than 2 an-
chors in one direction which are loaded in shear or anchor groups which are subjected to a
torsional moment, design has to be done with engineering judgment since no investigations
exist.
Moreover, depending on the anchor configuration and shear loading condition, the individual
anchors in a group may be unevenly loaded which can lead to a total anchor group capacity
significantly smaller than the sum of the individual anchor capacities. Therefore, the number
of anchors is restricted, since only limited knowledge is available regarding the load distribu-
tion to the individual anchors. A better understanding of the distribution of shear loads to the
individual anchors is one key aspect which is addressed in this dissertation. Special devices
are presented to measure both axial and shear loads on the anchors.
The load-bearing behavior of anchor groups under shear and torsion loading is very complex
since many influencing parameters are controlling the capacity, e.g. number of anchors, geo-
metrical configuration (edge distance and spacing in both directions), location of the group
(“in-the-field”, close to an edge or in a corner), and load condition (shear perpendicular, paral-
lel or inclined to the edge, torsional moment).
For a better understanding of the group behavior, it is necessary to provide more information
about the influencing parameters. Therefore, various experimental investigations have been
performed to evaluate the influencing parameters isolated from other parameters. The results
are described separately in several sections according to the investigated parameter. The
knowledge about the influence of several parameters is assembled in a consistent design con-
cept discussed in Chapter 5.
The main focus of this study is the critical case of shear loaded anchorages arranged close to
the edge in order to develop “safe” design recommendations.
3.3.1 Connections engaging multiple anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge
and loaded perpendicular to the free edge
In current design recommendations, a critical spacing of scr ≥ 3c1 is assumed to be sufficient

to avoid overlapping of concrete breakout cones of adjacent anchors. Therefore, for spacing
parallel to the edge s2 < 3c1 the concrete breakout capacity is reduced by the factor ψA,V which
represents the ratio of the projected areas. Since the single anchor tests described in Section
3.2.1 have shown that the breakout angle decreases with decreasing edge distance, the anchor
group tests were performed with small edge distance since this seems to be the critical case.
Moreover, in current design, the number of anchors arranged parallel to the edge is limited to
two anchors (n ≤ 2) (hole clearance) or (n ≤ 3) (no hole clearance). To provide information
about larger anchor groups, tests were performed with 2, 3 and 5 anchors in a row.
All tests were carried out with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously
threaded rods with M12 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of hef = 80 mm. All anchors
had a steel grade 8.8 (nominal tensile steel strength of 800 MPa).
Table 3.17: Test program for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded perpendicular to
the free edge
c1 [mm] Number of anchors s2 [mm] s2/c1 (s2,t/c1)

1 0 (reference test)
2 50, 100, 140, 200 1.0 (1.0) / 2.0 (2.0) / 2.8 (2.8) / 4.0 (4.0)
50
3 100, 200, 100/3001) 2.0 (4.0) / 4.0 (8.0) / 2.0, 6.0 (8.0)
5 100 2.0 (8.0)
1 0 (reference test)
100
5 100 1.0 (4.0)
1)
One test series was performed with unsymmetrical spacings s2,1 = 100 mm and s2,2 = 300 mm.
The tests were performed in normal-weight lowstrength concrete slabs on the concrete surface
encased by the formwork. Width and length of the slabs were taken as 1635 mm with a slab
thickness of 400 mm. The description of the base material is provided in Section 3.2.1.2. The
measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scattered between 22.9 and
26.7 MPa (average 24.5 MPa).
For the group tests, it is necessary to adjust the position of the holes accurately. Therefore, the
baseplate was aligned in the correct position and glued to the concrete surface using a hot-
glue gun. All holes were pre-drilled with a drill bit fitting the clearance hole in the plate. After
pre-drilling all holes to a depth of about 20 mm, the plate was removed and the holes were
drilled to the required embedment depth of hef = 80 mm. General information about drilling
and cleaning can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2. After cleaning the holes, the anchors were
installed and adjusted in the correct position using the baseplate again.
The general test setup can be seen in Figure 3.4 (Section 3.2.1.3). However, for the anchor
tests with 3 and 5 anchors, the load application was modified according to Figure 3.66. The
load was applied to the anchors by pulling on a steel element attached to the baseplate. With
this loading plate a stiff and a hinged load application can be realized. This is explained in
Figure 3.67. Steel strips on both sides of the connection between tension rod and steel element
can be removed to allow the loading plate to rotate while loading. If not otherwise stated the
load was applied with a stiff load application to compare the results with tests where the load
was applied with a tension rod screwed into the baseplate.
Hardened steel parts with an inner diameter fitting tight the M12 anchor rods were inserted
into the shear plate to avoid hole clearance. The clamping thickness is 30 mm. In every test a
friction reducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All
anchors were tightened snug tight with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 5 Nm). The
applied load and the anchor displacement as well as the crack propagation were measured
continuously and recorded on a PC using a data acquisition system with appropriate software.
The load was measured with calibrated load cells (load range according to the expected load).
Peak loads were reached in approximately 1 to 3 minutes.
LVDT(3)
LVDT(2)
LVDT(1)
Load washer
LVDT(4)
LVDT(5)
Spherical cap
(a) Load application (b) Load washer
Figure 3.66: Test setup for groups arranged parallel to the edge and loaded towards the free edge
(a) Stiff load application (b) Hinged load application
Figure 3.67: Types of load application

Anchorage plate displacement was measured with two linear variable displacement transduc-
ers (LVDT) into the direction of loading. The LVDTs were glued to the concrete surface (see
Figure 3.66a). In order to get information about the crack propagation, additional LVDTs
were glued to the concrete member to determine the crack opening (LVDT 3, 4 and 5). The
LVDTs 3 and 4 were glued in a distance of 100 mm to the outermost anchors. Axial anchor
load measurements were achieved using commercially available through-hole load washers
(see Figure 3.66b). Therefore, the anchors had a free length of 100 mm measured from the
concrete surface to the tip of the anchor.
Detailed information to the experimental tests can be found in Grosser (2011c) and are sum-
marized in Table B-1 (Appendix B). In Section 3.3.1.3.1 a discussion of the results for the
group tests with two anchors is given to verify the CCD-method for small edge distances. In
Section 3.3.1.3.2, the results of the groups with more than two anchors are presented to pro-
vide information about the feasibility of extending the CCD-method to connections engaging
multiple (n ≥ 2) anchors in a row.
An in-depth evaluation of the measured axial loads is not given in this section since the analy-
sis of the data shows that there is no benefit for the discussion of the influence of anchor spac-
ing and number of anchors on the group capacity. At this point, it is merely mentioned that
the total axial loads on the anchorage at failure were measured with a value about 20% of the
ultimate shear load for an edge distance c1 = 50 mm and with a value about 35% of the ulti-
mate shear load for an edge distance c1 = 100 mm. However, it is noted that the scatter of the
measured axial loads is quite high which is a further reason not to evaluate the results more
detailed since only less reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the data.
3.3.1.3.1 Groups with two anchors in a row
In all tests a concrete edge breakout failure was observed. Typical breakout pattern for a
group with two anchors with close and wide anchor spacings are shown in Figure 3.68. A
common failure body was observed for both close and wide anchor spacings. Cracking be-
tween the anchors is nearly parallel to the edge for close anchor spacing whereas for anchor
spacing of 200 mm cracking in between the anchors tends to incline towards the free edge.
(a) s2 = 50 mm (s2/c1 = 1.0) (b) s2 = 140 mm (s2/c1 = 2.8) (c) s2 = 200 mm (s2/c1 = 4.0)
Figure 3.68: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with two anchors with an edge distance
c1 = 50 mm and different anchor spacings s2
In Figure 3.69a), typical load-displacement curves of the single anchor and group tests with
two anchors are shown for an edge distance c1 = 50 mm. The ultimate load increases with
increasing anchor spacing. For comparison, the “doubled” single anchor load-displacement
curve is shown which agrees well with the group result for an anchor spacing of 200 mm.
Initial stiffness for the group tests is about two times the initial stiffness of the single anchor
tests.
To evaluate at which anchor spacing s2 the group capacity is not reduced, the averaged ulti-
mate loads of the group tests are compared with the averaged ultimate load of the single an-
chor tests with same edge distance. For comparison the increase of the group resistance ac-
cording to the CCD-method is plotted (Figure 3.69b). The anchor group capacity equals two
times the capacity of a single anchor with the same edge distance for a spacing of s2 = 4c1.
Moreover, the evaluation shows that the group capacity does not increase linearly with in-
creasing anchor spacing for edge distance c1 = 50 mm.
25 2.5
s2 = 200 mm
ψA,V (CCD-method)
2*Single anchor
20 2.0
Vu,m,test / Vu,m,test (s=0mm)
15 s2 = 140 mm 1.5
Load V [kN]
10 1.0
5 s2 = 100 mm 0.5
Single anchor n = 2, c = 50 mm
s2 = 50 mm
0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement δ [mm] s2/c1
(a) (b)
Figure 3.69: (a) Typical load-displacement curves of the anchors with c1 = 50 mm (b) Ratio of the
measured ultimate loads in the group tests to the measured ultimate loads in the single
anchor tests plotted as a function of the ratio s2/c1
3.3.1.3.2 Groups with three and five anchors in a row
Typical breakout pattern for the groups with three and five anchors in a row are shown in
Figure 3.70. In most of the tests an unsymmetrical cracking towards the edge was observed.
In some tests not all anchors failed in concrete edge breakout (e.g. test No.2, Figure 3.70a).
This is confirmed by the measurements of the LVDTs (3) and (4) which measured the crack
opening close to the outermost anchors. Although the tests were performed without hole
clearance, even breakout of the anchors cannot be guaranteed.
(a) n = 3, s2,t = 400 mm (s2,t/c1 = 8.0) (b) n = 5, s2,t = 400 mm (s2,t/c1 = 8.0)
Figure 3.70: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with three and five anchors with edge
distance c1 = 50 mm
Breakout patterns of preliminary tests with uneven anchor spacings for a stiff and a hinged
load application are shown in Figure 3.71. Differences in the crack pattern can be seen in the
post peak. However, the measurements of the LVDTs (3) and (4) show that in both cases the
two anchors with closer spacing fail prior to the third anchor. This is to be expected as the
single anchor acts as one anchor and the group of two anchors gets a reduction (i.e. less than
two times the load of a single anchor). The anchor configuration is actually a single anchor
and a group of two anchors loaded with one baseplate.
Since there is only little difference in ultimate strength between stiff and hinged load applica-
tion, for the evaluation of the ultimate loads, the tests are analyzed together.
Figure 3.71: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with three anchors with edge distance
c1 = 50 mm and uneven anchor spacing s2,1 = 100 mm and s2,2 = 300 mm
A further test series with an anchor group with five anchors was performed with stiff and
hinged load application. Only little difference in ultimate strength was observed. Summariz-
ing, it can be stated that the load application as varied in the tests is a parameter which is of
minor influence on the ultimate breakout strength of an anchorage loaded concentrically to-
wards the free edge.
In Figure 3.72a), typical load-displacement curves of single anchor and group tests with three
and five anchors are shown. For comparison, the “tripled” and “quintupled” single anchor
load-displacement curves are plotted. The initial stiffness in the group tests is about n2-times
the initial stiffness measured in the single anchor tests (n2 = number of anchors in the row
parallel to the edge). The ultimate load of the group increases with increasing anchor spacing
of the outermost anchors (s2,t).
60 140
5*Single anchor
5*Single anchor
50 120
3*Single anchor
s2 = 100 mm, n = 5 100
40
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
s2 = 100/300 mm, n = 3 80
30 s2 = 100 mm, n = 5
s2 = 200 mm, n = 3 60
20 s2 = 100 mm, n = 3
40
10
20
Single anchor Single anchor
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
(a) c1 = 50 mm (b) c1 = 100 mm
Figure 3.72: Typical load-displacement curves observed in the anchor tests with three and five
anchors compared with the load-displacement curve of a single anchor with same
edge distance
The load increase of the anchor group compared to the single anchor is shown in Figure
3.73a). It is noted that the load increase is plotted as a function of the ratio s2,t/c1 which repre-
sents the spacing of the outermost anchors to the edge distance. For comparison, the load in-
crease according to the ratio of the projected areas limited to the actual number of anchors in
the group is plotted (extended CCD-method for more than two anchors). According to the
extended CCD-method, a ratio s2,t/c1 = 6.0 is required to obtain an ultimate load of three times
the single anchor capacity for an anchor group with three anchors and a ratio s2,t/c1 = 12.0 to
obtain an ultimate load of five times the single anchor capacity for an anchor group with five
anchors.
The results of groups with two anchors show a critical spacing of s2,crit = 4c1 for an edge dis-
tance c1 = 50 mm (Figure 3.69b). Therefore, the capacity of a group with three anchors is
expected to be three times the single anchor capacity for s2,t/c1 = 8.0, which is 2s2,crit. Howev-
er, the observed group capacity is only about two times the single anchor capacity. This can
be explained by the fact that the anchors in the group are unevenly loaded. The group capacity
with 5 anchors is only slightly increased compared to the group with three anchors with the
same outermost anchor spacing.
For an anchor group with five anchors having an edge distance c1 = 100 mm, the results agree
much better with the extended CCD-method. This is explained by means of numerical simula-
tions described in Section 4.5.3.
6.0 3.0
n = 3, c = 50 mm 25% load reduction
n=5
5.0 2.5
n = 5, c = 50 mm

n = 5, c = 100 mm
4.0 2.0
n=3
3.0 1.5
2.0 1.0
ψA,V s2 = 100 mm
s2 mm
1.0 0.5
(CCD-method
s2 = 200 mm
s2 mm
extended)
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s2,t/c1 Number of anchors
(a) (b)
Figure 3.73: Ratio of the measured ultimate loads in the group tests to the measured ultimate loads
in the single anchor tests plotted as a function of (a) the ratio of the outermost anchor
spacing to the edge distance s2,t/c1 (b) the number of anchors in the group for the indi-
vidual anchor spacings s2
In Figure 3.73b), the load increase of the group capacity compared to the single anchor re-
sistance for the individual spacings is plotted as the number of anchors in the group. The ca-
pacity increases when adding an anchor with the same individual anchor spacing since the
outermost anchor spacing increases. However, for constant outermost anchor spacing, the
load decreases when adding an anchor in between the outer anchors if the spacing is smaller
than the critical anchor spacing s2,cr. For example, the ultimate load of the group with three
anchors and an outermost anchor spacing s2,t = 200 mm is about 25% lower than the ultimate
load of a group with two anchors having the same outermost anchor spacing. This is discussed
in Section 4.5.3.2.
3.3.2 Connections engaging multiple anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge
and loaded parallel to the free edge
In case a multiple anchor connection is arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
free edge, it is assumed that the anchor spacing influences the capacity in the same manner as
for the same connection loaded perpendicular to the free edge. Therefore, likewise a critical
spacing of scr ≥ 3c1 applies for a connection loaded parallel to the edge. The increase in capac-
ity due to the changed load direction is taken into account by simply multiplying the re-
sistance of the group with a constant factor ψ90°,V. This is explained in Section 2.3.3. Conse-
quently, the load-bearing behavior is considered to be the same for the connection loaded per-
pendicular and parallel to the edge. In case the factor ψ90°,V is applied according to Equation
2.47, the s2-spacing effect is assumed to be different for a group loaded parallel to the edge
compared to the same group loaded perpendicular to the edge. This is explained in Section
3.3.2.5.
In this section the influence of anchor spacing s2 and number of anchors n2 on the capacity of
connections loaded parallel to the edge are discussed. A special loading device, described in
Section 3.3.2.2, was constructed in order to measure the individual anchor shear forces. To
provide information about larger anchor groups, tests were performed with up to 5 anchors in
a row.
According to Section 3.3.1, the tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system
with the same anchor parameters (M12, hef = 80 mm) as for the connections loaded towards
the edge (see Section 3.3.1) in order to allow an evaluation of the influence of the load direc-
tion. However, threaded rods with steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000
MPa) were used since anchors with steel grade 8.8 would fail in steel for the tested edge dis-
tances of 100 mm for a load direction parallel to the edge. The test program is summarized in
Table 3.18. The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs on the
concrete surface encased by the formwork. Width and length were taken as 1635 mm with a
slab thickness of 400 mm. For the description of the base material, it is referenced to Section
3.2.1.2. The measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scatters between 28.3
and 31.8 MPa.
Table 3.18: Test program I for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
free edge
Edge distance c1 [mm] Number of anchors Spacing s2 [mm] s2/c1 (s2,t/c1)

1 0 (reference test with α = 0°, 90°)
2 100, 200 2.0 (2.0) / 4.0 (4.0)
100, 200,
50
3 100/300, 2.0 (4.0) / 4.0 (8.0) / 2.0, 6.0 (8.0)
300/1001)
5 100 2.0 (8.0)
1 0 (reference test with α = 90°)
2 100 1.0 (1.0)
100
3 200 2.0 (4.0)
5 100 1.0 (4.0)
1)
Test series were performed with unsymmetrical spacings s2,1 = 100 mm and s2,2 = 300 mm and
s2,1 = 300 mm and s2,2 = 100 mm.
Test program II shows experimental investigations with M20 anchor bolts with an embedment
depth hef = 130 mm. It is noted that no load distribution was measured in these tests. Howev-
er, the results extend the results obtained in test program I to analyze the effect of anchor
spacing s2 and number of anchors n2. The tests were performed in normal weight low strength
(fcc,200 = 32.4 MPa) and high strength (fcc,200 = 60.7 MPa) concrete slabs.
Table 3.19: Test program II for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
free edge
Edge distance c1 [mm] Number of anchors Spacing s2 [mm] s2/c1 (s2,t/c1)

1 0 (reference test with α = 0°, 90°)
45 2 100, 200 2.2 (2.2) / 4.4 (4.4)
3 100 2.2 (4.4)
In order to evaluate the influence of hole clearance on the load-bearing behavior of groups
loaded parallel to the edge, two comparable test series with and without hole clearance were
performed. This test program is summarized in Table 3.20 as test program III. The analysis of
the results is given in Section 3.3.2.5.5. Tests were performed with M12 anchor rods with an
embedment depth of 80 mm in normal weight low strength concrete with measured compres-
sive strength fcc,200 = 32.9 MPa.
Table 3.20: Test program III for anchorages arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to
the free edge
Edge distance c1 [mm] Number of anchors Spacing s2 [mm] s2/c1 Hole clearance acl [mm]
50, 100 2 100 2.0, 1.0 0, 2
The general test setup can be seen in Figure 3.19 (Section 3.2.2.2). However, the baseplate
was replaced by a loading plate with a special shear measurement device for test program I. In
Figure 3.74a), the loading setup is shown for example for an anchor connection with five an-
chors in a row.
LVDT(2)
LVDT(3)
Load pins
Hardened collar
LVDT(1)
V1
Y
Load pin
X
(a) (b) Centrically mounted strain gage

V1
2 mm
80 100 100 100 100 80
Load pin
V1
120
45°
5/8’’ – 18 threads for pin (UNF)
Z Y
30 15
(c) (d)
Figure 3.74: Test setup for anchor groups arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the
Z
free edge (a) Loading setup (b) Detail (c) Sketch of loading plate (d) Load pin
X Y
Hardened steel collars with an outside diameter of 32 mm and an inner diameter fitting tight
the M12 anchor rods were placed centrically into the 40 mm holes in the shear plate (Figure
3.74b). Load pins hardened to a Rockwell Hardness of RHC ~ 48 were screwed into the plate
45° inclined to the axis perpendicular to the loading direction. For every anchor bolt two pins
were screwed into the plate in a certain depth to contact the steel collars (Figure 3.74c). The
installation of the anchor bolts to avoid incorrect positioning of the pins is described in Sec-
tion 3.3.2.3. Strain gages are centrically mounted to the load pins (Figure 3.74d) to measure
the axial compression force in pin direction. The individual anchor shear forces are gained by
averaging the two corresponding pin forces. For calibration of the pins and detailed infor-
mation about correction for pin bending and transformation to global shear force, it is refer-
enced to Hoehler (2011). Axial anchor load measurements were achieved using commercially
available through-hole load washers (see Figure 3.66b).
Anchorage plate displacement was measured with a linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT) into the direction of loading. Additional LVDTs were used to determine the dis-
placement and the rotation of the baseplate perpendicular to the load direction. A friction re-
ducing teflon sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All anchors
were tightened snug tight with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 5 Nm).
3.3.2.3 Anchor installation
Since imprecisely positioned loading pins would falsify the test results, an accurate installa-
tion of the anchors is absolutely necessary. A template was built with precise hole spacing and
inner diameter of the holes fitting tight the drill bit. The template was glued to the concrete
surface using a hot-glue gun. All holes were pre-drilled to a depth of about 20 mm. After pre-
drilling, the plate was removed and the holes were drilled to the required embedment depth of
hef = 80 mm with a 14 mm diameter drill bit. General information about drilling and cleaning
can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2. The anchors were installed, spare adhesive was removed,
and the anchors were adjusted with the loading plate, collars and pins in the testing position.
load pins
mounted in
testing position
during curing
process of the
adhesive
load pins
template
(a) Drilling (b) Setting process (c) Alignment of anchors
Figure 3.75: Anchor installation

3.3.2.4 Validation of load application and pin measurements
Figure 3.76 shows the difference between a load application according Figure 3.19 (Section
3.2.2.2) and the load application with the special shear measurement device (Figure 3.74). In
order to verify the results obtained with the load pins (type II), the normalized ultimate loads
at failure and the displacements at failure are compared with results obtained with a “normal”
baseplate (type I) for same tested parameters (Figure 3.77a). No significant influence of the
load application was observed for the obtained failure load. The results can be seen as compa-
rable with anchors tested with a baseplate. Moreover, the influence of load application on the
displacement at failure can be seen as negligible since for the concrete edge failure mode dis-
placements scatter in a wide range. Furthermore, it is stated that the reference tests (type I)
were performed in a concrete slab having a slightly lower compressive strength which also
influences the displacement behavior. In all tests, a good agreement was observed between
the shear force measured by the load cell and the sum of pin forces after correction for bend-
ing including frictional effects. The effect of friction is calculated to n2-times 0.4 kN. The
mean error is 3% with a standard deviation of 2.49 (maximum error 12%). Figure 3.77b)
shows typical results of the measurements for a single anchor loaded parallel to the free edge
having an edge distance c1 = 50 mm.
Anchor
Anchor
Type I Type II Load washer
Load washer
Load pin
Baseplate Baseplate
Concrete Concrete
(a) Load application with “normal” baseplate (b) Load application with load pins
Figure 3.76: Different load applications
2.0 40
1.8 Load applied parallel to the edge Load cell measurement c1 = 50 mm

35
1.6
Test (Type II) / Test (Type I)
30
1.4 Loads normalized to a compressive
strength of fcc,200 = 30 MPa
1.2 25
Load V [kN]
Sum of load pins +

1.0 20 friction
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4 mean ultimate load
Pin left
5
0.2 displacement at failure
Pin right
0.0 0
0 50 100 150 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Edge distance [mm] Displacement δ [mm]
(a) Comparison of different load applications (b) Validation of pin forces
Figure 3.77: Validation of test results

Detailed information to the “load pin” tests (test program I) can be found in Grosser (2011d)
and are summarized in Table B-2 (Appendix B). The test results of test program II are part of
a research work described in Senftleben (2010). In this section only the tests performed in
normal weight low strength concrete are analyzed. However, all experimental investigations
(tests in high strength concrete slabs included) are summarized in Table B-3 (Appendix B).
The test results of test program III are summarized in Table B-4 (Appendix B).
In Section 3.3.2.5.1, the load distribution of the total load on the individual anchors in the
multiple anchor connection for both axial and shear forces is analyzed. Section 3.3.2.5.2 dis-
cusses the results for the group tests with two anchors in order to verify the influence of an-
chor spacing s2 on the load bearing capacity. In Section 3.3.1.3.2, the discussion is extended
for groups with more than two anchors to provide information about the influence of the
number of anchors on the capacity and about the feasibility of extending design to connec-
tions engaging multiple (n ≥ 2) anchors in a row.
Movement of the fixture vertical to loading direction was not observed. Therefore, no analysis
of the LVDT (2) and LVDT (3) is shown. Note, however, this is an important aspect not to be
neglected for more than one anchor perpendicular to the concrete edge (direction 1) which
represents the spacing effect s1. Especially for a hinged load application where the loading
plate can rotate after failure of the front row, movement of the fixture vertical to the direction
of loading needs to be taken into account. This is discussed in Section 3.3.4.
3.3.2.5.1 Load distribution
As shown in Section 3.3.2.4, the pin measurements validated for the anchor tests agree suita-
bly with the measurements of the shear force measured by the load cell. Therefore, reliable
information about the load distribution of the total load on the individual anchors can be as-
sumed. Figure 3.78 shows the measurements of axial and shear forces on the individual an-
chors and the total load of shear and tension in the connection. On the left vertical axis the
percentage distribution of shear load related to the sum of measured pin forces is plotted for
the individual anchors. The individual axial forces are related to the total shear load measured
by the load cell (referred to as tension load in the diagrams). On the right vertical axis, the
sum of pin forces including effect of friction (solid line) and the sum of axial forces (dashed
line) are related to the total shear load measured by the load cell. The data depict the average
of three tests. In all groups, anchor 1 is the anchor closest to the load application.
In the single anchor tests, the axial loads at failure were measured with a value about 40% of
the ultimate shear load. In the group tests with two anchors, the axial load in the anchor re-
mote to the load application is higher compared to the axial load in the anchor closer to the
load application. In groups with more than two anchors in a row, the “last” anchor resists
most of the tension load to avoid a “lift-off” of the loading plate. Therefore, the middle an-
chors are slightly released and are loaded lower in tension.
In anchor groups (n ≤ 3) with spacing s2 = 100 mm, shear is distributed equally to the anchors.
For increasing anchor spacing (s2 = 200 mm), the shear load is slightly unevenly distributed to
the individual anchors (Figure 3.78b). This can be also seen for the group tests where
s2,1 ≠ s2,2 (Figure 3.78g, h). In groups with five anchors in a row, the outermost anchors resist
a slightly higher load at failure which can be explained by the fact that these anchors are in-
fluenced by cracking of adjacent anchors only on one side. However, it is stated that the per-
centage difference is very small. Taking into account the error of measuring forces in the in-
dividual anchors and the scattering for testing anchors in concrete, it can be summarized that
shear load is almost distributed equally to the anchors in case of equal individual anchor spac-
ing in the group.
60 120 60 120
55.0
55 55
51.0 102.2
50 100 50 96.2 100
49.0
45 45 45.0
Distribution of load [%]

40 shear load 80 40 shear load 80
Total load [%]
Total load [%]

35 tension load 35 tension load
30 total shear + friction 60 30 total shear + friction 60
25 total tension 25 total tension
20 40 20 40
15.3 17.2
15 23.8 15 25.1
10 20 10 20
8.5 8.0
5 5
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Anchor Anchor
(a) n2 = 2, c1 = 50 mm, s2 = 100 mm (b) n2 = 2, c1 = 50 mm, s2 = 200 mm

60 120 40 120
55 35.1
50.6 101.8 35 33.1 101.5
50 100 100
49.4 31.8
45 30
40 shear load 80 80
Total load [%]
Total load [%]

25 shear load
35 tension load
tension load
30 total shear + friction 60 20 60
total shear + friction
total tension
25
19.5 15 total tension
20 40 40
31.9 10.1
15 10
12.4 18.9
10 20 20
5
5 4.0 4.8
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4
Anchor Anchor
(c) n2 = 2, c1 = 100 mm, s2 = 100 mm (d) n2 = 3, c1 = 50 mm, s2 = 100 mm

40 120 40 120
34.9 35.2
34.6 101.4
35 101.7 35 33.3
30.5 100 100
30 30 31.5
80 shear load 80
shear load
Total load [%]
Total load [%]
25 25
tension load tension load
20 60 20 60
total shear + friction total shear + friction
15 total tension 15
40 total tension 40
9.7 10.3
10 10 23.4
5.1 18.2 20 7.0 20
5 5 6.1
3.4
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Anchor Anchor
(e) n2 = 3, c1 = 50 mm, s2 = 200 mm (f) n2 = 3, c1 = 100 mm, s2 = 100 mm

45 120 45 120
42.1
40 102.8 40 38.7
100.0
100 100
35 35

30.3 29.2 32.1
30 27.6 80 30 80
Total load [%]
Total load [%]

25 shear load 25 shear load
60 60
tension load tension load
20 20
total shear + friction total shear + friction
15 13.6 40 15 40
total tension total tension 10.4
26.8
10 10 22.5
6.4 20 20
6.9
5 5 5.7 6.4
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Anchor Anchor
(g) n2 = 3, c1 = 50 mm, s2 = 100 mm/300 mm (h) n2 = 3, c1 = 100 mm, s2 = 300 mm/100 mm

25 120 25 120
23.3 22.3
21.2
105.7 100 19.1 104.9 100
20 19.3 21.0 20
19.7 16.7 17.5 19.9
80 80
Total load [%]
Total load [%]

15 15 shear load
shear load
60 tension load 60
tension load
10 10 total shear + friction 8.8
7.4 40 40
total tension total tension
4.3 24.9
5 5
20 5.0 20
0.9 1.7 15.3 4.1 3.3 3.8
1.0
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Anchor Anchor
(i) n2 = 5, c1 = 50 mm, s2 = 100 mm (j) n2 = 5, c1 = 100 mm, s2 = 100 mm
Figure 3.78: Axial and shear load distribution to the individual anchors at ultimate load
Hofmann (2005) performed comparable tests with two anchors in a row loaded parallel to the
edge. Arrays of strain gages were attached to the loading fixture to determine the individual
anchor shear load distribution. The results of the strain gages show an unequal load distribu-
tion to the anchors. The anchor remote to the load application is loaded 30% less compared to
the anchor closer to load application. Therefore, the conclusion is drawn that for a connection
with multiple anchors the load resisted by the anchors stepwise decreases. For a connection
with five anchors, the last anchor would be nearly unloaded and would not resist a part of the
applied shear load. A limit of three anchors in a row was proposed by Hofmann (2005). How-
ever, this negative effect of unequal loading of the anchors cannot be confirmed by the tests
shown in Figure 3.78. Measuring load distribution with strain gages attached to the baseplate
is subject to high inaccuracies since the complete stress flow is not fully captured. Moreover,
bending effects cannot be considered with suitable accuracy to obtain reliable results. There-
fore, based on the results described in this section, for the following discussion of the group
tests an equal distribution of shear to the individual anchors is assumed.
3.3.2.5.2 Groups with two anchors in a row
In Figure 3.79a), typical load-displacement curves of the single anchor and group tests with
two anchors are shown for instance for edge distance c1 = 50 mm. As for anchor groups load-
ed perpendicular to the edge, the ultimate load increases with increasing anchor spacing. For
comparison, the “doubled” single anchor load-displacement curve is shown. Initial stiffness
for the group tests is about two times the initial stiffness of the single anchor tests.
In all tests a concrete breakout failure was observed. Typical breakout pattern for a group with
two anchors is shown in Figure 3.79b). A common failure body was observed in all tests.
Compared to anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, local spalling in front of the an-
chors is more pronounced.
70
s2 = 200 mm 2*Single anchor
60 Local spalling
s2 = 100 mm
50
Load V [kN]
40
30
20
Single anchor
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a) c1 = 50 mm (b) c1 = 50 mm, s2 = 100 mm
Figure 3.79: (a) Typical load-displacement curves (b) Typical breakout pattern for anchor groups
with two anchors
To evaluate the influence of anchor spacing s2, the averaged ultimate loads of the group tests
are compared with the averaged ultimate load of the single anchor tests with same edge dis-
tance (Figure 3.80).
2.5 CCD-method without influence of member

(n·ψA,V)0.5 thickness effect and constant ψ90°,V-factor:
s
 A,V  1  2 (solid line)
2.0
3c1
1.5
ψA,V CCD-method without influence of member

1.0
thickness effect and ψ90°,V-factor according to
n = 2, c 1==45
45mm
mm Equation 2.47 (dashed line):
0.5
 n 
0.5 n = 2, c 1==50
50mm
mm
   n  A,V 
0.5
 A,V
*
  A,V 
n = 2, c 1==100
100mm
mm

0.0  A,V 
0 1 2 3 4 5
s2/c1
Figure 3.80: Ratio of the measured ultimate loads in the group tests (n = 2) to the measured ulti-
mate loads in the single anchor tests plotted as a function of the ratio s2/c1
The increase of the group resistance according to the CCD-method considering both a con-
stant factor ψ90°,V (solid line) and a ψ90°,V-factor according to Equation 2.47 (dashed line) is
plotted for comparison. The analysis shows that the load increase in an anchor group com-
pared to a single anchor with same edge distance is not represented realistically by the CCD-
method. The results indicate that the load increase for an anchor group loaded parallel to the
edge does not depend on the ratio s2/c1 but on the spacing s2. This can be seen, for instance,
for an anchor spacing s2 = 100 mm for a group with edge distance c1 = 50 mm, which shows
the same group effect as a group with edge distance c1 = 100 mm. Taking into account the
increase factor ψ90°,V according to Equation 2.47 does not describe the load-bearing behavior
for groups realistically. The s2-spacing effect is discussed in Section 5.6.
3.3.2.5.3 Groups with three and five anchors in a row
In Figure 3.81, typical breakout patterns for the groups with three and five anchors in a row
are shown. In all tests a concrete breakout failure was observed. Compared to anchorages
loaded perpendicular to the edge, local spalling in front of the anchors is more pronounced.
(a) n = 3, c1 = 50 mm , s2 = 100 mm (b) n = 3, c1 = 50 mm , s2 = 200 mm
(c) n = 3, c1 = 50 mm , s2 = 100 mm/300 mm (d) n = 3, c1 = 50 mm , s2 = 300mm/100 mm
(e) n = 5, c1 = 50 mm , s2 = 100 mm (f) n = 3, c1 = 100 mm , s2 = 200 mm
(g) n = 5, c1 = 100 mm , s2 = 100 mm
Figure 3.81: Typical breakout patterns for anchor groups with three and five anchors loaded paral-
lel to the edge
Typical load-displacement curves of the single anchor and groups with three and five anchors
are shown for instance for edge distance c1 = 50 mm in Figure 3.82. For comparison, the “tri-
pled” and “quintupled” single anchor load-displacement curves are plotted. The initial stiff-
ness for the group tests is about n2-times the initial stiffness of the single anchor tests
(n2 = number of anchors in the row parallel to the edge). Only for anchor groups with three
anchors and an overall spacing s2,t = 400 mm, the initial stiffness in all tests was observed to
be slightly less than three times the stiffness of the single anchor. The ultimate load of the
group increases with increasing anchor spacing of the outermost anchors (s2,t). For groups
loaded perpendicular to the edge where increasing number of anchors can lead to a reduction
in capacity, increasing number of anchors was not observed to have a negative effect on the
group capacity when the load is applied parallel to the edge.
120 180
3*Single anchor 5*Single anchor
s2 = 200 mm, n = 3 160
100
s2 = 300/100 mm, n = 3 140
80 120
s2 = 100/300 mm, n = 3
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
s2 = 100 mm, n = 5
100
60
80
40 60
40
20 s2 = 100 mm, n = 3
20
Single anchor Single anchor
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a) c1 = 50 mm, n = 3 (b) c1 = 50 mm, n = 5
Figure 3.82: Typical load-displacement curves for groups with three and five anchors compared
with the load-displacement curve of a single anchor with same edge distance
The load increase of the anchor group compared to the single anchor results is shown in Fig-
ure 3.83a). It is noted that the load increase is plotted as a function of the ratio s2,t/c1 which
represents the spacing of the outermost anchors to the edge distance. The increase of the
group resistance according to the CCD-method (extended for more than two anchors) consid-
ering both a constant factor ψ90°,V (solid line) and a ψ90°,V-factor according to Equation 2.47
(dashed line) is plotted for comparison. For explanation of these assumptions see Figure 3.80.
A ratio s2,t/c1 = 6.0 is assumed to be necessary to obtain an ultimate load of three times the
single anchor capacity for an anchor group with three anchors and a ratio s2,t/c1 = 12.0 to ob-
tain an ultimate load of five times the single anchor capacity for an anchor group with five
anchors. However, this was observed not to be sufficient for all edge distances. The prediction
of load increase according to the extended CCD-method for more than two anchors is uncon-
servative for small edge distance. As mentioned for groups with two anchors, the results indi-
cate that critical spacing is not significantly influenced by the edge distance c1 of the anchor
group. If the critical spacing were influenced by the edge distance, the ratio between the fail-
ure loads for anchor groups to the failure load of single anchors with the same edge distance
would reach the same value for same ratio between anchor spacing and edge distance.
The influence of increasing number of anchors on the group capacity is shown in Figure
3.83b) and c). The increase was observed to be nearly proportional to (n2-1) times the indi-
vidual anchor spacing effect s2. In tests with unequal individual anchor spacing in the group,
the load was observed to be slightly decreasing compared to a group having the same outer-
most anchor spacing but equal individual anchor spacing between the anchors. This is shown
in Figure 3.83d). At this point it is referenced to Section 3.3.2.5.1 where the load distribution
on the anchors is evaluated. The results show that in case of unequal individual anchor spac-
ing an even load distribution cannot be assumed.
6.0 3.0
n = 3, c = 45 mm
n = 3, c = 50 mm n=5 2.5
5.0 n = 5, c = 50 mm

n = 3, c = 100 mm
2.0
4.0 n = 5, c = 100 mm
(n·ψA,V)0.5 1.5
n=3
3.0
1.0
2.0 ψA,V
0.5 s2 = 100 mm
s2 mm
s2
s2 = 200 mm
mm
1.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s2,t/c1 Number of anchors
(a) (b) c1 = 100 mm
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 s2 = 100 mm
s2 mm 0.5
s2
s2 = 200 mm
mm s2,t == 400
S2 400mm
mm
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 100/300
1 200/200
2 300/100
3 4
Number of anchors Spacing s2 [mm]
(c) c1 = 50 mm (45 mm) (d) c1 = 50 mm
Figure 3.83: Ratio of the measured ultimate loads in the group tests to the measured ultimate loads
in the single anchor tests plotted as a function of (a) the ratio of the outermost anchor
spacing to the edge distance s2,t/c1 (b) the number of anchors in the group for edge
distance c1 = 100 mm (c) the number of anchors in the group for edge distance c1 =
50 mm (d) the influence of unequal anchor spacing
3.3.2.5.4 Experimentally obtained increase factor ψ90°,V
In Figure 3.84a), the obtained factors ψ90°,V for the tested anchorages are plotted as a function
of the numbers of anchors in the connection. The obtained factor ψ90°,V equals the ratio be-
tween failure load of the anchorages loaded parallel to the edge (Section 3.3.2) and the failure
load of the anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge (Section 3.3.1) for the same tested
parameters. For comparison, a constant increase factor ψ90°,V = 2.0 (CCD-method) is plotted
which shows that this assumption leads to conservative results for small edge distances. In
order to evaluate the increase factor ψ90°,V according to Equation 2.47 in Figure 3.84b) the
ratio between experimentally obtained ψ90°,V-factor and Equation 2.47 is shown. It is noted
that in the calculated increase factor ψ90°,V according to Equation 2.47 the resistance obtained
in the experimental investigations (Section 3.3.1) is inserted in the denominator. Inserting the
calculated resistance for the anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge would falsify the
evaluation of the factor ψ90°,V since tests have shown that the critical spacing is not considered
realistically. In Figure 3.84b), it is shown that the influence of number of anchors is less than
assumed in Equation 2.47.
3.5 1.4
3.0 1.2
ψ90°,V,test = V u,m,test,90° / Vu,m,test,0°
2.5 1.0
ψ90°,V,test / ψ90°,V,calc
2.0 0.8
1.5 0.6
1.0 0.4
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
0.5 0.2
c = 100 mm c = 100 mm
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of anchors Number of anchors
(a) (b)
Figure 3.84: (a) Increase factor ψ90°,V obtained in the experimental investigations (b) Comparison
with calculated increase factor ψ90°,V,calc
3.3.2.5.5 Influence of hole clearance on the load-bearing behavior
The displacement at failure for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge is significantly larger
compared to the same anchorage loaded perpendicular to the edge. In general, the displace-
ment at failure is larger than the allowable hole clearance. For this reason, in design it is as-
sumed that all anchors resist shear loads. However, no experimental investigations exist to
evaluate the influence of hole clearance on the load-bearing behavior of anchorages loaded
parallel to the edge. Therefore, in fib (2011) a general reduction of 20% is assumed in case of
anchors with normal hole clearance. The reduction is based on theoretical considerations by
Hofmann (2005) who superimposed load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded paral-
lel to the edge for maximum allowable hole clearance. However, it is noted that this falsifies
the conclusion in case of groups with s2 < scr (for a group with two anchors twice the capacity
of a single anchor can only be assumed if s2 ≥ scr). Therefore, for the evaluation of hole clear-
ance the “real” spacing effect needs to be considered when superimposing the load-
displacement curves.
Since it is assumed that maximum reduction of group capacity is obtained for small displace-
ments at failure, testing was performed with small edge distance of 50 mm. The test series
with an edge distance of 100 mm was performed in order to evaluate if reduction of group
capacity is also necessary for increased edge distance. Figure 3.85 shows typical load-
displacement curves for groups tested with and without hole clearance. The activation of an-
chor 2 in case of anchorages tested with hole clearance can be clearly seen in the load-
displacement curve by the change of the slope. For an edge distance of 50 mm, anchor 2 is
activated slightly below the load level where a single anchor with the same edge distance
loaded parallel to the free edge fails. Therefore, the group capacity is reduced compared to the
capacity of the same group tested without hole clearance. For increased edge distance
(c1 = 100 mm), no reduction was observed since the displacement at failure is significantly
larger compared to small edge distance. An evaluation of the ultimate loads and displace-
ments at failure of single anchors loaded parallel to the edge is described in Section 3.2.2.3.
70 90
without hole clearance without hole clearance
80
60
Load reduction 70
50
60
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
40 50
40 with hole clearance

30
30
20
with hole clearance 20 Anchor 2 is activated
10
10
Anchor 2 is activated c1 = 50 mm c1 = 100 mm
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a) c1 = 50 mm (b) c1 = 100 mm
Figure 3.85: Load-displacement behavior of groups with two anchors with spacing of 100 mm
loaded parallel to the edge with and without hole clearance
In Figure 3.86, the observed ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the applied hole clear-
ance for both edge distance of 50 mm and 100 mm. On the right vertical axis the mean ratio
between the capacity of the group tested with hole clearance to the capacity of the same group
tested without hole clearance is shown. For an edge distance of 100 mm, no difference in
shear strength was observed due to the different activation of the anchors whereby for small
edge distance of 50 mm a mean reduction of 16% was observed.
Vu,m,test (acl = 2 mm) / Vu,m,test (acl = 0 mm)

120 1.2
100 1.1
1.02
80 1.0
60 0.9
0.84
40 0.8
20 c = 50 mm 0.7
c = 100 mm
Unfavorable anchor
0 0.6 configuration
0 10 2 3
Hole clearance acl [mm]
2 mm 2 mm
(a) (b)
Figure 3.86: (a) Evaluation of capacity of groups with two anchors loaded parallel to the edge in
case of hole clearance acl = 2 mm (b) test setup and anchor configuration for unfavor-
able anchor configuration
3.3.3 Anchors groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded perpendicular to
the free edge
The information provided in this section represents the results of shear tests with anchor
groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the free edge in order to under-
stand the effect of different edge distance-to-spacing ratios (c1/s1) on the load-bearing behav-
ior of groups with and without hole clearance.
Such anchor groups have been tested in the past by different authors (Martin and Schwarz-
kopf, 1985; Wong et al., 1998, Fuchs and Eligehausen, 1990; Ueda et al., 1991; Hofmann,
2005, Anderson and Meinheit, 2006; Periskic, 2006a,b and Unterweger, 2008) (see Section
2.2). The knowledge gained from these tests provides the basis for current design recommen-
dations, such as ACI 318 or CEN/TS 1992-4. However, design is still based on simplifications
for groups with more than one anchor row in direction 1 (effect of anchor spacing s1) since
there is lack of knowledge regarding the redistribution of load after formation of a shear crack
at the near-edge anchors. In particular, for groups with unfavorable anchor configuration (an-
chor group with hole clearance, only the front anchors are loaded in shear up to a displace-
ment where the back anchors are in contact with the fixture), it is not sufficiently investigated
if the load can be redistributed to the back anchors without negative influence of the for-
mation of the failure crack at the front anchors. Moreover, combined failure mode in the
group (concrete edge failure at the front anchors and steel rupture of the back anchors) has
received little research attention. A systematic variation of the edge distance-to-spacing ratio
for concrete edge failure mode, steel rupture, and combination of these failure modes, de-
scribed in this section, should provide information about the s1-spacing effect.
Experimental testing described in this section was performed at the Department of Civil and
Coastal Engineering at the University of Florida. Anchor groups with two and three anchors
arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge were tested. For the individu-
al edge distances of the anchors in the group, reference tests with single anchors were carried
out to allow an evaluation of the group resistance. This is shown in Figure 3.87.
Reference tests
”concrete edge failure“ Reference tests
”steel rupture“
edge
Figure 3.87: Experimental program (test program I)
The test program is summarized in Table 3.21 to Table 3.23 for the group tests and the corre-
sponding reference tests with single anchors. For tests where concrete edge failure should be
obtained, 7/8” diameter threaded rods were used to avoid premature steel rupture. Tests to
evaluate mixed failure mode in the group were performed with 5/8” threaded rods. All tests
were carried out with a vinylester adhesive anchor system used with continuously threaded
rods with grade B7 steel because of its high strength. Actual tensile steel strength was meas-
ured prior to shear testing. The measured strength equals 137.7 ksi (946 MPa).
Table 3.21: Test program I (reference tests with single anchors loaded towards the free edge)
Anchor diameter Embedment depth

Edge distance c1 [in.] (mm)
d [in.] (mm) hef [in.] (mm)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 3 (76.2), 4 (101.6), 6 (152.4), “∞”
2 (50.8), 3 (76.2), 4 (101.6), 6 (152.4), 7 (177.8), 8 (203.2),
5 (127)
7/8” (22.2) 10 (254), “∞”
8 (203.2) 2 (50.8), 4 (101.6), “∞”
“∞” = anchors installed with sufficient edge distance to obtain steel rupture
Table 3.22: Test program I (anchor groups with two anchors loaded towards the free edge)
Anchor diameter Embedment depth hcl ac,l Edge distance Individual anchor spacing
d [in.] (mm) hef [in.] (mm) [in.] (mm) c1,1 [in.] (mm) s1 [in.] (mm)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)
-
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 4 (101.6) 2 (50.8), 4 (101.6)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 4 (101.6)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 6 (152.4) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127), 8 (203.2) - 2 (50.8) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) - 4 (101.6) 4 (101.6), 6 (152.4), 8 (203.2)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 2 (50.8) 2 (50.8), 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 2 (50.8), 4 (101.6), 6 (152.4)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 8 (203.2) 2 (50.8)
hcl = max. value for hole clearance as allowed according to current design specifications
Table 3.23: Test program I (anchor groups with three anchors loaded towards the free edge)
Anchor diameter Embedment depth hcl ac,l Edge distance Individual anchor spacings
d [in.] (mm) hef [in.] (mm) [in.] (mm) c1,1 [in.] (mm) s1,1 = s1,2 [in.] (mm)
5/8” (15.9) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) - 4 (101.6) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) - 3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 4 (101.6) 2 (50.8)
7/8” (22.2) 5 (127) 0.787 (2.0) 3 (76.2) 4 (101.6)
Testing was performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs with sufficient slab
thickness to avoid influence of the member thickness on the breakout capacity. Concrete used
in the US differs from the concrete used for the shear tests performed at the Institute of Con-
struction Materials (see Table 3.2). Therefore, for the shear tests performed at the University
of Florida, the concrete mix composition for the slabs and detailed information about the ag-
gregates are provided in Table 3.24.
Table 3.24: Concrete mix composition and statistical analysis of the aggregates
Mixture Proportions 1) Material Pass

Mix Number CD47AA Fine Aggregate - Sand
Strength (psi) 3000 #4 (4.75 mm) Ø 100
W/C Ratio .54 #8 (2.36 mm) Ø 98.5
Slump (in) 4 +/- 1" #16 (1.18 mm) Ø 88
Air Content (%) 1.5 % ENTRAP #30 (0.6 mm) Ø 60
Plastic Unit Weight (lbs/cf) 150.8 +/- 1.5 #50 (0.3 mm) Ø 25
#100 (0.15 mm) Ø 3.5
Material ASTM Type #200 (0.075 mm) Ø 0.25
Cement C 150 II 490 PAN (0 mm) 0.00
Water -- -- 262 Aggregate - Granite
Fine Aggregate C 33 Sand 1435 1" (25 mm) Ø 100
Aggregate C 33 #57Granite 1885 3/4" (19 mm) Ø 94
1)
Quantities may vary in accordance with ACI 301 4.2.3.6.a and 3/8" (9.5 mm) Ø 45
4.2.3.6.b, ACI 318 5.6.3.4 and ASTM C 94-07 (2007). Admix- #4 (4.75 mm) Ø2
ture dosage rates in accordance with manufactures recommenda- #8 (2.36 mm) Ø 0.7
tions. #200 (0.075 mm) Ø 0.5
PAN (0 mm) 0.00
All test slabs were reinforced at the bottom with two #3 (3/8 in.) bars in every direction. Rein-
forcement in these slabs was only used for handling the slabs with the crane and the fork lift.
In these slabs, the reinforcement was placed so as not to provide confinement to the anchor-
age. All anchorages were tested on the surface not encased by the formwork. Therefore the
concrete surface was screed to produce a smooth surface area. The free edges of the slabs
were used for the tests with edge influence whereas the large interior areas of these slabs were
used for “in-the-field” tests. The spreading width measured during the slump test was 4“. The
fresh concrete was poured in layers and compacted using a vibrator. To determine the com-
pression strength of the concrete slabs, cylinders (6“x12“) were poured as well and sampled
continuously to monitor the strength development. Compression tests were performed in ac-
cordance with ASTM C39-05e2 (2005) “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens”. The initial curing of the slabs and cylinders took place in a
humid environment inside of the research laboratory and began immediately after pouring the
concrete. Additionally, the fresh concrete slabs were covered with constant wet sheets and
plastic films over a period of the first 28 days. The formworks were removed after 6 days.
This was necessary to build together the new formworks for the next cast. The plastic molds
of the concrete cylinders were removed on the same day as well to ensure the same curing
conditions. The concrete compressive strength decisive for the corresponding testing day was
measured on cylinders (6”x12”). The measured compressive strength is approximately the
same for all casts (fc = 4218 psi (fcc,200 = 34.6 MPa)). For more details, it is referenced to the
test report Grosser, Cook (2009).
Additionally, two test series were performed at the Institute of Construction Materials, re-
ferred to as test program II in this section, to provide additional information about the load
distribution and increased number of anchors in the group. The test series with two anchors
was performed with the steel plate with loading pins described in Section 3.3.2.2 in order to
measure the load distribution to the anchors. The test series with five anchors was performed
with small spacings in order to evaluate if load redistribution to the rearmost anchor without
negative influence of crack formation at the anchors closer to the edge is possible. All anchors
had a steel grade 10.9 (nominal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa).
Table 3.25: Test program II (anchor groups loaded towards the free edge)
Number of Anchor diameter Embedment depth Edge distance Individual anchor spacings
anchors d (mm) hef (mm) c1,1 (mm) s1,1 = (s1,2 = s1,3 = s1,4) (mm)
2 12 80 50 100
5 16 130 50 50
For information about the base material for test program II, it is referenced to Section 3.2.1.2.
The concrete slabs in which the tests with two anchors were performed had a compressive
strength of fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa, and the slabs in which tests with five anchors were performed
had a compressive strength of fcc,200 = 24.4 MPa.
A special load frame was built and fixed to the strong floor and the reaction wall (see Figure
3.88). The basic loading and support mechanism was constructed in accordance with the test
setup described in Section 3.2.1.3 (Figure 3.4). The tie-down was realized by means of a steel
beam tightened to the strong floor with two threaded steel rods. The load was applied using a
hydraulic cylinder (ENERPAC RCH-603 max 10.000 psi/700 bar) and a cylinder pump (EN-
ERPAC P802 max 10.000 psi/700 bar). The load was applied to the anchors by pulling on a
baseplate with a thickness of 30 mm. In every test a friction reducing teflon sheet (ptfe) was
placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All anchors were tightened snug tight
with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 50 inch pounds). Generally, peak loads were
reached in approximately 1 to 3 minutes. The baseplate was of case hardened steel to apply
loads up to 50 kips. All loading of the anchors was done with sufficient support spacing (four
times the edge distance) so that the expected failure body was not affected by the support.
(LVDT). The LVDT was glued to the concrete surface and fixed with a wire and a magnet to
the end of the base plate. This setup was chosen to avoid a damage of the LVDT in case of
steel rupture.
base plate
reaction
teflon sheet tension rod hydraulic jack wall
Slab tie-down
load cell
concrete slab anchors
strong floor
supports
Figure 3.88: Shear test frame (loading and tie down system)
Five holes in a distance of 2” from centerline to centerline were drilled into the steel plate.
This is shown in Figure 3.89a). Depending on the tested diameter, different inserts were used.
With this plate, it was possible to test all anchor groups with spacings of 2”, 4”, 6”, 8” and
diameters of 5/8” and 7/8” for anchorages with and without hole clearance. To avoid a failure
of the inserts, case hardened steel (16MnCr5) was used (hardened and tempered to HRC60,
max. case depth). In order to verify the activation of the individual anchors, strain gages were
applied to the baseplate and the inserts (Figure 3.89). The polytetrafluorethene (ptfe) film was
cut out to bring out the wires connected to the strain gages.
Strain gage
Center to center spacing of 2“
protected
strain gage
(a) (b)
Figure 3.89: (a) Baseplate with applied strain gages (b) Strain gage application to the inserts
In addition, the individual anchor tension forces were measured by specially constructed an-
chor load cells and anchor load cell adapters. The overall objective in the development of this
setup was to measure the anchor tension without interfering with the anchor behavior. The
principal idea was taken from Cook (1989) and was enhanced for this shear project. The setup
is shown in Figure 3.90. All load cells were calibrated frequently during the testing program
to ensure reliable measurements.
nut and washer
spherical cap adapter adapter

for the for the
load cell 7/8“ 5/8“
anchor anchor
rod rod
sleeve (outside)
round nut
sleeve (inside) (only for the
5/8“ threaded
coupler rods)
insert base plate
anchor
Figure 3.90: Setup for the measurement of axial forces in the individual anchors
3.3.3.3 Anchor installation
Installing anchors when multiple anchors in the group are present is challenging in particular
when anchors should be installed with hole clearance. An inaccurate position or inclination of
the anchor can falsify the result. Therefore, an accurate installation of the anchors is absolute-
ly necessary. All holes were pre-drilled through a template with precise hole spacing for an-
chorages with and without hole clearance. The inner diameter of the holes fitted tight the drill
bit. After pre-drilling the template was removed and the holes were drilled to the required
embedment depth with 11/16” drill bit for the 5/8” anchor rods and 15/16” drill bit for the
7/8” anchor rods. A drill rig was used to ensure that the bore hole is aligned exactly perpen-
dicular to the concrete surface. General information about drilling and cleaning can be taken
from Section 3.2.1.2. After cleaning, the anchors were installed, spare adhesive was removed,
and the anchors were adjusted with the baseplate and inserts fitting tight the anchor rod. For
detailed description of the setting process, it is referenced to the test report Grosser, Cook
(2009). For testing, inserts in the steel plate for setting the anchors were replaced by inserts
with a clearance hole 2 mm larger than the anchor diameter.
gap gap gap gap gap
(a) Anchor groups without hole clearance
gap gap gap gap gap
(b) Anchor groups with hole clearance (unfavorable anchor configuration)
Figure 3.91: Anchor configuration and testing position for groups with two and three anchors
Anchor configuration and testing position can be seen in Figure 3.91 for both anchor groups
with and without hole clearance for groups with two and three anchors. For anchor groups
without hole clearance, the anchors were installed so that all anchors are in contact with the
baseplate. Therefore, the shear force is initially distributed to all anchors. In case of anchor
groups with hole clearance the anchors are randomly located in the clearance hole of the plate.
It cannot be guaranteed that all anchors are activated at the same time. For instance, in case of
an anchor group with two anchors it is possible that either the first anchor is in contact with
the plate and takes up the entire load (most unfavorable load case) or the back anchor is in
contact with the plate and takes up the entire load (most favorable load case). In all tests the
most unfavorable load case was investigated for groups with hole clearance to evaluate the
highest reduction in ultimate load.
Anchor groups failed either in concrete edge breakout, steel failure or a combination of con-
crete edge failure and steel rupture. The failure in the different sections (front anchor, middle
anchor, back anchor) and the failure loads and displacements at failure for the individual an-
chor tests are summarized in Table B-5 and Table B-6 (Appendix B).
3.3.3.4.1 Theoretical background
Before analyzing the group behavior, the theoretical background for the distribution of the
applied shear load and the assumptions for calculating the resistance are discussed for a group
with two anchors (see Table 3.26).
In accordance with the theory of elasticity, equal stiffness of all anchors in the group is as-
sumed. For anchorages without hole clearance, the shear load is initially distributed to all an-
chors. For anchorages with hole clearance (unfavorable anchor configuration), the entire shear
load is initially distributed only to the front anchor. For verification of concrete edge failure
and steel rupture, the resistance can be calculated assuming that either the front anchor or the
back anchor is controlling the failure. For large ratios s1/c1,1, the assumption that the failure
crack occurs at the front anchor leads to conservative results in respect to concrete breakout,
but is conversely associated with the maximum resistance for steel rupture since both anchors
are assumed to take up the shear load. In particular, for anchorages with hole clearance, it is
not known if redistribution to the back anchor is conservative for the concrete edge failure
mode since the formation of a failure crack at the front anchor may negatively influence the
group capacity. Moreover, for verification of steel rupture (only back anchors are taken into
account), this assumption leads to conservative results. It is not known if the front anchor can
resist a part of the shear load to increase the steel resistance.
Table 3.26: Example of distribution of applied shear load and verification of resistance for
concrete edge failure and steel rupture
Load distribution at the Resistance for verification...

onset of loading ...at the front anchor ...at the back anchor
Without hole clearance
s1
Vs/2
c1,1
s1
Vs/2 Vu ,c  2 Vu ,c,0  c1,1 
c1,1 Vu ,S  2 Vu ,S  n  1 c1,2
Calculated resistance for concrete edge failure

Vu ,c  Vu ,c,0  c1,2 
needs to be limited by the calculated resistance
of the back anchor.
With hole clearance Vu ,S  Vu ,S  n  1

(unfavorable anchor
configuration)
s1 Redistribution to the back anchor may lead to un-
conservative results for concrete edge failure since
the formation of a failure crack at front anchor may
c1,1 influence the group capacity calculated from the
s1 back anchor.
Vu ,c  Vu ,c,0  c1,1 
Vs
For verification of steel rupture, the resistance
c1,1
Vu ,S  2 Vu ,S  n  1 equals one times the single anchor resistance since
it is assumed that the front anchor has failed.
3.3.3.4.2 Reference tests with single anchors
In order to allow an evaluation of the group resistance, reference tests with single anchors
were carried out for the individual edge distances. Anchors failed either in concrete edge fail-
ure or steel rupture.
Figure 3.92a) shows the measured ultimate loads plotted as a function of the edge distance. It
is distinguished between anchors failed in concrete failure and anchors failed in steel rupture
to show the transition between the failure modes. For the 5/8 inches diameter threaded rods,
steel rupture occurred for edge distances larger than 6 inches. For the 7/8 inches diameter
threaded rods, concrete edge failure could be obtained up to an edge distance of 8 inches.
However, for the evaluation of the group resistance, the concrete edge breakout resistance of
single anchors with larger edge distances is required. Therefore, in Figure 3.92b), the obtained
ultimate loads for the concrete edge breakout failure mode are compared with the mean pre-
diction according to Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42. It is shown that neither Equation 2.41
nor Equation 2.42 agrees suitable with the single anchor test results. In average the measured
loads are 20% higher compared to Equation 2.41 and 30% higher compared to Equation 2.42.
The high deviation can be explained by the concrete used for the experimental investigations.
The mean prediction equations were developed from tests performed in concrete with round
gravel aggregate. In general, shear tests performed in the “US” show higher breakout strength
compared to “European” testing since often crushed aggregate is used. However, no systemat-
ic investigation on the influence of concrete mix composition on the ultimate shear strength is
known. The aggregate mix composition for testing described in this section is shown in Table
3.24. Broken and sharp aggregate (granite) was used. In concrete with broken aggregate
(crushed rock) the fracture energy for concrete strength fcc < 60 MPa can be up to 50% higher
than that associated with round gravel aggregate (Eligehausen et al., 2006). For anchorages
loaded in tension, the results have shown that the ultimate load increases with increasing frac-
ture energy Gf (Elfgren, Ohlsson, 1986; Sawade, 1994; Ožbolt, 1995). This is assumed to ap-
ply also for shear loaded anchorages. However, the mean prediction according to Equation
2.41 and Equation 2.42 consider the concrete compressive strength as the only material prop-
erty influencing ultimate strength since this is better suited for design purpose. The influence
of concrete mix composition is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.5.
concrete edge failure steel rupture (5/8”)

concrete edge failure steel rupture (7/8”)
40 2.0
1.8
35
Measured ultimate load V u,test [kips]
1.6
30
1.4
Vu,test / Vu,calculation
25
1.2
20 1.0
y = 1,58x1,39
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4 Equation 2.41
5 7/8" CE 7/8" S
0.2 Equation 2.42
5/8" CE 5/8" S
0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Edge distance c1 [in.] Edge distance c1 [mm]
CE = concrete edge failure, S = steel rupture

