Alsaeab Finiteelementmodellingofanchoragetoconcrete

Finite Element Modelling of Anchorage to Concrete
Systems at Different Strain Rates
by
Lenda T. Ahmed Al Saeab
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral

Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Civil Engineering
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
© 2019
Lenda T. Ahmed Al Saeab
Abstract
Demand for flexibility in design and faster construction times has resulted in the increasing
use of fasteners in a variety of concrete structures. These structures are exposed to static
and dynamic loading conditions. Furthermore, these structures can be exposed to high
strain rate loading such as encountered in impact and blast loads. Thus, anchorage systems
used to fasten elements to concrete structures are also exposed to the high strain rates of
loading which can be tensile and shear loads. If not adequately designed and constructed,
anchorages can fail in a catastrophic manner and pose significant threat to building safety
and the life of building occupants.
Behaviour of anchors embedded into concrete and subjected to static load has been widely
investigated experimentally. However, despite the fact that many structures that contain
anchorage systems are exposed to dynamic loads, the research in this vital area is limited.
Currently, no guidance is available in design codes for the anchorage response under high
strain rate loading. The American Concrete Institute and Concrete Capacity Design
methods are recommended for anchorage system subjected to static and low cycle dynamic
loading only. Hence, there is a need to develop a design method to predict the anchorage
response and capacity under impact and blast loading.
The project presented in this thesis aims to investigate the tensile and shear behaviour of
cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors subjected to different strain rates using LS-
DYNA software. Numerical models of the anchorage systems with different design
parameters were developed and mesh sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine
mesh sizes that best simulated the experimental results obtained from the literature. The
ii
ultimate static capacity results were verified with the design methods. Effect of strain rate,
embedment depth, and anchor diameter on the tensile and shear failure loads was
investigated. Failure modes for the anchorage systems were also examined at different
strain rates. Concrete cone breakout diameter and failure cone angles were investigated. A
relation between the ultimate loads and the strain rates was investigated and dynamic
increase factors (DIF) for design were determined. Regression analysis was performed to
predict a relation that accurately represents the finite element results. Results of the tensile
and shear loading of the anchorage to concrete systems show that anchorage to concrete
system capacity increases with an increase in the strain rates. The failure mode of the
anchorage systems is influenced by the strain rate. Maximum DIFs of 1.74, 1.13 and 1.58
were obtained for the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors under tensile load
respectively where concrete cone breakout failure mode was observed. Maximum DIFs of
1.17, 1.13 and 1.44 respectively were obtained for the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut
anchors exhibited steel failure mode. The maximum DIFs were 1.15, 1.18 and 1.45
respectively for the anchors subjected to shear load where steel failure was observed.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to my supervisor Professor Braimah
for his continuous support, suggestions and valid advice throughout this research and
during the preparation of this thesis. I greatly thank Prof. Braimah for his constructive and
invaluable recommendations in all phases of the research.
I would like to thank Carleton University, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering for giving me the support during my study to accomplish my research. Also,
I would like to thank Mr. Kenneth Akhiwu for his kind assistance.
Finally, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my parents, my husband, my brothers
and sisters for their continuous encouragement and support.
iv
Dedication
To my father and mother,
To my husband,
To the memory of my brother.
v
Table of contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................... v
Table of contents ............................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xxxix
Notations ..................................................................................................................... xliv
Chapter 1 : Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives and significance of research program ..................................................... 4
1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Scope of the research............................................................................................... 11
1.5 Structure of the thesis .............................................................................................. 12
Chapter 2 : Literature review ........................................................................................ 15
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 15
2.2 Classification of anchors ......................................................................................... 18
2.3 Classification of adhesive materials ........................................................................ 22
2.4 Bond strength .......................................................................................................... 23
2.5 Cast-in-place anchors .............................................................................................. 29
2.5.1 Cast-in-place anchors under tensile load .......................................................... 29
2.5.2 Cast-in-place anchors under shear load ............................................................ 34
vi
2.6 Adhesive anchors .................................................................................................... 39
2.6.1 Adhesive anchors under tensile load ................................................................ 39
2.6.2 Adhesive anchors under shear load .................................................................. 47
2.7 Undercut anchors..................................................................................................... 49
2.7.1 Undercut anchors under tensile load ................................................................ 49
2.7.2 Undercut anchors under shear load .................................................................. 51
2.8 Strain rate effect on material properties .................................................................. 52
2.8.1 Effect of strain rate on concrete ........................................................................ 52
2.8.2 Effect of strain rate on steel .............................................................................. 57
2.9 Design methods for anchorage system .................................................................... 60
2.9.1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) .................................................................. 60
2.9.2 Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) .................................................................... 61
2.10 Anchorage failure modes ...................................................................................... 62
2.10.1 Failure modes of cast-in-place anchors under tensile load ............................. 62
2.10.2 Failure modes of cast-in-place anchors under shear load ............................... 63
2.10.3 Failure modes of adhesive anchors under tensile load ................................... 64
2.10.3.1 Concrete cone breakout failure .................................................................... 65
2.10.3.2 Bond failure ................................................................................................. 65
2.10.3.3 Combined cone-bond failure ....................................................................... 65
2.10.3.4 Steel anchor failure ...................................................................................... 66
2.10.4 Failure modes of adhesive anchors under shear load ..................................... 66
2.10.5 Adhesive bond failure ..................................................................................... 66
2.10.6 Failure modes of undercut anchors under tensile load ................................... 67
vii
2.10.7 Failure modes of undercut anchors under shear load ..................................... 67
2.11 Summary ............................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 3 : Finite element modelling of anchorage systems....................................... 70
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 70
3.2 Implicit and explicit analysis................................................................................... 71
3.3 Theoritical aspects (hydrocode) .............................................................................. 75
3.4 Finite element type .................................................................................................. 76
3.4.1 Solid element .................................................................................................... 77
3.5 Meshing technique .................................................................................................. 78
3.6 Material constitutive models ................................................................................... 79
3.6.1 Concrete models ............................................................................................... 79
3.6.1.1 Concrete Model (MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE)............................................. 81
3.6.2 Steel anchor models .......................................................................................... 86
3.6.3 Adhesive modelling .......................................................................................... 89
3.6.3.1 Adhesive model (MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE) .............................................. 90
3.7 Design parameters ................................................................................................... 92
3.8 Materials properties ................................................................................................. 93
3.9 Contact modelling ................................................................................................... 94
3.10 Boundary conditions ............................................................................................. 96
3.10.1 Load conditions .............................................................................................. 97
3.11 Quasi-static simulation using LS-DYNA .............................................................. 99
3.12 Summary ............................................................................................................. 100
viii
Chapter 4 : Strain rate effect on cast-in-place anchors ............................................. 101
4.1 Cast-in-place anchors under tensile load ............................................................... 101
4.1.1 Finite element modelling of cast-in-place anchors under tensile load ........... 101
4.1.2 Validation of cast-in-place anchor model under tensile load ......................... 102
4.1.3 Comparison of finite element results with the ACI and CCD design methods
................................................................................................................................. 105
4.1.4 Effect of strain rate on the level of damage and failure mode of cast-in-place
anchors ..................................................................................................................... 108
4.1.5 Effect of design parameters on failure mode and ultimate tensile load.......... 118
4.1.6 Effect of anchor embedment depth on the concrete cone depth ..................... 121
4.1.7 Effect of strain rate on concrete cone breakout diameter ............................... 124
4.1.8 Effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of cast-in-place anchors ........... 125
4.1.9 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and dynamic increase factor of
cast-in-place anchors ............................................................................................... 133
4.1.10 Regression Analysis for cast-in-place anchors under tensile load ............... 141
4.2 Cast-in-place anchors under shear load ................................................................. 151
4.2.1 Finite element modelling for cast-in-place anchors under shear load ............ 151
4.2.2 Validation of cast-in-place anchor model under shear load ........................... 151
4.2.3 Comparison of finite element results with design method ............................. 153
4.2.4 Crack pattern for cast-in-place anchors under shear load............................... 156
4.2.5 Effect of strain rate on the level of damage and failure mode ........................ 158
4.2.6 Effect of design parameters on failure mode and ultimate shear load ............ 164
4.2.7 Effect of strain rate on the shear behaviour of cast-in-place anchors ............. 166
ix
4.2.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate shear load and DIF of cast-in-place anchors
................................................................................................................................. 172
4.2.9 Regression analysis for cast-in-place anchors under shear load..................... 177
4.2.10 Case study: effect of concrete compressive strength on the shear behaviour of
cast-in-place anchors ............................................................................................... 182
4.2.10.1 Level of damage and failure mode ............................................................ 182
4.2.10.2 Effect of strain rate and concrete compressive strength on shear behaviour
................................................................................................................................. 185
4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 191
Chapter 5 : Strain rate effect on adhesive anchors .................................................... 193
5.1 Finite element modelling for adhesive anchors under tensile load ....................... 193
5.1.1 Validation of adhesive anchor model under tensile load ................................ 194
5.1.2 Comparison of finite element results with ACI and CCD design methods .... 199
5.1.3 Effect of strain rate on the level of damage and failure mode of adhesive anchors
................................................................................................................................. 200
5.1.4 Effect of design parameters on failure mode and ultimate tensile load .......... 209
5.1.5 Effect of anchor embedment depth on concrete cone depth ........................... 212
5.1.6 Concrete cone breakout diameter for adhesive anchors ................................. 215
5.1.7 Effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of adhesive anchors ................. 216
5.1.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and DIF of adhesive anchors
................................................................................................................................. 225
5.1.9 Regression Analysis for adhesive anchors under tensile load ........................ 232
5.2 Adhesive anchors under shear load ....................................................................... 242
x
5.2.1 Finite element modelling for adhesive anchors under shear load .................. 242
5.2.2 Validation of adhesive anchor model under shear load .................................. 242
5.2.3 Comparison of finite element results with design methods ............................ 245
5.2.4 Crack pattern for adhesive anchors under shear load ..................................... 246
5.2.7 Effect of strain rate on the shear behaviour of adhesive anchors ................... 256
5.2.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate shear load and DIF of adhesive anchors 262
5.2.9 Regression analysis for adhesive anchor under shear load............................. 268
5.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 272
Chapter 6 : Strain rate effect on the undercut anchors ............................................ 274
6.1 Finite element modelling for undercut anchors under tensile load ....................... 274
6.1.1 Validation of undercut anchor model under tensile load ................................ 275
6.1.2 Comparison of FEA results with the ACI and CCD design methods ............ 278
6.1.4 Effect of design parameters on failure mode and ultimate tensile load .......... 283
6.1.5 Effect of anchor embedment depth on the ultimate tensile load .................... 286
6.1.6 Effect of strain rate on concrete cone breakout diameter and cone propagation
angle......................................................................................................................... 288
6.1.7 Effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of the undercut anchors ........... 290
6.1.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and DIF of undercut anchors
................................................................................................................................. 298
6.1.9 Regression analysis for the undercut anchors under tensile load ................... 303
xi
6.2 Finite element modeling for undercut anchors under shear load .......................... 309
6.2.1 Validation of undercut anchor model under shear load .................................. 309
6.2.2 Comparison of finite element results with design methods ............................ 311
6.2.3 Crack pattern for the undercut anchors under shear load ............................... 313
6.2.6 Effect of strain rate on the shear behaviour of undercut anchors ................... 323
6.2.7 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate shear load and DIF of undercut anchors 329
6.2.8 Regression analysis for undercut anchors under shear load ........................... 334
6.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 338
Chapter 7 :Conclusions and recommendations for future research ........................ 340
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 340
7.2 General conclusions .............................................................................................. 341
7.3 Behaviour of cast-in-place anchorage system under different strain rates............ 342
7.4 Behaviour of adhesive anchorage system under different strain rates .................. 344
7.5 Behaviour of undercut anchorage system under different strain rates .................. 345
7.6 Research limitations .............................................................................................. 346
7.7 Future resreach ...................................................................................................... 347
7.8 Contributions ......................................................................................................... 348
7.8.1 Journal papers ................................................................................................. 348
7.8.2 Conference papers .......................................................................................... 348
References ................................................................................................................... 349
xii
Appendix A: Design methods for cast-in-place anchors ........................................... 370
A.1 Design methods for cast-in-place anchors under tensile load .............................. 370
A.1.1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) ............................................................... 370
A.1.2 Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) ................................................................. 375
A.2 Design methods for cast-in-place anchors under shear load ................................ 378
A.2.1 American concrete institute (ACI)................................................................. 378
A.2.2 Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) ................................................................. 383
Appendix B: Design methods for adhesive anchors .................................................. 385
B.1 Design methods for adhesive anchors under tensile load ..................................... 385
B.1.1 Concrete cone breakout failure ...................................................................... 385
B.1.2 Anchor steel failure ........................................................................................ 386
B.1.3 Bond failure ................................................................................................... 386
B.1.4 Combined cone-bond failure.......................................................................... 388
B.2 Design methods for adhesive anchors under shear load ....................................... 390
Appendix C:Tensile load-displacement relation for cast-in place anchors ............. 393
Appendix D: Shear load-displacement relation for cast-in-place anchors .............. 399
Appendix E: Tensile load-displacement relation for adhesive anchors ................... 405
Appendix F: Shear load-displacement relation for adhesive anchors ..................... 411
Appendix G: Tensile load-displacement relation for undercut anchors.................. 417
Appendix H: Shear load-displacement relation for undercut anchors .................... 423
Appendix I: LS-DYNA keyword files for anchorage to concrete systems ............... 429
xiii
Cast-in-place anchor under tensile load ...................................................................... 429
Cast-in-place anchor under shear load ........................................................................ 432
Adhesive anchor under tensile load ............................................................................ 440
Adhesive anchor under shear load .............................................................................. 445
Undercut anchor under tensile load ............................................................................. 453
Undercut anchor under shear load ............................................................................... 457
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Anchorage systems .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 1-2: Flow chart for the methodology of the project .............................................. 10
Figure 2-1: Applications of anchorage system in rock burst (Cai et al., 2010) ................ 16
Figure 2-2: Applications of anchorage system in window; (a) glass window under blast
load (Madico Safety Shield Premier Partener, 2012), (b) anchorage to base-plate (Johnson
window films, 2018) ......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-3: Types of anchors: (a) cast-in-place anchors, (b) post installed anchors (ACI
Committee 318, 2011) ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-4: Undercut anchor types ................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-5: Failure modes under tensile loading: (a) steel anchor failure, (b) concrete cone
breakout, (c) side face blowout, (d) concrete splitting (Cement Association of Canada
2010; ACI Committee 318, 2011) .................................................................................... 63
Figure 2-6: Failure modes for anchors under shear load (a) steel anchor failure preceded by
concrete spall; (b) concrete pryout failure; (c) concrete breakout failure; (d) thin concrete
breakout; (e) edge breakout, corner breakout (f) narrow concrete edge breakout (Cement
Association of Canada 2010; ACI Committee 318, 2011) ............................................... 64
Figure 2-7: Failure modes for adhesive anchors, (a) concrete cone breakout failure; (b)
combined cone-bond failure (bond failure at adhesive/concrete interface; (c) combined
cone-bond failure (bond failure at steel/adhesive interface); (d) combined cone-bond
failure (bond failure at combination of adhesive/concrete and steel/adhesive interface); (e)
steel anchor failure (Cook et al., 1998) ............................................................................. 64
xv
Figure 3-1: Eight node hexahedron solid element (Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, 2015) ............................................................................................................ 77
Figure 3-2: Four node tetrahedron solid element (Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, 2015) ............................................................................................................ 78
Figure 3-3: General shape of the concrete model yield surface (Murray, 2007) .............. 82
Figure 3-4: Yield surface (LSTC, 2014) ........................................................................... 91
Figure 3-5: Stress-displacement relation of MAT_169 for (a) tension and (b) shear (LSTC,
2014) ................................................................................................................................. 91
Figure 3-6: Boundary conditions for the anchorage models under (a) tensile load and (b)
shear load .......................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 4-1: Schematic view of the cast-in-place anchor ................................................. 101
Figure 4-2: Geometric configuration with boundary condition of cast-in-place anchor
model............................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 4-3: Comparison of experimental and numerical tensile load-displacement
behaviour of 8-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 50 mm embedment depth ....... 104
behaviour of 24-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 150 mm embedment depth ... 104
Figure 4-5: Plastic strain contours for cast-in-place anchor at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ...... 110
Figure 4-6: Effect of anchor embedment depth on the concrete cone diameter ............. 111
Figure 4-7: Cone breakout and crack propagation angles on the cast-in-place anchorage to
concrete system ............................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4-8: Failure mode of 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 114
xvi
......................................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 4-10: Failure mode of 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at different strain
rates ................................................................................................................................. 116
Figure 4-11: Strain rate effect on the failure mode and ultimate tensile load for cast-in-
place anchor diameter of 12.7 mm .................................................................................. 119
Figure 4-14: Effect of anchor embedment depth on the concrete cone depth and ultimate
tensile load for 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor ................................................. 122
Figure 4-17: Displacement contours of 15.9 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at strain
rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 ................................................................................ 124
Figure 4-18: Tensile load-displacement graph for 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor
at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ..................................................................................................... 125
xvii
at strain rate of 10 s-1 ....................................................................................................... 127
at strain rate of 102 s-1...................................................................................................... 127
Figure 4-24: Ultimate tensile load and DIF versus strain rate for the cast-in-place anchor
of 76.2 mm embedment depth ........................................................................................ 136
of 101.6 mm embedment depth ...................................................................................... 136
of 127 mm embedment depth ......................................................................................... 137
of 152.4 mm embedment depth ...................................................................................... 138
Figure 4-28: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for cast-in-place anchor exhibiting
concrete cone breakout failure ........................................................................................ 142
Figure 4-29: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for cast-in-place anchor exhibiting steel
failure .............................................................................................................................. 142
Figure 4-30: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited
concrete cone breakout failure ........................................................................................ 145
xviii
Figure 4-31: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited steel
failure .............................................................................................................................. 146
Figure 4-32: DIF obtained from the finite element analysis versus the predicted DIF for the
cast-in-place anchor exhibited concrete cone breakout failure ....................................... 147
cast-in-place anchor exhibited steel failure..................................................................... 148
Figure 4-34: Geometric configuration of cast-in-place anchor model under shear load 151
Figure 4-35: Applied shear load in the direction parallel to the edge distance c1 and
perpendicular to the edge distance c2 .............................................................................. 152
Figure 4-36: Plastic strain contours for cast-in-place anchor under shear load at strain rate
of 10-5 s-1 ......................................................................................................................... 157
Figure 4-37: Pryout failure mechanism of the cast-in-place anchor ............................... 158
Figure 4-38: Failure mode for 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at different strain
rates ................................................................................................................................. 160
rates ................................................................................................................................. 160
rates ................................................................................................................................. 161
Figure 4-41: Steel failure process of 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 101.6 mm
embedment depth; (a) stress concentration around the anchor, (b) anchor bending, (c)
initiation of anchor fracture and (d) complete anchor fracture ....................................... 163
Figure 4-42: Effect of strain rate on the failure mode and ultimate shear load for the cast-
in-place anchor diameter of 12.7 mm ............................................................................. 165
xix
Figure 4-45: Shear load-displacement graph for 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 167
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 167
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 168
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 168
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 169
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 169
Figure 4-51: Ultimate shear load and DIF versus strain rate for cast-in-place anchor with
76.2 mm embedment depth ............................................................................................. 174
101.6 mm embedment depth ........................................................................................... 174
xx
Figure 4-54: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for cast-in-place anchors exhibit steel
failure under shear load ................................................................................................... 178
Figure 4-55: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the cast-in-place anchor subjected to shear
load and exhibited steel failure ....................................................................................... 180
cast-in-place anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load ......................................... 181
Figure 4-57: Effect of strain rate and concrete compressive strength on the failure mode for
the 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place anchors................................................................... 183
Figure 4-58: Effect of strain rate and concrete compressive strength on the failure mode for
the 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchors................................................................... 184
Figure 4-59: Shear load-displacement response of 12.7 mm cast-in-place anchor diameter
with 76.2 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 10-5 s-1................................................ 186
with 152.4 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 10-5 s-1.............................................. 187
with 76.2 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 10-5 s-1................................................ 187
with 152.4 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 10-5 s-1.............................................. 188
with 76.2 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 103 s-1 ................................................ 189
with 152.4 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 103 s-1 .............................................. 189
xxi
Figure 4-65: Shear load-displacement response of 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor
with 76.2 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 103 s-1 ................................................ 190
with 152.4 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 103 s-1 .............................................. 190
Figure 5-1: A schematic view of the adhesive anchorage to concrete system................ 193
Figure 5-2: Geometric configuration with boundary condition for the adhesive anchor
model............................................................................................................................... 194
Figure 5-3: Comparison of tensile load-displacement response between FEA and
experimental results obtained by Braimah et al. (Braimah et al., 2004) for anchor diameter
of 6.4 mm ........................................................................................................................ 197
Figure 5-4: Failure mode obtained from the finite element analysis and the experimental
results obtained by Braimah et al. (Braimah et al., 2004)............................................... 197
experimental results obtained by Braimah et al. (Braimah et al., 2004) for anchor diameter
of 9.5 mm ........................................................................................................................ 198
Figure 5-6: Plastic strain contours for adhesive anchor with different anchor diameters and
embedment depths at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ..................................................................... 202
Figure 5-7: Cone breakout angle on the adhesive anchorage to concrete system. ......... 203
Figure 5-8: Failure mode of 12.7-mm diameter adhesive anchor at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 206
......................................................................................................................................... 207
xxii
......................................................................................................................................... 208
Figure 5-11: Strain rate effect on the failure mode and ultimate tensile load for adhesive
anchor diameter of 12.7 mm ........................................................................................... 209
tensile load for 12.7 mm diameter adhesive anchor ....................................................... 214
Figure 5-17: Displacement contours for adhesive anchors at strain rate of 10-5 with
diameters of: (a) 12.7 mm, (b) 15.9 mm and (c) 19.1 mm.............................................. 216
Figure 5-18: Tensile load-displacement graph for 12.7 mm diameter adhesive anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 217
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 217
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 218
xxiii
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 218
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 219
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 219
