Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The connections between steel and concrete have been the
subject of several studieswith notable achievements both
in the understanding of connection behavior and connection design.1-12 Different types of anchors may be used to
transfer shear and/or tension between structural members
and the correct assessment of their behavior in terms of stiffness and resistance is a key step for the characterization of
connections employing such anchors. With advancements
in the understanding of the failure mechanisms, a method
for the prediction of the concrete failure modes known as
the Concrete Capacity Design Method (CC Method) was
proposed by Fuchs et al.8 Farrow and Klingner7 verified the
adequacy of the method with experimental tests.
Based on experimental investigations, this paper contributes
to the understanding of the behavior of anchoragesusing
headed anchorssubjected to tension loading and reinforced
with steel hanger reinforcement bars. It is shown that the
presence of steel reinforcement in the concreteeither as
hooked bars (hanger reinforcement) or as a grid surface
reinforcementenhances the resistance and ductility of the
connection. In addition, the influence of the anchor embedment depth/member thickness ratio was also investigated.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The aim of this study is to properly understand the behavior
of headed anchors subjected to tension in the presence of
reinforcement designed to increase the anchor capacity.
Experimental tests were carried out with the objective of
obtaining data for the calibration of numerical13 and analytical models and the improvement of current design methods.
The performed tests enhanced the contribution of the hanger
reinforcement to improving the resistance and deformation
capacity of the anchorage in concrete. The comparison with
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2013
239
y A, N =
0
(NRk,c
)
0
Rk , c
1.5
ef
= k fck ,cube h
(N)
0
N Rk ,c = N Rk
, c y A, N y s , N y ec , N y re , N y ucr , N (N)
y s, N = 0.7 + 0.3
(2)
c
1
1.5hef
(4)
(3)
Ac0, N
A0c,N = 9hef2 : area of the concrete cone base (at the surface)
corresponding to an individual fastener with a distance
to other fasteners or to the concrete free edges such that
these effects are negligible.
Ac,N: area of the concrete cone base considering closely
spaced anchors (superposition of cones) and/or concrete
member edges.
ys,N: factor accounting for the influence of proximate
edges. This factor is relevant only when c < 1.5hef,
where c (mm) is the smallest distance to the edges
(1)
The resistance was found to be a function of the embedment depth hef (mm) and the concrete compressive strength
fck,cube (N/mm2). The factor k varies as a function of the
concrete statecracked (8.5) or uncracked (11.9). In
ACI 318-08,3 the characteristic resistance is calculated using
the concrete compressive cylinder strength instead of the
cube strength and the factor k is equal to 10 independent of
the concrete state.
The other effects contributing to the resistance of the
0
connection are taken into account by multiplying N Rk,c
by a
2
series of factors yi. According to CEN/TS 1992-4, the resistance of an anchor or a group of anchors is given by
Ac , N
1
1+ 2
en
scr , n
(5)
y re, N = 0.5 +
hef
200
(6)
(7)
(N)
(8)
(9)
where h1 and h2 are factors that take into account the bond
conditions and the diameter of the reinforcing bars, respectively. In all test specimens, both factors are equal to 1, as the
bond conditions are assumed good and the diameter of the
hanger reinforcement bars is smaller than 32 mm (1.26 in.).
Effect of concrete member thickness h
The concrete member thickness h (mm) could affect the
resistance to splitting failure. This failure mode may be
disregarded if: 1) anchors are installed with edge distances
greater than characteristic edge distances (ccr,sp [mm]); and
2) confining reinforcement is provided to control crack
widths to 0.3 mm (0.012 in.). According to CEN/TS 19924,2 the resistance to splitting failure is determined similarly
to Eq. (2) with inclusion of the factor yh,N.