(a) (b)
Figure 3.92: (a) Evaluation of ultimate loads obtained in the single anchor tests and determination
of transition between concrete edge failure and steel rupture (b) Ratio of ultimate
loads obtained in the single anchor tests for the concrete edge failure mode with mean
prediction according to Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42
For extrapolating the data points for larger edge distances, an equation needs to be found pre-
dicting the concrete breakout strength with sufficient accuracy not to falsify the comparison
with the group resistance. Figure 3.92a) shows a potential regression of the ultimate loads for
the concrete edge failure mode. In addition, considering the concrete compressive strength
this regression leads to Equation 3.5. Figure 3.93a) shows the comparison of this equation
with the single anchor test results for an embedment depth of 5 inches. It is shown that the
prediction Equation 3.5 is accurate enough for extrapolation of the missing data points for
concrete edge failure.
Vu0,c  0.024  f ck  c11.39 [kips] (Eq. 3.5)
In Figure 3.93b), the extrapolation for edge distance of 6 inches for the 5/8 inches diameter
threaded rods and for edge distances of 10 and 11 inches for the 7/8 inches diameter threaded
rods is shown. For comparison, the ultimate loads for the concrete edge failure mode obtained
in the single anchor tests are plotted.
2.0 45
1.8 n = 31 40
1.6
35
Ultimate load V u,c [kips]

1.4
30
Vu,test / Vu,calculation
1.2
25
1.0
20
0.8
15
0.6
0.4 10
Tests
0.2 Ø = 1.02 SD = 0.09 COV = 8.45 5
Extrapolation
0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Edge distance c1 [mm] Edge distance c1 [in.]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.93: (a) Ratio of ultimate loads obtained in the single anchor tests for the concrete edge
failure mode with mean prediction according to Equation 3.5 (b) Extrapolation of the
concrete edge breakout resistance for larger edge distances
In Figure 3.94a) the measured axial force compared to the shear load at ultimate load is plot-
ted as a function of the edge distance.
70
Load washer
60 to measure
axial force
50
Axial/shear [%]
Applied
40
Baseplate shear
30 Resulting axial force in

all tests the anchor
20 Resulting
5/8" hef=5"
compression
7/8" hef=5" force Stress resultant in
10 the concrete
7/8" hef=8"
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Edge distance c1
Edge distance c1 [in.]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.94: (a) Evaluation of measured axial forces at ultimate load (b) Load-bearing mechanism
of a single anchor loaded in shear
High axial forces can develop in the anchors when loading the anchors in pure shear. The
load-bearing mechanism of a single anchor loaded in shear towards the edge is shown in Fig-
ure 3.94b). Due to the eccentricity between applied shear load and stress resultant in the con-
crete the resulting moment generates a compression force between baseplate and concrete
surface and an axial force in the anchor bolt. This mechanism is explained in detail in Zhao
(1993). In the tests performed by Zhao (1993) the axial force in the anchor was measured with
strain gages. All anchors were tested without influence of edge distance. On average, the axial
force at ultimate load was about 35% of the applied shear load. By means of numerical simu-
lations, Fuchs (1990) specified this value to be 40% of the applied shear load. The single an-
chor tests evaluated in Figure 3.94a) show that the percentage axial force increases with in-
creasing edge distance. For small edge distance, the mean axial force is about 20% of the
shear load, and for large edge distance (anchor failed in steel rupture) about 60% of the ap-
plied shear load. The lower axial forces for large edge distances in the tests performed by
Zhao (1993) can be explained by the fact that the baseplate was welded to the anchor bolt
which increases the transverse stiffness, and therefore reduces the resulting axial force in the
anchor.
3.3.3.4.3 Basic load distribution
In this section the basic load distribution of axial and shear forces on the individual anchors in
a group with two anchors without hole clearance arranged perpendicular to the edge and load-
ed towards the edge is discussed. The shear load distribution at ultimate load for different
anchor configurations with and without hole clearance is explained in Sections 3.3.3.4.4 and
3.3.3.4.5 for groups failed in concrete edge failure and Section 3.3.3.4.6 for groups failed in
steel.
In Hofmann (2005), groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge were loaded
towards the edge. To get an idea of the load distribution on the individual anchors, strain gag-
es were attached to the baseplate. The results indicate that the front anchor takes up a higher
load than the back anchor at initial loading. At a load about 50% of the ultimate capacity, the
load is redistributed to the back anchor due to a loss of stiffness caused by cracking at the
front anchor. No theoretical explanation can be found for the fact that the front anchor is
higher loaded at the onset of loading. It is assumed that the stress flow in the steel plate falsi-
fies the results. In order to evaluate the load-bearing behavior and to verify the distribution of
forces, a test series comparable to the anchor configuration tested in Hofmann (2005) was
performed (test program II). The load was applied with the plate described in Section 3.3.2.2.
The results are shown in Figure 3.95a).
50
Load cell measurement
45
Sum of load
40 pins + friction
35
30
Load V [kN]
25
Shear A2
20
15 Single A1 Shear A1
10 Axial A2
5 Axial A1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) (b)
Figure 3.95: Anchor group with two anchors with c1,1 = 50 mm and s1 = 100 mm (a) Load distribu-
tion of axial and shear forces on the individual anchors (b) Loading setup
As expected, both anchors take up the same shear force at the onset of loading. The initial
slope of measurement of the shear anchor force-displacement curve is half the measurement
of the load cell which represents the group behavior. The sum of pin forces (friction included)
agrees well with the load cell measurement. For comparison, the load-displacement curve of a
single anchor with the edge distance of the front anchor loaded towards the edge is plotted.
The front anchor in the group failed at its concrete breakout strength with good correlation
with the single anchor test result. The load was redistributed to the back anchor. At failure of
the entire group, the front anchor still resisted a part of the shear load. Additionally, the axial
force-displacement behavior for both anchors is shown. Compared to the shear load distribu-
tion, the back anchor takes up a higher axial force at the onset of loading. This was observed
in all tests and can be explained with the lift-off of the plate when applying the load.
The distribution of axial and shear forces at ultimate load for the test series with two anchors
is shown in Figure 3.96a). On the left vertical axis the percentage distribution of shear load
related to the sum of measured pin forces is plotted for the individual anchors. The individual
axial forces are related to the total shear load measured by the load cell (referred to as tension
load). On the right vertical axis the sum of pin forces including effect of friction (solid line)
and the sum of axial forces (dashed line) are related to the total shear load measured by the
load cell. The data depict the average of three tests. At ultimate load, the back anchor resists
most of the total shear load (~90%) whereas the front anchor only takes up a small part in its
post peak (~10%). The mean axial load in the back anchor is about 40% of the total shear load
at ultimate load. Nearly no axial force in the front anchor at ultimate load was measured.
In all tests no influence of crack formation at the front anchor on the crack propagation at the
back anchor was observed (see Figure 3.96b).
100 120
89.1
90
99.2
100
80
shear load
70 Back anchor (A2)

tension load 80
Total load [%]
60
50 total tension 60
40
32.8 35.5 40
30 Front anchor (A1)
20
10.9 20
10
2.7
0 0
0 1 2 3
Anchor
(a) (b)
Figure 3.96: (a) Load distribution of axial and shear forces in a group with two anchors for an
edge distance c1,1 = 50 mm and spacing s1 = 100 mm at ultimate load (b) Typical
breakout pattern (post peak)
For the following evaluation of the test results, it is distinguished if the failure of the entire
group after redistribution of forces was caused by concrete or steel failure.
3.3.3.4.4 Analysis of groups without hole clearance failed by concrete edge failure
In this section the question is discussed if there is a negative influence of the crack formation
at the front anchor on the group capacity. Only groups failed in concrete edge failure after
redistribution to the back anchor are considered.
Figure 3.97 shows typical breakout pattern of groups with two anchors tested without hole
clearance and the corresponding measured load-displacement curves. When the distance be-
tween front anchor and back anchor is large enough (s1,1 ≥ c1,1), a crack first occurred at the
front anchor since two times the front anchor resistance observed in the single anchor tests is
smaller than the resistance of the back anchor. No intersection between the failure cracks at
front and back anchor was observed. For anchor groups where the back anchor resistance is
smaller than two times the front anchor resistance, the group failed without a crack visible at
the front anchor. The measurement of the strain gages shows that at ultimate load the anchors
share the load equally. To evaluate the group capacity the single anchor results for the corre-
sponding edge distances for two times the front anchor and the back anchor are plotted in
Figure 3.97b). The evaluation shows that for groups without hole clearance good agreement
with the group capacity can be obtained by calculating the resistance with the edge distance of
the back anchor. It appears that the formation of a failure crack at the front anchor can be ne-
glected for the verification in the ultimate limit state. However, it should be noted at this point
that the failure of the front anchor has to be taken into account from a serviceability stand-
point.
5/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“ test 1

7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 4“
30
Vu,c (c1,2 = 8“) (test 2)

25
2∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 4“)
(test 1 ~ test 2)
20
Load V [kips]
s1,1/c1,1 = 0.5 Vu,c (c1,2 = 6“) (test 1)

15
test 2
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 4“ 10
5/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“
5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement δ [in.]
s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0
(a) (b)
Figure 3.97: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with two anchors without hole clearance
(b) Corresponding load-displacement curves
The load-bearing behavior of groups with three and five anchors in a row without hole clear-
ance is shown in Figure 3.98. For the group with a ratio s1,t/c1,1 = 1.0, no crack at the front
anchor was observed since n1-times the front anchor resistance is larger than the back anchor
resistance. For the tested group with three anchors with a ratio s1,t/c1,1 = 2.67, a first crack at
the front anchor was observed since the “tripled” single anchor resistance is smaller than the
back anchor resistance. However, no further crack opening at the front anchor was observed.
Accelerated crack opening was observed for the middle and the back anchor. The comparison
of the group capacity with the back anchor resistance shows a good agreement. In order to
verify the assumption that the back anchor resistance can be taken as the failure criterion for
groups without hole clearance is valid also for groups with more than three anchors, a test
series was performed with a connection engaging five anchors in a row. This connection was
tested at the IWB. Therefore, measurements are shown in SI units. The resistances of the in-
dividual anchors are calculated with Equation 2.42. Even though the initial load distribution
shows that five times the front anchor resistance is smaller than the resistance of the anchor
rearmost to the free edge, no crack at the front anchor was observed. The group capacity cor-
relates well with the calculated resistance of the rearmost anchor.
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“, s1,2 = 2“ test 1

7/8“, c1,1 = 3“, s1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 4“
50
45
Vu,c (c1,3 = 11“) (test 2)
40
35
3∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 4“) (test 1)
Load V [kips]
30
s1,t/c1,1 = 1.0 Vu,c (c1,3 = 8“) (test 1)
25
20 3∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 3“) (test 2)

7/8“, c1,1 = 3“, s1,1 = 4“, s1,2 = 4“ test 2
15
10 7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“, s1,1 = 2“

5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
s1,t/c1,1 = 2.67
120
test 3 4∙Vu,c (c1,2 = 100 mm)
M16, c1,1 = 50 mm, s1,t = 200 mm
100
Vu,c (c1,5 = 250 mm)
80
Load V [kN]
60 5∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 50 mm)
40
20
M16, c1,1 = 50 mm, s1,t = 200 mm
s1,t/c1,1 = 4.0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) (b)
Figure 3.98: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with more than two anchors without hole
clearance (b) Corresponding load-displacement curves
Summarizing, taking into account all tests performed without hole clearance, a good predic-
tion of the group resistance can be obtained when assuming a redistribution of the shear load
to the back anchor without negative influence of premature cracking at the anchors closer to
the free edge. All tests are considered in Section 5.8.
3.3.3.4.5 Analysis of groups with hole clearance failed by concrete edge failure
The formation of a failure crack at the front anchor is assumed to have a more significant in-
fluence on the group capacity for anchorages with hole clearance since the crack can open at a
load equals the resistance of the front anchor in case its displacement at failure is smaller than
the hole clearance. It is not known if for all ratios s1,1/c1,1 redistribution of the shear load to
the back anchor leads to conservative prediction of the concrete edge breakout capacity.
Figure 3.99 shows typical breakout pattern of groups with two anchors tested with hole clear-
ance and the corresponding measured load-displacement curves for different ratios s1,1/c1,1.
7/8“, c1,1 = 8“, s1,1 = 2“ test 1
60
2∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 8“) (test 1)
50
7/8“, c1,1 = 8“, s1,1 = 2“
40
Vu,c (c1,2 = 10“) (test 1)
Load V [kips]
s1,1/c1,1 = 0.25
2∙Vu,c (c1,1) (test 2)
30
Vu,c (c1,1 = 8“) (test 1)
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“ test 2
20 Vu,c (c1,2 = 6“) (test 2)
Load reduction
10 Vu,c (c1,1 =4“) (test 2)

7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
s1,1/c1,1 = 0.5
Anchor 2 is activated
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 4“ test 3
30
Vu,c (c1,2 = 8“) (test 3)

25 Load reduction
2∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 4“) (test 3)
20 Vu,c (c1,2 = 6“) (test 4)
Load V [kips]
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 4“

s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0
15
7/8“, c1,1 = 2“, s1,1 = 4“ test 4 10

Vu,c (c1,1 =4“) (test 3)
2∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 2“) (test 4)
7/8“, c1,1 = 2“, s1,1 = 4“
5
Vu,c (c1,1 = 2“) (test 4)
0
0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 0.45
Anchor 2 is activated
s1,1/c1,1 = 2.0
(a) (b)
Figure 3.99: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with two anchors with hole clearance (b) Cor-
responding load-displacement curves
For the group with a ratio s1,1/c1,1 = 0.25 (test 1), the displacement at failure of the front an-
chor is larger than the hole clearance. Therefore, the back anchor is activated without prior
failure of the front anchor. At this point, the shear load is redistributed to the back anchor and
both anchors are equally loaded. The group capacity is reached at a load equal to the back
anchor resistance. Since two times the front anchor resistance is larger than the back anchor
resistance, no crack at the front anchor is observed. For the tested anchor group with a ratio
s1,1/c1,1 = 0.5 (test 2), the displacement at failure of the front anchor is about equal to the hole
clearance. The crack at the front anchor opens at this point and the load is redistributed to the
back anchor. The formation of the crack at the front anchor influences the load-carrying be-
havior negatively which leads to a reduction of the group capacity compared to the back an-
chor resistance. This was also observed for the anchor group tested with a ratio s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0
(test 3). Note that the breakout angle of the crack at the front anchor was observed to be
steeper if both anchors are activated in the group at the onset of loading (compare Figure 3.97
test 2). The mean reduction of the breakout capacity of the groups, referred to as test 2 and
test 3 in Figure 3.99, is about 20% compared to the breakout resistance of the back anchor. In
test 4, the ratio s1,1/c1,1 was increased to a value 2.0. The crack opening at the front anchor
started at a displacement smaller than the hole clearance. However, no negative influence on
the back anchor crack was observed since the spacing between the anchors is large enough.
Therefore, no significant reduction of the group capacity due to premature cracking at the
front anchor was obtained.
Anchorages with three anchors according to the anchor configuration described in Figure 3.98
were tested with hole clearance as well. The anchor location is shown in Figure 3.91. At the
onset of loading, the front anchor is in contact with the baseplate, and the middle and the back
anchor are installed with a gap of 2 mm to the baseplate. In both cases a failure crack was
observed at the front anchor since the displacement at failure of the front anchor is smaller or
about equal the provided hole clearance (Figure 3.100). At this point where anchor 2 and 3 are
activated, the load is partially redistributed to the middle and the back anchor. Accelerated
crack opening at the front anchor was observed in test 2. At ultimate load, the total shear load
was mainly resisted by the middle and the back anchor since the front anchor has lost its re-
sistance compared to test 1 where the front anchor resisted a part of the shear force at ultimate
load. The capacity of the group was reached after failure of the rearmost anchor without nega-
tive influence of premature cracking within the breakout body. Interestingly, it was found that
the capacity of these groups is slightly higher compared to the same anchor configuration
tested without hole clearance.
7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“, s1,2 = 2“ test 1

50
7/8“, c1,1 = 3“, s1,1 = 4“, s1,2 = 4“
45
Vu,c (c1,3 = 11“) (test 2)
40
35
3∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 4“) (test 1)
Load V [kips]
30
Vu,c (c1,3 = 8“) (test 1)
s1,t/c1,1 = 1.0 25
20 3∙Vu,c (c1,1 = 3“) (test 2)
7/8“, c1,1 = 3“, s1,1 = 4“, s1,2 = 4“ test 2 15

7/8“, c1,1 = 4“, s1,1 = 2“, s1,2 = 2“
10 Vu,c (c1,1 = 4“) (test 1)
Vu,c (c1,1 = 3“) (test 2)
5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Anchor 2 and 3 are
activated
s1,t/c1,1 = 2.67
(a) (b)
Figure 3.100: (a) Typical breakout patterns of groups with three anchors with hole clearance (b)
Corresponding load-displacement curves
Summarizing, for groups with two anchors tested with unfavorable anchor configuration, not
in all cases, the group capacity was observed to be equal the resistance of the back anchor.
Therefore, for ratios 0.5 ≤ s1/c1,1 ≤ 1.33 a mean reduction of 20% in ultimate shear strength
can be expected when the load is assumed to be redistributed to the back anchor. All tests are
considered in Section 5.8.
3.3.3.4.6 Analysis of groups failed by steel rupture
When the failure is assumed to occur at the front anchor, this is associated with the maximum
resistance with respect for steel rupture since the maximum number of anchors is active.
However, when assuming a successive redistribution of the shear load from the front anchor
to the rearmost anchor, the resistance should be calculated with the back anchor only since it
is assumed that the anchors closer to the edge do not take up a significant part of the shear
load. The experimental investigations described in this section show that this leads to very
conservative prediction of the steel resistance for some anchor configurations. For the tested
anchor groups, hole clearance was not found to have an influence on the number of anchors
active if the resistance is calculated assuming a redistribution to the back anchor. Therefore,
in the following discussion, the observations described are valid for groups with and without
hole clearance. Figure 3.101 shows typical failure patterns of groups failed either in steel or a
combined concrete edge and steel failure.
4“ 4“ 4“
2“ 6“
4“
4“ 4“
2“
s1,1/c1,1 = 0.33 s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0 s1,1/c1,1 = 1.5 s1,t/c1,1 = 2.0
Figure 3.101: Typical failure patterns of groups with and without hole clearance for groups with
two and three anchors
For groups with a small ratio s1,1/c1,1, no formation of a failure crack at the front anchor prior
to steel rupture of the group was observed. The measured group capacity is two times the sin-
gle anchor steel shear strength obtained in the reference tests. For large ratios s1,1/c1,1 (e.g.
s1,1/c1,1 = 2.0), a failure crack at the front anchor occurred. Because the front anchor has lost
its resistance, the group capacity was measured with only one times the single anchor steel
shear strength. For ratios s1,1/c1,1 lying in between (e.g. s1,1/c1,1 = 1.0), the front anchor still
resists a fraction of the total shear force. The measured ultimate strength is about 1.5 times the
single anchor capacity. For the group with three anchors, the front anchor failed in concrete
edge failure and the middle and the back anchor failed in steel. Group capacity was measured
with 2.5 times the single anchor capacity. Figure 3.102 shows the comparison of measured
group capacity with the steel rupture load obtained in the single anchor tests for all tested con-
figurations with two anchors.
It is noted that the fraction the front anchor can resist in its post peak depends on different
parameters (e.g. tensile steel strength, rupture elongation, edge distance, embedment depth,
member thickness). It is assumed that for common applications in members with sufficient
member thickness (front anchor breakout is not affected by the lower edge of the slab) and
anchors having sufficient embedment depth to avoid an accelerated drop down of the load-
displacement curve in the post peak, the load-bearing mechanism according to Figure 3.102
provides good prediction of the failure load. However, an increase of the capacity over the
steel resistance of the back anchors is not recommended in design.
2.5
2.0
Vu,test, group / Vu,test, single anchor

1.5
1.0
0.5 acl==00mm
mm
acl==22mm
mm
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
s1,1/ c1
Figure 3.102: Comparison of obtained group capacity with steel shear resistance of a single an-
chor with same anchor diameter
3.3.3.4.7 Evaluation of axial measurements
As for single anchors, the percentage axial force related to the total shear force increases with
increasing edge distance. In Figure 3.103, the mean percentage axial forces at ultimate load
are shown. For groups with two anchors having a small ratio s1,1/c1,1 where no failure crack at
the front anchor was observed, the axial force in anchor 1 and anchor 2 is about the same val-
ue. For increasing ratio s1,1/c1,1, the axial force in the anchors closer to the edge is smaller than
the axial force in the anchors further away from the edge. In case the front anchor has lost its
resistance due to formation of a failure crack at the front anchor, no axial force was measured
at this anchor at ultimate load.
80 30
crack at the front 7/8" concrete breakout
70 anchor
25
no crack at the 5/8" steel rupture
60 front anchor
Axial/total shear [%]
Axial/total shear [%]
Linear (no crack at 20

50 the front anchor)
Linear (crack at the
40 front anchor) 15
30
10
20
5
10
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4
Anchor Anchor
(a) groups with two anchors (b) groups with three anchors
Figure 3.103: Evaluation of axial measurements

3.3.4 Anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge
As described in Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.3.2 the influence of a shear load applied parallel
to the edge on the load-bearing behavior has received little research attention in the past. In
particular, for the effect of spacing s1 on the group capacity there are only few experimental
results published by Hofmann, 2005 and Anderson and Meinheit, 2006. In current design, it is
assumed that the anchor spacing s1 influences the capacity in the same manner as for the same
anchor group loaded perpendicular to the free edge. Therefore, the increase in capacity due to
the changed load direction is taken into account by simply multiplying the resistance of the
group with a factor ψ90°,V. Consequently, the load-bearing behavior is considered to be the
same for the group loaded perpendicular and parallel to the edge. In this section the influence
of anchor spacing s1 and number of anchors on the capacity of groups loaded parallel to the
edge is discussed and it is shown that a different load-bearing mechanism for the s1-effect
needs to be considered when the load is applied parallel to the edge.
Experimental testing described in this section is taken from two different research activities,
Grosser, 2007a which is summarized in test program I and Grosser, Eligehausen, 2008 which
is summarized in test program II. Additionally, one test series was carried out to analyze neg-
ative effect of very small ratio s1,1/c1,1 (see test program III).
Comparative calculations with current design recommendations for different fastening sys-
tems (see Grosser, 2007a) have shown that anchor groups fail by concrete edge failure for
short embedment depth if the load is applied parallel to the edge. Therefore, a study of groups
with four anchors loaded parallel to the concrete edge was performed with short stiff threaded
rods (hef/dnom = 5.0). With this project the question should be answered if concrete pryout or
concrete edge breakout is controlling the failure for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge.
All tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system with M16 threaded rods
having a steel grade 10.9. The test program is summarized in Table 3.27. The tests were per-
formed in normal weight low strength concrete with measured compressive strength at the
beginning of testing of fcc,200 = 30.3 MPa. Width and length of the concrete slabs were taken
as 1285 mm with a slab thickness of 495 mm. For the description of the base material it is
referenced to Section 3.2.1.2.
Table 3.27: Test program I (groups with four anchors loaded parallel to the free edge)
d [mm] hef [mm] c1,1 [mm] s1 [mm] (s1/c1,1) s2 [mm] (s2/c1,1)

80 50 (0.71) 100 (1.43)
80, 130 70 70 (1.0) 140 (2.0)
80 100 (1.43) 50 (0.71)
16 80 50 (0.5) 50 (0.5)
80 50 (0.5) 100 (1.0)
100
80 70 (0.7) 140 (1.4)
80 100 (1.0) 100 (1.0)
In order to clarify the load-bearing behavior for the concrete edge failure mode of anchor
groups loaded parallel to the edge a comprehensive test program was carried out (see Figure
3.104 and Table 3.28).
Reference tests with edge distance c1,1 and

s2 c1,2 in order to evaluate group resistance
s2
s1 s1
c1,2
c1,1 c1,1
Figure 3.104: Experimental program (test program II)
Anchors were installed with an embedment depth of hef = 9.75dnom to avoid concrete pryout
failure. By means of this test program, the influence of spacing s1 on the group capacity and
the ability of load redistribution to the back anchors after failure of the front anchors should
be analyzed. Reference tests for groups with two and four anchors having a spacing s2 were
performed for both the front edge distance and the back edge distance. Such reference testing
is necessary since experimental tests have shown that the s2-spacing effect and the load direc-
tion are not considered with sufficient accuracy in current equations to calculate realistic ref-
erence values.
All tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system with M20 threaded rods
having a steel grade 10.9. The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete
slabs with width and length of 1635 mm and a slab thickness of 400 mm. For the description
of the base material, it is referred to Section 3.2.1.2. The measured compressive strength at
the beginning of testing scatters between 26.9 and 33.9 MPa (average 30.5 MPa).
Table 3.28: Test program II (anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge and corresponding
reference tests)
Number of Edge distance Spacing s1 [mm] Spacing s2 [mm]

α [°]
anchors c1 [mm] (s1/c1,1) (s2/c1,1)
70 (1.0, 0.7, 0.5) 70 (1.0, 0.7, 0.5)
70, 100, 140 100 (1.43, 1.0, 0.71) 100 (1.43, 1.0, 0.71)
4
70 (1.0, 0.7, 0.5) 140 (2.0, 1.4, 1.0)
70, 100 140 (2.0, 1.4) 70 (1.0, 0.7)
90° 70 (1.0, 0.7)
70, 100 -
100 (1.43, 1.0)
70 (1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.41)
70, 100, 140, 170 - 100 (1.43, 1.0, 0.71, 0.59)
2 140 (2.0, 1.4, 1.0, 0.82)
200 - 100 (0.5)
210 - 70 (0.33) / 140 (0.67)
1 0° / 90° 70, 100, 140, 170 - -
In order to analyze the negative effect of small spacing s1 on the load-bearing behavior, a
group with M24 anchors and embedment depth of 130 mm arranged perpendicular to the edge
was tested with a ratio s1/c1,1 = 0.33 (Table 3.29).
Table 3.29: Test program III (group with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge and load-
ed parallel to the free edge)
Number of anchors α [°] Edge distance c1 [mm] Spacing s1 [mm] (s1/c1,1)

2 90° 150 50 (0.33)
The anchors were installed as described in Section 3.3.1.1. The baseplate was aligned in the
correct position and glued to the concrete surface using a hot-glue gun. All holes were pre-
drilled, the plate was removed, and the holes were drilled to the required embedment depth of
hef = 195 mm. After drilling and cleaning, the anchors were installed and adjusted in the cor-
rect position using the baseplate.
The test setup can be seen in Figure 3.19 (Section 3.2.2.2). Depending on the tested anchor
configuration, different anchorage plates were used. In general, the load was applied by pull-
ing on a tension rod screwed into the baseplate (Figure 3.105a). Such a load application, in
the following referred to as “stiff” load application, allows limited rotation of the fixture after
failure of the front anchors. To investigate the difference in the load-bearing behavior in case
the fixture can rotate, a “hinged” load application was realized in some tests (Figure 3.105b).
Therefore, a semicircle steel plate (1) was screwed in the backside of the baseplate. The load
was applied by pulling on a steel ring (2). Additionally, the tension rod (3) screwed into the
steel ring was attached to the shear loading apparatus with a further hinge. Figure 3.105
shows the position of the fixture at post peak load, for instance, for a group with four anchors
having an edge distance c1,1 = 70 mm and spacings s1 = s2 = 70 mm. In case of a “hinged”
shear load application, the back anchors are loaded by an additional torsion moment caused
by the twisting behavior of the anchorage plate after failure of the front anchors, which can be
seen in Figure 3.105b).
(2)
(3)
(1)
Figure 3.105: Test setup for anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge
(LVDT) into the direction of loading. Additional LVDTs were used to determine the dis-
placement and the rotation of the baseplate perpendicular to the load direction. Crack opening
was measured in a distance of 100 mm to the outermost anchors. A friction reducing teflon
sheet was placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate. All anchors were tightened
with a torque wrench prior to testing (Tinst = 60 Nm).
(a) n = 2 (s1-effect) (b) n = 2 (s2-effect) (c) n = 4
Figure 3.106: Location of the LVDTs for anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge
Detailed information to the experimental tests is given in Grosser, 2007a and Grosser,
Eligehausen, 2008. A summary of the test results is shown in Table B-7, Table B-8 and Table
B-9 (Appendix B). Section 3.3.4.3.1 gives a discussion about the verification of anchor
groups loaded parallel to the edge for the concrete edge failure mode in order to understand
the theoretical background. In Section 3.3.4.3.2 and Section 3.3.4.3.3, the experimentally ob-
served load-bearing behavior of groups loaded parallel to the edge is analyzed.
In Section 3.3.3.4.1, the theoretical background for the calculation of an anchor group loaded
towards the edge is explained. Either the verification for concrete edge failure can be done for
the front anchors or the back anchors. Transferring this calculation approach to anchor groups
loaded parallel to the edge, three different calculation models described in the following, can
be assumed for predicting the resistance for the concrete edge failure mode. It is assumed that
all anchors resist shear forces when the load is applied parallel to the edge. This is shown in
Figure 3.107.
s2
Vs Vs/2 Vs Vs/4 Vs/4

Shear load is equally distributed
s1 s1
to all anchors Vs/4 Vs/4
c1,1 Vs/2 c1,1
Figure 3.107: Distribution of applied shear load to anchors in a group arranged close to the edge
and loaded parallel to the free edge for an anchorage without hole clearance
One assumption is that the failure is controlled by the anchors nearest the edge (front an-
chors). Therefore, the resistance equals two times the front anchor resistance (Figure 3.108).
Another assumption is that the failure is controlled by the anchors furthest from the edge
(back anchors). The front anchors are assumed to have failed. Hereby, the back anchors are
loaded additionally by a torsion moment. This calculation approach is not reasonable for
groups with two anchors since the back anchor is not able to resist the torsional moment after
formation of a failure crack at the front anchor. Therefore, this calculation approach is only
shown for a group with four anchors (Figure 3.109).
s2
Resistance for verification at the

front anchors:
s1 s1
Vs/2 Vs/2
Vu ,c  2 Vu ,c ,90°  c1,1  c1,1 c1,1
Figure 3.108: Calculation of the resistance for concrete edge failure according to model 1
s2 s1 s1 s2
TS  VS  VV  VS 
2 2  s2
Vs,res
VH  VS VH  VS
Vs Vs Vs
s1 s1
c1,1 c1,1
VS,res eV
αV
αV
αV VS,res
c1,2
edge s2/2 s2
s2 eV   cos V
2
Vu ,c,  c1,2   Vu ,c,0°  c1,2    ,V  ec,V
Vu ,c ,  c1,2 
Vu ,c  VS
VS ,res
s12  VH   2s2 
VS ,res  V  V  VS  1  2
2
H V
2
V  arctan    arctan  
4s2  VV   s1 
In calculation model 3 the failure is also assumed to be controlled by the back anchors. How-
ever, in comparison to calculation model 2 the torsional moment is neglected assuming the
rotation is restrained (Figure 3.110).
s2
Vs Vs
Resistance for verification at the
back anchors:
s1 s1
Vu ,c  Vu ,c,90°  c1,2  c1,1 c1,1
In general, the calculated failure loads according to model 2 are smaller than the calculated
failure loads according to model 1. This implies that for most of the anchorages model 2 can
not be verified in experimental investigations, since failure according to model 1 leads to fail-
ure of the entire group. In model 2, it is assumed that the rotation of the anchorage plate is not
restrained, and that the front anchors have lost their resistance. Likely, this is not realistic,
since applying the load with a tension rod screwed into the baseplate restrains a “free” twist-
ing behavior. Moreover, it is assumed that the front anchors resist a significant part of the
shear load in its post peak after formation of a failure crack at the front anchors. Hence, calcu-
lation model 3 seems to be a realistic model for predicting the failure loads for concrete edge
failure.
In the following, the experimentally observed load-bearing behavior is analyzed and the theo-
retical background according to calculation model 1, 2 and 3 is discussed.
3.3.4.3.2 Analysis of anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge with small ratio hef/dnom
A typical load-displacement curve is shown in Figure 3.111 for an anchor group with small
ratio hef/dnom loaded parallel to the edge. The failure occurred suddenly without pronounced
formation of cracks. The groups failed “explosively”. No descending branch of the load-
displacement curves is observed after reaching the ultimate load. For a better understanding of
the failure, the tests were filmed in real time. The individual pictures taken from the recording
can be allocated to the several steps in the load-displacement curve. At point A (just before
failure), no cracks were visible. Point B is the last measured data (failure of the entire group).
200
180
160
140 Point B
Point A
Load V [kN]
120
100
(Point A) Ultimate load (Point B)
80
60
40
c1,1 = 100 mm
20 s1,1 = 50 mm
s2,1 = 100 mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
(Point C) Post peak (Point D)
Figure 3.111: Typical load-displacement curve of an anchor group with small ratio hef/dnom loaded
parallel to the edge and failure pattern at different time steps (M16, hef = 80 mm)
In some tests the ultimate load was detected in the load-displacement curve prior to failure of
the entire group. At this point, these tests were stopped to analyze the crack propagation.
However, this was only possible in a few tests. For tests where cracking could be evaluated,
the failure crack was observed at the front anchors (see Figure 3.112, test No. 1).
250
200
150
Load V [kN]
test No.1
test No.2 (test
100 not stopped)
test No.1 (test

stopped)
50
c1,1 = 100 mm
s1,1 = 100 mm
s2,1 = 100 mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
test No.2
Figure 3.112: Load-displacement curves of an anchor group with small ratio hef/dnom loaded paral-
lel to the edge for anchor configuration with c1,1 = s1,1 = s2,1 = 100 mm and corre-
sponding failure pattern
By means of the breakout pattern, the failure cannot be associated to either concrete pryout
failure or concrete edge failure. This was also observed in experimental investigations per-
formed by Hofmann (2005) for groups having ratios hef/dnom = 5.0 and 8.0. Therefore, in Fig-
ure 3.113, the test results are compared with the current calculation approach for concrete
pryout failure according to Equation 2.40 and with the calculation models 1 to 3 for the con-
crete edge failure mode according to Section 3.3.4.3.1. The increase factor ψ90°,V is calculated
according to Equation 2.47 with n taken as the number of anchors for which concrete edge
failure is verified. In this case, for groups with four anchors n = 2.
The tests agree well with the calculation approach for concrete pryout failure assuming this
failure mode governs the failure observed in tests (see Figure 3.113a). Figure 3.113b) shows
that calculation model 1 overestimates the resistance for concrete edge failure for decreasing
ratio s1/c1,1. Figure 3.113c) and d) show the comparison of the test results with the calculation
model 2 and 3 for concrete edge failure assuming the back anchors controlling the failure of
the group. In this case a redistribution of the shear load after formation of a failure crack at the
front anchors is necessary. However, according to the theoretical background described in
Section 3.3.4.3.1, this is only possible if the resistance of the back anchors is higher than two
times the resistance of the front anchors. For instance for the group shown in Figure 3.112 the
calculated resistance according to model 3 is higher compared to the calculated resistance
according to model 1. Hence, in the load-displacement curves, a change in slope where the
front anchors fail should be visible. However, in the measured load-displacement curves, the
failure of the front anchors could not be detected. Moreover, no formation of cracks at the
back anchors was observed. It is striking that the measured ultimate loads are higher than the
calculated resistance according to model 3. Assuming concrete breakout governs the failure
observed in tests, the back anchors do not limit the resistance if the load is applied parallel to
the edge. However, note that there are a lot of factors considered in the calculation of a group
loaded parallel to the edge which are assumed not to be captured with sufficient accuracy.
Therefore, in Section 3.3.4.3.3, the group resistance is compared with reference tests for front
and back anchors, and not with calculated resistance.
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
Vu,m,test,90°,group / Vu,c,model 1
1.4 1.4
Vu,m,test / Vu,c,pryout
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 Mean = 1.06 0.4 Mean = 1.02

Standard deviation = 0.05 Standard deviation = 0.17
0.2 COV [%] = 4.74 0.2 COV [%] = 17.03
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
s1/c1,1 [-] s1/c1,1 [-]
(a) (b)
3.0 2.0
2.8 1.8
2.5
1.6
2.3
1.4
2.0
1.8 1.2
1.5 1.0
1.3 0.8
1.0
0.6
0.8
Mean = 2.03 0.4 Mean = 1.48
0.5
0.3 COV [%] = 17.16 0.2
COV [%] = 15.80
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
s1/c1,1 [-] s1/c1,1 [-]
(c) (d)
Figure 3.113: Comparison of test results with calculation approach for (a) pryout failure (b) con-
crete edge failure according model 1 (c) concrete edge failure according model 2 (d)
concrete edge failure according model 3
Summarizing, the tests described in this section confirm the observations by Hofmann (2005).
In general, for groups with four anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded parallel to the
edge, the failure is governed by concrete pryout for small ratios hef/dnom. However, the results
show an influence of the ratio s1/c1,1 on the ultimate load. Therefore, a realistic model for con-
crete edge failure is needed. Based on the test results, for small ratio s1/c1,1 the resistance of
the group cannot be assumed to be twice the resistance of the front anchors. This is discussed
in Section 3.3.4.3.3 for groups which failed without doubt in concrete edge breakout.
3.3.4.3.3 Analysis of s1-spacing effect in anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge
In this section test program II and III are analyzed. In Figure 3.114, the load application is
theoretically discussed for a group with two anchors.
δ2 δ2 δ2
V V2 V V2 V2
e
V
V1 V1 V1
δ1 δ1 δ1
δ 1 = δ2 δ1 > δ2 δ1 > δ2
V 1 < V2 V1 = V2 V1 > V2
(a) Idealized stiff (b) Idealized hinged (c) Hinged load application in tests
Figure 3.114: Theoretical discussion of the load application
In case the load is applied stiff, no rotation of the anchorage plate is possible. The displace-
ment of the front anchor equals the displacement of the back anchor. When the front anchor
loses its stiffness, the back anchor gets higher loaded than the front anchor. In contrast, when
the load is applied “idealized” hinged, the anchorage plate rotates, and both anchors are even-
ly loaded up to that point where the front anchor fails. However, an “idealized” hinged load
application is hard to realize in an experimental investigation, in particular, for a group with
closely spaced anchors, which is assumed to be the critical case. For the “hinged” load appli-
cation used in the tests, a further aspect needs to be considered. With increasing load, the rota-
tion of the plate leads to an eccentricity between the center axis of the anchors and the point
where the load is applied. Hence, the front anchor is more highly loaded than the back anchor.
The load fraction which is resisted by the anchors was not measured in the tests described in
this section. Therefore, the load distribution in a group loaded parallel to the edge for anchor-
ages with and without torsional restraint is numerically discussed in Section 4.5.5.2. It is
shown that for idealized stiff load application at ultimate load the back anchors take up a
higher load than the front anchors, which explains that also for the case where redistribution
to the back anchors is not possible the resistance of the group can be higher than two times the
resistance of the front anchors.
In Figure 3.115, the load-displacement curves of groups with two and four anchors loaded
both with a “stiff” and a “hinged” load application are shown. Anchor 1 and anchor 2 take up
the same load at initial loading. For a group with two anchors, the hinged load application
leads to an averaged reduction of the ultimate load of 24% compared to the stiff load applica-
tion. As aforementioned, the load is lower since the front anchor is higher loaded compared to
the stiff load application, where no rotation of the anchorage plate is possible. For an anchor
group with four anchors, the mean reduction of ultimate load is only 6%. The reason is that
the back anchors restrain the rotation of the plate, and the eccentricity is smaller. Therefore,
the load is distributed to the anchors more evenly.
180 250
“stiff“ load application 6% reduction
160
“stiff“ load application
24% reduction 200
140 2*Vu,test (c1,1)
2*Vu,test (c1,1)
120
150 “hinged“ load
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
“hinged“ load
100 application
application
80
Vu,test (c1,2) 100
60 Vu,test (c1,2)
40 Vu,test (c1,1)
50
Vu,test (c1,1)
20
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Anchor group with two anchors (b) Anchor group with four anchors
s2 s2 s2
s1 s1
c1,2 c1,2
c1,1 c1,1
(c) Reference tests for front and back anchors
Figure 3.115: Load-displacement curves of anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge with “stiff”
and “hinged” load application and corresponding reference tests
In both diagrams, the load-displacement curves of the reference tests for the front and the
back anchors are shown. The load-displacement curves clearly show that the back anchors do
not limit the resistance of the group as it does for groups loaded perpendicular to the edge.
The different load-bearing mechanism is also indicated by the failure pattern shown in Figure
3.116. At the front anchors, an unsymmetrical concrete breakout is observed. However, the
breakout at the back anchors is not characterized by a typical concrete edge breakout. In front
and in the back of the remote anchors, local spalling is particularly pronounced. Cracks are
influenced by the breakout at the front anchors.
(a) n = 2 (b) n = 4
Figure 3.116: Typical failure patterns of anchor groups loaded parallel to the edge for the con-
crete edge failure mode
Anchor groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge were tested with spacings
70 mm and 100 mm. In Figure 3.117a), the measured ultimate load of the group tests is com-
pared with twice the measured ultimate load of a single anchor with the edge distance of the
front anchor. An increase of the spacing s1 at constant edge distance of the front anchor did
not increase the ultimate load of the group. This was observed for both an edge distance of
70 mm and 100 mm. This shows that a redistribution of the load to the back anchor after the
formation of an edge breakout at the front anchor did not increase the ultimate load. The front
anchor is controlling the ultimate strength. However, for comparison, in Figure 3.117b), the
measured ultimate load of the group is compared with the measured ultimate load of a single
anchor with the edge distance of the back anchor. The group resistance is much higher than
the resistance of the back anchor. This shows that the front anchor resistance is not limited by
the resistance of the back anchor.
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.62
1.6
1.55
Vu,m,test,group / 2Vu,m,test (c1,1)
Vu,m,test,group / Vu,m,test (c1,2)

1.5
1.4
1.18 1.26
1.14 1.3
1.2
1.0 1.0
1.08 1.05
0.8 0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4 cc1,1
1,1 ==70
70mm
mm cc1,1
1,1 ==70
70mm
mm
0.3
0.2
cc1,1 = 100 mm
1,1 = 100 mm cc1,1 = 100 mm
1,1 = 100 mm
0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 25 50 75 100 125
Anchor spacing s1 [mm] Anchor spacing s1 [mm]
(a) Failure assumed at the front anchor (b) Failure assumed at the back anchor
Figure 3.117: Comparison of groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge and
loaded parallel to the edge with corresponding reference tests for front and back
anchor
That the back anchor is not controlling the ultimate load can be also seen by the fact that the
mean resistance of the anchor group with c1,1 = 100 mm and s1 = 70 mm is about 30% higher
than the mean resistance of the anchor group with c1,1 = 70 mm and s1 = 100 mm even though
both groups have the same edge distance of the back anchor.
Anchor groups with four anchors were tested with various anchor spacings in both directions.
For every anchor group with four anchors, reference tests for the front anchors for the con-
crete edge failure mode are available. Direct comparison with the back anchor resistance is
not possible for all tested anchor groups since steel rupture governs the resistance of the back
anchors for larger edge distance. The comparison for the assumption that the failure crack
occurs at the front anchors is shown in Figure 3.118a). The resistance of the groups with four
anchors is for all tested anchor configurations higher than twice the resistance of the front
anchors. With decreasing edge distance, the assumption that the front anchors control the ul-
timate load is more conservative. This indicates that for these groups the load can be redis-
tributed to the back anchors after formation of a failure crack at the front anchors. As for
groups with two anchors (see Figure 3.117), redistribution of the load to the back anchors is
only possible if the resistance of the back anchors is larger than twice the capacity of the front
anchors. Taking into account a redistribution of the load to the back anchors, the ultimate load
equals the sum of the back anchor resistance and the fraction of the shear load the front an-
chors resist in its post peak (Figure 3.118b).
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
Vu,m,test,group / 2Vu,m,test (c1,1)
Vu,m,test,group / Vu,m,test (c1,2)

1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 s1 = 70 mm
s1 mm s2 == 70
s2 70 mm
mm 0.6 ss1 = 70 mm
1 = 70 mm ss2 = 70 mm
2 = 70 mm
s1 = 100
s1 100 mm
mm s2
s2 == 100
100 mm
mm ss1
1 ==100
100 mm
mm ss2
2 == 100
100 mm
0.4 0.4
s1 = 70 mm
s1 mm s2 == 140
s2 140 mm
mm ss1
1 ==70
70 mm
mm ss2
2 == 140
140 mm
0.2 0.2
s1 = 140
s1 140 mm
mm s2
s2 == 70
70 mm
mm ss1
1 ==140
140 mm
mm ss2
2 == 70
70 mm
mm
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Edge distance c1,1 [mm] Edge distance c1,1 [mm]
(a) Failure assumed at the front anchors (b) Failure assumed at the back anchors
Figure 3.118: Comparison of groups with four anchors loaded parallel to the edge with corre-
sponding reference tests for front and back anchors
Summarizing, the comparison of the test values with twice the resistance of the front anchors
and the comparison with the back anchors is shown in Figure 3.119 as a function of the ratio
s1/c1,1 for all tests with two and four anchors. It can be seen that for ratios s1/c1,1 > 0.5, the
resistance of the group can be assumed to be twice the resistance of the front anchors. Redis-
tribution of the load after the formation of a failure crack at the front anchor is only possible
for large ratios s1/c1,1 where the resistance of the back anchors is larger than twice the re-
sistance of the back anchors.
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
Vu,test,group / 2Vu,m,test (c1,1)
Vu,test,group / Vu,m,test (c1,2)
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 n=4 0.4 n=4
0.2 n=2 0.2 n=2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
s1/c1,1 [-] s1/c1,1 [-]
(a) Failure assumed at the front anchors (b) Failure assumed at the back anchors
Figure 3.119: Ratio of group results (n = 4) and reference tests for front and back anchors (n = 2)
plotted as a function of the ratio s1/c1,1
Figure 3.120 shows the results of test program III. A group with closely spaced anchors was
tested to verify the resistance for small ratios s1/c1,1. Reference tests for the front and back
anchor are taken from Section 3.2.2. Figure 3.120a) shows the test setup and the breakout
pattern. In Figure 3.120b), the normalized ultimate load of the group is compared with both
the normalized mean ultimate load of the front and the back anchor. It is shown that the group
fails at a load less than twice the resistance of the front anchor (~20% reduction). No redistri-
bution of the load to the back anchor is possible since the resistance of the back anchor is less
than the load level where the front anchor fails. The limit for the resistance of groups with
closely spaced anchors is discussed in Section 5.9.
2.0
1.8
1.65
1.6
1.40
1.4
Vu,test,group / Vu,m,test
1.2
1.00
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
s1/c1,1 = 0.33 0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Vu,test,group Vu,test (c1,1) Vu,test (c1,2)
s1
c1,2
c1,1
(a) (b)
Figure 3.120: Group with closely spaced anchors loaded parallel to the edge (a) test setup and
breakout pattern (b) Comparison of group resistance with resistance of the front and
back anchor
3.3.5 Anchorages arranged in narrow concrete members
In case shear loaded anchorages are arranged in narrow concrete members, the fracture sur-
face is restricted by the side edge distance of the anchors. Anchor groups loaded towards the
edge and influenced by two edges parallel to the loading direction have been tested in the past
only by Paschen and Schönhoff (1983). No experimental tests are known for anchor groups
affected by two edges and loaded parallel to the edge, such as side edge column conditions.
The only information can be taken from pushoff testing. Such tests are described in Anderson
and Meinheit (2006). The reduction of the concrete edge resistance due to a further edge is
taken into account by the number of edges in the factor which considers the s1-effect (see
Equation 2.32, Section 2.2).
In order to provide more information about anchor groups affected by more than one edge,
shear tests were performed in narrow concrete members. Primary question which should be
answered in this section is if there is a negative effect of a further edge when the load is ap-
plied parallel to the edge. One test series was performed with a load direction towards the
edge to verify the results from Paschen and Schönhoff (1983).
The test program is described in Table 3.30. All tests were carried with a vinylester adhesive
anchor system used with continuously threaded rods. All anchors had a steel grade 10.9 (nom-
inal tensile steel strength of 1000 MPa). The tests were performed in normal weight low
strength concrete columns with a width of 300 mm, a length of 1500 mm, and a height of
500 mm (Figure 3.121). The concrete mix composition is comparable to that provided in Ta-
ble 3.2. Anchors were installed as described in Section 3.3.1.1.
Table 3.30: Test program for anchorages arranged in narrow concrete members
Anchor configuration
100
150 250
100
150
100
α = 90°, M12, hef = 120 mm

α = 0°, M20, hef = 195 mm
α = 90°, M16, hef = 80 mm
100 100 100

100 100
100 100
100 100
α = 90°, M12, hef = 120 mm

α = 90°, M16, hef = 80 mm α = 90°, M12, hef = 120 mm
α = 90°, M20, hef = 195 mm
All slabs were cast in vertical position in rigid forms with smooth surfaces. The compressive
strength at the beginning of testing was measured between 30.8 and 32.9 MPa (average
32.1 MPa).
1500 500
300 Ø 6 mm
Transport anchors
Figure 3.121: Schematic sketch of the concrete columns
The general test setup is comparable with the test setup shown in Figure 3.4. The concrete
columns were placed in horizontal position on the strong floor. To prevent the component
from “kicking up” while loading, steel beams were placed on the concrete column and
screwed down into the strong floor. The steel beams were arranged in a distance of 400 mm to
the outermost anchors not to provide confinement to the anchorage. The supports in horizon-
tal direction reacted against the lower end of the concrete blocks not to influence the breakout.
The test setup is shown in Figure 3.122.
Figure 3.122: Test setup for anchor groups arranged in narrow concrete members
A closer view of the anchorage plate is shown in Figure 3.123a) for a single anchor loaded
towards the free edge and in Figure 3.123b) for a group with six anchors loaded parallel to the
free edges. Anchorage plate displacement was measured with a linear variable displacement
transducer (LVDT) into the direction of loading. Crack opening was measured in a distance of
100 mm to the outermost anchors on both sides. Additionally, the axial forces in the individu-
al anchors were measured continuously with load washers described in Figure 3.66b). A fric-
tion reducing teflon sheet (ptfe) was placed between the concrete surface and the baseplate.
Disp. (LVDT)
Disp.(LVDT)
Crack opening
(5 LVDTs)
(a) α = 0°, n = 1 (b) α = 90°, n = 6
Figure 3.123: Test setup for anchor groups arranged in narrow concrete members (detail)
In the following, the main results of the anchor tests in narrow members are discussed. De-
tailed information to the tests can be found in Grosser (2011e). The measured data are sum-
marized in Table B-10 (Appendix B).
3.3.5.3.1 Load applied towards the free edge
Figure 3.124a) shows a typical crack pattern observed in the experimental investigations for
single anchors arranged in a narrow concrete member and loaded towards the concrete edge.
The failure crack at the top is perpendicular to the load direction. At the side the crack propa-
gates towards the loaded edge. In Figure 3.124b), the quadratic points represent test results of
single anchors with anchor diameter dnom = 20 mm and embedment depth hef = 195 mm load-
ed towards the edge in a concrete member without influence of further edges. Tests are avail-
able up to an edge distance of 170 mm. For an edge distance of 250 mm, steel rupture is ex-
pected. Therefore, the results are extrapolated to c1 = 250 mm assuming an influence of the
edge distance to the power of 4/3 (for explanation of the exponent see Section 3.2.1). The
predicted ultimate loads agree well with the test results. Hence, a good correlation is expected
for an edge distance of 250 mm. The obtained edge breakout capacity in a narrow member for
same edge distance, anchor diameter and embedment depth is in average 43% lower com-
pared to the calculated reference value without influence of further edges. For comparison, the
predicted failure load considering both the reduction of the fracture surface according to
Equation 2.43 and the disturbance of the distribution of stresses according to Equation 2.44 is
depicted. It can be seen that the predicted ultimate load is quite conservative. Current calcula-
tion assumes a reduction of the breakout capacity for a ratio c2/c1 = 0.6 of about 70%
(ψs,V ∙ ψA,V = 0.8 ∙ 0.4 = 0.32).
150
without corner influence
narrow member
Normalized ultimate load [kN]
120
Vu,test (c1 = 70 mm) ∙ (c1/70 mm)1.33A
- 43%
90
Failure crack
60 - 70%
30
Vu,test∙ ψs,V∙ ψA,V
c2/c1 = 0.6 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) n = 1 (c1 = 250 mm) (b)
Figure 3.124: (a) Failure pattern (b) Reduction of ultimate load compared to a single anchor with
same edge distance without influence of further edges
Figure 3.125 shows the comparison of tests according to Paschen and Schönhoff (1982)
(c1 = 63 mm to c1 = 150 mm) and tests performed within the scope of this research work
(c1 = 250 mm). The value Vu,single anchor for the test points according to Paschen and Schönhoff
(1982) is a reference test value measured in concrete specimens without influence of further
edges. All tests were performed with equal corner distance c2,1 = c2,2. The analysis shows that
no disturbance of stresses needs to be taken into account for such cases. Moreover, it can be
seen that the critical ratio c2/c1 depends on the edge distance c1. No tests are available in nar-
row concrete members with unequal corner distances (c2,1 ≠ c2,2).
1.2
1.0
c1 c2,1
Vu,test/Vu,single anchor
0.8
0.6
cc1==6363mm
mm
cc1==8484mm
mm
c2,2
0.4 cc1==112
112mm
mm
cc1==133
133mm
mm
0.2 cc1==150
150mm
mm
cc1==250
250mm
mm
In all tests the specimen is loaded
0.0 symmetrically (c2 = c2,1= c2,2)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
c2/c1
Figure 3.125: Ratio of ultimate loads measured in tests in thick narrow concrete members and
reference values in concrete members not influenced by further edges as a function
of the ratio corner distance to edge distance (symmetric loading)
3.3.5.3.2 Load applied parallel to the side edges
Figure 3.126a) shows a typical failure pattern observed in the side edge column tests for a
group with two anchors loaded parallel to the edge.
160
n = 2, M16, hef = 80 mm,
140 c1,1 = 100 mm, fcc,200 = 30.8 MPa
120
100
Load V [kN]
s1/c1,1 = 1.0 80
(a) n = 2, M16, hef = 80 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm 60
40
20 n = 1, M16, hef = 80 mm,

c1,1 = 100 mm, fcc,200 = 29.9 MPa
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(c)
(b) n = 1, M16, hef = 80 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm
Figure 3.126: (a) Failure pattern of a group (n = 2) in a narrow concrete member (b) Correspond-
ing reference test (n= 1) (c) Comparison of load-displacement behavior
The breakout pattern is comparable to that observed in the reference test with a single anchor
in a concrete member where the breakout is influenced by only one edge (Figure 3.126b).
Both anchors in the group can be seen as a front anchor. In Figure 3.126c) typical load-
displacement curves are shown for the group test and the reference test with a single anchor.
The capacity of the group equals about two times the ultimate load obtained in the single an-
chor test. Figure 3.127 shows typical failure patterns of anchor groups with four and six an-
chors. The groups failed in concrete edge breakout as observed for anchorages in members
only influenced by one edge. The breakout angle in front of the anchorage (in the direction of
loading) is smaller than the breakout angle behind the remote anchor (unsymmetric cracking).
s1/c1,1 = 1.0 s1/c1,1 = 1.0
(a) n = 4, M12, hef = 120 mm (b) n = 6, M12, hef = 120 mm
Figure 3.127: Failure patterns of a shear loaded anchor group with edge distance c1,1 = 100 mm,
spacing s1 = 100 mm and individual spacings s2,1 = s2,2 = 100 mm in a narrow con-
crete member
0.3 4.0
LVDT (6)
edge
0.25
3.0
LVDT (2) LVDT (3)
0.2 0.4Vmax
Measured load
V displacement
curve Vmax
0.15 2.0
LVDT (1) LVDT (4)
1
edge
0.1
LVDT (5) 6 1.0
2
0.05
5 3
100 100
4
0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Load V [kN]
(a) Location of the LVDTs (b) Measurements
Figure 3.128: Example of crack opening at ultimate load of a shear loaded anchor group with six
anchors with edge distance c1,1 = 100 mm, spacing s1 = 100 mm, and individual
spacings s2,1 = s2,2 = 100 mm in a narrow concrete member
The evaluation of the measurements of the load washers shows that axial forces are evenly
distributed to the individual anchors. At ultimate load, the total axial force was measured with
a value between 30% and 40% of total shear. In order to evaluate the crack propagation,
LVDTs were instrumented to the concrete column according to Figure 3.123b). The crack
propagation is shown in Figure 3.128, for instance, for a group with six anchors. As observed
for anchorages located close to the edge without influence of further concrete edges and load-
ed parallel to the edge, at ultimate load cracking in front of the anchorage (LVDT1 and
LVDT2) is more pronounced. Nearly no crack opening at ultimate load was measured behind
the anchorage (LVDT1 and LVDT2). This is shown in Figure 3.128b). At about 40% of the
ultimate load movement of LVDT1 and LVDT2 started. The measured crack width of
LVDT5 and LVDT6 equals about 0.2 mm. These cracks are caused by bending of the column
since the concrete members were unreinforced.
No direct reference tests exist for the group tests with four and six anchors. Therefore, the
reference values need to be calculated. In Section 3.3.2, the effect of spacing s2 on the load-
bearing behavior of anchorages loaded parallel to the edge is discussed. The evaluation shows
that the ratio of the projected areas does not represent the load-bearing capacity with suffi-
cient accuracy. In order not to falsify the evaluation of the column tests, the reference values
are calculated incorporating the results obtained in Section 3.3.2. This is explained in Figure
3.129. For an edge distance of c1 = 100 mm, the load increase of the group capacity compared
to a single anchor loaded parallel to the edge is 50% for an individual spacing of s2 = 100 mm
(ψs2,90°,V = 1.5 for n = 2) (ψs2,90°,V = 2.0 for n = 3).
Vu,c,90° = Equ. 2.42 x Equ. 2.47

