Bonded Anchors

Fastenings with Bonded Anchors
- Design Model & Extend Testing Concept -

R. Eligehausen
J.Appl
L. Bezecny
University of Stuttgart
Institute of Construction Materials
Behavior of Bonded Anchors
F
F
τ2 τ1
hef
Thread Rod Mortar Concrete
(Cook, Kunz, Fuchs, Konz (1998))
20
t [N/mm²]
τ
Gemessen
Measured τ
15
strength [N/mm²]
Verbundfestigkeit
10 Annahmeτ τu,m
Assumption u,m
5
Bond
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Einbindetiefe [mm]
Embedment depth [mm]
N u,Bond
N u,Bond = π ⋅ d ⋅ hef ⋅ τ u,m [N] d 0 / d ≤ 1,5
d= diameter of the anchor rod [mm]

τu,m= average bond resistance [N/mm²]
hef= embedment depth [mm]
d0= diameter of of borehole [mm]
DESIGN OF FASTENINGS - Bonded Anchors
Cook, R. et al. (1994)

Average Bond Strength Values for Different Mortar Types
Average Bond Strength Values for Different Mortar Types
DESIGN OF FASTENINGS - Bonded anchors
Factors influencing the strength of bonded

anchors
• Drilling method • Temperature
• Hole cleaning • Freeze/thaw
• Mixing • Chemicals (alkalinity, ozone, sulfur)
• Installation in wet concrete • Sustained loading
• Submerged installation • Fatigue, seismic
• Hole orientation • Fire
• Shelf life • Cracked concrete
• Diameter • Curing
• Embedment
Influence is product dependent: Prequalification is necessary
Influence of Hole Cleaning (Dry Concrete)
Influence of Hole Cleaning
Mortar Mortar
drill dust
Concrete Anchor Rod Concrete Anchor Rod
Newly Developed Machine Cleaning Equipment
Extension for Brush
Compressed Air Lance
(System Upat UPM 44)
University of Stuttgart (Hilti)

Failure Mode Pullout – Influence of Hole Cleaning
τ [N/mm2]
16 Concrete C 20/25
Post-installed ds = 20 mm
Post-installed
Compressed Air / Machine Driven Wire Brush
12
8 Cast-in-place
4
Post-installed
Post-installed
Hand Brush / Hand Pump
0 s [mm]
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Failure Mode Pullout – Influence of Hole Cleaning
14
Compressed Air / Machine Driven Wire Brush
12
Bond Stress [N/mm²]
10 Compressed Air / Machine Driven Nylon Brush
4
Hand Brush / Hand Pump
Hybrid System
2
Wet Concrete C 20/25
ds = 20 mm
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement [mm]
Experimental Results – Cement Systems – Cleaning Method
Bohrlochbewäs. 6h cc , s
30
C20/25 Reinigung H1
1. Cleaning
ds=20 mm Reinigung H2
2. Moisture 6h
25 hef=200 mm Reinigung M1
3. Installation
Stress [N/mm²]
Verbundspannung τ [N/mm²]
τ3xblowing,
u
3xbrushing, 3xblowing
20 (Machine)
15 1xblowing,
τu 1xbrushing, 1xblowing (Hand)
τu
1xblowing
(Hand)
Bond
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Verschiebung v [mm]
Displacement [mm]
Bonded Anchors - Influence of Temperature
bond strength [%]
temperature [°C] (Kunz/Cook/Fuchs/Spieth (1998))
Bond strength as a function of temperature

Bonded Anchors
1,20
1,00 symbol location
|1|
N (t)/N (t=0) [-]
0,80 |2|
|3|
0,60 |4|
|5|
0,40 |6|
|7|
0,20 |8|
0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time [years]
Failure load of bonded anchors based on unsaturated polyester resin as a
function of time
Bonded Anchors – Sustained Load
Current evaluation criteria

KraftLoad
N [kN]
N [kN]
80
Nu
Nadh
40
Nsust
0
0 5 10 15
sadh su Verschiebung
Displacement s [mm]
s [mm]
s
sadh, Short Time
sCreep, extra
sCreep
• Load with Nsust s0 log t