Figure 5-24: Ultimate tensile load and DIF versus strain rate for the adhesive anchor at
76.2 mm embedment depth ............................................................................................. 228
Figure 5-26: Ultimate tensile load and DIF versus strain rate for the adhesive anchor at 127
mm embedment depth ..................................................................................................... 229
Figure 5-28: Effect of strain rate ratio on DIF for adhesive anchor exhibited combined cone
bond failure under tensile load ........................................................................................ 232
Figure 5-29: Effect of strain rate ratio on DIF for adhesive anchor exhibited steel failure
under tensile load ............................................................................................................ 233
Figure 5-30: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the adhesive anchor exhibited combined
cone bond failure............................................................................................................. 235
Figure 5-31: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the adhesive anchor exhibited steel failure
......................................................................................................................................... 236
xxiv
adhesive anchors exhibited combined cone bond failure ............................................... 237
adhesive anchors exhibited steel failure ......................................................................... 237
Figure 5-34: Geometric configuration and boundary conditions of adhesive anchor model
......................................................................................................................................... 242
Figure 5-35: Comparison of shear load-displacement relation between FEA and
experimental results obtained by Cattaneo et al. (Cattaneo & Muciaccia, 2015) ........... 244
Figure 5-36: Failure mode obtained from:(a) finite element analysis and (b) experimental
results obtained by Cattaneo et al. (Cattaneo & Muciaccia, 2015) ................................. 244
Figure 5-37: Plastic strain contours for adhesive anchor under shear load at strain rate of
10-5 s-1.............................................................................................................................. 247
Figure 5-38: Failure mode for 12.7 mm diameter adhesive anchor at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 249
......................................................................................................................................... 249
......................................................................................................................................... 250
Figure 5-41: Failure mechanism of 19.1 mm diameter adhesive anchor with 152.4 mm
embedment depth; (a) stress concentration around the anchor, (b) anchor bending with
bond failure, (c) initiation of anchor fracture, (d) complete anchor failure .................... 251
Figure 5-42: Effect of strain rate on the failure mode and ultimate shear load for the
adhesive anchor diameter of 12.7 mm ............................................................................ 254
xxv
Figure 5-45: Shear load-displacement graph for 12.7-mm diameter adhesive anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 256
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 257
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 257
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 258
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 258
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 259
Figure 5-51: Ultimate shear load and DIF versus strain rate for adhesive anchors at 76.2
xxvi
Figure 5-54: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for adhesive anchor exhibiting steel
Figure 5-55: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the adhesive anchor subjected to shear
load and exhibited steel failure ....................................................................................... 271
adhesive anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load................................................ 272
Figure 6-1: A schematic view for the undercut anchor model........................................ 274
Figure 6-2: Geometric configuration and boundary conditions for the undercut anchor
model............................................................................................................................... 275
Figure 6-3: Tensile load-displacement response of the FEA and experimental results
obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016) ......................................................... 277
Figure 6-4: Failure mode of the undercut anchors under tensile load observed from the
finite element analysis and the experimental results by (Mahadik et al., 2016) ............. 277
Figure 6-5: Plastic strain contours for the undercut anchors at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ..... 280
Figure 6-6: Failure mode of 12 mm diameter undercut anchor at different strain rates . 281
Figure 6-9: Strain rate effect on the failure mode and ultimate tensile load for undercut
anchor diameter of 12 mm .............................................................................................. 283
xxvii
tensile load for 12 mm diameter undercut anchor .......................................................... 287
Figure 6-15: Displacement contours for 20 mm undercut anchor diameter at strain rates
ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 ......................................................................................... 289
Figure 6-16: Tensile load-displacement graph for the 12-mm diameter undercut anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 291
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 291
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 292
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 292
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 293
strain rate of 103 s-1 ......................................................................................................... 293
Figure 6-22: Tensile load-displacement response of 100 mm embedment depth undercut
anchors at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ....................................................................................... 295
xxviii
anchors at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ....................................................................................... 295
Figure 6-24: Ultimate tensile load and DIF versus strain rate for the undercut anchor at 100
Figure 6-28: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for the undercut anchors exhibited steel
failure under tensile load ................................................................................................. 304
Figure 6-29: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the undercut anchors exhibited steel failure
......................................................................................................................................... 306
undercut anchors exhibited steel failure ......................................................................... 307
model............................................................................................................................... 309
experimental results obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016) ........................ 311
results obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016) .............................................. 311
xxix
Figure 6-34: Plastic strain contours for undercut anchors under shear load at strain rate of
10-5 s-1.............................................................................................................................. 314
Figure 6-35: Failure mode of 12-mm diameter undercut anchor at different strain rates316
Figure 6-38: Failure process of 12-mm diameter undercut anchor with 190 mm embedment
depth; (a) stress concentration around the undercut anchor, (b) anchor bending, (c) crack
initiation and (d) anchor fracture .................................................................................... 320
undercut anchor diameter of 12 mm ............................................................................... 321
Figure 6-42: Shear load-displacement graph for 12-mm diameter undercut anchor at strain
rate of 10-5 s-1................................................................................................................... 324
rate of 10-3 s-1................................................................................................................... 324
rate of 10-1 s-1................................................................................................................... 325
rate of 10 s-1 ..................................................................................................................... 325
xxx
rate of 102 s-1 ................................................................................................................... 326
rate of 103 s-1 ................................................................................................................... 326
Figure 6-48: Ultimate shear load and DIF versus strain rate for undercut anchors at 100
Figure 6-52: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for undercut anchors exhibited steel
Figure 6-53: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the undercut anchors under shear load
exhibited steel failure ...................................................................................................... 337
undercut anchors exhibited steel failure under shear load .............................................. 338
Figure A-1: Calculation of Projected area ANo and actual area AN for single anchor and
double anchors (Cement Association of Canada 2010; ACI Committee 318 2011) ...... 374
Figure A-2: Calculation of projected area Avco for single anchor (Cement Association of
Canada, 2010; ACI Committee 318, 2011) .................................................................... 381
xxxi
Figure C-1: Tensile load-displacement graph for 15.9 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 393
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 393
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 394
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 394
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 395
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 395
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 396
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 396
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 397
Figure C-10: Tensile load-displacement graph for 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor
at strain rate of 10 s-1 ....................................................................................................... 397
xxxii
Figure D-1: Shear load-displacement graph for 15.9 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 399
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 399
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 400
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 400
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 401
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 401
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 402
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 402
Figure D-9: Shear load-displacement graph for 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor mm
strain rate of 10 s-1........................................................................................................... 403
xxxiii
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 404
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 404
Figure E-1: Tensile load-displacement graph for 15.9 mm diameter adhesive anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 405
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 405
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 406
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 406
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 407
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 407
strain rate of 10-5 s-1......................................................................................................... 408
strain rate of 10-3 s-1......................................................................................................... 408
strain rate of 10-1 s-1......................................................................................................... 409
xxxiv
strain rate of 10 s-1........................................................................................................... 409
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 410
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 410
Figure F-1: Shear load-displacement graph for 15.9 mm diameter adhesive anchor at strain
rate of 10-5 s-1................................................................................................................... 411
rate of 10-3 s-1................................................................................................................... 411
rate of 10-1 s-1................................................................................................................... 412
rate of 10 s-1 ..................................................................................................................... 412
rate of 102 s-1 ................................................................................................................... 413
rate of 103 s-1 ................................................................................................................... 413
rate of 10-5 s-1................................................................................................................... 414
rate of 10-3 s-1................................................................................................................... 414
xxxv
rate of 10-1 s-1................................................................................................................... 415
Figure F-10: Shear load-displacement graph for 19.1 mm diameter adhesive anchor at
strain rate of 10 s-1 ........................................................................................................... 415
strain rate of 102 s-1.......................................................................................................... 416
strain rate of 103 s-1.......................................................................................................... 416
Figure G-1: Tensile load-displacement graph for the 16 mm diameter undercut anchor at
strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ........................................................................................................ 417
strain rate of 10-3 s-1 ........................................................................................................ 417
strain rate of 10-1 s-1 ........................................................................................................ 418
strain rate of 10 s-1........................................................................................................... 418
strain rate of 102 s-1 ......................................................................................................... 419
strain rate of 103 s-1 ......................................................................................................... 419
strain rate of 10-5 s-1 ........................................................................................................ 420
xxxvi
strain rate of 10-3 s-1 ........................................................................................................ 420
strain rate of 10-1 s-1 ........................................................................................................ 421
strain rate of 10 s-1........................................................................................................... 421
strain rate of 102 s-1 ......................................................................................................... 422
strain rate of 103 s-1 ......................................................................................................... 422
Figure H-1: Shear load-displacement graph for 16 mm diameter undercut anchor at strain
rate of 10-5 s-1................................................................................................................... 423
rate of 10-3 s-1................................................................................................................... 423
rate of 10-1 s-1................................................................................................................... 424
rate of 10 s-1 ..................................................................................................................... 424
rate of 102 s-1 ................................................................................................................... 425
rate of 103 s-1 ................................................................................................................... 425
xxxvii
rate of 10-5 s-1................................................................................................................... 426
rate of 10-3 s-1................................................................................................................... 426
rate of 10-1 s-1................................................................................................................... 427
rate of 10 s-1 ..................................................................................................................... 427
rate of 102 s-1 ................................................................................................................... 428
rate of 103 ........................................................................................................................ 428
xxxviii
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Material specifications for concrete models (LSTC, 2014) ............................ 80
Table 3-2: Boundary conditions of the anchorage to concrete systems............................ 97
Table 3-3: Material models specifications (LSTC, 2014) ................................................ 99
Table 4-1: Effect of mesh size refinement on the convergence of ultimate tensile load for
cast-in-place anchors ....................................................................................................... 103
Table 4-2: Comparison of ultimate tensile loads obtained from FEA with ACI and CCD
design methods................................................................................................................ 107
Table 4-3: Concrete cone diameter and cone breakout angle for the cast-in-place anchor at
the static strain rate ......................................................................................................... 112
Table 4-4: Failure mode for cast-in-place anchors under tensile load at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 117
Table 4-5: Crack propagation angle for the cast-in-place anchors at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 118
Table 4-6: Ultimate tensile load and displacement results for the 12.7 mm diameter cast-
in-place anchor ................................................................................................................ 130
in-place anchor ................................................................................................................ 130
in-place anchor ................................................................................................................ 131
Table 4-9: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the cast-in-place anchors under tensile
load.................................................................................................................................. 140
xxxix
Table 4-10: Statistical models and coefficient of determination to predict the DIF for cast-
in-place anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure under tensile load ............... 143
in-place anchors exhibited steel failure under tensile load ............................................. 143
Table 4-12: Comparison between ultimate dynamic load obtained from the FEA and
proposed equations by Fujikake et al. (2003) for the cast-in-place anchor exhibited concrete
cone breakout failure....................................................................................................... 150
Table 4-13: Effect of mesh size refinement on the convergence of ultimate shear load for
cast-in-place anchor ........................................................................................................ 153
Table 4-14: Comparison between FEA and ACI 318 method ........................................ 155
Table 4-15: Failure mode for cast-in-place anchors under shear load at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 164
Table 4-16: Ultimate shear load and displacement results for the 12.7 mm diameter cast-
in-place anchor ................................................................................................................ 170
in-place anchor ................................................................................................................ 171
in-place anchor ................................................................................................................ 172
Table 4-19: Maximum DIF for the cast-in-place anchors under shear load ................... 176
in-place anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load ................................................. 178
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 195
xl
methods ........................................................................................................................... 199
Table 5-3: Concrete cone diameter and cone breakout angle for the adhesive anchor... 204
Table 5-4: Failure mode for adhesive anchors under tensile load at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 212
Table 5-5: Ultimate tensile load and displacement results for the 12.7 mm diameter
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 221
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 222
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 223
Table 5-8: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the adhesive anchors under tensile load
......................................................................................................................................... 231
Table 5-9: Statistical models and coefficient of determination to predict the DIF for
adhesive anchors exhibited combined cone bond failure under tensile load .................. 233
adhesive anchors exhibited steel failure under tensile load ............................................ 234
Table 5-11: Comparison between ultimate load obtained from the FEA and the proposed
equations by Fujikake et al. (2003) for concrete cone breakout failure mode ................ 239
Table 5-12: Comparison between ultimate dynamic load obtained from the FEA and the
proposed equations by Fujikake et al. (2003) for combined cone bond failure mode .... 240
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 243
xli
Table 5-14: Comparison between FEA and ACI 318 method ........................................ 245
Table 5-15: Failure mode for adhesive anchors under shear load at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 251
Table 5-16: Ultimate shear load and displacement results for the 12.7-mm diameter
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 261
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 261
adhesive anchor ............................................................................................................... 262
Table 5-19: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the adhesive anchors under shear load
......................................................................................................................................... 268
adhesive anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load................................................ 270
undercut anchor ............................................................................................................... 276
methods ........................................................................................................................... 279
Table 6-3: Failure mode for undercut anchors under tensile load at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 285
Table 6-4: Crack propagation angle for the undercut anchors at different strain rates ... 290
Table 6-5: Ultimate tensile load and displacement for the 12 mm diameter undercut anchor
......................................................................................................................................... 296
xlii
......................................................................................................................................... 297
......................................................................................................................................... 298
Table 6-8: Maximum Dynamic increase factor for the undercut anchors under tensile load
......................................................................................................................................... 303
Table 6-9: Statistical models and coefficient of determination to predict the DIF for the
undercut anchors exhibited steel failure under tensile load ............................................ 304
Table 6-10: Comparison between ultimate dynamic load for the undercut anchor obtained
from the FEA and proposed equation by Fujikake et al. (2003) ..................................... 308
undercut anchor ............................................................................................................... 310
Table 6-12: Comparison of ultimate shear load obtained from FEA and ACI 318 method
......................................................................................................................................... 312
Table 6-13: Failure mode for the undercut anchors under shear load at different strain rates
......................................................................................................................................... 323
Table 6-14: Ultimate shear load and displacement results for the 12-mm diameter undercut
anchor .............................................................................................................................. 328
anchor .............................................................................................................................. 328
anchor .............................................................................................................................. 329
Table 6-17: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the undercut anchors under shear load
......................................................................................................................................... 334
undercut anchors exhibited steel failure under shear load .............................................. 335
xliii
Notations
a Acceleration
𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑔 Bearing area
𝐴𝑒 Projected area of concrete cone failure
𝐴𝑁 Actual projected area of stress cone of a single anchor in tension
𝐴𝑁𝑜 Projected area of stress cone of a single anchor unlimited by edge effect
or spacing between anchors in tension
𝐴𝑠 Effective cross-sectional area of the anchor
𝐴𝑣 Actual projected area considering edge effects and overlap with adjacent
anchors in shear
𝐴𝑣𝑜 Projected area for one anchor unlimited by edge effects, concrete depth or
cone overlapping in shear
𝑎𝑛 Nodal acceleration at time step (n)
𝑎𝑛+1 Nodal acceleration at time step (n+1)
c Distance from center of anchor to edge of concrete
c1 Edge distance parallel to the direction of the applied load
c2 Edge distance perpendicular to the direction of the applied load
cc Critical distance
C, p Cowper-Symonds constants
d Diameter of the anchor
dcone Cone diameter
𝑑ℎ Anchor head diameter
do Diameter of the hole
xliv
𝑑𝑛 Nodal displacement at time step (n)
𝑒𝑁′ Distance between the resultant tensile force of the group anchors and the
centroid of the group anchors
𝑒𝑣′ Distance between resultant shear force of the anchor group and the centroid
of the anchors
𝐸𝑝 Plastic hardening modulus
𝐸𝑡 Tangent modulus
𝑓𝑐′ Compressive strength of concrete measured on cylinder
𝑓𝑐𝑐′ Compressive strength of concrete measured on cube
Fcd Ultimate dynamic concrete cone breakout
𝑓𝑐𝑡 Concrete capacity

′
𝑓𝑐,𝑙𝑜𝑤 Low strength concrete
Fs Tensile static load
Ftd Tensile dynamic load
𝐹𝑢 Ultimate tensile load for anchors with eccentricity effect and/or edge effect
𝐹𝑢𝑜 Ultimate tensile load without eccentricity effect and/or edge effect
𝑓𝑢𝑡 Ultimate tensile strength of the steel
𝑓𝑖𝑛 Internal force
F(t) External force
𝐹𝑓 Shear (failure) surface
𝐹𝑐 Hardening cap surface
G Shear modulus
h Concrete depth
xlv
hcone Concrete cone depth
ℎ𝑒𝑓 Effective embedment depth
J1 First invariant of the stress tensor
𝐽2′ Second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
𝐽3′ Third invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
k, k1, k2, k3 Calibrated factors
𝑘𝑐𝑝 Calibrated factor
m Mass
n Number of anchors
𝑁𝑎 Nominal bond strength for single adhesive anchor
𝑁𝑏 Basic concrete breakout strength in tension of a single anchor
𝑁𝑐𝑏 Nominal concrete breakout strength in tension for a single anchor
𝑁𝑐𝑏𝑔 Concrete breakout strength in tension for a group of anchors
Nu Ultimate tensile load with edge effect and spacing
Nuo Ultimate tensile load
𝑁𝑠𝑏 Side face blowout strength for single anchor
𝑁𝑠𝑏𝑔 Side face blowout strength for a group of anchors
𝑁𝑝𝑛 Pullout load of single anchor
𝑁𝑝 Nominal pullout stress
𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 Concrete cone failure load
𝑁𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑑 Bond failure load
P Pressure
PWRT Power law term for tension
xlvi
PWRS Power law term for shear
s Distance between anchors (spacing)
𝑆𝑖𝑗∗ Trial deviatoric stress
𝑆𝑖𝑗 , 𝑆𝑗𝑘 , 𝑆𝑘𝑖 Deviatoric stress tensors
𝑆𝐻𝑇_𝑆𝐿 Slope of the yield surface at zero tension
v Velocity
𝑉𝑐𝑏 Nominal concrete breakout strength for a single anchor in shear
𝑉𝑏 Basic concrete breakout strength of a single anchor in shear in cracked
concrete
𝑉𝑐𝑏𝑔 Concrete breakout capacity for a group of anchors in shear
𝑉𝑐𝑝 Pryout capacity of single cast-in anchor
𝑉𝑐𝑝𝑔 Pryout capacity of a group of cast-in anchors
𝑉𝑛 Ultimate shear load for anchors considering the effect of edge distance,
concrete depth, and spacing
𝑉𝑛𝑜 Ultimate shear load
𝑣𝑛 Nodal velocity at time step (n)
𝑣 𝑛+1 Nodal velocity at time step (n+1)
𝑌 Yield function of the concrete material
𝜌 Density
𝑝 Hydrostatic pressure
𝜓1 Factor taking into account the eccentricity of the resultant tensile force
on the anchors
𝜓2 Modification factor considers disorder of the radial symmetric stress
xlvii
distribution due to the edge effect for the anchors far from the edge
𝜓4 Eccentricity effect of shear load on anchor groups
𝜓5 Modification factor considers disorder of symmetric stress distribution in
shear
𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑁 Modification factor account for eccentricity effect for group anchors in
tension
𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑁 Modification factor account for edge effect in tension
𝜓𝑐,𝑁 Modification factor account for cracking under tensile load
𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑣 Modification factor accounts for eccentricity effect for group anchors
subjected to eccentric shear load
𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑣 Modification factor accounts for edge effect in shear
𝜓𝑐,𝑣 Modification factor accounts for cracking under shear load
𝜓𝑐𝑝,𝑁 Modification factor account for post installed anchors embedded in
uncracked concrete
𝜓ℎ,𝑣 Modification factor account of the thickness of concrete
∑0 Nominal perimeter of the reinforcing
𝜎𝑢 Ultimate strength of the anchor
𝜎0 Initial yield stress
𝜎𝑦 Yield stress
𝜎𝑠 Tensile stress of the steel bar
𝜏 Shear stress
𝜏𝑜 Uniform bond stress in the adhesive layer
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum bond stress in the adhesive layer
xlviii
𝜆′ Elastic constant
ℜ Rubin three invariant reduction factor
∝, 𝜆, 𝛽, 𝜃 Constants
𝜃𝑎 Cone breakout angle
𝜃𝑏 Crack propagation angle
∆𝑡 Time step
𝜀̇ Effective strain rate

𝑝
𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effective plastic strain
𝑒
𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 Elastic strain rate
𝑝
𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 Plastic strain rate
𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 Total strain rate
𝜀𝑖𝑗 Strain
𝑝
∆𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effective plastic strain increment
𝑝
𝑓ℎ (𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) Hardening function
xlix
Chapter 1 : Introduction
1.1 Background
Modern construction techniques depend on the ability to connect or join building
components. There are different joining techniques depending on the construction
materials, structural system, and building design requirements (Eligehausen et al., 2006).
Steel anchorage techniques are widely used for joining steel structural components to
concrete structures (Eligehausen et al., 2006; Fuchs, 2001; Zamora et al., 2003;
Eligehausen et al., 2001; Çalışkan et al., 2013).
There are two broad anchorage techniques for fastening structural components to concrete
structure: cast-in-place and post-installed anchorage systems. Cast-in-place anchors are
installed before casting the concrete, while post-installed anchors are installed in hardened
concrete by drilling holes and inserting the steel anchors. The connections between parts
in a structure are important to transfer the load between these parts (Primavera et al., 1997).
Load transfer mechanism for cast-in-place anchors is mainly by mechanical interlocking
between anchor and the concrete. The load transfer mechanism in post-installed anchorage
systems is by mechanical interlocking, friction and bonding (adhesion) (Çalışkan et al.,
2013; Eligehausen et al., 2001; Eligehausen et al., 2006; Fuchs, 2001; Zamora et al., 2003).
Many factors influence the strength of the anchorage system to concrete. These are:
1
a) factors related to the anchor such as anchor type (cast-in-place or post installed),
anchor strength, embedment depth, edge distance and spacing (in multi-anchor
applications);
b) factors related to the base material such as type of the base material (concrete or
masonry), strength and condition of the base material (cracked or uncracked), and
reinforcement detailing of the base material;
c) factors related to the applied load such as direction of the applied load (shear,
tension, combined shear-tension load), and type of load (static or dynamic); and
d) factors related to the environmental conditions such as corrosion and temperature
(Committee Euro-International du Beton (CEB), 1994).
Failure load of the anchorage system can be determined either by experimental testing,
numerical modelling or by predictive methods. The predictive methods are such as
American Concrete Institute (ACI) (ACI Committee (349), 1990; Fuchs, 2001; Zamora et
al., 2003) and Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) (Committee Euro-International du Beton
(CEB) 1994; Fuchs et al., 1995; Subramanian, 2000; Fuchs, 2001; Ashour and Alqedra,
2005). Behaviour of anchors embedded into concrete and subjected to static load has been
widely investigated experimentally (Cook et al., 1992; Fuchs, 2001; Hashimoto and
Takiguchi, 2004; Yilmaz et al., 2013; Zamora et al., 2003; Çalışkan et al., 2013;
Eligehausen et al., 2001; Eligehausen et al., 2006). Although many structures that contain
anchorage systems are exposed to dynamic loads, most of the research is under static
loading conditions. Research focusing on the effects of dynamic loads from structural
2
vibration, earthquakes, impacts and blasts is limited. Investigating the dynamic response
of the anchorage systems at high strain rates is crucial for the following reasons:
 Complex concrete response at high dynamic loading (Tu and Lu, 2009).
 Significant increase in the strength of concrete and steel due to high strain rate
(Malvar & Crawford, 1998; Shkolnik, 2008; Min et al., 2014).
 The high strain rate has an influence on the properties and deformation of concrete
(Park et al., 2001) and steel (Lee et al., 2007) materials.
 Exposure to high strain rate can result in a catastrophic anchorage failure such as
in the structures under the earthquake, impact or blast events.
 Lack of a comprehensive and validated database on the behaviour of anchorage to
concrete systems in structures subjected to different strain rates is considered a
critical barrier to the designers to estimate the performance of these systems under
different strain rate loading conditions.