100 100 100
100
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
M12, hef = 120 mm: Vu,c,90° = 45.2 kN (n = 1) Vu,c,90° = 67.8 kN (n = 2) Vu,c,90° = 90.4 kN (n = 3)
M16, hef = 80 mm: Vu,c,90° = 59.2 kN (n = 1) Vu,c,90° = 88.8 kN (n = 2)
Figure 3.129: Calculation of reference values for the resistance of groups with two and three an-
chors arranged parallel to the edge and loaded parallel to the edge (compressive
strength fcc,200 = 30 MPa)
3.0
Mean = 1.95
Example: Anchor group (n = 6)
2.8 edge
Standard deviation = 0.10
Vu,m,test,group / Vu,c,90°,m,front anchors
2.5 COV [%] = 5.27
2.3
2.0
1.8
edge
1.5 M12 concrete edge failure
M12 steel rupture
1.3 Vu,c,90°,front anchors (n = 3)
M16 concrete edge failure
1.0 Vu,c,group = 2Vu,c,90°,front anchors (n = 3) for s1 ≥ s1,min
0 2 4 6 8
Number of anchors
(a) (b) Example: anchor group with six anchors
Figure 3.130: (a) Ratio of normalized ultimate loads of groups in narrow members and reference
values calculated according to Figure 3.129 as a function of the number of anchors
in the group (b) Recommendation for the calculation of an anchorage loaded paral-
lel to the edge in a narrow concrete member
Figure 3.130 shows the comparison of the normalized average ultimate loads of the group
tests in the narrow members with the reference values calculated according to Figure 3.129.
The ratio of ultimate loads is plotted as a function of the total number of anchors in the group.
The anchor groups failed in concrete edge breakout at about twice the calculated resistance of
the front anchors. The test series with M12 diameter threaded rods with two anchors failed in
steel. However, the failure load is close to twice the resistance of the single anchor loaded
parallel to the edge (Vu,m,test,group/Vu,c,90°,m,front anchor = 1.9). The value is plotted for comparison
as well. The evaluation shows that the resistance of an anchor group located in a narrow
member and loaded in shear parallel to the edge can be assumed to be twice the resistance of
the front anchors loaded parallel to the edge for spacing s1 ≥ s1,min.
3.3.6 Shear collectors loaded far away from the edge
3.3.6.1 General
For the connection of highly stressed steel elements with concrete structures, often multiple
anchorages with more than two anchors in a row are used. So-called shear collectors are not
covered in current design since the load distribution on the individual anchors is not known.
Investigations on such connections should help to eliminate critical shear collector configura-
tions in practice. Within the scope of this dissertation the shear collector problem is mainly
discussed numerically (refer to Section 4.5.6).
Experimental investigations described in this section should provide first information about
the load-bearing mechanism of multiple anchor connections failing in steel. Tests were per-
formed with the loading setup described in Section 3.3.2.2 (no hole clearance). Shear load
distribution was measured with the load pins screwed into the baseplate (see Figure 3.74). In
order not to damage the pins, the maximum load per anchor was limited to 11 kips (~50 kN).
Therefore, the anchor tests were performed with low strength steel with measured tensile steel
strength of 604 MPa. The test program is shown in Table 3.31. Detailed information to the
experimental investigations can be found in Grosser (2011d). The results are summarized in
Table B-11 (Appendix B). The tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system
with M12 threaded rods installed 80 mm deep into the hardened concrete. The measured
compressive strength of the concrete slabs was fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa at the day of testing.
Table 3.31: Test program for shear collectors arranged far away from the free edge
100 100 100 100 100 100
A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 A3 A2 A1
n = 5, M12, A1-A5: fu = 604 MPa n = 3, M12, A1-A3: fu = 604 MPa

100 Reference test
A2 A1 A1
n = 2, M12, A2: fu = 604 MPa, A1: fu = 1058 MPa n = 1, M12, A1: fu = 604 MPa
Figure 3.131 shows the mean load distribution to the individual anchors in the group at ulti-
mate load for the tested groups with three and five anchors in a row. The shear load is equally
distributed to all anchors. No shear lag was observed for the tested anchor groups. Therefore,
a uniform load distribution can be assumed for groups in low strength concrete with up to five
anchors in a row in case the anchors are installed with no hole clearance. It is assumed that a
uniform load distribution is also justified for anchorages with normal hole clearance in case
the anchors have sufficient plastic deformation capacity. The sum of measured axial forces is
about 25% of total shear at ultimate load. With increasing distance to the point of loading, the
axial force in the anchors is slightly increasing due to “kicking up” of the anchorage plate.
40 120 25 120
33.8 104.1 106.5
35
100 20.3 20.1 19.7 100
32.8 33.4 20
30 20.6
19.4

shear load
80 80
shear load
Total load [%]
Total load [%]

25
tension load 15
tension load
20 total shear + friction 60 60
10
15 total tension
10.7 40 total tension 40
6.1
5.4
10
26.3 5
7.2 8.3 20 22.6 20
5
3.7 3.4 4.0
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Anchor Anchor
(a) n = 3 (b) n = 5
Figure 3.131: Axial and shear load distribution to the individual anchors at ultimate load
160
146,9
140
120
Ultimate load Vu,test [kN]
100 * 3.02
88,1
80
60
n=3
40 * 5.03
29,2
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of anchors
Failure load: Vu,total = neff∙Vu,single

n = 3 → neff = 3 / n = 5 → neff = 5
n=5
(a) (b)
Figure 3.132: (a) Anchor configuration for groups with three and five anchors in a row (b) Ulti-
mate loads plotted as a function of the number of anchors in the group and compari-
son with single anchor test results
In Figure 3.132, the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the number of an-
chors in the group. Groups failed in steel at n-times the ultimate load of the single anchor.
Therefore, the effective number of anchors can be taken as the total number of anchors in the
group. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the individual tests in one test series is less than
4.5%.
In Figure 3.133, the measured anchor shear forces are plotted as function of the displacement
of the anchorage plate, for instance, for a group with five anchors. Anchor 1 reached its ulti-
mate load at 5.95 mm. Subsequently, the load was redistributed to the remote anchors. Anchor
2 reached its ultimate load at 6.15 mm, which resulted in the ultimate load of the group. An-
chor 3 dropped down at a displacement of 6.38 mm. At a displacement of 6.7 mm, the entire
group collapsed. It is assumed that this “chain reaction” is more pronounced for groups with
more brittle steel where the anchors cannot develop large displacements at failure. This is
40 in Section 4.5.6.
discussed numerically
A1 6,15 mm
40
35
35
A1
A26,15 mm A2
A5
A2
A3
x x A3
30
30 A4
A3 x
25
Load V [kN]
A5
20
A4 A4
A1
25
Load V [kN]
15
A5
10
5
20 Anchor 1: ultimate load at δ = 5.95 mm
Anchor 2: ultimate load at δ = 6.15 mm
0 Anchor 3: ultimate load at δ = 6.38 mm
Ultimate load of the group at δ = 6.15 mm
15 1
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Collapse at δ = 6.7 mm (steel rupture)
(a)10 (b)
Figure 3.133: (a) Measured anchor shear forces plotted as a function of the anchorage plate dis-
placement
5 for a group with five anchors (b) Detail of the point where the anchorage
reached its ultimate load
0
Additionally, a group with two anchors having different tensile steel strength was tested
(Figure 3.134). Anchor 1 represented a brittle threaded rod with high tensile steel strength
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(1058 MPa) installed with a vinylester system whereas anchor 2 was installed in a steel sleeve
Displacement
with a threaded rod with a steel strength δ [mm]
of 604 MPa. Anchor 2 reached its ultimate load at
31.6 kN. At this point, the load was redistributed completely to anchor 1. At ultimate load of
the group, the shear force was only slightly unevenly distributed. Therefore, the increase in
ultimate strength is of minor significance compared to a group with two anchors having both
a tensile steel strength of 604 MPa. It is assumed that the uneven load distribution is more
pronounced for high rupture elongation of the anchors.
n=2 Ultimate load A2

A1
Ultimate load A1
70
Sum of load pins

60 + friction Load cell
measurement
50
Load V [kN]
40 Shear A1
30 Shear A2
sheared anchors
A2
20
Axial A2
10
A2 A1 Axial A1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
604 MPa 1058 MPa
(a) (b)
Figure 3.134: Anchor group with two anchors having different tensile steel strength
3.3.7 Anchor groups (n = 2) loaded under torsion close to the edge and in a corner
Investigations by Mallée (2001, 2002) have shown that for the case of an anchor group with
two anchors arranged parallel to the edge and loaded in shear in opposed directions, the ob-
tained ultimate load is comparable to that of a single anchor loaded towards the edge with
same edge distance, anchor diameter, and embedment depth. However, as described in Sec-
tion 2.2, the deviation of the reference single anchor tests to the calculation according to
Equation 2.41, and respectively Equation 2.42 is unexplainable high. A comparison of the
group results with the predicted single anchor ultimate loads shows a reduction in group ca-
pacity compared to the single anchor capacity for decreasing ratio s2/c1. Rüdinger, Hofmann
(2005) carried out a numerical study to verify the load-bearing behavior. Anchor groups with
edge distances c1 ≤ 100 mm were tested. The simulations confirmed the results obtained by
Mallée (2001, 2002). However, simulations with the used FE-model have shown that single
anchors with very small edge distance loaded perpendicular away from the edge do not gener-
ate a crack towards the edge. The anchor fails due to local failure in front of the anchorage.
This explains that for anchor groups loaded in shear no negative influence of the anchor load-
ed away from the edge could be observed since no prying force with the used numerical mod-
el was generated. Research is required to provide specific guidance for anchor groups loaded
in shear with opposed directions in particular for small ratios s2/c1 since in this case the max-
imum influence of anchor forces is expected. In case of groups arranged perpendicular to the
edge, and groups located in a corner and loaded in torsion, no investigations are known.
Experimental testing described in this section is taken from various research activities
(Eligehausen, Grosser, 2007; Grosser, 2008c, Grosser, 2011f and Grosser, 2011g). Groups
with two anchors arranged both parallel and perpendicular to the edge and in a corner loaded
in shear in opposed directions were tested. For all anchor configurations, reference tests with
single anchors were performed to evaluate the group capacity. The group tests are summa-
rized in Table 3.32 to Table 3.34.
Table 3.32: Test program I (groups with two anchors arranged parallel to the free edge)
dnom [mm] hef [mm] (hef/dnom) c1,1 [mm] s2 [mm] (s2/c1,1)

60 (3.75) 200 50 (0.25)
100 50 (0.5), 80 (0.8), 100 (1.0), 150 (1.5)
80 (5.0) 150 50 (0.33), 80 (0.53), 150 (1.0)
16
200 50 (0.25), 80 (0.4), 100 (0.5), 140 (0.7)
150 80 (0.53)
130 (8.1)
200 80 (0.53), 100 (0.5), 150 (0.75)
24 130 (5.4) 100 100 (1.0)
Table 3.33: Test program II (groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the free edge)
dnom [mm] hef [mm] (hef/dnom) c1,1 [mm] s1 [mm] (s1/c1,1)

16 80 (5.0) 100 50 (0.5), 100 (1.0)
24 130 (5.4) 100 100 (1.0)
Table 3.34: Test program III (groups with two anchors located in a corner)
dnom [mm] hef [mm] loading c1 [mm] c2 [mm] s1 [mm]

torsion, clockwise 100 100 100
torsion, counter-clockwise 100 100 100
16 130
torsion, clockwise 50 150 100
torsion, counter-clockwise 50 150 100
The tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system. Only in case of M16
threaded rods with an embedment depth of 60 mm, an epoxy based system was used to avoid
a pullout failure due to the small ratio hef/dnom.
Testing was performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs with sufficient member
thickness (h ≥ 2c1). The measured compressive strength at the beginning of testing scattered
between 21.2 and 30.2 MPa. Detailed information about the base material, drilling and clean-
ing can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2.
Materials (IWB). General information to the strong floor and the loading setup can be found
in Section 3.2.1.3. A pure torsion loading on an anchor group with two anchors equals a shear
loading in opposed directions. The capacity is reached if one of the anchors fails. Therefore,
the load was applied with two separate steel plates. A possible rotation in case of a common
baseplate is neglected. Width of the steel plates is 45 mm in order to allow minimum spacings
of 50 mm. The load was applied with a servohydraulic load cylinder by controlling the oil
pressure. The tubes connected to the hydraulic cylinders have the same length to ensure that
the load is applied to both steel plates equally. Support spacing was sufficient so as not to
influence the concrete breakout.
slab tie-down hydraulic jack

steel angle teflon layer baseplate support tension rod
load cell
anchor
concrete slab
LVDT(2)
V2
oil supply V1
switch
strong floor
LVDT(1)
air pillow
Figure 3.135: Test setup for anchor groups loaded in shear in opposed directions and photograph
of the load application
Displacement of both anchorage plates was measured with linear variable displacement trans-
ducers (see Figure 3.135).
The measured data are summarized in Table B-12, Table B-13, and Table B-14 (Appendix B).
Anchor groups arranged parallel to the edge are analyzed in Section 3.3.7.3.1 and anchor
groups arranged perpendicular to the edge are analyzed in Section 3.3.7.3.2.
3.3.7.3.1 Analysis of anchor groups arranged parallel to the edge
In case of anchor groups with edge distance c1 = 100 mm and spacing s2 = 150 mm, an inde-
pendent breakout body of the anchor loaded towards the edge was observed without visible
cracking at the anchor loaded away from the edge. In all other tests, a common failure body
was observed (see Figure 3.136).
c1 = 150 mm, s2 = 150 mm
c1 = 100 mm, s2 = 150 mm
(a) s2/c1 = 1.5 (b) s2/c1 < 1.5
Figure 3.136: Failure body of anchor groups arranged parallel to the edge and loaded in torsion
If an anchor is loaded in shear, a resultant (R1) in the same direction as the applied shear force
acts on the concrete. Due to reasons of equilibrium, an additional force (R2) is generated in the
lower part of the anchor which acts in opposing direction. If the anchorage is located close to
the edge, the resultant R1 causes a concrete edge breakout failure. For an anchorage with two
anchors arranged parallel to the edge, the component R1 of anchor 1 (R1,1) and the component
R2 of anchor 2 (R2,2) act in the same direction (Figure 3.137a). The maximum influence be-
tween both anchors is expected for closely spaced anchors with small embedment depth. The
critical case is an anchorage where the anchor which is loaded towards the edge fails in con-
crete edge breakout at about the same load where the anchor which is loaded away from the
edge fails in concrete pryout. Such a loading case is shown in Figure 3.137b). The group
loaded in torsion failed at an ultimate load in average 25% lower than a single anchor having
the same edge distance, anchor diameter, and embedment depth loaded towards the edge. The
single anchor loaded away from the edge failed in concrete pryout at about the same load as
the anchor loaded towards the edge which failed in concrete breakout (Vu,c/Vu,cp ~ 1.0).
V1 V2
70
60,5
R1,1 R1,2 59,3
60
R2,1 R2,2 Normalized ultimate load [kN]
50
45,9
Anchor 1 Anchor 2 * 0.75
40
Anchor 1 fails in concrete breakout 30

Anchor 2 fails in concrete pryout
R2,1 R1,2 20
T
10
c = 200 mm
R1,1 R2,2 edge 0

0 shear
1 shear
2 torsion
3 4
n=1 n=1 n=2
α = 0° α = 180° α = 0°/180°
(a) (b) M16, hef = 60 mm
Figure 3.137: (a) Load-bearing mechanism of a group loaded in torsion close to an edge (b) Re-
duction of group capacity in case of torsion loading compared to the resistance of
single anchors loaded both towards and away from the edge (s2 = 50 mm)
1.2 1.2
hef = 80 mm hef = 130 mm
1.1 1.1
Vu,m,test,group / Vu,m,test,single anchor
Vu,m,test,group / Vu,m,test,single anchor
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
M16, c = 100 mm M24, c = 100 mm
0.7 M16, c = 150 mm 0.7 M16, c = 150 mm

M16, c = 200 mm M16, c = 200 mm
0.6 0.6
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Spacing s2 [mm] Spacing s2 [mm]
Figure 3.138: Ratio of measured ultimate loads of the groups loaded in torsion and the measured
ultimate load of a single anchor loaded towards the edge as a function of the anchor
spacing s2
In Figure 3.138, the ratio between measured failure loads of the groups loaded in torsion and
the measured failure loads of a single anchor loaded towards the edge is plotted as a function
of the anchor spacing s2. The influence between the anchors decreases with increasing anchor
spacing and increasing embedment depth. For edge distances c = 100 mm (hef = 80 mm) and
c = 200 mm (hef = 130 mm), the ratio Vu,m,test,group/Vu,m,test,single anchor for s2 = 150 mm is lower
compared to the mean ratio for s2 = 100 mm. This can only be explained by the scatter of the
test results.
3.3.7.3.2 Analysis of anchor groups arranged perpendicular to the edge
In Figure 3.139, the results of groups with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge
and loaded in shear in opposed directions are shown. The results are taken from research de-
scribed in Eligehausen, Grosser (2007). For an anchor spacing s2 = 100 mm (s2/c1 = 1.0), no
influence of the back anchor on the group capacity was observed. The ultimate load of the
group equals the ultimate load of the front anchor loaded parallel to the edge. In case of a
small anchor spacing s2 = 50 mm (s2/c1 = 0.5), the capacity of the group is about 20% lower
than the front anchor capacity since the splitting forces at the front anchor which generate the
concrete breakout are influenced by the stress field at the back anchor.
1.2
c1 = 100 mm
c1 = 100 mm
s2 = 50 mm
1.1
Vu,test,group / Vu,m,test,single anchor
1.0
0.9
c1 = 100 mm
0.8
s2 = 100 mm
0.7 M16, hef

M16, hef == 80
80 mm
mm
M24, hef
M24, hef = 130
130 mm
mm
0.6
0 25 50 75 100 125
Spacing s1 [mm]
(a) (b) M16, hef = 80 mm
Figure 3.139: (a) Ratio of measured ultimate loads of the groups loaded in torsion and the meas-
ured ultimate load of a single anchor with the edge distance of the front anchor
loaded parallel the edge as a function of the anchor spacing s1 (b) Failure body of
anchor groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded in torsion
3.3.7.3.3 Analysis of anchor groups located in a corner
No investigations are known for anchorages located in a corner and loaded in torsion. In order
to investigate the behavior of such groups, tests were carried out with both clockwise and
counter-clockwise rotation since it is assumed that in a corner situation the direction of load-
ing has an influence on the load-bearing mechanism. Typical failure patterns are shown in
Figure 3.140. In all tested anchor configurations, the fracture surface is truncated by the cor-
ner.
(a) c1,1 = 150 mm, c2,1 = 50 mm, s2 = 100 mm (b) c1,1 = 100 mm, c2,1 = 100 mm, s2 = 100 mm
Figure 3.140: Typical failure patterns of anchor groups located in a corner and loaded in torsion
Note that the definition of clockwise and counter-clockwise only applies if the anchorage is
located in the same orientation in the corner. Therefore, in the following clockwise is defined
as an anchorage where both anchors can fail in concrete edge breakout (anchor 1 is loaded
parallel to the edge and anchor 2 is loaded towards the edge). Counter-clockwise is defined as
the same anchorage where only anchor 1 can fail in concrete breakout and anchor 2 is loaded
away from the edge. This is explained in Table 3.35.
Table 3.35: Calculation of the resistance for concrete edge failure based on the single anchor tests
Anchor configuration Verification of concrete edge failure

Clockwise rotation (pure torsion loading (V1 = V2))
 
c2,2
Anchor 1: Vu ,c  Vu ,c ,90° c2,1
V1
c1,1
V2
    
Anchor 2: Vu ,c  min Vu ,c ,0° c1,1 ; Vu ,c,90° c2,2
c2,1 s2
Counter-clockwise rotation (pure torsion loading (V1 = V2))

c2,2
V2
    
Anchor 1: Vu ,c  min Vu ,c ,0° c1,1 ; Vu ,c,90° c2,1
c1,1
Anchor 2: no proof for concrete edge failure needed
V1
c2,1 s2
Concrete edge breakout needs to be verified for the most unfavorable anchor. The minimum
of the resistance for both edges for a load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge is
controlling the failure. Note that for components directed away from the edge no verification
for concrete edge failure is needed. In current design, it is assumed that the anchors do not
influence each other negatively. For an anchorage loaded clockwise, anchor 1 and anchor 2
need to be verified for concrete breakout. For a counter-clockwise rotation, only anchor 1
needs to verified for concrete edge breakout for both a load direction perpendicular and paral-
lel to the edge.
In Figure 3.141a), the normalized measured ultimate loads are shown for the different anchor
configurations tested in a corner under torsion. For the group with c1,1 = 100 mm and
c2,1 = 100 mm, the average measured ultimate is only 6% lower in case of a counter-clockwise
rotation compared to a clockwise rotation. However, for the group with c1,1 = 150 mm and
c2,1 = 50 mm, the influence of direction of rotation is more pronounced. The average measured
ultimate is about 20% lower in case of a counter-clockwise rotation compared to a clockwise
rotation. Figure 3.141b) shows the normalized ultimate loads of the single anchor tests for a
load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge. The reference tests are needed for the
verification of the current calculation model. To take into account the corner influence, reduc-
tion of the single anchor capacity with the reduced actual area and the disturbance of the
stress distribution is calculated according to Equation 2.43 and Equation 2.44. The calculation
is described in Table 3.36.
40 100
88.8
90 V0°
35

80
31.0
30 V90°
69.3
70
24.8 25.5
25 62.5
23.4 60
20 50
49.5
40
15
33.3
(1) c1,1 / c2,1 = 100 / 100, clockwise 30
10 (2) c1,1 / c2,1 = 100 / 100, counter-clockwise
20
(3) c1,1 / c2,1 = 150 / 50, clockwise 12.3
5
10
(4) c1,1 / c2,1 = 150 / 50, counter-clockwise
0 0
0 (1)
1 (2)
2 (3)
3 (4)
4 5 0 50 100 150 200 250
(a) (b)
Figure 3.141: (a) Normalized ultimate loads for the different corner configurations (b) Normalized
ultimate loads of the reference tests with single anchors without influence of a cor-
ner
For a counter-clockwise rotation, anchor 2, which is loaded away from the edge may fail in
concrete pryout. This is comparable to an edge situation described in Section 3.3.7.3.1. If the
ratio between concrete breakout resistance of anchor 1 is close to the pryout resistance of an-
chor 2 (Vu,c,Anchor 1/Vu,cp,Anchor 2 ~ 1.0), the maximum influence of the anchors is assumed. The
observed reduction of the capacity of the groups loaded counter-clockwise in the corner com-
pared to the single anchor capacity is about 10%. This agrees well with the groups with M16
anchor bolts, embedment depth hef = 130 mm, and edge distance of c1 = 100 mm loaded in
torsion close to the edge (see Section 3.3.7.3.1). For a clockwise rotation, the current calcula-
tion model can lead to prediction of the failure load which is considerably higher than the
experimental results. The observed reduction of the group capacity compared to the single
anchor controlling the capacity is about 30%. Such configurations where both anchors can fail
in concrete edge breakout should be avoided in practice. For configurations where the direc-
tion of the rotation is predefined due to the external forces, the orientation of the anchors
should be turned by 90° so that one anchor is loaded away from the edge.
Table 3.36: Comparison of measured ultimate loads in the corner tests with calculated resistance
Anchor
Vu,m,test Calculated resistance of a single anchor in a corner Vu,m,test/Vu
configuration
Vu,m,test,0° (c = 100 mm) = 33.3 kN
200
Vu,m,test,90° (c = 100 mm) = 69.3 kN
1.5 100  100 
V1
Ac , N
  0.83 24.8
100 24.8 kN Ac0, N 3 100  0.74
V2
33.3
100
100 100  s ,V  0.7  0.3   0.9
1.5 100
Vu,m,test,90°,red (c = 100 mm) = 69.3 ∙ 0.83 ∙ 0.9 = 51.8 kN
Vu,m,test,0° (c = 100 mm) = 33.3 kN

Ac , N 1.5 100  100 
200
  0.83
Ac0, N 3 100
23.4
V2 23.4 kN 100  0.94
100  s ,V  0.7  0.3   0.9 24.9
1.5 100
V1
100 100
Vu,m,test,90° (c = 50 mm) = 49.5 kN

150 Vu,m,test,0° (c = 150 mm) = 62.5 kN
1.5 150  150 
V1
Ac , N
  0.83 31.0
31.0 kN Ac0, N 3 150  0.66
150 V2 46.7
150
 s ,V  0.7  0.3   0.9
50 100
1.5 150
Vu,m,test,90° (c = 50 mm) = 49.5 kN

150 Vu,m,test,0° (c = 150 mm) = 62.5 kN
Ac , N 1.5 150  50 
  0.61
V2
25.5
25.5 kN Ac0, N 3 150  0.88
150
V1 29.0
50
 s ,V  0.7  0.3   0.76
50 100
1.5 150
3.3.8 Multiple anchor groups (n > 2) loaded under torsion close to the edge
In current design standards, such as CEN/TS 1992-4, for anchorages with more than two an-
chors loaded in torsion close to an edge, only the determination of acting shear forces on the
individual anchors in the group is explained. No information is given about the resistance
side. Calculation of the resistance for the concrete edge breakout failure mode has to be done
with engineering judgment since no research is known to explain the load-bearing behavior.
Based on theoretical considerations, first guidance for the verification of such groups is given
in fib (2011). The theoretical background for the calculation is described in Section 3.3.8.3.1.
Experimental investigations described in this section should provide first information about
the load-bearing mechanism and verify current prediction models according to fib (2011).
Experimental testing described in this section is taken from different research activities. In
Eligehausen, Grosser (2007), quadruple fastenings with different anchor spacings are ana-
lyzed. Based on these results a test program described in Grosser (2011h) was carried out to
clarify the load-bearing behavior of larger anchor groups (n > 4) and groups with hole clear-
ance loaded in torsion close to the edge. The test program is summarized in Table 3.37.
All tests were performed with a vinylester adhesive anchor system with threaded rods having
a steel grade 10.9. Testing was performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs with
sufficient member thickness (h ≥ 2c1). The measured compressive strength at the beginning of
testing scattered between 22.6 and 29.2 MPa. Detailed information about the base material
and drilling and cleaning can be taken from Section 3.2.1.2.
Table 3.37: Test program for groups loaded in torsion
Number of Diameter Embedment depth Edge distance Spacing s1,1 = s1,2 Spacing s2,1 = s2,2
anchors dnom [mm] hef [mm] c1,1 [mm] (s1,t) [mm] (s2,t) [mm]
4 16 80 100 50 50, 100
4 16 80 100 100 50, 100
4 24 130 100 100 100
41) 16 130 100 100 100
4 16 130 100 200 200
6 16 130 100 100 (100) 100 (200)
6 16 130 100 200 (200) 100 (200)
6 16 130 100 100 (200) 200 (200)
9 16 130 100 100 (200) 100 (200)
1)
Tests were carried out with hole clearance in most unfavorable anchor configuration
Experimental investigations with large anchor groups loaded in pure torsion are challenging
since a rotation around the center of gravity of the anchorage plate needs to be generated.
Moreover, various anchor configurations should be tested with the same loading setup. There-
fore, a special loading frame described in Figure 3.142 was built. The load was applied by
pulling on threaded rods in opposed directions screwed into steel plates connected with a
hinge to the loading frame. The hinged connection was coated with a thin self-adhesive layer
to minimize friction effects. The oil pressure was controlled with a servohydraulic system so
that the load was equally applied (V1 = V2 = V) to ensure a pure torsion moment. The distance
between the two loading points is x = 0.37 m. The failure moment equals the applied shear
load multiplied with the distance of the applied load to the center of gravity of the group
(Tu,test = V∙x). The general test setup is described in Section 3.3.7.2 (Figure 3.135).
Anchor 4
Anchor 3 V2
LVDT4
Loading frame
LVDT3
used as adapter plate
for groups with n > 4
Anchorage plates
Anchor 2
Anchor 1
LVDT1
V1 LVDT2
edge
Figure 3.142: Loading frame for anchor groups loaded in torsion
For anchorages with four anchors and anchor spacings s ≤ 100 mm, the anchorage plate was
inserted directly into the loading frame. In case of anchor groups with spacings s > 100 mm
(s1,t = 200 mm and/or s2,t = 200 mm), an additional anchorage plate was mounted. With this
plate up to nine anchors in a group can be tested. M24 bolts were screwed into the anchorage
plate so that the center of the bolts equals the center of the tested anchor group. Therefore,
holes were cut into the plate at different locations. This is shown in Figure 3.143.
adapter plate
(a) Example: n = 6 (b) Example: n = 9 (c) Installation of adapter plate
(d) s ≤ 100 mm (both directions) (e) s > 100 mm (in one or two directions)
Figure 3.143: Loading setup for anchor groups loaded in torsion

The anchors were installed with no overlap of the threaded rods (see Figure 3.143). Steel
plates with appropriate height were placed on the anchorage plate. The loading frame was
attached by means of an adapter plate mounted to the M24 steel bolts. The adapter bolts were
tightened to a pretension load of 200 Nm to ensure optimal load transfer to the steel plate.
Rotation and translation of the anchorage plate was measured with four linear variable dis-
placement transducers in the direction of applied shear and perpendicular to the loading direc-
tion. Additionally, the crack opening was measured at the front surface in a distance of
100 mm to the outermost anchors. A friction reducing teflon sheet (ptfe) was placed between
the concrete surface and the baseplate. All anchors were tightened with a torque wrench prior
to testing (Tinst = 30 Nm).
In the following, the main results of the torsion loaded anchor groups are discussed. Detailed
information to the tests can be found in the corresponding test reports. The measured data are
summarized in Table B-15 (Appendix B).
Assuming that all anchors are effective (anchorages with no hole clearance) the acting torsion
moment (TS) can be converted in shear forces on the individual anchors in the group
(VS,anchor). By means of the radial moment of inertia (e.g. for a rectangular group with four
anchors: IP = s12 + s22), the individual anchor shear forces can be calculated according to Fig-
ure 3.144.
pure torsion loading

VS,0° = VS,90° = 0
(n1-1) ∙s1
TS
VS,90° TS
VS,0°
90°
h
α VS,anchor
0°
(n2-1) ∙s2
T  n  1  s2  VS ,90° TS  n1  1  s1 
2 2
V
V h
S , anchor   S ,0°  S  2     
 n I P 2   n IP 2 
  n22  1  s22   n12  1  s12 

n
with: I P   ri 2 
12 
TS  s1 2  s2 2  TS
(e.g. group with four anchors in pure torsion: VS ,anchor         )
Ip  2   2   2s
Figure 3.144: Distribution of acting moment on the individual anchors in a group loaded in shear
and torsion without hole clearance (all anchors assumed to be effective)
As aforementioned, no investigations exist to evaluate the load-bearing behavior of anchorag-

es with more than two anchors loaded in torsion close to the edge. Therefore, current calcula-
tion models are based on theoretical considerations. In accordance with the calculation mod-
els for groups loaded in pure shear close to the edge, for the verification of concrete edge
breakout, it can either be assumed that the front anchors or the back anchors controlling the
ultimate load. The verification of the front anchor resistance is explained in Figure 3.145. It is
assumed that anchor forces directed away from the edge can be neglected for the verification
of concrete edge failure. The front anchors are loaded by an inclined shear load acting with an
eccentricity to the center of the anchors. For this verification model, redistribution of the load
to the back anchors after formation of the failure crack at the front anchors is neglected.
 VH   2  sin  
αV eV V  arctan    arctan  
 cos  
VH
 VV 
VV
VS,res
αV s2
VS,res αV eV   cos V
c1,1 2
s2 s2/2
Failure assumed to originate at the front anchors:
Vu ,c  c1,1   Vu ,c ,0°  c1,1    ,V  ec,V
Vu ,c  c1,1 
Tu ,c   TS
VS ,res
VS ,res  VH2  VV2 V  2VH S , anchor ,90°  2sin  VS ,anchor 

V  V
V S , anchor ,0°  cos  VS ,anchor 
Figure 3.145: Calculation of the resistance for concrete breakout failure according to model 1
(example: group with four anchors, n1 = 2, n2 = 2)
Vs,anchor Vs,anchor Failure assumed to originate at the back

anchors (no torsional restraint):
TS
TS
c1,2 VS ,anchor 
s2
Vu ,c  c1,2   Vu ,c,0°  c1,2   n  1

s2
Figure 3.146: Calculation of the resistance for concrete breakout failure according to model 2
(example: group with four anchors, n1 = 2, n2 = 2)
In calculation model 2, it is assumed that the front anchors have lost its resistance and the load
is redistributed to the back anchors. Redistribution of the load is only possible if the resistance
according to model 1 is smaller than the resistance of model 2. Otherwise the formation of a
failure crack at the front anchors causes a failure of the entire group. For the verification at the
back anchors, no torsional restraint of the structural element is assumed. The back anchors
have to resist the total load. The loading condition equals a group with two anchors arranged
parallel to the edge. Such a loading case is explained in Section 3.3.7.3.1.
3.3.8.3.2 Torsion moment-displacement behavior
As shown in Figure 3.142, the displacements of the loading frame were measured both per-
pendicular and parallel to the free edge. A direct conversion of measured data to individual
anchor displacements is not possible since the locations of the LVDTs at the loading frame
are changing for every loading step. Therefore, a special program was written to determine
the individual anchor displacements. A detailed description about the determination of indi-
vidual anchor displacements can be found in Eligehausen, Grosser (2007). An example of the
torsion moment-displacement behavior of a group with four anchors is shown in Figure 3.147.
The anchors 1 and 4 are loaded into the direction of the free edge whereas anchor 2 and 3 are
loaded away from the edge. At failure, the displacement of anchor 1 and 4 is about three times
the displacement of anchor 2 and 3. This can be explained by the change of stiffness at the
point where cracks start to develop towards the edge. After reaching the ultimate strength of
the group, all anchors shifted towards the edge. The displacements at failure parallel to the
edge of all four anchors are about the same in terms of absolute value.
12 12
c1,1 = s1 = s2 = 100 mm A4 c1,1 = s1 = s2 = 100 mm
A1
10 10
Torsion moment T [kNm]
Torsion moment T [kNm]
A2 A3
8 8
A3 A1 A4 A2
6 6
4 Anchor 1 4 Anchor 1
Anchor 2 Anchor 2
2 Anchor 3 2 Anchor 3
Anchor 4 Anchor 4
0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement towards the edge δ [mm] Displacement parallel to the edge δ [mm]
Figure 3.147: Typical torsion moment-displacement behavior of a group with four anchors
3.3.8.3.3 Failure pattern
Typical failure patterns of groups close to the edge loaded in pure torsion are shown in Figure
3.148 for various anchor configurations. First cracking was observed for all tested anchor
groups at the front anchors. After formation of a failure crack at the front anchors, the load
was redistributed to the remote anchors where further failure cracks developed at the middle
and back anchor row. However, in tests with an edge distance of 300 mm of the back anchors
with no middle anchor row, no cracks occurred at the back anchors. The anchors failed in
steel.
s1,t = 100 mm n=6 s1,t = 100 mm

s2,t = 100 mm n=4 s2,t = 200 mm
s1,t = 200 mm s1,t = 200 mm

n=6 n=9
s2,t = 200 mm s2,t = 200 mm
s1,t = 200 mm n=6 s1,t = 200 mm

n=4
s2,t = 200 mm s2,t = 200 mm
Figure 3.148: Typical failure patterns of groups loaded in torsion close to the edge
In Figure 3.149, the normalized measured shear forces V1 and V2 are converted to the failure
moment Tu,test and plotted for the tested anchor configurations. All configurations were tested
with an edge distance of 100 mm of the front anchors. It can be seen that the failure moment
increases with increasing edge distance of the rearmost anchor row. This can be explained by
the fact that the shear load direction on the individual anchors changes if the edge distance of
the back anchors is increased for constant anchor spacing s2,t. The front anchors fail at a load
higher compared to a group with smaller edge distance of the rearmost anchors since the load
angle of the resulting shear forces increases (see Figure 3.150). Hence, an increase of the ul-
timate strength with increasing edge distance of the back anchors does not have to be neces-
sarily an effect of redistribution of the load to the remote anchors after formation of a failure
crack at the front anchors.
50
Anchor configuration:
Normalized failure moment T u,test [kNm]
45 c1,1 = 100 mm
(1) n = 4, s1,1 = 50 mm, s2,1 = 50 mm (M16, hef = 80 mm)
40
(2) n = 4, s1,1 = 50 mm, s2,1 = 100 mm (M16, hef = 80 mm)
35
(3) n = 4, s1,1 = 100 mm, s2,1 = 50 mm (M16, hef = 80 mm)
30
(4) n = 4, s1,1 = 100 mm, s2,1 = 100 mm (M16, hef = 80 mm)
25 (5) n = 4, s1,1 = 100 mm, s2,1 = 100 mm (M24, hef = 130 mm)
20 (6) n = 6, s1,1 = 100 mm, s2,1 = s2,2 = 100 mm (M16, hef = 130 mm)
15 (7) n = 4, s1,1 = 200 mm, s2,1 = 200 mm (M16, hef = 130 mm)
10 (8) n = 6, s1,1 = 200 mm, s2,1 = s2,2 = 100 mm (M16, hef = 130 mm)
(9) n = 6, s1,1 = s1,2 = 100 mm, s2,1 = 200 mm (M16, hef = 130 mm)
5
(10) n = 9, s1,1 = s1,2 = 100 mm, s2,1 = s2,2 = 100 mm (M16, hef = 130 mm)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 3.149: Measured failure moments of groups loaded in torsion close to the edge
Anchor configurations 7 to 10 were tested with the same anchor spacings for the outermost
anchors. Only the number of anchors and the individual anchor spacings in direction 1 and 2
were varied. The measured failure moment scatters in about the same range. For s1,t/s2,t ~ 1.0
and s2,t ≤ scr,V, the number of anchors do not have a significant influence on the ultimate
strength as long the outermost anchor spacing is constant. This agrees with the test results for
groups loaded in shear parallel to the edge (see Section 3.3.2.5.3). For constant outermost
anchor spacing s2,t, no increase of the load was observed for increasing number of anchors.
α increases α decreases
90°
0° α
s1
s1 >> s2 s1 << s2 edge

s2
Figure 3.150: Influence of anchor spacings s1 and s2 on the load direction of the resulting anchor
shear forces
3.3.8.3.5 Comparison of test results with theoretical prediction models
The theoretical models to calculate the resistance of groups loaded in torsion close to the edge
are described in Section 3.3.8.3.1. A quadratic interaction is assumed. Figure 3.151 shows the
comparison of the measured failure moments with calculation model 1 in which the failure is
assumed to originate at the front anchors, and with calculation model 2 where a redistribution
of the load to the remote anchors is taken into account after formation of a failure crack at the
front anchors. In order not to falsify the comparison of the test results with the theoretical cal-
culation models, basic values for the resistance of single anchors loaded perpendicular and
parallel to the edge as well as the load increase for s2-spacing effect are taken from the results
described in Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3.2. For an edge distance of c1 = 100 mm, the load
increase of the group capacity compared to a single anchor loaded parallel to the edge is 50%
for an individual spacing of s2 = 100 mm (ψs2,90°,V = 1.5) and accordingly 100% for an indi-
vidual spacing of s2 = 200 mm (ψs2,90°,V = 2.0). The number of anchors has no influence on the
capacity as long the outermost anchor spacing st,2 is constant. The basic reference values
needed for the evaluation are summarized in Table 3.38.
The anchor configurations plotted on the vertical axis in the diagrams in Figure 3.151 are ex-
plained in Figure 3.149. The pictograms show the verification for the example of a group with
four anchors. It can be seen that calculation model 1 agrees suitable with the test results for an
angle αV of the resulting shear load on the front anchor row larger than 55° (s1/s2 > 0.7). For
αV = 45° (anchor configuration 2), calculation model 1 leads to unconservative prediction of
the group capacity. This is explained in Figure 3.152. The comparison with calculation model
2 shows that the predicted group capacity is very conservative. This indicates that a redistri-
bution of the load to the remote anchors does not increase the capacity since the failure load
of the front anchors calculated with model 1 is higher compared to the calculated failure load
with model 2. The formation of a failure crack at the front anchors leads to a failure of the
entire group for the tested anchor configurations.
Table 3.38: Reference values for the calculation of the resistance of the front and back anchor row
Reference values for the verification at the front anchors (calculation model 1) (c1 = 100 mm)
Parameters Vu,c,0° Vu,c,90° Vu,c,90° (s2,t = 50 mm) Vu,c,90° (s2,t = 100 mm) Vu,c,90° (s2,t = 200 mm)
M16, hef = 80 mm 28.3 kN 60.1 kN 75.2 kN (ψ = 1.25) 90.2 kN (ψ = 1.5) -
M16, hef = 130 mm 33.3 kN 69.3 kN - 103.9 kN (ψ = 1.5) 138.6 kN (ψ = 2.0)
M24, hef = 130 mm 33.2 kN 92.5 kN - 138.7 kN (ψ = 1.5) -
Reference values for the verification at the rearmost anchors (calculation model 2)
Parameters Vu,c,0° (c1 = 150 mm) Vu,c,0° (c1 = 200 mm) Vu,c,0° (c1 = 300 mm)
M16, hef = 80 mm 49.8 kN 71.0 kN -
M16, hef = 130 mm - 88.8 kN 133.41 kN 1)
M24, hef = 130 mm - 93.7 kN -
1)
Reference value extrapolated
1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
Tu,m,test /Tu,c,model 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
αV
0.6 0.6
0.5 Vs,res 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 c1,1 0.3 VS,res
0.2 0.2 S2/2
0.1 s2 0.1
0.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 40 50 60 70 80
Anchor configuration Angle of the resulting shear load αV [°]
(a) Failure assumed to originate at the front anchors
2.6 2.6
2.5 2.5
Vs,res
2.4 2.4
2.3 2.3
2.2 2.2
2.1 c1,2 2.1
2.0 2.0
1.9 1.9
1.8 s2 1.8
1.7 1.7
1.6 1.6
1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 40 50 60 70 80
Anchor configuration Angle of the resulting shear load αV [°]
(b) Failure assumed to originate at the back anchors
Figure 3.151: Comparison of measured failure moments of groups loaded in torsion close to the
edge with (a) calculation model 1 (b) calculation model 2
For groups with four anchors with s2 >> s1, the shear forces on the individual anchors, which
result from the torsional moment, act almost perpendicular to the concrete edge. In such a
situation, a different shear load distribution to the anchors should be assumed. The shear
component acting parallel to the edge is insignificant small and should be neglected. There-
fore, two closely spaced anchors are loaded both with 0.5VS,anchor towards the edge. The veri-
fication for concrete edge failure should be done according to Equation 3.6. It is noted that
such a critical anchor configuration can be avoided by arranging further anchors in direction 2
for constant s1,t/s2,t, because in this case the resulting load angle αV increases. This was veri-
fied with anchor configuration 6. The ratio of the outermost anchors of anchor configuration 2
and 6 equals s1,t/s2,t = 0.5. However, compared to anchor configuration 2, the observed failure
moment for anchor configuration 6 agrees suitable with the predicted failure moment accord-
ing to calculation model 1. Therefore, for groups with n ≥ 4, the verification should be done
according to Figure 3.152 only if the ratio of the individual anchor spacings s1/s2 ≤ 0.7.
Calculation of the angle of For s1/s2 ≤ 0.7 shear component

Verification
the resulting shear force parallel to the edge is neglected
Vs,anchor
TS
αV TS 2s2
s1 TS
VS,res s2
TS
2s2
s2
Figure 3.152: Explanation of the distribution of shear forces in case of a small ratio s1/s2
TS
s2

 Vu ,c  min 2Vu ,c  c1,1  ;Vu ,c  c1,2   (Eq. 3.6)
3.3.8.3.6 Evaluation of the effect of hole clearance
In the design guideline fib (2011), the case of groups loaded in torsion close to the edge with
hole clearance is addressed. In the extreme case, only the two front anchors resist shear forc-
es. It is noted that this case is highly unlikely. However, an anchor configuration was tested
where the anchors were installed as described in Figure 3.153 to evaluate whether even in
such an extreme case hole clearance is only a “theoretical case” for anchorages loaded in tor-
sion.
Back anchors are unloaded

at the onset of loading
gap
2mm
gap
2mm
(a) (b)
Figure 3.153: (a) Possible distribution of torsional moment to a group of four anchors with unfa-
vorable anchor positions relative to holes in baseplate for evaluation of concrete
edge breakout (fib, 2011) (b) Anchor position of the back anchors for the tested an-
chor configuration (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = s1 = s2 = 100 mm)
In Figure 3.154, the failure moments are compared with the calculation models. It is shown
that calculation model 1 (inclined resulting shear load on the front anchors) agrees well with
the failure moments observed in the tests. The breakout pattern indicates that all anchors con-
tribute to resist the torsional moment. Shear forces which are resisted only by the front an-
chors at the onset of loading are redistributed to all anchors during the process of loading. At
failure, the distribution of shear forces equals a group without hole clearance loaded in tor-
sion. The comparison with the model shown in Figure 3.153a), which assumes that failure
occurs at a load comparable to that of a single anchor loaded towards the edge, is very con-
servative. Such a loading situation should be only conservatively assumed in case of small
edge distance of the front anchors (c1,1 ≤ 50 mm) since in this case failure of the front anchors
can occur prior to a redistribution of shear forces to all anchors.
Tu,m,test / Tu,c
At the onset of loading At failure
16 4.0
3.91
Vs,anchor
14 3.6 Vs,anchor
13.0
12.5
Failure moment T u [kNm]
12 3.2 c1,1 c1,1
10 2.8 s2 s2
T TS
8 TTu
u [kNm]
2.4 VS ,anchor  S VS ,anchor 
s2 2 s12  s22
6 Reihe4
T u,m,test / Tu,c,model 1 2.0
c1,1 = 100 mm
u,m,test / (Vu,c (c1,1) ∙ s2)
4 Reihe1
T 1.6
3.3 s1 = 100 mm
2 1.2 TS s2 = 100 mm
1.04
0 0.8
0 Tu,test
1 Tu,c,model
2 1 3 (c1,1) ∙ s2 4
Vu,c
(a) (b)
Figure 3.154: (a) Comparison of test results of a group with four anchors with unfavorable anchor
configuration loaded in pure torsion with calculation models for the verification of
concrete edge breakout (b) Failure pattern and explanation of the redistribution of
loads during loading (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = s1 = s2 = 100 mm)
3.3.9 Anchorages loaded in shear and torsion far away from the edge
Anchor groups with small ratio hef/dnom located far away from concrete edges and loaded in
shear may fail in concrete pryout. Research concerning the failure mode pryout was done by
different investigators and a calculation model based on the tensile resistance of the anchorage
was proposed. The prediction model for concrete pryout is described in Section 2.3.2. How-
ever, no research is known to explain the load-bearing behavior of anchorages loaded in tor-
sion far away from edges. To cover this loading case, a theoretical model was implemented
into design (e.g. fib, 2011) which is based on the assumption that the most unfavorable anchor
needs to be verified. For the calculation of the influence area, a virtual edge in the direction of
adjacent anchors is assumed. This is explained in Figure 2.6. Experimental results described
in this section provide information to check the accuracy of the current prediction model.
The test program is summarized in Table 3.39. Groups with two and four anchors were tested
in torsion. Since it is known that the pryout model according to Equation 2.40 only gives a
rough estimation of the resistance, reference tests with anchorages loaded in tension and shear
were performed not to falsify the verification of the current prediction model for anchorages
loaded in torsion for the pryout failure mode. An additional test was carried out with in-
creased embedment depth (hef = 80mm) to verify the resistance for the steel failure mode.
Table 3.39: Test program (anchorages located far away from edges)
n Loading dnom [mm] hef [mm] (hef/dnom) s [mm]

1 tension, shear 16, 24 60 (3.75, 2.5) -
2 torsion 16 60 (3.75) 50, 100
shear, torsion 16 60 (3.75) 100
4
tension, shear, torsion 24 60 (2.5) 100
4 torsion 16 80 (5.0) 100
The tests were performed in normal weight low strength concrete slabs with measured com-
pressive strength between fcc,200 = 22.2 MPa and 26.0 MPa (average fcc,200 = 24.7 MPa). The
anchors were installed with an epoxy based system to avoid a pullout failure. For the descrip-
tion of the base material and information about drilling and cleaning, it is referenced to Sec-
tion 3.2.1.2.
LVDT(2)
N N V
V1
V2
LVDT
4 LVDTs LVDT(1)
LVDT
(a) n = 1 (tension) (b) n = 4 (tension) (c) n = 1 (shear) (d) n = 2 (torsion)
V1
V LVDT(2)
LVDT(3)
LVDT(1)
V2
LVDT(4)
LVDT
(e) n = 4 (shear) (f) n = 4 (torsion)
Figure 3.155: Test setup for anchorages located far away from concrete edges and loaded in ten-
sion, shear, or torsion
The loading setup for the different loading cases and the arrangement of the LVDTs is shown
in Figure 3.155. The tension tests were performed with sufficient support spacing (unconfined
tests) not to influence the concrete cone breakout (support spacing of 35 mm (n = 1) and
60 mm (n = 4)). In case of anchor groups with four anchors, the load was applied with a ten-
sion rod screwed into a nut welded concentrically to the anchorage plate without possible ro-
tation of the plate (stiff load application). Shear tests were performed as described in Section
3.2.1.3. The detailed test setup for a pure torsion loading is described in Section 3.3.7 for
groups with two anchors and in Section 3.3.8 for groups with four anchors.
Detailed information to the tests can be found in Grosser (2011i). The measured data are
summarized in Table B-16 and Table B-17 (Appendix B). Figure 3.156a) shows the normal-
ized ultimate loads for both tested anchor configurations in tension and shear. No significant
difference in the mean pryout failure load was observed in the tests with anchor diameter M16
and M24. However, the single anchors with M24 threaded rods failed in tension at a load
about 25% higher than the single anchors with M16 threaded rods. This can be explained by
the breakout pattern. The concrete cone failure started at the bottom of the anchor rod for the
M24 threaded rods whereas the failure crack for the M16 threaded rods started in a depth of
about 50 mm to the concrete surface. At the lower end, the anchor pulled out. In Figure
3.156b), the ratio of obtained shear failure load to tension failure load is shown for the differ-
ent anchor configurations. For the tested single anchors with embedment depth hef = 60 mm,
the k1-factor according to Equation 2.40 is unconservative. A better correlation with test re-
sults might be obtained when calculating the k1-factor with a linear approximation according
to Equation 3.7 instead of a step function as considered in Equation 2.40. This agrees suitable
with the results of CSTB (1994) where the k1-factor was chosen to k1 = 1.5 for hef = 60 mm.
k1  0.01 hef  1 ≤ 2.0 (Eq. 3.7)
220 2.8
200 Nu,c,test
Nu,c,test 2.5
2.43
Vu,cp,test
Vu,c,p,test 183.5 k1 = 2.0 for hef ≥ 60 mm (Equ. 2.40)
180 2.3
184.3
160 2.0
Vu,cp,test / Nu,c,m,test
140 1.8
1.62
120 1.5
1.36
100 1.3
80 1.0
59.3 75.7
62.2
60 0.8
45.7
k1 = 1.0 for hef < 60 mm (Equ. 2.40)
40 0.5
36.5
20 0.3
0 0.0
0 n =1 1 n =2 1 n =34 n =44 5 0 n1
=1 n =2 1 n =3 4 4
M16 M24 M16 M24 M16 M24 M24
(a) (b)
Figure 3.156: (a) Normalized ultimate loads for the different anchor configurations (b) Ratio of
normalized measured shear pryout failure load and normalized measured tension
concrete cone failure load for the different anchor configurations
In Figure 3.157, typical failure patterns of anchor groups with small embedment depth loaded
in pure torsion are shown. All groups failed in concrete pryout. A common failure pattern was
observed in all tests. Therefore, in the following, the question is discussed if there is a nega-
tive influence of adjacent anchors on the load-bearing capacity.
(a) n = 2, s = 50 mm (b) n = 2, s = 100 mm (c) n = 4, s = 100 mm
Figure 3.157: Failure patterns of anchorages located far away from edges and loaded in torsion
In Table 3.40, the resistance of an anchor reduced by the actual area for the concrete pryout
failure mode (Vu,cp,m,test,red) is calculated according to Figure 2.6. The basic value for the
pryout resistance (Vu,cp,m,test) is taken from the test results of single anchors loaded in shear far
away from the edge and is not calculated according to Equation 2.40.
Table 3.40: Resistance for concrete pryout failure based on the single anchor tests
Calculation of area Ac,N Ac,V / Ac0,V Vu,cp,m,test Vu,cp,m,test,red

1.5hef + 0.5s2
1.5  60  0.5  50  59.3 ∙ 0.64 = 38.0 kN
 0.64 (M16, s = 50 mm)
3  60
59.3 kN (M16)
3hef 59.3 ∙ 0.78 = 46.3 kN
1.5  60  0.5 100  (M16, s = 100 mm)
 0.78
3  60
1.5hef + 0.5s2
59.3 ∙ 0.6 = 35.6 kN

(M16)
1.5hef + 0.5s1 1.5  60  0.5 100 2 59.3 kN (M16)
 0.6 62.2 ∙ 0.6 = 37.3 kN
9  602 62.2 kN (M24)
(M24)
In order to evaluate the resistance, the acting shear loads need to be converted in resulting
shear forces on the individual anchors. This is explained in Table 3.41.
Table 3.41: Determination of the failure shear load for the highest loaded anchor
Vu,cp,m,test = Vuh,cp ,m,test

Load application Tu,cp,m,test
(V1+V2)/2
57.6 kN 57.6 ∙ 0.05 = 2.9 kNm 57.6 kN

V2
s
(M16, s = 50 mm) (M16, s = 50 mm) (M16, s = 50 mm)
V1
64.2 kN 64.2 ∙ 0.1 = 6.4 kNm 64.2 kN

(M16, s = 100 mm) (M16, s = 100 mm) (M16, s = 100 mm)
370 mm
45.4 ∙ 0.37 = 16.8 kNm 16.8/(2 ∙ 0.141)= 59.8 kN
V1 45.4 kN (M16) (M16) (M16)
TS
51.5 kN (M24) 51.5 ∙ 0.37 = 19.1 kNm 19.1/(2 ∙ 0.141)= 67.7 kN
V2
(M24) (M16)
Figure 3.158a) shows the comparison of the test results for groups loaded in torsion with the
pryout model according to Figure 2.6.
2.5 2.5
2.3 2.3
Vu,cp,test (most unfavorable anchor)/ Vu,cp,m,test,red
Vu,cp,test (most unfavorable anchor)/ Vu,cp,m,test
2.0 2.0
1.68 1.81
1.8 1.8
1.67
1.5 1.5
1.39
1.3 1.3
1.07 1.08 1.01 1.09
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 Mean = 1.63 0.5 Mean = 1.07

0.3 0.3
COV [%] = 13.5 COV [%] = 8.8
0.0 0.0
0 1
M16 2
M16 3
M16 4
M24 5 0 1
M16 2
M16 3
M16 4
M24 5
n=2 n=2 n=4 n=4 n=2 n=2 n=4 n=4
s50 s100 s100 s100 s50 s100 s100 s100
(a) (b)
Figure 3.158: (a) Comparison of the test results of groups loaded in torsion with the pryout model
according to Figure 2.6 (b) Comparison of the test results of groups loaded in tor-
sion with the pryout model without considering a reduction of the resistance due to
the limited actual area
It is shown that the model according to Figure 2.6 leads to very conservative prediction of the
resistance compared to the measured resistance in case of pure torsion loading. The average
test-to-predicted ratio is 1.63 with a standard deviation of 0.22 (COV = 13.5%). Figure
3.158b) shows the comparison without considering a reduction of the actual area by a virtual
edge. The test result converted to the most unfavorable anchor agrees well with the measured
pryout resistance of a single anchor without influence of edges or adjacent anchors. The aver-
age test-to-predicted ratio is 1.07 with a 0.09 standard deviation (COV = 8.8%). Tests with
very closely spaced anchors compared to the embedment depth (s/hef = 0.8) confirm that a
reduction does not need to be taken into account. Note that according to Figure 2.6 the capaci-
ty needs to be reduced for s/hef < 3.
An explanation of the load-bearing mechanism for groups with two anchors and groups with
four anchors with even and uneven anchor spacings s1 and s2 is shown in Figure 3.159. As
described in Section 3.3.7, the resulting shear forces of the individual anchors causing the
breakout failure for anchorages close to an edge act in the same direction. Therefore, the an-
chors can influence each other negatively and the capacity may be reduced compared to the
single anchor breakout capacity. If the same anchorage is located far away from the concrete
edge, and the entire group fails in concrete pryout, the resultant of the stresses causing the
failure act in opposing directions and therefore no influence of the anchors is expected. Even
in case of small spacings, each anchor can develop its full pryout strength. It is noted that the
tests were only performed with symmetric anchor configuration (s1 = s2). In case of a torsional
moment to the anchors in a group with s1 >> s2 or s1 << s2 shear loads resulting from the tor-
sional moment act almost in the same direction. In this case the group of the closely spaced
anchors considering the actual area should be verified (see Figure 3.159c).
V3
R4
R4 3hef
R1 V4 V3
V2 R3 V2
R1
R1 V2
R3
V1 V1 V4 3hef + s
R2 V1
R2 R2
(a) n = 2 (b) n = 4 (symmetric) (c) n = 4 (unsymmetric)
Figure 3.159: Explanation of the load-bearing mechanism
In Figure 3.160, the test result of an anchor group arranged far away from the edge and loaded
in torsion with sufficient embedment depth to avoid pryout failure is analyzed. The current
model for torsion loaded anchor groups which fail in steel requires to verify the highest load-
ed anchor (fib, 2011) assuming that the failure mechanism is comparable to a shear loaded
single anchor which fails in steel.
The anchors in the torsion loaded group sheared off in different directions (direction of acting
shear force on the individual anchor). The fracture surface of the sheared anchors is different
compared to an anchor failed in steel in pure shear loading. The sheared surface indicates that
the direction of acting shear force on the anchors changed during the loading process (Figure
3.160b).
To evaluate whether the calculation model is applicable, in Figure 3.160c), the test result of a
torsion loaded group is compared with the results of single anchors failed in steel in the same
concrete blocks with same diameter, embedment depth and steel grade. The measured data of
the four LVDTs are equal, which shows a pure torsion loading (V1 = V2). For the comparison
of the ultimate loads, the measured shear forces V1 and V2 have to be converted in shear forces
acting on the individual anchors. Vu,test,torsion is the measured ultimate load of one individual
anchor in the group loaded in torsion which failed in steel. The formula for Vu,test,torsion is de-
rived according to Figure 3.144. The comparison shows that the anchors in the group sheared
off at a load about equal to the ultimate load of single anchors failing in steel in pure shear
tests. This indicates that the current calculation model for a group loaded in torsion is applica-
ble for calculating the resistance for the steel failure mode.
Vu,test,torsion / Vu,m,test,shear
90 1.4
V1 M16, hef = 80 mm
80 1.3

70 1.2
60 1.1
50 1.0
V2
0.97
40 0.9
30 0.8
V
Vu,shear
u,test,shear
20 0.7
Vu,torsion
V u,test,torsion
10 0.6
Vratio (torsion / shear)
u,test,torsion/Vu,m,test,shear
0 0.5
(a) Rotation (post peak) 0 n =1 1 n=24 3
shear loading torsion loading
Vu ,test ,torsion 
V1  V2  / 2  x
2  s12  s22
(x = distance between applied shear loads V1 and V2)
(c) Comparison of measured ultimate load of single

anchors failed in steel with the converted ultimate
load of the most unfavorable anchor in a group
(b) Failure pattern (sheared anchors) loaded in torsion
Figure 3.160: Evaluation of anchorages with four anchors loaded in torsion and failed in steel
NUMERICAL STUDIES 193
4 NUMERICAL STUDIES
4.1 General
In addition to the experimental investigations performed within the scope of this dissertation,
numerical simulations were carried out to clarify the load-bearing behavior of anchorages
loaded in shear and torsion. Single anchors and anchor groups were simulated to investigate
the effect of geometrical parameters (e.g. anchor diameter, embedment depth, anchor spacing)
and properties specific to the material (e.g. concrete compressive strength, fracture energy).
Main focus of the numerical study is the evaluation of crack initiation and load redistribution
in an anchorage during the loading process. In particular, measurement of anchor shear forces
when multiple anchors are present is analyzed which is challenging and hard to realize in ex-
perimental investigations.
4.2 The finite element program MASA – basics and fundamentals

