See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280922560

Behavior of adhesive bonded anchors under

tension and shear loads

Article in Journal of Constructional Steel Research · November 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.07.022

CITATIONS READS

3 583

5 authors, including:

Siamak Epackachi Omid Esmaili

University at Buffalo, The State University of … University of California, Irvine
45 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rasoul Mirghaderi Ali Asghar Taheri Behbahani

University of Tehran Dynasys Structural Engineers
46 PUBLICATIONS 106 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of modeling recommendations for squat reinforced concrete walls (ATC-114 /TASK
ORDER 38) View project

Steel-plate concrete (SC) composite shear wall piers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Siamak Epackachi on 12 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Behavior of adhesive bonded anchors under tension and shear loads

Siamak Epackachi a,⁎, Omid Esmaili b, Seyed Rasoul Mirghaderi c, Ali Asghar Taheri Behbahani d
a
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
b
Englekirk Structural Engineers, Los Angeles, CA 90017, USA
c
School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
d
DynaSys Structural Engineers, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An experimental study was conducted to investigate the tensile and shear behaviors of post-installed adhesive
Received 7 April 2015 anchors. The testing program involved 42 specimens of single and groups of 4, 6, and 9 anchors with 150 mm
Received in revised form 25 July 2015 and 200 mm spacing. The design parameters considered in the investigation were anchor spacing and number
Accepted 29 July 2015
of anchors in group. The tensile and shear force–displacement relationships and failure modes of the adhesive an-
Available online xxxx
chors together with the effects of design parameters on the responses of the anchors are presented.
Keywords:
The test results are compared with those predicted by empirical equations available in the literature including
Adhesive bonded anchor ACI 318–14. The comparison study shows that the models proposed by Eligehausen et al. (2006) and Ollgaard
Concrete cone failure et al. (1971) are well predicting the tensile and shear capacities of the adhesive anchors, respectively, despite
Bond failure the ACI design equations which underestimate those capacities.
Anchor group © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Single anchor

1. Introduction Eligehausen et al. [9] investigated the effect of concrete cracking on

In the last four decades, the behavior and design of cast-in-place and
post-installed mechanical anchors have been well understood and
established in building codes and design standards (e.g., ACI 318-14
[1], ACI 355.4-11 [2], ACI 349 [3], IBC 2014 [4]). To date, a number of re-
search projects have also investigated the behavior of post-installed
bonded anchors. In the following, a summary of the experimental and
numerical studies on bonded adhesive anchors is provided.
Peier [5] conducted a numerical study on three types of single an-
chors, namely, form-fit, expansion, and adhesive anchors. A nonlinear fi-
nite element model was developed to predict the tensile response of the
anchors using fracture and plasticity models for concrete. The proposed
numerical model was validated using the available test data. Doerr et al.
[6,7] conducted 105 tension tests on partially and fully bonded single ad-
hesive anchors and fully bonded adhesive anchor pairs to investigate the
effects of embedment depth of the anchor, bonding between the adhe-
sive anchor and surrounding concrete, and anchor spacing on the tensile
response. Ronald et al. [8] proposed a rational design approach for evalu-
ation of the tensile strength of bonded anchors with short, intermediate,
and long embedment depths using the results of 280 tests conducted at
the Universities of Florida and Texas. They proposed various behavioral
models for bonded anchors with different embedment depths.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: siamakep@buffalo.edu (S. Epackachi),
omid.esmaili@englekirk.com (O. Esmaili), rmirghaderi@ut.ac.ir (S.R. Mirghaderi),
aataheri@yahoo.com (A.A.T. Behbahani).
the tensile response of different types of anchors using test data avail-
able in the literature. This study showed that the effect of concrete
cracking on the tensile capacity of the bonded anchors is significant be-
cause the cracks destroy the bond between mortar and surrounding
concrete. Eligehausen et al. also showed that the installation process
(e.g., hole cleaning) of bonded anchors is another parameter that sub-
stantially affect the tensile response of bonded anchors in cracked con-
crete. McVay et al. [10] conducted numerical and experimental studies
on chemically bonded anchors to investigate the effect of embedment
depth of bonded anchors on their failure modes. Cook et al. [11] summa-
rized a body of test data on tensile response of adhesive anchors. Both
studies by McVay et al. [10] and Cook et al. [11] showed that the tensile
capacity of bonded anchors can be accurately predicted assuming a uni-
form bond stress over the whole embedment depth of the anchor. Cook
et al. [12] further gathered the results of a comprehensive test program
investigating the effects of various factors on the bond strength of adhe-
sive anchors including drilled hole condition, concrete strength, aggre-
gate, curing period of the adhesive, and elevated temperature. Li et al.
[13] conducted a numerical study on quadruple adhesive anchors
under tensile load. The numerical model was validated using the results
of two experiments with different failure modes: concrete cone and
pull-out. Li et al. further conducted a parametric study on quadruple ad-
hesive anchors under tensile load using the validated model to investi-
gate the effects of embedment depth, anchor spacing, and anchor
diameter on the tensile response. Zamora et al. [14] summarized the re-
sults of 237 tension tests on headed and unheaded grouted anchors.
This study showed that the tensile responses of the unheaded grouted