(Eq 5.6a, ETAG, Part 5)
50 Years
• Loading duration min. 3 Month
Æ creep displacement sCreep
• Extrapolation of creep displacement (Findley) to 50
Years (T=20°C) or 10 Years (T=50°C)
Æ extrapolated creep displacement sCreep,extra
• Short time test Æ Displacement at failure sadh, Short Time
sCreep,extra < sadh, Short Time Æ OK
Sustained Load – Test Setup
5 Concrete cubes with

anchors
Displacement transducer
Lever arm
Weight
Hybrid mortar, T = 20°C

hef = 80 mm, Sustained load Np = 28,3 kN = 0,9 Nu,m Short Time
1,6
1,4
su,m (Short Time)
Verschiebung [mm]
[mm]
1,2
sU= 1,00 mm
1,0
Displacement
sU= 0,81 mm sU= 0,90 mm su,adh,m (Short Time)

0,8
sU= 0,68 mm
0,6
0,4
Test running
sNp,m (Short Time)
0,2
0,0
0,1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Zeit [h]
Time [h]

1,4
su,m (Short Time)
1,2
[mm]
Verschiebung[mm]
sU= 0,78 mm sU= 0,86 mm

1,0
su,adh,m (Short Time)
Displacement
0,8
sU= 0,84 mm
0,6 sU= 0,70 mm
0,4
sNp,m (Short Time)
0,2
0,0
0,1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
University of Stuttgart Time [h]
Zeit [h]

1,6
1,4
su,m (Short Time)
[mm]
Verschiebung[mm]
1,2
1,0
Displacement

0,8
0,6
0,4
sNp,m (Short Time)
0,2
0,0
0,1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
University of Stuttgart Time
Zeit [h]
[h]

hef = 80 mm
Kraft [kN]
Load N [kN]
45
Langzeitversuch
Sustained load test(Versuch
(running)läuft)
40
Langzeitversuch
Sustained load test(Versagen)
(failure)
35 Short time test (concr.
Kurzzeitversuch in derspecimen)
Platte
30 Short time test (concrete
Kurzzeitversuch im Würfel cubes)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0
Verschiebung
Displacement [mm]
s [mm]
Epoxy, T = 20°C
1,4
Tests running
1,2 su,m (Short Time)
Verschiebung[mm]
[mm]
1,0 sU= 0,88 mm

Displacement
0,8 sU= 0,65 mm
0,6
0,4
sU= 0,64 mm
0,2
0,0
0,1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Zeit [h]
Time [h]
Epoxy, T = 20°C
hef = 30 mm
35
Kurzzeitversuch
Short time tests
30 Langzeitversuch (Versagen)
Sustained load test (failure)
Sustained load test
Langzeitversuch (running)
(Versuch läuft)
25
[kN]
[kN]
20
Kraft N
Load
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement
Verschiebung s s[mm]
[mm]
Epoxy, T = 50°C,
1,2
su,m (Short Time)
1,0
[mm]
Verschiebung [mm]

0,8
Displacement
0,6
0,4
Tests running
0,2
0,0
0,1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time
Zeit [h]
[h]
Epoxy, T = 50°C
hef = 30 mm
30
Kurzzeitversuch
Short time tests
25 Sustained load test
Langzeitversuch (running)
(Versuch läuft)
20
N [kN]
Kraft [kN]
15
Load
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement s [mm]
Verschiebung s [mm]
a1) b1)
b2)
a2)
b3)
(Lehr (2001))
Numerical Calculation
Part of Concrete cone failure

numerical investigation
(Lehr, Li, Ozbolt, Eligehausen (1999))

False pull-out Pull-out failure
Influence of d on Characteristic Spacing ? (Numerical Calculation)
Nu,group/Nu,single [-] M8/M12/M20, hef= 144

4,5
3,5
(Lehr, Li, Ozbolt, Eligehausen (1999))

3
2,5
1,5 M20
M12
1 M8
0,5
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
s/d [-]
Diameter is a main influencing Parameter