The finite element program MASA (Macroscopic Space Analysis) has been developed by
Ožbolt at the Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, and can be used to
perform two and three-dimensional non-linear analysis for structures made of quasi-brittle
materials such as concrete. Numerous simulations have shown that the finite element code
MASA is capable of representing the load-bearing behavior of anchorages subjected to a
shear load realistically. For modeling the behavior of quasi-brittle materials, at present, two
kinds of material models are available: (1) Macroscopic models in which the material behav-
ior is considered to be an average answer of a rather complex microstructural stress transfer
mechanism and (2) Microscopical models where the micromechanics of deformations is de-
scribed by stress-strain relations on the microlevel (Ožbolt et al., 2001). Since microscopical
models are computationally extremely demanding, in practice often macroscopical models are
used. At the macroscale, the model has to describe complicated microscopical phenomena
such as cohesion, friction, aggregate interlock, and interaction of microcracks. Cracking and
damage can principally be modeled in two different ways: (1) discrete (discrete crack model)
or (2) smeared (smeared crack model). Traditionally, macroscopic models are formulated by
total or incremental formulation between the σij and εij components of the stress-strain tensor,
using the theory of tensorial invariants (Ortiz, 1985). In the framework of the theory, there are
various possible approaches for modeling of concrete, such as theory of plasticity, plastic-
fracturing theory, continuum damage mechanics, endochronic theory, and their various com-
binations (Ožbolt et al., 1999). Due to the complexity of the material, these models do not
describe the behavior of concrete realistically. Intensive work was done in further develop-
ment of the microplane-theory (see Section 4.2.1).
The simulation was carried out incrementally by applying a displacement or a load in several
steps. For the preparation of the model (pre-processing) and the evaluation of the numerical
results (post-processing) the commercial program FEMAP (Version 8.1) was used.
4.2.1 Constitutive law for concrete – Microplane material model
The FE code MASA used for the simulations is based on the microplane model and a smeared
crack approach. Basic concept of the microplane model was advanced by Taylor (1938) and
194 NUMERICAL STUDIES
later extended by Bažant and co-workers for modeling of quasi-brittle materials, which exhib-
it softening. In the microplane model, the material properties are characterized separately on
planes of various orientations at a finite element integration point (Figure 4.1). On these mi-
croplanes there are only a few uniaxial stress and strain components, and no tensorial invari-
ance requirements need to be considered. The constitutive properties are entirely character-
ized by relations between the stress and strain components on each microplane in normal and
shear direction. It is assumed that the strain components on the microplanes are projections of
the macroscopic strain tensor (kinematic constraint approach). Knowing the stress-strain rela-
tionship of all components, the macroscopic stiffness and the stress tensor are calculated from
the actual strains on the microplanes by integrating the stress components on the microplanes
over all directions. Therefore, only uniaxial stress-strain relationships are required for each
microplane component, and the macroscopic response is obtained automatically by integra-
tion over all microplanes. More details about the model can be found in Ožbolt et al. (2001).
Microplane
Aggregate
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4.1: The concept of the microplane model (a) contact areas between aggregates (b) discreti-
zation of the unit volume sphere for each finite element integration point (21 microplane
directions – integration points) (c) microplane strain components (Ožbolt et al., 2007)
4.2.2 Localization limiter
In order to ensure mesh independent results, a so-called “localization limiter” is used. Two
different methods are implemented in MASA. Either the crack band approach (Bažant & Oh,
1983) or the non-local integral approach (Ožbolt & Bažant, 1996) can be employed. Programs
which do not use a localization limiter are only suitable for the analysis of elasto-plastic mate-
rials such as steel. For the numerical simulations performed within the scope of this disserta-
tion, the crack band method was used. The main assumption of this approach is that damage is
localized in a row of finite elements. The constitutive law needs to be modified so that the
energy consumption capacity of concrete (GF and GC) are constant and mesh independent.
GF  Af  h  const. (concrete fracture energy)

GC  Afc  h  const. (concrete compressive fracture energy) ( GC  100GF )
with: Af = area under the uniaxial tensile stress-strain curve

Afc = area under the uniaxial compressive stress-strain curve
h = average element size (width of the crack band)
4.3 Numerical model for shear loaded anchorages close to the edge
Shear loaded anchorages arranged close to a concrete edge are very complex with respect to
the loading-bearing mechanism. In order to obtain realistic cracking, ultimate strength and
deformation at failure, detailed modeling of the anchorage is necessary. In particular, defor-
mation is a parameter often found to be too stiff in numerical simulations (see Section 4.3.2).
The aim was to develop a model in order to represent the load-bearing behavior of anchorages
loaded in shear under arbitrary loading direction realistically. For instance, such a complex
loading situation can be found in case of loading a multiple anchor group under torsion where
the individual anchors are loaded in different directions. Simulations were performed for both
adhesive-bonded anchors and headed anchors. Therefore, two different models are presented
in this chapter.
4.3.1 Geometry and FE discretization
The discretization of the concrete member is performed using four node solid finite elements.
A typical FE mesh used in the study is shown in Figure 4.2. Width, length, and height of the
concrete blocks were adapted depending of the anchorage which was simulated.
The boundary conditions were defined as nodal load and constraints. All nodes at the bottom
of the concrete member were restrained in vertical direction to avoid tilting of the slab. For a
shear load applied perpendicular to the edge, one line at the bottom of the front surface was
supported in both horizontal directions. In case of a shear load acting parallel to the edge, two
lines at the bottom were restrained in horizontal direction to avoid a rotation of the concrete
block while loading. For inclined shear load direction (torsional moment) all boundary lines at
the lower surface were restrained in horizontal directions.
V1 curve AD
l
A curve DC
b All nodes on the lower surface

restrained in z-direction
TS curve AB
C
h
V0° curve BC
V90°
B
z
y
V0 : All nodes on curve AB restrained in x- and y-direction
V90 : All nodes on curve BC and AD restrained in x- and y-direction
x TS: All nodes on curve AB, DC, AD and BC restrained in x- and y-
direction
(a) (b)
Figure 4.2: Geometry used in the shear study (a) typical FE mesh (b) support of the nodes for dif-
ferent loading situations
Depending on the loading scenario, shear load was applied in different ways. This is shown in
Figure 4.3. In case of a pure shear loading, the analysis was carried out displacement con-
trolled. The displacement was applied incrementally in several steps. For single anchors, there
is no difference between a hinged and a stiff load application. In this case the load was ap-
plied to only one node. However, for anchorages with multiple anchors, the loading condition
may have an influence on the load-bearing behavior. In particular, for a load direction parallel
to the edge, it is distinguished between anchor groups with and without torsional restraint. In
the numerical simulations, a restrained connection, where the secondary torsional moment is
taken up by another structural element, was realized by a stiff load application (no rotation of
the anchorage plate allowed after formation of a failure crack at the front anchors). For such
simulations, the load was applied equally to three nodes.
In case of torsion loading, the analysis was carried out force controlled in order to allow a
pure torsional moment (V1 = V2). Failure was determined by means of the individual anchor
forces. It is noted that a displacement controlled analysis would lead to wrong results since a
pure torsion loading cannot be guaranteed.
V1 V1 V1
V2
shear loading shear loading
torsion loading
(hinged load application) (stiff load application)
force controlled
displacement controlled displacement controlled
(V1 = V2)
V1
δ δ1 δ2 δ3 (δ1 = δ2 = δ3)
Figure 4.3: Loading condition for shear and torsion loaded anchorages (example: group with four
anchors)
If not otherwise stated, the concrete properties were taken as: Cylinder compressive strength
fc = 24 MPa, cube compressive strength fcc,200 = 28.5 MPa, tensile strength ft = 1.9 MPa, mod-
ulus of elasticity of the concrete EC = 27,400 MPa, Poisson’s ratio C = 0.18, and fracture
energy Gf = 0.065 N/mm. The behavior of the anchorage plate and the anchors were assumed
to be linear elastic with Young’s modulus ES = 210,000 MPa and Poisson’s ratio S = 0.33 to
avoid steel rupture prior to concrete edge breakout.
4.3.2 Model details of the anchorage
As aforementioned, numerical simulations were performed with both adhesive-bonded an-

chors and headed anchors. The reason is that the simulations were carried out for different
research projects where either post-installed anchorages or cast-in anchors were investigated.
The simulations show that there is no significant difference between the results obtained with
both anchor types as long the load application zone is modeled in the same manner. There-
fore, the results can be seen as equivalent for the evaluation of investigated parameters. How-
ever, the models are based on different assumptions concerning the load transfer. For both
adhesive-bonded anchors and headed anchors, interface elements (thickness 0.5 mm) with
contact bars, which can take up only compressive stresses, were introduced around the anchor
bolt to ensure a realistic load-displacement behavior. In case of headed anchors, the resulting
axial force in the anchor is taken up by the head at the bottom of the anchor bolt which is
connected by an interface layer with the surrounding concrete. In the numerical model, for the
adhesive anchors, a coefficient of friction was introduced to the contact bars to avoid a pullout
failure. In both models, no connection was modeled between the bottom of the anchor bolt
and the concrete in order to take into account that there is no load transmission at this surface
(see Figure 4.4).
V1
Adhesive-bonded anchor Headed stud
Interface layer
V1
Interface layer
360.
V1
480. Y
440.
Z 400.Z
Y
Y
X
360. X
Z
320.
Y cone shaped air layer air layer around the head
280.
X 385. Y
240.
(a) Model 1 350.
Z 200.
(b) Model 2
Y 160.
Figure 4.4: Numerical model for post-installed and cast-in anchors

120.
X
80.
In Figure 4.5 the contact problem between anchor bolt and concrete is discussed for three dif-
ferent models. A simplified model without interface layer (direct connection of steel and con-
crete) is neither able to represent the ultimate load nor the deformation at failure realistically.
The reason for the significant higher failure load is that tensile stresses behind the anchor bolt
are introduced into the concrete. However, there is no load transfer at this surface. Therefore,
Hofmann (2005) used a microplane layer between steel and concrete for his numerical simula-
tions which only transfers compressive stresses. This model is able to represent the ultimate
strength of an anchorage which fails in concrete edge breakout realistically. However, the
stiffness of the system is only about 1/5 of the stiffness observed in experimental tests. The
improved interface layer used for the numerical simulations which were performed within the
scope of this dissertation is able to represent both ultimate strength and stiffness of the anchor
system realistically. More details to the contact problem between steel and concrete can be
found in Fichtner (2005).
V1
L1
C1
45 V1
L1
C1
interface with contact bars
40 V1
L1
microplane
C1
layer
35 no interface
30
Load V [kN]
25 Z
X
20 contact bars
15
Contact bar (interface)
10 Young`s modulus: 3000.0 MPa
Z
Friction (adhesive anchor): 0.80
Y
Friction (headed anchor): 0.0
5 X
0 Y
anchor (hex mesh)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 X 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement δ [mm] interface (hex mesh)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.5: Discussion of the contact problem between steel and concrete elements (a) Numerical
results of a M16 single anchor loaded towards the free edge with edge distance
c1 = 100 mm (b) improved interface layer and material properties of the contact bars
In Figure 4.6, a section through the used model is shown in order to explain the several layers
in the load application zone and their functions. A teflon sheet was modeled between the con-
crete surface and the anchorage plate to minimize friction between steel and concrete. Contact
bars, which can only transfer compressive stresses, were introduced into the interface layer.
Additionally, a nut, a washer and a clearance hole in the plate were modeled to consider the
stiffness of the connection between anchor bolt and anchorage plate realistically. The bars in
the washer layer can be introduced with a negative contact gap which corresponds to a preten-
sion load. In general, the bars in the interface layer of the clearance hole have a “zero” value
(activation of the anchor at the onset of loading). However, for the simulation of anchor
groups with hole clearance a positive contact gap can be introduced to the bar elements.
Therefore, the material properties of the bar elements in the clearance hole layer can be con-
trolled separately for each anchor. As mentioned above, the contact bars have a length of
0.5 mm. Therefore, it is noted that the contact gap is considered numerically by the relative
displacement of nodes and not geometrically as considered in an experimental investigation.
V1
V1
L1
C1
Contact bars Materials

4 ___________________________
8 1 Concrete
7 2 Interface concrete – steel plate
5 3 Anchor bolt
4 Nut
2 5 Washer
Z
Z
6 Interface anchor – concrete
Y 6 Y
1 7 Interface steel plate - anchor

X
3 X
8 Anchorage plate
Figure 4.6: Model details of the load application zone
4.3.3 Verification of the numerical model
In order to verify the numerical model, single anchors loaded both perpendicular and parallel
to the edge were simulated with the same parameters as in the tested experimental investiga-
tions.
35 80
30 70
60
25
50
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
20
40
15
30
10
20 adhesive anchor (experimental results)
adhesive anchor (experimental results)
5 adhesive anchor (numerical simulation) adhesive anchor (numerical simulation)
10
headed stud (numerical simulation) headed anchor (numerical simulation)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) (b)
Figure 4.7: Verification of the load-displacement behavior of the numerical model for a single an-
chor with edge distance c1 = 100 mm, anchor diameter dnom = 16 mm and embedment
depth hef = 130 mm for a load direction (a) perpendicular to the edge (b) parallel to the
edge
In Figure 4.7, the numerically obtained load-displacement curves for headed anchors and ad-
hesive-bonded anchors are compared with the experimentally obtained load-displacement
curves for adhesive-bonded anchors. As aforementioned, no significant difference between
cast-in and post-installed anchors was obtained. The numerical results for both ultimate
strength and displacement behavior agree well with the experimental investigations.
The numerically observed post peak crack pattern is shown in Figure 4.8 for the simulated
adhesive anchors and in Figure 4.9 for the simulated headed anchors. The crack propagation
and the dimensions of the breakout patterns agree suitable with the experimental results.
V1
L1 0.01
V1
L1
Summarizing, the numerical model is shown to be able to represent the load-bearing behavior
C1
0.00937
0.01
C1
of shear loaded anchorages arranged close to the edge realistically. 0.00875
0.00813 0.00937
0.0075
V1
L1
0.00875
0.00688 0.01
C1
0.00625 0.00937
0.00813
Symmetry was 0.00562 0.00875
0.0075
utilized for a load 0.005
0.00813
direction towards 0.00438

0.0075 0.00688
the edge 0.00375
0.00688
0.00313 0.00625
0.00625
0.0025
0.00562 0.00562
0.00187
0.005
Y
0.00125 0.005
0.00438
Z X 0.000625
Output Set: MS3 c100M16hef1300070 0.00375 0.00438
Deformed(2.901): Total nodal disp. 0.
Contour: Avrg.E11 stra. E 0.00313
0.00375
0.0025
0.00187 0.00313
Y
0.00125
0.0025
Z X 0.000625
Output Set: MS3 c100M16hef1300070
Deformed(2.901): Total nodal disp. 0. 0.00187
Contour: Avrg.E11 stra. E
Y
0.00125
Figure 4.8: Post peak crack patterns of adhesive anchors with edge distance c1 = 100 mm, anchor
Z X 0.000625
Output Set: MS3 V90M16hef130c1000109
diameter dnom = 16 mm and embedment depth hef = 130 mm for a load direction per-
pendicular and parallel to the edge
V1
L1 0.01
C1
0.00937
0.00875
0.00813
0.0075
0.00688
0.00625
0.00562
0.005
0.00438
0.00375
0.00313
0.0025
0.00187
Y
0.00125
Z X 0.000625
Figure 4.9: Post peak crack patterns of headed anchors with edge distance c1 = 100 mm, anchor
diameter dnom = 16 mm and embedment depth hef = 130 mm for a load direction per-
pendicular and parallel to the edge (Grosser et al., 2010)
4.4 Numerical model for shear collectors (nonlinear spring model)

For anchorages with multiple anchors in a row which are loaded in shear far away from con-
crete edges, no investigations exist. Such anchor configurations are not covered in design
since it is not known if the load is equally distributed to the individual anchors. In Section
3.3.6, first experimental investigations are described to provide information about the load-
bearing behavior of connections engaging multiple anchors (n ≥ 3) in a row. The results show
that for the tested anchor configurations no shear lag needs to be taken into account. Howev-
er, it is assumed that shear lag can occur for more critical anchor configurations. Various pa-
rameters may have an influence on the load distribution and, therefore, on the failure load.
Since experimental investigations of such critical shear collectors are challenging and hard to
realize, numerical simulations are necessary to analyze the load-bearing behavior. Critical
influencing parameters are assumed to be:
 Number of bolts
 Load displacement curve
- steel grade
- diameter (threaded rod)
- concrete compressive strength
- scatter of load-displacement curves
 Failure mode (steel rupture / pry-out failure)
 Stiffness of anchorage plate (cross section area)
 Spacing between the individual anchor bolts
 Hole clearance (activation of the anchors)
In the following, a numerical model is presented which is able to capture all relevant parame-
ters described above.
The characteristic of the load-displacement curve of the individual anchor bolt in the group is
assumed to mainly control the behavior of the shear collector. Therefore, in order to consider
the anchor behavior realistically, a so-called nonlinear spring model was developed which
uses real load-displacement curves obtained from experimental tests as input data (see Figure
4.10). Accordingly, the information about the behavior of concrete and steel is provided by
spring elements which consider the load-displacement behavior instead of modeling concrete
and anchor bolts in detail. Each anchor was modeled with a single spring element fully con-
strained at one end and connected to the hexahedral elements of the anchor bolts with free
flexibility in loading direction. An interface layer was modeled between the anchor bolt ele-
ments and the anchorage plate, which was also modeled using 8-node hexahedral elements.
Bars implemented into the interface layer in front of the anchor and behind the anchor bolts
allow calculations of anchorages with hole clearance. The properties of the contact bars for
each anchor can be controlled separately. Thus, various possibilities of distribution of hole
clearance can be simulated. A teflon layer with contact bars, which can take up only compres-
sive stresses, was introduced under the anchorage plate. The lower surface of the teflon sheet
was constrained in vertical direction. The loading of the anchorage plate was carried out dis-
placement controlled in a row of nodes. The displacement of the anchorage plate was meas-
ured in the center of these nodes.
120
Anchorage problem
Typical anchor in
Vs
100 high strength concrete (brittle steel)
z low strength concrete (brittle steel)

80
Load [kN]
y 60
Idealized nonlinear spring model
x low strength concrete (ductile steel)
40
20
0
Detail of FE model 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
V1
L1 Displacement [mm]
C1
V1
L1
C1
i,1 i,4
i,2 i,5
x,z x,y,z i,3 i,6
bars to provide hole clearance in front of the anchor (i,1-i,3)

and behind the anchor (i,4-i,6) (i = anchor)
Figure 4.10: Idealization of the anchorage problem with a nonlinear spring model
In Figure 4.11, the preparation of input data derived from an experimentally obtained load-
displacement curve is shown. For the spring elements, stress-strain relations are needed.
However, the load-displacement curve provides force-deformation relation of the anchor bolt.
By means of the relations σ = V/A and ε = ∆l/l, the load-displacement curve is converted in a
stress-strain curve. By setting the length of the spring element to l = 1 mm and the cross sec-
tion to A = 1 mm², the load-displacement relation of the anchor equals the stress-strain rela-
tion of the spring element. In all simulations the symmetry was utilized. Therefore, the stress
values were halved. At the onset of loading the numerical model requires the information of
the Young’s modulus to find equilibrium. After the first iterations, the springs follow the in-
put data. Young’s modulus is calculated at 10 kN from the experimentally obtained load-
displacement curve.
45 45
40 40 input data (no symmmetry)
35
Determination of  V / A 35 input data (symmetry utilized)
Young‘s modulus
  l / l
30 30
Stress σ [MPa]
Load V [kN]
25 25
20 20
15 15
l = 1 mm
10 10
A = 1 mm²
5 5
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement δ [mm] Strain ε [-]
(a) (b)
Figure 4.11: (a) Typical load-displacement curve of a single anchor bolt measured in a displace-
ment controlled test and (b) Conversion of the load-displacement curve to an input file
for the numerical simulations
The load-displacement behavior of single anchors used as input data for the numerical study
is described in Section 3.2.7.1. The experimental data was evaluated and critical curves (brit-
tle steel, small rupture elongation) were implemented into the numerical model. As shown in
Figure 3.50, anchor bolts with steel grade 12.9 were found to fail most brittle with small dis-
placement at failure. Therefore, calculations were performed with M12 and M16 anchors in
low strength and high strength concrete. The stiffness of the anchorage plate (cross section) is
assumed to be a further parameter which has an effect on the shear lag. In order to simulate
the most critical case, the cross section of the anchorage plate was calculated assuming the
plate to fail at a load n times the ultimate strength of a single anchor bolt (highest value of the
input data). Therefore, maximum allowable stress was defined as 500 MPa. Young’s modulus
was taken as ES = 200,000 MPa and Poisson’s ratio S = 0.33. The behavior of the anchorage
plate was assumed to be linear elastic to avoid failure of the steel plate.
4.5 Results of the simulations

4.5.1 Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear towards the edge
Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded towards the edge have been investigated
experimentally to mainly study the influence of anchor diameter, embedment depth and edge
distance on the ultimate strength. The results are described in Section 3.2.1.4. Numerical sim-
ulations were performed with the main focus on the development of a new prediction equation
for a load direction perpendicular to the edge. All relevant parameters influencing the ultimate
breakout strength were varied in order to evaluate the effect as well as the limitation of the
parameters. In the following, the influencing parameters are analyzed separately.
4.5.1.1 Influence of the concrete fracture properties on ultimate strength
According to current prediction equations the anchorage component is only considered by the
concrete compressive strength to the power of 0.5. Even knowing that the factor (EC ∙ Gf)0.5
better describes the influence of the concrete mix design on the ultimate breakout strength
(Sawade, 1994), (fcc,200)0.5 is better suited to a design equation. Experimental testing described
in Section 3.2.6 has shown that this assumption is justified with sufficient accuracy through-
out the whole range of concrete compressive strengths. This was verified by tests in high
strength concrete. However, at constant concrete compressive strength, testing in concrete
with aggregate of broken natural stone instead of concrete with rounded gravel aggregate has
shown significant deviation from current prediction equations (see Section 3.3.3.4.2). In aver-
age, the obtained ultimate loads were found to be about 30% higher to what is expected. It is
noted that for concrete having a constant concrete compressive strength fcc,200, parameters like
concrete tensile strength fct, fracture energy Gf, and modulus of elasticity of the concrete EC
may vary as a function of the concrete mix design. For the same concrete mix, concretes with
aggregate of broken natural stone generally exhibit a tensile strength approximately 20%
higher than those containing round gravel and sand. Within a limited range, the tensile
strength increases with the maximum aggregate size. The modulus of elasticity of the concrete
increases with increasing modulus of elasticity of the aggregate, decreasing volume of hydrat-
ed cement, and decreasing water/cement ratio. In the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB,
1993), the effect of type of aggregate on modulus of elasticity is taken into account. From
concrete made of quartzitic aggregates to concrete made of basalt, the modulus of elasticity
can be assumed to be 20% higher. Fracture energy is assumed to be highly influenced by the
shape of the aggregate. In concrete with broken aggregate, the fracture energy can be up to
50% higher because of the irregular shape of the crushed rock (Eligehausen et al., 2006).
In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the concrete parameters on the ultimate strength of shear
loaded anchorages close to the edge, numerical simulations were performed for the concrete
edge breakout failure mode at constant concrete compressive strength. Basic reference value
was taken as: Cylinder compressive strength fc = 24 MPa, tensile strength ft = 1.9 MPa, modu-
lus of elasticity of the concrete EC = 27,400 MPa, Poisson’s ratio C = 0.18, and fracture ener-
gy Gf = 0.065 N/mm. Figure 4.12 a)-c) illustrate the influence of modulus of elasticity of the
concrete, tensile strength, and fracture energy.
1.6 1.6
Numerical simulation Numerical simulation
1.4 1.4
Vu / Vu (Ec = 27400 MPa)
1.2 Vu / Vu (fct = 2.0 MPa) 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Modulus of elasticity Ec [MPa] Concrete tensile strength fct [MPa]
(a) (b)
Vu / Vu (round aggregate)
1.6 50 1.5
Numerical simulation Numerical simulation 1.4

42.1
1.4 40 1.3
1.29
Vu / Vu (Gf = 0.065 N/mm)
Ultimate load Vu [kN]
32.6 1.2
1.2 30 1.1
1.00
1.0
1.0 20 0.9
0.8
0.8 10 0.7
fc = 24 MPa 0.6
0 0.5
0.6
0
Aggregate: 1
round 2
crushed 3
0.02 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.22
Concrete fracture energy Gf [N/mm] ft = 2.0 MPa 3.0 MPa
EC = 27400 MPa 33000 MPa
Gf = 0.065 N/mm 0.1 N/mm
(c) (d)
Figure 4.12: Relative failure loads as a function of (a) modulus of elasticity of the concrete
(b) concrete tensile strength (c) concrete fracture energy (d) Single anchor bolt loaded
in shear in concrete with round gravel aggregate versus single anchor bolt loaded in
shear in concrete with broken aggregate (crushed rock)
The modulus of elasticity was found to be a parameter of minor significance. In contrast, the
ultimate strength was found to be strongly influenced by the tensile strength. An increase of
the tensile strength from 2.0 to 4.0 leads to an increase of the concrete edge breakout failure
load of about 30%. An increase of the fracture energy from 0.065 to 0.2 causes an increase of
the concrete edge breakout failure load of about 10%. This is in contrast to numerical simula-
tions performed by Ožbolt, 1995 with anchor bolts loaded in tension. Here, the tensile
strength was found to have only a minimal influence on the concrete cone failure load. How-
ever, the concrete cone failure load was found to increase roughly proportional to the square
root of the fracture energy. Consequently, the influence of concrete parameters seems to de-
pend on the loading condition of the concrete.
In Figure 4.12 d), the reference simulation with a typical concrete with round gravel aggregate
is compared with concrete with broken aggregate (crushed rock). For the “crushed rock” con-
crete, the modified concrete properties compared to the reference concrete are assumed to be
as follows: Concrete tensile strength ft = 3.0 MPa, modulus of elasticity EC = 33,000 MPa,
and fracture energy GF = 0.1 N/mm. The ultimate strength for the concrete breakout failure
mode in concrete with broken aggregate is about 30% higher than the concrete breakout fail-
ure load of the same anchor loaded in shear in concrete with round gravel aggregate. This
agrees well with the experimental investigations (see Section 3.3.3.4.2).
In addition to the sensitivity analysis of the concrete fracture properties described above, nu-
merical simulations with different concrete compressive strength were performed to verify if
the assumption to raise the concrete compressive strength term to the power of 0.5 is justified.
The material properties of the simulated concretes are summarized in Table 4.1. Analogous to
the sensitivity analysis, all simulations were performed for an edge distance c1 = 100 mm with
an anchor bolt M16 having an embedment depth hef = 130 mm.
Table 4.1: Material properties of the simulated concretes
Concrete compressive strength fcm,cube,150 [MPa] 25.0 30.0 50.0 70.0

Concrete tensile strength fctm [MPa] 1.6 1.9 3.0 4.0
Concrete compressive strength fcm,cyl [MPa] 20.0 24.0 40.0 56.0
Modulus of elasticity Ecm [MPa] 25800 27400 32500 36400
Concrete fracture energy Gf [N/mm] 0.05 0.065 0.079 0.1
In Figure 4.13, relative ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the concrete compressive
strength. For comparison, the compressive strength term raised to the power of 0.5 is illustrat-
ed. It is shown that an exponent of 0.5 is in good correlation with the numerical results.
2.0
1.8 Numerical simulation
1.6
Vu / Vu (fcc = 30.0 MPa)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
(fcc/30 MPa)0.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Concrete compressive strength fcc [MPa]
Figure 4.13: Relative failure loads as a function of the concrete compressive strength
4.5.1.2 Influence of the anchor diameter on ultimate strength
In the test program performed by the author, anchor diameters were experimentally varied in
the range between M10 and M24. The results indicate that for edge distances c1 > 100 mm the
increase in capacity for an anchor bolt M24 compared to an anchor bolt M16 is negligible.
Taken into account the minimum edge distances regulated in current approvals (cmin = 4dnom),
a limitation of the anchor diameter in the prediction equation to a value dnom = 25 mm seems
to be justified. Minimum edge distance for the limiting value would equal cmin = 100 mm. In
order to verify if a restriction of the anchor diameter is reasonable, numerical simulations
were performed with anchor bolts up to a diameter dnom = 60 mm. Simulations were carried
out with a constant embedment depth hef = 200 mm for edge distances c1 = 100 mm and
c1 = 200 mm. The calculated ultimate strengths as well as the related loads to a M24 anchor
bolt are plotted in Figure 4.14 as a function of the anchor diameter. As can be seen, for an
edge distance c1 = 100 mm, an increase of the ultimate strength of about 10% for increasing
the anchor diameter from dnom = 24 mm to 60 mm was observed. In contrast, for an edge dis-
tance c1 = 200 mm, no increase of the ultimate strength was observed. As mentioned, taking
into account a minimum edge distance of cmin = 4dnom, a restriction of the anchor diameter to
dnom = 25 mm is reasonable.
120 1.2
c = 100 mm
100 1.1
c = 200 mm
80 1.0
Vu / Vu,M24
60 0.9
40 0.8
20 c = 100 mm 0.7
c = 200 mm
0 0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) (b)
Figure 4.14: Numerically obtained (a) failure loads as a function of anchor diameter (b) relative
failure loads as a function of anchor diameter
To demonstrate the failure mechanism, in Figure 4.15, the crack pattern of an anchor bolt
M24 and M60 is compared for an edge distance c1 = 200 mm. Colored zones indicate the lo-
calization of damage (cracks) which are represented by principal strains ε11. The red zones
equal a crack width of about 0.1 mm. The anchors failed by a typical concrete edge breakout.
No influence of the anchor diameter on the breakout width was observed. For both anchors
the breakout is about six times the edge distance (α ~ 20°). The stressed concrete capacity is
comparable which explains that there is no significant difference in ultimate strength. With
increasing anchor diameter, local spalling in front of the anchorage decreases.
(a) dnom = 24 mm (b) dnom = 60 mm
Figure 4.15: Calculated crack patterns for two different anchor diameters at post peak
4.5.1.3 Influence of the stiffness ratio on ultimate strength
The influence of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom on the ultimate strength was experimentally investi-
gated. It was shown that the ultimate strength can be increased with increasing stiffness ratio.
However, it was also shown that the influence decreases with increasing edge distance. Since
the development of the cracking along the embedment depth cannot be verified experimental-
ly, numerical simulations were performed for different edge distances and embedment depths
in order to get an idea of the crack propagation. All simulations were performed with a M16
anchor bolt. Model 1 according to Figure 4.4 was used. In Figure 4.16, the ultimate loads as
well as the related loads to a ratio lf/dnom = 5.0 are plotted as a function of the stiffness ratio
lf/dnom. As can be seen, an increase of the embedment depth and, therefore, an increase of the
stiffness ratio leads to an increase of the ultimate strength for all edge distances up to
lf/dnom = 12.5. An increase of the ratio lf/dnom to a value 20 only increases the ultimate strength
for small edge distance (c1 = 50 mm). This can be explained by the load-displacement behav-
ior (Figure 4.17) and the crack pattern at ultimate load (Figure 4.18).
120 2.0
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
c = 100 mm 1.8 c = 100 mm
100
c = 200 mm c = 200 mm
1.6
80
Vu / Vu,lf/d=5.0
1.4
60
1.2
40
1.0
20
0.8
0 0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) (b)
Figure 4.16: Numerically obtained (a) failure loads as a function of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom
(b) relative failure loads as a function of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom
18 100
hef = 320 mm hef = 200 mm
16 90
hef = 320 mm
14 80
70
12
hef = 200 mm
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
hef = 130 mm 60
10
hef = 80 mm
50
8
hef = 80 mm initial cracking 40 hef = 130 mm
6
30
4 20
2 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a) (b)
Figure 4.17: Load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded perpendicular to the concrete
edge (a) M16, c1 = 50 mm (b) M16, c1 = 200 mm
For an edge distance c1 = 50 mm, initial cracking for all simulated ratios lf/dnom was obtained
at about the same load level (~11 kN). The load can be redistributed along the embedment
depth up to that point where the resistance of the lower part of the embedment depth is small-
er than the acting shear load. It is noted that initial cracking already leads to visible cracking
at the concrete surface. This is shown for example for an embedment depth hef = 320 mm.
Initial cracking is indicated by a change of slope in the load-displacement curve (see Figure
4.17a).
V1
L1 0.01
C1
V1 V1
0.00937
L1 L1 0.01
0.01 0.01
C1 C1 V1 0.00875
L1
0.00937 0.00937 0.00937
C1 0.00813
0.00875 0.00875 0.0075 0.00875 0.00
0.00813 0.00813 0.00688 0.00

0.00813
0.00625
0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.00
0.00562
0.00688 0.00688 0.00688 0.0
0.005
0.00625 0.00625 0.00

0.00438 0.00625
0.00562 0.00562 0.00375 0.00562 0.00
0.005 0.005 0.00313

0.005 0.00
0.0025
0.00438 0.00438
0.00187 initial cracking 0.00438 0
0.00375 0.00375
Z 0.00375 0.00
0.00125
0.00313 0.00313
X Y 0.000625 0.00313 0.00
0.0025 0.0025 0.
Deformed(2.933): Total nodal disp.
0.0025 0.00
0.00187 0.00187
0.00187 0.0
Z Z
0.00125Z 0.00125
0.00125 0.00
0.000625
Z
0.000625
X Y
MS3 c50M16hef800012
X
hef = 80 mm
X Y
Y X
hef = 130 mm X Y Y
hef = 200 mm Y
hef = 320 mm 0.000625 0.00
0.472): Total nodal disp. 160.
140.
120.
100.
80.
60.
40.
20.
0. 0. Deformed(2.211):
20. 40. Total
60. nodal80. disp.
100. 120. 140. 160. 180. 120.
100.
160.
140.
80.
60.
40.
20.
0.
200. 0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100. 120. 140. Output
160. Set:
180. 200.
0. MS3 0.
c50M16hef3200193
vrg.E11 stra. E Contour: Avrg.E11 stra. E Deformed(7.068): Total nodal disp. X 0. 0.000
Contour: Avrg.E11 stra. E Output Set: MS3 c50M16hef3200014
(a) Contour: Avrg.E11 stra. E
V1 V1 V1
L1 L1 L1
0.01 0.01 0.01
C1 C1 C1
0.00937 0.00937 0.00937
0.00875 0.00875 0.00875
∆lf 0.00813 0.00813 0.00813
0.0075 ∆lf 0.0075 0.0075
0.00688 0.00688 0.00688
0.00625 0.00625 0.00625
0.00562 0.00562 0.00562
0.005 0.005 0.005
0.00438 0.00438 0.00438
0.00375 0.00375 0.00375

hef = 80 mm hef = 130 mm hef = 200 mm hef = 320 mm
0.00313 0.00313 0.00313
(b) 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
0.00187 0.00187 0.00187
Z Z Z Z
0.00125 0.00125 0.00125
X Y
Figure 4.18: Crack patterns at peak load (a) M16, c1 = 50 mm (b) M16, c1 = 200 mm
X Y X Y 0.000625 X Y 0.000625 0.000625
put Set: MS3 c200M16hef800046 Output Set: MS3 c200M16hef1300050 Output Set: MS3 c200M16hef2000058 Output Set: MS3 c200M16hef3200051
rmed(6.654): Total nodal disp. Deformed(6.774): Total nodal disp. Deformed(7.774): Total nodal disp. 0.
Deformed(6.765): Total nodal disp. 0. 0.
X X Y X Y X Y Y
tour: Avrg.E11 stra. E 585.
540.
495.
450.
405.
360.
315.
270.
225.
180.
135.
90.
45.
0. 0. 45. 90.
Contour: 135.
Avrg.E11 180.
stra. E 225. 270.135.
585.
540.
495.
450.
405.
360.
315.
270.
225.
180.
90.
45.
0. 315.
0. 360.
45. 405.
90.
Contour: 450.
135.
Avrg.E11 495.
180.
stra. E 225. 270.135.
585.
540.
495.
450.
405.
360.
315.
270.
225.
180.
90.
45.
0. 315.
0. 360.
45. 405.
90.
Contour: 450. 495.
135. stra.
Avrg.E11 180.
E 225. 270.135.
585.
540.
495.
450.
405.
360.
315.
270.
225.
180.
90.
45.
0. 0.
315. 45.
360. 90.
405. 135.
450. 180.
495. 225. 270. 315. 360. 405. 450. 495.
In case of larger edge distances, the load level is much higher. This leads to increased local
spalling in front of the anchor. For small embedment depth (hef = 80 mm), the first crack starts
at the lower end of the anchor which leads to failure of the entire system. For increasing em-
bedment depth, the failure crack was found to start deeper compared to a small embedment
depth (+∆lf). With further increasing embedment depth the value ∆lf decreases. ∆lf was deter-
mined to zero for a stiffness ratio lf/dnom = 12.5. No increase of the ultimate strength can be
observed for this case. The reason is that the resistance of the uncracked part of the embed-
ment depth is smaller than the resisted load at initial cracking. Therefore, the shear load gets
redistributed to a lower load level. Further loading only leads to cracking along the embed-
ment depth without increasing the load. Taking into account that there is no load increase for
ratios lf/dnom = 12.5 and that for small edge distance initial cracking can lead to serviceability
problems, a restriction of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom to a value 12 seems to be reasonable for
design purpose.
4.5.1.4 Influence of edge distance on ultimate strength
In Section 3.2.1.4.5, the influence of edge distance on the ultimate strength for the concrete
edge failure mode is discussed. Interestingly, it was found that the edge distance term raised
to a power smaller than 1.5 is a better predictor of capacity. As mentioned, taking into ac-
count the maximum possible size effect, a smaller exponent than 1.5 cannot be explained by
the theory of linear fracture mechanics. To investigate this phenomenon in more detail, nu-
merical simulations were carried out. Simulations were performed for the size range c1 = 50 to
762 mm.
In a first series of simulations, anchor geometry was kept constant for all c1 to check whether
the same tendency for the influence of the edge distance as observed experimentally can be
obtained in the numerical study. Therefore, the anchor was modeled for edge distances 50 to
200 mm with an anchor diameter of 10 mm with an embedment depth of 200 mm
(hef/dnom = 20.0), and with an anchor diameter of 24 mm with an embedment depth of 200 mm
(hef/dnom = 8.3). The results are shown in Figure 4.19.
8.0 8.0
c2.0A c1.5A c1.5A
c2.0A
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
Vu / Vu (c1 = 50 mm)
Vu / Vu (c1 = 50 mm)
c1.33A c1.33A
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 Experimental results 2.0 Experimental results
Numerical results Numerical results

1.0 1.0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
(a) M10, hef = 200 mm (b) M24, hef = 200 mm
Figure 4.19: Numerically obtained relative failure loads as a function of the edge distance c1
The numerical failure loads agree suitable with the failure loads measured experimentally.
The edge distance term raised to the power of 1.5 overestimates the influence of the edge dis-
tance for constant anchor geometry with increasing edge distance. The deviation to the maxi-
mum size effect (Exponent 1.5) slightly increases with decreasing anchor diameter. This is
attributed to the increased local spalling in front of the anchor (see Figure 4.20). For small
edge distance, the anchor fails in concrete edge breakout without pronounced local damage in
front of the anchorage. For increased edge distance – at constant anchor diameter and em-
bedment depth – high local spalling is observed prior to concrete edge failure. However, con-
sidering the size effect, it is assumed that failure is attributed to the same failure mechanism.
(a) c1 = 50 mm (b) c1 = 200 mm
Figure 4.20: Crack patterns at peak load for constant anchor geometry illustrated for small and
large edge distances
In order to demonstrate that the size effect law (SEL) applies for geometrically similar struc-
tures of different sizes, a second series of simulations was carried out where the anchor geom-
etry was increased proportionally to the edge distance. The ratio edge distance to anchor di-
ameter was kept constant as c1/dnom = 5.0, and ratio edge distance to embedment depth was
kept constant as c1/hef = 1.0 for all c1. The numerical results are shown in Figure 4.21a.
12.0 5.0
c1.5A Experimental results (Korea Power
11.0
c2.0A Engineering Company, 2004)
10.0 Numerical results
4.0
9.0
Vu / Vu (c1 = 381 mm)
c2.0A
Vu / Vu (c1 = 50 mm)
8.0
7.0
3.0
6.0
c1.33A
5.0
4.0 2.0
3.0 c1.33A
c1.5A
2.0 Numerical results
1.0 1.0
50 100 150 200 250 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) c1 = 50 mm – 200 mm (b) c1 = 381 mm – 762 mm
Figure 4.21: Numerically obtained relative failure loads as a function of the edge distance c1
The numerically obtained exponent of the edge distance term is approximately equal to 1.7.
This can be explained by the corresponding failure pattern shown in Figure 4.22. Since the
anchor diameter is scaled proportionally with the edge distance, local damage is minimized
for large edge distance and the increase in ultimate strength is higher. Experimental investiga-
tions with large anchor diameters (dnom ≥ 63.5 mm [2.5 in.]) performed by the Korea Power
Engineering Company (2004) have shown that the concrete edge breakout capacity appears to
increase in proportion to c12. This would imply that for such structures no size effect needs to
be taken into account (plastic solution). To verify this, simulations with anchor diameter
dnom = 63.5 mm [2.5 in.] and embedment depth hef = 635 mm [25 in.] were carried out (see
Figure 4.21b). The results confirm that the size effect on the relative anchor resistance de-
creases in case local damage is reduced. However, it could not be shown that for such anchor
bolts the size effect can be neglected as indicated by the experimental tests. Based on the nu-
merical study the size effect should be taken into account for the full range of anchor geome-
tries and edge distances.
(a) c1 = 50 mm (b) c1 = 200 mm
Figure 4.22: Crack patterns at peak load for anchor geometry increased proportionally to the edge
distance
In the following, a discussion of the load-bearing mechanism of an anchor bolt loaded in

shear close to the edge is given to explain why the edge distance term needs to be raised to a
value exceeding the maximum possible size effect in order to describe the load bearing behav-
ior realistically.
1.2
ψe according to Equation 2.10
1.0
Vu / Vu (e = 20 mm)
0.8
dnom = 26.5 mm
0.6
c1 = 70 mm
0.4
0.2
Experimental results
(Paschen and Schönhoff, 1982) Resolution of the secondary moment in the anchor
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cantilever e [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 4.23: Anchor close to an edge subjected to a shear load with lever arm which failed in con-
crete edge breakout (a) Test results from Paschen and Schönhoff (1982) (b) Explana-
tion of the concrete edge breakout resistance (Eligehausen et al., 2006)
Limited experimental investigations performed by Paschen and Schönhoff (1982) indicate

that shear loading applied in a certain distance to the concrete surface induces secondary over-
turning moments in the connection. Tests were carried out with three distances between shear
load and concrete surface at constant edge distance. The concrete edge breakout capacity sig-
nificantly dropped down with increasing lever arm (see Figure 4.23a). The resolution of the
secondary moment in the anchor results in an additional shear component towards the edge as
shown in Figure 4.23b. The net effect is to reduce the capacity of the anchorage as governed
by concrete edge breakout (Eligehausen et al., 2006). The reduction is taken into account by
the factor ψe, which is explained by Equation 2.10. Note that the reduction observed in the
experimental investigations was even higher.
If an anchor is loaded close to the edge in shear with small edge distance, the anchor fails by
concrete edge breakout with insignificant damage in front of the anchorage. However, for
increasing edge distance, local failure in front of the anchorage generates a secondary moment
in the anchor analog to the shear problem described in Figure 4.23. This results in additional
shear component VM acting towards the edge respectively in an increase of the resultant shear
force R1. Therefore, the distance of the resultant R1 to the concrete surface increases. For rea-
sons of equilibrium, a tensile force is generated in the anchor bolt. This effect needs to be su-
perimposed with the maximum possible size effect (see Figure 4.24). Experimental and nu-
merical results show that the effect of additional bending in the anchor should be taken into
account by a reduction of the exponent of the edge distance term by approximately 10%.
V V V
C a VM
C C
R1 N N N
R2 = +
Local failure in front of the anchor Concrete edge breakout failure

generates a secondary moment
(a)
V1
L1 0.01
V C1
0.00937
0.00875
0.00813
C a 0.0075
N 0.00688
0.00625
R1 M30, hef = 200 mm, c1= 400 mm
= R2 0.00562
0.005
0.00438
0.00375
0.00313
0.0025
Superimposition of tension and shear 0.00187
failure cracks Superimposition of tension 0.00125
and shear failure cracks 0.000625
0.
(b) (c)
Figure 4.24: Explanation of the failure mechanism for increasing edge distance (a) Superimposed
failure modes (b) Resulting failure (c) Numerical simulations with large edge distance
4.5.2 Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded in shear parallel to the edge
4.5.2.1 Influence of the concrete compressive strength
The increase factor for a shear load direction parallel to the edge (Equation 2.47) rises in pro-
portion to (fcc,200)0.25. Therefore, the capacity of an anchor loaded parallel to the edge is as-
sumed to be proportional to (fcc,200)0.75. However, experimental investigations in high strength
concrete (see Section 3.2.6) show that the influence of the concrete properties is better de-
scribed by the square root of the compressive strength. To check whether the same tendency
is to be expected for larger range of compressive strength (fcc = 25-70 MPa), numerical simu-
lations were carried out. The material properties of the simulated concretes are summarized in
Table 4.1. All simulations were performed for an edge distance c1 = 100 mm with an anchor
bolt M16 having an embedment depth hef = 130 mm. The results are shown in Figure 4.25.
The relative ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the concrete compressive strength. For
comparison, the concrete compressive strength term raised to the power of 0.5 and 0.75 is
illustrated. As for anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, the concrete edge breakout
load of an anchor loaded parallel to the edge increases in proportion to (fcc,200)0.5 as well. The
concrete compressive strength term raised to the power of 0.75 overestimates the influence of
the concrete strength. This agrees with the results obtained by experimental investigations.
2.0
1.8 Numerical simulation
1.6
Vu / Vu (fcc = 30.0 MPa)
1.4 (fcc/30 MPa)0.75
1.2
1.0
0.8
(fcc/30 MPa)0.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Concrete compressive strength fcc [MPa]
Figure 4.25: Relative failure loads as a function of the concrete compressive strength
4.5.2.2 Influence of anchor diameter on ultimate strength
Anchor diameters were experimentally varied in the range between M12 and M24 for an edge
distance c1 = 50 mm. For larger edge distances only, anchor bolts M16 and M24 were tested
since steel rupture governs the failure for a load direction parallel to the edge at small anchor
diameters. Tests with anchor bolts with diameters larger than 24 mm are challenging since
failure loads are assumed to increase considerably with increasing anchor diameter which
would require very large concrete blocks to avoid splitting failure. In order to determine the
influence of anchor diameter on the ultimate strength for a larger range of diameters, simula-
tions were carried out with a constant embedment depth hef = 200 mm for edge distances
c1 = 100 mm and c1 = 200 mm for anchor bolts M10 to M60.
In Figure 4.26, the calculated ultimate strengths as well as the related loads to a M16 anchor
bolt are plotted as a function of the anchor diameter. Compared to a load direction perpendic-
ular to the edge, no restriction of the anchor diameter is reasonable. The ultimate strength in-
creases in proportion to the anchor diameter term raised to the power of 0.7. No effect of the
edge distance term on the influence of anchor diameter on ultimate strength was found.
400 2.8
c = 100 mm 2.6 c = 100 mm
350
c = 200 mm 2.4
c = 200 mm
300 2.2
Ultimate load V u [kN]
2.0
250
1.8 (dnom)1.0
Vu / Vu,M16
200 1.6
1.4
150
1.2
(dnom)0.5
100 1.0 (dnom)0.7
0.8
50
0.6
0 0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) (b)
Figure 4.26: Numerically obtained (a) failure loads as a function of anchor diameter (b) relative
failure loads as a function of anchor diameter
To demonstrate the failure mechanism, in Figure 4.27, the crack patterns of anchor bolts M24
and M60 are compared for an edge distance c1 = 200 mm. The anchors failed by a concrete
edge breakout induced by a splitting force directed towards the edge. According to Furche,
Eligehausen (1991) the ratio between splitting force FSp and applied force F can be expressed
by the ratio between pressure in front of the anchorage (p = F/A) and concrete compressive
strength. The maximum pressure in front of an anchor with large diameter is much lower than
for an anchor with small diameter since the pressure area increases with A = d2. This explains
the higher ratios Vu,90°/Vu,0° for anchors with large diameters compared to anchors with small
diameters.
(a) M24 (b) M60
Figure 4.27: Calculated crack patterns for different anchor diameters at post peak
4.5.2.3 Influence of the stiffness ratio on ultimate strength
In Equation 2.47 which takes into account that the shear load acts parallel to the edge, the
effect of the stiffness ratio is neglected. The compressed area in front of the anchorage is as-
sumed to be the square of the anchor diameter. Consequently, the influence of the embedment
depth on the ultimate strength equals the square root of the influence of the embedment depth
as taken into account for a load direction perpendicular to the edge (Vu,c,90° = X∙(Vu,c,0°)0.5). In
order to verify the experimentally obtained increase of ultimate strength with increasing em-
bedment depth, numerical simulations were performed with M16 anchor bolts for edge dis-
tances c1 = 50, 100 and 200 mm.
160 2.0
c = 50 mm c = 50 mm
140 c = 100 mm 1.8 c = 100 mm
c = 200 mm c = 200 mm
120
1.6
100
Vu / Vu,lf/d=5.0
1.4
80
1.2
60
1.0
40
20 0.8
0 0.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lf/dnom lf/dnom
(a) (b)
Figure 4.28: Numerically obtained (a) failure loads as a function of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom
(b) relative failure loads as a function of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom
In Figure 4.28, the ultimate loads as well as the related loads to a ratio lf/dnom = 5.0 are plotted
as a function of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom. An increase of the stiffness ratio lf/dnom from 5 to 8
has a strong influence on ultimate strength (~20%). The increase of the capacity is not signifi-
cantly influenced by the edge distance. The results clearly indicate that an increase of the
stiffness ratio over a value about 12 does not lead to an increase of the ultimate load. This
agrees with the experimentally obtained results. Therefore, a restriction of the stiffness ratio is
V1 V1
necessary. In Figure 4.29, the principal strains at ultimate load are compared for the different
L1 L1 0.01 0.01 0.01
C1 C1
embedment depth. As can be seen, the stressed area in front of the anchorage is increasing up 0.00937 0.00937 0.00937
to hef = 200 mm. No increase of the stressed area is observed for a further increase of the em- 0.00875 0.00875 0.00875
bedment depth to hef = 320 mm. The area was even slightly smaller. 0.00813 0.00813 0.00813
0.0075 0.0075 0.0075
0.00688 0.00688 0.00688
0.00625 0.00625 0.00625
0.00562 0.00562 0.00562
0.005 0.005 0.005
0.00438 0.00438 0.00438
0.00375 0.00375 0.00375

hef = 80 mm hef = 130 mm hef = 200 mm hef = 320 mm
0.00313 0.00313 0.00313
Y Y X Y X Y X X
0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350.
400.
350.
300.
250.
200.0.400. 0.450.50.500.100.
150.
100.
50. 550.150.
600.200.
650.250.
700.300.
750.
350.800.
100.
150.
200.
50.
250.
300.
350.
0.
400.400.
0. 450.
50. 500.
100. 550.
150. 600.
200. 650.
250. 700. 100.
300. 750.50.
350.0.800.
150.
200.
250.
300.
350.
400.400.0. 450.
50.500.
100.550.
150.600.
200.650.
250.700.
300.750.
350.800.
400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650. 700. 750. 800.
0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Figure 4.29: Crack patterns at peak load (M16, c1 =0.00187

100 mm) 0.00187 0.00187
Z Z Z
0.00125 0.00125 0.00125
Y X Y X Y X 0.000625 0.000625 0.000625

et: MS3 V90M16hef130c1000068 4.5.2.4 Influence of edge distance on ultimate strength
Output Set: MS3 V90M16hef200c1000097 Output Set: MS3 V90M16hef320c1000074
0. 0. 0.
d(4.61): Total nodal disp. Deformed(6.558): Total nodal disp. Deformed(4.979): Total nodal disp.
Avrg.E11 stra. E Contour: Avrg.E11 stra. E Contour: Avrg.E11 stra. E
According to the theoretical considerations by Furche, Eligehausen (1991), the breakout load
increases in proportion to the square root of the resulting splitting force. Since the splitting
force can be substituted by the shear force component acting towards the edge, the theoretical
influence of the edge distance term for a load direction parallel to the edge can be expressed
by the influence of the edge distance term for a load direction perpendicular to the edge. This
is shown by the following expression:
Vu,c,90° = X∙(Vu,c,0°)0.5 → influence edge distance c1ξ: X’∙ξ (α = 90°) = X’∙ (ξ (α = 0°))/2
Assuming ξ (α = 0°) = 4/3 (see Section 4.5.1.4), the ultimate strength of an anchor loaded
parallel to the edge rises in proportion to the edge distance term raised to the power of 2/3.
ξ (α = 90°) = (ξ (α = 0°))/2 → ξ (α = 90°) = (4/3)/2 = (2/3)
The theoretical background is described in detail in Section 5.2.
In Figure 4.30, the numerical simulations shown in Figure 4.28a) are plotted as a function of
the edge distance. For comparison, the load increase related to an edge distance of c1 = 50 mm
are illustrated for an exponent of 3/4 (ξ (α = 0°) = 3/2 (maximum size effect)) and 2/3
(ξ (α = 0°) = 4/3). As can be seen, the edge distance term raised to the power of 2/3 represents
the lower limit of the edge influence whereas the edge distance term raised to the power of 3/4
represents the upper limit of the edge influence. However, it is noted that the numerical re-
sults slightly underestimate the results obtained in experimental tests for small edge distance
(c1 = 50 mm) whereas the ultimate loads for large edge distance (c1 = 200 mm) are slightly
overestimated. Consequently, ξ (α = 90°) = 2/3 can be seen as a good predictior of the influ-
ence of the edge distance term.
4.0
hef =
hef = 80
80 mm
3.5
hef =
hef = 130
130 mm
c3/4A
hef
h = 200
ef = 200 mm
Vu / Vu (c1 = 50 mm)
3.0
hef
h = 320 mm
ef = 320
2.5
c2/3A
2.0
1.5
1.0
50 100 150 200 250
Figure 4.30: Related ultimate loads of an anchor bolt M16 as a function of the edge distance for the
various embedment depths
4.5.3 Determination of critical anchor spacing scr and critical edge distance ccr
In theory, the concrete edge breakout load of a single anchor will be reached only if the frac-
ture surface can fully develop. If the anchor is affected by adjacent anchors or further concrete
edges (corner situation or location in a narrow member), the failure load needs to be reduced
by the ratio of stressed concrete surface (actual area) and projected area of a fully developed
failure surface for a single anchor. This is explained in Section 2.3.3.
Experimental investigations described in Section 3.3 indicate that the critical ratio scr/c is not
constant but a function of the edge distance (scr = critical anchor spacing where anchor
strength is not influenced by other anchors). The critical edge distance ccr may be taken as one
half of the critical anchor spacing (scr = 2ccr). Numerical simulations on single anchors ar-
ranged in concrete blocks affected by more than one edge and with anchor groups arranged
parallel to the edge were performed to determine critical anchor spacing and edge distance.
The load was applied both perpendicular and parallel to the edge.
4.5.3.1 Evaluation of single anchors (n = 1) affected by more than one edge
Simulations for edge distance c1 = 100 mm were performed with M10 anchor bolts having an
embedment depth of 130 mm as well as simulations for edge distance c1 = 250 mm with M20
anchor bolts having an embedment depth of 195 mm. In Figure 4.31, the breakout patterns of
single anchors located in narrow concrete members are compared at post peak. For the refer-
ence simulation with a corner distance c2,1 = c2,2 = 2.4c1, the fracture surface can fully devel-
op. With decreasing corner distance the fracture surface is truncated by the side edge. In all
simulations in narrow members the symmetry was utilized.
Figure 4.31: Comparison of crack pattern at post peak of single anchors (M10, hef = 130 mm) lo-
cated in a narrow member (breakout influenced by three edges)
If the anchorage is located in a corner the fracture surface is truncated only on one side. In
Figure 4.32, typical breakout patterns for a corner situation are shown for three ratios c2/c1
(c2 = c2,1). As can be seen, with decreasing ratio c2/c1 the breakout angle on the side not af-
fected by a further edge increases. The reason is that with decreasing corner distance the ratio
Vu,c,0°/Vu,c,90° increases. For very small corner distance, the side edge breakout (Vu,c,90°) gov-
erns the failure. The resistance of an anchorage located in a corner for the concrete edge
breakout failure mode equals Vu,c = min(Vu,c,0°; Vu,c,90°). Therefore, the theoretical limit of
0.35Vu (Vu = resistance of a single anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge without corner
influence) at c2 = 0 cannot be verified in a numerical simulation. Accordingly, at the limit
condition of c2 = 0 the volume of the theoretical shear cone associated with a shear loaded
anchor in a corner is reduced by 100% (Vu,c,90° (c = 0) = 0). This is shown in Figure 4.33a).
Apart from that, the results agree well with the assumptions according to the CCD-method for
the simulated edge distance of 100 mm.
Figure 4.32: Comparison of crack patterns at post peak of single anchors (M10, hef = 130 mm)
located in a corner (breakout influenced by two edges)
Figure 4.33b) shows the comparison of the CCD-method with the numerical simulations in
narrow concrete members. The numerical results correlate suitable with the CCD-method for
edge distance of 100 mm. The critical edge distance equals about ccr = 1.5c1. However, with
increasing edge distance the critical egde distance ccr decreases. This agrees with findings by
Zhao (1993) who investigated the load-bearing behavior of anchorages loaded in tension. He
indicated that the critical ratio ccr/hef is dependent on the embedment depth since the breakout
angle decreases with decreasing embedment depth. Transferring this problem to shear loaded
anchorages, the embedment depth corresponds to the edge distance c1. Therefore, the relative
value ccr at which it is assumed that the failure surface is not disturbed by edges or adjacent
anchors decreases with increasing edge distance. This is discussed in-depth in the following
Section 4.5.3.2.
1.5 1.5
assumed increase c1 = 100 mm
assumed increase c1 = 100 mm
1.3 1.3
assumed increase
Vu / Vu (c2,1 = c2,2 = 2.4c1)
c1 = 250 mm
Vu / Vu (c2 = 2.4c1)
1.0 1.0
0.8 CCD-method 0.8 CCD-method
0.5 0.5
Vu,c,0° = Vu,c,90° cc1==100
100mm
mm
0.3 0.3
cc1= =100
100 mm
mm cc1==250
100mm
mm
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5
c2/c1 c2/c1
(a) corner situation (b) narrow concrete member
Figure 4.33: Related ultimate loads as a function of the edge distance ratio of c2/c1
4.5.3.2 Evaluation of anchor pairs (n = 2) arranged parallel to the edge
Numerical simulations were performed with pairs of anchors arranged parallel to the edge and
loaded both perpendicular and parallel to the free edge. Anchor diameter and embedment
depth were kept constant (M16, hef = 130 mm) for the simulated edge distances c1 = 50, 100
and 200 mm. The simulations with edge distance c1 = 400 mm were performed with M30
anchor bolts having an embedment depth hef = 200 mm only for a load direction towards the
edge. In Figure 4.34 and Figure 4.35 typical breakout patterns at peak load and post peak are
shown for the simulated anchor groups with an edge distance c1 = 100 mm.
Figure 4.34: Comparison of crack patterns at peak load and post peak of anchor groups loaded
perpendicular to the edge (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
Figure 4.35: Comparison of crack patterns at peak load and post peak of anchor groups loaded
parallel to the edge (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1 = 100 mm)
For small anchor spacing, the cracks overlap and affect each other adversely at peak load.
With increasing anchor spacing, no interference of cracking at peak load was observed. At
post peak, in both cases the anchors failed by a common breakout. However, for large anchor
spacing, cracking is inclined towards the free edge between the anchors. For a load direction
parallel to the edge, the failure is characterized by high local spalling in front of the anchors.
For small anchor spacing, the stress field at the back anchor is influenced by the front anchor.
For large anchor spacing, the anchors fail with no interference of the stress fields.
In Figure 4.36, the ratio between group resistance and resistance of a comparable single an-
chor is plotted as a function of the ratio s2/c1 for all simulated edge distances. The results
show that the critical anchor spacing at which the group resistance equals n-times the re-
sistance of a single anchor having the same edge distance increases with decreasing edge dis-
tance and is not constant as assumed in the CCD-method. The reason is that the breakout an-
gle increases with increasing edge distance. This was experimentally verified (see Section
3.2.1 and 3.2.2). The assumed critical spacing scr = 3c1 in the CCD-method is based on group
tests which were performed mainly with edge distance c1 = 100 mm. However, taking into
account the full range of edge distances, the critical ratio scr/c1 needs to be a function of the
edge distance. For a load angle α = 90°, the critical anchor spacing is smaller since the
breakout angle is larger compared to groups loaded perpendicular to the edge. Moreover, the
breakout angle is unsymmetric. This agrees with the experimental results described in Section
3.2.2.
2.5 2.5
2.3 2.3
2.0 2.0
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
1.8 1.8
1.5 cc1==50
50mm
mm 1.5
cc1 == 50
50mm
mm
cc1==100
100mm
mm
1.3 1.3 cc1 == 100
100mm
mm
cc1==200
200mm
mm
cc1==400
400mm
mm cc1 == 200
200mm
mm
1.0 1.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
s2/c1 s2/c1
(a) shear load perpendicular to the edge (α = 0°) (b) shear load parallel to the edge (α = 90°)
Figure 4.36: Related ultimate loads as a function of the ratio anchor spacing to edge distance
It is noted that not the fully developed breakout (assuming the breakout of both anchors inter-
sect at the free edge) is decisive for the critical spacing as idealized in the CCD-method but
the stress field at peak load. At peak load, the relative critical length is approximately equal to
0.4. The relative critical length is the ratio between the crack length at peak load and the max-
imum crack length of the fully developed concrete breakout. The principle stresses are illus-
trated in Figure 4.37, for instance, for an edge distance c1 = 400 mm for a simulated group
with anchor spacing s2 = 800 mm. The stress field at peak load is fully developed and equals
the stress field of a comparable single anchor at peak load.
V1
L1 0.
C1
-1.875
-3.75
-5.625
-7.5
-9.375
-11.25
-13.13
-15.
-16.88
-18.75
-20.63
-22.5
-24.38
-26.25
-28.13
Deformed(10.04): Total nodal disp. -30.
Contour: Avrg.S33 strs. E
Figure 4.37: Principle stresses at peak load of a group with edge distance c1 = 400 mm and spac-
ing s2 = 800 mm
Based on the numerical results shown in Figure 4.36, the data points are idealized by linear
functions for the various edge distances. A ratio Vu/Vu (s2 = 0) = 2.0 is inserted in all linear
functions and the results are plotted as a function of the edge distance. This is shown in Figure
4.38. Potential functions are obtained for both a load direction perpendicular and parallel to
the edge. For comparison, two functions are drawn for a load direction perpendicular to the
edge (scr/c1 = 35c1-0.5) and for a load direction parallel to the edge (scr/c1 = 260c1-1.0). These
functions describe the numerically obtained critical spacings more accurate than a constant
value of 3 as proposed according to the 35°-cone model (CCD-method).
s2/c1 s2/c1 s2/c1
6.0 6.0 6.0

c1==50
50mm
mm α = 0° c1==50
50mm
mm
5.0 c1==100
100mm
mm 5.0 α = 90° 5.0
c1==100
100mm
mm
c1==200
200mm
mm
4.0 4.0 c1==200
200mm
mm 4.0
c1==400
400mm
mm
CCD-method
s2/c1
s2/c1
s2/c1
3.0 3.0 3.0
s2/c1 = 35c1-0.5
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
α = 0° s2/c1 = 260c1-1.0 α = 90°