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.07.022
0143-974X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
270 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280

anchors and the adhesive anchors were identical. The concrete capacity
design and uniform bond stress models were used to develop design
equations for prediction of the tensile capacity of the grouted anchors.
Fujikake et al. [15] tested chemically bonded anchors under rapid ten-
sile loads to investigate the effect of loading rate on the pull-out
strength of the anchors.
Eligehausen et al. [16] presented the results of extensive numerical
and experimental studies on adhesive bonded anchors to provide a
basis for developing design provisions for adhesive anchors. This study
included the results of 415 tests of adhesive anchor groups, 133 tests
of adhesive anchors located near free edge, and single anchor tests.
Eligehausen et al. proposed a model to predict the tensile strength of
single and group of adhesive anchors using the results of the numerical
and experimental investigations. Design equations were also proposed
to calculate the critical spacing and critical edge distance of adhesive an-
chors. Kwon et al. [17] conducted an experimental study on three types
of single anchors, namely, double-nut bolts, high-tension friction-grip
bolts, and adhesive anchors under static shear and fatigue loads. The
test results indicated that the shear strength of the anchors can be esti-
mated as one-half of their tensile strength. Gurbuz et al. [18] tested
post-installed fully and partially chemically bonded anchors embedded
in low-strength concrete under tensile load. The design parameters in-
cluded embedment depth, bonded length of the anchors, and surface
condition of the anchor holes.
In most of the prior studies, the shear response of bonded single an-
chors and tension and shear responses of a group of five or more num-
ber of anchors which are commonly used for retrofit projects (e.g., [19,
20]) have not been studied thoroughly yet. To fill this gap, the tensile
and shear behaviors of single and groups of 4, 6, and 9 bonded adhesive
anchors are studied in this paper considering the effects of anchor spac-
ing and number of anchors in each group. The test results are used to in-
vestigate the accuracy of the current empirical models for prediction of
the tensile and shear strengths of adhesive anchors.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Description of the test specimens
and the concrete compressive strengths calculated as an average of
the measured compressive strengths from the concrete cube tests con-
ducted at the time of anchor testing. The concrete cubes were prepared
and cured according to the Austrian standard ÖNORM B 3303 [21]. Each
test shown in Table 1 was repeated two times.
The concrete blocks of the shear tests were reinforced using two
layers of reinforcement; #10 bars with 200 mm spacing along the
length of the block and #8 bars with 200 mm spacing along the width
of the test block. In the concrete blocks used for the tension tests, two
#6 edge reinforcing bars were provided only to avoid concrete cracking
during the transportation of the blocks. The concrete cover was 50 mm.
The cylindrical bore holes with a depth of 220 mm were drilled using
a rotary hammer drill with a 24 mm diameter drill bit. The boreholes
were cleaned using wire brush and compressed air following the in-
structions provided by the manufacturer. After cleaning the boreholes,
the Hilti HIT-HY 150 adhesive was injected in the holes using a manual
dispenser and a static mixer. The anchor rod was inserted manually by
rotation. For each installed anchor, the embedment depth was con-
trolled to be 200 mm. The embedded anchor rods remained undis-
turbed for at least 1.5 h. After a 2-hour curing period, the excessive
adhesive that poured out of the holes was removed from the concrete
surface.
Typical units of a single anchor used for the tension and shear tests
are illustrated in Fig. 1. For the tension tests, a 40-mm thick steel plate
was placed on concrete block over the anchor(s) and a washer plus a
hexagonal nut were then mounted and tightened to an installation
torque (Tinst) of 160 N-m based on the instruction provided by the man-
ufacturer (Fig. 1a).
For the shear tests, a nut and plenty of washers were used under the
steel plate to provide a 20-mm gap between the steel plate and the con-
crete block for grouting. A Hilti-dynamic set including a special washer
permitting the adhesive to be dispensed into the clearance hole in the
steel plate, a spherical washer, a nut and a locknut were mounted
above the steel plate to make sure that the applied shear load would
be applied uniformly among all adhesive anchors in a group (Fig. 1b).
The nut below the steel plate was also tightened to the same torque
used for tightening of the anchors in the tension tests.