 Current codes and guidelines for the design of anchorage systems such as ACI and
CCD methods address anchorage designs under static and low cycle dynamic
loading. Hence, there is a need to develop a design method to predict the anchorage
response under high dynamic loading to ensure structural safety and to minimize or
prevent anchorage failure.
3
1.2 Objectives and significance of research program
A review of the literature shows little information on the response of anchorage systems
under high strain rates arising from blast and impact loading. Moreover, there is no
accepted method for the design of anchorages subjected to high strain rates. Experimental
research involving high strain rate loading can be complex, time consuming and expensive.
Consequently, numerical analysis using a commercially available finite element package,
LS-DYNA, was used to investigate the response of steel anchorage systems under high
strain rates. The results of the numerical analyses will enable the prediction of the structural
response of the anchorage systems under different strain rates.
The main objective of this research project is to investigate the effect of strain rate on the
tensile and shear behaviour of cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors. The main
objectives of the research were achieved through the following research tasks:
 Development of finite element models for the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut
anchors to investigate the effect of strain rate on the tensile and shear behaviour of
the anchorage to concrete systems.
 Investigation of the effect of strain rate on the load-displacement relation for the
anchorage system.
 Examination of the effect of anchor diameter and embedment depth on the capacity
of anchorage to concrete systems at different strain rates.
 Determination of the concrete cone breakout angle and cone breakout diameter for
the anchorage systems.
4
 Establishment of dynamic increase factors (DIF) to relate the static and dynamic
capacity of anchorage systems at high strain rates.
 Prediction and discussion of the failure mode of the cast-in-place, adhesive and
undercut anchorage to concrete at different strain rates.
 Examination of the level of damage of the anchorage to concrete under different
design parameters and strain rates.
 Development of analytical equations to relate DIF and strain rate for the anchorage
to concrete systems.
It has been experimentally established that both concrete and steel experience an increase
in strength under high strain rate loading. The combined effect of strength increase of
concrete and steel has not been adequately investigated under strain rates experienced
under blast and impact. This research presents a numerical investigation carried out to
study the tensile and shear behaviour of cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchorage to
concrete systems under strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. Predicting the failure
mode of anchorage to concrete system and the relationship between the anchorage system
strength increase and strain rate will provide designers with the requisite information to
design safe and cost-effective anchorage systems. Also, the effect of anchor diameter and
embedment depth on the anchorage system capacity at different strain rates will be
invaluable to designers. In addition, the research aims to provide a proven design
methodology for the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchorage to concrete systems
under different strain rates. The findings of this research will contribute to the design of
5
anchorage systems capable of resisting high strain rate loading and predicting the failure
load and failure mode of the anchorage systems under these loading conditions.
1.3 Methodology
In this project, behaviour of anchorage to plain concrete at strain rates in the range of 10 -5
s-1 to 103 s-1 was investigated using finite element analysis package - LS-DYNA software.
Single cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors were selected for the analysis. Effect
of group anchors on the tensile and shear behaviour of anchorage to concrete system was
not considered for the analysis in this thesis. Standard anchor diameters of 12.7-mm, 15.9
mm and 19.1-mm with embedment depths (hef) of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4
mm for the cast-in-place and adhesive anchors were selected for the analysis. Three
undercut anchors with nominal diameters of 12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm and recommended
embedment depths of 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm were considered for this investigation
according to Hilti Inc. (Hilti, 2011). In addition, embedment depth of 100 mm was
investigated. Effect of edge distance was not considered in the analyses. To preclude edge
effects on the behaviour of the anchors, concrete block size of (4hef + 125) mm × (4hef +
125) mm × (2hef) mm was selected to model the tensile behaviour of the steel anchorage
systems. For modelling the shear behaviour of the steel anchorage system, concrete block
size of (2hef + 150) mm × (2hef + 150) mm × (1.5hef + 50) mm was selected to minimize
the effect of edge distance on the behaviour of the anchors.
Solid elements were used to model the steel anchor, sleeve, adhesive, plate, nut, washer
and the concrete. The solid elements for the anchor, sleeve, plate, nut and washer were
6
formulated using constant stress while the solid elements for the concrete were formulated
using one point integrated tetrahedron. Details of the solid element types used for the
analyses are presented in Chapter 3. Several material constitutive models are available in
LS-DYNA to model concrete, steel and adhesive materials. Some of the commonly used
material constitutive models were evaluated to select the most suitable material models that
can best represent the behaviour of concrete, steel and adhesive under the strain rates
investigated. Continuous Surface Cap Model (MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE) was selected
to model the concrete, Piecewise Linear Plasticity Model (MAT_024) was used to model
the steel anchor, and Arup Adhesive Model (MAT_169) was used to model the adhesive
material.
Three contact definitions were used to model the interaction between the components of
the anchorage system: CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE,
CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE and CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_ONE_
WAY_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_TIEBREAK. Bonding between the concrete and the
anchor for the cast-in-place and undercut anchors was performed using
CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE. This contact keycard simulates
a two-way contact where the penetration of the slave nodes (the anchor) are checked against
master segment (the concrete) and master nodes are checked against slave segment. For
the adhesive anchor, CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_ONE_WAY_SURFACE_TO_
SURFACE_TIEBREAK was used to model the steel to adhesive bond,
CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE was used for bonding between the
adhesive and the concrete. CONTACT_ERODING_SINGLE_SURFACE was
implemented to remove any distorted elements of the adhesive material. All the nodes at
7
the bottom surface of the concrete block were fixed to prevent displacement and rotation
during the loading regime. Using symmetry, a quarter of the anchorage system with two
symmetry planes boundary condition was used to model the tensile behaviour. Half of the
anchorage system with one symmetry plane boundary condition was used to model the
shear behaviour.
The strain rate was imposed on the steel anchor by imposing
BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET keycard, in z-direction and y-direction, to
model the tensile and shear loads respectively. After completing the finite element models,
finite element analysis was carried out using explicit solver of LS-DYNA.
The cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchor models were validated with experimental
test data and compared with results from the analytical prediction methods (ACI and CCD).
Effect of strain rate on the tensile and shear capacity of the cast-in-place, adhesive and
undercut anchors was investigated for the different anchor diameters and embedment
depths. Ultimate load values for the anchors were determined for the investigated strain
rates. The DIF, defined as the ratio of dynamic to static capacity was determined at each
strain rate. The relation between the DIF and strain rate was established and an equation
relating the DIF and strain rate was proposed. The adequacy of the proposed equation was
verified by comparing the DIF obtained from the predicted equation with the DIF obtained
from new developed numerical models of the anchorage systems with different design
parameters. Figure 1-1 shows the anchorage to concrete systems used in this research. The
methodology of the project can be summarized as in the flow chart shown in Figure 1-2.
8
Anchorage to Concrete Systems
Cast-in-place anchor Post installed anchor
Headed bolt Adhesive anchor Undercut anchor
Through-set
(HDA-T)
Figure 1-1: Anchorage systems
9
Modelling of Anchorage to Concrete Systems
Numerical model Effect of strain rate Parametric analysis
Design Anchor
diameter Regression
parameters Tensile Concrete cone
breakout analysis
capacity
Materials Embedment
selection depth Combined
cone-bond
Verification
Boundary of statistical
Failure Steel model
conditions mode failure
Model Dynamic Pryout

increase
validation factor
failure Prediction of
Shear dynamic
capacity increase factor
Tensile Concrete
capacity Concrete spalling
compressive
strength
Shear
capacity
Figure 1-2: Flow chart for the methodology of the project
10
1.4 Scope of the research
In this research, anchorage to concrete system models of different design parameters were
developed using LS-DYNA software to investigate the tensile and shear behaviour of the
anchorage systems embedded in plain concrete. Six strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1,
10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 that represent various loading conditions were considered in the
analysis. Low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 is considered to represent the static loading, moderate
strain rates of 10-3 s-1 and 10-1 s-1 are considered to represent the earthquake, strain rate of
10 s-1 is considered for impact and high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 are associated with
blast loading. The scope of this research can be summarized as follows:
1. Analyses on the behaviour of cast-in-place anchorage to concrete systems subjected
to tensile and shear loads at strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1.
2. Analyses on the behaviour of post-installed adhesive anchorage to concrete
systems subjected to tensile and shear loads at strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to
103 s-1.
3. Analyses on the behaviour of post-installed undercut anchorage to concrete systems
subjected to tensile and shear loads at strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1.
11
1.5 Structure of the thesis
This thesis has been organized into seven chapters. The contents in each chapter are
summarized as follows:
Chapter one outlines the background of anchorage to concrete systems, followed by the
objectives of the research. The methodology of the research is also presented in this chapter
with a flow chart that shows the process of developing the anchorage to concrete models
and the factors that are investigated. Chapter one ends with the structure of the thesis that
outlines all the chapters of the thesis.
Chapter two presents a comprehensive literature review on steel to concrete anchorage
systems. Chapter two addresses the classifications of anchors and adhesive materials. The
chapter includes a literature review on the behaviour of cast-in-place and post-installed
anchors under static and dynamic tensile and shear loading. A literature survey on the effect
of bond strength, embedment depth, anchor diameter, edge distance, anchor spacing, and
failure mode is presented. Effect of strain rate on the concrete and steel materials is also
presented. This is followed by introduction of the design methods for cast-in-place and
post-installed anchors under tensile and shear loads. Failure modes of the cast-in-place and
post-installed anchors and summary of the literature review are presented at the end of the
chapter.
Chapter three presents the modelling and finite element analyses of the cast-in-place,
adhesive and undercut anchors using LS-DYNA software. The chapter begins with
introduction and presentation of the most commonly used finite element software packages
in engineering applications and the main features of LS-DYNA. Implicit and explicit
12
analyses methods implemented in LS-DYNA are introduced, followed by the theoretical
aspects of LS-DYNA. The considerations used to select constitutive materials models,
element type, and bonding type for the concrete, steel and adhesive are presented. Meshing
technique, boundary conditions, contact modelling and loading conditions that accurately
represents the behaviour of anchorage to concrete system are introduced. Procedure to
perform quasi static analysis using LS-DYNA software is presented. Finally, a summary
of chapter three is presented.
Chapter four begins with modelling the cast-in-place anchorage system using LS-DYNA
software. Results and discussion of the effect of strain rate on the behaviour of cast-in-
place anchors subjected to tensile and shear loads are presented. Static and dynamic loading
conditions using LS-DYNA software are carried out in this chapter. Mesh sensitivity
analysis is carried out to improve the accuracy of the analysis. Model validation with
experimental test data in the literature as well as comparison with analytical prediction
methods (ACI and CCD methods) is presented. The effect of strain rate on the ultimate
tensile and shear loads, the effect of strain rate on the level of damage and failure mode as
well as the DIF, the effect of anchor embedment depth on concrete cone depth, the effect
of strain rate on concrete breakout diameter and crack propagation angle, and effect of
concrete compressive strength on the level of damage and failure mode are presented in
Chapter four. Regression analysis is performed for the cast-in-place anchors under tensile
and shear loads to develop a relationship between DIF and strain rate.
Chapter five begins with modelling the adhesive anchorage to concrete system using LS-
DYNA software. Mesh sensitivity analysis is carried out to establish the element size and
13
mesh density to maximize accuracy at least resource cost. Results and discussion of the
effect of strain rate on the behaviour of adhesive anchors subjected to tensile and shear
loads are presented. The adhesive anchor model is validated with experimental test data in
the literature and presented in this chapter. Comparison with the ACI and CCD analytical
prediction methods is presented. Level of damage and failure mode at different strain rates,
the effect of strain rate on the ultimate loads and DIF, the effect of anchor embedment
depth on concrete cone depth, the effect of strain rate on concrete cone breakout diameter
are presented in chapter 5. Regression analysis is performed to develop a relationship
between DIF and strain rate for the adhesive anchors under tensile and shear loads.
Chapter six presents modelling of the undercut anchorage to concrete system under tensile
and shear loads using LS-DYNA software. Model validation with the experimental data is
performed. Comparison of the finite element results with the ACI and CCD design methods
is presented. Results and discussion of the effect of strain rate on the tensile and shear
behaviour of undercut anchors are presented. Effect of strain rate on the ultimate loads and
DIF, failure mode and crack propagation angle at different strain rates, the effect of anchor
embedment depth on concrete cone depth and cone diameter are presented. Regression
analysis is performed for the undercut anchors under tensile and shear loads to develop
relationship between DIF and strain rate.
Chapter seven presents the main conclusions of the analyses and introduces
recommendations for future work.
14
Chapter 2 : Literature review
2.1 Introduction
Construction of buildings and building components requires joining or connecting parts
together. Different anchorage techniques are widely used for joining concrete and steel
structures and components. Anchorage to concrete systems can be exposed to static or
dynamic loading conditions resulting from use and occupancy or from the environment or
climate. Static load results from self-weight of the structure and when the live load is
applied slowly. Dynamic loads result from structural vibration, earthquake, impact and
blast events.
Structures can be exposed to low and high strain rate loading conditions such as
encountered with creep, quasi-static, earthquake, impact and blast loads. It is essential for
the structures to retain suitable structural safety with durable anchorage system. The
damage that occurs due to high loading rate such as under earthquake loading, motivate
researchers to study the behaviour of anchor connections at these rates. In the 1994
Northridge earthquake in the USA, anchor failures caused damage of transformers and
resulted in electrical power outage to the Veteran’s hospital (Zhao, 2014). In 1995 an
earthquake in Osaka, Japan resulted in anchorage failure and caused transformers to slip
off their foundations, resulting in power outage and severe damage to power transmission
lines (Zhao, 2014). Low loading rates such as creep, on the other hand, may result in
degradation of the adhesive materials and lead to failure of anchorage systems. An example
of adhesive anchor failure is the collapse of part of concrete ceiling in Boston tunnel where
15
adhesive anchors were used to secure the ceiling to the tunnel walls. The National
Transportation Safety Board found that the collapse resulted from creep of the adhesive
due to long term loading (Vuletic and Pearson, 2008).
Investigating the behaviour of anchors under high loading rates is important in roadway
support and design. Anchors can be used in applications that require high loading rates
such as rock burst where the anchors can be used to reduce the damage induced by rock
burst (Zhao et al., 2015). For example, in mining, anchors used to secure steel mesh against
rock bursts are subjected to very high impact loading (Ansell, 2006). Figure 2-1 shows
applications of anchorage system in rock burst.
Figure 2-1: Applications of anchorage system in rock burst (Cai et al., 2010)
In addition, bolts can be used to attach blast protection appliques (such as armor) to combat
vehicles, where the appliques are used to mitigate the effect of explosions. However, these
16
bolts shear off under blast loads resulting in secondary fragments that may damage the
vehicle and/or cause injury to people (Lou and Perciballi, 2008).
When a structure subjected to blast loading, the fractured glass windows can cause injury
and fatality to the occupants of the building and the people around it. According to the
Oklahoma State Department of Health, most of the injuries in the Oklahoma City bombing
were caused by window glass shards (Mallonee et al., 1996; Norville & Conrath, 2001,
2006; Shariat et al., 1998). People within a distance of 3 m from the windows reporting
injuries due to the window glass shards represented over 40% of the total injured (Norville
et al., 1999). Upgrading window glazing and using laminated glass can mitigate the injuries
and fatalities. However, the load are transferred from the window glazing to the window
frame and then from the window frame to the structure through the bolts (Braimah et al.,
2014). Figure 2-2 shows the applications of anchors in the window to resist blast load.
(a) (b)
Figure 2-2: Applications of anchorage system in window; (a) glass window under blast
load (Madico Safety Shield Premier Partener, 2012), (b) anchorage to base-plate
(Johnson window films, 2018)
17
2.2 Classification of anchors
The main function of the anchors is to connect structural components. As mentioned in
chapter one, there are two categories of anchors commonly used for joining concrete to
steel structures: cast-in-place and post-installed anchors. Cast-in-place anchors are cast into
fresh concrete during forming and have been used in a wide range of structural applications
for decades (Hawkins, 1987). Cast-in-place anchors are used to fasten equipment to
concrete in construction in order to avoid drilling in hardened concrete, a process that
creates microcracking in the concrete member as well as requiring additional finishing
work (Delhomme et al., 2015a). The cast-in-place anchors can be classified according to
their shape as hexagonal headed bolt, hooked L-bolt, hooked J-bolt and welded headed
stud (Figure 2-3 a). Some errors may occur due to improper installation of the cast-in-place
anchor and affect its performance. These errors include: inappropriate location of the
anchor installation, incorrect implementation of the detailing drawing, neglect of changes
that may occur in the concrete geometry during the casting, curing and under sustained
loading; e.g. creep and shrinkage (Spyridis and Bergmeister, 2014).
(i) hexagonal headed bolt (ii) hooked L-bolt (iii) hooked J-bolt (iv) welded headed stud
(a)
18
Torque-controlled Displacement-controlled
(i) Adhesive anchor (ii) undercut anchor (iii) expansion anchor
(b)
Figure 2-3: Types of anchors: (a) cast-in-place anchors, (b) post installed anchors (ACI
Committee 318, 2011)
Post-installed anchors are increasingly used in construction due to their flexibility of
installation in any position in a substrate material and the increasing demand for shorter
construction times. Post-installed anchors have found use in a variety of applications
including: new construction, retrofit and rehabilitation, and repair of concrete and masonry
structures (Cook, 1993). Post-installed anchors have also found use in blast retrofit
applications to resist, minimize or mitigate the influence of blast load where they are
subjected to high strain rate loading. Post-installed anchors are classified according to the
load transfer mechanism into mechanical and bonded anchors (McMullin et al., 2016).
Mechanical anchors are further classified as undercut and expansion anchors, while bonded
anchors can be either adhesive anchors or grouted anchors (Figure 2-3 b). The load transfer
mechanism for the undercut anchors to the substrate material is by mechanical interlocking
which is similar to the cast-in-place anchors. The applied tensile load is transferred from
the anchor stud to the sleeve by bearing which in turns bears on the concrete (A Mitek’
Company, 1997). For expansion anchors the load transfer mechanism is by friction. On the
19
other hand, the load transfer mechanism for the bonded anchors to the substrate material is
by chemical bonding (Fuchs et al., 1995).
Undercut anchors are mechanical anchors. The undercutting is made either by a special
drill bit or self-drilling anchor with carbide tipped segments used to undercut concrete
during the installation process (ACI Committee 318, 2011). The undercut anchor is
characterized by its performance that is comparable to the cast-in-place anchor with more
flexibility of installation (Mackay-Sim, 1990; Hilti, 2011). In addition, undercut anchors
are shown to safely and reliably resist dynamic loads and are thus suitable for applications
that require high level of safety such as in nuclear power plants (Trautwein, 2017). The
anchor installation can be accomplished in one of three techniques: load-controlled,
displacement-controlled or torque-controlled (ACI Committee 355, 2000; Eligehausen et
al., 1998). The installation by load controlled is performed by applying tensile load on the
undercut anchor that expands the sleeve into a drilled hole. The displacement-controlled
installation method can be performed either by applying compression force on the sleeve
of the undercut anchor or by pulling out the cone and expanding the sleeve. The installation
by the torque-controlled method is performed by applying a torque and resulting in
expansion of the sleeve. The displacement-controlled undercut anchor is used for low
strength concrete while the load-controlled and torque-controlled undercut anchors are
used for low and high strength concrete.
Hilti Inc. produces two types of undercut anchors: Hilti design anchor pre-set (HDA-P)
and Hilti design anchor through-set (HDA-T). In the through-set anchor type the sleeve
continues through the base plate while the sleeve ends before the base plate for the pre-set
20
anchor type. Through-set undercut anchor is capable of withstanding higher shear strength
than the pre-set undercut anchor. This is attributed to the contribution of the sleeve to the
anchor shear resistance. For the pre-set anchor type on the other hand, the shear force is
transmitted form the anchor to the sleeve and then to the concrete by bearing (Hilti, 2011).
Hence, the through-set undercut anchors are selected for the analysis presented in this
thesis. Figure 2-4 presents the pre-set and through-set types undercut anchors.
(a) Through set undercut anchor (b) Pre-set undercut anchor

(Sleeve continues through base plate) (Sleeve ends before base plate)
Figure 2-4: Undercut anchor types
The expansion anchors are post-installed mechanical anchors inserted in a drilled hole in
hardened concrete. When torque is applied on the expansion anchor, the lower part of the
expansion anchor expands resulting in increased friction and bearing against the sides of
the hole. Two techniques are used to achieve the expansion of the anchor; torque-controlled
and displacement-controlled techniques. Torque-controlled technique is achieved by
applying a torque on the anchor, while the displacement controlled technique is achieved
by applying impact force on the sleeve of anchor, the expansion is controlled by distance
that the sleeve travels (ACI Committee 318, 2011).
21
Adhesive anchor systems involve drilling a hole in hardened concrete and then filling the
hole with an adhesive material. The anchor is then inserted in the hole, where the adhesive
material serves as a bonding agent between the anchor and the concrete (Cook et al., 2007).
In grouted anchors, the drilled hole in hardened concrete is grouted after placement of the
steel anchor. Different types of bonding agents can be used for bonded anchors. Epoxies,
polyesters and vinylesters are used as bonding agents for the adhesive anchors, while
cementitious bonding agents are used for the grouted anchors.
Selection of a suitable type of anchor in construction, whether cast-in-place or post
installed, can be decided based on the application, cost, and performance of the anchor.
2.3 Classification of adhesive materials
Adhesive materials are used to bond two or more materials together. Adhesive materials
can be classified into six categories based on:
 origin e.g. natural and synthetic;
 functionality e.g. thermosetting and thermoplastic;
 chemical composition e.g. epoxy, silicon and polyurethane;
 physical form e.g. paste and liquid;
 type e.g. hot melt; and
 load carrying capacity e.g. structural, semi structural and non-structural (da Silva
et al. 2011).
22
Structural adhesive is used in the structural applications to sustain a long term applied load
on a structure. There are several types of structural adhesives such as: epoxy and
polyurethane (Goncalves and Margarido, 2015). Epoxy can be formed as two components
or one component cartridges. The two component epoxies consists of resin and hardener
which can be mixed together and cured at room temperature (Kinsho et al., 2000). One
component epoxy can be found in liquid or paste form. Heat is required for curing the one
component epoxy (Kinsho et al., 2000; da Silva et al., 2011).
2.4 Bond strength
The strength of anchorage system whether cast-in-place or post installed is influenced by
the bond strength. In steel reinforced concrete, force is transmitted from steel to concrete
through interface bond (Nammur and Naaman, 1989). The concrete composition and the
surface condition of the steel influence the interface bond between concrete and steel,
which in turns influences the load resistance of the reinforced concrete element (Fu and
Chung, 1999). There are two types of bond models used in analysis and design: elastic and
inelastic. Elastic bond is exhibited when the bond at the interface is less than the bond
strength and the shear stresses depend on the relative displacement between the steel and
the concrete (Nammur and Naaman, 1989).
For the adhesive anchors, the force from the anchor is transmitted to the concrete through
the adhesive material. The bond strength of adhesive anchorage system is affected by two
main factors: internal and external. Internal factors such as adhesive formulations,
processing and packaging are under the control of the manufacturer, while external factors
23
such as installation and in-service factors are under the control of the designer and installer.