0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0) c1 [mm] Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
Figure 4.38: Determination of critical anchor spacing based on a linear regression
4.5.3.3 Evaluation of multiple anchor connectors (n ≥ 2) arranged parallel to the edge
In order to evaluate the distribution of shear forces within the anchor group for different an-
chor spacings and to evaluate the load increase with increasing number of anchors, numerical
simulations were performed with shear connectors arranged parallel to the edge with up to 7
anchors in the group. Such anchor configurations can be found for example in so-called sill
plate applications where long anchor connections are often installed with very close distance
to a member edge. The simulations were performed with an edge distance c1 = 1.75 inches
[45 mm]. Detailed information to the numerical study can be found in Senftleben (2010). For
the simulations, model 2 according to Figure 4.4b) was used.
2.4 3.0
total shear 2.8 total shear
2.2
Anchor 1 2.6 Anchor 1
2.0
2.4 Anchor 2
Anchor 2 s2
1.8 2.2 Anchor 3
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
1.6 A2 A1 2.0 A3 A2 A1
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.2 edge 1.4
edge
s2
1.0 1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5
s2/c1 s2/c1
(a) n = 2, shear load α = 90° (b) n = 3, shear load α = 90°
3.0 3.0
2.8 2.8 total shear
2.6 total shear 2.6 Anchor 1
2.4 Anchor 1 2.4 Anchor 2
2.2 Anchor 2 2.2 Anchor 3
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
2.0 Anchor 3 2.0 s2

1.8 s2 1.8
Anchor 4 A3 A2 A1
1.6 1.6
1.4 A4 A3 A2 A1 1.4
1.2 1.2 edge
1.0 1.0
edge
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
s2/c1 s2/c1
(c) n = 4, shear load α = 90° (d) n = 3, shear load α = 0°
Figure 4.39: Related ultimate loads as a function of the ratio anchor spacing to edge distance
If an anchor group with two anchors is arranged parallel to the edge and loaded towards the
edge (see Figure 4.34) both anchors are equally loaded (A1 = A2). For a load direction parallel
to the edge, the load fraction which is resisted by the anchors depends on the relative anchor
spacing. This is shown in Figure 4.39a). For closely spaced anchors, the anchor closer to the
applied load (anchor 1) takes up a higher shear load fraction compared to the second anchor.
At about s2/c1 = 3, anchor 1 can fully develop the shear strength of a comparable single an-
chor. With increasing anchor spacing, the influence of anchor 1 on the stress field of anchor 2
decreases. For large ratios s2/c1, both anchors are evenly loaded and the group resistance
equals two times the resistance of a comparable single anchor. In case of groups with three
anchors, the middle anchor resists a smaller load fraction compared to the outer anchors since
the middle one is influenced on two sides. With increasing anchor spacing the influence de-
creases and the load is distributed more evenly to the anchors (Figure 4.39b and d). This can
be also seen for groups with four anchors where the outer anchors resist the highest load frac-
tion (Figure 4.39c).
The influence of increasing number of anchors for constant outermost anchor spacing and the
influence of unequal anchor spacing on the load distribution is shown in Figure 4.40 for both
a load direction towards the edge and parallel to the free edge. In case of a load direction to-
wards the edge, the load decreases slightly with increasing number of anchors for constant
outermost anchor spacing. An increase of the ultimate strength with increasing number of
anchors is only expected if the anchor spacing s2 > scr. However, in case of a load direction
parallel to the edge, the load increases with increasing number of anchors also for anchor
spacings s2 < scr. The reason is that the load increases nearly proportional to the ratio s2/c1 for
small edge distance in case of a load direction parallel to the edge whereas for a load direction
towards the edge the load increases less than proportional to the ratio s2/c1 for small edge dis-
tance (see Figure 4.36). The influence of unequal anchor spacing on the ultimate strength was
found to be of minor significance. However, it is noted that the load distribution on the indi-
vidual anchors changes. In particular, for groups loaded perpendicular to the edge with a
hinged load application unequal anchor spacing can lead to an unsymmetrical breakout which
results in a lower capacity. Therefore, it is recommended to arrange the individual anchor
spacings evenly.
s2 s2,1 s2,2 s2 s2,1 s2,2
A2 A1 A3 A2 A1 A2 A1 A3 A2 A1
edge edge edge edge
2.0 2.2
1.8 2.0
total shear
1.8
1.6
Anchor 1
total shear 1.6
1.4 Anchor 2
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
Vu / Vu (s2 = 0)
Anchor 1
1.4 Anchor 3
1.2 Anchor 2
Anchor 3 1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
n0= 1
2 32 3 n0= 21 2
3 3 44
s2,1 = 200 mm 100 mm 50 mm s2,1 = 200 mm 100 mm 150 mm 50 mm
s2,2 = 100 mm 150 mm s2,2 = 100 mm 50 mm 150 mm
(a) shear load α = 0° (b) shear load α = 90°
Figure 4.40: Related ultimate loads as a function of the ratio anchor spacing to edge distance for
groups with unequal individual spacings
Figure 4.41 illustrates the distribution of anchor shear loads for individual anchor spacings
s2,1 - s2,6 = 50 mm for groups with up to 7 anchors loaded parallel to the free edge. As afore-
mentioned, the outermost anchors resist a higher load fraction compared to the inner anchors.
However, due to the small differences, in design, an even load distribution can be assumed
with sufficient accuracy.
250
n=1
200 100 s2,1 - s2,6 = 50 mm n=2

Shear load fraction [%]
n=3
150
n=4
55
100 n=7
45
40
50 27 34
31
22 22 24
20 15 13 12 11 12 17
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Anchor
(a) Shear load distribution (b) Crack patterns at post peak
Figure 4.41: Anchors groups with individual anchor spacings s2,1 – s2,6 = 50 mm loaded parallel to
the edge
4.5.4 Determination of critical member thickness hcr
The concrete breakout body can only fully develop if the member thickness is sufficient. In
case of limited member thickness, the breakout body is truncated by the lower edge of the
slab which leads to a reduction of the breakout capacity (Figure 4.42). Experimental investi-
gations on single anchors loaded in shear in thin members are discussed in Section 3.2.3.
Figure 4.42: Concrete edge breakout of a single anchor in a concrete member with limited member
thickness loaded towards the edge (M16, hef = 80 mm, h = 120 mm, c1 = 200 mm)
In order to better understand the load-bearing behavior in concrete members with limited
thickness, numerical investigations are analyzed for different edge distances and member
thicknesses. Main focus is the evaluation of the crack propagation in front of the anchorage
which cannot be investigated in experimental tests. In design, the breakout is assumed to start
at the top in front of the anchorage and develops under 35° into the direction of the front edge.
This corresponds to a critical member thickness hcr = 1.5c1. The simplification of 35° is taken
analogous to the critical breakout value ccr. However, numerical investigations described in
Section 4.5.3 have shown that the breakout angle increases with increasing edge distance.
This raises the question if this is also valid for the determination of the critical member thick-
ness. A discussion about crack propagation and reduction in capacity with decreasing member
thickness can be found in Section 4.5.4.1.
If the anchorage is loaded parallel to the edge, experimental investigations on single anchors
in thin members have shown that the member thickness does not influence the concrete edge
breakout capacity as it does for a load direction perpendicular to the edge (Section 3.2.4).
However, testing has shown that splitting failure limits the breakout capacity. This failure
mode is not covered in current design for shear loaded anchorages. In Section 4.5.4.2 the
splitting failure mode for anchors loaded parallel to the edge in thin concrete members is dis-
cussed.
4.5.4.1 Evaluation of single anchors (n = 1) loaded towards the edge
embedment depth of 80 mm in order to evaluate the crack propagation in front of the anchor.
In Figure 4.43 a section cut through the anchors at post peak for different member thicknesses
is illustrated.
Figure 4.43: Comparison of crack patterns at post peak of single anchors loaded towards the free
edge (M16, hef = 80 mm, c1 = 200 mm) located in concrete members with different
slab thicknesses
The comparison shows that the failure crack is mainly influenced by the member thickness. In
case of very limited member thickness (h/c1 = 0.5), the crack starts behind the anchor and
develops towards the lower edge of the slab with an angle α ~ 0°. With increasing member
thickness, the breakout angle increases. At a certain thickness, the crack starts in front of the
anchor. Moreover, as already shown in Section 4.5.1, the crack does not start at the concrete
surface but in a certain depth in front of the anchor. This simple comparison clearly shows
that the critical member thickness cannot be derived analogous to the critical edge distance
ccr. The breakout angle depends on the ratio h/c1 and is not only a function of the edge dis-
tance. In Figure 4.44, the numerically obtained failure loads are compared with the mean pre-
diction equations according to Equation 2.41 and Equation 2.42. Simulations described in
Eligehausen, Grosser (2007) are added in the diagrams. The results confirm the experimental
tests analyzed in Section 3.2.3. Considering an increase according to Equation 3.2 (exponent
x = 0.5) the resistance is overestimated, especially when calculating the mean ultimate load
according to Equation 2.42.
1.6 1.6
c = 100 mm c = 200 mm c = 100 mm c = 200 mm
1.4 c = 300 mm c = 400 mm 1.4 c = 300 mm c = 400 mm
c = 500 mm c = 700 mm c = 500 mm c = 700 mm
1.2 1.2
c = 1000 mm c = 1000 mm
Vu,numerical / Vu,c0
Vu,numerical / Vu,c0
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
with Ψh,V = (1.5c/h)1/3 with Ψh,V = (1.5c/h)1/3
0.4 0.4
with Ψh,V = (1.5c/h)1/2 with Ψh,V = (1.5c/h)1/2
0.2 0.2
without Ψh,V without Ψh,V
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
h/c h/c
(a) Vu,c0 according to Equation 2.41* (b) Vu,c0 according to Equation 2.42
*Note that Equation 2.41 is calculated with k = 0.9
Figure 4.44: Related ultimate loads as a function of the ratio member thickness to edge distance
A different model taking into account that the crack does not start at the top surface is ex-
plained in Section 5.4.
4.5.4.2 Evaluation of single anchors (n = 1) loaded parallel the edge
In Section 3.2.4, experimentally obtained results of single anchors in thin concrete slabs load-
ed parallel to the edge are discussed to evaluate the decrease of the concrete edge breakout
capacity with decreasing member thickness. For the tested anchors failing in concrete edge
breakout, the expected decrease was not observed. The obtained capacity in members of lim-
ited depth was found to be comparable to the capacity of anchors loaded in members with
sufficient thickness. However, with decreasing ratio h/c1 no concrete edge failure could be
obtained. The anchors failed in a non-expected splitting failure into the direction of loading.
In order to evaluate if the splitting failure can be avoided, and the failure mode changes to
concrete edge failure when increasing the distance to the supported edge, numerical simula-
tions were performed.
embedment depth of 80 mm in slabs with sufficient thickness and in slabs with limited mem-
ber thickness (h = 110 mm). This is shown in Figure 4.45. In the thin slabs the distance of the
anchor bolt to the supported edge was varied. The crack patterns show that in case of suffi-
cient member thickness concrete edge breakout occurs (Figure 4.45b). In the slabs with
h = 110 mm, the anchors failing in a splitting failure. With increasing distance to the support-
ed edge, the failure mode cannot be changed from splitting failure to concrete edge failure.
For comparison, the experimentally obtained crack pattern is illustrated, which shows a good
correlation to the numerically obtained crack pattern. Note that the support condition of the
slab was not varied in the experimental investigations. However, since different support con-
ditions were realized in the numerical simulations, it is assumed that a different support of the
V1
concrete slab (e.g. tension support) does not avoid the splitting failure into the direction of
L1
C1
0.01
loading. 0.00937
0.00875
0.00813
x = 2000 mm
0.0075
0.00688
0.00625
0.00562
0.005
0.00438
h/c1 = 0.73
0.00375
(a) h = 110 mm 0.01
0.00937
0.00313
0.01
0.00875
0.00937
0.00875
0.00813 0.0025
0.0075
0.00813
0.0075 0.00688
0.00688
0.00625
0.00187
0.00625
0.00562
0.00562
Y 0.005 0.00125
Z 0.005
0.00438 0.00438
X
0.00375
0.00313 h/c1 = 0.73 0.00375

h/c1 = 0.73
0.000625
Output Set: v0c150hef80M20h110x40041 0.0025
0.00313
Deformed(5.143): Total nodal disp. h/c1 = 4.0 0.00187
0.00125 x = 4c1 = 600 mm

0.0025
0.00187 x = 4c1 = 600 mm 0.

Output Set: MS3 v90c150h80M200043
0.000625
0.
0.00125

0.000625
Output Set: v90c150hef80M20h1100038
(b) h = 600 mm (c) h = 110 mm

(d) h = 110 mm
0.
Figure 4.45: Comparison of crack patterns at post peak of single anchors (M20, hef = 80 mm) with
c1 = 150 mm loaded parallel to the edge
In Figure 4.46a), the ultimate loads are plotted for the different anchor configurations. For
comparison, the experimental results are plotted as well.
100
c1 = 150 mm
83.95
Normalized ultimate load V u [kN]
80
Concrete 66.44
65.17
edge failure
60
Splitting failure
40
20 experimental
numerical
0
0 1 2 3 4
h/c1 > 3.0 0.73 0.73
Analogy splitting test
x [mm] = 600 600 2000
(a) Anchor loaded parallel to the edge (b) Splitting tests (Szabó, 1970)
Figure 4.46: Comparison of test results with splitting tests performed by Szabó, 1970
The results show that with increasing distance to the supported edge the breakout load cannot
be increased. This agrees with splitting tension tests performed by Szabó, 1970. For constant
cross-section area, the splitting failure load could not be increased with increasing height of
the concrete blocks. This is theoretically explained in Figure 4.47. In case of a splitting ten-
sion test, the highest tensile stress is found at the outer surface (as in case of a bending test)
and not in the interior of the test member. This is illustrated in Figure 4.47. The stress distri-
bution is based on theoretical considerations and was verified experimentally by Bonzel,
1965. Curve 1 characterizes the β0-area of the cross-section of the test member. Curve 2 char-
acterizes the stress pattern as a result of the applied load. At failure, curve 1 and curve 2 are
congruent. The splitting tensile strength equals the constant part of curve 1 in the core of the
member. In case of small height of the cross-section, the ratio of curve 1 to curve 2 is differ-
ent (Figure 4.47a). The stress distribution in the core is not constant. The transition to a con-
stant part in the core was determined to be H = 5r (H – 2r = 0.6H). In case of concrete,
r ~ 3cm. This leads to a minimum height of the concrete member of 15cm. For increased
height of the cross-section, the theoretical value of the splitting tensile strength cannot be in-
creased. This was also verified experimentally by different authors with tests on cylinders of
different diameters and height (Wright, 1955; Efsen and Glarbo, 1956; Voellmy, 1958; Thau-
low, 1957; Mitchell, 1961; Grieb and Werner, 1962).
(a) Small height of the concrete member (b) Large height of the concrete member
Figure 4.47: Comparison of stress distribution for different height of cross-section (Szabó, 1970)
In current design standards, in the case of anchors loaded in shear parallel to the edge, split-
ting failure does not need to be verified. However, since no further research is available for
this failure mode, it is recommended to take into account this phenomenon by also consider-
ing the reduction factor ψh,V for anchorages loaded in shear parallel to the edge although a
limited member thickness was found not to reduce the concrete edge breakout strength.
4.5.5 Groups with more than one anchor arranged perpendicular to the edge (s1-
spacing effect)
4.5.5.1 Load applied perpendicular to the edge
Experimental investigations described in Section 3.3.3 have shown that the ratio s1/c1,1 is
mainly controlling the load-bearing mechanism of anchorages loaded perpendicular to the
edge. Tests were performed in thick concrete members with one row of anchors arranged per-
pendicular to the edge. As described, experimental determination of load distribution to the
individual anchors is challenging. Moreover, testing with hole clearance in the anchorage
plate is associated with uncertainties due to inaccuracies in the installation and loading pro-
cess. Numerical simulations on groups with more than one anchor perpendicular to the edge
were carried out in order to clarify the load-bearing behavior. For the simulations, model 1
according to Figure 4.4a) was used. Groups with 2 and 4 anchors with different ratios s1/c1,1 in
thick and thin concrete members were simulated. The groups in thick concrete members
(h > 2c1,2) were modeled with M16 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of 130 mm, groups
in thin concrete members (h = 100 mm) with M16 anchor bolts with an embedment depth of
80 mm.
In Figure 4.48, the differences in the load-bearing behavior for different activation of the in-
dividual anchors are illustrated for a group with constant ratio s1/c1,1 = 1.0. Figure 4.48a)
shows a simulation without hole clearance (both anchors are activated at the onset of loading).
The applied shear load is evenly distributed to the anchors. At a load level 2Vu,c (c1,1), the
front anchor fails and the load is partly redistributed to the back anchor. No influence of the
crack propagation at the front anchor on the breakout of the back anchor was observed. The
group fails at about the resistance of a single anchor with the edge distance c1,2 (maximum
fracture surface activated) (Vu,c (A2) < Vu,c (group) since part of the load is still resisted by the
front anchor (A1)).
In Figure 4.48b), the result of the same anchor group simulated with hole clearance is illus-
trated. At the onset of loading, only the front anchor (A1) is in contact with the anchorage
plate. At a load level Vu,c (c1,1), the front anchor fails and the load drops down since the dis-
placement at failure is smaller than the applied hole clearance. The breakout body is larger
compared to the breakout body at the front anchor in a group without hole clearance. This
agrees with the experimental results shown in Section 3.3.3. At a displacement δ = acl, the
back anchor is in contact with the plate and resists a part of the shear load. The breakout at the
front anchor influences the breakout at the back anchor which results in lower group capacity
compared to the same group without hole clearance. The obtained group capacity is about
20% lower compared to the same group simulated without hole clearance.
Slight differences between the applied hole clearance and the anchor activation can be ex-
plained by the numerical consideration of the contact gap which depends on the relative dis-
placement of nodes. This is explained in Section 4.3.2.
The maximum group resistance is assumed if the front and the back anchor fail at the same
displacement. In thick concrete members this is only possible if the back anchor is activated
first and the front anchor gets activated at a displacement δ = acl = δu (c1,2) - δu (c1,1). Figure
4.48c) shows such a simulation with favorable anchor configuration. At the onset of loading,
total shear is resisted by the back anchor. At a displacement of 1 mm, the front anchor is in
contact with the anchorage plate and takes up a part of the shear load. Both anchors reach
their maximum resistance at a displacement about 2.5 mm. The obtained group capacity is
about 20% higher compared to the same group simulated without hole clearance. It is noted
that not in all cases the group capacity can be increased with a favorable anchor configuration.
For example, in case of thin concrete members, the failure displacement of the front anchors
could equal the failure displacement of the back anchors since the back anchors are more af-
fected by the member thickness.
Focus of this study are critical shear cases. Therefore, in the following the described hole
clearance simulations were only performed for the unfavorable anchor configuration
(acl = 2 mm).
100
90 peak
peak A1 post peak
80
70
Load V [kN]
60
50
40
30
20
10 ld graph A1 A2
0
0 1 2 3 4
(a) Load-displacement behavior and crack patterns at different load levels of an anchor group calcu-
lated without hole clearance (acl,A1 = acl,A2 = 0)
100
ld graph 2 mm
90
A1
80
A2
70 peak
Load V [kN]
60
post peak
50
40
30
activation A2
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
(b) Load-displacement behavior and crack patterns at different load levels of an anchor group calcu-
lated with unfavorable anchor configuration (acl,A1 = 0, acl,A2 = 2 mm)
100
ld graph peak
90
A1
80 A2
post peak
70
Load V [kN]
60
1 mm
50
activation A1
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
(c) Load-displacement behavior and crack patterns at different load levels of an anchor group calcu-
lated with favorable anchor configuration (acl,A1 = 1 mm, acl,A2 = 0)
Figure 4.48: Numerical results of an anchor group with c1,1 = s1 = 100 mm
In Figure 4.49, simulations for large and small ratio s1/c1,1 are illustrated. For large ratio
s1/c1,1, difference in failure displacement of anchor 1 (front anchor) and anchor 2 (back an-
chor) is large. In both cases (simulation with and without hole clearance), anchor 1 fails first
and the load is redistributed to the back anchor. The anchor spacing is large enough to avoid
interference of cracking at the front and back anchor. The group capacity is not influenced by
the delayed activation of anchor 2 in case of hole clearance.
Figure 4.49: Crack patterns of a group with large ratio s1/c1,1 (c1,1 = 75 mm, s1 = 150 mm) calcu-
lated with and without hole clearance
If the ratio s1/c1,1 is small no crack at the front anchor occurs for simultaneous activation of
both anchors since Vu,c (c1,2) < 2Vu,c (c1,1) (Figure 4.50). This agrees well with the experi-
mental results described in Section 3.3.3. For groups with unfavorable anchor configuration,
the failure displacement of the front anchor controls the load-bearing behavior of the group. If
δu (c1,1) < acl, the front anchor fails first and influences the breakout of the back anchor. If
δu (c1,1) > acl the group behavior is comparable to a group tested without hole clearance. Fig-
ure 4.50 shows an unfavorable anchor configuration where δu (c1,1)/acl = 0.8.
Figure 4.50: Crack patterns of a group with small ratio s1/c1,1 (c1,1 = 150 mm, s1 = 50 mm) calcu-
lated with and without hole clearance
It was shown that the displacement behavior of the individual anchors is mainly controlling
the group behavior. This is discussed theoretically in Figure 4.51a). The group resistance
equals the sum of the back anchor resistance in the ascending branch and the post peak re-
sistance of the front anchor(s) in the descending branch. It is assumed that ∆V (reduction in
group capacity) decreases with increasing ∆δ’ which is defined as difference between the ap-
plied hole clearance and failure displacement of the front anchor(s). To verify this assump-
tion, simulations in thin concrete members and group simulations with increased number of
anchors were performed. A comparison of the load-displacement curves for groups with con-
stant front edge distance and anchor spacing is shown in Figure 4.51b). Increasing number of
anchors in direction 2 (n2 ≥ 2) respectively limited member thickness (h < hmin) reduces the
failure displacement of the front anchor(s) and therefore increases ∆δ’. It is noted that the de-
scending branch of a load-displacement curve depends on several parameters, such as em-
bedment depth or concrete compressive strength.
V [kN] 100
c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm
90
Vu,c (group)
80
∆δ‘ ∆V n = 4 (h = 500 mm) (s2 = 100 mm)
70
Load V [kN]
Vu,c (c1,1) 60
50
ascending branch
n = 2 (h = 500 mm)
(back anchor) 40
30
descending branch
(front anchor) 20
10 n = 2 (h = 100 mm)
0
δu (c1,1) acl δ [mm] 0 1 2 3 4 5
(a) (b)
Figure 4.51: (a) Idealized load-displacement behavior of an anchor group with unfavorable anchor
configuration (acl,front anchors = 0, acl,back anchors = 2 mm) (b) Comparison of groups calcu-
lated with unfavorable anchor configuration
To evaluate the group capacity, in Figure 4.52, the ratio of the obtained group resistance and
back anchor resistance is plotted as a function of the ratio s1/c1,1. In case of groups without
hole clearance, the resistance equals about the resistance of a comparable single anchor with
edge distance c1,2 for all simulated ratios s1/c1,1. If normal hole clearance (2 mm) is applied to
the back anchor(s), and therefore, the load is initially resisted only by the front anchor(s),
premature failure of the front anchor(s) can lead to a reduction of group capacity due to the
interference of failure cracks at the back anchor(s) with cracking at the front anchor(s). High-
est reduction observed in the simulations is about 30% compared to the back anchor re-
sistance.
1.4
1.4
Favorable anchor configuration +20%

1.2
1.2 n = 2 (h = 500 mm), acl,A1 = 0, acl,A2 = 0
n=2,h=500,nohcl
n = 2 (h = 500 mm), acl,A1 = 1 mm, acl,A2 = 0

n=2,h=500,+1mm
1.0
V / V (c )
1.0
Vu u/ Vu u(c1,21,2)
n = 2 (h = 500 mm), acl,A1 = 0, acl,A2 = 2 mm

n=2,h=500,-2mm
n=2,h=100,nohcl
n = 2 (h = 500 mm), acl,A1 = 0, acl,A2 = 0
0.8
0.8 n=2,h=100,-2mm
n = 2 (h = 100 mm), acl,A1 = 0, acl,A2 = 2 mm
n=4,h=500,nohcl
n = 4 (h = 500 mm), acl,A1 = 0, acl,A2 = 0
0.6
0.6
n = 4 (h = 500 mm), acl,A1 = 0, acl,A2 = 2 mm
n=4,h=500,-2mm
Unfavorable anchor configuration -30%
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0 0.3
0.3 0.5
0.5 0.8
0.8 1.0
1.0 1.3
1.3 1.5
1.5 1.8
1.8 2.0
2.0 2.3
2.3 2.5
2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0
s /c s1/c1,1
1 1,1
Figure 4.52: Ratio of group failure load to resistance of back anchors (c1,2) as a function of the
ratio s1/c1,1
The numerical simulations confirm the results obtained in experimental tests. Moreover, the
simulations have shown that the critical ratio at which no reduction of group capacity for the
case of normal hole clearance can be assumed depends not on the ratio s1/c1,1 but on the ratio
Vu,c (c1,2)/Vu,c (c1,1). Implementation and simplification for design is explained in Section 5.8.
4.5.5.2 Load applied parallel to the edge
The load-bearing behavior of groups with more than one anchor in direction 1 (s1-effect)
loaded parallel to the edge is described experimentally in Section 3.3.4. Shear load distribu-
tion was not measured. However, it is assumed that in case of a hinged load application the
load is distributed evenly to all anchors up to that point where the front anchors fail. Whereas
for anchorages where the load is applied stiff to the anchorage plate it is assumed that the load
is distributed unevenly to the individual anchors at failure which leads to higher ultimate
strength.
Numerical simulations were performed in order to analyze the influence of load application
on ultimate strength. Groups were simulated with and without torsional restraint. For this pur-
pose, the load was applied stiff (load applied in three nodes, no rotation possible) and ideal-
ized hinged (load applied in one node) which cannot be realized experimentally (see Figure
3.114).
4.5.5.2.1 Groups with two anchors
The differences in the behavior of a group which is torsional restrained and a group where a
rotation of the anchorage plate is possible are illustrated for instance for a group with edge
distance c1,1 = 100 mm and anchor spacing s1,1 = 100 mm in Figure 4.53 and Figure 4.54. As
assumed, in case of an anchor group where the load is applied hinged, the shear load is dis-
tributed evenly to the front and back anchor. For a stiff load application, the back anchor is
higher loaded at ultimate strength. Therefore, the failure occurs at a slightly higher load level
compared to a hinged load application. After failure of the front anchor, the load can be theo-
retically redistributed to the back anchor. However, it is noted that in case of an anchor group
with two anchors this is only possible in case the group is torsionally restrained. Due to the
fact that the influence of the load direction is decreasing with increasing edge distance, in
most cases, redistribution of the load to the back anchor does not lead to an increase of the
ultimate strength after failure of the front anchor (2Vu,c (c1,1) > Vu,c (c1,2)).
200
180 ld graph
160
140
120
Load V [kN]
100
80
60
40 Anchor 1 = Anchor 2
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(a) Load-displacement behavior (b) Hinged load application and crack pattern
Figure 4.53: Simulation of an anchor group loaded parallel to the edge without torsional restraint
(M16, hef = 200 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm)
200
180
ld graph
160
140
Anchor 2
Load V [kN]
120
100
80
60
40 Anchor 1
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement [mm]
(a) Load-displacement behavior (b) Stiff load application and crack pattern
Figure 4.54: Simulation of an anchor group loaded parallel to the edge with torsional restraint
(M16, hef = 200 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm)
As shown, the ultimate strength of a group loaded parallel to the edge is assumed to be at least
twice the resistance of the front anchor. However, this requires that the stress fields do not
influence each other which allows the splitting forces to develop completely. In this case the
splitting forces between the anchors counterbalance each other, and the resulting splitting
force is the same as for one anchor (Figure 4.55). In order to verify this assumption, numeri-
cal simulations were performed with different anchor spacings s1 at constant edge distance
c1,1. The load was applied hinged in one node.
V/2
V/2 V/Ψ90°,V
V
V V V
V/Ψ90°,V
V/2 V/2
Figure 4.55: Splitting forces caused by a shear load parallel to the edge
The post peak crack patterns are shown in Figure 4.56 for the various anchor spacings. For
comparison, the crack pattern of a comparable single anchor with same edge distance c1,1 is
illustrated. As can be seen, the anchors influence each other for small spacing of 30 mm and
50 mm. For increasing anchor spacing, no influence of the back anchor on the front anchor
breakout was observed.
(a) single anchor (b) s1 = 30 mm (c) s1 = 50 mm

(d) s1 = 100 mm (e) s1 = 150 mm (f) s1 = 200 mm
Figure 4.56: Crack patterns for different spacings s1 of the anchors at constant edge distance
c1,1 = 100 mm (M16, hef = 200 mm)
In Figure 4.57a), the measured ultimate loads are plotted as a function of the anchor spacing
s1. Corresponding to the crack pattern shown in Figure 4.56, the ultimate load decreases with
decreasing anchor spacing. In order to evaluate ultimate strength, in Figure 4.57b), the ratio
between measured ultimate load of the group to the value of a single anchor with edge dis-
tance c1,1 is plotted as a function of the anchor spacing s1. The simulations show that for spac-
ings s1 > smin the failure load of the group is equal to or larger than twice the failure load cal-
culated with the edge distance of the front anchor. The critical spacing is taken as smin = 5dnom.
For s1 < smin the failure load decreases in proportion to s1/smin.
200
2.4
180 M16, hef = 200 mm, c1 = 100 mm
2.2
160
2.0
Ultimate load V u [kN]
140
1.8
120 ~10 % increase
Vu / Vu (c1,1)
1.6
100
1.4
80
1.2
60 M16 hinged
M16, hef = 200 mm, c1 = 100 mm (hinged) 1.0
M16 stiff
M16, hef = 200 mm, c1 = 100 mm (stiff)
40 0.8 d [mm] smin = 5d
M20 hinged
M20, hef = 195 mm, c1 = 70 mm (hinged)
20 M20 stiff
M20, hef = 195 mm, c1 = 70 mm (stiff) 0.6
0 0.4
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Spacing s1 [mm] Spacing s1 [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 4.57: Numerically obtained (a) failure loads as a function of the anchor spacing s1
(b) relative failure loads as a function of the anchor spacing s1
4.5.5.2.2 Groups with four anchors
In the following, additional simulations are shown for anchor groups with four anchors loaded
parallel to the edge in order to explain the different load-bearing behavior after crack for-
mation at the front anchors compared to groups with two anchors and to analyze the load dis-
tribution of forces in the group. Therefore, an anchor group with small edge distance c1,1 and
large anchor spacing s1 was modeled to allow for load redistribution after formation of a fail-
ure crack at the front anchors. The load was applied both hinged and stiff to the anchorage
plate. The results of the simulation without torsional restraint are shown in Figure 4.58. At the
onset of loading all anchors take up about the same load fraction. After formation of a failure
crack at the front anchors, the load is redistributed to the back anchors. Due to the fact that the
load is applied idealized hinged to the anchorage plate, the fixture rotates after failure of the
front anchors which leads to a torsional action on the back anchors. For clarification, the de-
formations are exaggerated.
200
ld graph
160
[kN]
Load V [kN]
120
Anchor 1 Anchor 3
80 Anchor 4
Anchor 2
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement [mm]
(a) Load-displacement behavior (b) Hinged load application and crack pattern
Figure 4.58: Simulation of an anchor group loaded parallel to the edge without torsional restraint
(M16, hef = 80 mm, c1,1 = 50 mm, s1 = 200 mm, s2 = 100 mm)
In Figure 4.59, the load-displacement behavior, load distribution to the anchors and the crack
pattern are illustrated for the same group with torsional restraint. One may see that the back
anchors are loaded in shear parallel to the edge after failure of the front anchors since the rota-
tion of the anchorage plate is restrained. This leads to about 20% higher ultimate strength
compared to a hinged load application. As for a group without torsional restraint the ultimate
strength equals the sum of the back anchors and the resistance of the front anchors in its post
peak. This explains that the ultimate strength is larger than the back anchor resistance after
redistribution of the load.
200
ld graph
160
Anchor 3
[kN]
Load V [kN]
120
Anchor 4
80 Anchor 2
Anchor 1
40
0
0 2 4 6 8
Displacement [mm]
(a) Load-displacement behavior (b) Stiff load application and crack pattern
Figure 4.59: Simulation of an anchor group loaded parallel to the edge with torsional restraint
(M16, hef = 80 mm, c1,1 = 50 mm, s1 = 200 mm, s2 = 100 mm)
Further simulations were performed to evaluate the influence of hole clearance on the load-
bearing behavior of groups loaded parallel to the edge. The load was applied stiff to the an-
chorage plate. Due to the sufficient displacement of groups loaded parallel to the edge, the
difference in ultimate strength of a group with and without hole clearance is insignificant (5%
reduction) (see Figure 4.60). Therefore, it seems to be justified to neglect the influence of hole
clearance for anchorages with c1,1 ≥ cmin (cmin according to current approvals). However, it is
noted that for groups with very small edge distance of the front anchors (c1,1 < cmin), the front
anchors may fail before the back anchors are activated.
320
without hole 5% reduction
280 clearance
240
200
Load V [kN]
160
with hole clearance
120
80
back anchors are activated
40
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Load-displacement behavior (b) Crack pattern at peak load (acl = 0 mm)
Figure 4.60: Simulation of an anchor group loaded parallel to the edge without and with hole
clearance (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm, s2 = 100 mm)
The numerically obtained breakout pattern agrees well with crack propagation observed in
experimental tests (refer to Section 3.3.4). The failure is controlled by the crack formation at
the front anchors.
4.5.5.3 Group loaded in torsion close to the edge
If an anchor group is loaded in torsion close to the edge, the individual anchors are loaded in
shear in different directions. The acting shear forces can be separated in shear forces perpen-
dicular and parallel to the edge. To basically understand the load-bearing behavior of groups
loaded in torsion and to evaluate which shear components control the failure, it is necessary to
know the distribution of forces on the individual anchors. In Section 3.3.8, the load-bearing
behavior is described experimentally. However, the anchor forces could not be measured
since this is challenging in experimental tests due to the fact that the load direction changes
over the loading procedure and is therefore associated with high uncertainties. In order to fill
this gap of knowledge, numerical simulations on groups with four and six anchors were per-
formed for different anchor configurations. The results are discussed in the following. Figure
4.61 shows a simulation with equal anchor spacings s1 = s2. The load was applied force con-
trolled so that V1 = V2 (pure torsion loading). The crack initiation agrees well with cracking
observed in the experimental tests (refer to Figure 3.148). Considering the shear component
perpendicular to the edge, anchor 1 and 3 are loaded towards the edge, and anchor 2 and 4 are
loaded away from the edge. However, considering the shear component parallel to the edge,
anchor 1 and 2 are loaded rightwards, and anchor 3 and 4 are loaded leftwards.
Figure 4.61: Simulation of an anchor group loaded in torsion close to the free edge (M16,
hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm, s2 = 100 mm)
The forces resisted by the individual anchors are plotted in Figure 4.62a) for the shear com-
ponents perpendicular to the edge and in Figure 4.62b) for the shear components parallel to
the edge as a function of the baseplate displacement measured in the node where the load V1
was applied. The crack formation towards the edge starts at anchor 1. Additional failure
cracks propagate towards the edge from anchor 2 and anchor 3. Following the calculation
approach according to Figure 3.145 (front anchors are assumed to govern the failure), the
group resistance can be determined by evaluating the shear forces in anchor 1 and anchor 2
(components directed away from the edge are neglected). The front anchors fail at a shear
load inclined to the edge (αV = 63.4°) at Vu,c = ((V1,perp)2 + (V1,parallel + V2,parallel)2)0.5 = 81.7 kN.
This agrees well with test results and shows the suitability of calculation model 1 according to
Figure 3.145. Anchor 3 fails at at load significantly lower than a comparable single anchor
having the same edge distance which clearly shows that the crack propagation is affected by
the breakout at the front anchors. Therefore, calculation model 2 according to Figure 3.146 is
not a reasonable approach.
60 60
Anchor 3 Anchor 2
40
40
Anchor 1 Anchor 1
20
Shear force Vanchor [kN]
Shear force V anchor [kN]
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
-20 0
0 5 10 15 20
-40
Anchor 2 -20
-60 Anchor 3
-40
-80 Anchor 4 Anchor 4
-100 -60
(a) Shear component perpendicular to the edge (b) Shear component parallel to the edge
Figure 4.62: Individual anchor shear forces in an anchor group loaded in torsion close to the free
edge (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm, s2 = 100 mm)
In order to show the influence of anchor spacings s1 and s2 on the acting shear load compo-
nents, simulations were performed with s1 >> s2 as well s1 << s2. For long anchor groups ar-
ranged vertical to the edge (Figure 4.63a), the shear components perpendicular to the edge are
very small. Therefore, the anchors are loaded almost in pure shear parallel to the edge. In con-
trast, if the same group is arranged horizontal to the edge (Figure 4.63b) the shear components
parallel to the edge are very small, and the anchors are loaded almost in pure shear perpendic-
ular to the edge. Experimental investigations described in Section 3.3.8 have shown that this
is the critical loading case for groups loaded in torsion close to the edge and leads to uncon-
servative results in case the resistance is calculated according to Figure 3.145.
(a) s1/s2 = 2.0 (b) s1/s2 = 0.5
Figure 4.63: Simulation of long groups with four anchors loaded in torsion close to the edge
Figure 4.64: Simulation of a group with four anchors loaded in torsion close to the edge (M16,
hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm, s2 = 200 mm)
60 60
Anchor 3 Anchor 1
40 Anchor 2 Anchor 1
40
20
0
20
0 5 10 15
-20
-40 0
0 5 10 15
-60
Anchor 2
-20
-80
Anchor 3
-100 Anchor 4 -40
-120
Anchor 4
-140 -60
Figure 4.65: Individual anchor shear forces in a group with four anchors loaded in torsion close to
the edge (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1 = 100 mm, s2 = 200 mm)
Figure 4.64 shows a simulation of an anchor group with four anchors with anchor spacings
s1 = 100 mm and s2 = 200 mm. Due to the increased anchor spacing s2 compared to the anchor
group shown in Figure 4.61, the anchor forces are mainly transferred in direction 1 (perpen-
dicular to the edge). The measured anchor forces in direction 2 (parallel to the edge) are
smaller which leads to a prior failure of the front anchors even though the activated breakout
surface is larger due to the increased anchor spacing (Figure 4.65). The measured peak load of
the front anchors (Vu,c = 54.1 kN) is much smaller compared to the peak load of the front an-
chors which was measured in the group shown in Figure 4.61. The angle of the acting shear
load is steeper (αV = 45°).
In order to increase the resistance and to avoid such critical torsion loaded anchorages, it is
recommended to place middle anchors in between the outermost anchors. This is explained in
Figure 4.66. The simulated group has the same anchor parameters as the group illustrated in
Figure 4.64. The outermost anchor spacing in both directions is the same which leads to the
same breakout surface which can be activated. However, due to the middle anchors the angle
of the resulting shear load on the front anchors increases (αV = 56.3°). Therefore, the front
anchors reach its peak load at a higher load level. The peak load was measured at
Vu,c = 72.7 kN.
Figure 4.66: Simulation of a group with six anchors loaded in torsion close to the edge (M16,
hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1,t = 100 mm, s2,t = 200 mm)
60 60
Anchor 4
40
40
20 Anchor 1 Anchor 2 Anchor 3
0
20
0 5 10 15
-20
Anchor 5 Anchor 2 Anchor 1
-40 0
0 5 10 15
-60
Anchor 3 -20
-80 Anchor 5 Anchor 4
-100
Anchor 6 -40
-120
Anchor 6
-140 -60
Figure 4.67: Individual anchor shear forces in a group with six anchors loaded in torsion close to
the edge (M16, hef = 130 mm, c1,1 = 100 mm, s1,t = 100 mm, s2,t = 200 mm)
4.5.6 Shear collectors
Numerical simulations for the failure load in case of steel rupture and pryout failure were per-
formed and the influence of different parameters on the load distribution was checked for
groups with up to 12 anchors in a row under monotonic loading. The employed load-
displacement curves shown in Figure 4.68a) are taken from experimental investigations de-
scribed in Section 3.2.7.1. The most critical curves were selected for the simulations (brittle
behavior). The input data for the simulations are shown in Figure 4.68b). For explanation of
the model, see Figure 4.11.
100 100
M16, 12.9 (normal strength
90 90 M16 (full system)
concrete)
80 80
70 70
Stress σ [MPa]
M12 (full system)
Load V [kN]
60 Input data 60
50 M12, 12.9 (high 50
strength concrete)
40 40
M16
30 30 (symmetry utilized)
20 20
M12
10 10 (symmetry utilized)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement δ [mm] Strain ε [-]
(a) Experimentally obtained load-displacement curves (b) Input data for numerical simulations
Figure 4.68: Conversion of the load-displacement curves to input data for the numerical simula-
tions
In Figure 4.69, the theoretical background is explained for the flow of shear forces and the
displacement of the individual anchors along the length of the shear collector.
V A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 V A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7
400 4.5
350 4.0
i
Xi, i+1 = V -  A i
Displacement [mm]
300 3.5
i=1 3.0 Theoretical case –
250
Load [kN]
no deformation of the anchorage plate

2.5
200
2.0
V
150
1.5
X1,2 X2,3
100 1.0
…
50 0.5
0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
number of bolts number of bolts
(a) (b)
Figure 4.69: Theoretical background (a) Load transfer (b) Individual anchor displacements
The total shear load (V) applied at the front surface of the anchorage plate is resisted by the
individual anchors. In front of the first anchor, the load equals the applied shear load. Behind
the last anchor, the load has to drop down to zero. Assuming the load is distributed evenly, all
anchors take up the same load fraction. For an idealized stiff plate with no deformation at
failure, the displacement curve should be a straight line (all anchors exhibit the same defor-
mation at failure). However, realistically, the anchor closest to the load application will exhib-
it the largest deformation at failure and the furthermost anchor the smallest displacement.
Theoretically, the connector may fail with no deformation of the anchors furthermost from the
load application since the anchors are not loaded at rupture. However, this case is only possi-
ble for high deformations of the anchorage plate, and can be seen as a theoretical case.
In Figure 4.70, the results of groups with 7 anchors in a row without hole clearance failing in
steel in normal strength and high strength concrete are illustrated. Lateral load and displace-
ment are plotted as a function of the number of bolts. As can be seen, in normal strength con-
crete, the load is distributed evenly to the individual anchors. The ultimate strength equals n-
times the resistance of the single bolt. The graph shows a simulation with individual anchor
spacings s1 – s6 = 200 mm. The same simulation with anchor spacings s1 – s6 = 300 mm shows
a reduction of 4% compared to n-times the resistance of the single anchor bolt. In contrast, in
high strength concrete, the shear lag is much more pronounced. The load is unevenly distrib-
uted to the individual anchors. This can be also seen in the displacement behavior. The anchor
closest to the load failed at a displacement of 3.1 mm whereas the furthermost anchor exhibits
only a displacement of 1.6 mm at failure.
650 6.0 400 4.0

600 13.8% Vu/(n∙Vu,single anchor) = 0.99 Vu/(n∙Vu,single anchor) = 0.84
350 3.5
550 5.0
16.5%
500 14.5% Displacement 300 3.0
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
450 4.0 16.5%
400 14.5% 250 2.5
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
350 Displacement
200 15.4% 2.0
14.4% 3.0
300
250 150 14.3% 1.5
14.3% 2.0
200 13.1%
100 1.0
150 14.2%
1.0 M12 12.3%
100 M16 50 0.5
50 spacing: s = 200 mm spacing: s = 300 mm 11.9%
14.2%
0 0.0 0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a) (b)
Figure 4.70: Load distribution and anchor displacements in groups without hole clearance failing
in steel (a) Typical anchorage in normal strength concrete (b) Typical anchorage in
high strength concrete
In order to demonstrate the influence of anchor spacing and number of anchors in the group,
in Figure 4.71, the results of groups with 7 and 12 anchors in a row failing in steel in high
strength concrete are illustrated for various anchor spacings. As can be seen, the shear lag is
increasing with increasing anchor spacing and increasing number of anchors. The highest re-
duction (about 30%) was observed for a group with 12 anchors with individual anchor spac-
ings s1 - s11 = 300 mm.
1.4
M12
1.2 V A1 A2 … An
0.99
1.0 0.93
Vu / (n · Vu,single)
0.84
0.8 0.94
0.81
0.6 0.72
number of anchors thickness of steel plate width of steel plate
0.4 7 10 mm 83 mm
n=7 12 15 mm 100 mm
0.2
n = 12
0.0
0 100 200 300 400
spacing [mm]
Figure 4.71: Ratio of obtained group capacity to n-times the resistance of a single anchor bolt in
high strength concrete failing in steel as a function of the individual anchor spacing
For groups with hole clearance, it is assumed that “shear lag” is more pronounced since not
all anchors are activated at the same time. To verify this, simulations were performed in nor-
mal strength and high strength concrete. At the onset of loading, anchor 1 to anchor 4 are in
contact with the plate and anchor 5 to anchor 7 have a gap of 2 mm. For such a loading condi-
tion, all anchors contribute to resist shear loads after a displacement of the anchorage plate of
2 mm. In normal strength concrete, the reduction was found to be of minor significance.
However, in high strength concrete, the reduction of capacity is about 30% compared to n-
times the single anchor capacity.
Gap at the onset of loading: {A1, A2, A3, A4} = {0mm}, {A5, A6, A7} = {2mm}
650 6.0 400 4.0

600
Vu/(n∙Vu,single anchor) = 0.91 350 Vu/(n∙Vu,single anchor) = 0.73 3.5
550 14.7% 5.0
500 300 3.0
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
450 15.7% Displacement 19.0%
4.0
400 250 2.5
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
350 15.8% Displacement

19.3%
3.0 200 2.0
300
15.7%
250 150 18.9% 1.5
2.0
200 12.9%
150 100 18.5% 1.0
12.7% 1.0 8.4%
100 M16 M12
50 8.0% 0.5
50 spacing: s = 200 mm spacing: s = 200 mm
12.6% 7.8%
0 0.0 0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a) (b)
Figure 4.72: Load distribution and anchor displacements in groups with hole clearance failed in
steel (a) Typical anchorage in normal strength concrete (b) Typical anchorage in high
strength concrete
However, note that the reduction depends on the applied hole clearance and the gap configu-
ration (location of the anchors). The gap is between 0 (no gap) and df -dnom (max. gap). Ten
different anchor configurations were numerically simulated. For comparison, the group simu-
lated with no hole clearance is illustrated (arrangement 1). As can be seen, hole clearance
does not necessarily decreases the capacity. For favorable anchor configuration (hole clear-
ance applied for anchors closest to the load application), the capacity can be increased to n-
times the capacity of the single anchor bolt by stepwise decrease of the applied hole clearance
beginning from the anchor closest to the load application. The highest reduction of capacity is
observed if the maximum hole clearance is applied to the furthermost anchors.
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 df = diameter of clearance hole in the anchorage plate [mm]

V
dnom = outside diameter of anchor [mm]
acl = hole clearance (gap) [mm]
1.4
n=7 hole clearance acl [mm]
arrangement
1.2 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7
1.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.0 0.93 0.94 0.93
0.91
2 2.0 1.0 0.5 0 0 0 0
0.85 0.83
0.82 0.82
Vu / (n · Vu,single)
3 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.8 0.73
4 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0 0 0
0.6 5 0.5 1.0 2.0 0 0 0 0

6 0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0 0 0
0.4 7 0 0.5 1.0 2.0 0 0 0

gap
8 0 0 0 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.5
M12
0.2 9 0 0 0 0 2.0 1.0 0.5
spacing: s = 200 mm
10 0 0 0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
arrangement
(a) (b)
Figure 4.73: (a) Ratio of obtained group capacity in high strength concrete and n-times the re-
sistance of a single anchor bolt failed in steel as a function of the anchor arrangement
(b) Explanation of the applied hole clearance for the various anchor arrangements
If the anchors of the shear collector are installed with small embedment depth, the anchors
may fail by pryout prior to steel rupture. Testing has shown that the load-displacement behav-
ior is identical to the anchor which fails in steel up to that point where the concrete fails be-
hind the stud by “kicking back”. This point is calculated according to Equation 2.40. The fail-
ure is assumed to be very brittle with nearly no descending branch. The pryout failure input
curve is shown in Figure 4.74a). Simulations were performed without hole clearance and with
hole clearance in most unfavorable anchor configuration. The reduction of capacity is much
higher than for the steel rupture failure mode. In particular, for groups with hole clearance, a
significant reduction of about 40% was observed.
Gap at the onset of loading: {A1-A7} = {0mm} → Vu/(n∙Vu,single anchor) = 0.81
Gap at the onset of loading: {A1, A2, A3, A4} = {0mm}, {A5, A6, A7} = {2mm} → Vu/(n∙Vu,single anchor) = 0.59
100 400 4.0

M16, hef = 60 mm no hole clearance
90 350 3.5
12.5%
80
Steel failure (test) 300 3.0
Displacement [mm]
70 17.4%
250 2.5
Load [kN]
60
Load [kN]
16.0%
50 200 2.0
14.7%
40 Pryout failure (input curve) 150
y
1.5
30 Displacement
13.7%
100 1.0
20
M16 13.0%
50 0.5
10 spacing: s = 200 mm 12.6%
0 0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement [mm] number of bolts
(a) (b)
Figure 4.74: (a) Determination of input curve for the pryout failure mode (b) Load distribution and
anchor displacements in a group without hole clearance in normal strength concrete
failing in pryout
The “shear lag” described above is evaluated at ultimate limit state. Groups were simulated
under monotonic loading. If shear collectors are loaded under cyclic loading, the serviceabil-
ity limit state is a significant consideration. Therefore, the shear collector described in Figure
4.70b) was evaluated at serviceability limit state (0.5Vu). The load-displacement behavior of
the symmetric model is shown in Figure 4.75a). The evaluation of the load distribution at a
load level equal to half the ultimate strength of the group assuming an even load distribution
shows that the “shear lag” is more pronounced compared to the ultimate limit state. This
needs to be taken into account for the design of such connections. An even load distribution
for such a loading case is not justified.
225 50
Vu = n∙Vu,single anchor 220 3.0
200 45
200 Vu/(n∙Vu,single anchor) = 0.5
total shear
175 40 180 19.2% 2.5
Anchor shear force [kN]
Displacement [mm]
35 160
150 16.8% 2.0
A2 A3 140
30
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
125 120 15.0%

A1 25 1.5
100
100
20 13.6%
80
Displacement 1.0
75 60 12.5%
15
A7
50 40 M12 11.7% 0.5
10
A5 A6 20 spacing: s = 300 mm
25 0.5Vu 11.2%
5 0 0.0
A4
(Symmetry utilized) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0
number of bolts
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) (b)
Figure 4.75: (a) Load-displacement curves of the individual anchors and the group of the symmet-
ric model (b) Load distribution and anchor displacements in the group at serviceabil-
ity limit state (full system)
In summarizing, it can be stated that the extend of the “shear lag” (the tendency for load to be
carried most by the anchors close to the point of loading, and thus leading to a diminished
group capacity) is primarily governed by the ratio of the stiffness of the anchors to that of the
attachment connecting the anchors to the concrete member. In normal strength concrete, the
analyses indicate that “shear lag” is negligible for typical anchor types with no hole clearance
for the ultimate limit state. For cases with anchors that exhibit high shear stiffness (e.g. adhe-
sive anchors installed in high strength concrete), it is demonstrated that “shear lag” can occur.
The “shear lag” is more pronounced for anchorages with hole clearance and for anchorages
which fail by pryout failure.
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PREDICTION MODELS 245
5 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PREDICTION MODELS
5.1 General
Experimental and numerical investigations described in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 address open
questions in the field of fastening technology related to shear loaded anchorages. It is shown
that modifications are necessary to more realistically describe the load-bearing behavior of
such connections. It was found that current predictions of the failure loads are too conserva-
tive for certain cases. However, it was also found that for some critical cases of shear loaded
anchorages close to the edge current predictions overestimate the resistance.
The main focus of the development of new prediction models is both to cover influencing
factors on ultimate strength more realistically, and to simplify design to make the calculation
process easier and more understandable. It is noted that this is challenging since a more accu-
rate prediction necessarily leads to more complicated calculation approaches. In contrast,
simplification often leads to deviation from real loading mechanism. Therefore, to cover both
a compromise between accuracy and simplicity is necessary. In the following subsections new
prediction equations and modifications to current design recommendations are discussed and
compared with available test data. All available test data for single anchors and anchor groups
were summarized in a database for different shear load directions and different anchor config-
urations. Test results in the database which were not traceable or tests with missing infor-
mation about testing parameters were sorted out.
The development of new mean prediction equations is based on tests which were performed
with a friction reducing teflon layer (ptfe sheet) between fixture and concrete surface. In case
of post-installed anchor tests without teflon sheet (direct contact between steel plate and fin-
ished smooth concrete surface), the friction may significantly influence the shear behavior of
anchorages. In Figure 5.1 tests on anchorages with and without teflon sheet under otherwise
constant conditions in the same concrete slab are shown to exemplify the influence of the tef-
lon layer. Compared to the tests with a teflon sheet between steel plate and concrete surface
the initial stiffness of the load-displacement curve is approximately doubled for assemblies
without teflon layer. The measured ultimate load is about 20% higher since a part of shear is
transferred by friction.
14 14
14012 2012
without teflon n=1 18 2kv n=2

12010 2kv 10
16 kv
kv
100
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
14 Vu,m, no teflon/ Vu,m,teflon = 1.25