y h,N
h
=
hmin
2 /3
2hef
hmin
2 /3
(10)
Concrete
2
fcm,cub, N/mm
(ksi)
fctm, N/mm
(ksi)
Ecm, N/mm
(ksi) 103
G1S1
29.5
(4.23)
2.29
(0.33)
30.38
(4.41)
G1S2
30.59
(4.44)
2.40
(0.35)
31.00
(4.50)
G1S3
46.68
(6.77)
3.43
(0.50)
34.13
(4.95)
G1S4
29.51
(4.28)
2.32
(0.48)
30.80
(4.47)
G1S5
25.77
(3.74)
2.04
(0.44)
29.91
(4.34)
G2S6 to
G2S10
24.68
(3.58)
1.96
(0.28)
28.85
(4.18)
Test series
242
Headed anchors
2
Anchor plate
fsyk, N/mm
(ksi)
Es, N/mm
(ksi) 103
fsyk, N/mm
(ksi)
Es, N/mm
(ksi) 103
fsyk, N/mm2
(ksi)
Es, N/mm2
(ksi) 103
500
(72.52)
210
(30.46)
640
(92.82)
210
(30.46)
651
(94.42)
218.88
(31.75)
1008.33
(146.25)
213.31
(30.94)
355
(51.49)
210
(30.46)
hef, mm (in.)
d, mm (in.)
dh, mm (in.)
th, mm (in.)
c, mm (in.)
s, mm (in.)
G1S1
150 (5.90)
25 (0.98)
45 (1.77)
20 (0.79)
625 (24.61)
77 (3.03)
G1S2
200 (7.87)
30 (1.18)
60 (2.36)
25 (0.98)
625 (24.61)
130 (5.12)
G1S3
260 (10.24)
40 (1.57)
75 (2.95)
35 (1.38)
625 (24.61)
195 (7.68)
G1S4
200 (7.87)
30 (1.18)
60 (2.36)
25 (0.98)
525 (20.67)
200 (7.87)
130 (5.12)
200 (7.87)
30 (1.18)
60 (2.36)
25 (0.98)
200 (7.87)
130 (5.12)
G1S5
Type
Hanger reinforcement?
No. of legs
dshr, mm (in.)
dsr, mm (in.)
#sr, mm (in.)
N1
No
No
No
Yes
10 (0.394)
150 (5.90)
N2
N3
N4
10 (0.394)
Yes
4
12 (0.472)
N5
*
h, mm (in.)
No
Yes
10 (0.394)
150 (5.90)
d; dh, mm (in.)
th, mm (in.)
c; s, mm (in.)
b; l, mm (in.)
hef, mm (in.)
h, mm (in.)
150 (5.91)
300 (11.81)
200 (7.87)
300 (11.81)
240 (9.44)
300 (11.81)
G2S9
160 (6.29)
200 (7.87)
G2S10
200 (7.87)
250 (9.84)
dsr, mm (in.)
#sr, mm (in.)
Yes
12 (0.472)
150 (5.90)
G2S6
G2S7
G2S8
22 (0.87); 35 (1.38)
10 (0.39)
370 (14.57);
110 (4.33)
850 (33.46);
1200 (47.24)
Type
Hanger reinforcement?
No. of legs
dshr, mm (in.)