Influence of hef on Compression Stress Field ?
F
Anchor rod
M12, hef/d=10, τu~8N/mm² Mortar
Compression stress field
S33 Concrete
F Tie
Strut
M12, hef/d=20, τu~8N/mm² Strut
Compression stress field
Tie
S33 Concrete
Influence of hef on Characteristic Spacing ? (Numerical Calculation)
Influence of hef on Characteristic Spacing ? (Exp.)
Nu,group/Nu,single [ -- ] M8/hef/d=8 M8/hef/d=12

4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
τ u,m / max τ u = 0,48 Mortar 11, τu,m~13 N/mm²; d=8mm, hef= 64mm; fcc=30 N/mm²
1,0 Mortar
τ u,m / max τ u = 0,40 Mortar 11, τu,m~13 N/mm²; d=8mm, hef= 96mm; fcc= 30 N/mm²
Mortar
0,5
0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 ,5
400
⎛ 12 ⎞
s ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
[mm]
0 ,5
⎝ τ u.⎛m ⎠10 ⎞
s ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
τ
⎝ u ,m ⎠
Influence of hef on Characteristic Spacing ? (Exp.)
Nu,group/Nu,single [ -- ] M12/hef/d=4-8 M12/hef/d=12-16

4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0 τ u,m / max τ u = 0,84 − 0,59 Mortar11, τu,m~13 N/mm²; d=12mm, hef= 48-96mm; fcc=30 N/mm²
Mortar
τ u,m / max τ u = 0,48 − 0,42 Mortar 11, τu,m~13 N/mm²; d=12mm, hef= 144-192mm; fcc= 30 N/mm²
Mortar
0,5
0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 ,5
450
⎛ 12 ⎞
s ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ [mm]
⎝ τ u.m ⎠
0 ,5
⎛ 10 ⎞
s ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎝ τ u ,m ⎠
Influence of Bond Strength on scr,N (Numerical Calculation)
Nu,group / Nu,single M16, hef= 96mm, fcc= 30N/mm²

5
τu~ 6 N/mm²
3
τu~ 11 N/mm²
(Li, Eligehausen (1999))

2
1 τu~ 22 N/mm²
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Spacing s [mm]
Bond stress is a main influencing Parameter
τ [MPa]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
45
Experimental results
40 Experimental
Numerical results
35
30
25
scr/d
Equation
Tests(9)
20
15 Equation (5)
Numerical
10
⎛τ ⎞
0 ,5
scr ,Np = 20 d ⋅ ⎜ u ,m ⎟
5 ⎝ 10 ⎠
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
τ [psi]
Numerical Results Compared with Experimental Results
NU,Group/ Nu,Single[kN]
4,0
Quadruple anchor groups, fcc= 25 N/mm²
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0 Test results Numerical results

Mortar 1
0,5 d=12mm, hef=144mm, d=12mm, hef=120mm,
τu,m=12,1 N/mm² τu,m=11,8 N/mm²
0,0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Spacing s
Numerical Results Compared with Experimental Results
Nu(Group)/Nu(Single)) [ - ]
4,5
Quadruple anchor groups, fcc= 34 N/mm²
4,0
3,5
3,0 scr,N,Ex
scr,N,FE
2,5 scr,N,FE
2,0
1,5
Test results Numerical results
1,0 Mortar 3
d=24mm, hef=288mm, d=24mm, hef=240mm,
τu,m=16,5 N/mm² τu,m=15,8 N/mm²
0,5
0,0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
s/d [-]
Influence of Bond Strength on scr,N (Numerical Calculation)
Nu,group / Nu,single M16, hef= 96mm, fcc= 30N/mm²

5
τu~ 6 N/mm²
3
τu~ 11 N/mm²
2
1 τu~ 22 N/mm²
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Spacing s [mm]
(Li, Eligehausen (1999))
Influence of Failure Surface on Ultimate Load
Pull-out failure Pull-out failure
Failure surface Failure surface
a)
ψ g0 ,N = n
Concrete cone failure Concrete cone failure
b)
ψ g0 ,N = 1
Test Results (Single Bonded Anchors) with Concrete Cone Capacity
110
100 N u0,c = 15,5 ⋅ hef1,5 ⋅ f cc0,5
90
N u0,c = 13,5 ⋅ hef1,5 ⋅ f cc0,5
80
Failure load [kN]
70 τu,m~11,3 N/mm² τu,m~8,35 N/mm²