8 8
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
12
80 without teflon
6 with teflon 10 6
60 8
4 4
40 6
with teflon
Vu,m, no teflon/ Vu,m,teflon = 1.18 4
20 2 2
2
M20, hef = 195 mm, c1 = 140 mm, α = 90° M12, hef = 80 mm, c1 = 50 mm, α = 0°
00 0 0
00 12 2 34 4 56 6 87 8 109 101211 12
14 0 0 1 21 3 4 25 6 73 8 9 10
4 11 12 5
[ m m ] [ m m ]
(a) Single anchor loaded parallel to the edge (b) Anchor group loaded towards the edge
Figure 5.1: Effect of friction on the load-displacement behavior of shear loaded anchorages
In case the anchors are welded to the steel plate and the anchorage is placed in the formwork
before casting the concrete slab, the friction effect is even higher. This is shown by tests per-
formed by Anderson and Meinheit (2006) and tests described in Wong et al. (1998). In these
tests, either the formwork was cut at the upper part to allow an extension of the steel plates
over the edge, or precut plywood blockouts were placed in front and behind the plate to pre-
vent front plate bearing. In Figure 5.2, the single anchor tests without teflon sheet are ana-
lyzed for a load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge. The results are compared
with the calculation approaches according to Section 3.2.1.4.6 (approach 13) for shear applied
towards the edge and Section 3.2.2.3.6 (approach 8) for shear applied parallel to the edge. As
can be seen, the test results show a significant deviation to the prediction equations.
2.0
blockout to prevent edge
1.8 front edge bearing
cutout of formwork
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.8 shear perpendicular

perpendicular to
to the
the edge
edge
0.5 mean = 1.31 SD = 0.17
0.17 COV
COV == 12.96
12.96
shear parallel to
to the
the edge
edge
0.3
mean = 1.45 SD = 0.11
0.11 COV
COV == 7.50
7.50 load fixture blockout
0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 tests according to
Edge distance cc1 [mm] Anderson and Meinheit (2006) tests according to Wong et. al (1988)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5.2: (a) Ratio of single anchor tests without teflon sheet to calculation approaches for load
direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge (b) Detail of blockout for load shoe
plate (c) Typical form design detail
Moreover, the friction effect increases for anchor groups since the plate size increases auto-
matically with increasing number of anchors. The effect of increasing friction effect with in-
creasing plate size was shown by Matupayont (1989). Therefore, in the following sections
tests without teflon sheet are not considered.
5.2 Mean prediction equation to calculate the concrete edge breakout load
of a single anchor subjected to shear load towards the edge
In Section 3.2.1.4.6, prediction equations of mean failure load for a single anchor in
uncracked concrete close to the edge are discussed for a load direction towards the edge. The
comparison shows that most of the prediction equations do not describe the load-bearing be-
havior realistically. Equation 2.42 is a more accurate approach, but overestimates the re-
sistance for increasing stiffness ratio lf/d. Due to its complexity, this empirical equation found
by multiple regression is in discussion. Therefore, in the following, a simplified approach is
presented which captures all relevant parameters influencing the ultimate strength. This new
prediction equation is also compared with other prediction equations in Section 3.2.1.4.6.
The concrete compressive strength term was confirmed to be accurately considered to the
power of 0.5 (see Sections 3.2.6 and 4.5.1.1). For the influence of edge distance on the ulti-
mate strength, it was shown that the maximum possible size effect needs to be superimposed
by the secondary moment which is generated due to the local spalling in front of the anchor-
age prior to failure by concrete edge breakout. In good correlation with test results, the edge
distance term is raised to the power of 4/3 (see Sections 3.2.1.4.5 and 4.5.1.4). Experimental
and numerical investigations have shown that no significant load increase is expected for an-
chor diameters d > 25 mm (see Sections 3.2.1.4.5 and 4.5.1.2). Therefore, the increase of the
ultimate load with increasing anchor diameter is considered by a linear function ψd,V limited
by a horizontal line at 1.0 (see Figure 5.3a). The influence of the stiffness ratio lf/d on the
breakout strength depends on the edge distance. This is expressed by the factor ψl,V which is
scaled to 1.0 for lf = 12d. The comparison with test results (Section 3.2.1.4.6) shows a good
correlation (n = 104, Ø = 1.01, SD = 0.08, COV = 8.04%). However, for practical reasons, a
simplification of the factor ψl,V is reasonable. The simplification covers the lower part of the
function ψl,V (small edge distances for lf < 12d and large edge distances for lf < 12d) (see Fig-
ure 5.3b). The factor 16.5 is determined from tests described in Section 3.2.1.4.6.
Vu0,c,0°  16.5  fcc,200  c14/ 3  d ,V  l ,V (Eq. 5.1)
where:
 d ,V   0.02d  0.5   1.0

with: d0 = 25 mm
 0.5  d / d0  1.0   1.0
x 0.4
 l  1
 l ,V  f  with: x=  accurate approach
 12d   c1 
 lf 
 0.2 for  12 
 d 
x=  simplification
 0.1 for l f > 12 

 d 

1.5
2.0 1.2
2.0
n=2,h=500,nohcl n=2,h=500,nohcl c = 50 mm
d0 = 25
n=2,h=500,+1mm mm simplification
n=2,h=500,+1mm
1.8 n=2,h=500,-2mm 1.8 n=2,h=500,-2mm
1.3 1.1
n=2,h=100,nohcl n=2,h=100,nohcl
1.6 n=2,h=100,-2mm 1.6 n=2,h=100,-2mm
n=4,h=500,nohcl c = 400 mm
n=4,h=500,nohcl
c = 200 mm
1.0 n=4,h=500,-2mm 1.0 n=4,h=500,-2mm
1.4 1.4
u (c1,2)
u (c1,2)
c = 100 mm
Vu / ψVd,V
Vl,V
1.2
0.8 1.2
0.9
Vu / ψ
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.8
0.8 0.5(d/d0+1.0) 0.8 x = 0.2 x = 0.1
0.3 0.7
0.6 0.6
[lf/(12d)]x
0.4
0.0 0.4
0.6
0.0
0 0.35 0.5100.8 15
1.0 1.3
20 1.5 25 1.8302.0 35
2.3 2.5
40 0.0
0 0.3 3 0.5 0.8
6 1.09 1.3 121.5 1.8 15 2.0 182.3 2.5
21
Diameterdd
Diameter [mm]
nom [mm] Anchorstiffness
Anchor stiffnesslf/d
lf/d
nom
(a) (b)
Figure 5.3: (a) Increase factor ψd,V taking into account the influence of the anchor diameter on the
concrete edge failure load (b) Increase factor ψl,V taking into account the influence of
the anchor stiffness on the concrete edge failure load
In the following, current design standards are discussed by means of existing test data. There-
fore, single anchors which failed in concrete edge breakout without influence of further edges
and member thickness were summarized in a database. All tests described in Section 2.2 were
reviewed carefully. Data which are not traceable or tests with missing information about test-
ing parameters were sorted out. In total, 1101 tests remain for the comparison. The database
covers diameters between 6 mm (0.24”) and 88.9 mm (3.5”), ratios lf/d between 2.4 and 32.5
and edge distances between 38 mm (1.5”) and 762 mm (30”). The following diagrams show
the comparison with the mean prediction equations which are the basis for the initial values of
the characteristic resistance in current design standards. Recommended limits are applied.
Comparison is done for CEN/TS 1992-4, ACI 318-08, ACI 318-11 and the new approach ac-
cording to Equation 5.1. For better readability of the diagrams, the horizontal axis are only
shown up to c1 = 600 mm, dnom = 70 mm and lf/dnom = 25. The inclined lines show the trend-
lines.
In CEN/TS 1992-4 the initial value for the characteristic resistance for single anchors loaded
towards the edge is based on the mean prediction according to Equation 2.42. Taking into
account the limits for d and lf, the comparison shows a good correlation for all displayed pa-
rameters (Figure 5.4). For the total number of n = 1101 tests, the average test-to-predicted
ratio is 1.04 with a standard deviation of 0.18 (COV = 17.13%).
ACI 318-08 is based on the mean prediction according to Equation 2.41. Compared to Equa-
tion 2.42, this equation overestimates the resistance with increasing edge distance and increas-
ing diameter. This is clearly shown in Figure 5.5.
In ACI 318-11, the basic equation for concrete edge breakout is also based on the mean pre-
diction according to Equation 2.41 since it is well accepted in the US standards due to its sim-
plicity. However, in order to cover the unconservatism of the equation for large diameters, a
limiting equation was implemented. The reason for this modification in the 2011 version is
that the publication of results of tests on large diameter anchors in shear (Lee et al., 2010)
indicated that the current equation was not appropriate for anchors with diameters exceeding
2 inch (50.8 mm), but offered no alternative on how the current provisions could be revised to
permit these types of anchors. The basis for the proposal is the assumption that by establish-
ing an upper limit on shear breakout strength that is independent of anchor diameter, the cur-
rent method could be extended to all anchor diameters. The proposed upper limit is based on
using d = ¾” (19 mm) and lf = 8d in the shear equation resulting in a limiting equation as an
upper limit. The selection of the upper limit is based on a new compilation of a shear data
base for single anchors failed in concrete edge breakout in uncracked concrete. As can be seen
in Figure 5.6, the influence of the diameter on the breakout strength is covered with sufficient
accuracy.
Figure 5.7 shows the comparison of the shear data base with the new approach discussed in
this section. The comparison with test results shows a good correlation for all displayed pa-
rameters. For the total number of n = 1101 tests the average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.00 with
a standard deviation of 0.17 (COV = 17.41%). Applying the simplification for ψl,V in Equa-
tion 5.1, the average test-to-predicted ratio changes to 1.03 with a standard deviation of 0.18
(COV = 17.40%). Significant advantage of Equation 5.1 is that this equation bridges the gap
between simplicity and accuracy. The mean breakout strength can be easily calculated by
hand and is compared to Equation 2.42 easily convertible to inch-pound equivalent units.
2.0
CEN/TS 1992-4
1.8
Vu,prediction according to Equation 2.42
1.5
Limits: d ≤ 60 mm; lf ≤ 8d 1.3
1.0
Average 1.04 0.8
0.5
SD 0.18
0.3
COV [%] 17.13
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Edge distance c 1 [mm]
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25
Diameter d nom [mm] lf/ dnom
Figure 5.4: Evaluation of the mean prediction for single anchors loaded towards the edge for the
concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: CEN/TS 1992-4)
2.0
ACI 318-08
1.8
Vu,prediction according to Equation 2.41 1.5
Limits: d ≤ 2 in. (50.8 mm); lf ≤ 8d 1.3
1.0
Average 0.95 0.8
0.5
SD 0.22
0.3
COV [%] 22.93
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25
concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: ACI 318-08)
2.0
ACI 318-11
1.8
Vu,prediction = min {Eq. 2.41; 6.6*fcc,2000.5*c11.5}
1.5
Limiting equation: Insert d = ¾“ (19 mm) 1.3
1.0
and lf = 8d in Eq. 2.41 (6.6 = 190.5*80.2)
0.8
0.5
Average 1.02
0.3
SD 0.21
0.0
COV [%] 20.18 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25
Diameter dnom [mm] lf/ dnom
concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: ACI 318-11)
2.0
New approach
1.8
Vu,prediction according to Equation 5.1
1.5
1.3
1.0
Average 1.00 0.8
0.5
SD 0.17
0.3
COV [%] 17.41
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25
concrete edge failure mode (New approach according to Equation 5.1)
5.3 Mean prediction equation to calculate the concrete edge breakout load
of a single anchor subjected to shear load parallel to the edge
In Section 3.2.2.3.6, predictions of mean failure load for a single anchor in uncracked con-
crete close to the edge are discussed for a load direction parallel to the edge. The comparison
shows that most of the prediction equations do not describe the load-bearing behavior realisti-
cally. The calculation according to Hofmann (2005), as well as the modified approach (7) (see
Table 3.9), is a more accurate approach. However, this method has never found acceptance in
design standards due to its complexity. Guidance according to this complicated approach is
only given in fib (2011) on the commentary side. On the code side, it is recommended to only
apply a constant factor of 1.5 for single anchors which leads to 40% lower capacity
(1.5/2.5 = 0.6) compared to CEN/TS 1992-4.
The comparison of available prediction equations shows the need of improvement and simpli-
fication. Therefore, in the following, a simplified approach is presented which captures all
relevant parameters influencing the ultimate strength. This new prediction equation is also
compared with other prediction equations in Section 3.2.2.3.6. In comparison to current de-
sign recommendations, this approach is not based on the fact that the capacity is calculated by
multiplying the resistance of the same anchor loaded perpendicular to the edge with an in-
crease factor, but it recommends a separate mean equation for anchors loaded in shear parallel
to the edge. The theoretical background and the derivation of the strength equation are pre-
sented in the following.
Tension loaded headed anchors located at small edge distances can generate a local blow-out
failure in the vicinity of the head (Figure 5.8a). Local concrete side blow-out is caused by the
quasi-hydrostatic pressure in the region of the head of the stud which gives rise to lateral
bursting force Z equal to α-times the applied tension force F (Eligehausen et al., 2006). The
value α describes the ratio lateral bursting force to tension force. It depends on the specific
concrete bearing pressure p/fcc,200 beneath the head since the lateral strain in the concrete in-
creases with the stress in the concrete beneath the head. The value α was determined from
tests with tension loaded headed anchors according to Equation 5.2. Hofmann, Eligehausen
(2009) proposed a modifed ratio Z/F based on the evaluation of tests from Furche (1994), De
Vries (1996) and Asmus (1999) (Equation 5.3). This evaluation was done by Hofmann (2005).
   1   p / fcc,200 
0.5
with:  1  0.11 (Furche, Eligehausen, 1991) (Eq. 5.2)
   1   p / fcc,200 
1.0
with:  1  0.045 (Hofmann, Eligehausen, 2009) (Eq. 5.3)
The theoretical considerations for tension loaded headed anchors failing in lateral blow-out
failure can be transferred to anchorages loaded in shear parallel to the edge (Figure 5.8b). In
Hofmann (2005), the ratio between splitting force towards the edge and applied shear force
was assumed linearly according to Equation 5.3. However, the factor ν1 was taken as 0.06.
The area of the pressure zone in front of the anchor was simplified assuming to be A = d2.
Substituting F = V90° and Z = V0° and rearranging Equation 5.3 leads to the increase factor
according to Equation 2.47 with n = 1.0 and k4 = 1.0. It is noted that neither in tests performed
by Hofmann (2005) with anchors loaded in shear parallel to the edge nor in tests performed by
Furche, Eligehausen (1991) with tension loaded anchors close to the edge the concrete com-
pressive strength was varied.
c1 F = tensile load
plastified concrete c1
(quasi-hydrostatic pressure p = V90°/A
in the region of the head)
V90° pmax
A A A-A
V90°
Z = α·F VSp = α·V90° d
l1
d pmax
d
dh bearing area of head
concrete failure A = π/4 (dh2-d2)
d
(side blow-out failure)
Idealized pressure area
β·d
knowledge transfer in front of the anchorage
A= β·d2
(a) Lateral blow-out failure of tension loaded anchor (b) Concrete edge failure in shear
Figure 5.8: Theoretical background for the development of lateral bursting forces perpendicular
to the applied force (a) tension loaded anchor (b) shear loaded anchor
Figure 5.8 shows the knowledge transfer from tension loaded headed anchors to shear loaded
anchors. However, a straightforward transfer without modifications is not possible. This is
explained in the following.
Whereas the side concrete failure is caused by a rotationally symmetric stress condition pro-
duced in the concrete by the tension loaded anchor (quasi-hydrostatic pressure in the region of
the head of the stud), the stress condition is quite different in case of an anchor loaded in
shear parallel to the edge. This directly influences the ratio between lateral bursting force and
applied load. Moreover, the pressure area in front of the area is a function of the anchor stiff-
ness.
Tests with anchors loaded in shear parallel to the edge in concrete members of different com-
pressive strengths have shown that the value α (i.e. the ratio of splitting force to applied shear
force) is independent of the concrete compressive strength (Section 3.2.6). This was also veri-
fied numerically (Section 4.5.2.1). Based on the investigations, the ratio between splitting
force and applied shear load is assumed according to Equation 5.4.
VSp p V90°
  k with: p  and A    d 2 (Eq. 5.4)
V90° f cc ,200 A
1
Rearranging Equation 5.4 leads to V90°     d 2  f cc,200 VSp (Eq. 5.5)
k
A straightforward substitution VSp = V0° does not lead to correct results since the influence of
the anchor stiffness on the capacity is different compared to an anchor loaded perpendicular to
the edge due to the different stress distribution parallel to the edge. The pressure area is as-
sumed to increase with increasing embedment depth. This is expressed by the factor β.
According to Equation 5.1 the splitting force VSp can be assumed to increase with the square
root of the compressive strength and the edge distance term raised to the power of 4/3. If these
conditions are inserted in Equation 5.5, it leads to Equation 5.6. The influence of the anchor
stiffness is expressed by the factor ψl,V = β0.5.
1 1
V90°     d 2  f cc ,200  f cc ,200  c14/ 3   d  f cc ,200  c12/ 3  l ,V (Eq. 5.6)
k k
The results described in Section 3.2.2 and Section 4.5.2 have shown that compared to a load
direction perpendicular to the edge no restriction of the anchor diameter is necessary. The
ultimate strength increases in proportion to the anchor diameter raised to the power of 0.7. No
effect of edge distance on the influence of anchor diameter on ultimate strength was found.
Moreover, the results indicate that an increase of the stiffness ratio over a value about 12 does
not lead to an increase of the ultimate load. This can be taken into account by applying an
upper limit to the factor ψl,V or putting the value x = 0 for large embedment depth. As for an-
chorages loaded perpendicular to the edge, the factor ψl,V is scaled to 1.0 for lf = 12d. Based
on the evaluation of test results, the square root of 1/k is taken as 43. The new strength equa-
tion to calculate the concrete edge failure load for single anchors loaded parallel to the edge is
given according to Equation 5.7.
Vu0,c,90°  43  fcc,200  c12/ 3  d  l ,V (Eq. 5.7)
where:
 l 
x
 0.3 for f  12 
 l   d 
 l ,V  f  with: x =  
 12d   0 for l f > 12 

 d 

In the following, current design standards are discussed by means of existing test data. Com-
pared to a load direction perpendicular to the edge, the database of tests is much smaller. Most
of the tests were performed within the scope of this research work. The database equals the
database of 118 tests evaluated in Section 3.2.2.3.6. However, compared to that evaluation,
the limits for the strength equations recommended in design are applied. The database covers
diameters between 9.4 mm (0.375”) and 24 mm (0.94”), ratios lf/d between 3.3 and 20.0, and
edge distances between 44.45 mm (1.75”) and 200 mm (7.9”). The following diagrams show
the comparison with the mean prediction equations which are the basis for the initial values of
the characteristic resistance in current design standards. Comparison is done for CEN/TS
1992-4, ACI 318-08, ACI 318-11, fib (2011) with both the recommendation on the code side
and the commentary side and the new approach according to Equation 5.7. The inclined lines
show the trendlines. Note that the scale of the vertical axis was extended to 4.0 for some of
the comparisons due to the considerable deviations between test result and prediction.
The initial value for the characteristic resistance for single anchors loaded in shear parallel to
the edge in CEN/TS 1992-4 is based on the mean prediction according to Equation 2.42 mul-
tiplied with a constant factor 2.5. For small edge distance, this approach is very conservative
but, for large edge distance a constant factor 2.5 leads to unconservative prediction of the re-
sistance. Diameter and stiffness ratio show large scatter when using this approach (Figure
5.9). For the total number of n = 118 tests, the average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.20 with a
standard deviation of 0.40 (COV = 33.46%).
ACI 318-08 and ACI 318-11 are based on the mean prediction according to Equation 2.41. For
a shear load direction parallel to the edge, the resistance of the same anchor loaded towards
the edge is doubled. The comparisons with ACI 318 is shown in Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11.
As for CEN/TS 1992-4 the calculations show no suitable agreement with the test results due to
the constant increase factor.
In the fib design guide (fib, 2011), the proposed increase factor for a shear load direction par-
allel to the edge was even decreased to 1.5 for single anchors to cover the lowest increase
obtained in tests for large edge distance. This, however, leads to highly conservative results
(Figure 5.12). The average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.99 with a standard deviation of 0.67
(COV = 33.46%). For a more accurate prediction of the capacity, guidance is given on the
commentary side. The increase factor can be calculated according to Equation 2.47 with an
upper limit of 4.0. The comparison with test results shows the most accurate design approach
currently available (Figure 5.13). The average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.17 with a standard
deviation of 0.17 (COV = 14.98%).
Figure 5.14 shows the comparison of the shear data base with the new approach according to
Equation 5.7. The comparison shows a good correlation with test results for all displayed pa-
rameters. For the total number of n = 118 tests, the average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.02 with
a standard deviation of 0.12 (COV = 11.87%). The shear resistance for a load direction paral-
lel to the edge can be easily calculated by hand and is easily convertible to inch-pound
equivalent units. As for the new equation for anchors loaded in shear perpendicular to the
edge (Equation 5.1), Equation 5.7 also bridges the gap between simplicity and accuracy.
2.5
CEN/TS 1992-4
2.3
Vu,prediction according to Equation 2.42 * ψ90°,V 2.0
1.8
Limits: d ≤ 60 mm; lf ≤ 8d 1.5

1.3
ψ90°,V = 2.5
1.0
0.8
Average 1.20 0.5
0.3
SD 0.40
0.0
COV [%] 33.46 0 50 100 150 200 250
2.5 2.5
2.3 2.3
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 5.9: Evaluation of the mean prediction for single anchors loaded parallel to the edge for
the concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: CEN/TS 1992-4)
4.0
ACI 318-08
3.5
2*Vu,prediction according to Equation 2.41
3.0
Limits: d ≤ 2 in. (50.8 mm); lf ≤ 8d 2.5
2.0
Average 1.47 1.5
1.0
SD 0.66
0.5
COV [%] 44.51
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
the concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: ACI 318-08)
4.0
ACI 318-11
3.5
Vu,prediction = 2*min {Eq. 2.41; 6.6*fcc,2000.5*c11.5} 3.0
Limiting equation: Insert d = ¾“ (19 mm) 2.5
2.0
and lf = 8d in Eq. 2.41 (6.6 = 190.5*80.2)
1.5
1.0
Average 1.59
0.5
SD 0.74
0.0
COV [%] 46.97 0 50 100 150 200 250
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
the concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: ACI 318-11)
4.0
fib, 2011 (code side)
3.5
Limits: d ≤ 60 mm; lf ≤ 12d 2.5
2.0
ψ90°,V = 1.5
1.5
1.0
Average 1.99
0.5
SD 0.67
0.0
COV [%] 33.46 0 50 100 150 200 250
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
the concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: fib (2011), code side)
2.0
fib, 2011 (commentary side)
1.8
Limits: d ≤ 60 mm; lf ≤ 12d 1.3
1.0
ψ90°,V according to Equation 2.47 (≤ 4.0)
0.8
0.5
Average 1.17
0.3
SD 0.17
0.0
COV [%] 14.98 0 50 100 150 200 250
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
the concrete edge failure mode (basic equation with limits: fib (2011), commentary)
2.0
New approach
1.8
Vu,prediction according to Equation 5.7 1.5
1.3
1.0
Average 1.02 0.8
0.5
SD 0.12
0.3
COV [%] 11.87
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
2.0 2.0
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25
the concrete edge failure mode (New approach according to Equation 5.7)
5.4 Mean prediction equation to calculate steel rupture of a single anchor

subjected to shear far away from the edge
The theoretical background for the steel rupture failure mode of anchorages arranged far away
from the edge and loaded in shear is explained in Section 2.3.1. The proposed mean equation
only considers the cross section area and measured steel strength as parameters controlling the
ultimate load. This equation is based on a regression analysis. Experimental investigations
described in Section 3.2.7 have shown that this approach can lead to unconservative predic-
tion of the ultimate steel strength. Moreover, the rupture elongation was found to affect the
steel capacity. Therefore, in Section 3.2.7.2.6, Equation 2.39 was modified based on a regres-
sion analysis to take into account both measured steel strength and rupture elongation of the
steel. Even though this equation shows a good correlation with test results, in the following,
an equation is proposed for calculating the mean shear capacity of a single anchor. This is
reasonable since often the rupture elongation of the anchor is not known and a simplified
equation is needed for design purpose which only depends on the steel strength.
Vu0,s    AS  fu (fu = measured tensile strength) (Eq. 5.8)
with: α = 0.7 for fu < 500 MPa

= 0.6 for 500 MPa ≤ fu ≤ 1000 MPa
= 0.5 for fu > 1000 MPa
For insufficient plastic deformational capacity of the anchors, it is recommended to reduce the
steel rupture load calculated with Equation 5.8. If the rupture elongation (measured over a
length equal to 5d) is at least 16%, no reduction is necessary. In case the rupture elongation is
lower or was not determined, Equation 5.8 should be multiplied by 0.8.
In case of short embedment depth and low concrete strength, experimental tests described in
Section 3.2.7.3 indicate that increased local spalling in front of the anchorage can lead to a
reduction of ultimate shear strength for the failure mode steel rupture of 20%. Therefore, it is
recommended to multiply Equation 5.8 with a reduction factor of 0.8 in case the compressive
strength fcc,200 < 25 MPa and the ratio hef/dnom < 5. For reasons of simplifications this step
function is used to account for short embedment depth in combination with low concrete
compressive strength. However, this case is expected to be observed only in a small number
of situations. More research is needed to provide a reasonable smooth transition.
2.0 2.0
1.8 Ø = 0.98 SD = 0.07 COV = 6.73 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 n = 276 0.2
0.0 0.0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Measured tensile strength fu [MPa] Measured rupture elongation A5 [%]
Figure 5.15: Evaluation of the mean prediction for steel rupture according to Equation 5.8
In Figure 5.15, test results described in Section 3.2.7.2 are compared with the new approach
according to Equation 5.8. For a total number of n = 276 tests, the average test-to-predicted
ratio is 0.98 with a standard deviation of 0.07 (COV = 6.73%).
5.5 Modification factor to consider the influence of limited member thick-

ness on the concrete edge breakout load
In case of shear loaded anchorages positioned in members of limited thickness, the concrete
fracture surface is truncated by the lower edge of the concrete member. This reduces the con-
crete edge breakout strength. In design, this is taken into account by multiplying the breakout
strength with the ratio of the projected areas. Most design standards allow to apply an increase
factor ψh,V which takes into account that the failure load is less than proportional to the mem-
ber thickness. The influence of limited member thickness was discussed both for a shear load
direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge by means of experimental investigations (see
Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4) and numerically (see Section 4.5.4).
In the following, the reduction in case of limited member thickness proposed in current design
standards is compared with a database of n = 413 tests (Vu,prediction = Vu,c · Ac,V / Ac,V0 · ψh,V).
However, the mean value for the concrete edge breakout load (Vu,c) was calculated according
to Equation 5.1 since the comparison with tests in members with sufficient thickness for a
shear load direction towards the edge has shown that this equation is a good predictor of the
mean concrete edge breakout load. Figure 5.16a) shows that the mean prediction equation
with an increase factor ψh,V according to Equation 2.18 (exponent x = 1/3) is a good predictor
of the capacity in thin members. However, if an increase factor ψh,V according to Equation
2.25 (exponent x = 1/2) is applied, the resistance is overestimated for decreasing ratio h/c1.
2.0 2.0
1.8 n = 413 1.8 n = 413
1.5 1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3 Ø = 0.93 SD = 0.15 COV = 16.36

Ø = 0.96 SD = 0.15 COV = 15.59
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
h/c1 h/c1
a) ψh,V according to Equation 2.18 b) ψh,V according to Equation 2.25
Figure 5.16: Evaluation of the reduction of the concrete edge failure load of anchors loaded to-
wards the edge in members of limited thickness
A different model taking into account that the crack does not start at the top surface is ex-
plained in the following. In this approach the reduced breakout area and the increase factor
ψh,V are unified in only one reduction factor.
min  h ; hcr ,V 
0.25
Ac ,V h 
 A,V  ≙ (Eq. 5.9)  h,V   cr ,V   1.0 (Eq. 5.10)
Ac0,V hcr ,V  h 
Multiplying Equation 5.9 with Equation 5.10 leads to the new reduction factor which is pro-
posed for calculating the reduction in concrete edge breakout strength of anchors installed in
members of limited thickness. The approach follows the recommendation by Fuchs (1990) for
anchors in thin concrete members. However, in contrast to Equation 2.21 which is based on
numerical simulations, the critical member thickness is taken as four times the anchor diame-
ter plus the edge distance.
0.75
 h 
0.25
h h 
 h ,V ,new    cr ,V     1.0 (Eq. 5.11)
hcr ,V  h  h
 cr ,V 
> 0   h,V < 1.0

h  hcr  h  with: hcr ,V  4d  c1 (Eq. 5.12)
 0   h,V  1.0
Figure 5.17 shows the comparison of the shear data base with the new approach. The compar-
ison with test results shows a good correlation. For the total number of n = 413 tests, the aver-
age test-to-predicted ratio is 0.97 with a standard deviation of 0.15 (COV = 14.94%).
c1 2.0
1.8 n = 413
V
1.5
4d 1.3
1.0
h
hcr,V 0.8
c1 0.5
0.3 Ø = 0.97 SD = 0.15 COV = 14.94

Δh
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
failure surface concrete member h/c1
Figure 5.17: Comparison of the database with the proposed mean prediction for concrete edge
breakout failure according to Equation 5.1 multiplied with Equation 5.11 to take into
account the capacity reduction in thin members
5.6 Modification factor to consider the spacing effect parallel to the edge
For anchor groups arranged parallel to the edge, the maximum breakout strength (n-times the
breakout strength of a single anchor) can only develop in case of sufficient spacing in be-
tween the anchors. This is considered in the model according to the CCD-method with a criti-
cal anchor spacing of scr,V = 3c1. The critical spacing was investigated experimentally in Sec-
tion 3.3.1 for a load direction perpendicular to the edge and in Section 3.3.2 for a load direc-
tion parallel to the edge. By means of numerical simulations, a wider range of edge distances
and spacings was investigated and an approach was presented in Section 4.5.3 which allows a
more realistic calculation of the critical anchor spacing for both applying the load perpendicu-
lar and parallel to the edge. Here, the ratio scr,V/c1 is not constant but depends on the edge dis-
tance c1. For a shear load direction perpendicular to the edge, the critical anchor spacing can
be expressed by Equation 5.13. A lower limit of 2c1 is applied which corresponds to a
breakout angle of 45°. For a load direction parallel to the edge, the critical anchor spacing
which is necessary to obtain the maximum breakout strength was found to be not significantly
influenced by the edge distance. By means of the numerical investigations shown in Figure
4.38, a critical spacing of 260 mm was proposed. Based on the evaluation of the experimental
investigations the critical spacing is slightly higher and can be expressed by Equation 5.14.
α = 0°: s2 / c1  35  c10.5 rearranged: scr ,V  35  c1  2  c1 (Eq. 5.13)

α = 90°: s2 / c1  300  c11.0 rearranged: scr ,V  300 mm (Eq. 5.14)
To verify the critical anchor spacing, in Figure 5.18 the ratio of results of tests with anchor
groups with two anchors arranged parallel to the edge and loaded towards the edge to the con-
crete edge failure load of the comparable single anchor is plotted. For better readability of the
diagram, only tests with edge distance of 50, 100 and 200 mm described in Section 2.2 and
Section 3.3.1 are plotted. For comparison, the load increase with increasing ratio s2/c1 accord-
ing to Equation 5.15 is shown for the different edge distances. The analysis of test results
shows that the assumption of increasing breakout angle with increasing edge distance is justi-
fied.
3.0
cc=
1 200 mm
= 200 mm The influence of the anchor spacing s2 on the
2.5 cc=
1
=100
100mm
mm ψs2,V (c1 = 50 mm) concrete edge failure load of pairs of anchors
cc=
1
=50
50mm
mm subjected to shear towards the edge can be calcu-
2.0
lated according to Equation 5.15 with scr,V accord-
1.5 ing to Equation 5.13.
1.0
ψs2,V (c1 = 100 mm) x
 s 
0.5  s 2,V  1  2  with x = 1.0 (Eq. 5.15)
ψs2,V (c1 = 200 mm) s
0.0
 cr ,V 
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
s2/ c1
Figure 5.18: Influence of spacing on the concrete edge failure load of pairs of anchors subjected to
shear towards the edge
The database of available test results of anchor groups with two anchors arranged parallel to
the edge and loaded towards the edge are compared with the current approach according to
the CCD-method (Figure 5.19) and with the new approach taking into account the critical
spacing according to Equation 5.13 (Figure 5.20). The single anchor breakout strength Vu,c in
the predicted breakout strength of the group Vu,prediction = Vu,c·ψs2,V is either taken from tests in
case a reference test with a single anchor in the same concrete batch was performed or calcu-
lated according to the proposed Equation 5.1 if no reference test is available. In total, n = 86
tests are analyzed.
2.0 2.0
s2
1.8 1.8 n = 86
c1
1.5 1.5
α = 33.7°
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
Ø = 0.93 SD = 0.14 COV = 14.76
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 50 100 150 200 250
s2/ c1 c1 [mm]
Figure 5.19: Comparison of the database of groups with pairs of anchors arranged parallel to the
edge and loaded towards the edge with the mean prediction for concrete edge
breakout failure according to the CCD-method (scr,V = 3c1)
The comparison of the CCD-method with test results shows a suitable correlation for large
edge distance. However, for decreasing edge distance the prediction of the concrete edge fail-
ure load is unconservative (Figure 5.19). The real behavior is captured by the new approach
(Figure 5.20). It is noted that for decreasing edge distance the increase of the failure load was
found to be less than proportional to the anchor spacing (see Figure 3.69b). This could be tak-
en into account by applying an exponent x > 1.0 in Equation 5.15. For x = 1.2, the average
test-to-predicted ratio is 1.01 with a standard deviation of 0.13 (COV = 12.9%). However, for
reasons of simplicity, a linear increase is proposed (x = 1.0).
2.0 2.0
s2
1.8 1.8 n = 86
c1
1.5 1.5
α = tan-1(0.057c10.5)
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
Ø = 0.97 SD = 0.13 COV = 13.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 50 100 150 200 250
s2/ c1 c1 [mm]
edge and loaded towards the edge with the proposed mean prediction for concrete
edge breakout failure (scr,V according to Equation 5.13)
For the evaluation of the critical anchor spacing s2 in case of anchor groups loaded in shear
parallel to the edge, a database of n = 75 tests is analyzed. Two different existing approaches
are evaluated. One approach is to take into account the critical anchor spacing according to
the CCD-method comparable to a group loaded in shear towards the edge (Figure 5.21a). The
other approach follows the recommendation of Hofmann (2005) in which the influence of the
spacing s2 is taken into account by an effective increase of (n· ψA,V)0.5 (Figure 5.21b). The sin-
gle anchor breakout strength Vu,c in the predicted breakout strength of the group
Vu,prediction = Vu,c·ψs2,V is either taken from tests in case a reference test with a single anchor in
the same concrete batch was performed or calculated according to the proposed Equation 5.7
if no reference test is available. It is shown that a constant critical anchor spacing of 3c1
(CCD-method) does not describe the load-bearing behavior realistically. More accurate re-
sults are observed when applying the load increase according to the recommendation accord-
ing to Hofmann (2005). However, as discussed in Section 3.3.2.5, this approach does not real-
istically represent the load-bearing behavior for closely spaced anchors. For a theoretical an-
chor spacing s2 = d, the load is transferred into the concrete only by the front anchor. The
concrete edge failure load equals the concrete edge failure load of a single anchor. In particu-
lar, for a small edge distance, this approach leads to unconservative prediction of the failure
load (see Figure 3.80).
2.0 2.0
s2
1.8 n = 75 1.8 n = 75 s2
 s 2,V  2 
1.5 c1 1.5c1
1.5
α = 33.7°
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 Ø = 1.11 SD = 0.18 COV = 16.46 0.3 Ø = 0.92 SD = 0.11 COV = 12.36
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
s2/ c1 s2/ c1
a) with ψA,V = 1+s2/(3c1) b) with (n· ψA,V)0.5 (for explanation see Figure 3.80)
edge and loaded parallel to the free edge with the mean prediction for concrete edge
breakout failure according to the CCD-method (scr,V = 3c1)
The influence of the anchor spacing s2 on the concrete edge failure load of pairs of anchors
subjected to shear parallel to the free edge can be calculated according to Equation 5.15 with
scr,V according to Equation 5.14. It was found that the concrete edge failure load increases
more than proportional to the anchor spacing (see for example Figure 4.39a). This is taken
into account by an exponent x = 0.6. To verify this approach, the mean predicted failure load
is compared with the database (Figure 5.22). The analysis shows a good correlation with an
average test-to-predicted ratio of 0.99 and a standard deviation of 0.10 (COV = 10.48%). Note
that tests are only performed up to an edge distance of 210 mm. For larger edge distance, the
assumption of scr,V = 300 mm should be verified.
2.0 2.0
0.6
 s 
1.8
 s 2,V  1  2  1.8 n = 75
1.5  300  1.5
1.3 1.3
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3 Ø = 0.99 SD = 0.10 COV = 10.48

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
s2/ c1 c1 [mm]
edge and loaded parallel to the free edge with the proposed mean prediction for con-
crete edge failure (Equation 5.15 with x = 0.6 and scr,V according to Equation 5.14)
For groups arranged parallel to the edge and loaded in shear parallel to the edge with hole
clearance, a reduction of 15% should be conservatively considered for small edge distance
(c1 < 100 mm) (see Section 3.3.2.5.5). This reduction is based on experimental investigations
described in Section 3.3.2.5.5.
In case of more than two anchors in a row, the approach according to Equation 5.15 can be
extended to larger groups. This is expressed by the following term.
x
 s 
 s 2,V  1   n2  1  2  (Eq. 5.16)
s
 cr ,V 
However, as noted for groups with two anchors loaded towards the edge, the increase of the
failure load is less than proportional to the anchor spacing for small edge distance (see Figure
3.69b). This deviation to a linear function is acceptable for two anchors, however can lead to
highly unconservative results for more than two anchors. The reason is that the error is added
up by the individual anchor spacings. Therefore, it is recommended to apply an exponent of
x = 1.2 for edge distances c1 < 100 mm. For larger edge distances (c1 ≥ 100 mm), it is as-
sumed that an exponent of x = 1.0 leads to reasonable prediction of the s1-spacing effect.
However, note that this approach is only applicable in case an even loading of the anchors can
be guaranteed. The tests performed within the scope of this research show that even under test
conditions in the lab this is hard to realize. For multiple anchor connections loaded parallel to
the edge, the individual anchor spacing effect can be added up. However, it is conservatively
recommended to apply an exponent of x = 1.0 in Equation 5.16. This agrees suitable with test
results (see Section 3.3.2.5.3). Uneven anchor spacing should be avoided.
5.7 Modification factor to consider the negative effect on the concrete edge
breakout load in case of shear loads with opposed directions
In current design, for verification of concrete edge breakout, components of the resultant
shear forces on anchors acting perpendicular away from the edge may be neglected. Such sit-
uations occur, for example, if a pair of anchors is arranged parallel to the edge and is loaded
by a torsional moment. Investigations by Mallée (2001, 2002) for such configurations have
shown that in general the omission of shear components acting away from the edge is justified
since these components do not influence the concrete edge breakout resistance significantly.
However, research described in Section 3.3.7 has shown that for certain cases this leads to
unconservative results. In case of decreasing ratio s2/c1 and increasing ratio between concrete
breakout resistance of the verified anchor to the decisive resistance of the anchor loaded in
opposed direction (maximum influence for Vu,c,Anchor 1/min(Vu,cp,Anchor 2; Vu,c,Anchor 2 ) ~ 1.0), the
concrete edge breakout should be reduced. Based on test results in the following a simplified
approach is presented to cover the reduction of the concrete edge breakout capacity.
In Figure 5.23, the ratio between the anchor spacing s2 and the critical anchor spacing scrit
which is necessary to fully develop the breakout strength is shown on the horizontal axis. On
the vertical axis, the reduction factor for torsion loaded groups is shown depending on the
force ratio Vu,2/Vu,1. The influence of the shear component directed away from the edge on the
concrete edge breakout capacity can be expressed by the linear function according to Equation
5.17.
Ψt = 0.3Vu,2/Vu,1 + 0.4
100
Vu,2/Vu,1 ≥ 2.0
1.090 Vu,1 = Vu,c
80
0.85 (concrete edge breakout resistance of the
70 anchor loaded towards the verified edge)
Vu,2/Vu,1 = 1.5 Vu,2
0.760 Vu,1
50 Vu,2 = min {Vu,c; Vu,cp}
Vu,2/Vu,1 = 1.0
40
edge (minimum of concrete edge breakout
30 resistance and concrete pryout
s2 ≤ scrit
20 resistance of the anchor loaded away
from the verified edge)
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
1.0 6 7 s82 / scrit
Figure 5.23: Determination of the influence of shear load directed away from the edge on the con-
crete edge breakout resistance for a group with two anchors close to the edge/corner
 V  s  V 
 t  0.6  0.3 u ,2    0.3 u ,2  0.4  1.0 (Eq. 5.17)
 Vu ,1  scrit  Vu ,1 
with: scrit  ccr ,V  1.5hef (for Vu ,2  Vu ,cp ) and scrit  ccr ,V (for Vu ,2  Vu ,c )
ccr ,V  scr ,V / 2 ( scr ,V according to Equation 5.13)
Vu ,1  Vu ,c (concrete edge breakout resistance of the anchor loaded towards the verified edge)
Vu ,2  min Vu ,c ;Vu ,cp  (minimum of concrete edge breakout resistance and concrete pryout
resistance of the anchor loaded away from the verified edge)
For anchorages located close to an edge, the resistance of anchor 2 is controlled by the con-
crete pryout resistance. However, in case of a corner situation, the resistance for concrete edge
failure for the side edge can be smaller than the concrete pryout resistance. In this case Vu,2
shall be taken as the concrete edge breakout resistance Vu,c,90° calculated with the side edge
distance (c2).
5.8 Verification of groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded

in shear towards to the edge
Current design guidelines (e.g. CEN/TS 1992-4) restrict the concrete edge breakout resistance
of an anchor group arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge to the
resistance of the front anchors. A redistribution of the load to the back anchors is not taken
into account since the influence of the failure crack at the front anchors on the breakout of the
back anchors is not fully understood. The load-bearing behavior of such groups was discussed
by means of experimental and numerical investigations (Section 3.3.3 and Section 4.5.5.1).
Both groups with and without hole clearance were investigated. In the following, improved
calculation models are presented for both cases which take into account a redistribution of the
load to the back anchors. The calculation models are compared with tests performed within
the scope of this dissertation and tests described in literature (see Section 2.2).
5.8.1 Anchor groups without hole clearance
In case of anchor groups without hole clearance, the investigations have shown that the con-
crete edge failure load calculated with the back anchors is not significantly influenced by the
front anchors. Therefore, the following verifications of such groups are recommended.
Verification of concrete edge failure at the front anchors (accounting for possible failure
of whole group (no hole clearance):
Verification of concrete edge failure: VS / n1  min Vu ,c,0° (c1,1 );Vu ,c,0° (c1,n1 ) / n1 (Eq. 5.18)
Verification of steel rupture: VS  n1  n2 Vu0, s (Eq. 5.19)
Verification of concrete edge failure at the back anchors (no hole clearance):
Verification for concrete edge failure: VS  Vu ,c,0° (c1,n1 ) (Eq. 5.20)

(only possible if Vu ,c,0° (c1,1 ) < Vu ,c,0° (c1,n1 ) / n1 )
Verification of steel rupture: VS  n2 Vu0,s (Eq. 5.21)
with: Vu ,c,0° (c1,1 )  Vu0,c,0° (c1,1 )  s 2,V and Vu ,c,0° (c1,n1 )  Vu0,c,0° (c1,n1 )  s 2,V
Vu0,c,0° (c1,1 ) and Vu0,c ,0° (c1,n1 ) according to Equation 5.1
Vu0,s according to Equation 5.8
 s 2,V according to Equation 5.16 with scr,V according to Equation 5.13
n1  n2   number of anchors in direction 1 (2)
Investigations were done to analyze the steel rupture load after concrete failure of the front
anchors. The results are discussed in Section 3.3.3.4.6. It was shown that the resistance for
steel rupture as given in Equation 5.21 can be increased depending on the crack propagation
at the front anchors. However, a general increase of the steel failure load by taking into ac-
count the load portion resisted by the front anchors is not recommended for design. In order to
extent the approach for steel rupture, more in-depth investigations are necessary to fully cap-
ture the influence of parameters such as steel strength or embedment depth on the post peak
behavior.
In Figure 5.24, the results of tests with groups which failed in concrete edge breakout are
compared with the resistance of either n1-times the front anchor resistance or the back anchor
resistance. The concrete edge breakout resistance Vu,c,prediction is either taken from tests in case
a reference test in the same concrete batch was performed or calculated according to Equation
5.1 multiplied with Equation 5.15 if no reference test is available. For tests without reference
tests described in Section 3.3.3, the resistance of the back anchor was calculated with Equa-
tion 3.5 (for explanation see 3.3.3.4.2).
2.5 2.0
2.3
Vu,test / Vu,prediction (front anchors)
Vu,test / Vu,prediction (back anchors)
Ø = 1.25 1.8 Ø = 1.00 SD = 0.12 COV = 11.78

2.0 SD = 0.35
COV = 28.21 1.5
1.8
1.5 1.3
1.3 1.0
1.0 0.8
0.8 n=2
n1 = 2 n=2
n1 = 2
0.5
0.5 n=3
n1 = 3 n=3
n1 = 3
0.3 n=5
n1 = 5
0.3 n = 64 n=5
n1 = 5
n = 64
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
s1,t/c1,1 s1,t/c1,1
a) Model according to Equation 5.18 b) Model according to Equation 5.20
Figure 5.24: Comparison of test results with the calculation model for anchor groups without hole
clearance arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge
In Figure 5.24a), the comparison is shown for the assumption that shear is resisted by the
front anchors. For small ratios s1,t/c1,1, this calculation model equals the calculation model
according to Equation 5.20 since Vu,c (c1,n1)/n1 < Vu,c (c1,1). With increasing ratio s1,t/c1,1 the
calculation gets more and more conservative since the redistribution of the shear load to the
back anchors is neglected. In Figure 5.24b), the comparison is shown for the assumption that
shear is resisted by the back anchors. The results show that this approach agrees well with the
test results.
5.8.2 Anchor groups with normal hole clearance
In Figure 5.25a), the available results of tests with groups with unfavorable hole clearance
configuration (acl = 2 mm) which failed in concrete edge breakout are compared with the cur-
rent model assuming that shear is only resisted by the front anchors (Vu,prediction = Vu,c (c1,1)).
The comparison shows that this approach is conservative for all configurations. Redistribution
of the shear load after failure of the front anchor should be considered in design. Therefore, In
Figure 5.25b), the test results are compared with the model assuming that the resistance of the
group equals the resistance of the back anchors. It can be seen that this approach does not lead
to conservative results for all anchor configurations. For a total number of n = 108 tests, the
average test-to-predicted ratio is 0.88 with a standard deviation of 0.12 (COV = 13.33%).
5.0 2.0

4.5 Ø = 2.22 SD = 1.04 COV = 46.82 1.8 Ø = 0.88 SD = 0.12 COV = 13.33
4.0
1.5
3.5
Trend
3.0 1.3
2.5 Trend 1.0

2.0 0.8
1.5
0.5
1.0
0.5 0.3
n = 108 n = 108
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
s1,t/c1,1 s1,t/c1,1
a) Vu,prediction = Vu,c (c1,1) b) Vu,prediction = Vu,c (c1,2) (Equation 5.20)
Figure 5.25: Comparison of test results with the calculation model for anchor groups (n1 = 2) with
hole clearance arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge
As for Figure 5.24, the predicted values in Figure 5.25 are taken from calculated reference
values in case no reference test is available.
An improved model for anchor groups with unfavorable anchor configuration is presented in
the following. Positive effects of favorable anchor configuration are neglected. Based on the
tests described in Grosser, Cook (2009) (see Section 3.3.3.4.5) for anchorages with
0.5 ≤ s1/c1,1 ≤ 1.33 the concrete edge failure load of the back anchor(s) may be negatively in-
fluenced (mean reduction of 20%) by the crack generated at the front anchor(s). This is shown
in Figure 5.26a). No tests were performed for ratios between 1.33 < s1/c1,1 < 2.0. A constant
reduction of 20% for the range between 0.4 < s1/c1,1 < 1.8 is conservatively assumed. Howev-
er, as shown in Section 4.5.5.1, the critical ratio s1/c1,1 at which no reduction of group capaci-
ty in case of normal hole clearance can be assumed depends not on the ratio s1/c1,1 but on the
ratio Vu,c (c1,2)/Vu,c (c1,1). The derivation of the force ratio is explained in the following.
For the tested anchorages with n2 = 1 in concrete members without influence of member
thickness, the ratio Vu,c(c1,2)/Vu,c(c1,1) can be expressed by the ratio of the edge distances of
back and front anchor when using Equation 5.1 with the simplification for the exponent x.
1.33 1.33 1.33

c 
Vu ,c (c1,2 ) c s   s 
→   1,2    1,1 1    1  1
Vu ,c (c1,1 )  c1,1   c
 1,1 
 c
 1,1 

The range for Vu,c (c1,2)/Vu,c (c1,1), for which a reduction of the group capacity should be ap-
plied, can be calculated by inserting the lower and upper boundary conditions for s1/c1,1:
1.33 1.33
 s   s 
Lower limit:  1  1   0.4  1  1.56 / Upper limit:  1  1  1.8  1  3.93
1.33 1.33
c  c 
 1,1   1,1 
2.0 2.0

1.8 Ø = 0.84 SD = 0.11 COV = 13.09 1.8 Ø = 0.88 SD = 0.12 COV = 13.33
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4 Calculated reduction between
1.5 < Vu,c(c1,2)/ Vu,c(c1,1) < 4.0
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 Assumed reduction between 0.4 reduction design
0.2 0.4 < s1/c1,1 < 1.8 0.2
n = 19 n = 108
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
s1/c1,1 Vu,c(c1,n)/Vu,c(c1,1)
a) Results from Section 3.3.3.4.5 b) Results from Section 3.3.3.4.5 and 2.2
Figure 5.26: Derivation of a model for shear resisted by the back anchors for anchorages with hole
clearance arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge a) n2 = 1,
thick member b) n2 ≥ 1, thick and thin members
The reduction factor is shown in Figure 5.26b). However, in design, it is recommended to

neglect the lower limit (hatched range Vu,c (c1,2)/Vu,c (c1,1) < 1.5 and calculate the reduction
according to Equation 5.22.
Vu ,c (c1,2 ) Vu ,c (c1,2 )
 s1,V  0.8 for <4.0 and 1.0 for  4.0 (Eq. 5.22)
Vu ,c (c1,1 ) Vu ,c (c1,1 )
No reduction was observed for groups with unfavorable anchor configuration with n1 = 3 (see
Section 3.3.3.4.5). However, since only few tests were performed, it is recommended also to
apply Equation 5.22 for larger groups with hole clearance by replacing Vu,c(c1,2) by Vu,c(c1,n1).
The following verifications of groups with hole clearance are recommended.
Verification of concrete edge failure at the front anchors (normal hole clearance):
Verification of concrete edge failure: VS  Vu ,c,0° (c1,1 ) (Eq. 5.23)
Verification of steel rupture: VS  n1  n2 Vu0, s (Eq. 5.24)
Verification of concrete edge failure at the back anchors (normal hole clearance):
Verification of concrete edge failure: VS   s1,V Vu ,c,0° (c1,n1 ) (Eq. 5.25)
Verification of steel rupture: VS  n2 Vu0,s (Eq. 5.26)
with:  s1,V according to Equation 5.22

Vu ,c,0° (c1,1 ) , Vu ,c ,0° (c1,n1 ) , Vu0,s , n1 , n2 as defined for anchorages without hole clearance
(see Equation 5.18 - Equation 5.21)
In Figure 5.27a), the test results of anchor groups failed in concrete edge breakout are com-
pared with the resistance of the back anchors multiplied with the calculated reduction factor
shown in Figure 5.26b). The comparison shows a good correlation with an average test-to-
predicted ratio of 1.03 and a 0.13 standard deviation (COV = 12.88%).
2.0 2.0

1.8 Ø = 1.03 SD = 0.13 COV = 12.88 1.8 Ø = 1.08 SD = 0.16 COV = 14.61
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 n = 108 0.2 n = 108
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Vu,c(c1,n)/Vu,c(c1,1) Vu,c(c1,n)/Vu,c(c1,1)
a) ψs1,V according to Figure 5.26b) b) ψs1,V according to Equation 5.22
Figure 5.27: Comparison of test results with the calculation model for anchor groups with hole
clearance arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded towards the edge
In Figure 5.27b), the comparison is shown applying the reduction factor according to Equa-
tion 5.22. Since the positive effect on the load-bearing behavior is neglected for small ratios
Vu,c (c1,2)/Vu,c (c1,1), the approach is more conservative. The average test-to-predicted ratio is
1.08 with a standard deviation of 0.16 (COV = 14.61%).
Steel rupture of the back anchors after concrete failure of the front anchors was also investi-
gated for anchorages with hole clearance (see Section 3.3.3.4.6). As for anchorages without
hole clearance, it was shown that the resistance for steel rupture can be increased by taking
into account the load portion resisted by the front anchors in the post peak behavior. Howev-
er, also in the case of anchorages with hole clearance, in design, it is not recommended to take
into account the (post peak) resistance of the front anchors. For more details see Section
3.3.3.4.6.
5.9 Verification of groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded

in shear parallel to the edge
The experimental and numerical investigations performed within the scope of this dissertation
have shown that the load-bearing behavior of a group arranged perpendicular to the edge and
loaded parallel to the edge is different compared to the same group loaded perpendicular to
the edge. For shear applied towards the edge, the concrete edge failure load assumed to be
initiated at the front anchors needs to be limited by the breakout resistance of the back an-
chors. This was not found to be the case for a load direction parallel to the edge (see Section
3.3.4.3.3). It is assumed that all anchors take up shear loads. Tests have shown that for spac-
ings s1 ≥ smin the failure load of the group is larger than twice the failure load calculated with
the edge distance of the front anchors. This is explained in Figure 5.28. For sufficient anchor
spacing, the splitting forces between the anchors counterbalance each other. Therefore, no
influence of the back anchor on the concrete breakout resistance of the front anchor is ex-
pected. Even in tests with anchor configurations with 2Vu,c (c1,1) >> Vu,c (c1,2) the crack for-
mation was observed at the front anchors at a failure load Vu,c ≥ 2Vu,c (c1,1). However, for very
small anchor spacings s1 < smin, the concrete volume in between the anchors is not sufficient
to allow the splitting forces to counterbalance and the failure load decreases to
Vu,c < 2Vu,c (c1,1). An extreme case s1/c1,1 = 0.33 was tested with s1 ~ 2.1d (see Section
3.3.4.3.3). The failure load was observed as Vu,c ~ 1.7Vu,c (c1,1). Conservatively, the entire
shear load should be applied to the front anchors. However, this would generate a step in the
resistance. Therefore, in the following, a calculation model is presented with a smooth transi-
tion of the shear resistance from s1 = 0 to s1 = smin. The limit is an anchor spacing s1 = 0 which
represents a single anchor. Here, the verification is VS ≤ Vu,c (c1,1). However, the theoretical
smallest value for an anchor group is s1 = d. The edge distance slightly increases to
c1* = c1,1 + d/2 and the pressure area increases. It is assumed that d* ~ 1.2d. For s1 ≥ smin, the
shear load is shared equally between all anchors. The critical anchor spacing smin is taken as
4d.
Figure 5.28: Calculation model for anchor groups (n1 =2) arranged perpendicular to the edge and
loaded parallel to the free edge
The influence factor α1 for the assumption that shear is resisted by the front anchors can be
calculated according to Equation 5.28. The verification is explained for a group with two an-
chors. However, it is assumed that this approach is also justified for groups with more than
n1 = 2 anchors in a group by multiplying the term (s1/smin) in Equation 5.28 with (n1-1).
Verification of concrete edge failure at the front anchors:
Verification of concrete edge failure: VS / n1  Vu ,c,90° (c1,1 ) / 1 (Eq. 5.27)
with: Vu ,c,90° (c1,1 )  Vu ,c,90° (c1,1 )  s 2,V

0
Vu0,c,90° (c1,1 ) according to Equation 5.7

 s 2,V according to Equation 5.16 with scr,V according to Equation 5.14
 n1 for s1 = 0 (single anchor)

 s 
α1  n1   1  for groups with two anchors if d < s1 < smin (Eq. 5.28)
 smin 
1 for groups with two anchors if s1 ≥ smin for
Verification of steel rupture: (see Equation 5.24)
Verification of concrete edge failure at the back anchors:
Verification of concrete edge failure:
In case n1/α1·Vu,c (c1,1) < Vu,c (c1,n1), the load can be redistributed to the back anchors and the
concrete edge failure load can be increased. Note that for such anchor configurations in most
cases steel rupture governs the failure of the back anchors. However, if necessary, the con-
crete edge failure load of the back anchors can be calculated according to two different mod-
els. This is described in Section 3.3.4.3.1 (Figure 3.109 and Figure 3.110). It needs to be dis-
tinguished if the fixture is torsionally restraint or if a free rotation is possible (Section
3.3.4.3.3). For anchor groups without torsional restraint, the torsional moment Tsd = Vsd · s1/2
is taken up by the back anchors. For anchor groups with torsional restraint, the torsional mo-
ment is taken up by the beam attached to the fixture in connection with another structural el-
ement restraining the beam (e.g. floor). The anchor group behavior after failure of the front
anchors is shown in Figure 5.29. Based on the considerations described in this research work,
this distinction was implemented in the fib design guide (fib, 2011).
a) without torsional restraint
b) with torsional restraint
Figure 5.29: Group with four anchors close to the edge loaded by a shear load parallel to the free
edge (after failure of the front anchors) (in a) and b) the bending moment on the an-
chorage resulting from the load shown in the 3D-sketches is disregarded)
Note that redistribution of the shear load to the back anchor is not possible in case of groups
with two anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded parallel to the edge if the
rotation is not restrained since the torsional moment cannot be taken up by only one anchor.
To take up the torsional moment after failure of the front anchors, either more than two an-
chors in direction 1 (n1 ≥ 3), or more than one anchor in direction 2 (n2 ≥ 2) are necessary.
In Figure 5.30a), the results of tests with anchor groups which were torsionally restraint and
failed in concrete edge breakout are compared with the model according to Equation 5.27.
The calculation model shows conservative results with an average test-to-predicted ratio of
1.19 and a standard deviation of 0.14 (COV = 11.58%). With increasing spacing the calcula-
tion model is more conservative since redistribution to the back anchors is neglected. A redis-
tribution of the shear load to the back anchors is taken into account in Figure 5.30b). All tests
illustrated were performed with two anchors in direction 1 (n1 = 2). As aforementioned, a re-
distribution of the shear load is only possible if n1/α1·Vu,c (c1,1) < Vu,c (c1,n1). Therefore,
Vu,c,prediction (back anchors) is calculated according to Equation 5.29.

 n  

Vu ,c , prediction  max  1  Vu ,c ,90° (c1,1 );Vu ,c ,90° (c1,2 )  (Eq. 5.29)
 1 
 

with: 1 according to Equation 5.28
The average test-to-predicted ratio is 1.17 with a standard deviation of 0.12 (COV = 10.24%).
In Figure 5.30, the concrete edge breakout resistance Vu,c for the front and back anchors is
either taken from tests in case a reference test in the same concrete batch was performed or
calculated according to Equation 5.27 if no reference test is available.
2.0 2.0
1.8 Ø = 1.19 SD = 0.14 COV = 11.58 1.8 Ø = 1.17 SD = 0.12 COV = 10.24
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 n=4 0.4 n=4
0.2 n=2 0.2 n=2
n = 63 n = 63
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5
s1/c1,1 s1/c1,1
a) Model according to Equation 5.27 b) Model according to Equation 5.29
Figure 5.30: Comparison of test results with the calculation model for anchor groups arranged
perpendicular to the edge and loaded parallel to the free edge
Verification of steel rupture: (see Equation 5.26)
Note that steel rupture of the group after concrete failure of the front anchors was not investi-
gated. However, compared to groups loaded perpendicular to the edge, the descending branch
of the load-displacement curve in the post-peak behavior is flatter and the front anchors still
resist a significant part even with large displacements. Therefore, it is assumed that the failure
load for steel rupture is higher than the failure load only calculated with the back anchors.
However, due to lack of knowledge, the resistance for steel rupture should be calculated with
the back anchors only when taking into account redistribution of the shear load to the back
anchors after concrete failure of the front anchors.
5.10 Verification of anchorages close to the edge loaded in shear inclined to

the edge
If an anchorage is loaded in shear inclined to the edge, a quadratic interaction between the
shear resistances for loading perpendicular and parallel to the edge is assumed. It is derived
from Equation 5.30. The angle α is measured from the vertical axis.
2 2
 Vu ,c  cos    Vu ,c  sin   1.0
      1.0 (Eq. 5.30) → Vu ,c  2 2 (Eq. 5.31)
 Vu ,c ,0°   Vu ,c ,90°   cos    sin  
    
 Vu ,c ,0°   Vu ,c ,90° 
No anchorages loaded in shear with inclined direction to the edge were tested within the
scope of this research. However, Hofmann (2005) performed tests with single anchors and
anchor groups loaded under an angle of 45° to the free edge. To verify the quadratic interac-
tion, in the following, the tests performed by Hofmann (2005) are analyzed and compared
with Equation 5.31.
Figure 5.31a) shows the test results with single anchors loaded perpendicular (0°), inclined
(45°) and parallel (90°) to the edge. In Figure 5.31b) it is shown that the quadratic interaction
is justified for single anchors. This is verified by interacting the test results for a load direc-
tion perpendicular and parallel to the edge. For comparison, the quadratic interaction is shown
when using the basic equations for concrete edge failure according to Hofmann (2005), and
the new proposed equations, named as Grosser (2012). Both calculation approaches agree
suitable with the test results assuming a quadratic equation.
80 2.0
Vu,m,test (α = 45°) / Vu,prediction (Eq. 5.31)
1.8 with test results

70 c = 70 mm
1.6 with approach Hofmann (2005)
60 c = 100 mm with approach Grosser (2012)
1.4
50 1.2
Vu,test [kN]
40 1.0
0.8
30 Vu,m,test (α = 45°)
0.6 Hofmann (2005):
20 V0° = Eq. 2.42 and V90° = Eq. 2.42 * Eq. 2.47
0.4
10 Grosser (2012):
M16, hef = 130 mm 0.2 V0° = Eq. 5.1 and V90° = Eq. 5.7
0 0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
shear load direction α [°] Edge distance c1 [mm]
a) Test results (Hofmann, 2005) b) Verification of the quadratic interaction
Figure 5.31: Comparison of results of tests with single anchors arranged close to the edge and
loaded in shear inclined to the free edge with the interaction model
In Figure 5.32, results of tests with pairs of anchors arranged parallel to the edge and loaded
in shear inclined to the edge are analyzed. As for single anchors, assuming a quadratic interac-
tion between shear perpendicular and shear parallel to the edge, the comparison of test results
and the predicted failure loads show a good correlation. In case of anchor groups with more
than one anchor in direction 2, it can be assumed for the interaction that either concrete failure
at the front anchors or concrete failure at the back anchors is controlling the ultimate strength
of the group. This is shown in Figure 5.33. For small ratio s1/c1,1, the prediction model assum-
ing the failure crack at the front anchors equals the prediction model assuming the failure
crack at the back anchors since no redistribution of the load to the back anchors is possible.
For increasing ratio s1/c1,1, the load can be redistributed to the back anchors. Attention should
be paid for large ratio s1/c1,1 where the ratio Vu,c,0°(c1,2)/(n1·Vu,c,0°(c1,1)) is large. In such cases,
the quadratic interaction with the resistances calculated with the back anchors can lead to un-
conservative prediction of the failure load. However, it is noted that the number of test results
is very small. More research is needed.
135 2.0
Vu,m,test (α = 45°) / Vu,prediction (Eq. 5.31)

c = 70 mm, s = 70 mm 1.8 with test results
120
c = 70 mm, s = 140 mm 1.6 with approach Hofmann (2005)
105 c = 100 mm, s = 100 mm with approach Grosser (2012)
1.4
90 c = 140 mm, s = 70 mm
1.2
Vu,test [kN]
75
1.0
60
0.8
Vu,m,test (α = 45°)
45 0.6
s2 Hofmann (2005):
30 0.4 ψα,V acc. to Eq. 2.48 with ψ90°,V acc. to Eq. 2.47
15 c1 0.2 Grosser (2012):
M16, hef = 130 mm
V0° and V90° acc. to the model described in Section 5.5
0 0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 c [mm]1 = 1
70 2 2
70 3 3
100 4 4
140 5
shear load direction α [°] s [mm] = 70 140 100 70
a) Test results (Hofmann, 2005) b) Verification of the quadratic interaction
Figure 5.32: Comparison of results of tests with pairs of anchors arranged parallel to the edge and
loaded in shear inclined to the free edge with the interaction model
2.0
Vu,test (α = 45°) / Vu,prediction (Eq. 5.31)
Failure assumed at the front anchors: 1.8 front anchors

Model acc. to Eq. 5.18 Model acc. to Eq. 5.27 1.6
back anchors
1.4
“+“ 1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Failure assumed at the back anchors:
0.4
V Model acc. to Eq. 5.20 Model acc. to Eq. 5.29
0.2 M16, hef = 80 mm
0.0
“+“ 0 1 1 2 2 3
c [mm] = 70 140
3
70
4 4 5
100
5
70
6
s1 [mm] = 70 70 70 70 140
s2 [mm] = 70 70 140 140 70
Figure 5.33: Comparison of results of tests with groups with four anchors arranged close to the
edge and loaded in shear inclined to the free edge with the interaction model
5.11 Verification of anchor groups close to the edge loaded in torsion

Based on the results described in Section 3.3.8, the following verification for concrete edge
breakout is recommended for anchor groups loaded in torsion close to the edge. The shear
load is assumed to be resisted by the front anchors.
In case of a ratio of the individual anchor spacings s1/s2 > 0.7, the verification can be done
according to Figure 5.34. The acting torsion moment (TS) can be converted in shear forces on
the individual anchors in the group (VS,anchor). The determination of the individual anchor
forces is described in Figure 3.144. For the verification, only anchor forces on the front an-
chor row are considered. Components of the resultant shear forces on anchors acting perpen-
dicular away from the edge are neglected. The resistance for concrete edge failure of the front
anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge and parallel to the edge are calculated separately.
For the anchor configuration shown in Figure 5.34, the resistance for a load direction perpen-
dicular to the edge equals the resistance of a single anchor. For anchor configurations with ev
≠ s2,t/2, the factor ψec,V needs to be multiplied to group resistance of the front anchors loaded
perpendicular to the edge (Vu,c,0°). Note that in case the spacing s2 between the anchors is
small (s2 < scr,V) and the ratio between the resistances of anchor 3 to anchor 1 is low
(Vu,Anchor 3/Vu,Anchor 1 < 1.5) the concrete edge failure load (Vu,c,0°) should be reduced by 20%
(for explanation see Section 5.7). The concrete edge breakout resistance of the group is calcu-
lated by a quadratic interaction between the resistance perpendicular and parallel to the edge.
s2,t
VS7 VS8 VS9
TS
s1,t VS4 VS6
VS1,0°
VS1 VS2 VS3 VS1,90° VS2,90° VS3,90°
edge edge edge
ev
αV
VS,0° VS
VS,90° VS,0°
∑VS,90°
edge edge
Figure 5.34: Group with ratio of individual spacings s1/s2 > 0.7 (Example of an anchor group with
n = 9 anchors)
In case of a ratio of the individual anchor spacings s1/s2 ≤ 0.7, the test results have shown that
the verification according to Figure 5.34 leads to unconservative results. Therefore, the verifi-
cation should be done according to Figure 5.35. In this case the verification for concrete edge
failure is explained in Section 5.8.
Neglect components
VS3,0° parallel to the edge
TS
VS3 VS4 αV 2s2
s1 TS
VS,res VS1,0°
VS1 VS2 VS1,90° VS2,90°
TS
2s2
edge edge edge

s2
Figure 5.35: Group with ratio of individual spacings s1/s2 ≤ 0.7 (Example of an anchor group with
n = 4 anchors)
5.12 Verification of anchorages close to the edge for combined tension and
shear load
Only little research is available to understand the load-bearing behavior of anchor groups ar-
ranged close to the edge under combined tension and shear loading (Anderson et al., 2007). In
particular the redistribution of the shear load to the back anchors after concrete edge failure of
the front anchors is not fully understood.
For the verification of anchor groups close to the edge loaded in combined tension and shear,
in fib (2011), a simplified and an alternative approach are proposed.
In the simplified approach, no distinction between different failure modes is necessary. For
NSd/NRd and VSd/VRd, the value with the highest utilization should be inserted in Equation 5.32.
 