To investigate the behavior of single and groups of adhesive anchors 2.2. Material
subjected to tensile and shear loads, an experimental program including
42 tests were conducted at the Bautechnische Versuchsanstalt testing lab- The HAS M20-8.8 threaded rods were fabricated from ASTM A193
oratory in Austria. The experimental program consisted of tension and steel with nominal yield and ultimate tensile strengths of 640 and
shear tests of single anchors and groups of 2 × 2, 2 × 3 and 3 × 3 anchors 800 MPa, respectively. The concrete blocks were reinforced using
spaced at 150 mm and 200 mm on the center. The test specimens BSt500 grade rebar with yield strength of 500 MPa. The compressive
consisted of a concrete block in which the 20-mm diameter threaded strength and Young's modulus of the non-shrink cementitious grout
rods were installed with 200 mm embedment depth. Table 1 provides used to fill the gap between the steel plate and concrete block were
information on anchor spacing, the dimensions of the concrete blocks, 60 MPa and 29,000 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength and
Young's modulus of the HIT-HY 150 adhesive were 50 MPa and
Table 1 3500 MPa, respectively.
Test specimen configurations. The concrete blocks were casted using ready-mix Grade C35/45.
Loading Test type Spacing Concrete block Day-of-test The water–cement ratio (w/c) was 0.41. The concrete ingredients
type (mm) dimension concrete were cement CEM II/A-LL 42.5R, natural sand 0/4 mm — 48%, gravel
(L × W × T) strength (MPa) 4/8 mm — 9%, gravel 8/16 mm — 22%, and gravel 16/32 mm — 21%.
(mm × mm × mm)
To sustain the flowing consistency of the concrete, Dynamon SR 31 as
Tension Single – 260 × 100 × 40 59.8 a plasticizer at 0.65% of the cement mass and Mapetard D, as a retarder
Group (2 × 2) 150 290 × 120 × 40 50.8 at 0.15% of the cement mass were added.
200 290 × 120 × 40 50.8
Group (2 × 3) 150 290 × 140 × 40 49.9
200 290 × 140 × 40 55.2 2.3. Test setup
Group (3 × 3) 150 330 × 140 × 40 49.7
200 330 × 140 × 40 49.7 Fig. 2 shows the test setup used for the tension and shear tests. The
Shear Single – 260 × 100 × 40 59.6
tensile and shear loads were applied on the single anchor using a hy-
Group (2 × 2) 150 290 × 120 × 40 50.4
200 290 × 120 × 40 50.4 draulic jack with a load capacity of 250 kN. Another hydraulic jack
Group (2 × 3) 150 290 × 140 × 40 50.3 with a higher capacity of 1000 kN was used for testing of the anchor
200 290 × 140 × 40 51.7 groups. The tensile load was transferred to the adhesive anchors
Group (3 × 3) 150 330 × 140 × 40 52.9 through a steel rod, a load fixture, and a 40-mm thick steel plate (see
200 330 × 140 × 40 52.9
Fig. 2a). The shear load was transferred to the adhesive anchors through
 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280 271

Fig. 1. Typical units of an adhesive anchor.

steel rod(s) and a 10-mm thick steel plate (see Fig. 2b). The steel rods
were designed to remain elastic under the maximum predicted capacity
of the adhesive anchors.
The load support of the tension test consisted of back-to-back H-
shaped steel profiles seated on a steel ring as shown in Fig. 2a. The
steel ring was then placed on a thin layer of gypsum. The inner diame-
ters of the rings used for the tests of the single and groups of anchors
were 600 mm and 1000 mm, respectively. The inner diameter of the
steel ring was considered to be large enough to avoid any side effect
on the tensile response of the adhesive anchors.
The steel frame support presented in Fig.3 was used for the shear
tests and consisted of two short beams and columns, two lateral steel
braces, and H-shaped steel profiles in direct contact with the side face
of the concrete block.
Two L-shaped steel girders attached to the concrete surface and in
direct contact with the sides of the steel plate were used to prevent
any rotation of the steel plate during the shear tests (see Fig. 4b). To
eliminate the friction due to the slipping of the steel plate subjected to
shear load, Teflon sheets were placed between the steel girders and
the steel plate.
2.4. Instrumentation
Instrumentation used in the tests of the adhesive anchors is present-
ed in Fig. 4. The applied loads were measured by the load cell of the hy-
draulic jacks. In the tension tests, the pull-out deformation of each
individual anchor in a group was measured using a vertical displacement
transducer attached to the head of each anchor. The total displacement of
the anchor group was measured using a displacement transducer at-
tached to the end of the tension rod. In the shear tests, a horizontal
(i.e., along the loading direction) and a vertical displacement transducers
attached to the head of each individual anchor in a group were used to
measure the pull-out deformation and slip of the anchor, respectively.
The slippage of the steel plate was measured using two displacement
transducers attached to the end corners of the plate. The measured

Fig. 2. Test setup.