The installation factors include the hole condition and the strength of the substrate material
while in-service factors include curing time of adhesive, thickness of adhesive layer, type
of loading and environmental conditions such as temperature (high and low), moisture, and
freeze-thaw cycles (Cook and Konz, 2001; Cook et al., 2007).
There are two models available to predict the bond strength of the adhesive anchors:
uniform bond stress and elastic bond stress models (Cook, 1993). Bond failure occurs at
the steel-adhesive interface or at the adhesive-concrete interface. The pullout force for the
steel-adhesive and concrete-adhesive interfaces can be predicted from the uniform bond
stress model and the elastic bond stress model. For the uniform bond stress model the pull
out force can be predicted according to (Equations B.7 and B.8 in Appendix B) (McVay et
al., 1996; Cook et al., 1998; Cook, 1993; Eligehausen et al., 2007). The elastic bond stress
model considers the compatibility between the concrete, bonding agent and the steel
anchor, while the uniform bond stress model does not (Cook et al., 1993). For the elastic
bond stress model, the pullout force can be predicted according to Equation (B.9 in
Appendix B) (McVay et al., 1996; Cook et al., 1998; Cook et al., 1993; Cook, 1993).
Chapman and Shah (1987) conducted pullout test to investigate bond strength between
concrete and reinforcing bars at different curing ages from 1 to 28 days. They tested both
smooth bars and deformed bars for different embedment lengths. They stated that bond
strength of smooth bar is not affected by curing age while, bond strength of deformed bar
is significantly affected by curing age. The researchers observed three types of failure: steel
24
yield and fracture failure, anchor pullout (or bond) failure, and concrete splitting failure.
Pullout failure was observed at early concrete ages, while yield failure was observed at
later concrete ages. Splitting failure was observed at early age for embedment depth of 175
mm and at later ages for embedment depth of 76.2 mm. The authors concluded that as the
embedment depth increases the pullout load increases while the average bond strength
decreases. The increase in the pullout load is not proportional to that of the embedment
depth. The failure mode of the bond for deformed bars is influenced by the embedment
depth and compressive strength. Pullout failure occurs for shallow embedment depths and
low concrete compressive strengths. Splitting failure is observed for short embedment
depth with high concrete compressive strength and for deep embedment depth with low
concrete compressive strength. Yield failure occurs for deep embedment depths with high
concrete compressive strength (Chapman and Shah, 1987). By assuming a uniform stress
distribution in the pullout test, the bond stress (u) is determined from Equation (2.1)
(Chapman and Shah, 1987; Chan et al., 2003; Xing et al., 2015; Benmokrane et al., 1996;
Larrard et al., 1993; Fabbrocino et al., 2005):
𝐴 𝜎𝑠 𝐹
𝑢 = ∑𝑠 = (2.1)
0 . 𝑙𝑑 𝜋𝑑𝑏 𝑙𝑑
Where 𝐴𝑠 is the cross-sectional area of the bar, 𝜎𝑠 is the tensile stress of the steel bar, F is
the applied tensile load, ∑0 = 𝜋𝑑𝑏 is the nominal perimeter of the reinforcing bar, 𝑑𝑏 is the
bar diameter, 𝑙𝑑 is the embedment length of the bar.
25
Chan et al. (2003) conducted pullout tests to investigate the bond strength of steel
reinforcement in self-consolidating concrete (SCC). The authors used ordinary Portland
cement concrete (OPC) for comparison purpose. Effect of age, level of reinforcing bars,
and concrete type on bond strength were investigated. The authors concluded that the bond
strength of reinforcement in SCC is higher than that for the OPC. Maximum bond strength
of 9.51 MPa and 6.31 MPa were obtained for the SCC and OPC respectively. The decrease
in the bond strength of the OPC is attributed to the bleeding and inhomogeneity of the
concrete. The bond strength is very low at the early age; up to three days. The bond strength
is fully developed after seven days for the OPC and after 15 days for SCC. Chan et al.
(2003) stated that the bond strength varies linearly with the square root of the compressive
strength. The bond strength of top reinforcement is lower than that of bottom reinforcement
in an OPC and SCC member. However, the difference in bond strength for the top and
bottom reinforcements in SCC members was observed to be less than that in OPC members
(Chan et al., 2003).
Fu and Chung (1999) conducted electromechanical pullout tests to investigate the effect of
steel rebar surface treatment and concrete composition on the bond strength. The
electromechanical pullout is conducted by measuring the contact electrical resistivity and
bond strength of the specimen. They concluded that the rebar surface treatment such as
adding polymer (latex and Methelcellelose) to the concrete and increased water-cement
ratio increases the bond strength. Surface treatment involving use of ozone is more
effective than use of sand blasting and acetone. The authors stated that the effectiveness of
26
adding latex to the concrete is the same as using ozone surface treatment to the rebar (Fu
and Chung, 1999).
Toikka et al. (2015) conducted experimental work to investigate the effect of strain rate on
the bond strength and development length of steel reinforcement in concrete beams under
blast loading. The authors found that the bond strength increased while the required
development length decreased at high strain rate associated with blast loading. The authors
concluded that dynamic increase factor for bond stress increased with the increase in the
reinforcement bar diameter (Toikka et al., 2015).
Xing et al. (2015) investigated the bond strength between the reinforcing bar and concrete.
They studied the effect of bar surface type, embedment length, bar type and diameter. The
authors concluded that the bond strength of plain bar is less than that of the deformed bar.
The bond strength of plain bars increases significantly as the embedment depth increases
from 80 mm to 120 mm. As the embedment depth increases, the bond stress distribution
becomes uniform. The bond strength of deformed bars is composed of mechanical
interlock, friction and adhesion. It is mainly governed by the mechanical interlock. Hence,
the bond strength of the deformed bars is influenced by the concrete strength. The bond
strength of plain bars is composed of friction and adhesion. It mainly depends on the
friction. Thus, its bond strength is not influenced by the concrete strength (Xing et al.,
2015). Increasing the bar diameter decreases the bond strength (Xing et al., 2015; Larrard
et al., 1993).
27
Shima et al. (1987) investigated the bond mechanism in reinforced concrete using
microscopic and macroscopic models. In the microscopic model, they represented the
relationship between the local bond stress and local slip. In the macroscopic model, they
represented the relationship between the pullout load and the displacement. Shima et al.
(1987) determined the tensile stiffness in reinforced concrete. The pullout of the anchored
bars resulted in large cracks at the connection area. The authors represent two types of the
deformational behaviour of bond: relative displacement of anchored bars in concrete, and
tension stiffness of cracked concrete (Shima et al., 1987).
Larrard et al. (1993) studied the bond strength of reinforcing bars embedded in high
performance concrete (HPC) of 95 MPa compressive strength, and ordinary concrete of 42
MPa compressive strength. They used smooth and deformed bars with different diameters.
They stated that the increase in the tensile strength of the concrete increases the bond
strength. The increase in the bond strength of HPC was of 80% and 30% for bar diameters
of 10 mm and 25 mm respectively. They observed that, slip of the reinforcement starts at
the beginning of the loading for ordinary concrete, while the slip didn’t start at the
beginning of the loading due to the high rigidity of the bond in the high performance
concrete (Larrard et al., 1993).
Barnat et al. (2012) studied the bond strength of chemical anchors embedded in high
strength concrete in the range between 71.8 MPa to 80.7 MPa under pullout load. The
authors concluded that the performance of chemical anchorage in high strength concrete
depends on the properties of the adhesive material (Barnat et al., 2012). Also, the authors
28
concluded that the bond strength of the adhesive is not influenced by the concrete strength
(Barnat et al., 2012). However, Cook and Konz (2001) stated that bond strength increased
slightly with the increase in the concrete strength (Cook and Konz, 2001). Cook and Konz
(2001) conducted tensile tests to investigate factors affecting the bond strength of adhesive
anchors. The authors investigated the effect of installation condition, concrete strength,
concrete aggregate types, adhesive curing time and effect of loading at high temperature.
The authors found that the hole condition can have a detrimental effect on bond strength,
where the bond strength decrease for anchors embedded into wet, damp and uncleaned
holes. Unsuitable curing and hole preparation lead to bond failure where bond strength is
insufficient. The authors used two types of aggregates: river gravel and limestone. The
authors stated that the effect of using river gravel aggregates on increasing the bond
strength is more than the effect of using limestone. The authors concluded that the increase
in the porosity of the aggregates decrease the bond strength. Also, they concluded that the
increase in the temperature to 43oC affects the bond strength (Cook and Konz, 2001).
2.5 Cast-in-place anchors
2.5.1 Cast-in-place anchors under tensile load
Hawkins (1987) and Delhomme et al. (2015) investigated the strength of cast-in-place
headed anchors embedded in reinforced concrete and subjected to static tensile loading.
Hawkins (1987) observed two types of concrete failure modes: concrete cone breakout and
concrete splitting failure. Concrete cone breakout failure occurred for shallow embedment
depth of 76 mm, while concrete splitting occurred for deeper embedment depths of 127
mm and 187 mm (Hawkins, 1987). Similar observation was reported by Delhomme et al.
29
(2015) where concrete cone breakout failure is observed at embedment depth of 80 mm. In
addition, Delhomme et al. (2015) observed steel failure at embedment depths of 100 mm,
120 mm and 130 mm. Furthermore, Delhomme et al. (2015) studied effect of embedment
depth for quadruple anchors. The authors observed concrete cone breakout failure at
embedment depths of 80 mm, 100 mm, 120 mm, and 130 mm and steel failure at
embedment depth of 310 mm. The authors concluded that the failure mode changed from
concrete cone breakout to steel failure at embedment depth of 130 mm for the quadruple
anchors (Delhomme et al., 2015b).
Solomos and Berra (2006) performed experimental test on the pullout strength of anchors
under static and dynamic loads. The authors used Hopkinson bar technique to apply
dynamic pullout loads on post-installed and cast-in-place anchors. The authors stated that
the stresses and damage generated in the concrete due to the applied load and method of
installation, whether cast-in-place or post-installed, affected the failure load of anchors.
Moreover, same strength for post-installed and cast-in-place anchors can be obtained when
adequate installation for post-installed anchors is achieved. The authors concluded that the
failure load in the dynamic test is higher than that in the static test (Solomos and Berra,
2006).
Fujikake et al. (2003), Sato et al. (2004) and Ozbolt et al. (2006) investigated the effect of
loading rate on the cone resistance for cast-in-place headed anchors. Fujikake et al. (2003)
and Sato et al. (2004) studied loading rates of 1×10-1 kN/s, 4×102 kN/s, 4×103 kN/s, and
4×104 kN/s and found that the increase in the loading rate from 1×10-1 kN/s to 4×104 kN/s
30
resulted in increase in the ultimate cone resistance (Fujikake et al., 2003; Sato et al., 2004).
Ozbolt et al. (2006) studied loading rates ranging from 5 mm/s to 2 ×104 mm/s and found
similar results for the static and dynamic analysis for intermediate loading rate where the
microcracks are dominant. For very high loading rates, the structural behaviour is
controlled by the structural inertia. The authors concluded that when the loading rate
increases, the size effect on the nominal pullout strength increases significantly for the
moderate high loading rates. Size effect is neglected for very high loading rates and as the
embedment depth increases the nominal strength increases (Ožbolt et al., 2006).
Choi et al. (2015) studied the behaviour of cast-in-place anchors in ultra-high performance
fibre-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) under monotonic shear and tensile loads. The authors
observed that the tensile and shear load capacities for cast-in-place anchors in UHPFRC
are higher than that for anchors in normal concrete. The authors related this increase in the
capacities to the increase in the tensile and strain capacity in UHPFRC. The authors studied
the effect of embedment depth and edge distance in UHPFRC. They observed that the
concrete breakout capacity increased as the embedment depth increased. They also stated
that the increase in the edge distance resulted in increase in the concrete breakout capacity.
The authors observed shallower angle of the failure cone for the anchors embedded in
UHPFRC compared to the 35o proposed in the CCD method. The authors proposed three
equations to determine the tensile and shear concrete breakout capacity and anchor pryout
capacity in UHPFRC (Choi et al., 2015).
31
Ozbolt and Eligehausen (1990) conducted numerical analysis to investigate the behaviour
of headed studs embedded in large plain concrete and subjected to tensile load. They
studied the effect of concrete properties and head size on the anchor behaviour. They stated
that the failure of the headed stud is induced by circumferential concrete cracking, while
the displacement at failure load is induced by the concrete compression behaviour under
the head. As the anchor head increased from 35 mm to 52 mm, the average compression
stress under the anchor head decreased and this resulted in small displacement under the
anchor head. Hence, the smaller the head diameter the larger displacement at failure
(Ozbolt and Eligehausen, 1990).
Jang and Suh (2006) investigated the effect of cracks on the anchorage capacity for cast-
in-place anchors subjected to tensile load. Influence of crack depth, crack width, and
distance between the cracks and the anchor was studied. The authors found that brittle
failure of cracked concrete propagated the cracks faster than for anchors in uncracked
concrete. The authors concluded that anchorage in uncracked concrete has higher capacity
than that obtained from anchorage in cracked concrete. The authors found that, a side crack
(far from the anchor) has more effect on anchorage capacity than central cracks (passing
through the anchor). They stated that the crack depth and the distance between the anchor
and the cracks has more influence on the anchorage capacity compared to the crack width
(Jang and Suh, 2006).
Hashimoto and Takiguchi (2004) investigated the strength of cast-in-place anchor
embedded 30 mm in concrete and subjected to tensile load under high temperature. Results
32
of their study show that, the increase in the temperature decreases tensile strength
(Hashimoto and Takiguchi, 2004).
Fuchs et al. (1995) proposed Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) Method to predict failure
loads of cast-in-place and post-installed anchors subjected to static tensile and shear loads.
Fuchs et al. compared the results of the proposed CCD method with ACI 349-85. The
authors investigated the effect of edge distance, anchor spacing under tensile and shear
loads. They concluded that the CCD method gives accurate results of the failure load, while
the ACI method can give conservative results for the failure load when the anchors are
embedded into concrete with small edge distance or unconservative results for the failure
load when the edge distance is large and for deep embedment depth anchors. The size of
the concrete cone breakout for the shear loading is calculated based on the edge distance,
while for the tensile loading it is calculated based on the anchor depth. The anchor diameter
and stiffness were found to have an effect on the failure load of the anchors (Fuchs et al.,
1995).
Nilforoush et al. (2017 and 2018) investigated the tensile behaviour of cast-in-place
anchors embedded into plain and fibre reinforced concrete. The authors investigated the
effect of concrete thickness and adding steel fibres on the anchor capacity and failure mode.
They found that the increase in the concrete thickness exhibited a slight increase in the
anchor capacity. Also, the authors observed that adding steel fibres to the concrete
increased the tensile capacity (Nilforoush et al., 2017; Nilforoush et al., 2018). Nilforoush
et al. (2017) found that the anchorage tensile capacity and stiffness increased with the
33
increase in the concrete compressive strength. Concrete cone breakout failure was observed
for the anchors embedded in plain concrete while concrete splitting was observed for the
anchors embedded in thin plain concrete members (Nilforoush et al., 2017). In addition,
Nilforoush et al. (2018) investigated the effect of anchor head size on the tensile capacity
of the cast-in-place anchors. The authors found that the increase in anchor head size
resulted in a significant increase in the tensile capacity and anchor stiffness (Nilforoush et
al., 2018).
Hariyadi et al. (2017) investigated the pullout capacity of anchors embedded in concrete
and subjected to static pullout loads. The authors conducted experimental work on anchors
with shallow embedment depth (embedment depth-to-diameter ratio is equal to 3.5) and
observed combination of cone breakout and bond failure mode. The authors obtained lower
tensile capacity from the experimental results in comparison with the concrete cone method
(CCM) and concrete capacity design method (CCD). The authors obtained cone breakout
angle in the range of 15o to 23o (Hariyadi et al., 2017).
2.5.2 Cast-in-place anchors under shear load
Shear strength of anchors embedded in concrete has been investigated experimentally by
Ueda et al. (1990). The authors observed concrete failure with wedge cone for most of the
tested specimens. The authors concluded that an increase in edge distance increases the
shear strength of single and double anchors embedded in concrete. They also found that
the shear strength for double anchors increased with the increase in anchor spacing (Ueda
et al., 1990).
34
In another study, Ueda et al. (1991) investigated the shear strength of steel anchor groups.
The authors applied shear loads parallel and perpendicular to the edge and observed that
the increase in the spacing for double anchors increased the shear capacity in the parallel
and perpendicular directions to the edge. Similar observation was obtained for the adhesive
anchors by Eligehausen et al. (2006) when the load was applied perpendicular to the edge
(Eligehausen et al., 2006). Ueda et al. (1991) and Eligehausen et al. (2006) stated that there
is a critical edge distance when the load is applied perpendicular to the edge after which
the value of failure load remain constant (Eligehausen et al., 2006, Ueda et al., 1991). Ueda
et al. suggested empirical equations to determine the ultimate shear strength for single and
grouped anchors involving two or four anchors (Ueda et al., 1991).
Performance of cast-in-place anchors with large diameters (more than 50 mm), large edge
distances and deep embedment depths (more than 635 mm) subjected to shear load was
investigated by Lee et al. (2011). The authors made an assessment of the methods available
for predicting the capacity of anchorage systems and applied them to large anchor
diameters and deep embedment depths. Based on the results, the authors concluded that
current prediction methods are unsuitable for large anchors with large edge distance and
deep embedment depths. The authors reported that the capacity of large anchor diameters
and deep embedment depths, was overestimated by the CCD method (Lee et al., 2011).
Hawkins (1987) investigated the strength of cast-in-place headed anchors embedded in
reinforced concrete and subjected to static shear loading. The author stated that the increase
35
in concrete compressive strength increased the ultimate shear capacity significantly
(Hawkins, 1987).
Gross et al. (2001) investigated the behaviour of single and double cast-in-place, undercut
and expansion anchors under static and dynamic shear loading. The anchors were installed
with limited edge distance. The authors reported that the shear capacity under dynamic
loading is higher than that under static loading for the anchors they tested. They also
observed that the shear capacity in cracked concrete increased under dynamic loading and
decreased under static loading. The authors concluded that when anchor spacing for double
anchors is equal to or more than two times the embedment depth, the shear capacity of the
two-anchor group is equal to the sum of the individual anchor capacities (Gross et al.,
2001).
Statistical analysis on concrete breakout capacity for anchors subjected to static and
dynamic shear loading has been conducted by Muratli et al. (2001). The authors compared
the results of the ACI method, CCD method, and a regression analysis on the variation of
CCD method. The authors used Monte Carlo analysis to predict the probability of failure
of steel anchor systems including cast-in-place, undercut, expansion, and sleeve anchors.
An increase of 20% in anchor capacity under dynamic loading in comparison with static
capacity was reported by the authors. The shear breakout capacity of cast-in-place anchors
was observed to be 10% higher than that for the post-installed anchors. The authors
assessed the accuracy of ACI and CCD method using probability of failure and found that
steel anchorage systems designed in accordance with CCD method has lower probability
36
of failure than that designed in accordance with ACI method (Muratli et al., 2001). The
authors also concluded that the CCD method is more accurate and thus more suitable for
predicting the shear breakout capacity than the ACI method (Muratli et al., 2001; Muratli
et al., 2004).
Petersen et al. (2013) investigated the shear behaviour of cast-in-place anchors subjected
to seismic loading experimentally and numerically using ABAQUS finite element
software. The authors investigated the exposed anchor length for the anchors of fixed ends
and for the anchors of limited end rotations of 7o and 14o. Where the exposed length is the
distance between the surface of the concrete and bottom edge of loading plate. The anchors
were placed in oversized hole of 3 mm larger than the anchor diameter in a thick load plate
and fixed plate. The thick load plate is the plate where the load is applied, while the fixed
plate is the plate where the anchor is fixed. The oversized holes of the thick fixed plate and
load plate allow 7o and 14o anchor end rotations respectively. The authors stated that the
exposed length has an influence on the failure mode. Shear failure mode was observed for
the specimens with exposed length of 0.2d, while flexural dominant deformations were
observed for the exposed length of 2d, where d is the anchor diameter. Strain hardening
was observed for the exposed length of 4d, where the stiffness was increased at larger
displacement. Also, the authors reported that the limited end rotation increases the ultimate
shear strength and stiffness of the specimens and that the increase in the exposed length up
to 4d resulted in decrease of the ultimate shear load. No further decrease in the shear load
was observed for anchors with larger exposed lengths than 4d (Petersen et al., 2013).
37
Zhao (2014) studied the behaviour of single cast-in place anchors in tension and shear
installed in plastic hinge zone of concrete column. The author proposed anchor
reinforcement in seismic zone to enhance the behaviour of anchors by providing protection
to the concrete around the anchors. The author observed concrete spalling and cracking in
the seismic zone, however, the anchor failure was due to ductile steel failure. The author
concluded that the confined concrete in the plastic hinge zones can improve the
performance of the anchorage system. The author stated that the anchor reinforcement play
a role in carrying the load from the anchor and protecting the core concrete around the
anchor from crushing and spalling (Zhao, 2014).
Jebara et al. (2016) conducted experimental work to investigate the pryout mechanism for
cast-in-place welded stud subjected to shear load. They assumed pryout mechanism for
cast-in-place welded studs as a pseudo-tension breakout induced by two forces: the tensile
force in the stud and compression force in the plate. The authors assumed triangular
compression stress distribution along the embedment depth in front of the stud. They found
that the ultimate shear load increases with the increase in the anchor diameter. The increase
in the anchor diameter increases the stiffness and resistance. Furthermore, the authors
found that the increase in the concrete pryout capacity is proportional to the square root of
the stud diameter. The authors proposed equations to calculate the pryout capacity for
welded stud embedded in normal concrete and subjected to shear load (Jebara et al., 2016).
38
2.6 Adhesive anchors
The use of adhesive anchors has gained popularity in the past decades due to the fast curing
time in comparison with grouted anchors and their associated superior cost-effectiveness
(Upadhyaya & Kumar, 2015). Furthermore, the use of adhesive anchors is very common
compared to other types of post installed anchors due to the flexibility of adhesive anchors
in installation (Cattaneo and Muciaccia, 2015; Cook, 1993). Experimental and numerical
work has been conducted by several researchers to investigate the behaviour of adhesive
anchors under different loading conditions and the results of these tests are summarized in
the following sections.