τu,m~15,2 N/mm²
60
50 τu,m~17,2 N/mm²
40
30
Mortar 3
20 fcc~ 35 N/mm²
hef=100 mm
10
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Diameter [mm]
f cc0 ,5 ⋅ hef0 ,5
τ u ,m = 13,5 / π ⋅ = max τ u
University of Stuttgart d
Influence of Failure Surface on Ultimate Load
Pull - out failure "Combined failure" Concrete cone failure

3
n=4 Experimental
Numerical
2,5 n=6 Numerical
n=8 Numerical
1, 5
⎛ τ u ,m ⎞
2 ψ g0, Np = n 0,5 − (n 0,5 )
− 1 ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ ≥ 1,0
⎝ τ u ,max ⎠
g,N
1,5
0
ψ
0,5
0
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20
τ u / max τ u ,m [ − ]
Reduction of Influence of Failure Surface on Ultimate Load
ψ g,Np [-] scr,n

2,5
( )
0
ψ s
ψ g,Np = ψ 0g,Np + ⋅ 1 − ψ 0g,Np ≥ 1
g,Np
2,0 scr,N,i
1,5
~1,3
hef = 120 mm
1,0 d = 12 mm
τu,m,Einzel = 8,8 N/mm²
0,5 f cc = 25 N/mm²
n = 8
Mörtel c
0,0
~170
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
s [mm]
Product of ψg,Np and Ap,N/A0p,N as a Function of Spacing
ψ g,Np * Ap,N/A0p,N [-]

scr,n
10
~9
9
8
7
6
5
hef = 120 mm
4 d = 12 mm
3 τu,m,Einzel = 8,8 N/mm²
2 f cc = 25 N/mm²
1 n = 8
Mörtel c
0
~170
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
s [mm]
Non – Linear Asumption for ψg,Np
ψ g,Np [-] scr,n

2,5
0 0 ,5
ψ ⎛ s ⎞
( )
g,Np
2,0 x=1 ψ g ,Np = ψ g ,Np + ⎜⎜

0
⎟
⎟ ⋅ 1 −ψ g0 ,Np
⎝ scr ,N ⎠
1,5 x = 0,5
hef = 120 mm
1,0 d = 12 mm
τu,m,Einzel = 8,8 N/mm²
0,5 f cc = 25 N/mm²
n = 8
Mörtel c
0,0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
s [mm]
Bond Capacity Model (BCM)
Ap , N
N u ,m , p = N 0
u ,m , p ⋅ 0
⋅ψ g ,Np ⋅ψ s ,Np ≤ N u ,c
A p ,N
N 0 u,m, p = π ⋅ d ⋅ hef ⋅ τ u,m

f cc0,5 ⋅ hef0,5
τu,m [N/mm²] average bond resistance ≤ τ u,max τ u,max = 4,2 ⋅
d
d [mm] diameter of fastener
hef [mm] embedment depth
⎛τ ⎞
0 ,5
Ap , N scr ,Np
Geometrical effect of axial spacing and scr ,Np = 20 ⋅ d ⋅ ⎜ u ,m ⎟ ; ccr ,Np =
edge distance: ⎝ 10 ⎠ 2
A0 p,N
ψ g ,Np Effect of failure surface ⎛ s ⎞

0 ,5
ψ g ,Np = ψ 0
+⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ( 1 −ψ g0 ,Np )
⎜s
g ,Np ⎟
⎝ cr ,Np ⎠
1, 5
⎛ τ ⎞
( )
ψ g0, Np = n 0,5 − n 0,5 − 1 ⋅ ⎜⎜ u ,m ⎟⎟ ≥ 1,0
⎝ τ u ,max ⎠
c
ψ s ,Np Disturbance of radial stresses ψ s ,Np = 0 ,7 + 0 ,3 ⋅ ≤ 1,0
ccr ,Np
Bond Capacity Model: Groups of Bonded Anchors Far Away from an Edge
Nu [kN]
300
Concrete cone failure
250 (Expansion Anchors)
200
Bond Capacity Model
150
100 Test results