272 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280
Fig. 3. Steel frame support for the shear tests.
data by the load cell and displacement transducers were recorded
through a data acquisition system.
3. Experimental results and discussions
3.1. Tension tests
The results of the tension tests of the adhesive anchors including the
force and deformation capacities of the single anchors and anchor
groups plus their failure modes are summarized in Table 2. The defor-
mation capacity of an adhesive anchor is defined as the pull-out defor-
mation corresponding to the peak tensile strength of the anchor. Two
last columns of Table 2 present the average values of the tensile force
and deformation capacities of the adhesive anchors, respectively.
As seen in Table 2, two single anchors had a combined cone-bond
failure and one single anchor failed due to the steel fracture. The groups
of 4 anchors had concrete cone failure whereas a combined cone-
splitting failure was observed in the groups of 6 and 9 anchors. Table 2
also indicates that the single anchors had a ductile tensile response
with deformation capacities up to 3.7 mm. The single anchor, failed
due to steel fracture, had the greatest tensile capacity and showed a
more ductile behavior than the other single anchors which their tensile
behaviors were governed by combined concrete cone-bond failure. The
tensile strength of the first single anchor (denoted as test specimen#1)
was substantially less than those of the other single anchors, which was
not expected. It might be a result of improper borehole cleaning which
can cause a premature bond failure of the adhesive anchor. The defor-
mation capacities of the anchor groups varied from 0.5 mm to 1 mm.
Table 2 also shows that the anchor spacing, in the range provided, had
Fig. 4. Instrumentation of the specimens.
a significant effect on the tensile strength of the adhesive anchors: the
smaller the anchor spacing, the lower the tensile strength.
The measured tensile force–displacement relationships of the adhe-
sive anchors are presented in Fig. 5. The horizontal dashed line repre-
sents the average tensile capacity of the single anchors (= 185 kN).
Fig. 5b to d show that the anchor spacing had a significant effect on
the tensile capacity of the anchor groups but it had a small effect on
their deformation capacity; the tensile capacities of the groups of 4, 6,
and 9 anchors with 150 mm anchor spacing were 85%, 80%, and 78%
of the corresponding capacities of the anchor groups with 200 mm an-
chor spacing, respectively. The concrete cone of the single and group
of anchors were formed when the applied tensile load reached to their
peak strengths.
Fig. 6 shows the single and groups of anchors after the tension tests.
Fig. 6a shows a combined cone-bond failure of one of the single anchors
through the formation of a shallow concrete cone (with a cone depth of
50 to 60 mm) at the concrete surface and slip of the remaining length of
the anchor (140 to 150 mm). No signs of splitting failure were observed
in the tests of groups of 4 anchors. The combined splitting-cone failure
of the groups of 6 and 9 anchors are illustrated in Fig. 6d to f. The con-
crete cone was first generated followed by the formations of the split-
ting cracks along the planes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of
the concrete block and passing through the axis of the anchors.
3.2. Shear tests
The results of the shear tests of the single and group of anchors are
provided in Table 3. The shear deformation capacity of an adhesive an-
chor is defined as the anchor slip corresponding to its shear strength. All
single and groups of adhesive anchors failed due to the steel fracture
and bearing failure of the concrete in front of the anchors. The types of
damage to each individual anchor in the groups of anchors are provided
in column 6 of Table 3. Columns 7 and 8 of Table 3 present the average
shear force and deformation capacities of the adhesive anchors. Unlike
the tensile behavior, the shear response of the adhesive anchors is duc-
tile with an average displacement capacity of 13 mm. The shear test re-
sults of Table 3 indicate that the anchor spacing did not affect the shear
strength of the anchor groups suggesting that the shear strength of the
anchor groups, with spacing in the range considered in this study, can
be estimated as the product of the number of the anchors and the
shear strength of a single anchor.
A schematic shear force–displacement response of a typical adhesive
anchor is presented in Fig. 7. On the basis of the test results, the shear
response of an adhesive anchor can be parsed in four regions: 1) elastic
(OA in Fig. 7), 2) pre-bearing failure of the concrete (AB), 3) post-
bearing failure of the concrete (BC), 4) pre-steel fracture (CD). The
high stiffness of the shear response at low load levels is attributed to
the interfacial frictions between the steel plate, grout, and concrete
 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280 273

Table 2
Tension test results.

Number of anchors Test no. Spacing (mm) Tensile capacity Deformation capacity Failure mode Average
(kN) (mm)
tensile capacity deformation capacity
(kN) (mm)

Single 1 – 163 1.20 CCa + Bb 185 3.7

2 195 4.60 CC + B
3 198 5.30 STc
4 Anchors 1 150 386 0.47 CC 376 0.51
2 367 0.50 CC
3 375 0.56 CC
4 Anchors 1 200 464 0.56 CC 445 0.64
2 435 0.68 CC
3 437 0.68 CC
6 Anchors 1 150 538 0.56 CC + SPd 503 0.52
2 476 0.55 CC + SP
3 497 0.46 CC + SP
6 Anchors 1 200 637 0.52 CC + SP 627 0.54
2 615 0.54 CC + SP
3 630 0.55 CC + SP
9 Anchors 1 150 690 0.67 CC + SP 675 0.72
2 709 0.64 CC + SP
3 626 0.85 CC + SP
9 Anchors 1 200 793 0.50 CC + SP 857 0.95
2 807 1.00 CC + SP
3 971 1.36 CC + SP
a
CC: Concrete cone failure.
b
B: Bond failure.
c
ST: Steel failure.
d
SP: Splitting failure.