2.6.1 Adhesive anchors under tensile load
Epackachi et al. (2015) and Eligehausen et al. (2006) investigated the pullout behaviour of
single and group adhesive anchors. The authors studied the influence of anchor spacing on
the failure mode of adhesive anchors. Epackachi et al. (2015) used single anchors and
groups of 4, 6, and 9 anchors. Anchor diameter of 20 mm with embedment depth of 200
mm and anchor spacing of 150 mm and 200 mm were investigated. Epackachi et al. (2015)
observed combined cone-bond failure and steel fracture for the single anchor and concrete
cone breakout failure for the groups of 4 anchors while combined cone-splitting failure was
observed for the groups of 6 and 9 anchors. In the combined cone-splitting failure, splitting
cracks formed in the concrete after formation of the concrete cone breakout. The authors
found that the decrease in anchor spacing decreased the tensile strength of group anchors
(Epackachi et al., 2015). Similar observation was reported by Li et al. (2002) for the
quadruple anchor fastening. Eligehausen et al. (2006) observed that concrete breakout cone
39
is initiated at the base of the anchor and propagated along the embedment depth for the
anchor spacing s = 4d, while concrete breakout cone is initiated near the surface of the
concrete for the anchor spacing s = 8d, and that the failure of anchor groups is similar to
that of single anchor for the large spacing distance of s =16d where combined cone bond
failure is observed for the deep embedment depths. Eligehausen et al. (2006) obtained
concrete cone breakout failure for the high bond strength, when the mean bond strength
(𝜏) was equal to maximum mean bond strength (𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ), while pullout failure is obtained
for the very low bond strength (𝜏 ≤ 0.3 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). The authors reported that the critical spacing
and critical edge distance were influenced by the bond strength and anchor diameter
(Eligehausen et al., 2006).
Cook et al. (1998) and McVay et al. (1996) studied the behaviour of single adhesive anchor
embedded in uncracked concrete subjected to tensile load. The authors designed models
for single adhesive anchor and compared it with the worldwide database of anchor test
results (Cook et al., 1998; McVay et al., 1996). Cook et al. (1998) stated that the design
model based on a uniform bond stress showed good agreement with the non-linear
analytical studies and the results from the worldwide database with an error of about 3%
(Cook et al., 1998). McVay et al. (1996) stated that the use of the uniform bond stress
model will reduce the error to less than 4% (McVay et al., 1996).
Cook et al. (1998), McVay et al. (1996) and Cattaneo and Muciaccia (2015) observed three
types of failure for the adhesive anchors: concrete cone breakout failure, steel failure and
combined cone-bond failure (Cook et al., 1998; McVay et al., 1996; Cattaneo and
40
Muciaccia, 2015). Concrete cone breakout failure occurred for shallow embedment depth
anchors (Cook et al., 1998). Steel failure induced by yielding and fracture of the steel
anchor occurred for deep embedment depths where the tensile strength of the steel anchor
is less than the strength of the embedded part of the anchor in the substrate (Cook et al.,
1998; Cook, 1993). Combined cone-bond failure characterized by shallow concrete cone
breakout at the upper embedded part of the anchor with bond failure at the lower embedded
part of the anchor. In addition, Cook et al. (1998) and McVay et al. (1996) observed bond
failure when the strength of the bond surface was small, as in the case of inadequate curing
or improper hole preparation. The bond failure may occur either at steel-adhesive interface
or at concrete-adhesive interface or at both interfaces (Cook et al., 1998).
Li et al. (2002) studied the failure mode for the adhesive anchors subjected to tensile
loading. The authors observed concrete cone breakout failure for quadruple adhesive
anchors with embedment depth less than or equal to 96 mm and small spacing, while
combined cone-bond failure was observed for the large embedment depth. Pullout failure
was observed for the quadruple adhesive anchors with large spacing (Li et al., 2002).
Cattaneo and Muciaccia (2015) investigated the behaviour of adhesive anchors in normal
and two high performance concretes (concrete compressive strength of 75 MPa and 90
MPa) under tensile load. The authors studied the effect of embedment depth and steel fibres
on the behaviour of adhesive anchors. Anchor diameter of 12 mm with embedment depths
of 50 mm, 75 mm and 110 mm were investigated. The authors found that the ultimate
tensile load was increased by adding steel fibres to the concrete. Adding steel fibre to the
41
concrete resulted in combined concrete cone-bond failure mode for the embedment depth
of 50 mm. They obtained brittle/ductile failure mode for the adhesive anchors in high
performance concrete and brittle failure mode for the adhesive anchors in normal concrete.
They concluded that the fibre reinforced concrete is a viable alternative when there is a
need to use short anchor spacing, edge distance and thinner member (Cattaneo and
Muciaccia, 2015).
Yilmaz et al. (2012) investigated the behaviour of post-installed anchors embedded in low
strength concrete under tensile load. The authors compared the results of the failure loads
with the ACI 318 code and reported that the ACI 318 code overestimates the anchor
strength in comparison with experimental data for low strength concrete. They observed
that the failure mechanism depends on the concrete strength and edge distance for the
anchors having an edge distance ≥ 15 times the anchor diameter (Yilmaz et al., 2013).
Upadhyaya and Kumar (2015) introduced analytical model to predict the pullout capacity
of adhesive anchors. The authors investigated the effect of material properties and design
parameters (embedment depth, adhesive thickness and the relative stiffness between the
steel anchor and the adhesive) on the pullout capacity of adhesive anchors. The authors
stated that, using stiff anchor, the anchor can sustain higher loads before bond failure,
where the adhesive layer is subjected to lower stresses. The authors investigated
embedment depths in the range from 40 mm to 1000 mm and adhesive thickness in the
range from 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm. The authors concluded that the adhesive anchor load
capacity increased with the increase in the embedment depth until a critical embedment
42
depth was reached where no further increase in the anchor capacity was observed as the
failure was governed by steel fracture. Also, they concluded that increase of the thickness
of the adhesive layer from 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm decreases the peak stresses in the adhesive
layer. The authors compared the analytical results with finite element analyses results using
ABAQUS finite element analysis (FEA) package and reported good agreement
(Upadhyaya and Kumar, 2015).
Cook et al. (1993) investigated the behaviour of adhesive anchors with embedment depths
of 100 mm, 150 mm and 200 mm under tensile loading. The authors used fully bonded and
partially bonded adhesive anchors. A debonding agent was placed at the top 50 mm of the
embedment depth for the partially bonded adhesive anchors. The authors found that the
fully bonded anchors fail either by steel anchor failure or by concrete cone breakout with
the adhesive pullout, while partially bonded anchors failed by steel anchor failure or
adhesive bond failure. They obtained similar failure behaviour for the fully bonded double
anchors as single anchors. They found that the strength of fully bonded anchors and
partially bonded anchors is nearly equal at the same embedment depth (Cook et al., 1993).
Sato et al. (2004) and Fujikake et al. (2003) investigated the pullout behaviour of adhesive
anchors subjected to loading rates ranging from 1×10-1 kN/s to 4×104 kN/s. The authors
found that the increase in the loading rate increases the failure load for bond failure of the
adhesive anchors (Sato et al., 2004; Fujikake et al., 2003). Sato et al. concluded that the
embedment depth has no influence on the average dynamic bond strength for the same
loading rate. The authors observed bond failure at the concrete/adhesive interface at all
43
loading rates tested (Sato et al., 2004). Fujikake et al. (2003) reported that bonding agent
has significant effect on the performance of adhesive anchors subjected to static loading.
This effect of bonding agent is probably applicable for dynamic loading condition
(Fujikake et al., 2003).
Zamora et al. (2003) investigated the behaviour of single, headed and unheaded, grouted
anchors subjected to static tensile load. Results of their study show identical behaviour for
the adhesive and grouted unheaded anchors. Also, identical tensile behaviour was found
for the headed grouted and cast-in-place anchors. The authors concluded that bond failure
at the steel-grout interface is the predominant failure for the unheaded grouted anchors.
However, bond failure may also occur at the grout-concrete interface. Concrete breakout
cone failure or bond failure at the grout/concrete interface was observed for the headed
grouted anchors. They found that the nominal bond stress at the steel-grout and concrete-
grout interfaces are important to identify the interface at which the bond failure occurred.
The embedment strength is thus controlled by the lowest bond strength of the two interfaces
(Zamora et al., 2003).
Braimah et al. (2009) investigated the behaviour of adhesive steel anchors embedded into
concrete and limestone substrates and subjected to impulsive loading. The authors found
that the substrate material has an influence on the failure mode. Steel failure was observed
for the concrete substrate, while steel failure and limestone failure were observed for the
anchors embedded into limestone substrate at similar embedment depths. The authors
investigated the effect of penetration angle on the dynamic increase factor (DIF). The
44
authors found that the DIF for the substrate penetration angle of 45o is higher than that of
90o penetration angle. The authors recommended DIF of 1.2 for the adhesive anchor of 90o
penetration angle for both concrete and limestone substrates, while they recommended DIF
of 2.5 and 3.2 for the adhesive anchor of 45o penetration angle for the limestone and
concrete substrates, respectively (Braimah et al., 2009). In another study, Braimah et al.
(2014) carried out impact test on the adhesive anchors embedded into concrete masonry
and clay brick substrate. The authors recommended DIF of less than one for the adhesive
anchor subjected to high strain rate and embedded into clay brick, and DIF greater than
one for the adhesive anchor embedded into concrete masonry (Braimah et al., 2014).
Zhao et al. (2015) investigated the pullout behaviour of anchorage body under different
loading rates using practical flow code (PFC) numerical software, where the anchorage
body consists of the anchor, bonding materials and the concrete matrix. Loading rates in
the range between 0.5 mm/s to 1000 mm/s corresponding to strain rates in the range from
10-5 s-1 to 10 s-1 were investigated. The authors studied the interfacial shear stress
distribution along the anchorage embedment depth and the failure mode of the anchors.
They observed irregular distribution of the axial force and interfacial shear stress. As the
loading rate increases, the axial force and interfacial shear stress increase in the upper
anchorage section. No clear increase of the axial force and interfacial shear stresses in the
lower anchorage section was observed. The authors proposed a linear relationship between
the pullout failure load and the loading rate. The authors obtained three failure modes for
the anchorage substrate matrix: matrix cracking in addition to a main crack along the
bottom matrix at loading rates less than 10 mm/s, crack propagation in the upper portion
45
of the matrix with the main crack along the bottom matrix for the loading rates greater than
10 mm/s, pullout failure accompanied by large fracture area at loading rates greater than
100 mm/s where the cracks propagated in the middle and top part of the bolt resulted in
large fracture area. The authors attributed this failure mode at high strain rates to the
breakage of the bond between the matrix and the anchors resulting from high stress
concentration along the top part of the anchorage section (Zhao et al., 2015).
Kim et al. (2013) performed experimental tests and finite element analysis on the tensile
behaviour of post-installed anchors. They studied the effect of torque ratio, embedment
depth and anchor diameter on the tensile strength. The authors applied torque ratios of
30%, 50% and 70% of the total torque to tighten the nut during anchor installation. Where,
the torque ratio is the ratio between the applied torque to the total torque that can be applied
on the anchor. The authors used anchor diameters of 10 mm and 12 mm with embedment
depths of 50 mm and 100 mm. They concluded that the tensile strength is dependent on the
torque ratio, embedment depth and anchor diameter. The authors stated that, the maximum
load capacity for tensile tests increase with the increase in the embedment depths. The
authors stated that the finite element model using ABAQUS is suitable to predicting the
failure load (Kim et al., 2013).
Mahrenholtz and Eligehausen (2015) investigated the behaviour of post-installed anchors
under tensile and shear loads for safety relevant applications such as nuclear power plant.
The authors observed concrete breakout failure and steel anchor failure for the tensile and
shear tests, respectively for the tested post-installed anchors. They also observed that the
46
ultimate tensile load decreased slightly in cracked concrete. They obtained linear
relationship between the displacement and cyclic loading. They found that increasing the
number of load cycles increases the displacement. At the beginning of cyclic loading, large
initial displacement is observed followed by a slight increase in displacement. They related
the increase in the displacement to hole clearance, therefore, they suggested that a proper
filler has to be used to fill the gap (Mahrenholtz and Eligehausen, 2015).
González et al. (2018) studied the tensile behaviour of post-installed (adhesive and grouted)
anchors at different construction conditions. The authors used conventional (vibrated
concrete) and self-compacting concrete. The authors investigated several factors such as
type of hole drilling machine, type of filling material, hole condition (moisture and
cleanliness) and condition of installation. The authors found that the capacity of the anchor
is influenced significantly by the installation condition and the drilling machine. Also, the
authors found that the hole condition has an influence on the anchor capacity (González et
al., 2018).
2.6.2 Adhesive anchors under shear load
Caliskan et al. (2013) performed cyclic shear test on adhesive anchors embedded in low
strength concrete of 5.9 MPa and 10.9 MPa. The authors used three anchor diameters of 12
mm, 16 mm and 20 mm and three embedment depths for each anchor diameter (d).
Embedment depths of 10d, 15d and 20d were investigated. The authors found that the shear
strength decreased significantly for anchor diameter more than 16 mm embedded into low
strength concrete. Also, the authors concluded that there is no influence on the shear
47
capacity of the anchors when the embedment depth was larger than 10 times the anchor
diameter (Çalışkan et al., 2013).
Shear behaviour of adhesive anchors in normal and high performance concretes was
investigated by Cattaneo and Muciaccia (2015). The authors studied the effect of edge
distance and the effect of using steel fibre reinforced concrete on the behaviour of adhesive
anchor concrete system. The authors reported increase in failure load with increase in the
edge distance of adhesive anchors subjected to shear loading. Adding steel fibres to the
concrete increased the ultimate shear load. The addition of steel fibres to the concrete affect
the failure mode when the edge distance increased from 40 mm to 55 mm, where the failure
mode changed from concrete breakout to steel failure at the edge distance of 55 mm
(Cattaneo & Muciaccia, 2015).
Kim et al. (2013) performed experimental tests and finite element analysis on the shear
behaviour of post-installed anchors. They studied the effect of torque ratio, embedment
depth and anchor diameter on the shear strength. They concluded that the shear strength is
dependent on the embedment depth and anchor diameter and not on the torque ratio. The
authors stated that, the maximum load capacity for shear tests increase with the increase in
the embedment depth (Kim et al., 2013).
Lou and Perciballi (2008) performed three point bending test on beam with bolts at the end
supports. Static loads were applied on bolts with and without preloading using LS-DYNA
and NEi Nastran software. The authors used preloaded bolts to ensure that the anchor will
48
not fail and prevent connection separation. The authors stated that the bolts can be under
tensile, shear or combined tensile and shear loads in service. The shear load on the bolts
generated from joint slip or friction. Failure was analyzed using the two software programs.
They observed less deformation in the beam when using preloaded anchors subjected to
static loads. Higher failure loads were obtained for the preloaded bolts compared to that
without preload. Quite similar results were obtained from the two software programs (Lou
and Perciballi, 2008).
Epackachi et al. (2015) investigated the shear behaviour of single and group of adhesive
anchors. Embedment depth of 200 mm, anchor spacing of 150 mm and 200 mm were
investigated. The authors stated that the shear strength of the adhesive anchors is not
affected by the anchor spacing. The results show that, the shear strength of group of anchors
can be determined by multiplying the shear strength of one anchor by the number of
anchors for the spacing ranging from 150 mm to 200 mm. Steel failure and concrete bearing
failure were observed for the tested adhesive anchors (Epackachi et al., 2015).
2.7 Undercut anchors
2.7.1 Undercut anchors under tensile load
Primavera et al. (1997) investigated the tensile behaviour of undercut anchors in high
strength concrete. Anchor embedment depth of 203 mm was investigated. The authors
obtained shallow concrete cone breakout for the tested anchor. The authors found that the
increase in the concrete compressive strength increased the pullout capacity. The authors
compared the pullout capacity with the ACI and CCD methods and reported that the CCD
49
method underpredicted while the ACI method overpredicted the pullout capacity of the
undercut anchor (Primavera et al. 1997).
Ashour and Alqedra (2005) investigated the pullout capacity of post installed (expansion
and undercut) anchors using neural network modelling under static tensile load. The
authors compared the neural network results with previous experimental results and they
found it to be in good agreement. The authors found that the pullout capacity for the post-
installed anchors is influenced by the anchor embedment depth (Ashour & Alqedra, 2005).
Marcon et al. (2018) investigated the influence of the aggregate on the tensile capacity of
the undercut anchors subjected to static load. The authors used three mixes of the concrete
depending on the type, size and mechanical properties of the aggregate. Undercut anchors
embedded in concrete at age of 28 days and 70 days were investigated. The authors stated
that the size of coarse aggregate has an effect on the concrete properties and tensile capacity
of the undercut anchors. However, the influence of the aggregate is within the range of the
predictive equations results. Also, the authors concluded that the tensile capacity of the
anchors embedded in concrete at age of 70 days is higher than that for the anchors
embedded in concrete at age of 28 days (Marcon et al., 2018).
Rodriguez et al. (1997) investigated the behaviour of the post-installed (expansion and
undercut) anchors in concrete subjected to static and dynamic tensile load. The authors
calculated the normalized tensile capacity of the undercut and grouted anchors considering
the failure mode is concrete cone breakout. They concluded that the normalized tensile
50
capacity under dynamic load increased 30% compared to the normalized capacity under
static load (Rodriguez et al., 1997).
2.7.2 Undercut anchors under shear load
Mahrenholtz and Eligehausen (2013) investigated the qualifications of the undercut
anchors in nuclear power plants subjected to seismic dynamic tensile and shear loads. Two
conditions, service condition and extreme cracked condition, were investigated. The
authors found that the seismic dynamic load increased the cumulative displacement of the
anchor causing steel failure (Mahrenholtz & Eligehausen, 2013). In another research,
Mahrenholtz and Eligehausen (2015) applied cyclic tension and shear loads on the undercut
anchors used for nuclear power plants and reported that crack widths affected the strength
of the anchors when subjected to tensile loading and no significant influence on the anchor
strength under shear loading. The authors observed concrete failure mode under cyclic
tensile loading and steel fracture failure mode under cyclic shear loading (Mahrenholtz &
Eligehausen, 2015).
Eligehausen et al. (1998) investigated the behaviour of post-installed anchors in cracked
and uncracked concrete. The post installed anchors investigated were torque controlled
expansion, displacement-controlled expansion (drop-in), undercut and adhesive anchors.
The authors found that the capacity of the anchors decreased in the cracked concrete. The
reduction in the capacity for the displacement-controlled expansion (drop-in) anchors is
higher than the undercut anchors and torque controlled expansion anchors. Undercut
anchors, adhesive anchors and properly designed torque controlled expansion anchors are
51
suitable to install in cracked concrete where the tensile load can be transferred to the
concrete (Eligehausen et al., 1998).
2.8 Strain rate effect on material properties
2.8.1 Effect of strain rate on concrete
The level of the strain rate applied on concrete structures has an effect on its capacity. Static
loading is obtained at a strain rate ranging from 10-6 s-1 to 10-5 s-1. Low dynamic loading
and earthquake results in strain rates ranging from 10-4 s-1 to 10-1 s-1. Impact loading results
in strain rate in the range between 100 s-1 to 10 s-1, while very high strain rate ranging from
102 s-1 to 103 s-1 can be achieved with blast loading (Bischoff and Perry, 1991).
Different testing machines can be used to apply various loading conditions on concrete
structures at different levels of strain rates. Hydrulic testing machine can be used to apply
static load at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to 10-1 s-1. Charpy impact testing mahine can be used to
apply dynamic load at strain rate up to 100 s-1, while strain rate up to 101 s-1 can be achieved
by using drop weight impact. Higher strain rates up to 102 s-1 can be reached by using Split
Hopkinson Pressure Bar. Strain rates equal or higher than 103 s-1 can be obtained using
explosive charges (Bischoff and Perry, 1991; Hentz et al., 2004).
Effect of strain rate on the strength of concrete has been investigated by several researchers
(Malvar and Crawford, 1998; Malvar and Ross, 1998; Bischoff and Perry, 1991; Georgin
and Reynouard, 2003; Hentz et al., 2004; Ross et al., 1995; Fu et al., 1991; Shkolnik, 2008;
Min et al., 2014; Park et al., 2001; Cadoni et al. 2001; Tedesco et al. 1994; Ross et al. 1996;
52
Rossi et al. 1994). The authors found that the increase in the strain rate increases the tensile
and compressive strength of concrete.
Ross et al. (1989) investigated the behaviour of concrete and mortar subjected to quasi-
static and dynamic loads at strain rate in the range between 10 s-1 to 102 s-1. The authors
observed similar failure for the quasi static and dynamic tensile test. They concluded that
both tensile and compressive strengths increase at high strain rate. However, the increase
in the tensile strength at high strain rate is larger than that for the compressive strength.
They found that the tensile strength of the mortar at high strain rate of 102 s-1 is equal to
three times that obtained from quasi-static load while it is equal to six times that obtained
from quasi-static load when using concrete substrate (Ross et al. 1989).
Ross et al. (1995), Georgin and Reynouard (2003) and Min et al. (2014) conducted
numerical analysis on the effect of strain rate on the strength of the concrete. The authors
observed that the increase in the strain rate increases the concrete compressive strength.
Georgin and Reynouard (2003) attributed the increase in the compression strength of
concrete at high strain rates to the inertial force, the inertial confinement, structural effect
and rate effect (Georgin and Reynouard, 2003). Ross et al. (1995) found that the increase
in the strain rate from 10-7 s-1 to 300 s-1 increases the tensile and compressive strength of
the concrete. However, there is a critical value of strain rate of 5 s-1 for the tensile strength
and 60 s-1 for the compressive strength at which the percentage increase in the tensile
strength of the concrete becomes higher than the percentage increase in the compressive
strength. When the strain rate exceed the critical value, the strength of the concrete is
53
significantly increased. Ross et al. (1995) also investigated the effect of strain rate on wet,
partially wet and dry concrete. The authors found that the wet and partially wet concretes
are more senstive to high strain rate than the dry concrete (Ross et al., 1995). Similar
observation was obtained by Ross et al. (1996), Reinhardt et al. (1990) and Rossi et al.
(1994). The increase in the sensisitvity in wet concerete is due to the existance of water in
the wet concrete (Ross et al., 1996; Reinhardt et al., 1990; Rossi et al., 1994).
Min et al. (2014), Malvar and Crawford (1998), Hentz et al. (2004) and Shkolnik (2008)
found that the strain rate sensitivity on the tensile strength of the concrete is higher than
that on the compressive strength. A relationship between DIF and strain rate was
introduced by Min et al. (Min et al., 2014). Malvar and Crawford (1998) stated that the
DIF is very important in the design of structures subjected to high strain rates and can be
expressed as a bilinear function of the strain rate. The authors obtained DIF greater than 2
and 6 for the concrete subjected to compression and tension loads, respectively (Malvar
and Crawford, 1998). Moreover, Rossi et al. (1994) found that the DIF for wet concrete is
higher than that obtained for the dry concrete (Rossi et al., 1994).
Hentz et al. (2004) and Shkolnik (2008) investigated the effect of strain rate on the modulus
of elasticity of concrete under tensile and compressive loading. The authors found that the
modulus of elasticity increased with the increase in the strain rate (Hentz et al., 2004;
Shkolnik, 2008). Similar observation was obtained by Rossi et al. (1994) for the effect of
strain rate on the modulus of elasticity of the wet concrete under tensile loading (Rossi et
al., 1994). Shkolnik (2008) obtained linear relationship between the stress and the strain of
54
concrete at high strain rate of 150 s-1 (Shkolnik, 2008). Hentz et al. (2004) observed that
the strain rate has less effect on the Poison’s ratio, energy absorption and strain at ultimate
strength of the concrete compared to the tensile and compressive strengths (Hentz et al.,
2004).