 N Sd   VSd 
Simplified approach:      1.0 (Eq. 5.32)
 N Rd   VRd 
A more accurate result is achieved if one distinguishes between steel and concrete failure
modes. For both steel failure in tension and shear, the interaction is verified according to
Equation 5.33. However, if concrete failure governs the verification in tension and/ or shear
the interaction should be verified according to Equation 5.32.
 
 N Sdh   VSdh 
Steel rupture decisive for both tension and shear:       1.0 (Eq. 5.33)
 N Rd , s   VRd , s 
h h
where N Sd , VSd are the tension and shear actions on the highest loaded anchor, and N Rd , s and
VRd , s are the resistances in tension and shear of a single anchor.
5.12.1 Shear resisted by the front anchors
In general, in case of combined tension and shear loading of groups located close to the edge,
it should be assumed that shear is resisted by the front anchors. The value α in Equation 5.32
should be taken as 1.5. Alternatively, a tri-linear interaction can be assumed. If the verifica-
tion for steel failure modes is done according to Equation 5.33, a quadratic interaction can be
assumed (α = 2.0).
5.12.2 Shear resisted by the back anchors
If it is assumed that shear is resisted by the back anchors, two different models are presented
in the following which are based on theoretical considerations due to the lack of knowledge
about the real load-bearing behavior for combined tension and shear loading. It is assumed
that the proposed approaches lead to conservative results.
In case of anchor groups with hole clearance (unfavorable anchor configuration) and anchor
groups without hole clearance having a ratio Vu,c (c1,2)/(n1 · Vu,c (c1,1)) > 1.0 the initial concrete
edge failure of the front anchor(s) can influence the tension capacity of the group negatively.
This is explained in Figure 5.36. The entire tension and shear load is assumed to be resisted
by the back anchor(s). Moreover, this leads to an eccentric axial loading of the back an-
chor(s). In order to take into account the negative influence of premature cracking at the front
anchor(s), a fictitious edge at the location of the front anchor(s) should be conservatively as-
sumed for the verification of the tension resistance of the remaining anchors. This approach
was implemented in fib (2011) for all anchor configurations where shear is assumed to be
resisted by the back anchors in case of combined tension and shear loading. In Equations 5.32
and 5.33, the exponent α should not be taken greater than 1.5. Conservatively, a linear interac-
tion can be assumed (α = 1.0).
Figure 5.36: Anchor group loaded in combined tension and shear without reinforcement with as-
sumed initial concrete edge failure at front anchors (fib, 2011)
Where the shear resistance is assumed to be provided entirely by the back anchor(s), rein-
forcement of appropriate size and orientation should be provided to limit the crack width at
the front anchor(s). Regarding the optimal size and orientation of the reinforcement, further
research is available.
In case of anchor groups without hole clearance having a ratio Vu,c (c1,2)/(n1 · Vu,c (c1,1)) < 1.0,
no shear crack at the front anchor(s) occurs. The group fails with a shear crack starting at the
back anchors. This was verified for a pure shear loading (see Section 3.3.3). For small ratio
s1 / c1,1, this is also valid for groups with hole clearance since the failure displacement of the
front anchor(s) is much larger than the provided hole clearance. For such cases, the interaction
between tension and shear can be assumed according to Figure 5.37. The exponent α can be
assumed equivalent to Section 5.12.1 (α = 1.5 in Equation 5.32 and α = 2.0 in Equation 5.33).
Applicable for anchor groups with-

out hole clearance if following con-
dition is fullfilled:
Vu,c (c1,2) < n1 · Vu,c (c1,1)
Figure 5.37: Anchor group loaded in combined tension and shear without reinforcement with as-
sumed initial concrete edge failure at back anchors
5.13 Evaluation of shear displacement at failure to determine distribution

of anchor shear loads
The basis for determining the distribution of shear loads in anchor groups provided with nor-
mal hole clearance is the ratio of anchor displacement associated with concrete edge failure
relative to the hole clearance in the fixture. For large edge distances, shear displacement at
failure is much larger than the normal hole clearance (fib, 2011). The current limitation in
design to assume that all anchors take up shear loads is discussed in Section 2.4. However, as
mentioned in this section, this limitation is only based on theoretical considerations. There-
fore, it seems to be reasonable to define new criteria based on experimental investigations.
For the determination of the new limits, test results with bonded anchors described in Section
3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2 are analyzed. This is considered as the worst case since bonded an-
chors show the stiffest load-bearing behavior and therefore the smallest shear displacements
at failure compared to other anchor types loaded in shear close to the edge. The shear dis-
placement at failure was compared with the normal hole clearance according to Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Normal hole clearance according to current design standards
Anchor diameter d (mm) 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 27 30

Clearance hole acl (mm) 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
The evaluation of load-displacement curves for hef/d ~ 5 shows that the shear displacement of
single anchors loaded perpendicular to the edge equals about the provided hole clearance for
edge distance c1 ~ 9d. For shear loading parallel to the edge, the provided hole clearance
equals the displacement at failure for an edge distance c1 ~ 4d. With increasing embedment
depth the limiting edge distance decreases.
However, in order to assume that all anchors take up shear loads, it is not sufficient that the
shear displacement at failure equals the normal hole clearance. The shear displacement of the
front anchor at failure needs to be much larger than the provided hole clearance to allow the
remote anchor to take up a significant part of the shear load. The used criterion is the fraction
of shear resisted by the back anchor at the point of failure of the front anchor. It is assumed
that at least 80% of the failure load of the front anchor is resisted by the back anchor in order
to assume that all anchors take up shear loads. This is shown in Figure 5.38 for anchorages
loaded perpendicular to the edge, and in Figure 5.39 for anchorages loaded parallel to the
edge. According to Table 5.1, the load-displacement curve of the investigated back anchor
starts at a hole clearance of 2 mm for diameters dnom = 12 mm and 16 mm. The spacing be-
tween the anchors is assumed to be large enough not to influence the single anchor curves.
For a load direction towards the edge, it is shown that for c1 ≥ 12d all anchors can be assumed
to take up shear loads. For a load direction parallel to the edge, all anchors can be assumed to
take up shear loads for c1 ≥ cmin = 5d.
100 100
M16, hef = 80 mm M16, hef = 80 mm
90 90
80 80 back anchor
back anchor
70 70 Vu,front
60 60 0.88 Vu,front
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
50 Vu,front 50
40 40
front anchor front anchor
30 30
c = 150 mm c = 200 mm
20 20
0.45 Vu,front acl
10 acl 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a) c1 = 150 mm b) c1 = 200 mm
Figure 5.38: Superimposition of load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded perpendicular

to the edge
100 100
M12, hef = 80 mm M16, hef = 80 mm
90 90
c = 50 mm c = 100 mm
80 80
70 70
front anchor Vu,front
60 60
Load V [kN]
Load V [kN]
50 50
0.91 Vu,front
40 front anchor V 40
u,front
30 30
20 20 back anchor
0.52 Vu,front acl
10 10
acl back anchor
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a) c1 = 50 mm b) c1 = 100 mm
Figure 5.39: Superimposition of load-displacement curves of single anchors loaded parallel to the
free edge
For a shear load direction perpendicular to the edge, the above mentioned limiting edge dis-
tance (c1 ≥ 12d) is only valid for one front anchor. When adding anchors perpendicular to the
load direction (front anchor row consists of more than one anchor) the limiting edge distance
needs to be increased. This is explained in Figure 5.40. For n2 = 2 anchors, the stiffness of the
load-displacement curve is doubled. The shear displacement at failure of a group with two
anchors equals the shear displacement at failure of a single anchor with same edge distance
only for s2 ≥ scrit. For very small anchor spacing, the shear displacement at failure is smaller
than the shear displacement of a single anchor. This is also explained in Figure 4.51.
V [kN]
100
(1) n2 =1
90 Table 5.2: Limiting edge distance for an-
V(3) = 2V(1) (2) n2 = 2 (s < scr)
V(3)80
chorages loaded perpendicular to
(3) n2 = 2 (s ≥ scr)
the edge (s2 < scrit)
70
60
s
Number of anchors n2 1 2 3
V(2)
50 Edge distance climit (mm) 12d 18d 27d
V(1)40
30 For anchorages loaded perpendicular to the
20
edge with edge distance c1 > climit in all direc-
tions, all anchors are assumed to resist shear
10
loads
0
0 1 2 δ(2) 3
acl δ4(1) = δ5(3) 6 7 δ [mm]
8
Figure 5.40: Load-displacement curves of front anchors
The stiffness of the load-displacement curve of the back anchors is also increased by the in-
creased number of anchors. However, the increased load fraction which is resisted by the back
anchors at failure of the front anchors only compensates the reduced shear displacement of the
front anchors at failure if the shear displacement of the front anchors is larger than the provid-
ed hole clearance. Otherwise the front anchors fail before the back anchors are activated even
though the limiting edge distance for one front anchor is sufficient to fully activate the back
anchors. Therefore, for all anchor spacings s2 < scrit, it is conservatively assumed that the lim-
iting edge distance given for a single anchor in case of a load direction towards the edge
needs to be increased by 50% to fully activate the back anchors. In Table 5.2, the assumed
limiting edge distances are given for front anchors consisting of one, two, and three anchors.
For anchorages loaded perpendicular to the edge with s2 ≥ scrit the limiting edge distance can
be taken as climit = 12d independent of the n2.
For anchorages loaded parallel to the edge with edge distance c1 ≥ climit = 5d in all directions,
all anchors are assumed to resist shear loads. No distinction is necessary how many anchors
are active at the onset of loading since the edge distance increases when adding anchors which
increases the shear displacement at failure automatically.
5.14 Derivation of minimum edge distance to avoid concrete edge failure

In current design, a check for concrete edge failure can be omitted for groups with 4 or less
anchors in case the edge distance c1 ≥ climit. The derivation of this limit is explained in Section
2.4. In the following, the limiting edge distance is calculated based on the calculation models
and prediction equations proposed in Chapter 5. The calculation is done according to the
“worst case scenario”. The largest limiting edge distance is obtained for large anchor diameter
(max. steel failure load) and anchor spacing s = 3hef (max. concrete pryout failure load). The
ratio hef/d is calculated so that the failure load for steel rupture equals the pryout failure load.
According to current approvals, the maximum diameter applied is dnom = 30 mm with a design
steel strength of fu = 800 MPa. The mean value of the concrete compressive strength is taken
as fcc,150 = 25 MPa. Accordingly, the design value of the concrete compressive strength is
fcc,150 = 20 MPa. The calculations are done with a group of four anchors. For large edge dis-
tance, the critical edge distance (corner distance) is ccr = c1. The theory is explained in Figure
5.41.
c2 [mm] V [kN] c2 [mm] V [kN]

8 8 8 8
c1,1 = c2,1= ccr c1,2 = c2,2= ccr
7 7 7 (Large edge distance) 7
(Large edge distance)
6 6 6 Breakout 6
Breakout Vu,c
Vu,c
5 5 5 5
Vu,S = Vu,cp Vu,S = Vu,cp
4 4 4
c2,2 4
3
c2,2 3 3
c2,1 3
2
c2,1 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
s1 = s2= 3hef (max Vu,cp) s1 = s2= 3hef (max Vu,cp)
0 0 0 0
0 1 c1,1
2 c1,2
3 4 5 c6limit 7 c1 8
[mm] 0 1 c1,1
2 c1,2
3 4 c5limit 6 7 c1 8[mm]
Member corner Member corner
a) Breakout at front anchors b) Breakout at back anchors
Figure 5.41: Calculation of the minimum edge distance to avoid concrete edge failure
For shear applied perpendicular to the edge, the calculations are done for the assumption that
shear is only resisted by the front anchors (named as “V0° (front)” in Figure 5.42) and the as-
sumption that shear is resisted by all anchors (named as “V0° (all)” in Figure 5.42). In case
shear is assumed to be resisted only by the anchors close to the edge, the resistance is calcu-
lated with the model according to Equation 5.23. Assuming all anchors resist shear loads, the
resistance is calculated with the model according to Equation 5.18. Assuming all anchors take
up shear loads, the concrete edge breakout increases which leads to smaller limiting edge dis-
tance climit.
Moreover the calculations are done for a shear load direction parallel to the edge. Here, Vu,c,90°
is calculated with the model according to Equation 5.27. In this case all anchors are assumed
to take up shear loads (named as “V90° (all)” in Figure 5.42).
14 80
12 70
60
10
50
c1,1 / dnom
8
c1,1 / hef
40
6
30
4 design value (cracked) design value (cracked)
20
design value (uncracked) design value (uncracked)
2 mean value (cracked) 10 mean value (cracked)
mean value (uncracked) mean value (uncracked)
0 0
0 V0° (front)
1 V0°2 (all) V90°
3 (all) 4 0 V0° (front)
1 V0°
2 (all) V90°
3 (all) 4
a) c1,1 ≥ x·hef b) c1,1 ≥ y·dnom
Figure 5.42: Calculation of the minimum edge distance to avoid concrete edge failure depending
on a) embedment depth b) anchor diameter
In Figure 5.42, the limiting edge distance is determined both with the mean prediction equa-
tions and with the design values.
Following relations are assumed between mean value and design resistance:
VRd ,c  0.75 Vu ,c /1.5 VRd ,cp  0.75 Vu ,cp /1.5 VRd ,s  0.8 Vu ,s /1.25
The calculations are done assuming uncracked and cracked concrete (kcr = 0.7kuncr).
With the required related edge distances c1,1/hef and c1,1/dnom, a limiting edge distance can be
determined for loading perpendicular to the edge and parallel to the edge. In Section 5.13, it
was shown that for a load direction perpendicular to the edge an edge distance c1 ≥ 18d is
sufficient for a group with n2 = 2 anchors to assume that all anchors take up shear loads. For
loading parallel to the edge, all anchors are assumed to resist shear loads for c1 ≥ 5d. There-
fore, in design, for anchor groups with four or less anchors, it may be assumed that no edge
failure will occur if the edge distance is larger than the limiting value given in the following:
 For a shear load direction perpendicular or inclined to the edge, the front edge dis-
tance should be c1,1 > max{10hef, 60dnom} in all directions
 For a shear load direction parallel the edge, the front edge distance should be
c1,1 > max{5hef, 30dnom} in all directions
The limiting edge distance to omit the proof for concrete edge failure is valid for concrete
slabs with sufficient thickness, even if no reinforcement is crossing the assumed failure sur-
face. For thin members, the values are only justified if reinforcement is provided to take up a
part of the shear load. If it is assumed that 100% of the shear force must be taken up by the
reinforcement (fy = 500 MPa), and that the bar spacing is 150 mm, then the diameter of the
reinforcement must be ds = 8 mm (M12), ds = 12 mm (M20) and ds = 16 mm (M30). It may be
assumed that such reinforcement is present in the member that is loaded by a rather large
shear force. This requirement is taken from Balogh and Eligehausen (1992). More infor-
mation to verify the amount and position of the reinforcement to prevent an edge failure is
given in Schmid (2010).
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 283
6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter covers the verification of anchorages loaded in shear. The calculation of re-
sistance is explained for the failure modes steel rupture, pullout, concrete pryout failure and
concrete edge breakout (elastic design approach). For detailed information about the determi-
nation of action effects, it is referred to Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 and to the fib design guide
(fib, 2011).
6.1 Design format

In the current design codes for concrete structures, the concept of a characteristic design value
has, for many years, been used for strength calculations. The characteristic design value is a
value that is less than the average value. If the average value were used as a “design” value,
50% of the cases would cause failure and appropriate selection of capacity reduction factors
would have to account for the average design value. The use of a characteristic design value
permits the variability of the strength to be more readily accounted. For design, the average
value or equation, derived from test data, is reduced to a characteristic value, or characteristic
equation, permitting a 5% failure rate. The 5% fractile value is a statistically determined value
based on a selected confidence level. This means that one can say with 90% confidence that
95% of the actual test strengths exceed the characteristic strength. Other confidence levels are
available, but the 90% confidence level is what is used in the American code ACI 318 Appen-
dix D and in European codes like CEN/TS 1992-4. This comprehensible explanation about
statistical analysis is taken from Anderson and Meinheit (2006).
For the design of anchorages, at ultimate limit state (ULS), it shall be shown that for all rele-
vant combinations of actions the value of the design action VSd should not exceed the value of
the design resistance VRd.
VSd  VRd  VRk /  M   5% VRm /  M (Eq. 6.1)
where: VSd = value of design actions on anchors (for more information refer to fib, 2011)
VRd = value of design resistance of anchors
VRk = characteristic resistance of single anchor or anchor groups
γM = partial factor for material (for more information refer to fib, 2011)
γ5% = 5% fractile (see Table 6.2)
In the serviceability limit state (SLS), it shall be shown that the displacements and rotations of
the anchorage occuring under the design actions do not exceed the admissible values and that
no excessive cracking occurs. It may be assumed that the displacements are a linear function
of the applied load. The characteristic displacement at serviceability limit state (δ(0.5Vu,m))
under given shear load shall be taken from the relevant technical specification (approval).
For groups loaded in shear close to the edge where it is assumed that the failure crack occurs
at the front anchor(s), the verification of SLS = ULS. If it is assumed in the verification of the
concrete edge resistance in ULS that the failure crack occurs at the back anchor(s) of a group,
premature cracking of the concrete originating from the near-edge anchor(s) can lead to ex-
cessive crack widths under service loads. This is accomplished by checking for concrete
breakout starting from the near edge anchor(s) with partial factors for permanent and variable
actions as well as partial factor for concrete breakout failure taken as 1.0.
For anchor groups subjected to combined tension and shear close to the edge, attention should
be paid for the verification of ULS and SLS. This is explained in Section 5.12.
6.2 Scope
The provisions given in this section are verified for anchorages in structural concrete with
strength classes in the range C20/25 to C70/85. The design provisions are valid for anchors
with a nominal steel tensile strength fuk ≤ 1400 MPa. The ductility aspect for high strength
steel in anchor groups is accounted for. The design provisions for anchorages loaded in shear
in arbitrary direction are based on the calculation models described in Chapter 5. Based on the
investigations performed within the scope of this research work, the number of anchors in a
group is limited to 5 anchors in every direction.
6.3 Required verifications

The required verifications for shear loading are summarized in Table 6.1 (see also fib, 2011).
Table 6.1: Required verifications for shear loading (elastic design approach)
Anchor group 1)
Section Failure mode Single Anchor
Most loaded anchor Anchor group
Steel failure VRk ,s VRk ,s
6.4.1 without lever VSd  VRd , s  VSdh  VRd , s 
arm  Ms  Ms
Steel failure VRk , sm VRk , sm
6.4.2 VSd  VRd , sm  VSdh  VRd , sm 
with lever arm  Ms  Ms
VRk , p VRk , p
6.4.3 Pullout failure VSd  VRd , p  VSdh  VRd , p 
 Mp  Mp
Concrete pryout VRk ,cp VRk ,cp

6.4.4 VSd  VRd ,cp  VSdg  VRd ,cp 
failure  Mc  Mc
VRk ,c VRk ,c
6.4.5
Concrete edge VSd  VRd ,c  VSdg  VRd ,c 
2)
failure  Mc  Mc
1)
Verification is performed for those anchors of a group loaded in shear
2)
Verification is performed for the anchors assumed to generate concrete edge failure
6.4 Resistance to shear load

The statistical conversion from mean values developed in Section 5 in characteristic values is
given in Table 6.2. The determination of the coefficient K associated with the 5% fractile
(γ5% = Ø -Kσ) depends on the number of tests or sample population, n, used to compute Ø and
σ. The term Ø is the sample mean (average), and σ is the standard deviation from data analy-
sis. Values of K range, for example, from 1.645 for n = ∞ to 2.568 for n = 10 at the 90% con-
fidence level.
The value k1 was calculated both taking into account the statistics from tests and on the basis
of a large experimental database assuming γ5%,c = 0.75 and γ5%,s = 0.8.
Table 6.2: Statistical conversion from mean to characteristic values (k1)
Failure mode α n Ø σ K k1 (VRm ) k1 (VRk )

CE 0° 1101 1.03 0.18 1.645 16.5 1) 13.5 2 ) 5) 13.2 2 ) 7)
CE 90° 118 1.02 0.12 1.849 8) 43 1) 35.2 2 ) 5)
37.5 2 ) 7)
0.7 3) 0.56 4) 6) 0.6 4) 7)
S - 276 0.98 0.07 1.779 9) 0.6 3) 0.48 4) 6)
0.51 4) 7)
0.5 3) 0.4 4) 6)
0.43 4) 7)
CE = concrete edge failure, S = steel failure
1)
Mean resistance with concrete compressive strength defined as fcc,200
2)
Characteristic resistance with compressive strength defined as fck = 0.84fcc,200
3)
Mean resistance with steel strength defined as mean strength determined in tests
4)
Characteristic resistance with steel strength defined as characteristic steel ultimate tensile strength (nominal
value), overstrength is conservatively neglected for entire range of steel strength
5)
Calculated on the basis of a large experimental database (n = ∞) assuming a COV = 15% (γ5% = 0.75)
6)
Calculated on the basis of a large experimental database (n = ∞) assuming γ5% = 0.8
7)
Statistics taking into account mean, standard deviation and number of tests (see Section 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4)
8)
The coefficient K is interpolated between n = 200 (1.793) and n = 100 (1.861)
9)
The coefficient K is interpolated between n = 500 (1.736) and n = 200 (1.793)
Comparison of experimental data has shown that the mean concrete cone capacity of cracked
concrete may reasonably be assumed as about 70% of the capacity in uncracked concrete
(Eligehausen et al., 2006). This reduction is analog applied for anchorages loaded in shear
close to the edge.
6.4.1 Steel rupture without lever arm
In general, the characteristic resistance of an anchor in case of steel rupture without lever arm
VRk,s is given in the relevant technical specification (approval). Alternatively, it is recom-
mended to calculate the characteristic resistance according to Equation 6.2.
VRk0 ,s  ks1  ks 2  AS  fuk (Eq. 6.2)
where: fuk = characteristic steel ultimate tensile strength (nominal value)

ks1 = 0.6 for fu < 500 MPa
= 0.5 for 500 MPa ≤ fu ≤ 1000 MPa
= 0.4 for fu > 1000 MPa
ks2 = 1.0 for anchors or headed anchors not welded to the fixture
= 1.2 for embed plates with welded studs
The resistance of a group of sheared fasteners may be taken as equal to the sum of the indi-
vidual anchors. The resistance of the group is to be reduced by the factor 0.8 if the anchors are
made of steel with rather low ductility (A5 < 16%). This takes into account that the hole toler-
ances influence the distribution of the shear load to the individual anchors of a group.
For small embedment depth and low concrete compressive strength, spalling in front of the
anchor has an influence on the resistance. Therefore, for ratios hef/d < 5 and concrete com-
pressive strength fck < 20 MPa, the resistance calculated with Equation 6.2 should be reduced
by 20%. For reasons of simplifications step functions are used. This is explained in Section
5.4.
6.4.2 Steel rupture with lever arm
This failure mode was not investigated within the scope of this research. Design approach is
taken from current design. The characteristic resistance of an anchor in case of steel rupture
with lever arm VRk,sm is obtained from Equation 6.3.
 M  M Rk
0
VRk0 , sm  , s  1.5  Wel  f yk or taken from relevant approval)

,s 0
( M Rk (Eq. 6.3)
( 3  e1 )
where: αM = 1.0 if fixture can rotate freely (no restraint)

= 2.0 if fixture cannot rotate and is clamped to the anchor (full restraint)
α3 = 0.5d for post-installed and cast-in anchors
= 0 if a washer and a nut are directly clamped to the concrete surface
e1 = distance between applied shear load and concrete surface
6.4.3 Pullout failure
This failure mode is highly unlikely for cast-in-anchors. However, pullout failure can occur
for post-installed anchors with small embedment depth in combination with low concrete
strength. It is associated with local failure of the concrete in front of the anchorage. The char-
acteristic resistance of an anchor in case of pullout failure VRk,p is given in the relevant tech-
nical specification (approval). Alternatively to the value taken from the approval, the charac-
teristic resistance can be calculated according to Equation 6.4.
VRk , p  k p  N Rk , p (Eq. 6.4)
where: NRk,p = characteristic pullout resistance of an anchorage loaded in tension

kp = 2.0 (conservatively assumed, no research known to confirm this value)
6.4.4 Concrete pryout failure
The characteristic resistance of an anchorage in case of concrete pryout failure VRk,cp can be
calculated according to Equation 6.5.
VRk ,cp  kcp  N Rk ,c (Eq. 6.5)
where: NRk,c = characteristic concrete cone resistance of an anchorage loaded in tension

kcp = 0.01·hef + 1 ≤ 2.0
The effect of the eccentricity in creating an uneven shear load distribution is accounted for by
taken eN = eV.
For anchor groups, the characteristic concrete cone resistance shall be calculated by taking
into account the reduction of the projected area by concrete edges and/ or adjacent anchors.
However, in contrast to current design guidelines, for anchorages loaded predominately by a
torsion moment (shear forces in opposed directions), the investigations have shown that no
reduction is necessary (see Section 3.3.9.3).
6.4.5 Concrete edge failure
Compared to current design guidelines, it is recommended to separate the calculation of the

characteristic resistances of an anchorage in case of concrete edge failure for a shear load di-
rection perpendicular (VRk,c,0°) and parallel (VRk,c,90°) to the edge. This eliminates the weakness
of current design approaches which do not recognize the unique failure mode associated with
a shear load direction parallel to the edge. In current design recommendations, the breakout
capacity of a group loaded in shear parallel to the edge is an adaptation of the breakout ca-
pacity of the same group loaded in shear perpendicular to the edge. The load-bearing behavior
of both anchorages loaded in shear perpendicular and parallel to the edge is explained in detail
in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. With the new calculation approach the influence factors for shear
towards and parallel to the edge can be taken into account in different ways to cover the load-
bearing behavior more realistically. The characteristic resistance VRk,c is obtained from a
quadratic interaction between VRk,c,0° and VRk,c,90°.
If the requirements according to Section 5.14 are fulfilled, it may be assumed that no concrete
edge failure will occur. In this case the verification according to Section 6.4.5 does not need
to be performed.
In case of anchor groups, it may be assumed that the failure crack either originates from the
front anchor(s) or the back anchor(s). The verification for both failure states are explained in
Section 5.8 for shear applied towards the edge, and in Section 5.9 for shear applied parallel to
the edge. The interaction in case of anchor groups loaded in shear inclined to the edge is dis-
cussed in Section 5.10.
Components of the resultant shear forces on anchors acting perpendicular away from the edge
may be neglected for the verification of concrete edge failure. However, if in case of shear
loads with opposed directions (see Figure 6.1) the spacing between the anchors is small
(s2 < scrit), and the ratio between the characteristic resistances of anchor 2 to anchor 1 is low
(Vu,Anchor 2/Vu,Anchor 1 < 1.5), the concrete edge failure load should be conservatively reduced by
20%.
This load is
neglected for ψtorsion = 0.8 for s2 < scrit and Vu,2/Vu,1 < 1.5
the analysis
Vu,c =Vu,c0·ψtorsion
Figure 6.1: Example of an anchor group at the edge loaded by a torsional moment which causes
shear forces in opposed directions (approach valid for smin ≥ 4d)(scrit as defined in
Equation 5.17)
The characteristic shear resistance of an anchorage loaded in shear inclined to the edge corre-
sponds to:
1.0
VRk ,c  2 2 (Eq. 6.6)
 cos    sin  
    
 VRk , c ,0°   VRk ,c ,90° 
where: VRk ,c,0°  VRk0 ,c,0°  s 2,V ,0°  h,V  c 2,V ,0°  ec,V ,0°  r e,V (Eq. 6.7)
VRk ,c,90°  VRk0 ,c,90°  s 2,V ,90°  h,V   c 2,V ,90°  ec,V ,90°  r e,V (Eq. 6.8)
a) The characteristic shear resistance of a single anchor with large values for edge distance in
direction 2 and member thickness loaded in shear perpendicular to the edge corresponds to:
VRk0 ,c,0°  kv,0  fck  c14/3  d ,V  l ,V (Eq. 6.9)
with: kv ,0  kv ,cr ,0  9.5 for cracked concrete

 kv,ucr ,0  13.5 for uncracked concrete
 d ,V  0.5  d / d0  1.0   1.0 with: d0 = 25 mm

0.2
 l 
 l ,V  f   1.0
 12d 
b) The characteristic shear resistance of a single anchor with large values for edge distance in
direction 2 and member thickness loaded in shear parallel to the edge corresponds to:
VRk0 ,c,90°  kv,90  fck  c12/3  d  l ,V (Eq. 6.10)
with: kv ,90  kv ,cr ,90  24.5 for cracked concrete

 kv,ucr ,90  35 for uncracked concrete
0.3
 l 
 l ,V  f   1.0
 12d 
c) The geometric effect of spacing in direction 2 on the characteristic resistance is taken into
account by the factor ψs2,V :
x
 s 
 s 2,V  1   n2  1  2   n2 (Eq. 6.11)
s
 cr ,V 
α = 0°: scr ,V  35  c1  2  c1 and x = 1 (Eq. 6.12)
(the factor 35 is not dimensionless [mm0.5])

For groups with n2 > 2, the limiting value n2 = 2 should be inserted in Equation 6.11 if the
load is applied towards the edge since even loading of anchors cannot be guaranteed.
α = 90°: scr ,V  300 mm (Eq. 6.13)

x = 0.6 for n2 = 2 and x = 1 for n2 > 2
d) The reduction of the characteristic resistance in case of limited member thickness is taken
into account by the factor ψh,V :
0.75
 h 
 h ,V    1.0 with: hcr ,V  4d  c1 (Eq. 6.14)
h
 cr ,V 
Note that no influence of the member thickness on the breakout strength of an anchorage
loaded in shear parallel to the edge was observed in tests. However, in case of limited member
thickness the concrete member can fail due to a splitting failure in direction 2. Since splitting
under shear is not covered in design, the factor ψh,V should be also conservatively applied ac-
cording to Equation 6.14 in case no reinforcement is provided to avoid this failure mode. In
case edge reinforcement is provided to resist the splitting forces, the factor ψh,V can be taken
as 1.0 for anchorages loaded parallel to the edge.
e) The factor ψec,V takes into account the effect of shear not applied concentrically to the
group.
1
 ec ,V   1.0 (Eq. 6.15)
1  2eV / scr ,V
with: eV = eccentricity of the resulting shear load relative to the center of gravity of the
anchors resisting shear in the direction of the edge of the member
scr,V according to Equation 6.12
f) The factor ψre,V takes into account the type of edge reinforcement used:
ψre,V = 1.0 for anchorages without edge supplementary reinforcement

= 1.4 for anchorages with edge reinforcement (ds ≥ 12 mm) and closely spaced
stirrups (ds ≥ 12 mm, spacing ≤ 100 mm) and edge distance ≥ 100 mm
g) The reduction of the characteristic resistance in case the anchorage is situated in a corner or
a narrow member is taken into account by the factor ψc2,V :
min(c2,1;ccr ,V )  min(c2,2 ;ccr ,V )

 c 2,V   s ,V with: ccr ,V  scr ,V / 2 (Eq. 6.16)
scr ,V
scr,V according to Equation 6.12 (α = 0°) or Equation 6.13 (α = 90°)
Experimental and numerical investigations performed within the scope of this research have
shown that no disturbance of the distribution of stresses in the concrete needs to be considered
if c2,1 = c2,2 (ψs,V = 1.0).
For anchorages placed in a corner or in a narrow member, the characteristic resistance shall be
checked for both edges, the smaller resistance is decisive. Note that the angle of shear load is
different depending on the verified edge. For the verification, direction 1 is consequently de-
fined as perpendicular to the verified edge. When calculating the resistance for concrete edge
failure of a group located in a corner, the same number of anchors for transmitting the shear
load shall be assumed for each considered case. This is explained in Figure 6.2.
Verification of bottom edge
Verification of right edge
a) failure state I b) failure state II c) failure state III
Figure 6.2: Anchorages without hole clearance in a corner for which verification of both edges is
required a) shear load is assumed to be transferred by all anchors b) front anchor is
assumed to have failed c) shear load is assumed to be transferred by back anchor only
h) Effect of narrow thin concrete member
For anchorages located in narrow, thin members with c2,max ≤ ccr,V and h ≤ hcr,V (see Figure
2.8), the calculation according to Equation 6.7 leads to conservative prediction of the charac-
teristic resistance. More precise results are achieved if c1 is substituted by c1,red according to
Equation 6.17.
  c2,max 2  c2,max    s2,max 2  s2,max   

c1,red  max  min 
  ;   ;  h  4d  ; min   ;    (Eq. 6.17)
 
 17.5   1.0   
 35   2.0   
with: c2,max  max(c2,1 ;c2,2 )

s2,max = spacing between anchors within the group in direction 2
(≤ scr,V according to Equation 6.12)
(the factors 17.5 and 35 are not dimensionless [mm0.5])

SUMMARY AND OPEN QUESTIONS 291
7 SUMMARY AND OPEN QUESTIONS
7.1 Summary
Design recommendations for shear loaded anchorages are available for common standard ap-
plications used in practice. Some assumptions are based on theoretical considerations which
are quite conservative due to missing investigations. However, it is shown that for some an-
chor configurations the provisions given in design overestimate the actual load bearing behav-
ior. Furthermore, many applications are not covered in design due to lack of research. This
dissertation makes a contribution to improve and extend existing design standards.
First, the state of the art related to shear loaded anchorages is summarized. Existing literature
is discussed and the design according to current standards and guidelines is presented (see
Chapter 2).
Based on the discussion of the state of the art, experimental und numerical investigations
were performed in order to better understand the load-bearing behavior of anchorages sub-
jected to shear loads and torsion moments both close to the edge and far away from concrete
edges (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4). Investigations were performed with single anchors and
anchor groups for the failure mode concrete edge breakout, steel rupture and concrete pryout
failure. In Chapter 5, new prediction equations and calculation models are developed based on
the investigations performed within the scope of this research work and results found in litera-
ture (see Section 2.2). In Chapter 7, the design recommendations for shear loaded anchorages
are presented.
The investigations and results of this research work are summarized in the following:
 Single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded perpendicular and parallel to the free
edge with ratios up to lf/dnom = 20 were tested in order to provide more information about
the load-bearing mechanism. Bonded anchors were tested. For a load direction perpendicu-
lar to the edge, no significant increase of the concrete edge breakout capacity was observed
for anchor diameters dnom > 25 mm. The influence of the ratio hef/dnom on the capacity de-
creases with increasing edge distance. The edge distance term raised to the power of 4/3 is
a better predictor of the influence of the edge distance on the breakout capacity. For a load
direction parallel to the edge, the failure load can be significantly increased with increasing
diameter since the pressure area in front of the anchor increases. The influence of the ratio
hef/dnom on the capacity was found to be independent of the edge distance. The exponent of
the edge distance term is half the value as for a load direction towards the edge. This was
theoretically derived and agrees well with test results.
Improved mean prediction equations are proposed for a shear load direction perpendicular
(0°) and parallel (90°) to the edge. For an inclined shear load direction, the resistance can
be calculated with a quadratic interaction.
 Single anchors arranged far away from the edge were investigated for a better understand-
ing of the influence of steel properties and concrete strength on the steel rupture resistance.
The results show that the current approach to calculate the steel failure load is unconserva-
tive for anchors with high steel strength and leads to conservative prediction of the failure
load for low strength steel. Moreover, the rupture elongation was found to have a signifi-
cant influence on the failure load (up to 40%).
For ratios hef/d < 5 and concrete compressive strength fcc,150 < 25 MPa, spalling in front of
the anchor was found to have an influence on the steel rupture resistance (up to 20%).
A new equation was proposed to calculate the steel rupture load which takes into account
the material properties of the steel more accurate.
 In order to provide more information about the influence of the member depth on the con-
crete edge breakout strength, investigations were performed in thin concrete members. It
was shown that the current approach with an exponent of 0.5 in the ψh,V -factor overesti-
mates the breakout resistance. A new approach is presented which takes into account that
the failure crack does not start at the concrete surface, but in a certain depth in front of the
anchor. For a load direction parallel to the edge, it was shown that the member depth has
no influence on the concrete edge breakout strength. However, the failure changes in thin
concrete members. The anchors fail by a splitting failure which is not covered in design.
 Investigations were performed in concrete slabs with the same concrete compressive
strength, but different concrete mix compositions to evaluate the influence of type of ag-
gregate. It was shown that the capacity significantly decreases when using expanded clay
instead of round gravel aggregate. Using crushed aggregate (granite), the breakout capacity
can be increased. Moreover, it was shown that the capacity can be highly increased by add-
ing steel fibers to the concrete. The influence of the type of aggregate on the breakout ca-
pacity was found to decrease with increasing edge distance.
 Investigations with anchorages arranged close to the edge were performed in high strength
concrete slabs. It was shown that the ultimate strength increases with the square root of the
concrete compressive strength for both a load direction perpendicular and parallel to the
edge. Based on the investigations, the scope can be extended to a wider range of permissi-
ble concrete strength classes.
 Groups with up to 7 anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge were investigated to
analyze the influence of the anchor spacing s2 on the concrete edge breakout strength for
both a load direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge. For a load direction towards
the edge, it was shown that the critical ratio s2/c1 to fully activate the maximum concrete
fracture surface is not constant but decreases with increasing edge distance. Moreover, for
small edge distance, the group capacity does not increase linearly with increasing anchor
spacing. In particular, for groups with more than two anchors in direction 2, this effect
needs to be taken into account. However, the group capacity can only be increased when
adding anchors in direction 2 if the outermost anchor spacing increases. For constant
outermost anchor spacing, the resistance decreases when adding anchors inbetween the
outermost anchors if the spacing is smaller than the critical anchor spacing scr,V. For a load
direction parallel to the edge, it was shown that the anchors are loaded evenly. The critical
anchor spacing scr,V was found to be independent of the edge distance. A model is present-
ed how to consider the s2-spacing effect for groups with n ≥ 2 anchors.
 The s1-spacing effect was analyzed for groups loaded perpendicular and parallel to the
edge. For anchor groups loaded perpendicular to the edge, it was shown that the breakout
capacity can be significantly increased when taking into account redistribution of the shear
load to the back anchors. Provisions are made for anchorages with and without hole clear-
ance in the fixture. For groups with spacings s1 ≥ smin loaded parallel to the edge, the fail-
ure load of the group can be taken as n2-times the failure load calculated with the front an-
chors. The breakout capacity at the front anchors was found not to be limited by the
breakout capacity of the back anchors. Taking into account redistribution of the shear load
to the back anchors only increases the capacity for very large spacings s1. However, for the
calculation of the resistance at the back anchors, it needs to be distinguished if the fixture
is torsional restraint or if the rotation is not restraint. Hole clearance was shown not to af-
fect the breakout capacity for edge distance c1 ≥ 100 mm. In case of a shear load acting in-
clined to the edge, the resistance can be calculated by a quadratic interaction. Proposals are
given for both assuming shear is resisted by the front and back anchors.
 Investigations were done for anchorages in narrow concrete members. The results show
that for a load direction towards the edge no disturbance of the stress distribution needs to
be taken into account for c2,1 = c2,2. For anchorages loaded parallel to two free edges (col-
umn situation), the analysis has shown that no negative effect of the second edge needs to
be taken into account for the calculation of the resistance. The breakout capacity equals n2-
times the breakout capacity of the group with edge distance c1,1 for spacings s1 ≥ smin.
 Anchor connections with multiple anchors in a row (shear collectors) arranged far away
from concrete edges and loaded in shear were investigated. Experimental investigations
with low strength steel have shown that the shear load is evenly distributed to all anchors.
The resistance for steel rupture may be taken as equal to the sum of the individual anchors.
Numerical simulations were performed with high strength steel in both normal strength and
high strength concrete. It was found that the extend of the “shear lag” (the tendency for
load to be carried most by the anchors close to the point of loading, thus leading to a di-
minished group capacity) is primarily governed by the ratio of the stiffness of the anchors
to that of the attachment connecting the anchors to concrete member. In normal strength
concrete, the analyses indicate that “shear lag” is negligible for typical anchor types with
no hole clearance for the ultimate limit state. For cases with anchors that exhibit high shear
stiffness (e.g. adhesive anchors installed in high strength concrete), it is demonstrated that
shear lag can occur. The “shear lag” is more pronounced for anchorages with hole clear-
ance and for anchorages which fail by pryout failure.
 Investigations were performed to understand if anchors influence each other in case of tor-
sion loading. Pairs of anchors were installed perpendicular and parallel to the edge and in a
corner and loaded in shear in opposed directions. It was found that in case of decreasing ra-
tio s2/c1 and increasing ratio between concrete breakout resistance of the verified anchor to
the decisive resistance of the anchor loaded in opposed direction (maximum influence for
Vu,c,Anchor 1/min(Vu,cp,Anchor 2 ; Vu,c,Anchor 2 ) ~ 1.0), the concrete edge breakout needs to be re-
duced. A proposal is given how to consider the reduction of the concrete edge breakout
strength. For groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded in shear in opposed di-
rections, the concrete edge breakout strength can be taken as the breakout resistance of the
front anchor for spacings s1 ≥ smin.
 Multiple anchor connections loaded in pure torsion were tested close to the edge. The con-
version of the acting torsion moment in anchor shear forces is explained and a calculation
model is presented. It was shown that for verification of concrete edge breakout the front
anchors should be assumed to resist the shear loads. The breakout strength can be calculat-
ed according to a quadratic interaction between the front anchors loaded perpendicular and
parallel to the edge. The load angle of the anchor shear forces influences the load-bearing
behavior significantly. The load angle depends on the anchor spacings. For small ratio of
the individual anchor spacing s1/s2 ≤ 0.7, the test results have shown that the shear compo-
nents parallel to the edge should be neglected and the verification should be done for the
anchors loaded towards the edge.
 Experimental investigations were done with anchor groups loaded in shear and torsion far
away from concrete edges. The anchors were installed with short embedment depth in or-
der to obtain concrete pryout failure. A linear influence factor (kcp) was introduced which
shows a good correlation with test results. It was shown that in case of shear in opposed di-
rection no reduction of the pryout strength by the overlap of the reduced areas is necessary
since the stress fields act in different directions. This was also verified for small anchor
spacing.
 Based on the results, recommendations for the limiting edge distance (climit) are given at
which all anchors can be assumed to take up shear loads. The limiting edge distance (climit)
depends on several parameters such as hole clearance, anchor diameter, and anchor spac-
ing. Recommendations are given for both a load direction perpendicular and parallel to the
edge.
 Design recommendations are given for both a load direction perpendicular and parallel to
the edge at which edge distance no proof for concrete edge failure is necessary.
7.2 Open Questions

This dissertation answers a number of open questions related to the behavior of shear loaded
anchorages. However, the nature of research is to uncover unanswered questions through ex-
tensive testing and data analysis. Therefore, in the following, a summary of questions raised
by this research is given. Moreover, interesting research topics related to shear loaded anchor-
ages are pointed out which could be investigated in further research. Suggested research needs
are as follows:
 A new prediction equation is proposed for concrete edge failure in case of a load direction
parallel to the edge. Investigations have shown that the breakout load can be significantly
increased with increasing anchor diameter. However, experimental testing was only done
up to anchor diameters of 24 mm. It is recommended to verify the proposed prediction
equation for larger anchor diameters experimentally.
 For anchorages installed in thin concrete members and loaded parallel to the free edge, the
investigations have shown that the concrete edge breakout strength is not influenced by the
member thickness. However, the failure mode changes to a splitting failure which is not
covered in current design. More research is needed to develop a model for this side edge
splitting mode.
 Investigations with anchorages installed centrically in narrow concrete members show that
no disturbance of the stress distribution is necessary. Current design recommendations are
quite conservative. Therefore, a recommendation is given in this dissertation how to calcu-
late the resistance in such a case. However, no research is available to verify the calcula-
tion approach for uneven edge distances c2,1 ≠ c2,2. More research is needed.
 Preliminary investigations are described in this research work to understand the influence
of type of aggregate and concrete mix composition on the breakout capacity of anchors
loaded in shear. This is an interesting research topic which is worthwhile to investigate fur-
ther.
 Investigations with anchor groups consisting more than one anchor in direction 1 (n1 > 1)
with and without hole clearance were performed. Recommendations are given for concrete
edge failure assuming shear is resisted by the back anchors. This highly increases the re-
sistance for concrete edge failure. However, only preliminary tests were performed to ana-
lyze the steel resistance in case verification is done at the back anchors. Therefore, for the
verification for steel rupture it is recommended only to assume the back anchors resist the
shear forces which highly limits the resistance. This approach is very conservative. Further
research should be done to improve the design recommendation for steel rupture in this
case.
 Anchor groups loaded both in shear and torsion were investigated and design recommenda-
tions are given. Testing is recommended with groups loaded by combined shear and tor-
sion to verify the recommendations. Moreover, it is recommended to perform tests with
anchor groups where the shear load acts with an eccentricity to the center of the group.
 Anchor groups with more than one anchor in direction 1 were investigated for both a load
direction perpendicular and parallel to the edge. Recommendations are given how to calcu-
late the concrete edge breakout strength. However, only little research is available to ana-
lyze the behavior of such groups loaded inclined to the edge. More research is needed to
fully understand the load-bearing behavior. In particular, the redistribution of the shear
load to the back anchors after concrete edge failure of the front anchors is not fully under-
stood.
 Only little research is available to understand the load-bearing behavior of anchor groups
arranged close to the edge under combined tension and shear loading. More research is
needed to fully understand the load-bearing behavior and to improve design recommenda-
tions.
 Anchor groups in practice are often located on grout pads or are installed in a “stand-off”
position. Only little research is available to understand the behavior of such groups in-
stalled close to the edge. More research is needed.
 Investigations described in this dissertation were done for shear applied monotonically to
the anchorage. Research is recommended to understand the load distribution of anchor
shear forces in a group in case of reversed cyclic shear loading. Aim should be the assess-
ment of maximum amplitude of shear load in comparison to equal distribution of shear
loads. Moreover, it should be analyzed if the group capacity needs to be reduced compared
to n-times the capacity of a single anchor.
REFERENCES 297
8 REFERENCES
ACI 301-05 (2005): Specifications for Structural Concrete: an ACI Standard. Farmington
Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2005.
ACI 318-08 (2008): Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and
Commentary: an ACI Standard; Appendix D. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute, 2008.
ACI 318-11 (2011): Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and
Commentary: an ACI Standard; Appendix D. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute, 2011.
ACI 349-76 (1976): Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures
(ACI 349-76) and Commentary: an ACI Standard; Appendix B – Steel Embedments. Farm-
ington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 1976.
(ACI 349-85) and Commentary: an ACI Standard; Appendix B – Steel Embedments. Farm-
ington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 1985.
(ACI 349-06) and Commentary: an ACI Standard; Appendix D –Anchoring to Concrete.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2006
ACI 355.2-07 (2007): Qualification or Post-installed Mechanical Anchors and Commen-

tary: an ACI Standard. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2007.
Anderson, N.S.; Meinheit, D.F. (2000): Design Criteria of Headed Stud Groups in Shear:
Part 1, Steel Capacity and Back Edge Effects. In: PCI Journal 45 (2000), No. 5, pp. 46-75.
Anderson, N.S.; Meinheit, D.F. (2005a): Pryout Capacity Cast-In Headed Stud Anchors.
In: PCI Journal 50 (2005), No. 2, pp. 90-112.
Anderson, N.S.; Meinheit, D.F. (2005b): PCI's Headed Stud Design Redefined… In: Struc-
ture Magazine 12 (2005), No. 4, pp. 26-29.
Anderson, N.S.; Meinheit, D.F. (2006): Design Criteria of Headed Stud Groups in Shear:
Final Report. Northbrook, IL: Wiss., Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 2006. Report No.
WJE 1996.0002.
Anderson, N.S.; Meinheit, D.F. (2007a): Re-Evaluation of Pryout Breakout Capacity De-
sign Provisions for Headed Studs and Post-Installed Anchors Loaded in Shear. In: Eli-
gehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; Genesio, W.; Grosser, P. (Eds.): Connections between Steel and
Concrete: Stuttgart, Germany, September 4th - 7th, 2007, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Ibidem, 2007, pp.
529-538.
298 REFERENCES
Anderson, N.S.; Meinheit, D.F. (2007b): Side Edge Concrete Breakout Capacity of Head-
ed Studs Loaded in Shear. In: Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; Genesio, W.; Grosser, P. (Eds.):
Connections between Steel and Concrete: Stuttgart, Germany, September 4th - 7th, 2007,
Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Ibidem, 2007, pp. 559-568.
Anderson, N.S.; Meinheit, D.F. (2007c): A Review of Headed Stud Design Criteria in the
Sixth Edition of the PCI Design Handbook. In: PCI Journal 52 (2007), No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Anderson, N.S.; Tureyen, A.K.; Meinheit, D.F. (2007): Design Criteria of Headed Stud
Groups in Shear: Phase 2, Tension and Combined Tension and Shear; Second Draft Report.
Northbrook, IL: Wiss., Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 2007, Report No. WJE 1999.3290.
Applied Research Laboratories (2003a): Concrete Chemical Anchoring System Model:

AC 100 PLUS / AC 5.5 PLUS: Test Series 12, Single Anchor Shear, 4,000 psi Concrete. Mi-
ami, FL: Applied Research Laboratories, 2003, Test Report 30359.
Applied Research Laboratories (2003b): Concrete Chemical Anchoring System Model:

AC 100 PLUS / AC 5.5 PLUS: Test Series 14 Single Anchor Shear, Minimum Edge Distance,
Loading Done Parallel to Edge. Miami, FL: Applied Research Laboratories, 2003, Test Re-
port 30441.
Applied Research Laboratories (2003c): Concrete Chemical Anchoring System Model: AC

100 PLUS / AC 5.5 PLUS: Test Series 14 Single Anchor Shear, Minimum Edge Distance,
Loading Done Parallel to Edge, Nominal 2000 psi Concrete Compressive Strength. Miami,
FL: Applied Research Laboratories, 2003, Test Report 30440.
Asmus, J. (1999): Bemessung von zugbeanspruchten Befestigungen bei der Versagensart

Spalten des Betons (Design of Tension Loaded Anchorages for the Splitting Failure Mode),
Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, Dissertation, 1999 (Oral defense: 06.07.1998), (in Ger-
man).
ASTM A 193-08b (2008): Standard Specification for Alloy-Steel and Stainless Steel Bolting
Materials for High Temperature or High Pressure Service and Other Special Purpose Ap-
plications. West Conshoshocken, PA: American Society for Testing Materials, 2008.
ASTM C 39-05e2 (2005): Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens. West Conshoshocken, PA: American Society for Testing Materials,
2005.
ASTM C 94-07 (2007): Standard Specification for Ready-mixed Concrete. West Consho-
shocken, PA: American Society for Testing Materials, 2007.
Balogh, T.; Eligehausen, R. (1992): Minimum Edge Distance of Anchor Groups Loaded in
Shear to Provide a Steel Failure or a Pryout Cone Failure. Stuttgart, Institute of Construc-
tion Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. 10/19-92/21, not published.
Basler, E.; Witta, E. (1967): Grundlagen für kraftschlüssige Verbindungen in der Vorfabri-
kation (Basis of Connections in Pre-Fabrication). Düsseldorf: Beton-Verlag, 1967 (in Ger-
man).
REFERENCES 299
Bažant, Z.P.; Oh, B.H. (1983): Crack Band Theory for Fracture of Concrete. In: Materials
and Constructions 16 (1983), No. 93, pp. 155-177.
Bažant, Z.P. (1984): Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock, Metal. In: Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 110 (1994), No.4, pp. 518-535.
Beer, F.P.; Johnston, E.R.; Dewolf, J.T.; Mazurek, D.F. (2009): Mechanics of Materials.
5th. Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2009.
Bonzel, J. (1965): Biegezug- und Spaltzugfestigkeit des Betons (Concrete Bending- and
Splitting Tensile Strength). Beton-Verlag GmbH, Düsseldorf, 1965 (in German).
Bouwkamp, J.; Gomez, S.; Pinto, A.; Varum, H.; Molina, J. (2001): Cyclic Tests on R/C
Frame Retrofitted with K-Bracing and Shear Link Dissipator. Ispra, Italy: European Com-
mission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizan Safety in
Structural Mechanics Unit, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), 2001.
Burdette, E.G.; Zisi, N. (2004): Shear Towards a Free Edge: an Example Using ACI 318-
02, Appendix D. In: Concrete International 26 (2004), No. 3, pp. 56-59.
Cannon, R.W. (1995a): Straight Talk about Anchorage to Concrete - Part I. In: ACI Struc-
tural Concrete 92 (1995), No. 5, pp. 580-586.
Cannon, R.W. (1995b): Straight Talk about Anchorage to Concrete - Part II. In: ACI Struc-
tural Concrete 92 (1995), No. 6, pp. 724-734.
Cannon, R.W. (1995c): Discussion: Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fas-
tening to Concrete (Paper by W. Fuchs, R. Eligehausen, J.E. Breen). In: ACI Structural
Journal 92 (1995), No. 6, pp. 787-791.
Cannon, R.W.; Burdette, E.G.; Funk, R.R. (1975): Anchorage to Concrete. Knoxville:
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1975. Report No. CEB 75-32.
CEB (1993): CEB-FIP Model Code 1990/ Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB). Lon-
don: Telford, 1993.
CEB (1994): Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Structures, State of Art Report/ Comité
Euro-International du Béton (CEB). London: Telford, 1994.
CEB (1997): Design of Fastenings in Concrete – Design Guide - Parts 1 to 3/ Comité Euro-
International du Béton (CEB). London: Telford, 1997 (CEB Bulletin d'Information 233).
CEN/TS 1992-4 (2009): Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete: Part 1-5. Brussels: Eu-
ropean Committee for Standardization, May 2009.
Cook R.A. (1989): Behavior and Design of Ductile Multiple-Anchor Steel-to-Concrete

Connections. Austin, TX, University of Texas, Dissertation, 1989.
300 REFERENCES
Cook, R.; Klingner, R. (1991): Behavior of Ductile Multiple-Anchor Steel-to-Concrete

Connections with Surface-Mounted Baseplates. In: Senkiw, G.A.; Lancelot, H.B. (Eds.):
Anchors in Concrete - Design and Behavior. Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1991.
(ACI Publication; SP-130), pp. 61-122.
Cruz, R.D. (1987): Effect of Edge Distance on Stud Groups Loaded in Shear and Torsion.
Stillwater, Oklahoma State University, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Master Thesis, 1987.
CSTB (1994): Study of the Pryout Failure Mode: Fastenings Placed Near the Edge in Non
Cracked Concrete. Marne-la Valle: Center Scientifique et Technique du Batiment, 1994.
Test Report No. 94095/3, not published.
Cziesielski, E.; Friedmann, M. (1983): Tragfähigkeit geschweißter Verbindungen im Be-

tonfertigteilbau (Load-bearing Capacity of Welded Connections in Precast Concrete
Construction), Berlin, Ernst & Sohn, 1983 (Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton; 346) (in
German).
DeVries, R.A. (1996): Anchorage of Headed Reinforement in Concrete. University of Texas

at Austin, Dissertation, December, 1996.
DIN 1045-2 (2008): Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton: Teil 2: Beton - Fest-
legung, Eigenschaften, Herstellung und Konformität - Anwendungsregeln zu DIN EN 206-1
(Concrete, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures: Part 2: Concrete - Specificati-
on, Properties, Production and Conformity - Application Rules for DIN EN 206-1). Berlin:
Deutsches Institut für Normung, August 2008 (in German).
DIN 1048-1 (1991): Prüfverfahren für Beton: Teil 1: Frischbeton (Testing Concrete: Part 1:
Testing of Fresh Concrete). Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung, June 1991 (in German).
DIN SPEC 1021-4-1 (2009): Bemessung von Verankerung von Befestigungen in Beton: Teil
4-1: Allgemeines (Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete: Part 4-1 to 4-5: General). Ber-
lin: DIN, August 2009 (in German).
Efsen, A.; Glarbo, O. (1956): New Method of Making Tensile Tests. In: Beton og Jernbet-
on (Journal of the Danish Inst. Civ. Eng.) 8 (1956), No. 1, pp. 33-39.
Elfgren, L.; Ohlsson, U. (1986): Modelling of Hook Anchors. In: Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete. Division of Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, Lund,
1986, Report TVBM-3025.
Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; Mayer, B. (1987): Load Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fasten-
ings in Tension: Part 1. In: Betonwerk und Fertigteiltechnik (1987), No. 12, pp. 826-832.
Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; Mayer, B. (1988): Load Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fasten-
ings in Tension: Part 2. In: Betonwerk und Fertigteiltechnik (1988), No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W. (1988): Load Bearing Behavior of Anchor Fastenings under
Shear, Combined Tension and Shear or Flexural Loading. In: Betonwerk und Fertigteiltech-
nik (1988), No. 2, pp. 48-56.
REFERENCES 301
Eligehausen, R.; Grosser, P. (2007): Experimentelle und numerische Untersuchungen zur

Bemessung von Befestigungen am Bauteilrand unter Querlasten: Abschlussbericht zum
DFG-Forschungsvorhaben EL 72/13-2 (Experimental and Numerical Investigations on An-
chorages Loaded in Shear close to the Edge). Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction
Materials, University of Stuttgart, 2007 (in German).
Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R. (2000): Befestigungstechnik im Beton- und Mauerwerkbau