due to post-tensioning of the anchors to the concrete block. As the shear
force exceeds the available frictional resistance, the bond between the
grout, steel plate, and concrete fails and the shear stiffness reduces.
Points A, B, C, and D in Fig. 7 represent the onset of bond failure, concrete
bearing failure, hardening initiation of the anchorage, and steel fracture,
respectively.
The various damage states for an adhesive anchor including the
bond failure, bearing failure of the concrete, and fracture of the steel an-
chor are shown in Fig. 8a to c, respectively.
Fig. 9 illustrates the shear force–displacement relationships for the
adhesive anchors. As seen in Fig. 9, the anchor spacing had no impact
on the shear behavior of the group of anchors. Also, Fig. 9 indicates
that as the number of the anchors increases, the sudden strength drop
due to the bearing failure of the concrete (branch B-C of the shear
force–displacement relationship presented in Fig. 7) diminishes. Fol-
lowing the bearing failure of the concrete around an individual anchor,
the redistribution of the applied shear load among the other anchors re-
duces the effect of this local failure on the shear response of the group of
anchors. The displacements corresponding to the peak strength of the
single and group of adhesive anchors are approximately identical.
All adhesive anchors shown in Fig. 10 had a steel fracture with no
signs of concrete breakout or pryout failures under shear tests. Local
yielding and bearing failure were observed around the holes in the
steel plates (see Fig. 10a and e). The bearing failure of the concrete in
front of the individual anchors in the groups of 4, 6, and 9 anchors are
shown in Fig. 10c, d, and f, respectively.
4. Comparison of the measured and predicted results
The design provisions for adhesive anchors were included in Appen-
dix D of ACI 318-11 [22]. The new ACI code (ACI 318-14) incorporated
the provisions of adhesive anchors in chapter 17 with almost no change
in the design equations provided in Appendix D of ACI 318-11. The pro-
posed method for the design of adhesive anchors is similar to the tradi-
tional approach used for the design of mechanical anchors included in
ACI 318-08 [23], except that in ACI 318-11 a new failure mode, as
“Bond Failure”, was added for the design of adhesive anchors under ten-
sile loads. Bond failure is established based on a uniform bond stress
model (Eligehausen et al. [9], McVay et al. [10], and Cook et al. [11]).
Cook et al. [11] showed that the uniform bond stress model is appropri-
ate for adhesive anchors exhibiting a concrete cone failure or a com-
bined cone-bond failure.
According to the provisions of chapter 17, ACI 318-14, the failure
modes of adhesive anchors under tensile load include 1) steel failure,
2) bond failure, and 3) concrete breakout failure and the failure modes
of adhesive anchors under the shear load include 1) steel failure, 2) con-
crete breakout failure, and 3) concrete pryout failure.
Eligehausen et al. [16] used the available analysis and test data on
the tensile behavior of single and group of adhesive anchors to develop
a model for predicting the tensile capacity of anchors. The proposed
model, which incorporated the potential tension failure modes of adhe-
sive anchors (concrete breakout and pull out failures), included equa-
tions to predict tensile strength, critical spacing, and critical edge
distance for single adhesive anchors and group of anchors. The shear
strength of adhesive anchors was calculated according to the shear
strength provisions of ACI 318-05 [24]. Kwon et al. [17] proposed that
the shear strength of connectors, including adhesive anchors, can be es-
timated as one-half of their tensile strength.
Figs. 11 and 12 provide a comparison between the measured and
predicted tensile and shear strengths, respectively, based on the equa-
tions proposed by ACI 318-14 [1], Eligehausen et al. [16], and Kwon
et al. [17] for single and group of adhesive anchors. Based on the equa-
tions proposed by ACI 318-14 and Eligehausen et al., the tensile capacity
of adhesive anchors corresponding to bond failure can be estimated
using the value of the bond strength at the steel/adhesive interface. In
this study, the bond strength was calculated using the test results of
the single anchors and the equations proposed by Gurbuz et al. [18]
for the prediction of the pull-out capacity of a single adhesive anchor
with a combined cone-bond failure:
N ¼ Ncone þ ψNbond ð1Þ
274 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280

Fig. 5. Tensile force–displacement relationships of the single and groups of anchors.

Fig. 6. Failure modes of the single and groups of anchors under tensile loading.
 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280 275

Table 3
Shear test results.