Mortar 1
d=12mm, hef=96mm,
50
τu,m=12,1 N/mm²
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Spacing s [mm]
Bond Capacity Model: Groups of Bonded Anchors Far Away from an Edge
NU [kN]
350
d= 16 mm
hef= 96 mm Concrete cone failure
300 (Expansion Anhcors)
fcc,200= 30 N/mm²
250 s
s
200
150 Bond Capacity Model
100
Mortar 3, τu,m~7,1 N/mm²
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Spacing s [mm]
Tests on Groups with Bonded and Headed Anchors
Nu [kN]
2000
d= 24 mm Concrete cone failure
1800 hef= 288 mm (Headed studs)
1600 fcc,200= 30 N/mm²

Bond Capacity Model, τu= 16.5 N/mm²
1400 s
1200
s
1000
Bond Capacity Model, τu= 12 N/mm²
800
600
Mortar 1, τu~12 N/mm²
400 Mortar 2, τu~16.5 N/mm²
Headed anchor
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Spacing s [mm]
NTest / NPred (Groups with Bonded Anchors)
2,0
x = 1.0
v = 15.3%
n = 415 (Ex.)
1,5 n = 86 (FE)
NTest/Npred [-]
1,0
0,5 Tests
Tests
FE
Tests
0,0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
hef [mm]
2,0
x = 1.0
v = 15.3%
n = 415 (Ex.)
1,5 n = 86 (FE)
Ntest/Npred [-]
1,0
0,5 Tests
Tests
FE
Tests
0,0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
s [mm]
2,0
x = 1.0
v = 15.3%
n = 415 (Ex.)
1,5 n = 86 (FE)
NTest/NPred [-]
1,0
0,5 Tests
Tests
FE
Tests
0,0
0,0 6,0 12,0 18,0 24,0 30,0
d [mm]
2,0
x = 1.0
v = 15.3%
n = 415 (Ex.)
1,5 n = 86 (FE)
NTest/NPred [-]
1,0
0,5
0,0
0 5 10 15 20 25
τu [N/mm²]
NTest / NPred (Single Bonded Anchors Near to an Edge)
2,0
x= 1,3
v = 19.6%
Exp. n = 133 (Exp.)
1,5 n = 85 (FE)
NTest/NPred [-]
1,0
0,5
hef
0,0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
c [mm]
NTest / NPred (Single Bonded Anchors Near to an Edge)
2,00
x= 1,3
v = 19.6%
Exp. n = 133 (Exp.)
1,50 n = 85 (FE)
Ntest/NPred
1,00
0,50 hef
0,00
5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00
τu [N/mm²]
Part II
Extend Testing Concept
Current Testing Concept
Current testing concept to evaluate characteristic resistances

(range 8d≤hef≤12d)
1. Unconfined tension tests
2. Derivation of the characteristic tension resistance
taking into account the influence of :
results of suitability tests
load-displacement behavior
concrete batches
temperature behavior
durability
Current Testing Concept („Normal Bond Strength“)
Bond Strength Influencing Factors

(Pullout failure) load-displacement behavior
concrete batches
durability…..
F
F
8d≤hef≤12d
τ Rk
0
α ,α 1 ,α 2 .....
Characteristic bond strength

τ Rk = τ Rk
0
⋅ α ⋅ α 1 ...
Current Testing Concept („High Bond Strength“)
„Bond Strength“ Influencing Factors

(Concrete cone failure) load-displacement behavior
concrete batches
durability
F F
8d≤hef≤12d
"τ Rk
0
" α ,α 1 ,α 2 .....
„Characteristic bond strength“

"τ Rk = τ Rk
0
⋅ α ⋅ α 1 ..."
Current Testing Concept („High Bond Strength“)
Bond Strength Influencing Factors