Park et al. (2001) conducted finite element analysis on the behaviour of concrete and mortar
under high strain rate of 104 s-1. The authors observed inelastic deformation in the mortar
with less inelastic strains in the aggregates under impact loading. They stated that the
increase in the aggregate volume fraction to 42% increases the strength of the concrete by
30% and increases the energy absorption 15% (Park et al., 2001). The finite element
modelling can predict the material response and provide an assessment to the strain rate
effect (Ross et al., 1995; Georgin and Reynouard, 2003).
Tedesco et al. (1994) performed finite element analysis on the concrete subjected to
compression load. The authors stated that the type of failure depends on the strain rate. At
strain rate of 17 s-1 no cracking was observed. At strain rate of 25 s-1 cracking initiated
which led to compression failure of about 35% of the concrete specimen. Strain rate of 200
s-1 resulted in about 85% concrete compression failure (Tedesco et al., 1994).
Bischoff and Perry (1991) investigated effect of concrete quality, water cement ratio,
aggregate type, aging and curing time on concrete compressive strength at low and high
strain rates. The authors observed that the increase in compressive strength of lower
compressive strength concrete is greater than that for higher compressive strength concrete
55
at high strain rate. The effect of the strain rate on the compressive strength is influenced by
type of aggregate; stiffer aggregate is less sensitive to strain rate. Aggregates of good bond
and smaller maximum size enhanced the concrete compressive strength at high strain rate.
Also, the authors found that the compressive strength of concrete is affected by the method
of curing and moisture content. Cured wet specimen exhibits higher compressive strength
than the wet specimen. The increase in the age of the concrete shows less sensitivity to the
increase in the strain rate (Bischoff and Perry, 1991).
Fu et al. (1991) investigated the effect of loading rate on reinforced concrete. They
observed 30% increase in the strength of the reinforced concrete at high loading rate; the
yield strength of the steel is also increased. The failure mode is affected by the loading rate.
At high loading rate the tensile and bond strength of concrete increase resulted in few
cracks and sharp strain gradient. The increase in the bond strength at high loading rate
decreased the ductility at failure (Fu et al., 1991).
Cadoni et al. (2001) investigated effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of concrete.
They applied quasi static tensile loading at strain rate of 10-6 s-1 and impact loads at strain
rates of 100 s-1 and 101 s-1 on the concrete at different humidity levels. The increase in the
relative humidity of the concrete increases the tensile strength for the impact loading. The
tensile strength decreases slightly for the saturated concrete subjected to quasi static load
(Cadoni et al., 2001).
56
Kulkarni and Shah (1998) investigated the effect of high loading rate on concrete beams.
They applied static and high loading rates (piston velocity) of 0.00071 cm/s and 38 cm/s
respectively. They found that the increase in the strain rate increases the ultimate load and
the energy absorption capacity and that the failure mode is influenced by the strain rate.
Shear failure mode was obtained for the concrete beam at the static test while flexural
failure mode was obtained when similar beams were tested at high strain rate. The
difference in the failure mode was attributed to the inertia forces. Flexural failure mode is
attributed to yielding of reinforcement, beam rotation, opening up of cracks and reducing
compression zone lead to concrete crushing in compression. The post peak behaviour of
the load-deflection curve shows a gradual decrease in the load with increase in the
deflection. Shear failure mode is attributed to the shear cracks. The post peak behaviour of
the load-deflection curve shows a sharp decrease in the load (Kulkarni and Shah, 1998).
2.8.2 Effect of strain rate on steel
The strain rate has an effect on the mechanical properties of the steel material. The yield
and tensile strength of the steel increases with the increase in the strain rate (Fu et al., 1991;
Yu et al., 2009; Hopperstad et al., 2003), while the Young’s modulus remain constant (Fu
et al., 1991). This is due to the increase in the deformations and dislocations in the steel
structure at high strain rate ( Lee et al., 2007). The deformation of the steel material at low
strain rate or quasi-static loading is nearly homogeneous and controlled by slip and twin
plastic deformation mechanisms. However, the deformation of the steel material at high
strain rate is more complicated where the strains extremely concentrated along narrow area
called adiabatic shear band. The cracks are initiated and propagated from these shear bands
57
leading to fracture. At high strain rate the formation of the shear band in steel is affected
by several factors such as chemical composition of the steel components, strain rate and
heat treatment (Odeshi et al., 2005).
Lee et al. (2007) investigated the fracture response of stainless steel under high strain rate
loading. They found that strain rate has an influence on the flow stress-strain behaviour
and the microstructure of the specimen. The increase in the strain rate increased the level
of deformation of the grain. The authors stated that the adiabatic shear band created plastic
instability that leads to fracture (Lee et al., 2007).
Xiong et al. (2009) conducted tensile test of twin induced plasticity (TWIP) steel at strain
rate ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. The authors investigated two types of TWIP steel. Each
steel type has different chemical composition according to the manganese (Mn) percent in
the composition; steel 1# (14.3% Mn) and steel 3# (25.41% Mn). The authors stated that the
tensile properties of steel exhibit strain rate sensitivity. Similar observation was obtained
by Xu et al. (2013). In addition, Xiong et al. (2009) found that the yield strength and
ultimate tensile strength of the steel 3# increased with the increase in the strain rate. The
increase in ultimate tensile strength of steel 1# was higher than that reported for steel 3#
(Xiong et al., 2009). On the other hand, Xu et al. (2013) observed no change in the yield
strength at strain rate in the range from 10-3 s-1 to 10-2 s-1 while a significant increase in the
yield strength was observed at high strain rate of 400 s-1 (Xu et al., 2013).
58
Børvik et al. (2003) conducted non-linear finite element analysis using LS-DYNA on
smooth and notched axisymmetric specimens of steel to investigate the tensile behaviour
under quasi static and high strain rate loading. They concluded that the finite element
models have the capability to represent the quasi static and dynamic behaviour of the
material and give accurate results (Børvik et al., 2003).
Lee and Lam (1996) investigated the deformation behaviour of AISI 4340 alloy steel at
low and high strain rates using Hopkinson pressure bar. They concluded that AISI 4340
alloy steel is sensitive to strain rate. They proposed an equation to predict the relation
between the work hardening and strain rate sensitivity (Lee and Lam, 1996).
Yu et al. (2009) studied the effect of strain rate in the range from 10-4 s-1 to 103 s-1 on dual
phase steel (DP600 steel). The DP600 steel has tensile strength higher than 600 MPa and
composed of ferrite and martensite. They found that the mechanical behaviour of the steel
is influenced by the strain rate. The authors proposed a new constitutive model to predict
the mechanical behaviour of the steel (Yu et al., 2009).
Das et al. (2017) investigated the deformation of micro-mechanisms in dual phase steel at
strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 800 s-1. The authors used two types of dual phase steel
(DP600 and DP800) with different martensite percent. The authors found that the strain
rate affects the steel deformation through formation of dislocation cells. The authors stated
that the size and the extent of these cells depend on the strain rate and the fraction of
59
martensite. The size of the dislocation cells become finer as the strain rate increase (Das et
al., 2017).
Lu et al. (2013) investigated the effect of strain rate on the fracture surface and tensile
behaviour of AISI304 stainless steel in the range from 10-4 s-1 to 10-1 s-1. The authors
concluded that the ultimate tensile strength is affected significantly by the strain rate. The
increase in the strain rate increased the tensile strength and flow stress. Also, the authors
stated that the strain rate has an influence on the fracture surface. Microvoid coalescence
is observed at low strain rate, while equiaxed dimple (having equal dimensions in all
directions) with narrow diameter is observed at high strain rates (Lu et al., 2013).
2.9 Design methods for anchorage system
There are two common design methods proposed in building codes to predict the tensile
and shear capacities of anchorage to concrete system. These methods are: American
Concrete Institution (ACI) method (ACI Committee 349, 1990; ACI Committee 318, 2005;
ACI Committee 318, 2011), and Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) method (Fuchs et al.,
1995).
2.9.1 American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Several versions of ACI code include provision to predict the tensile and shear capacities
of anchors. ACI method 349-85 was developed in 1975 (Fuchs et al., 1995) and proposed
for the design of nuclear power structures or nuclear safety related concrete structures
(Fuchs et al., 1995; Subramanian, 2000). The method assumes that anchor failure is by
60
steel fracture to provide a ductile failure mode and to improve the design reliability. Brittle
failure is avoided by providing deep embedment (hef) to prevent concrete failure. The
concrete capacity is determined by assuming cone failure where the failure surface forms
a 45o-cone. The failure load depends on the concrete tensile capacity and increases as a
function of a square of hef (Subramanian, 2000; Rao and Arora, 2013). The proposed
equations to predict the tensile and shear capacity of anchorage system based on the ACI
method are included in appendices A and B.
2.9.2 Concrete Capacity Design (CCD)
Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) method, which is equivalent to Kappa method in the
Eurocode, was proposed in 1995 based on extensive experimental work conducted by
Eligehausen (Fuchs et al, 1995). The CCD method depends on fracture mechanics (size
effect) theory in predicting the failure load based on 35o failure angle (or concrete cone
breakout). The reliance of the CCD method on the fracture mechanics theory is attributed
to existence of the high tensile stresses around the anchor head (Cement Association of
Canada 2010).
The failure load according to the CCD method increases as a function of hef1.5 (Yoon et al.,
2001; Gesoglu et al., 2005; Cement Association of Canada, 2010). Furthermore, the CCD
method can be used for cracked and uncracked concrete and can predict the concrete
breakout capacity for different anchor types and design cases (Cement Association of
Canada, 2010). The proposed equations to predict the tensile and shear capacity of
anchorage system based on the CCD method are included in appendices A and B.
61
Fuchs (2001) carried out extensive comparison between the ACI and CCD methods to
predict the failure load of steel anchorage systems. The author investigated the ultimate
tensile capacity and shear capacity of steel anchorage systems. Fuchs confirmed that the
CCD method is a more accurate method for predicting failure loads of the anchorage
system (Fuchs, 2001).
2.10 Anchorage failure modes
2.10.1 Failure modes of cast-in-place anchors under tensile load
When a steel anchor is subjected to tensile loading, five types of failure mechanisms are
commonly observed: anchor bolt failure, concrete cone breakout failure, side face blowout
failure, concrete splitting, and anchor pullout (Cement Association of Canada, 2010).
Anchor bolt failure occurs when the strength of the anchor is less than the applied tensile
stress. Concrete cone breakout failure occurs for shallow embedment depths where the
applied tensile stress is greater than the strength of the concrete. Side face blowout failure
occurs when there is insufficient edge distance. Concrete splitting occurs when the concrete
tensile capacity is less than the bolt capacity with insufficient concrete member depth.
Anchor pullout failure occurs when the friction between the anchor and the concrete is less
than the applied tensile load for the anchors without head (Fuchs et al., 1995; Cement
Association of Canada, 2010). Figure 2-5 shows the failure modes for the cast-in-place
anchors under tensile loading.
62
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 2-5: Failure modes under tensile loading: (a) steel anchor failure, (b) concrete
cone breakout, (c) side face blowout, (d) concrete splitting (Cement Association of
Canada 2010; ACI Committee 318, 2011)
2.10.2 Failure modes of cast-in-place anchors under shear load
When a steel anchorage system is subjected to shear loading, three types of failure
mechanisms are commonly observed: steel anchor failure, concrete pryout, and concrete
breakout (Fuchs et al., 1995; Cement Association of Canada, 2010). Steel anchor failure
occurs when adequate embedment is provided without concrete edge effects, while
concrete pryout is common in steel anchors without adequate embedment depth and when
anchors are placed far away from the concrete free edge (Mahrenholtz & Eligehausen,
2015). Concrete breakout failure (or side blowout) can occur for anchors close to a concrete
edge or when insufficient embedment is provided. Figure 2-6 shows the failure modes for
cast-in-place anchors under shear load.
(a) (b) (c)
63
(d) (e) (f)
Figure 2-6: Failure modes for anchors under shear load (a) steel anchor failure preceded
by concrete spall; (b) concrete pryout failure; (c) concrete breakout failure; (d) thin
concrete breakout; (e) edge breakout, corner breakout (f) narrow concrete edge breakout
(Cement Association of Canada 2010; ACI Committee 318, 2011)
2.10.3 Failure modes of adhesive anchors under tensile load
There are four types of failure modes that can be seen in adhesive anchorage systems:
concrete cone breakout failure, bond failure (including: adhesive-concrete interface, steel-
adhesive interface, combined adhesive-concrete and steel-adhesive interface), combined
cone-bond failure, and steel anchor failure (Cook, 1993; McVay et al., 1996; Cook et al.,
1998). Figure 2-7 shows the failure modes for the adhesive anchors under tensile loading
(Cook et al., 1998). Each type of the failure modes is introduced in the following sections.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 2-7: Failure modes for adhesive anchors, (a) concrete cone breakout failure; (b)
combined cone-bond failure (bond failure at adhesive/concrete interface; (c) combined
cone-bond failure (bond failure at steel/adhesive interface); (d) combined cone-bond
failure (bond failure at combination of adhesive/concrete and steel/adhesive interface);
(e) steel anchor failure (Cook et al., 1998)
64
2.10.3.1 Concrete cone breakout failure
This type of failure occurs for shallow embedment depths (Cook et al., 1993; Cook, 1993;
Gesoglu et al., 2005) (Figure 2-7a). The strength of the concrete and the embedment depth
of the steel anchor are the main factors that affect the ultimate failure load (Cook et al.,
1998).
2.10.3.2 Bond failure
Bond failure occurs at the interface between the adhesive and the concrete, or at the
interface between the steel anchor and the adhesive, or at both of the adhesive-concrete
interface and steel-adhesive interface (Figure 2-7). The factors that could cause bond
failure are: low bond strength of the adhesive, insufficient curing time, improper hole
preparation (Cook et al., 1993).
The ultimate pullout load for bond failure mode at the steel-adhesive interface depends on
the bond stress of the adhesive, anchor diameter and embedment depth. There are two
models of the bond stresses: uniform bond stress model and elastic bond stress model. The
equations to calculate the bond strength according to these two models are presented in
Appendix B.
2.10.3.3 Combined cone-bond failure
The combined cone-bond failure is most likely to occur when the embedment depth to the
anchor diameter ratio is more than 5 (McVay et al., 1996). The combined cone bond failure
is characterized by a shallow cone at the top surface of the concrete accompanied by
65
adhesive bond failure at the embedded part below the shallow concrete cone breakout
(Figure 2-7(b),(c),(d)).
2.10.3.4 Steel anchor failure
This type of the failure is likely to occur for long embedment depth anchors, where the
strength of the embedded part of the anchor into concrete is higher than the strength of the
steel anchor (McVay et al., 1996; Cook, 1993). The failure occurs by steel yielding and
fracture of the steel anchor (Figure 2-7e).
2.10.4 Failure modes of adhesive anchors under shear load
For adhesive anchors subjected to shear loading, three types of failure mechanisms similar
to that obtained for the cast-in-place anchors can be observed: steel anchor failure, concrete
pryout and concrete breakout (Epackachi et al., 2015). In addition, adhesive bond failure
may occur in some areas along the anchor embedment depth associated with the
aforementioned failure modes.
2.10.5 Adhesive bond failure
The exposure of adhesive material to temperature, solvents, physical stresses and
environment may weaken the adhesive material and cause adhesive failure (da Silva et al.,
2011). When cracks occur in the adhesive layer and lead to failure, the failure mode is
called cohesive failure. When the cracks appear at the interface between the adhesive
material and the adherend, the failure is called adhesive failure (Keller and Vallée, 2005).
Mixed mode failure occurs when the cracks are initiated at both of the adhesive layer and
the interface.
66
2.10.6 Failure modes of undercut anchors under tensile load
Three types of failure modes are often observed for the undercut anchor-concrete systems
under tensile load similar to that observed for the cast-in-place anchors: concrete cone
breakout failure, anchor pullout and steel fracture failure (Cement Association of Canada,
2010; ACI Committee 355, 2000; Eligehausen et al., 1998).
2.10.7 Failure modes of undercut anchors under shear load
Three types of failure modes can be observed for the undercut anchors subjected to shear
loads similar to that observed for the cast-in-place and adhesive anchors; pryout failure,
concrete breakout and steel anchor failure (Mahrenholtz & Eligehausen, 2015; Epackachi
et al., 2015).
2.11 Summary
The literature review presented in this chapter has shown that the behaviour of steel
anchorage systems, whether cast-in-place or post-installed, subjected to static and dynamic
loads was investigated by several researchers. However, very limited attention has been
allocated to these anchors at high strain rates. Hence, for the accurate and economical
design of anchorages under impact and blast loading, further investigation of the effects of
high strain-rates on anchorage behaviour is required. Based on the literature review
presented in this chapter the main gaps in the literature can be summarized as follows:
 Several researchers investigated the tensile behaviour of cast-in-place anchors at
different loading rates. Ozbolt et al. (2006) studied the size effect at different
loading rate. Fujikake et al. (2003), Sato et al. (2004) and Solomos and Berra (2006)
67
studied the effect of loading rate for shallow embedment depth anchors. However,
effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of cast-in-place anchors with different
design parameters has not been studied adequately.
 Most of the available studies on the effect of concrete compressive strength on the
behaviour of anchorage system are focused on the anchorage behaviour under static
loading. Effect of concrete compressive strength on the shear behaviour of cast-in-
place anchors at low and high strain rates can help in investigating how the shear
capacity and failure mode is influenced by the concrete compressive strength.
 The tensile behaviour of adhesive anchors under static load was investigated by
several researches. Although loading rate effect on the tensile behaviour of
adhesive anchors has been studied, effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of
adhesive anchor has not been investigated thoroughly.
 Limited research was found on the shear behaviour of adhesive anchors under static
load (Cattaneo and Muciaccia (2015), Epackachi et al. (2015)). Moreover, the shear
behaviour of adhesive anchors at different strain rates has not been investigated.
 Tensile and shear behaviour of undercut anchors under static and seismic dynamic
load have been studied. However, based on the literature review presented in this
chapter, no studies have been found on the strain rate effect on the tensile and shear
behaviour of the undercut anchors.
 Failure mode, dynamic increase factor and concrete breakout angle of the
anchorage systems subjected to different strain rates have not been investigated
thoroughly.
68
This project aims to investigate the tensile and shear behaviour of cast-in-place, adhesive
and undercut anchorage systems subjected to static and dynamic loading using LS-DYNA
software. Effect of strain rate on the tensile and shear behaviour of the cast-in-place,
adhesive and undercut anchors is investigated. Also, the project aims to investigate the
failure mechanism and crack propagation angle of the anchorage systems at different strain
rates. Additionally, this research aims to propose an equation to relate the dynamic increase
factor with the strain rate for the anchorage systems.
69
Chapter 3 : Finite element modelling of anchorage systems
3.1 Introduction
The demand to design structures to resist high dynamic loading has been increasing in
recent years. When a structure is subjected to high dynamic loading, a large amount of
energy is released in a very short time leading to generation of high pressure and high strain
rates in the structure. Designing such structures is a challenging task to designers due to
the limited information on the response of materials to high dynamic loads (Gebbeken et
al., 2001). Experimental tests are costly and require a long time to complete compared to
numerical analysis which can be used to predict the structural response under different
loading conditions for a wide range of structures (Davidson et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2012).
In addition, numerical analysis has flexibility to change geometry, design parameters,
material properties and loading condition of the structural component. Furthermore, the
numerical analysis has the ability to investigate the internal damage to the structure that is
difficult to be investigated by the experimental tests (Qian and Li, 2011).
LS-DYNA software was selected for the analysis in this research. LS-DYNA is a nonlinear
explicit finite element code developed by Livermore Software Technology Corporation
(LSTC, 2014). The original version of LS-DYNA, DYNA3D, was designed for stress
analysis of structures under impact loading, and then later developed to be used for
different applications (Hallquist, 2006). In early 1989 a commercial version of DYNA3D
was introduced as LS-DYNA. LS-DYNA is a high fidelity software that can solve non-
linear dynamic problems and perform the analysis efficiently with less computation cost
70
(Liu, 2008). It can analyze the behaviour of structures under static and dynamic loads for
a wide range of variables (Hallquist, 2006). The failure mechanism can be illustrated using
LS-DYNA software through its capability to calculate the strain distribution in the
elements at each time step (Davidson et al., 2005). Finite element analysis using LS-DYNA
software can analyze problems that involves high deformation, strain rate, high loading
conditions such as impact and blast (Hallquist, 2006; Chen and Hao, 2012). Several
researchers have predicted the structural response under high strain rates using LS-DYNA
software (Zhao et al., 2012; Bermejo et al., 2011; Kyei and Braimah, 2013; Wu et al. 2012;
Chen and Hao, 2012).
In this chapter, finite element modelling for the tensile and shear behaviour of cast-in-
place, adhesive and undercut anchors subjected to static and dynamic loading using LS-
DYNA software is introduced. Implicit and explicit analyses for structures are presented.
Material constitutive models for concrete, steel anchor and adhesive are described.
Considerations to select suitable material constitutive models, boundary conditions are also
presented. Finite element type, meshing and bonding techniques to model the steel anchor
and concrete substrate systems are addressed.
3.2 Implicit and explicit analysis
Material response to applied loading can be linear or non-linear. The linear behaviour is
observed in the elastic range, while the nonlinear behaviour can result from geometric
effect, inelastic behaviour of materials, and large deformations. The general equations of
71
motion for linear damped single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system can be represented by
Equation (3.1) (Hallquist, 2006):
𝑚𝑎 + 𝑐𝑣 + 𝑘𝑑 = F(𝑡) (3.1)
and for the nonlinear damped SDOF systems by Equation (3.2):
𝑚𝑎 + 𝑐𝑣 + 𝑓𝑖𝑛 (𝑑) = F(𝑡) (3.2)
Where m = mass, c = damping coefficient, k = stiffness, a = acceleration, v = velocity, d
= displacement, 𝑓𝑖𝑛 = internal force, F(t) = external force.
Linear behaviour problems can be solved by using analytical equations, while nonlinear
behaviour problems can be solved by numerical methods such as Newton-Raphson method
(with using direct or iterative solvers) (Rust & Schweizerhof, 2003) and finite difference
method (Remani, 2013).
Explicit central difference method is used in LS-DYNA to solve the equations of motion
and to find the parameters of acceleration, velocity and displacement (Hallquist, 2006).
For time step 𝑡 𝑛+1 the central difference method can be represented by the following
equations:
𝑉 𝑛+1⁄2 = 𝑉 𝑛−1⁄2 + 𝐴𝑛 ∆𝑡 𝑛 (3.3)
72
𝐷𝑛+1 = 𝐷𝑛 + 𝑉 𝑛+1⁄2 ∆𝑡 𝑛+1⁄2 (3.4)
∆𝑡 𝑛 +∆𝑡 𝑛+1
∆𝑡 𝑛+1⁄2 = (3.5)
2
Where D is the global nodal displacement vector, V is the global nodal velocity vector.