Number of anchors Test no. Spacing (mm) Shear capacity (kN) Deformation capacity Failure mode Average
(mm) → Shear capacity Deformation capacity
(loading dir.) (kN) (mm)

Single 1 – 138 14.2 Sa 133 13.9

2 141 15.5 S
3 121 12.0 S
4 Anchors 1 150 482 12.8 Db D 489 13.9
D S
2 506 15.1 S S
S S
3 481 13.8 S Cc
S D
1 200 494 10.7 S S 481 9.6
S D
2 445 4.5 S D
S D
3 503 13.7 D D
S S
6 Anchors 1 150 725 11.7 S S S 735 12.4
S S C
2 753 12.1 S C C
S S C
3 728 13.5 S S S
S S S
1 200 737 11.8 S S S 743 13.2
S S S
2 754 13.5 S C C
S S S
3 738 14.2 S S C
S S C
9 Anchors 1 150 1056 13.2 S S C 1084 13.3
S S C
S S C
2 1063 12.7 S S S
S S C
S S C
3 1133 13.9 S S S
S S S
S S C
1 200 1060 10.3 S S S 1085 12.1
S S C
S S C
2 1095 11.6 S C D
S C C
S C C
3 1100 14.3 S S S
S S C
S C S
a
S: Steel fracture at grout–steel plate interface.
b
D: Deformed anchor (not fractured).
c
C: Steel fracture at grout–concrete interface.

where ψ is a reduction factor; and Ncone and Nbond are the contributions
of the concrete cone and bond between the concrete and remaining
depth of the anchor underneath the formed concrete cone to the total
tensile capacity of the anchor. The tensile forces Ncone and Nbond are
calculated as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffi
2 0
Ncone ¼ πhc 2hc 0:33 f c ð2Þ

Nbond ¼ πdh ðh−hc Þτ ð3Þ

where hc is the depth of the concrete cone; h is the total embedment

Fig. 7. Schematic shear response of a typical adhesive anchor.
depth of the adhesive anchor; τ is the bond strength; dh is the hole di-
ameter; and fc′ is the concrete compressive strength. The uniform bond
strength was calculated to be 15 MPa using hc = 50 mm, h = 200 mm,
dh = 24 mm, N = 195 kN and fc′ = 50 MPa to Eqs. (1) to (3) for a
single anchor. The factor ψ was conservatively assumed to be 1.0. The
276 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280

Fig. 8. Damage to an adhesive anchor under shear loading.

estimated bond strength is within the range of 13.8 MPa and 17.3 MPa anchors installed in an un-cracked concrete at indoor condition accord-
proposed by ACI 318-14 for 13-mm to 19-mm diameter anchors ing to the ACI 318-14, Table 17.4.5.2.
installed in impact-drilled holes in an un-cracked concrete at indoor Fig. 11 indicates that the ACI 318-14 successfully predicts the tensile
condition. The minimum bond stress is 6.9 MPa for the adhesive capacity of the single adhesive anchors but underestimates the tensile

Fig. 9. Tensile force–displacement relationships of single anchors and anchor groups.

 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280 277

Fig. 10. Failure modes of the single anchor and group of anchors under shear loading.

capacity of the anchor groups. As the number of the anchors in group in-
creases, the discrepancies between the ACI-predicted and the measured
tensile capacities of the anchor groups increased. The good agreement
between the measured and the predicted tensile capacities of the single
anchors confirms the accuracy of the ACI 318-14, Appendix D,
Eq. (17.4.2.2a) to calculate the basic concrete breakout strength and
Eq. (17.4.5.2) to calculate basic bond strength of a single adhesive an-
chor. The underestimation of the tensile strength of the group of an-
chors by ACI-equations is due to the modification factor ANc/ANco used
in the concrete breakout strength and bond strength to consider the ef-
fect of multiple anchors, anchor spacing, and edge distance of the adhe-
sive anchors, where ANco and ANc are the projected concrete failure areas
of a single anchor and group of anchors, respectively. The discrepancy
between the ACI predictions and test results can also be attributed to
the lack of strength equation corresponding to a combined cone-bond
failure in ACI code. The model proposed by Eligehausen et al. [16] best
recovers the experimentally measured results (see Fig. 11) because it
considers combined cone-bond strength by including a factor, ψg,N, to
take into account the effect of bond area on the tensile strength. The fac-
tor ψg,N is calculated as:
 
s   pffiffiffi pffiffiffi  τ 1:5
ψg;N ¼ ψg;No − ψ −1 where ψg;No ¼ n− n−1 ≥ 1:0
scr g;No τ max
ð4Þ
where n is the number of anchors and τmax is the upper bond strength
corresponding to the concrete breakout failure. The inclusion of
factor ψg,N in the strength calculation of adhesive anchors allows for cal-
culating the tensile strength corresponding to a combined cone-bond
failure for adhesive anchors with a ratio of τ=τmax between 0.3 and 1.
The tensile behavior of adhesive anchors with very small bond strength
ðτb0:3τmax Þ is governed by the bond failure and if the bond strength of
the adhesive anchors is equal to the upper bond strength ðτ ¼ τmax Þ,
their behavior is governed by concrete breakout failure.
On the basis of ACI predictions, single anchors under tensile load fail
due to steel fracture and the anchor groups fail due to concrete breakout

Fig. 11. Measured and predicted tensile capacities of adhesive anchors.