(Anchorages in Concrete and Masonry Structures). Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 2000 (in German).
Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.; Rehm, G. (1997): Befestigungstechnik (Fastening Technolo-

gy). In: Eibl, J. (Ed.): Betonkalender, Teil 2. 86 Jg. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1988, pp. 609-753
(in German).
Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.; Silva, J. (2006): Anchorage in Concrete Construction. Berlin:
Ernst & Sohn, 2006.
EN 206-1 (2000): Concrete: Specification, performance, production and conformity. Brus-

sels: European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), 2000.
EOTA (1997): ETAG 001 “Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors
for Use in Concrete”, Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages. Brussels: European Organ-
ization of Technical Approvals, 1997.
EOTA (2007): Technical Report TR 029: Design of Bonded Anchors. Brussels: European
Organization of Technical Approvals, 2007
EOTA (2010): ETAG 001 “Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors
for Use in Concrete”, Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages. Brussels: European Organ-
ization of Technical Approvals, 3rd Amendment, August 2010.
Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib) (2011): Design of Anchorages in Concrete: Part

I-V. Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2011. (fib Bulletin 58).
Fichtner, S. (2005): Implementierung einer Kontaktschicht mit Reibeigenschaften für kleine

Verformungen in das Programm MASA (Implementation of an Interface Layer for Small
Deformations in the Program MASA). Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materi-
als, University of Stuttgart. Report, 2005, not published (in German).
Friberg, B.F. (1938): Design of Dowels in Traverse Joints of Concrete Pavements. In: Pro-
ceedings of the ASCE 64 (1938), No. 9, pp. 1809-1828.
Friberg, B.F. (1940): Load and Deflection Characteristics of Dowels in Traverse Joints of
Concrete Pavements. In: Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, 20th Annual Meeting
(1940), pp. 481-493.
Fuchs, W. (1990): Tragverhalten von Befestigungen unter Querlast in ungerissenem Beton

(Load-Bearing Behavior of Fastenings under Shear Loading in Uncracked Concrete).
Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, Dissertation, 1990 (in German).
302 REFERENCES
Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (1986a): Tragverhalten und Bemessung von Befestigungen

ohne Randeinfluss unter Querzugbelastung (Load-bearing Behavior and Design of Fixings
without Edge Influence under Shear Loading). Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart: Institute of
Construction Materials, Report No. 10/8 - 86/12, October 1986, not published (in German).
Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (1986b): Tragverhalten von Dübeln bei Querzug-, Schrägzug-
und Biegebeanspruchung: Auswertung von Querzugversuchen an Einzel- und Mehr-
fachbefestigungen (Load-bearing Behavior of Anchorages under Shear Loading, Combined
Shear and Tension Loading and Bending: Analysis of Shear Tests with Single Anchors and
Anchor Groups). Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart: Institute of Construction Materials, 1986,
Report No. 10/7 - 86/4, not published (in German).
Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (1989): Tragverhalten von Befestigungsmitteln im gerissenen

Beton bei Querzugbeanspruchung (Load-bearing Behavior of Fixing Elements under Shear
Loading in Cracked Concrete). Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, Institute of Construction
Materials, Report No. 1/41 - 89/15, July 1989, not published (in German).
Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (1990): Bemessung von randfernen Befestigungen mit der Ver-
sagensart Stahlbruch unter Einfluss des Lochspiels (Design of Fixings Remote from an Edge
at Steel Failure Influenced by Hole Clearance). Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart: Institute of
Construction Materials, Report No. 10/16 - 90/6, 1990, not published (in German).
Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (1995): Das CC-Verfahren für die Berechnung der Betonaus-
bruchlast von Verankerungen (CC-Method for Determination of the Concrete Failure Load
of Fastenings). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 90 (1995), No. 1, pp. 6-9, No. 2, pp. 38-44, No.
3, pp. 73-76 (in German).
Fuchs, W.; Kob, P. (1990): Einfluss des Achsabstandes auf das Tragverhalten von Zwei-
fachbefestigungen parallel zur Kante im ungerissenen Beton unter Querzugbeanspruchung
(Influence of Anchor Spacing on the Load-Bearing Behavior of Anchor Groups with Two
Anchors Arranged Parallel to the Edge Loaded in Shear in Uncracked Concrete). Stuttgart,
University of Stuttgart: Institute of Construction Materials, Report No. 10/15 - 90/5, 1990,
not published (in German).
Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; Breen, J. (1995a): Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Ap-
proach for Fastening to Concrete. In: ACI Structural Journal 92 (1995), No. 1, pp. 73-94.
Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; Breen, J. (1995b): Authors Closure: Discussion; Concrete
Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete (Paper by W. Fuchs, R. Eli-
gehausen, J.E. Breen). In: ACI Structural Journal 92 (1995), No. 6, pp. 794-802.
Furche, J. (1994): Zum Trag- und Verschiebungsverhalten von Kopfbolzen bei zentrischem
Zug (Load-Bearing and Displacement Behavior of Headed Bolts under Centric Tension
Load), Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, Dissertation, 1994 (Oral defense: 25.06.1993), (in
German).
Furche, J.; Eligehausen, R. (1991): Lateral Blow-Out Failure of Headed Studs Near a Free
Edge. In: Senkiw, G.A.; Lancelot, H.B. (Eds.): Anchors in Concrete - Design and Behavior.
Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1991 (ACI Publication; SP-130), pp. 235-252.
REFERENCES 303
Grieb, W.E.; Werner, G. (1962): Comparison of the Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete
with Flexural and Compressive Strength. In: Public Roads 32 (1962), No. 5, page 97-106.
Grosser, P. (2007a): Tragverhalten von randnahen Vierfachbefestigungen belastet durch

eine Querkraft parallel zum Bauteilrand im ungerissenen Beton (Load-bearing Behavior of
Groups with Four Anchors Arranged Close to the Edge under Shear Loading Parallel to the
Edge in Uncracked Concrete). Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction
Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 07/01 – G07100/01, 2007, not published (in
German).
Grosser, P. (2007b): Quadruple Fastenings under Torsion Loading. In: Eligehausen, R.;
Fuchs, W.; Genesio, W.; Grosser, P. (Eds.): Connections between Steel and Concrete:
Stuttgart, Germany, September 4th - 7th, 2007, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Ibidem, 2007, pp. 639-653.
Grosser, P. (2008a): Single Bolts with Small Edge Distance Loaded Parallel to the Edge.
Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart.
Report No. E 08/04 – G07100/04, 2008, not published.
Grosser, P. (2008b): Experimental input data for shear collector simulations. Summary
Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Re-
port No. IV/01– 08/09, 2008, not published.
Grosser, P. (2008c): Tragverhalten von parallel zum Bauteilrand angeordneten Zwei-

fachbefestigungen unter Torsionsbeanspruchung im ungerissenen Beton (Load-bearing Be-
havior of Groups with Two Anchors Arranged Parallel to the Edge under Torsion Loading
in Uncracked Concrete). Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materi-
als, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 08/01 – G07100/02, 2008, not published (in Ger-
man).
Grosser, P. (2008d): Development of Analytical Models for Shear Collectors. Technical

Summary, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart.
Hilti Seismic Project, Meeting Schaan FL, June 2008, not published.
Grosser, P. (2008e): Development of Analytical Models for Shear Collectors. Technical

Summary, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart.
Hilti Seismic Project, Meeting San Diego, October 2008, not published.
Grosser, P. (2009): Research Project, Installation of Chemical Anchors. Final Report,

Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No.
AF09/04 – P0901, 2009.
Grosser, P. (2010a): Single Bolts Located in Thin Members and Loaded Parallel to the
Edge. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of
Stuttgart. Report No. E 10/18 – Bft/16, 2010, not published.
Grosser, P. (2010b): Single Anchors Loaded in Shear close to the Edge in High Strength
Concrete. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of
304 REFERENCES
Grosser, P. (2011a): Adhesive Anchors with Deep Embedments under Shear Load Located
close to the Edge and Loaded Perpendicular to the Edge. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany:
Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. fHW/17-11/01.
Grosser, P. (2011b): Adhesive Anchors Loaded Parallel to the Edge for the Concrete Edge
Failure Mode. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, Univer-
sity of Stuttgart. Report No. E 11/08 – Bft/1, 2011, not published.
Grosser, P. (2011c): Anchor Groups Arranged Parallel to the Edge and Loaded Perpendic-
ular to the Edge for the Concrete Edge Failure Mode. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: In-
stitute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 11/09 – Bft/2, 2011,
not published.
Grosser, P. (2011d): Determination of load distribution on anchors in multiple anchor con-

nections (shear collectors). Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Mate-
rials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 11/10 – Bft/3, 2011, not published.
Grosser, P. (2011e): Shear loaded Anchorages Located in Components with Two Free Edg-
es. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of
Grosser, P. (2011f): Load-bearing Behavior of Groups with Two Anchors with small ratio
s2/c1 Arranged Parallel to the Edge under Torsion Loading in Uncracked Concrete (Exten-
sion of Report No. E 08/01 – G07100/02, 2008). Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute
of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 11/12 – Bft/5, 2011, not
published.
Grosser, P. (2011g): Load-bearing Behavior of Groups with Two Anchors Located in a

Corner under Torsion Loading in Uncracked Concrete. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany:
Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 11/13 – Bft/6,
2011, not published.
Grosser, P. (2011h): Load-bearing Behavior of Large Anchor Groups Loaded in Torsion

Close to the Edge in Uncracked Concrete. Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Con-
struction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 11/14 – Bft/7, 2011, not published.
Grosser, P. (2011i): Load-bearing Behavior of Anchorages with small Ratio hef/dnom Loaded
in Shear and Torsion far Away from the Edge in Uncracked Concrete. Test Report, Stuttgart,
Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 11/15 –
Bft/8, 2011, not published.
Grosser, P., Cook, R. (2009): Load-bearing Behavior of Anchor Groups Arranged Perpen-
dicular to the Edge and Loaded by Shear Towards the Free Edge. Florida, USA: Department
of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida, UF Structures Report 2009-1, 2009.
Grosser, P., Eligehausen, R. (2008): Fastenings under Shear Loading Parallel to the Edge.
Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart.
Report No. E 08/02 – G07100/03, 2008, not published.
REFERENCES 305
Grosser, P.; Eligehausen, R.; Ožbolt, J. (2010): 3D FE Analysis of Anchor Channels and
Headed Anchors under Shear Load close to an Edge. In: Oh, B.H.; Choi, O.C.; Chung, L.
(Eds.): Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete
and Concrete Structures (FRAMCOS-7), Jeju, Korea, May, 23-28, 2010. Seoul: Korea Con-
crete Institute 2010.
Hilti (2004): Sill Plate Evaluation of KWIK Bolt 3 in Normal Weight Concrete. Test Report,
Tulsa, OK. Report No. 79-03-F, April 22, 2004.
Hoehler, M.S.; Dowell, R.K.; Watkins, D.A. (2011): Shear and Axial Load Measurement
Device for Anchors in Concrete. In: Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 39 (2011), No. 4.
Hofmann, J. (2004): Einfluss der Bauteildicke für Verankerungen unter Querlast (Influence
of the Member Thickness on the Shear Capacity) Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construc-
tion Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report April, 2004 (in German).
Hofmann, J. (2005): Tragverhalten und Bemessung von Befestigungen unter beliebiger

Querbelastung in ungerissenem Beton (Behaviour and design of anchorages under arbitrary
shear load direction in uncracked concrete), Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, Dissertation,
2005. (Oral defense: 04.10.2004), (in German).
Hofmann, J.; Eligehausen, R. (2009): Tragfähigkeit von randnahen Kopfbolzen bei der
Versagensart seitlicher Betonausbruch (Load Bearing Capacity of Headed Studs in Case of
Blow Out Failure Mode). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 104 (2009), No. 7, pp. 386-393, (in
German).
Hofmann, J.; Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (2004): Quertragfähigkeit randnaher Befes-

tigungsmittel mit Belastung senkrecht zum Bauteilrand (Behavior of anchorages arranged
close to the edge and loaded towards the edge). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 99 (2004), No.
10, pp. 806-807 (in German).
Institute of Construction Materials (2010): Tragverhalten von Einzelbefestigungen mit

Verbunddübeln unter Zug- und Querzugbeanspruchung in unterschiedlichen Betonen (Load
Bearing Behavior of Bonded Anchors Loaded in Tension and Shear in Concrete of Different
Mix Composition). Student research project (Lecture Fastening Technology II, Prof. J. Hof-
mann, supervisor: P. Grosser). Test Report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction
Materials, University of Stuttgart, 2010, not published (in German).
ICC-ES AC308 (2011): Acceptance Criteria for Post-Installed Anchors in Concrete Ele-
ments (AC308). Whittier, CA: International Code Council - Evaluation Service, June 2011.
Klingner, R.E.; Mendonca, J.A. (1982): Shear Capacity of Short Anchor Bolts and Welded
Studs: A Literature Review. In: ACI Journal 79 (1982), No. 5, pp. 339-349.
Klingner, R.E.; Mendonca, J.A.; Malik, J.B. (1982): Effect on Reinforcing Details on the
Shear Resistance of Anchor Bolts under Reversed Cyclic Loading. In: ACI Journal 79
(1982), No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Korea Power Engineering Company (2004): Pre-Test Report for Shear Tests, Determina-
tion of Test Variable. Yongin, Kyeonggi, Korea. Pre-Test Report, not published.
306 REFERENCES
Kreismer, K. (1998): Querzugversuche mit Kopfbolzen im randnahen, ungerissenen Beton:

Bericht I (Shear Tests with Headed Anchors close to the Edge in Uncracked Concrete).
Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, 1998. Test
Report, not published (in German).
Kreismer, K. (1999): Forschungsbericht über Versuche an randnahen Ankerbolzen im un-

gerissenen Beton: Bericht II (Shear Tests with Single Anchors close to the Edge in
Uncracked Concrete). Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of
Stuttgart, 1999. Test Report, not published (in German).
Kuhn, J.M.; Buckner, C.D. (1986): Effect of Concrete Placement on Shear Strength of
Headed Studs. In: Journal of Structural Engineering 112 (1986), No. 8, pp. 1965-1971.
Kummerow, A. (1996): Tragverhalten von unter Querzug beanspruchten Verbundankern

mit geringem Randabstand (Load Bearing Behavior of Bonded Anchors under Shear Load-
ing Close to an Edge). Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart: Institute of Construction Materials,
Diploma Thesis, 1996 (in German).
Lee, N.H.; Park, K.R.; Suh, Y.P. (2007): Shear Headed Anchors with Large Diameters and
Deep Embedment in Concrete. In: International Association of Structural Mechanics in Re-
actor Technology IASMIRT (Ed.): 19th International Conference on Structural Mechanics
in Reactor Technology: Proceedings of a Meeting held 12-17, August 2007, Toronto, Ontar-
io, Canada; Division H: Concrete Material, Containment and Other Structures,
Paper H07/2. URL: http://www.iasmirt.org/iasmirt-2/SMiRT19/S19_FinalPapers/H07_2.pdf.
Lee, N.H.; Park, K.R.; Suh, Y.P. (2010): Shear Behavior of Headed Anchors with Large
Diameters and Deep Embedments. In: ACI Structural Journal, 107 (2010), No. 2, pp. 146-
156.
Leonhardt, F. (1986): Vorlesungen über Massivbau: Teil 2 Sonderfälle der Bemessung im

Stahlbetonbau (Lectures on Concrete Structures Part 2. 3. Ed. Berlin: Springer, 1986 (in
German).
Lieberum, K.-H. (1987): Das Tragverhalten von Beton bei extremer Teilflächenbelastung
(Load-Bearing Behaviour of Concrete under Extreme Local Stresses). Darmstadt, Tech-
nische Hochschule, Dissertation, 1987 (in German).
Ling, K. (1988): A Study on Shear Strength of Bolt Anchorage. Bangkok, Thailand, Asian
Institute of Technology, Master Thesis, April, 1988.
Lutz, L.A. (1995): Discussion: Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to
Concrete (Paper by W. Fuchs, R. Eligehausen, J.E. Breen). In: ACI Structural Journal 92
(1995), No. 6, pp. 791-792.
Mallée, R. (2001): Behavior and Design of Anchors Close to an Edge under Torsion. In:
Eligehausen, R. (Editor): Connections between Steel and Concrete: Stuttgart, Germany, Sep-
tember 10th - 12th, 2001, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: RILEM Publications, 2001, pp. 178-185.
Mallée, R. (2002): Dübelgruppen am Bauteilrand unter Torsionsbeanspruchung (Anchor

Groups Loaded in Torsion Close to an Edge). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 97 (2002), No.
2, pp. 69-77 (in German).
REFERENCES 307
Mallée, R., Pusill-Wachtsmuth, P. (2007a): Design of Anchors Close to an Edge under

Shear Loads. In: Eligehausen, R.; Fuchs, W.; Genesio, W.; Grosser, P. (Eds.): Connections
between Steel and Concrete: Stuttgart, Germany, September 4th - 7th, 2007, Vol. 1.
Stuttgart: Ibidem, 2007, pp. 549-557.
Mallée, R., Pusill-Wachtsmuth, P. (2007b): Design of Anchors Close to an Edge under

Shear Loading. In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 102 (2007), Special Edition, pp. 7-15.
Martin, H.; Schwarzkopf, H. (1985): Querzugversuche an Metallspreizdübeln: Hilti HSL

M12; Fischer FZA M12 (Shear Tests with Mechanical Anchors). München: Institut für Be-
tonstahl und Stahlbetonbau e.V., 12.03.1985. Report, not published (in German).
Matupayont, S. (1989): Shear Strength of Bolt Anchorages. Bangkok, Thailand, Asian In-
stitute of Technology, Master Thesis, April, 1989.
Mitchell, N.B. (1961): The Indirect Tension Test for Concrete. In: Materials Research and
Standards ASTM, 1 (1961), No. 10, page 780-788.
Ollgaard, J.G.; Slutter, R.G.; Fisher, J.W. (1971): Shear Strength of Stud Connectors in
Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete. In: AISC Engineering Journal 8 (1971), April,
pp. 55-64.
Orr, R.A. (1995): Discussion: Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to
Concrete (Paper by W. Fuchs, R. Eligehausen, J.E. Breen). In: ACI Structural Journal 92
(1995), No. 6, pp. 792-793.
Ortiz, M. (1985): A Constitutive Theory for the Inelastic Behavior of Concrete. In: Mechan-
ics of Materials 4 (1985), No. 1, pp. 67-93.
Ožbolt, J. (1995): Maßstabseffekt und Duktilität von Beton- und Stahlbetonkonstruktionen

(Size Effect and Ductility of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Structures). Stuttgart, Ger-
many, University of Stuttgart, Habilitation, 1995. (IWB Mitteilungen 1995, 2) (in German).
Ožbolt, J.; Bazant, Z.P. (1996): Numerical Smeared Fracture Analysis: Nonlocal Mi-
crocrack Interaction Approach. In: International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineer-
ing 39 (1996), No. 4, pp. 635-661.
Ožbolt, J.; Li, Y.-J.; Kožar, I. (1998): Microplane model for concrete – mixed approach.
Stuttgart, Germany, Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, 1998. Report
No. 96-1a/ AF. (not published).
Ožbolt, J.; Li, Y.-J.; Kožar, I. (2001): Microplane Model for Concrete with Relaxed Kin-
ematic Constraint. In: International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38 (2001), No. 16, pp.
2683-2711.
Ožbolt, J.; Mayer, U.; Vocke, H.; Eligehausen, R. (1999): Das FE-Programm MASA in
Theorie und Anwendung (FE-program MASA, Theory and Application). In: Große, C. (Edi-
tor): Werkstoffe und Werkstoffprüfung im Bauwesen: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von
Prof. Dr.-Ing. H.-W. Reinhardt. Hamburg: Libri BOD, 1999, pp. 272-293 (in German).
308 REFERENCES
Ožbolt, J.; Mayer, U.; Vocke, H. (2001): Smeared fracture FE-analysis of reinforced con-
crete structures – theory and examples. In: Shing, P.B.; Tanabe, T.-A. (Eds.): Modeling of
Inelastic Behavior of RC Structures under Seismic Loads. Reston, VA: American Society of
Civil Engineers, 2001, pp. 234-256.
Ožbolt, J.; Eligehausen, R.; Periškić, G.; Mayer, U. (2007): 3D FE analysis of anchor
bolts with large embedment depths. In: Engineering Fracture Mechanics 74 (2007), No. 1-2,
pp. 168-178.
Paschen, H.; Schönhoff, T. (1982): Investigations on shear connectors made of reinforcing

steel embedded in concrete. In: Betonwerk + Fertigteiltechnik 48 (1982), No. 4, pp. 203-
214.
Paschen, H.; Schönhoff, T. (1983): Untersuchungen über in Beton eingelassene Scherbol-

zen aus Betonstahl (Investigation on Shear Bolts in Concrete Made from Concrete Steel).
Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1983 (Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton; 346), pp. 105-155 (in
German).
Paulay, T.; Park, R.; Phillips, M.H. (1974): Horizontal Construction Joints in Cast-In-
Place Reinforced Concrete. In: American Concrete Institute (Ed.): Shear in Reinforced Con-
crete, Vol. 1. Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute, 1974 (ACI Publication; SP-42).
Periškić, G. (2006a): Einzel- und Zweifachbefestigungen mit Verbunddübeln senkrecht zum

Rand unter Querlast zum Rand in ungerissenem Beton (Single anchors and double fasten-
ings with bonded anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded in shear towards
the free edge in uncracked concrete). Test report, Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construc-
tion Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. E 06/01 – E01301/1, 2006, not published
(in German).
Periškić, G. (2006b): Verhalten von Einzel- und Zweifachbefestigungen mit Verbunddübeln

senkrecht zum Rand unter Querlast zum Rand in ungerissenem Beton (Behavior of single
anchors and double fastenings with bonded anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge and
loaded in shear towards the free edge in uncracked concrete). Analysis report, Stuttgart,
Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, not published (in
German).
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute - PCI (1992): PCI Design Handbook, 4th Edition.
PCI MNL 120-92), Chicago: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1992.
Primavera, E.J.; Pinelli, J.P.; Kalajian, E.H. (1997): Tensile Behavior of Cast-in-Place
and Undercut Anchors in High-Strength Concrete. In: ACI Structural Journal 94 (1997), No.
5, pp. 583-594.
Randl, N. (2007): Load Bearing Behaviour of Cast-In Shear Dowels. In: Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 102 (2007), Special Edition, pp. 31-37.
Rasmussen, B.H. (1963): The Carrying Capacity of Transversely Loaded Bolts and Dowels
Embedded in Concrete. In: Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser 34 (1963), No. 2., pp. 39-55 (Engl.
Translation, Original in Danish).
REFERENCES 309
Riemann, H. (1990): Schreiben vom 20.9.1990 an das Institut für Bautechnik (Letter to
“Institut für Bautechnik“, Berlin, dated 20.9.1990) (in German).
Roik, K. (1982): Verbundkonstruktionen (Composite Construction). In: Deutscher Stahlbau-

Verband (Ed.): Stahlbau Handbuch für Studium und Praxis, Vol. 1. Köln: Stahlbau-Verl.,
1982, pp. 627-672 (in German).
Rüdinger, K.; Hofmann, J. (2005): Group Fastenings with Two Bonded Anchors Close to
an Edge under Torsion Loading - Numerical Investigations. In: Institut für Werkstoffe im
Bauwesen (Ed.): Jahresbericht 2002/04 Activities. Stuttgart: IWB, 2005. (IWB Mitteilung-
en; 2005,1), pp. 106-112.
Sawade, G. (1994): Ein energetisches Materialmodell zur Berechnung des Tragverhaltens

von zugbeanspruchtem Beton (Energetic Material Model to Describe the Load-Bearing Be-
havior of Concrete under Tension). Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, Dissertation, 1994 (in
German).
Schmid, K. (2010): Tragverhalten und Bemessung von Befestigungen am Bauteilrand mit

Rückhängebewehrung unter Querlasten rechtwenklig zum Rand (Behavior and design of
fastenings at the edge with anchor reinforcement under shear loads towards the edge),
Stuttgart, University of Stuttgart, Dissertation, 2010. (Oral defense: 11.12.2009), (in Ger-
man).
Schmidt, H.; Knobloch, M. (1988): Schrauben unter reiner Scherbeanspruchung und kom-
binierter Scher-Zugbeanspruchung (Screws under Shear and Combined Shear-Tension Loa-
ding). Stahlbau 57 (1988), No. 6, pp.169-174 (in German).
Senftleben, S. (2010): Zum Tragverhalten von randnahen Reihenbefestigungen beansprucht

durch eine Querlast parallel zum Bauteilrand (Behavior of Multiple Anchor Connections
close to the Edge under Shear Loading Parallel to the Edge). Stuttgart, Germany: Institute
of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Diploma Thesis, 2010 (in German).
Senkiw, G.A.; Lancelot, H.B. (Eds.) (1991): Anchors in Concrete - Design and Behavior.
Detroit, MI : American Concrete Institute, 1991 (ACI Publication ; SP-130).
Shaikh, A.F.; Yi, W. (1985): In-Place Strength of Welded Headed Studs. In: PCI Journal
30 (1985), No. 2, pp. 56-81.
Silva, J. F. (2007): Open Questions in the Field of Anchorage to Concrete. In: Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 102 (2007), Special Edition, pp. 2-6.
Sulejmani, E. (2011): Tragverhalten von randfernen Befestigungsmitteln unter Querlasten

bei der Versagensart Stahlbruch (Behavior of Anchors arranged far away from the Edge
under Shear Loading for the Failure Mode Steel Rupture). Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of
Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart, Diploma Thesis, 2011 (in German).
Stichting Bouwresearch (Ed.) (1971): Uit Beton Stekende Ankers (Anchorages in Con-
crete): Rapport A. Brüssel: Samson Uitg., 1971. (Stichting Bouwresearch; 29) (in Dutch).
310 REFERENCES
Swirsky, R.A.; Dusel, J.P.; Crozier, W.F.; Stoker, J.R.; Nordlin, E.F. (1977): Lateral
Resistance of Anchor Bolts Installed in Concrete. Sacramento, California Department of
Transportation: Office of Transportation Laboratory, 1977. Report No. CA-DOT-TL-6680-
1-77-07.
Szabó, G. (1970): Die Grundlagen der Festigkeitstheorie, Band 1 (Basics of strength theo-
ry). Wiesbaden; Berlin: Bauverlag GmbH, 1970 (in German).
Taylor, G.I. (1938): Plastic strain in metals. In: Journal of the Institute of Metals, 62 (1938),
pp. 307-324.
Thaulow, S. (1957): Tensile Splitting Test and High Strength Concrete Test Cylinders. In:
Proceedings American Concrete Institute, 53 (1957), No. 1, pp. 699-706.
Ueda, T.; Kitipornchai, S.; Ling, K. (1990): Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
under Shear. In: Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 4, 1990, pp. 910-
924.
Ueda, T.; Matupayont, S.; Kitipornchai, S. (1989): Experimental Investigation of Anchor

Bolt Group. In: Proceedings, Japan Concrete Institute, 11 (1989), No. 2, 1989, pp. 631-636.
Ueda, T.; Stitmannaithum, B.; Matupayont, S. (1991): Experimental Investigation on

Shear Strenght of Bolt Anchorage Group. In: ACI Structural Journal 88 (1991), No. 3, pp.
292-300.
Ungermann, D.; Schneider, S. (2010): Scher-Lochleibungsverbindungen mit mehr als zwei

Schrauben in Kraftrichtung hintereinander in Bauteilen aus hochfestem Stahl (S690) (Shear
and Bearing Resistance of a Group of Fasteners in High Strength Steel (S690)). Düsseldorf:
Verl. und Vertriebsges., 2010 (Forschung für die Praxis, Forschungsvereinigung Stahlan-
wendung; p.742) (in German).
Unterweger, A. (2008): Randnahe Anker unter Querlast: mechanische Modellierung und

Bemessung (Anchors close to edge under shear load). Vienna, Austria: Universität für Bo-
denkultur, Dissertation, 2008 (In German).
Utescher, G.; Herrmann, H. (1983): Versuche zur Ermittlung der Tragfähigkeit in Beton
eingespannter Rundstahldollen aus nichtrostendem austhenitischen Stahl (Tests to Deter-
mine the Capacity of Reinforcing Dowels of Stainless Austenitic Steel Fixed in Concrete).
Berlin: Ernst, 1983. (Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton; 346), pp. 49-104 (in German).
Valtinat, G. (1982): Schraubenverbindungen (Screwed connections). In: Deutscher Stahl-

bau-Verband (Ed.): Stahlbau Handbuch für Studium und Praxis, Vol. 1. Köln: Stahlbau-
Verl., 1982, pp. 402-425. (in German).
Viest, I.M. (1956): Investigation of Stud Shear Connectors for Composite Concrete and
Steel T-Beams. In: ACI Journal, 27 (1956), No. 4, pp. 875-891.
Vintzeleou, E.N.; Tassios, T.P. (1987): Behavior of Dowels under Cyclic Deformations. In:
ACI Structural Journal 84 (1987), No 1, pp. 18-30.
REFERENCES 311
Voellmy, A. (1958): Festigkeitskontrolle von Betonbelägen (Strength Tests of Concrete Pa-

vements). In: Betonstrassen-Jahrbuch, 1957/1958, Vol. 3. Köln: Fachverband Zement, 1958,
pp. 179-204 (in German).
Wiedenroth, M. (1971): Einspanntiefe und zulässige Belastung eines in einen Betonkörper

eingespannten Stabes (Length of Restraint and Permissible Load of a Rod Clamped to a
Concrete Member). In: Bautechnik 48 (1971), No. 12, pp. 426-429 (in German).
Wright, P.J.F. (1955): Comments on an Indirect Tensile Test on Concrete Cylinders. In:
Magazine of Concrete Research, 7 (1955), No. 20, pp. 87-96.
Wörner, J.-D.; Zeitler, R. (1994): Dübelverankerungen in hochfestem Beton in Zusam-

menhang mit bruchmechanischen Kenngrößen (Behavior of Anchors in High Stength Con-
crete). In: Bauingenieur 69 (1994), No. 4, pp. 151-156.
Wong, T.L. (1988): Stud Groups Loaded in Shear. Stillwater, Oklahoma State University,
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Master Thesis, 1988.
Wong, T.L.; Donahey, R.C.; Lloyd, J.P. (1998): Stud Groups Loaded in Shear Near a
Free Edge. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, Draft Paper, to be submitted to PCI in
1998.
Wüstholz, T. (1999): Tragverhalten von randnahen Befestigungsmitteln unter Querlasten

bei der Versagensart Betonausbruch (Behavior of Anchors Arranged Close to the Edge un-
der Shear Loading for the Failure Mode Concrete Breakout). Stuttgart, University of
Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, Diploma Thesis, 1999 (in German).
Zeitler, R.; Wörner, J.-D. (1995): Tragverhalten von Dübelverankerungen in hochfestem

Beton (Behavior of Anchors in High Stength Concrete). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 90
(1995), No. 9, pp. 241-244 (in German).
Zhao, G.; Fuchs, W.; Dieterle, H. (1988): Einfluss der Bauteildicke auf das Tragverhalten
von Dübelbefestigungen im ungerissenen Beton unter Querzugbeanspruchung (Influence of
Member Thickness on the Behavior of Anchors in Non-cracked Concrete under Shear Load-
ing). Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart. Test
Report No. 10/11-88/17, October 1988 (in German).
Zhao, G.; Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R. (1989): Einfluss der Bauteildicke auf das
Tragverhalten von Dübelbefestigungen im ungerissenen Beton unter Querzugbeanspruchung
(Influence of Member Thickness on the Behavior of Anchors in Non-cracked Concrete under
Shear Loading). Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials, University of
Stuttgart. Evaluation Report No. 10/12A-89/5, March 1989 (in German).
Zhao, G.; Eligehausen, R. (1992): Vorschläge zur Modifikation des CC-Verfahrens

(Proposals for Modification of the CC-Method). Stuttgart, Germany, Institute of Construc-
tion Materials, University of Stuttgart. Report No. 12/20-92/11, 1992, not published (in
German).
Zhao, G. (1993): Tragverhalten von randfernen Kopfbolzenverankerungen bei Betonbruch

(Behavior of Headed Anchors close to the Edge for the Failure Mode Concrete Edge
Breakout). Stuttgart, Universität, Dissertation, 1993 (in German).
APPENDICES 313
APPENDICES
Appendix A: test results of single anchors (Section 3.2)
Appendix B: test results of anchor groups (Section 3.3)

314 APPENDICES
Appendix A
Table A-1: Test results of single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded towards the free
edge in low strength concrete without influence of the member thickness (n = 113)
d hef hef /d c1 fcc,200 0.5Vu,test δ(0.5Vu,test) Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

M10 50 mm 5.0 50 mm 24.7 MPa 4.12 kN 0.69 mm 8.24 kN 1.36 mm CE Grosser (2011a)
M10 130 mm 13.0 100 mm 25.0 MPa 14.81 kN 1.47 mm 29.62 kN 5.56 mm S Grosser (2011a)
APPENDICES 315

316 APPENDICES

*)
fm = failure mode (CE = concrete edge failure, S = steel rupture)
Table A-2: Test results of single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded parallel to the free
edge in low strength concrete without influence of the member thickness (n = 89)
d hef hef /d c1 fcc,200 0.5Vu,test δ(0.5Vu,test) Vu,test δu,test fm* Reference

M12 80 6.7 45 31.9 MPa 18.62 kN 0.56 mm 37.24 kN 2.00 mm CE Grosser (2008a)
M16 80 5.0 50 25.0 MPa 17.59 kN 0.48 mm 35.17 kN 1.40 mm CE Grosser (2011b)
M16 80 5.0 100 27.6 MPa 29.17 kN 0.94 mm 58.34 kN 4.66 mm CE Eli.,Gro. (2007)
M16 130 8.1 100 24.2 MPa 28.12 kN 1.15 mm 56.23 kN 4.44 mm CE Hofmann (2005)
APPENDICES 317

318 APPENDICES

M24 320 13.3 200 25.5 MPa 97.85 kN 2.42 mm 195.70 kN 10.53 mm S Grosser (2011b)
*)
Table A-3: Test results of single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded towards the edge in
low strength concrete to evaluate the influence of the member thickness (n = 24)
d hef hef /d c1 h h/c1 fcc,200 Vu,test fm*) Reference

M16 90 mm 5.6 50 mm 120 mm 2.4 25.88 MPa 9.64 kN CE Eligehausen,Grosser (2007)
M16 90 mm 5.6 350 mm 120 mm 0.3 25.88 MPa 60.53 kN S Eligehausen,Grosser (2007)
M16 80 mm 5.0 100 mm 110 mm 1.1 33.73 MPa 24.22 kN CE Grosser (2010a)
*)
Table A-4: Test results of single anchors arranged close to the edge and loaded towards the edge in
low strength concrete to evaluate the influence of the member thickness (n = 12)

M16 80 mm 5.0 120 mm 135 mm 1.125 27.83 MPa 65.75 kN SP Grosser (2010a)
APPENDICES 319

M16 80 mm 5.0 120 mm 135 mm 1.125 27.83 MPa 64.48 kN SP Grosser (2010a)
M16 80 mm 5.0 150 mm 135 mm 0.90 27.83 MPa 75.27 kN NSS Grosser (2010a)
M16 80 mm 5.0 150 mm 135 mm 0.90 27.83 MPa 76.23 kN S Grosser (2010a)
*)
fm = failure mode (CE = concrete edge failure, S = steel rupture, SP = splitting in the direction of loading,
NSS = near-surface spalling) (see Figure 3.40)
Table A-5: Anchors arranged close to the edge in low strength concrete members of different
concrete mix compositions (n = 36)
Concrete with … aggregate d hef c1 fcc,200 δu,test Vu,test fm*) Reference

I - round gravel M16 100 mm 50 mm 30.29 MPa 0.95 mm 9.15 kN CE IWB (2010)
II - expanded clay (Liapor) M16 100 mm 50 mm 27.87 MPa 1.39 mm 4.72 kN CE IWB (2010)
III - crushed rock M16 100 mm 50 mm 32.27 MPa 1.04 mm 11.44 kN CE IWB (2010)
IV - round gravel + steel fibers M16 100 mm 50 mm 39.02 MPa 2.36 mm 20.63 kN CE IWB (2010)
*)
fm = failure mode (CE = concrete edge failure)
320 APPENDICES
Table A-6: Anchors arranged close to the edge in high strength concrete (test program I) (n = 24)
d hef α c1 fcc,200 0.5Vu,test δ(0.5Vu,test) Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

M16 80 mm 0° 70 mm 66.66 MPa 14.15 kN 0.39 mm 28.30 kN 0.84 mm CE Grosser (2010b)
*)
Table A-7: Anchors arranged close to the edge in high strength concrete (test program II) (n = 12)
d hef α c1 fcc,200 0.5Vu,test δ(0.5Vu,test) Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

M20 130 mm 0° 45 mm 32.42 MPa 7.63 kN 0.10 mm 15.26 kN 1.05 mm CE Senftleben (2010)
*)
APPENDICES 321
Table A-8: Anchors arranged away from the edge (test program I) (n = 93)
(1) lsc, shear loading (2) hsc, shear loading (3) steel, shear loading
d grade Reference
Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test
M12 8.8 45.24 kN 3.53 mm 43.45 kN 3.71 mm 44.34 kN 2.44 mm Grosser (2008b)
(4) lsc, shear loading + pressure (5) hsc, shear loading + pressure
d grade Reference
Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test
M16 8.8 117.09 kN 3.39 mm 113.31 kN 3.29 mm Grosser (2008b)
All anchor failed in steel rupture
(1) fcc,200 = 31.9 MPa, (2) fcc,200 = 66.7 MPa, (3) steel block, (4) fcc,200 = 34.1 MPa, (5) fcc,200 = 67.3 MPa
322 APPENDICES
Table A-9: Anchors arranged away from the edge (test program II) (n = 276)
Reference low strength concrete high strength concrete

Sulejmani (2011) fcc,200 = 31.8 MPa fcc,200 = 73.2 MPa
A5 test setup I test setup II test setup I test setup II

d fu [MPa]
[%] Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test
M8 451.0 26.7 11.44 kN 3.41 mm 10.64 kN 5.32 mm 10.65 kN 4.21 mm 10.80 kN 5.13 mm
APPENDICES 323
A5
d fu [MPa] Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test
[%]
All anchor failed in steel rupture
Table A-10: Anchors arranged away from the edge (test program II), influence of plate thickness
(n = 6)
fu A5 fcc,200 t = 10 mm t = 30 mm
d Reference
[MPa] [%] [Mpa] Vu,test δu,test Vu,test δu,test
M8 1196.6 12.1 31.8 19.15 kN 3.90 mm 20.10 kN 4.11 mm Sulejmani (2011)
M8: df = 9 mm, M16: df = 18 mm, all anchor failed in steel rupture
Table A-11: Anchors arranged away from the edge (test program III), influence of the embedment
depth (n = 29)
d grade hef hef/d fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm* Reference

M16 10.9 80 mm 5.0 22.7 MPa 66.84 kN 6.68 mm S Grosser (2008c)
324 APPENDICES
d grade hef hef/d fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm* Reference

5/8'' B7 3'' 4.8 34.6 MPa 12.74 kN 14.48 mm S Grosser, Cook (2009)
7/8'' B7 3'' 3.4 34.6 MPa 25.80 kN 14.48 mm Pr Grosser, Cook (2009)
7/8'' B7 3'' 3.4 34.6 MPa 21.31 kN 6.86 mm Pr Grosser, Cook (2009)
*)
fm = failure mode (S = steel rupture, Pr = pryout failure)
APPENDICES 325
Appendix B
Table B-1: Connections engaging multiple anchors in a row arranged parallel to the edge and
loaded perpendicular to the free edge (n = 33)
n d hef c1 s2,i s2,t fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

1 M12 80 mm 50 mm - - 23.4 MPa 11.87 kN 1.16 mm CE Grosser (2011c)
2 M12 80 mm 50 mm 50 mm 50 mm 25.2 MPa 11.74 kN 0.91 mm CE Grosser (2011c)
†)
3 M12 80 mm 50 mm 100/300 400 mm 23.6 MPa 20.43 kN 1.17 mm CE Grosser (2011c)
‡)
3 M12 80 mm 50 mm 100/300 400 mm 23.6 MPa 22.17 kN 1.41 mm CE Grosser (2011c)
*)
†)
test was performed without a teflon sheet between concrete surface and baseplate (see Figure 5.1)
‡)
hinged load application
loaded parallel to the free edge (test program I) (n = 41)

†)
1 M12 80 mm 50 mm - - 31.8 MPa 12.70 kN 1.35 mm CE Grosser (2011d)
†
1) M12 80 mm 50 mm - - 31.8 MPa 10.29 kN 1.28 mm CE Grosser (2011d)
†
1) M12 80 mm 50 mm - - 31.8 MPa 11.35 kN 1.66 mm CE Grosser (2011d)
326 APPENDICES

1 M12 80 mm 100 mm - - 28.3 MPa 52.15 kN 5.37 mm S Grosser (2011d)
1 M12 80 mm 100 mm - - 28.3 MPa 48.24 kN 7.24 mm S Grosser (2011d)
2 M12 80 mm 50 mm 100 mm 100 mm 31.8 MPa 44.90 kN 4.03 mm CE Grosser (2011d)
3 M12 80 mm 50 mm 100/300 400 mm 31.8 MPa 70.31 kN 3.14 mm CE Grosser (2011d)
*)
†)
shear load applied perpendicular to the edge (α = 0°)
loaded parallel to the free edge (test program II) (n = 30)

†)
1 M20 130 mm 45 mm - - 32.4 MPa 15.26 kN 1.05 mm CE Senftleben (2010)
†
1) M20 130 mm 45 mm - - 32.4 MPa 13.63 kN 0.97 mm CE Senftleben (2010)
†
1) M20 130 mm 45 mm - - 32.4 MPa 13.37 kN 0.58 mm CE Senftleben (2010)
APPENDICES 327

2 M20 130 mm 45 mm 100 mm 100 mm 32.4 MPa 68.21 kN 2.08 mm CE Senftleben (2010)
†)
†)
†)
*)
†)
loaded parallel to the free edge (test program III) (n = 12)
n acl d hef c1 s2,i s2/c1 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*)

2 0 mm M12 80 mm 50 mm 100 mm 2.0 32.9 MPa 57.80 kN 2.28 mm CE
*)
328 APPENDICES
Table B-5: Anchor groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded perpendicular to the free
edge (test program I) (n = 110)
Reference Grosser, Cook (2009) fck 4218 psi Vu,test δu,test failure mode
n d acl hef c1,1 s1,i s1,t s1,t/c1,1 [kips] [inch] c1,1 c1,2 c1,3
1 5/8'' - 5'' 3'' - - - 6.48 0.08 CE - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' 3'' - - - 6.14 0.16 CE - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' 3'' - - - 6.86 0.41 CE - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' - - - 10.93 0.18 CE - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' - - - 10.80 0.29 CE - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' - - - 11.52 0.29 CE - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' 6'' - - - 14.37 0.59 S - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' 6'' - - - 15.12 0.51 S - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 2'' - - - 4.14 0.07 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 2'' - - - 4.44 0.15 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 2'' - - - 3.90 0.12 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 3'' - - - 6.77 0.12 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 3'' - - - 7.36 0.12 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 3'' - - - 6.88 0.15 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' - - - 11.81 0.12 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' - - - 10.16 0.09 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' - - - 10.66 0.08 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 6'' - - - 18.56 0.18 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 6'' - - - 20.15 0.25 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 6'' - - - 20.98 0.22 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 7'' - - - 22.12 0.32 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 7'' - - - 26.46 0.48 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 7'' - - - 25.23 0.33 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 8'' - - - 26.52 0.46 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 8'' - - - 26.49 0.52 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 8'' - - - 28.02 0.40 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' 10'' - - - 32.91 0.75 S - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' 2'' - - - 4.35 0.13 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' 2'' - - - 4.11 0.08 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' 2'' - - - 4.73 0.27 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' 4'' - - - 12.88 0.13 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' 4'' - - - 12.29 0.12 CE - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' 4'' - - - 10.99 0.11 CE - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' - - - - 12.79 0.51 S - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' - - - - 12.67 0.60 S - -
1 5/8'' - 5'' - - - - 13.13 0.66 S - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' - - - - 32.53 0.71 S - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' - - - - 31.38 0.77 S - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' - - - - 32.00 1.02 S - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' - - - - 29.80 0.77 S - -
1 7/8'' - 5'' - - - - 31.69 0.70 S - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' - - - - 30.70 0.72 S - -
1 7/8'' - 8'' - - - - 29.55 0.75 S - -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 3'' 4'' 4'' 1.3 17.18 0.48 CE S -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 3'' 4'' 4'' 1.3 18.57 0.48 CE S -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 3'' 4'' 4'' 1.3 18.05 0.54 CE S -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' 2'' 2'' 0.5 17.32 0.14 (-) CE -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' 2'' 2'' 0.5 18.04 0.12 (-) CE -
APPENDICES 329
2 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' 2'' 2'' 0.5 18.35 0.14 (-) CE -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 19.68 0.53 CE S -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 18.42 0.12 CE S -
2 5/8'' - 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 16.51 0.10 CE S -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 9.24 0.10 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 9.40 0.07 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 9.31 0.10 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 8'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 11.49 0.13 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 8'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 10.09 0.14 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 8'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 9.35 0.07 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 24.43 0.13 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 26.52 0.38 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 28.34 0.40 CE CE -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 6'' 6'' 1.5 31.16 0.84 CE S -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 6'' 6'' 1.5 32.54 0.68 CE S -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 6'' 6'' 1.5 30.17 0.66 CE S -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 8'' 8'' 2.0 31.97 0.24 CE S -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 8'' 8'' 2.0 34.08 0.52 CE S -
2 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 8'' 8'' 2.0 29.11 0.17 CE S -
2 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 18.28 0.15 CE S -
2 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 21.14 0.25 CE S -
2 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 20.91 0.62 CE S -
2 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 6'' 2'' 2'' 0.3 27.01 0.54 S S -
2 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 6'' 2'' 2'' 0.3 26.53 0.48 S S -
2 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 6'' 2'' 2'' 0.3 26.46 0.66 S S -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 9.72 0.16 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 8.39 0.22 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 2'' 2'' 2'' 1.0 10.06 0.20 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 2'' 4'' 4'' 2.0 19.41 0.30 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 2'' 4'' 4'' 2.0 18.60 0.52 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 2'' 4'' 4'' 2.0 17.07 0.51 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 2'' 4'' 4'' 2.0 17.59 0.40 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 3'' 4'' 4'' 1.3 22.81 0.43 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 3'' 4'' 4'' 1.3 22.65 0.35 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 3'' 4'' 4'' 1.3 19.41 0.15 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 2'' 2'' 0.5 13.03 0.30 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 2'' 2'' 0.5 14.94 0.18 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 2'' 2'' 0.5 15.15 0.18 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 18.86 0.41 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 18.34 0.31 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 4'' 1.0 18.75 0.41 CE CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 6'' 6'' 1.5 29.37 0.97 CE S -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 6'' 6'' 1.5 29.16 0.86 CE S -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 6'' 6'' 1.5 31.22 0.82 CE S -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 8'' 2'' 2'' 0.3 36.31 0.26 (-) CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 8'' 2'' 2'' 0.3 38.48 0.29 (-) CE -
2 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 8'' 2'' 2'' 0.3 32.91 0.18 (-) CE -
3 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 2'' 4'' 1.0 28.14 0.10 (-) CE CE
3 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 2'' 4'' 1.0 24.05 0.10 (-) CE CE
3 7/8'' - 5'' 4'' 2'' 4'' 1.0 22.85 0.10 (-) CE CE
3 7/8'' - 5'' 3'' 4'' 8'' 2.7 37.78 0.56 CE CE CE
3 7/8'' - 5'' 3'' 4'' 8'' 2.7 41.29 0.18 CE CE CE
330 APPENDICES
3 7/8'' - 5'' 3'' 4'' 8'' 2.7 37.05 0.27 CE CE CE
3 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 2'' 4'' 1.0 27.19 0.15 CE CE CE
3 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 2'' 4'' 1.0 29.75 0.25 CE CE CE
3 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 2'' 4'' 1.0 28.33 0.18 CE CE CE
3 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 3'' 4'' 8'' 2.7 37.97 0.25 CE CE CE
3 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 3'' 4'' 8'' 2.7 41.00 0.13 CE CE CE
3 7/8'' 2 mm 5'' 3'' 4'' 8'' 2.7 42.42 0.35 CE CE CE
3 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 8'' 2.0 31.57 0.53 CE S S
3 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 8'' 2.0 33.47 0.62 CE S S
3 5/8'' 2 mm 5'' 4'' 4'' 8'' 2.0 30.61 0.61 CE S S
*)
Table B-6: Anchor groups arranged perpendicular to the edge and loaded perpendicular to the free
edge (test program II) (n = 6)
fcc,200 31.8 MPa (n = 2) fcc,200 24.43 MPa (n = 5) Vu,test δu,test failure mode
n d hef c1,1 s1,i s1,t s1,t/c1,1 [kN] [mm] c1,1 c1,2 c1,3 c1,4 c1,5
2 M12 80 mm 50 mm 100 mm 100 mm 2.0 49.43 5.28 CE CE - - -
2 M12 80 mm 50 mm 100 mm 100 mm 2.0 49.43 5.28 CE CE - - -
2 M12 80 mm 50 mm 100 mm 100 mm 2.0 49.43 5.28 CE CE - - -
5 M16 130 mm 50 mm 50 mm 200 mm 4.0 98.17 1.50 - - - (CE) CE
5 M16 130 mm 50 mm 50 mm 200 mm 4.0 83.61 0.93 - - - (CE) CE
5 M16 130 mm 50 mm 50 mm 200 mm 4.0 108.19 2.28 - - CE CE CE
*)
Table B-7: Anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge (test program I) (n = 31)
n d hef c1,1 s1 s2 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

4 M16 80 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 30.3 MPa 199.84 kN 3.53 mm PR/CE Grosser (2007a)
4 M16 130 mm 70 mm 70 mm 70 mm 24.8 MPa 167.50 kN 5.00 mm PR/CE Hofmann (2005)
APPENDICES 331

*)
fm = failure mode could not be identified (CE = concrete edge failure, PR = pryout failure)
Table B-8: Anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge (test program II) (n = 126)

†)
1 M20 195 mm 70 mm - - 30.9 MPa 21.44 kN 1.08 mm CE Gro., Eli. (2008)
1†) M20 195 mm 70 mm - - 31.3 MPa 23.64 kN 0.79 mm CE Gro., Eli. (2008)
†)
†) 1)
†)
†)
†)
†)
2)
1 M20 195 mm 170 mm - - 30.4 MPa 128.45 kN 13.23 mm S Gro., Eli. (2008)
1 M20 195 mm 170 mm - - 31.5 MPa 125.25 kN 14.25 mm S Gro., Eli. (2008)
2 M20 195 mm 70 mm 70 mm - 29.0 MPa 159.43 kN 5.15 mm CE Gro., Eli. (2008)
‡)
‡)
‡)
332 APPENDICES

1)
1)
2 M20 195 mm 70 mm - 70 mm 30.0 MPa 90.47 kN 2.15 mm CE Gro., Eli. (2008)
1)
3)
APPENDICES 333

4 M20 195 mm 70 mm 70 mm 70 mm 29.0 MPa 222.49 kN 4.72 mm CE Gro., Eli. (2008)
‡)
‡)
‡)
*)
†)
‡)
hinged load application
1)
test was influenced by adjacent test (not considered in the evaluation)
2)
test was performed without a teflon sheet between concrete surface and baseplate (see Figure 5.1)
3)
shear load was applied with an eccentricity to the anchors (not considered in the evaluation)
334 APPENDICES
Table B-9: Anchor groups loaded parallel to the free edge (test program III) (n = 8)
n d hef c1,1 s1 s2/c1,1 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

2 M24 130 mm 150 mm 50 mm 0.33 25.2 MPa 202.94 kN 5.33 mm CE -
1 M24 130 mm 150 mm - - 25.2 MPa 112.04 kN 5.36 mm CE Grosser (2011a)
*)
Table B-10: Anchorages arranged in narrow concrete members (Grosser, 2011e) (n = 15)
n α d hef c1,1 c2,1 = c2,2 s1 s2,1 = s2,2 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*)
1 0° M20 195 mm 250 mm 150 mm 100 mm 100 mm 30.8 MPa 71.66 kN 2.39 mm CE
2 90° M12 120 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 32.8 MPa 85.80 kN 6.61 mm S
4 90° M20 195 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 32.0 MPa 198.74 kN 2.26 mm SP
*)
fm = failure mode (CE = concrete edge failure, S = steel rupture, SP = splitting (bending) failure)
Table B-11: Shear collectors loaded far away from the edge (n = 10)

1 M12 80 mm - - - 31.8 MPa 29.09 kN 7.17 mm S Grosser (2011d)
3 M12 80 mm - 100 mm 200 mm 31.8 MPa 83.54 kN 5.28 mm S Grosser (2011d)
*)
fm = failure mode (S = steel rupture)
APPENDICES 335
Table B-12: Anchor groups loaded under torsion close to the edge (test program I) (n = 91)
n d hef c1 s2 s2/c1 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

1 M16 80 mm 100 mm - - 29.9 MPa 28.55 kN 1.60 mm CE Eli., Gros. (2007)
2 M16 80 mm 100 mm 50 mm 0.50 29.9 MPa 21.91 kN 1.20 mm CE Eli., Gros. (2007)
2 M16 80 mm 100 mm 50 mm 0.50 22.7 MPa 19.71 kN 0.64 mm CE Grosser (2008c)
1 M16 60 mm 200 mm - - 25.2 MPa 55.28 kN 3.40 mm CE Grosser (2011f)
‡)
1 M16 60 mm 200 mm - - 25.0 MPa 47.72 kN 4.67 mm PR Grosser (2011f)
†)
1 M16 60 mm - - - 25.0 MPa 50.71 kN 3.86 mm PR Grosser (2011i)
†)
†)
2 M16 60 mm 200 mm 50 mm 0.25 25.2 MPa 43.02 kN 1.77 mm CE Grosser (2011f)
336 APPENDICES
n d hef c1 s2 s2/c1 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

1 M16 130 mm 200 mm - - 24.2 MPa 78.43 kN 12.05 mm S Grosser (2008c)
*)
fm = failure mode (CE = concrete edge failure, PR = pryout failure, S = steel rupture)
†)
shear load applied away to the edge (α = 180°)
‡)
vinylester based system used
APPENDICES 337
Table B-13: Anchor groups loaded under torsion close to the edge (test program II) (n = 15)
n d hef c1,1 s1 s1/c1,1 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

*)
Table B-14: Anchor groups loaded under torsion in a corner (test program III) (Grosser, 2011g)
(n = 12)
n d hef c1 c2 s1 fcc,200 Vu,test δu,test fm*) loading

2 M16 130 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100.00 24.9 MPa 22.90 kN 1.75 mm CE clockwise
2 M16 130 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100.00 24.9 MPa 20.13 kN 1.27 mm CE counter-clockwise
*)
Table B-15: Multiple anchor groups (n > 2) loaded under torsion close to the edge (n = 30)
n d hef c1 s1 (s1,t) s2 (s2,t) fcc,200 V1u,test V2u,test fm*) Reference

4 M16 80 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 29.2 MPa 28.20 kN 27.91 kN CE Eli., Gros. (2007)
338 APPENDICES
n d hef c1 s1 (s1,t) s2 (s2,t) fcc,200 V1u,test V2u,test fm*) Reference

†)
4 M16 130 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm 25.2 MPa 29.32 kN 28.99 kN CE Grosser (2011h)
†)
†)
6 M16 130 mm 100 mm 100 mm 100 (200) 22.9 MPa 56.96 kN 55.23 kN CE Grosser (2011h)
6 M16 130 mm 100 mm 100 (200) 200 mm 26.7 MPa 99.01 kN 99.13 kN CE Grosser (2011h)
6 M16 130 mm 100 mm 100 (200) 200 mm 23.6 MPa 110.48 kN 108.77 kN CE Grosser (2011h)
9 M16 130 mm 100 mm 100 (200) 100 (200) 23.4 MPa 101.07 kN 97.78 kN CE Grosser (2011h)
*)
†)
tests were carried out with hole clearance in most unfavorable anchor configuration (see Figure 3.153)
Table B-16: Anchorages loaded in tension and shear far away from the edge (n = 21)
n d hef s1 = s2 fcc,200 0.5Nu,test 0.5δu,test Nu,test δu,test fm*) Reference

1 M16 60 mm - 25 mm 17.59 kN 1.06 mm 35.18 kN 1.06 mm C Grosser (2011i)
4 M24 60 mm 100 mm 23 mm 34.03 kN 0.03 mm 68.06 kN 0.15 mm C Grosser (2011i)
*)
n d hef s1 = s2 fcc,200 0.5Vu,test 0.5δu,test Vu,test δu,test fm Reference
1 M16 60 mm - 25 mm 25.36 kN 1.12 mm 50.71 kN 3.86 mm PR Grosser (2011i)
4 M16 60 mm 100 mm 25 mm 83.00 kN 1.03 mm 166.00 kN 2.24 mm PR Grosser (2011i)
*)
fm = failure mode (C = concrete cone failure, PR = pryout failure)
APPENDICES 339
Table B-17: Anchorages loaded in torsion far away from the edge (n = 12)
n d hef s1 = s2 fcc,200 V1u,test δ1u,test V2u,test δ2u,test fm*) Reference

2 M16 60 mm 50 mm 25.1 MPa 50.31 kN 4.32 mm 50.14 kN 3.94 mm PR Grosser (2011i)
4 M16 80 mm 100 mm 23.7 MPa 51.10 kN 13.60 mm 50.80 kN 12.67 mm S Eli., Gros. (2007)
*)
fm = failure mode (PR = pryout failure, S = steel rupture)

Dissertation Grosser 2012 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dissertation Grosser 2012 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Load-bearing behavior and design of

anchorages subjected to shear and torsion loading

Von der Fakultät für Bau- und Umweltingenieurwissenschaften

Hauptberichter: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rolf Eligehausen

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 31.07.2012

Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart

whose love, support and understanding

This work is dedicated to you.

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 CONTEXT FOR THE RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 2

2 STATE OF THE ART .................................................................................................... 7

2.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 9

2.3 FAILURE MODES UNDER SHEAR LOADING ......................................................................... 29

2.4 DETERMINATION OF ANCHORS PARTICIPATING IN SHEAR ................................................. 36

2.5 DISCUSSION OF DESIGN PROVISIONS................................................................................. 37

3 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................... 47

3.1 SCOPE .............................................................................................................................. 47

3.2 SINGLE ANCHOR TESTS .................................................................................................... 47

3.2.1.1 Investigated fasteners ........................................................................................................... 48

3.3 GROUP TESTS ................................................................................................................. 107

4 NUMERICAL STUDIES ........................................................................................... 193

4.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 193

4.5 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATIONS ...................................................................................... 202

5 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PREDICTION MODELS ......................................... 245

5.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 245

5.2 MEAN PREDICTION EQUATION TO CALCULATE THE CONCRETE EDGE BREAKOUT

5.3 MEAN PREDICTION EQUATION TO CALCULATE THE CONCRETE EDGE BREAKOUT

5.4 MEAN PREDICTION EQUATION TO CALCULATE STEEL RUPTURE OF A SINGLE ANCHOR

5.5 MODIFICATION FACTOR TO CONSIDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIMITED MEMBER

5.7 MODIFICATION FACTOR TO CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE CONCRETE

5.8 VERIFICATION OF GROUPS ARRANGED PERPENDICULAR TO THE EDGE AND LOADED

5.8.1 Anchor groups without hole clearance ....................................................................... 265

5.9 VERIFICATION OF GROUPS ARRANGED PERPENDICULAR TO THE EDGE AND LOADED

5.10 VERIFICATION OF ANCHORAGES CLOSE TO THE EDGE LOADED IN SHEAR INCLINED TO

5.12.1 Shear resisted by the front anchors ............................................................................. 276

5.13 EVALUATION OF SHEAR DISPLACEMENT AT FAILURE TO DETERMINE DISTRIBUTION

6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 283

6.1 DESIGN FORMAT ............................................................................................................ 283

6.2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 284

6.3 REQUIRED VERIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 284

6.4 RESISTANCE TO SHEAR LOAD ......................................................................................... 284

7 SUMMARY AND OPEN QUESTIONS ................................................................... 291

7.1 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 291

7.2 OPEN QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 294

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 313

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 314

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................ 325

ACTIONS AND RESISTANCES

CONCRETE AND STEEL

As = stressed cross section of steel

DIMENSIONS AND AREAS

STRESSES, STRAINS AND DEFORMATIONS

FURTHER GREEK SYMBOLS

α = factor for interaction equation; shear load direction

fcc,200 = 0.95 fcc,150

C20/25: fcc,200 = fc / 0.84

The conversion of US units to SI equivalent units is shown in the following table.

Table 0.1: Conversion factors

US units equivalent SI units

Example: Mean concrete breakout equation for a single anchor (CCD-method*))

US units (fractional) SI units (imperial)

Conversion by equating (1) and (2):