(Pullout failure) load-displacement behavior
concrete batches
durability
F
F
12d≤hef≤20d
τ Rk
0
α ,α 1 ,α 2 .....
charakteristische Verbundfestigkeit
τ Rk = τ Rk
0
⋅ α ⋅ α 1 ...
Change from Concrete Cone Failure to Pull-out failure (Example)
… Mortarsystem with τu,m~ 30 N/mm²
2,4
Concrete cone failure
2,2 τu,m~ 30 N/mm²
Uncracked Concrete
fcc=25 N/mm² τu,m,confined~ 30 N/mm²
2,0 For fcc~ 25 N/mm² and
(6) [-]
τu,m~ 30 N/mm² always

1,8
/ Gl.[-]
concrete cone failure

1,6 occur
u,confined / τu,max
fcc=60 N/mm²
1,4
max ττu,m,confined,uncr
1,2
1,0
Pull-out failure
0,8
0,6
For fcc~ 60 N/mm² and τu,m~ 30 N/mm²
0,4
and hef/d > 10 failure change from
0,2 concrete cone failure to pullout failure
0,0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Necessary embedment depth to obtain pullout failure hef/d [-]

Maximum Possible Related Embedment Depth to Avoid Steel Failure…..
….in case of pull-out failure

As ⋅ f u = π ⋅ d ⋅ hef ⋅τ u ,m
τu,m~ 30 N/mm² (f (d) )

40
~1500mm
36
32
Herausziehen
28 ~720mm
24
d [mm]
Nu~ 815 kN
20
16
Uncracked Concrete
Bond failure
12 Pullout failure 12.9
Steel class
Uncracked concrete
Stahlversagen Steelfccclass:
=25 / 6012.9
N/mm²
8
fcc= 25/60 N/mm²
4
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
hef/d [-]
Problems of Current Testing Concept
For Mortar systems with high bond strength it is problematical to

cause pullout failure, normally steel failure is decisive.
Current testing method conservative for mortar systems

with high bond strength
Extend testing concept to evaluate characteristic resistances

(range 4d≤hef≤20d)
- Predominantly confined tension tests „small“ concrete specimen

- Aim of the confined tension tests: Maximum bond strength
- Calculation of characteristic bond strength for unconfined tests by a reduction
factor αsetup and by taking into account the influence of:
results of suitability tests
load-displacement behavior
concrete batches
durability
- Limitation of bond strength by τRk,max
Problem: Value of αsetup
Influence of Support in Case of „ Pullout failure“
?
Pullout failure (confined) = Pullout failure (unconfined)
Bond strength Bond strength

(Pullout failure, confined) (Pullout failure, unconfined)
F
F
4d≤hef≤8d
15d≤hef≤20d
"τ " 0
Rk
τ Rk
0
Influence of Support in Case of „ Pullout failure“
Bond strength Bond strength

(confined) (unconfined)
F
F
hef / d <<
T
Direct struts
C
hef / d = 15 Direct struts
"τ Rk
0
" τ Rk
0
"τ Rk
0
"⋅α Setup = τ Rk
0
α Setup = ?
Single Bonded Anchors (unconfined/confined) (Numerical Investigations)
14,0
fcc 25 N/mm², Pullout failure
M12, hef/d=10, confined
12,0
? M12, hef/d=20,
M12, hef/d=10, unconfined confined
10,0
τu [N/mm²]
8,0
M12, hef/d=20, unconfined