278 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280

Fig. 12. Measured and predicted shear capacities of adhesive anchors.

failure. The failure modes of the single anchor and anchor groups are split tensile strength, concrete modulus of elasticity, density of concrete,
steel fracture and combined cone-bond failure, respectively, based on type of aggregate, stud diameter, and number of connectors in a group.
the equations proposed by Eligehausen et al. [16]. Unlike to the predict- The tests showed that the shear strength of the stud connectors was
ed failure modes by analytical models, the specimens with single anchor mainly influenced by the compressive strength and modulus of
failed due to combined cone-bond failure (two specimens) and steel
fracture (one specimen), the specimens with four anchors failed due
to concrete breakout, and the specimens with six and nine anchors
failed due to combined cone-splitting failure.
Based on ACI 318-14, Section 17.4.2.9 [1], the shear strength of adhe-
sive anchors can be calculated using the larger values of the concrete
breakout strength and anchor reinforcement strength provided that
the anchor reinforcement is developed on both sides of the break sur-
face. Fig. 12 includes the anchor reinforcement strength only because
it was greater than the concrete breakout strength for the single and
group of adhesive anchors. The pryout strength of the adhesive anchors
was calculated based on the provisions of the ACI 318-14, Section 17.5.3
[1] which specifies that the pryout strength can be calculated as the
product of the lesser of the concrete breakout and bond strengths of a
group of anchors and a factor which is taken as 1.0 for anchors with
an embedment depth less than 64 mm and it is taken as 2.0 otherwise.
As seen in Fig. 12, ACI 318-14 overestimates the shear strength of the
group of 4 anchors and underestimates the shear strengths of the
groups of 6 and 9 anchors. Fig. 12 also indicates that half of the tensile
strength of adhesive anchors cannot be considered as a good estimation
for their shear strength, as proposed by Kwon et al. [17]. As reported
previously, the specimens with single and group of adhesive anchors
failed due to steel fracture. Similar to the test results, the ACI-
predicted failure mode of the single anchors is steel fracture but the an-
chor groups fail due to either yielding of the reinforcement or pryout
failure.
As seen in Fig. 13a and b, there is a linear relationship between the
number of the anchors in a group and the measured and ACI-
predicted normalized tensile and shear capacities of the group of an-
chors, where the normalized strength is defined as the strength of the
group of anchors divided by the product of the average strength of the
single anchors and the number of anchors in group. Fig. 13 also indicates
that the anchor spacing had a small effect on the shear strengths of the
adhesive anchors but it significantly influenced their tensile strengths.
Ollgaard et al. [25] conducted 48 tests to investigate the response of
shear studs embedded in both normal-weight and light-weight con-
cretes. The design parameters included concrete compressive strength, Fig. 13. Normalized strengths of the adhesive anchors.
 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280 279

elasticity of concrete. Ollgaard et al. proposed that the shear load–slip
relationship of stud connectors can be calculated as:
 
−0:71Δ 2=5
Q ¼ Q u 1−e
where Q is the shear force resisted by the stud; Δ is the stud slip in
millimeters; and Qu is the shear strength of stud connectors and can
be calculated as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 and of the group of anchors were concrete cone and cone-splitting
Q u ¼ 0:5As f c Ec
where fc′ is the concrete compressive strength; Ec is the modulus of
elasticity; and As is the cross-sectional area of the shear connector.
Fig. 14 presents the measured and predicted shear force-displacement
relationships for the adhesive anchors. The predicted shear responses of
the adhesive anchors were calculated using Eqs. (5) and (6). Fig. 14
shows that the peak shear strength of the single and group of adhesive an-
chors were successfully predicted using the equations proposed by
Ollgaard et al. [25]. However, the displacement corresponding to the
peak shear strength was underestimated, in particular for the groups of
6 and 9 anchors.
5. Conclusions
The tension and shear responses of the single and groups of 4, 6, and
9 adhesive anchors were studied in this paper. The force–displacement
ð5Þ
relationships and the failure modes of the adhesive anchors were pre-
sented. A comparison study was conducted to investigate the accuracy
of the current available equations for predictions of the tensile and
shear strengths of adhesive anchors.
On the basis of the test results, the tension failure modes of the
single adhesive anchors were steel fracture and cone-bond failure
ð6Þ
failures. The single and group of the adhesive anchors under shear
load exhibited steel fracture. The anchor spacing significantly influ-
enced the tensile response of the adhesive anchors but it had small
effect on the shear response, for the range of spacing studied
(150 mm and 200 mm). Also, the shear deformation capacities of
the adhesive anchors were significantly greater than their tensile de-
formation capacity.
The comparison study showed that the ACI 318-14 underestimates
the tensile and shear strengths of the adhesive anchors whereas the
equations proposed by Eligehausen et al. (2006) and Ollgaard et al.
(1971) can successfully estimate the tensile and shear strengths of the
adhesive anchors, respectively.