LS-DYNA consists of implicit solver with limited capabilities and an explicit solver. For
the implicit analysis, the solution is performed by integrating the nodal displacement with
large time step size, the nodal displacement is determined by multiplying nodal force by
the inverse of the stiffness matrix (k). The user can specify the time step size for the implicit
analysis. However, the implicit analysis depends on the iterative method to get the solution
and uses a small number of time steps. This requires enormous computational effort and
large storage capacity (Jensen et al., 2007). The explicit solver can be used for both quasi-
static and dynamic analysis (Hallquist, 2006). The solution for the explicit analysis is
performed by integrating the nodal acceleration with a small time step size. Where the
nodal acceleration is calculated by dividing the total of internal and external forces to the
nodal mass (Jensen et al., 2007). In the explicit analysis, nodal displacement, velocity, and
acceleration at time step (n) are known hence direct solution for the nodal displacement at
the next time step can be obtained. Equation (3.6) expresses the explicit analysis.
𝑑 𝑛+1 = 𝑓(𝑑𝑛 , 𝑣 𝑛 , 𝑎𝑛 , 𝑑𝑛−1 , … ) (3.6)
73
On the other hand, implicit analysis requires to identify the nodal velocity and acceleration
at time step (n+1) (Jensen et al., 2007).
𝑑 𝑛+1 = 𝑓(𝑣 𝑛+1 , 𝑎𝑛+1 , 𝑑𝑛 , 𝑣 𝑛 , … ) (3.7)
Where 𝑑𝑛 , 𝑣 𝑛 , 𝑎𝑛 are the nodal displacement, velocity and acceleration at time step (n),
respectively, 𝑣 𝑛+1 , 𝑎𝑛+1 are the nodal velocity and acceleration at time step (n+1),
respectively.
The nonlinear dynamic analysis can be used to evaluate the structural response and is
considered an accurate technique (Kwasniewski, 2010). However, using non-linear
analysis requires an understanding of the non-linear problem and its numerical solution.
Nonlinear problems can have multiple degrees of freedom and require solution of a number
of equations. In the field of structural mechanics, the nonlinear problems can be either path
dependent or have multiple solutions. Therefore, it is necessary to select reliable solutions
that can represent the nonlinear structural problems (Bergan et al., 1978). Unlike linear
problems, in nonlinear problems, it is difficult to develop a method that is valid for all
applications. Many of the solutions for nonlinear problems are either for specific types of
non-linear problems or need specific requirement to be achieved to get converged solution.
Hence, set of alternative algorithms to solve the non-linear problems have been
implemented in the computer program. The computer program can control the solution
through a number of parameters that are implemented in it. So that, the flexibility,
reliability and efficiency to solve a specific problem will increase (Bergan et al., 1978).
74
3.3 Theoritical aspects (hydrocode)
The dynamic response of a structure to high strain rate loading can be predicted using
simplified method such as SDOF method of analysis. The SDOF method is not able to
predict localized structural damage (Zhou et al., 2008). The development in the computer
programming has produced hydrocodes such as AUTODYN and LS-DYNA to predict the
dynamic response of a structure (Tu and Lu, 2009). Hydrocode depends on three
fundamentals postulations: conservation of mass, momentum and energy (Gebbeken and
Ruppert, 2000). In hydrocodes there are two stress components: volumetric and deviatoric
stresses to deal with stresses and strains individually. In the volumetric stress component,
the relationship between hydrostatic pressure, local density, and local energy can be
identified by the equation of state. The deviatoric stress component is dependent on the
strength of the surface which in turns depends on the first stress invariant 𝐽1 , second
invariant of deviatoric stress 𝐽2′ and third invariant of deviatoric stress 𝐽3′ (Zhou et al., 2008).
Tensile and compressive strength of concrete is sensitive to strain rate effect. Dynamic
increase factor is used to express the effect of strain rate on concrete strength (Zhou et al.,
2008). When concrete is subjected to compression load it behaves as a nonlinear material,
hence the yielding (decrease in the strength and stiffness) depends on the hydrostatic
pressure. Ductile behaviour of concrete is obtained at high hydrostatic pressure, where the
strain rate has an effect on the tensile and compressive strength of the concrete. On the
other hand, according to plasticity theory, yielding does not rely on the hydrostatic
pressure; this gives a possibility of separation of hydrostatic tensor from stress tensor. As
a result, deviatoric stress tensor is generated. The deviatoric stresses (𝑠𝑖𝑗 ) can be expressed
as in Equation (3.8) (Gebbeken & Ruppert, 2000; Gebbeken et al., 2001):
75
𝑠𝑖𝑗 = 𝑓{𝜀𝑖𝑗 , 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 , 𝐺[𝜀𝑖𝑗 , 𝑠𝑖𝑗 (𝑝)], 𝐾(𝑝, 𝜌)} (3.8)
Where 𝜀𝑖𝑗 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 are the strain and strain rate respectively, and G the shear modulus, K
the bulk modulus, 𝜌 the density, and 𝑝 the hydrostatic pressure. However, G and K vary
under high loading rates.
Concrete constitutive models can be identified depending on the volumetric and deviatoric
response characteristics. The common form of yield function of the concrete material can
be represented by Equation (3.9), considering the volumetric response represented by first
invariant of the stress tensor J1, and the deviatoric response is represented by second and
third invariant of the deviatoric stress tensors 𝐽2′ and 𝐽3′ , respectively (Wu et al., 2012).
𝑌(𝐽1 , 𝐽2′ , 𝐽3′ ) = 0 (3.9)
3.4 Finite element type
LS-DYNA software provides different types of elements such as solid, beam, spring,
cohesive and shell elements. For each element type there is an option for element
formulation to best describe the material of the model (Hallquist, 2006). Solid elements are
used for modelling the anchorage system and are described in the following subsections.
76
3.4.1 Solid element
Eight-noded hexahedron solid elements were used to model the anchor, sleeve, steel plate,
washer and nut. The solid elements for the anchor, sleeve, steel plate, washer and nut were
formulated using constant stress. Four-noded tetrahedron solid elements were used to
model the concrete in this research. Teterahedron element is a fast, stable and simple solid
element. The tetrahedron elements permit transition from fine mesh to coarse mesh
(Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2015). Tetrahedron solid elements were
used by Fang and Zhang to model the reinforced concrete under dynamic load (Fang &
Zhang, 2013). The solid elements for the concrete were formulated using one point
integrated solid tetrahedron (Fang & Zhang, 2013). Each node of the solid element has
three translational degrees of freedom in (x, y, and z directions). The geometry of the eight-
noded hexahedron solid element is shown in Figure 3-1 while the geometry of the
tetrahedron solid element is shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-1: Eight node hexahedron solid element (Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, 2015)
77
Figure 3-2: Four node tetrahedron solid element (Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, 2015)
3.5 Meshing technique
The dynamic analysis of the structures can be performed analytically using mathematical
equations or numerically using the finite element method by dividing the volume of the
structure into finite elements linked at nodal points and forming a mesh. In the finite
element method two types of errors may appear; numerical errors and discretizing errors
that can cause the numerical model to give different answers from the analytical model.
The discretizing errors can be minimized through mesh refinement (Paultre, 2010). Mesh
size has an influence on the accuracy of the results and the time required to perform the
analysis. Fine mesh size increases the accuracy and computation time resulting in a high
overall computation cost (LSTC, 2014a).
78
3.6 Material constitutive models
Selecting a suitable material model is important to get a reliable prediction of the structural
response to applied load. A wide range of materials constitutive models have been
implemented in the LS-DYNA software to represent the behaviour for different materials.
In addition, the software gives the user additional options to add new materials to LS-
DYNA materials library using the keyword User Defined Material (Hallquist, 2006).
Different options can be considered in LS-DYNA to select the appropriate material model
for a specific application.
3.6.1 Concrete models
Concrete is a heterogeneous material consisting of aggregate and cement paste. It is ductile
in compression and brittle in tension and shear (Gebbeken and Ruppert, 2000). The
heterogeneity and porosity of concrete leads to complex response especially at high
dynamic load where the internal energy cannot be neglected (Tu and Lu, 2009). A variety
of constitutive models implemented in LS-DYNA library can be used to model the concrete
materials. These include:
 Karagozian and Case concrete damage model Release III
(MAT_concrete_damage_rel3, MAT_72_R3)
 Winfrith concrete model (MAT_084)
 Johnson Holmquist concrete model (MAT_111)
 Continuous surface cap model for concrete (MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE)
(MAT_159)
79
Table 3-1 shows the material specifications and capabilities of the concrete models
presented above.
Table 3-1: Material specifications for concrete models (LSTC, 2014)
Material Material Element Strain Failure Equation of Anisotropic Damage Applications

No. in model formulation rate criteria state effects
LS- title effects requirement
DYNA
Solid, thick
Concrete Soil, concrete,
72 shell, SPH Yes Yes Yes No Yes
damage rock
element
Winfrith Soil, concrete,
84 Solid Yes No No No No
concrete rock, foam
Solid, thick
Johnson Soil, concrete,
111 shell, SPH Yes Yes No No Yes
Holmquist rock
element
Solid, thick
Soil, concrete,
159 CSCM shell, SPH Yes Yes No No Yes
rock
element
In concrete material models MAT_72_R3, MAT_84 and MAT_111, the erosion criteria
for deletion of highly distorted elements are not included implicitly in the formation of
these models. Therefore, these material models require an additional element erosion
model. This can be done by using MAT_ADD_EROSION. However, the erosion criteria
for MAT_ADD_EROSION does not have a direct relation to concrete damage under
impact (Sagals et al., 2011). Element erosion is necessary to simulate material damage,
failure and prevent non convergence resulting from exaggerated deformation in affected
area (Sagals et al., 2011). In addition, the simulation time may be increased due to the
distorted elements. Material Erosion card is included in MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE
material model to represent element deletion upon failure.
80
MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE has been used in many applications (Wu et al., 2012) due to
its simple input parameters represented by uniaxial compressive strength and maximum
aggregate size. Other concrete material models on the other hand require many input
parameters (Mousavi et al., 2016). In addition to the simplified input,
MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE has key card to include or exclude rate effect. Furthermore,
MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE model is able to represent the nonlinear behaviour of concrete
material and complex concrete response in tension and compression (damage in tension
and softening in compression), strain rate effect, and erosion (Bermejo et al., 2011; Wu et
al., 2012). The Continuous Surface Cap Model (MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE) was thus
selected to model the concrete in this research.
3.6.1.1 Concrete Model (MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE)
Continuous Surface Cap Model (MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE) (MAT_159) model was
originally designed for roadside safety analysis in 1990 and then incorporated in LS-
DYNA in 2005 to analyze many different types of applications (Wu et al., 2012).
MAT_159 can be used for solid elements to predict the elastic-plastic behaviour of concrete
(Wu et al., 2012). Where concrete material is assumed to be an isotropic material and
behaves as elastic material obeying Hooke’s law before cracking. After cracking and as the
stress increases, the concrete material yields and behaves plastically (Murray, 2007).
MAT_159 model is characterized by smooth intersection between two failure surfaces;
shear failure surface (𝐹𝑓 ) and hardening cap (𝐹𝑐 ) surface. Both surfaces: Ff and 𝐹𝑐 are
combined through multiplication form (𝐹𝑓2 𝐹𝑐 ) into the yield equation. This multiplication
form provides the smooth and continuous intersection between the cap (𝐹𝑐 ) and shear (𝐹𝑓 )
81
surfaces. The smooth intersection makes the numerical analysis simple and removes the
intricacy induced by the existence of corner region between the failure surface and the
hardening cap. Three dimensional yield surface can be used to represent the yield stresses
in the concrete model (LSTC, 2014). Figure 3-3 shows the general shape of the concrete
model yield surface in two and three dimensions.
(a) In two dimensions (b) In three dimensions
Figure 3-3: General shape of the concrete model yield surface (Murray, 2007)
The yield function for the MAT_159 model is represented by three stress invariants
(𝐽1 , 𝐽2′ , 𝐽3′ ) and cap hardening (k) in Equation (3.10) (LSTC, 2014):
𝑓(𝐽1 , 𝐽2′ , 𝐽3′ , 𝑘) = 𝐽2′ − ℜ2 𝐹𝑓2 𝐹𝑐 (3.10)
𝐽1 = 3𝑃 (3.11)
1
𝐽2′ = 2 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 (3.12)
82
1
𝐽3′ = 3 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑗𝑘 𝑆𝑘𝑖 (3.13)
Where 𝐽1 is the first invariant for the stress tensor, 𝐽2′ and 𝐽3′ are the second and third
invariant for the deviatoric stress tensor, respectively, k is the cap hardening parameter, ℜ
is the Rubin three invariant reduction factor. The concrete strength can be calculated by the
Rubin scaling factor (ℜ) at different stress states relative to concrete strength for triaxial
compression (TXC). 𝑆𝑖𝑗 , 𝑆𝑗𝑘 , 𝑆𝑘𝑖 are the deviatoric stress tensor.
LS-DYNA software provides updated values of the stress (𝐽1𝑇 , 𝐽2′𝑇 , 𝐽3′𝑇 ) at each time step. If
the updated stress value is located on or inside the yield surface, 𝑓(𝐽1𝑇 , 𝐽2′𝑇 , 𝐽3′𝑇 , 𝑘) ≤ 0 the
concrete behaves as elastic material. If the updated stress value is located outside the yield
surface, 𝑓(𝐽1𝑇 , 𝐽2′𝑇 , 𝐽3′𝑇 , 𝑘) > 0, the concrete behaves as elastic-plastic material, where the
updated stress is returned to the yield surface, 𝑓(𝐽1𝑝 , 𝐽2′𝑝 , 𝐽3′𝑝 , 𝑘) = 0, by a plasticity
algorithm (Murray, 2007).
The shear failure surface can be expressed as follows:
𝐹𝑓 (𝐽1 ) =∝ −𝜆 𝑒𝑥𝑝−𝛽𝐽1 + 𝜃𝐽1 (3.14)
Where ∝, 𝜆, 𝛽 𝑎𝑛𝑑  are constants measured from a triaxial compression test.
83
The plastic volume change (expansion and compaction) can be simulated using the cap
surface, where the cap movement can represent the expansion or compaction. The
hardening cap surface can be represented as follows:
[𝐽1− 𝐿(𝑘)] [|𝐽1− 𝐿(𝑘)|+𝐽1− 𝐿(𝑘)]

1− 𝑖𝑓 𝐽1 > 𝐿(𝑘)
𝐹𝑐 (𝐽1 , 𝑘) = { 2[𝑋(𝑘)−𝐿(𝑘)]2 (3.15)
1 𝑖𝑓 𝐽1 ≤ 𝐿(𝑘)
Where
𝑘 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 > 𝑘𝑜
𝐿(𝑘) = { (3.16)
𝑘𝑜 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 ≤ 𝑘𝑜
The hardening cap function (𝐹𝑐 ) is either unity or an ellipse depending on the stress state.
Unity function (𝐹𝑐 = 1) is obtained when (𝐽1 ≤ 𝐿(𝑘)), where the stress is located in the
tensile or low confining pressure zone, consequently, the yield function depends on the
shear surface only. Ellipse function is obtained when (𝐽1 > 𝐿(𝑘)), where the stress located
in low to high confining pressure zone and the yield function is dependent on both the cap
surface and the shear surface.
The shear failure surface intersects the cap failure surface when 𝐽1 = 𝑘. At the initial
intersection between shear surface and cap surface 𝐽1 = 𝑘𝑜 (Murray, 2007).
MAT_159 has built-in erosion criterion that can represent the concrete failure (Bermejo et
al., 2011). When the damage (d) is equal to or greater than 1 and the maximum principal
strain is greater than 1-ERODE, the element is eroded. When the damage is less than 1 the
84
erosion does not occur (Murray, 2007). Furthermore, MAT_159 has built-in damage
criterion to represent the damage of the concrete when subjected to compression or tension
load. The value of damage parameter (d) is ranging from zero to one and allows for the
prediction of crack initiation and propagation in concrete. The MAT_159 material model
has been reported to be more suitable for modelling concrete compared to the other material
models available in LS-DYNA (Jaime, 2011).
Murray (2004) conducted finite element analysis to investigate the damage on reinforced
concrete beam subjected to impact load using MAT_159. Murray’s analysis revealed that
the damage and displacement were adequately simulated when using MAT_159.
Moutossamy et al. (2011) investigated the validation of MAT_159 concrete model using
Lagrange in solid to connect the reinforcement with the concrete using analytical and
numerical analysis on frame structure. The authors reported that MAT_159 model can
represent the real behaviour of the concrete in many conditions. The authors also reported
that the cracks in the concrete structure can be modeled properly using plastic strain
contours (Moutoussamy et al., 2011).
Rate Effect:
Rate effect is used to model a materials dependence on loading or strain rates. LS-DYNA
has a built-in parameter (IRATE) to represent the strain rate effect on the concrete strength.
By activating the IRATE formulation, increase in the strain rate increases the strength of
the concrete material. The rate effect is applied through using viscoplastic parameters on
85
the plasticity surface, damage surface and fracture energy. The viscoplastic parameters are
used for compatibility of the uniaxial tensile and compressive strength data (Murray, 2007).
3.6.2 Steel anchor models
PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY (MAT_024) and MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC
(MAT_003) material models can be used to model the steel material. Rate effect is included
in both material models. The two material models are cost effective and commonly used to
model steel material and take into account the isotropic and kinematic hardening plasticity
of steel (Bi and Hao, 2013; Livermore software technology Corporation, 2012). Analysis
has been made on the anchorage to concrete system using MAT_024 and MAT_003.
Results show that both material models give same load-displacement response, ultimate
load and failure mode. MAT_024 is the most commonly used to model steel and hence
MAT_024 is used to model steel material in this research. MAT_024 is an elasto-plastic
material model that can represent failure depending on plastic strain or a minimum time
step size.
The deviatoric stresses required to attain the yield function for MAT_024 can be expressed
by Equation (3.17) (Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2015):
1 𝜎𝑦2
∅ = 2 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 − ≤0 (3.17)
3
𝑝
𝜎𝑦 = 𝛽[𝜎0 + 𝑓ℎ (𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 )] (3.18)
86
Where
𝑝
𝛽 is a constant representing strain rate effect, 𝜎0 is the initial yield stress, and 𝑓ℎ (𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) is
the hardening function. The hardening function can be represented in linear hardening form
expressed in Equation (3.19).
𝑝 𝑝
𝑓ℎ (𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) = 𝐸𝑝 (𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) (3.19)
𝑡 𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝑝 = 𝐸−𝐸 ′ (3.20)
𝑡
𝑡 2 1/2
𝑝 𝑝 𝑝
𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 = ∫0 (3 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 ) 𝑑𝑡 (3.21)
𝑝 𝑒
𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 = 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 − 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 (3.22)
𝑝
Where 𝐸𝑝 is the plastic hardening modulus, 𝐸𝑡 is the tangent modulus, 𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 is the effective
𝑝 𝑒
plastic strain, 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 is the plastic strain rate, 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 is the elastic strain rate, 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 is the total strain
rate.
The deviatoric stresses are calculated and updated elastically to satisfy the aforementioned
yield function. If the yield function is not satisfied, then the increase in the effective plastic
strain is calculated according to Equation (3.23).

1
3 ∗ ∗ 2
𝑝 ( 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 ) −𝜎𝑦
∆𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 2
(3.23)
3𝐺+𝐸𝑝
87
Where
𝑝
∆𝜀𝑒𝑓𝑓 is the effective plastic strain increment, G is the shear modulus, 𝑆𝑖𝑗∗ is the trial
deviatoric stress. If the deviatoric stresses 𝑆𝑖𝑗∗ is higher than the yield stress 𝜎𝑦 , it is scaled
back to the yield surface and the updated deviatoric stress, 𝑆𝑖𝑗𝑛+1 is given by Equation
(3.24).
𝜎𝑦
𝑆𝑖𝑗𝑛+1 = 3 ∗ ∗
1 𝑆𝑖𝑗∗ (3.24)
( 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 )2
2
Rate effect
The strain rate effect is considered for Piecewise Linear Plasticity model (MAT_024) as
follows:
 The Cowper-Symonds model which scales the yield stress with a factor as per
Equation (3.25) (Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2015):
𝜀̇ 1/𝑝
𝛽 = 1 + (𝐶 ) (3.25)
𝜀̇ = √𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 𝜀̇𝑖𝑗 (3.26)
Where C and P, are Cowper-Symonds constants and 𝜀̇ is the strain rate.
Cowper-Symonds parameters C of 40 s-1 and P of 5 are recommended for steel (Boh
et al., 2004) and were used in this research to represent the strain rate effect.
88
 Using a table if there are different stress-strain curves for different strain rates
where a curve ID can be defined for each strain rate. If the strain rate is not in the
range included in the table (higher or lower than the strain rate in the table), then
effective stress-strain curve for the maximum value of strain rate in the table is used
for the strain rates higher than the maximum value. Effective stress-strain curve for
the minimum strain rate in the table is used for the strain rates lower than the
minimum value (Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2015).
3.6.3 Adhesive modelling
The adhesive layer in post-installed adhesive anchorage systems can be modeled by using
either a mesh dependent or mesh independent method. The mesh dependent method can be
implemented by using identical connection between the adhesive and the adherents, while
the mesh independent method can be implemented by using
CONTACT_TIED_NODES_TO_SURFACE keycard where the connection between the
adhesive and the adherents is incompatible (Marzi et al., 2008).
There are two approaches that can be used to describe failure behaviour of the adhesive
layer: cohesive zone model (CZM) and continuum damage mechanics (CDM) approach.
The CZM describes the damage and failure of adhesive material efficiently by employing
simple traction separation law (Marzi et al., 2008; Marzi et al., 2009; May et al., 2014).
The CDM approach on the other hand describes the damage of the adhesive material by
employing damage parameter to include the stiffness degradation of the adhesive material
(Tserpes & Koumpias, 2012). Both CZM and CDM approaches can represent the damage
initiation until complete failure (Sugiman & Ahmad, 2017). However, the CZM approach
89
is faster and less complicated than the continuum damage mechanics approach (Marzi et
al., 2008; Marzi et al., 2009; May et al., 2014). In addition, the continuum damage
mechanics approach depends more on mesh size compared to the (CZM) (Tserpes &
Koumpias, 2012; Sugiman & Ahmad, 2017).
There are several cohesive zone models that can be used to model the adhesive material
implemented in LS-DYNA. These models include ARUP_ADHESIVE (MAT_169),
COHESIVE_MIXED_MODE (MAT_138), COHESIVE_ELASTIC (MAT_184),
COHESIVE_THERMAL (MAT_185) and COHESIVE_GENERAL (MAT_186) (LSTC,
2014). MAT_138, MAT_184, MAT_185, MAT_186 don’t have a keycard to represent the
rate effect. However, MAT_169 has rate dependent keycard that can represent the strain
rate (LSTC, 2014). Hence, among these models MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE (MAT_169)
was selected to model the adhesive material. MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE is structural
adhesive and can represent the behaviour of the adhesive anchor (Graf et al., 2014).