6,0
confined unconfined
4,0 F F
2,0
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
Verschiebung
Displacement [mm]
Verschiebung [mm]
[mm]
Lateral Compression – Tension Stresses (Sxx)
M12 hef/d=10, fcc=25 N/mm² M12 hef/d=10, fcc=25 N/mm²
(Pullout failure, confined) (Pullout failure, unconfined)
τmax=12,1 N/mm² α Setup τmax=10,0 N/mm²
N N
Lateral Tension
hef
X Y
T_neu0020
x x
Parameter Influencing αsetup
Nu,i/Nu,m,(P=0) [-]
Meszaros 2001
Double – axial compression - tension
Double – axial compression and tension respectively P [N/mm²]
Bond Stress Distribution (Numerical Investigations)
20
(Pullout
Confined (Pullout failure)
failure)
18
Unconfined (Pullout failure)
(Pullout failure)
16
14
τu [N/mm²]
12
10
6
Influence
Influence of Support
Support
2 M12, hef/d=10, fcc=25 N/mm²
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Embedment depth
Embedment depth[mm]
[mm]
Bond Stress Distribution (Numerical Investigations)
18
Confined (Pullout failure)
16
Unconfined (Pullout failure)
14
12
τu [N/mm²]
10
2 M12, hef/d=20, fcc=25 N/mm²
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Embedment depth
Embedment depth [mm]
[mm]
αsetup (Experimental Results)
Pullout failure Concrete cone failure
1,5
1,4 Average values,
1,3 τu,m ~ 9 N/mm²
1,2 τum ~ 14 N/mm²
1,1 Rest : τu,m ~ 25 -30 N/mm²
1,0
αsetup [-]
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50 2,75 3,00
τu,confined/τu,max [-]
Summary
New design concept for bonded anchors with range 4d≤hef≤20d proposed
Extend testing concept is needed for larger range of embedment depths:
- Confined tests
- Calculation of bond strength of unconfined tests with αsetup
Part III
Improved Design Concept
(Cracked Concrete)
Concrete Cone Failure Load for Bonded Anchors in Cracked Concrete
„Full Concrete Cone“ „Half Concrete Cone“

(Expansion Anchor) (Bonded Anchor)
F F
F F
Theoretical
N u0,c ,cracked = N u0,c ,Bond ,cracked ,min =

0 ,7 ⋅ 13,5 ⋅ hef1,5 ⋅ f cc0 ,5
0 ,5 ⋅ 0 ,7 ⋅ 13 ,5 ⋅ hef1,5 ⋅ f cc0 ,5
Disturbance of radial stresses
Half concrete cone
Disturbance of radial stresses
Concrete Cone Failure Load for Bonded Anchors in Cracked Concrete
F F
F F
Theoretical
N 0
u ,c ,cracked
N u0,c ,Bond ,cracked ,min
= 0,7 ⋅ 13,5 ⋅ h 1, 5
⋅ f cc
0,5 = 0 ,5 ⋅ 0 ,7 ⋅ 13 ,5 ⋅ hef1,5 ⋅ f cc0 ,5
ef
N u0,c ,Bond ,cracked ,max
= 1,0 ⋅ 0 ,7 ⋅ 13 ,5 ⋅ hef1,5 ⋅ f cc0 ,5
Single Bonded Anchor in Cracked Concrete (Numerical Investigations)
F
Symmetry plane
0.01
0.00833
0.00667
0.005
0.00333
0.00167
0.
Half Bond Surface

Half Concrete Cone Deformation
„Crack“
Single Bonded Anchor in Uncracked/Cracked Concrete (Numerical Investigations)
35
M12, hef/d=5, N u ,c ,Exp = 13,5 ⋅ f cc0 ,5 ⋅ hef1,5

30 High strength Mortar, Conceret cone failure, uncracked concrete
25
N u ,c ,Exp = 0 ,7 ⋅ 13,5 ⋅ f cc0 ,5 ⋅ hef1,5
20
Nu [kN]
15 M12, hef/d=5,
High strength Mortar, "Half" Conceret cone failure, cracked concrete (idealized)
10
Theoretical
Theory
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0
Displacement [mm]
Verschiebung
Displacement [mm]
[mm]
Characteristic Spacing (Cracked Concrete)
Uncracked concrete Cracked concrete
Headed- Expansion Anchors 3hef 3hef
⎛τ
0 ,5
Bonded Anchors ⎞
(conventional) scr ,N ,uncracked = 20 ⋅ d ⎜ u ,m ,uncracked ⎟ ?
⎝ 10 ⎠
Assumption 1
Path of crack
(“same side”)
0,5 ⋅ s cr , N ,uncracked
s cr , N ,uncracked Path of crack
can not be estimated
0,5 ⋅ s cr , N ,uncracked
Path of crack
Assumption 2
s cr , N ,uncracked
Uncracked and Cracked Concrete
Headed- Expansion Anchors 3hef
⎛ τ u ,m ,ungerissen ⎞
0 ,5
Bonded Anchors
(conventional) scr ,N = 20 ⋅ d ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 10 ⎠
Influence of Failure Surface (Uncracked Concrete)
Single Bonded Anchor Group of Bonded Anchor