Fig. 14. Measured and predicted shear force–displacement relationships of the adhesive anchors.
280 S. Epackachi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114 (2015) 269–280

Acknowledgments [11] R.A. Cook, J. Kunz, W. Fuchs, R.C. Konz, Behavior and design of single adhesive
anchors under tensile load in uncracked concrete, ACI Struct. J. 95 (1998) 9–26.
[12] R.A. Cook, R.C. Konz, Factors influencing bond strength of adhesive anchors, ACI
This project was supported by the A.S.P Co., with close collaboration Struct. J. 98 (2001) 76–86.
with Applied Research Affairs of University of Tehran. This support is [13] Y. Li, R. Eligehausen, J. Ozbolt, B. Lehr, Numerical analysis of quadruple fastenings
with bonded anchors, ACI Struct. J. 99 (2002) 149–156.
gratefully acknowledged. We thank Dr. W. Wechner, department manag- [14] N.A. Zamora, R.A. Cook, R.C. Konz, G.R. Consolazio, Behavior and design of single,
er of the Bautechnische Versuchsanstalt, Dr. Jenö Varga, Hilti representa- headed and unheaded, grouted anchors under tensile load, ACI Struct. J. 100 (2003).
tive, and the technical staff of the HTL laboratory, Hilti, NORMBETON [15] K. Fujikake, J. Nakayama, H. Sato, S. Mindess, T. Ishibashi, Chemically bonded
anchors subjected to rapid pullout loading, ACI Mater. J. 100 (2003).
GmbH Co. and Wilhelm&Mayer GmbH Co. for their contributions to the
[16] R. Eligehausen, R. Cook, J. Appl, Behavior and design of adhesive bonded anchors,
project. ACI Struct. J. 103 (2006).
[17] G. Kwon, M.D. Engelhardt, R.E. Klingner, Behavior of post-installed shear connectors
under static and fatigue loading, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (2010) 532–541.
References
[18] T. Gurbuz, A. Ilki, Pullout performance of fully and partially bonded retrofit anchors
in low-strength concrete, ACI Struct. J. 108 (2011).
[1] ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14)
[19] S. Epackachi, R. Mirghaderi, O. Esmaili, A.A.T. Behbahani, S. Vahdani, Seismic evalu-
and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014.
ation of a 56-storey residential reinforced concrete high-rise building based on non-
[2] ACI Committee 355.4, Qualification of postinstalled adhesive anchors in concrete,
linear dynamic time-history analyses, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 21 (2012)
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011.
233–248.
[3] ACI Committee 349, Code requirements for nuclear safety-related concrete struc-
[20] O. Esmaili, S. Epackachi, R. Mirghaderi, A.A.T. Behbahani, S. Vahdani, Rehabilitation
tures (ACI 349-06) and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
of a high-rise coupled shear wall system in a 56-storey residential reinforced con-
Hills, MI, 2006.
crete building (Tehran Tower), based on nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses,
[4] IBC, ICC, International building code, International Code Council, Inc., Washington,
Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 20 (2011) 1035–1047.
D.C., 2006
[21] ÖNORM B 3303, Austrian Standard, Betonprüfung, Österr. Normungsinstitut,
[5] W.H. Peier, Model for pull-out strength of anchors in concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 109
Vienna, Austria, 2002.
(1983) 1155–1173.
[22] ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11)
[6] G.T. Doerr, R.E. Klingner, Adhesive anchors: behavior and spacing requirements,
and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011.
Research Report No. 1126-2, Center for transportation research, The University of
[23] ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08)
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1989.
and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008.
[7] R.A. Cook, G.T. Doerr, R.E. Klingner, Bond stress model for design of adhesive
[24] ACI Committee 318, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05)
anchors, ACI Struct. J. 90 (1993) 514–524.
and commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
[8] R.A. Cook, Behavior of chemically bonded anchors, J. Struct. Eng. 119 (1993)
2005.
2744–2762.
[25] J.G. Ollgaard, R.G. Slutter, J.W. Fisher, Shear strength of stud shear connectors in
[9] R. Eligehausen, T. Balogh, Behavior of fasteners loaded in tension in cracked rein-
lightweight and normal-weight concrete, AISC Eng. J. (1971) 55–64.
forced concrete, ACI Struct. J. 92 (1995) 365–379.
[10] M. McVay, R.A. Cook, K. Krishnamurthy, Pullout simulation of postinstalled chemi-
cally bonded anchors, J. Struct. Eng. 122 (1996) 1016–1024.

View publication stats