shr
N6
No
N7
Yes
N8
Yes
10 (0.394)
0.0
0.75hef
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
N1
173.00
(38.89)
268.50
(60.36)
463.50
(104.20)
299.30
(67.29)
159.10
(35.77)
N2
186.40
(41.90)
266.60
(59.93)
476.60
(107.14)
298.50
(67.11)
204.70
(46.02)
N3
240.10
(53.98)
337.50
(75.87)
587.80
(132.14)
299.20
(67.26)
228.80
(51.43)
N4
186.10
(41.84)
284.90
(64.05)
539.40
(121.62)
273.80
(61.55)
209.60
(47.12)
N5
256.80
(57.73)
349.40
(78.55)
636.30
(143.05)
408.30
(91.79)
256.40
(57.64)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
N6
144.64
(32.52)
189.90
(42.69)
291.84
(65.61)
147.81
(33.23)
243.56
(54.75)
N7
226.18
(50.85)
246.86
(55.50)
322.76
(72.56)
177.83
(39.98)
227.33
(51.10)
N8
161.43
(36.29)
234.46
(52.71)
284.53
(63.96)
172.78
(38.84)
284.94
(64.06)
245
NRm,a, kN (kips)
min(NRm,shr, NRm,a)/Nu,test
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
N1
165.25 (37.15)
260.62 (58.59)
477.20 (107.28)
341.31 (76.73)
143.53 (32.27)
N2 and N3
157.08 (35.31)
157.08 (35.31)
157.08 (35.31)
157.08 (35.31)
157.08 (35.31)
N4 and N5
226.19 (50.85)
226.19 (50.85)
226.19 (50.85)
226.19 (50.85)
226.19 (50.85)
N2 and N3
71.22 (16.01)
126.02 (28.33)
270.16 (60.73)
121.82 (27.39)
107.12 (24.08)
N4 and N5
85.47 (19.21)
151.23 (33.00)
324.19 (72.88)
146.19 (32.86)
125.54 (28.90)
N2
0.38
0.47
0.33
0.41
0.52
N3
0.30
0.37
0.27
0.41
0.47
N4
0.46
0.53
0.42
0.53
0.61
N5
0.33
0.43
0.36
0.36
0.50
S7
S8
S9
S10
NRk,c, kN (kips)
N6
96.54 (21.70)
141.33 (31.77)
180.99 (40.69)
105.05 (23.62)
141.33 (31.77)
NRm,shr, kN (kips)
N7 and N8
409.03 (91.95)
409.03 (91.95)
409.03 (91.95)
409.03 (91.95)
409.03 (91.95)
N7
158.34 (35.60)
237.50 (53.39)
308.76 (69.41)
182.09 (40.93)
245.45 (55.17)
N8
71.25 (16.02)
102.92 (23.14)
158.34 (35.59)
79.17 (17.80)
110.84 (24.92)
N7
0.70
0.96
0.96
1.02
1.08
N8
0.44
0.44
0.56
0.46
0.39
NRm,a, kN (kips)
min(NRm,shr, NRm,a)/Nu,test
N u = N u cm , S 2
fcm
1/ 2
(N)
(11)
N u = N u cm , S 2
fcm
2 /3
(N)
(12)
Fig. 12Effect of providing grid surface reinforcement on test specimens of Test Group G1.
hef , si
1.5
(N)
(13)
Group G2. Due to the limitations often related to experimental research, numerical work should also be performed,
providing a better comprehension of the phenomena and a
larger amount of results.
CONCLUSIONS
The performed experimental tests demonstrated that the
behavior of reinforced anchorages is governed by a dependent set of components and variables: concrete tensile resistance, bond of the steel hanger reinforcement in the concrete
cone, the hook effect of the hanger reinforcement, the position of the hanger reinforcement, and the confining effect of
the grid surface reinforcement. From the comparison of the
test results with the analytical predictions (according to the
design guides1-3), it was concluded that the current methods
that take into account the use of steel hanger reinforcement
are quite conservative.
The presented results revealed that the evaluation of the
resistance of a reinforced anchorage cannot rely only on the
capacity of the steel hanger reinforcement or its anchorage
capacity, as is currently done. The contribution of the
concrete resistance is clear and should be taken into account.
It was also found that the steel hanger reinforcement
provides a resistance enhancement when not associated with
grid surface reinforcement and when its resistance is smaller
than the pure concrete cone. Thus, in a future improvement
of the current model, a summed contribution of concrete and
hanger reinforcement should be considered.
Also, the test results suggest that the hook effect is independent of the embedment depth or anchorage length l1,hr;
therefore, the expression proposed by the guides1,2 for
computing NRk,a seems inadequate because it considers this
effect by multiplying the resistance value by a factor and
not adding it to the resistance. This is in agreement with the
study performed by Kuhlmann and Imminger,9 which stated
that these effects should be considered independently.
Regarding the concrete member thickness, the limited
number of results did not allow for the attainment of
conclusive answers; however, the test results indicate that
the member thickness effect is minimized by the concrete
member reinforcement.
REFERENCES
249
NOTES:
250