(n=2)
Failure surface
Failure surface
1 1 8
1 6
2 7
2 4 2 5
3 3 6
3 4
∑4 ∑6 4 5
∑8
University of Stuttgart ψ g0 ,N = n
Influence of Failure Surface (Cracked Concrete)
Group of Bonded Anchor

Single Bonded Anchor (n=2)
1
2
1
Failure surface 3
4
2
- 1
etical 2
- 2
Theor 4 3
1
∑2 ∑2 ∑4
ψ g0 ,N ,gerissen = 1 ψ g0 ,N ,ungerissen = n

Bonded Anchors

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Bonded Anchors

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fastenings with Bonded Anchors

- Design Model & Extend Testing Concept -

Thread Rod Mortar Concrete

(Cook, Kunz, Fuchs, Konz (1998))

N u,Bond = π ⋅ d ⋅ hef ⋅ τ u,m [N] d 0 / d ≤ 1,5

d= diameter of the anchor rod [mm]

d0= diameter of of borehole [mm]

Cook, R. et al. (1994)

Factors influencing the strength of bonded

Influence is product dependent: Prequalification is necessary

Concrete Anchor Rod Concrete Anchor Rod

Extension for Brush

Compressed Air Lance

(System Upat UPM 44)

University of Stuttgart (Hilti)

10 Compressed Air / Machine Driven Nylon Brush

bond strength [%]

temperature [°C] (Kunz/Cook/Fuchs/Spieth (1998))

Bond strength as a function of temperature

1,00 symbol location

Current evaluation criteria

• Load with Nsust s0 log t

Sustained Load – Test Setup

5 Concrete cubes with

Hybrid mortar, T = 20°C

sU= 0,81 mm sU= 0,90 mm su,adh,m (Short Time)

Hybrid mortar, T = 20°C

sU= 0,78 mm sU= 0,86 mm

Hybrid mortar, T = 20°C

su,adh,m (Short Time)

Hybrid mortar, T = 20°C

1,0 sU= 0,88 mm

0,8 sU= 0,65 mm

su,adh,m (Short Time)

Part of Concrete cone failure

(Lehr, Li, Ozbolt, Eligehausen (1999))

Nu,group/Nu,single [-] M8/M12/M20, hef= 144

(Lehr, Li, Ozbolt, Eligehausen (1999))

Diameter is a main influencing Parameter

Nu,group/Nu,single [ -- ] M8/hef/d=8 M8/hef/d=12

Nu,group/Nu,single [ -- ] M12/hef/d=4-8 M12/hef/d=12-16

Nu,group / Nu,single M16, hef= 96mm, fcc= 30N/mm²

(Li, Eligehausen (1999))

1,0 Test results Numerical results

Nu,group / Nu,single M16, hef= 96mm, fcc= 30N/mm²

Pull-out failure Pull-out failure

Failure surface Failure surface

Concrete cone failure Concrete cone failure

70 τu,m~11,3 N/mm² τu,m~8,35 N/mm²

Pull - out failure "Combined failure" Concrete cone failure

ψ g,Np [-] scr,n

ψ g,Np * Ap,N/A0p,N [-]

ψ g,Np [-] scr,n

2,0 x=1 ψ g ,Np = ψ g ,Np + ⎜⎜

N 0 u,m, p = π ⋅ d ⋅ hef ⋅ τ u,m

ψ g ,Np Effect of failure surface ⎛ s ⎞

100 Test results

150 Bond Capacity Model

1600 fcc,200= 30 N/mm²

Current testing concept to evaluate characteristic resistances

Bond Strength Influencing Factors

Characteristic bond strength

„Bond Strength“ Influencing Factors