3.6.3.1 Adhesive model (MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE)
MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE (MAT_169) was used to model the adhesive material. Solid
element formulations 1, 2 and 15 are suitable to model the adhesive material. The yield
function and the failure surfaces for the MAT_169 model is represented by a power-law
combination of direct tension and shear as in Equation (3.27) (LSTC, 2014).
𝜎 𝑃𝑊𝑅𝑇 𝜏 𝑃𝑊𝑅𝑆
(𝜎 ) + (𝜏 ) =1 (3.27)
𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝑆𝐻𝑇_𝑆𝐿×𝜎
90
Where
PWRT , PWRS are power law terms for tension and shear respectively. 𝜎 is the tensile
stress, 𝜏 is the shear stress, 𝑆𝐻𝑇_𝑆𝐿 is the slope of the yield surface at zero tension.
Figure 3-4 shows the yield surface for MAT_169.
Figure 3-4: Yield surface (LSTC, 2014)
Figure 3-5 shows the stress-displacement relation for MAT_169 in tension and shear.
(a) (b)
Figure 3-5: Stress-displacement relation of MAT_169 for (a) tension and (b) shear
(LSTC, 2014)
91
Rate effect:
The strain rate effect is considered for MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE model (MAT_169)
through parameters EDOT0 and EDOT2 for the static and dynamic strain rates respectively
(LSTC, 2015).
3.7 Design parameters
Concrete block size of (4ℎ𝑒𝑓 + 125)𝑚𝑚 × (4ℎ𝑒𝑓 + 125)𝑚𝑚 × (2ℎ𝑒𝑓 )𝑚𝑚 was
modeled and used for the tensile analysis of anchorage systems. The size of the concrete
block for the tensile analyses was selected to preclude edge effect on the failure of concrete
cone formation. A concrete block size of (2ℎ𝑒𝑓 + 150)𝑚𝑚 × (2ℎ𝑒𝑓 + 150)𝑚𝑚 ×
(1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 + 50)𝑚𝑚 was used for the shear analysis to minimize concrete edge effects on
the behaviour of the anchors. Single anchor was used for the analysis. The anchor
placement in the concrete block was such that the edge distance (c) does not affect the
concrete breakout cone formation. Anchorage failure by concrete breakout near the free
edge is not considered in this research.
Cast-in-place and adhesive anchor diameters of 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm were
used. According to the design guidelines of ASTM A 307, the recommended effective
embedment depths are 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm for the 12.7-mm 15.9-mm and
19.1-mm diameters anchors, respectively were used for the analysis (Bridge Design Aids,
2012). In this research, anchor embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and
152.4 mm were investigated for each anchor diameter to investigate the influence of
various embedment depths (the recommended, less than the recommended and higher than
92
the recommended embedment depths) on the behaviour of the anchorage to concrete
system, ultimate load, level of damage and the failure mode.
According to Hilti Inc. the minimum embedment depths for adhesive anchor diameters of
12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm are 70 mm, 79 mm and 89 mm respectively (Hilti, 2014).
Cast-in-place anchors with hexagonal head were used for the analysis. The hexagonal head
sizes (D × H) of (19 × 8) mm, (24 × 10) and (28.5 × 12) were used for anchor diameters of
12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm respectively (Cement Association of Canada, 2010).
Three nominal undercut anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm with effective
embedment depths of 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm recommended by Hilti (Hilti, 2011)
were investigated. In this research embedment depths of 100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and
250 mm were investigated for all the anchor diameters to investigate the behaviour of
anchorage system, ultimate load, failure mode and level of damage for various embedment
depths (the recommended, less than and higher than the recommended embedment depths).
The embedment depth (hef) of the undercut anchor is measured from the surface of the
concrete to the end of the sleeve.
3.8 Materials properties
The cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchorage systems consisted of steel anchor, steel
plate, washer, nut and concrete block. In addition to the adhesive material for the adhesive
anchorage system and sleeve for the undercut anchorage system. The concrete blocks were
modeled using continuous surface cap model (MAT_159) while the steel anchor, steel
plate, sleeve, washer and nut were modeled using piecewise linear plasticity model
(MAT_024). MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE (MAT_169) was used to model the adhesive
93
material. The concrete material was modeled with a density of 0.0024 g/mm3 and
compressive strength (𝑓𝑐′ ) of 30 MPa. The concrete material is assumed free from cracking
or damage, and this is implemented in the concrete material model (MAT_159) through
the pre-existing damage parameter PRED equal to zero.
For the cast-in-place and adhesive anchors the properties of the steel anchor, steel plate,
washer and nut were in accordance with ASTM A354 specification with yield strength of
896 MPa, ultimate tensile strength of 1034 MPa, density of 0.00785 g/mm3, Young’s
modulus of 200000 MPa, failure strain of 14% and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The adhesive
material was modeled with a density of 0.0012 g/mm3, tensile strength of 56 MPa, shear
strength of 44 MPa (Dogan et al., 2012), Elastic modulus of 3034 MPa and Poisson’s ratio
of 0.4.
For the undercut anchors the steel anchor, sleeve, steel plate, washer and nut were modeled
in accordance with Hilti Inc. specification with yield strength of 640 MPa and tensile
strength of 800 MPa (Hilti, 2011).
3.9 Contact modelling
There are different types of contacts that can be applied using LS-DYNA software. In
general, the contact between two surfaces can be automatic or non-automatic. Automatic
contact can be used for explicit analysis while, non-automatic contact can be used for
implicit analysis (LSTC, 2014).
94
In the present investigation, CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE was
used to define the contact interfaces between the concrete, steel anchor, washer, nut and
anchor plate for cast-in-place and undercut anchors. This contact bonds the steel anchor
and concrete surfaces. The contact algorithm is characterized by its dual treatment, where
the slave and master nodes checked against penetration in each other. Hence, the user has
flexibility to switch slave part/ master part and obtain identical behaviour. This contact
formulation is useful to prevent penetration between contacted surfaces (LSTC, 2014).
For the adhesive anchor CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_ONE_WAY_SURFACE_TO_
SURFACE_TIEBREAK was used to model the interaction between the adhesive and
anchor. The tiebreak contact is penalty-based contact which allows transmission of the
forces in normal and tangential directions and has the capability to model the failure
(LSTC, 2014a). Before failure, the tiebreak contact prevents the separation between slave
node (adhesive) and the master segment. After failure, the coupling in normal direction is
eliminated and the contact behaves as surface to surface contact with thickness offset
(LSTC, 2014). CONTACT_ERODING_SINGLE_SURFACE was used to remove the
distorted elements of the adhesive material. ENMASS parameter is set equal to one in the
CONTROL_CONTACT key card to retain the mass of these removed distorted elements
and they remain active in contact (LSTC, 2014a).
CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE key card was used to model the bond
between adhesive and the concrete. The tied contact is a constrained-based contact used to
ensure that the adhesive material is tied to the concrete material with no gap (LSTC, 2014).
95
The tied contact is used when the mesh sizes of two surfaces in contact are different to
ensure that the slave nodes (adhesive) located on the master segment (concrete) with no
gap (LSTC, 2014; Bala, 2008). LS-DYNA updates the coordinates of the slave nodes to be
identical on the master surface and neglect the slave nodes that are located far from the
master surface (Bala, 2008). Moreover, the tied contact allows mesh transition (Hallquist,
2006). When the failure of the elements in contact occurs, the elements in the tied contact
are automatically deleted (Chen et al., 2017). The interaction between the anchor plate,
washer, nut, steel anchor and the concrete was modeled using
CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE.
3.10 Boundary conditions
Bottom surface of the concrete block (XY plane) was fixed to prevent translational and
rotational motion during the application of loading. Due to the symmetry of the geometric
configuration of the anchorage system, a quarter of the anchorage to concrete system was
modelled to investigate the tensile behaviour while half of the anchorage to concrete system
was modelled to investigate the shear behaviour. Using the symmetry increases the
efficiency and reduces the computational time. Symmetry planes boundary conditions were
applied on the anchorage to concrete models. Two symmetry planes (XZ and YZ) boundary
conditions were applied to represent the tensile behaviour. One symmetry plane (YZ) was
applied to represent the shear behaviour. Figure 3-6 shows the geometric configuration and
boundary conditions for the anchorage system model under tensile and shear loads. Table
3-2 summarizes the boundary conditions used for the anchorage models.
96
(a) Quarter of the concrete block (b) Half of the concrete block
Figure 3-6: Boundary conditions for the anchorage models under (a) tensile load and (b)
shear load
Table 3-2: Boundary conditions of the anchorage to concrete systems
Boundary conditions *Degree of freedom

Translational Rotational
x y z rx ry rz
XZ symmetry plane 0 1 0 1 0 1
YZ symmetry plane 1 0 0 0 1 1
XY plane (at the bottom
1 1 1 1 1 1
of the concrete)
*Degree of freedom: 1= fixed, 0= free
3.10.1 Load conditions
The load in LS-DYNA can be applied using five options: BOUNDARY_SPC_SET,
INITIAL_VELOCITY, LOAD_SEGMENT_SET, LOAD_NODE_SET, and
BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET. The BOUNDARY_SPC_SET (single
point constraint) can be applied to determine the reaction force. INITIAL_VELOCITY can
be used to apply the velocity to all nodes of the object. LOAD_SEGMENT_SET can be
used to apply pressure load (Chou et al, 2004). LOAD_NODE_SET can be used to apply
97
static load (Abebe & Qiu, 2016). BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET is used
to apply the quasi static loading (Kashani et al., 2013) and dynamic loading (Abebe & Qiu,
2016) and to maintain uniform rate of velocity.
DATABASE_CROSS_SECTION_PLANE command is used to specify the location of the
applied load, where the load-displacement relation can be drawn.
BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET is used to apply the tensile and shear loads.
In this research, BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET was applied in z-direction
at the top nodes of the anchor to simulate the tensile load on the anchorage systems.
BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET was applied in y-direction on the anchor
plate to simulate the shear load on the anchorage systems. When using
BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET, velocity, or displacement can be
prescribed. The displacement is used for the implicit analysis (Maker & Zhu, 2000),
whereas the velocity is recommended for explicit analysis. The strain rate is applied using
the velocity-time curve in the DEFINE_CURVE command in LS-DYNA. The applied
strain rate can be checked using SRate in the fringe component of the LS-DYNA post
processor and history-scalar option. Also, the strain rate can be measured using
DATABASE_EXTENT_BINARY, setting the strain rate flag (STRFLG) to one and the
energy output (N3THDT) to one to minimize the output (LSTC, 2014b). In this research,
for the anchors subjected to tensile and shear loads, the strain rate has been measured using
SRate in the fringe component of the LS-DYNA post processor (Fcomp) that presents
strain rate plot and then using History-Scalar-option that plots a time history of the strain
rate (LSTC, 2014b).
98
3.11 Quasi-static simulation using LS-DYNA
Explicit LS-DYNA code is designed for dynamic analysis; however quasi-static analysis
is performed by decreasing the loading rate and scaling up the mass of the anchor, adhesive
and concrete materials by a factor of 1000. This procedure decreases the number of time
steps required, reduces the simulation time and improve the computation efficiency. To
ensure that the static analysis is achieved, the ratio of the kinetic energy to the internal
energy has to be less than 5% during the analysis (Bathe et al., 1999; El-Hage et al., 2005;
Han et al., 2007). On the other hand, implicit solver can also be used to perform the static
analysis. However, the analysis using the implicit solver generates few number of time
steps with large disk storage requirements. This increases the computation time and
requires a lot of effort and large computer capacity to complete the run and store the file.
As a result, the computational cost will increase (Jensen et al., 2007). Table 3-3 shows the
specifications for the material models used in the analysis.
Table 3-3: Material models specifications (LSTC, 2014)
Material Material Element Strain Failure Equation of Anisotropic Damage Applications

No. in title formulation rate criteria state effects
LS- effects requirement
DYNA
Piecewise Solid, beam,
24 Linear shell, SPH, Yes Yes No No No Metal, plastic
Plasticity ALE solid
Solid, thick Soil,
159 CSCM Yes Yes No No Yes
shell, SPH concrete, rock
Arup
169 Solid Yes Yes No Yes No Adhesive
Adhesive
99
3.12 Summary
This chapter presents finite element modelling for cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut
anchorage systems. The chapter started with introduction on the development of the LS-
DYNA code and its capabilities to predict the structural response under low and high strain
rates. The characteristics of the LS-DYNA finite element software package are introduced.
Implicit and explicit solvers of LS-DYNA software and their capabilities are presented.
Theoretical aspects of LS-DYNA hydrocode used to predict the dynamic response of a
structure are presented. Finite element types are introduced and selection criteria for
element type are presented. Solid elements that are used to model anchorage to concrete
system are described.
Meshing technique to discretize the model in small elements is presented. Material
constitutive models for the anchorage to concrete system are presented, followed by
selecting the suitable material models to model the concrete, steel anchor and adhesive.
Selection criteria are presented for each material model. Materials properties and design
parameters for the anchorage systems are presented. Contact keycard to model the
interaction between the materials is introduced. Boundary conditions to capture the tensile
and shear behaviour of the anchorage to concrete systems are introduced. Application of
tensile and shear loads is introduced. Performing quasi static analysis using LS-DYNA
software is presented at the end of the chapter.
100
Chapter 4 : Strain rate effect on cast-in-place anchors
4.1 Cast-in-place anchors under tensile load
4.1.1 Finite element modelling of cast-in-place anchors under tensile load
Analysis of the behaviour of cast-in-place anchors embedded into concrete under tensile
loading at different strain rates was performed using the explicit commercial finite element
code LS-DYNA (LSTC, 2014). Strain rates ranging from low (static) to high (10-5 s-1, 10-
3 -1
s , 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1) were investigated. The design parameters, materials
properties, boundary conditions and contacts for the anchorage to concrete system were
introduced in chapter 3 sections 3.7 to 3.11. The friction between the cast-in-place anchor
and the concrete and between the anchor and the anchor plate was neglected. For the cast-
in-place anchor, the anchor head has a major role on resisting the applied load on the
anchor. A schematic view of the cast-in-place anchor is shown in Figure 4-1. The geometric
configuration and boundary condition for the cast-in-place anchor model are shown in
Figure 4-2. The mesh of the concrete block was biased (refined) towards the cast-in-place
anchor and along the embedment depth to improve the accuracy of the finite element
analysis and to minimize discretization errors.
Figure 4-1: Schematic view of the cast-in-place anchor
101
(a) Concrete mesh (b) Cast-in-place anchor mesh
Figure 4-2: Geometric configuration with boundary condition of cast-in-place anchor
model
4.1.2 Validation of cast-in-place anchor model under tensile load
The finite element model was validated by comparing the ultimate tensile load obtained
from the finite element analysis with the experimental test results in the literature. Two
finite element models, representing the test specimen used by Eligehausen et al.
(Eligehausen et al., 1992) were developed and used to validate the numerical model. The
concrete block size was (4ℎ𝑒𝑓 + 200)mm × (4ℎ𝑒𝑓 + 200)mm × (2ℎ𝑒𝑓 )mm and the
steel anchor diameters were 8-mm and 24-mm with embedment depths of 50 mm and 150
mm respectively. The authors used concrete block of 31 MPa cube compressive strength
(𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ) that is approximately equivalent to 25.7 MPa cylinder compressive strength (British
Standards Institution Draft for development, 1992; Committee Euro-International du Beton
(CEB), 1994). Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed under static loading (strain
rate of 10-5 s-1).
Mesh sensitivity analysis was carried out to obtain the optimum mesh size that gives
converged results with the experimental results. Several models with different mesh sizes
102
were developed for the cast-in-place anchors. Table 4-1 presents the effect of mesh size
refinement on the ultimate tensile load for the cast-in-place anchor.
cast-in-place anchors
Model d hef Mesh size Ultimate tensile Displacement Failure
No. (mm) (mm) (mm) load (kN) (mm) mode
Anchor Concrete FEA EXP. FEA EXP.
Min. Max.
1 1 2 8 30.23 1.92 Concrete
2 8 50 1 1 8 30.45 31.48 1.87 1.68 cone
3 0.75 1 8 32.15 1.75 breakout
4 1 2 8 143.98 4.19 Concrete
5 24 150 1 1 8 147.14 152.66 4.16 4.43 cone
6 0.75 1 8 156.47 4.41 breakout
Mesh sizes of 1×2×8 mm, 1×1×8 mm and 0.75×1×8 mm were investigated. The mesh sizes
of 1×1×8 mm and 0.75×1×8 mm give ultimate load and displacement results converged to
the experimental results. The ultimate load and displacement at maximum load obtained
using mesh size of 0.75×1×8 mm were found closer 1.3% and 7.1% respectively than that
obtained using mesh size of 1×1×8 mm for the anchor diameter of 8 mm. The ultimate load
and displacement were found closer 1.3% and 6.1% respectively for the anchor diameter
of 24 mm. Mesh size of (0.75×1×8) mm exhibits good agreement with the experimental
results obtained by Eligehausen et al. (Eligehausen et al., 1992) and was selected for the
analysis.
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 present a comparison of tensile load-displacement results from
experimental tests by Eligehausen et al. (Eligehausen et al., 1992) and the finite element
analysis for anchor embedment depths of 50 mm and 150 mm respectively. Ultimate tensile
load obtained from the FEA (mesh size of 0.75×1×8 mm) was found to be 2.1% and 2.5%
103
higher than the experimental results for the 8-mm and 24-mm diameter anchors
respectively while the initial stiffness of the concrete anchorage system is almost the same.
40
mesh size (1x2) mm
mesh size (1x1) mm
35
mesh size (0.75x1) mm
Experimental
30
Tensile load (kN)
25
20
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Displacement (mm)

behaviour of 8-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 50 mm embedment depth
180
mesh size (1x2) mm
160 mesh size (1x1) mm
mesh size (0.75x1) mm
140 Experimental
120
Tensile load (kN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)

behaviour of 24-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 150 mm embedment depth
104
Concrete cone breakout failure mode was observed from the finite element analysis similar
to that obtained from the experimental tests conducted by Eligehausen et al. (Eligehausen
et al., 1992). Concrete breakout cone diameters of 160 mm and 494 mm were obtained
from the FEA analyses for 8-mm and 24-mm diameter anchors with 50 mm and 150 mm
embedment depths respectively. A good agreement was obtained with the experimental
results by Eligehausen et al. (1992) where the concrete cone breakout diameter was
reported to be less than 4hef (200 mm and 600 mm for the 8-mm and 24-mm diameter
anchors respectively).
After validation of the cast-in-place anchorage to concrete system numerical model, it was
used to investigate the effect of strain rate on the capacity of the anchorage system for
various design parameters (anchor diameter and embedment depth). The results of the
analysis are presented in the following sections.
4.1.3 Comparison of finite element results with the ACI and CCD design methods
Ultimate tensile loads obtained from the finite element analysis at the static strain rate of
10-5 s-1 were compared with the results obtained from American Concrete Institute (ACI
349-85) (Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs et al., 1995) and Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) methods.
According to ACI design method, the ultimate tensile load of the cast-in-place anchors is
the minimum of the concrete breakout load and the steel fracture load. The concrete cone
breakout failure load (𝑁𝑢𝑜 ) can be determined from Equation (4.1) (Fuchs et al., 1995).
2 𝑑
𝑁𝑢𝑜 = 0.96 √𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ℎ𝑒𝑓 (1 + ℎ ℎ ) (4.1)
𝑒𝑓
105
Where 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ is the cube compressive strength of concrete, hef is the effective embedment
depth, dh is anchor head diameter. Anchor head diameters of 19 mm, 24 mm and 28.5 mm
were used for anchor diameters of 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm respectively (Cement
Association of Canada, 2010).
The tensile load for steel anchor failure mode can be determined by Equation (4.2).
𝑁𝑢𝑜 = 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑢𝑡 (4.2)
Where 𝑁𝑢𝑜 , is the tensile load, 𝐴𝑠 is the effective cross-sectional area of the anchor, 𝑓𝑢𝑡 is
the ultimate tensile strength of the steel. The minimum value of the ultimate tensile load
obtained from Equations (4.1) and (4.2) is considered for comparing the design capacity
by the ACI method with the finite element results and presented in Table 4-2.
According to CCD Method (Ashour & Alqedra, 2005; Committee Euro-International du
Beton (CEB), 1994; Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs et al., 1995; Subramanian, 2000), the ultimate
tensile load of the cast-in-place anchors can be determined for the concrete cone breakout
from Equation 4.3.
𝑁𝑢𝑜 = 𝐾√𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ℎ1.5

𝑒𝑓 (N) (4.3)
Where
K= 13.5 for post installed anchors embedded in uncracked concrete
106
= 15.5 for the cast-in-place anchors embedded in uncracked concrete (Ashour & Alqedra,
2005; Committee Euro-International du Beton (CEB), 1994; Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs et al.,
1995; Subramanian, 2000).
Concrete cube compressive strength of 37 MPa, equivalent to a concrete cylinder
compressive strengths of 30 MPa, was used in Equation (4.1) and Equation (4.3) (British
Standards Institution Draft for development, 1992; British Standards Institution, 2013;
Committee Euro-International du Beton (CEB), 1994).
Table 4-2 presents a comparison of ultimate tensile loads obtained from the finite element
analysis, ACI and CCD methods for the cast-in-place anchors. As shown in the Table 4-2,
the ultimate tensile load increased with increasing anchor embedment depth for the finite
element analysis and the design methods. In general the results show that the ACI method
underpredicts the capacity of the anchorage system. The CCD method gives a better
agreement with the finite element method. Similar observation was reported by Fuchs et
al. (1995) where the ACI method was reported to underpredict the failure load for shallow
embedment depths and unconservative for the deep embedment depths (Fuchs et al., 1995).
design methods
*
d hef Ultimate tensile load (kN) FEA/ACI FEA/CCD Failure mode
(mm) (mm) ACI CCD FEA (FEA)
76.2 42.36 62.71 64.48 1.52 1.03 CC
101.6 71.55 96.55 98.03 1.37 1.02 S
12.7
127 108.28 130.98 98.64 0.91 0.75 S
152.4 130.98 130.98 99.86 0.76 0.76 S
107
76.2 44.59 62.71 68.61 1.54 1.09 CC
101.6 74.52 96.55 104.17 1.40 1.08 CC
15.9
127 111.98 134.94 163.26 1.46 1.21 S
152.4 156.98 177.38 166.35 1.06 0.94 S
76.2 46.59 62.71 72.88 1.56 1.16 CC
101.6 77.19 96.55 116.65 1.51 1.21 CC
19.1
127 115.32 134.94 181.29 1.57 1.34 CC
152.4 160.99 177.38 241.37 1.50 1.36 S
*
Failure mode: CC=concrete cone breakout, S=steel anchor failure
4.1.4 Effect of strain rate on the level of damage and failure mode of cast-in-place
anchors
Plastic strain contours can be used to represent level of damage for concrete (Moutoussamy
et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2012). The range of the damage in the concrete is expressed by
fringe levels associated with crack pattern. The fringe level ranges from no damage at a
value of 0 to complete damage at a value of 1.
Contours of effective plastic strain for cast-in-place anchor with diameters of 12.7-mm,
15.9-mm and 19.1-mm and different embedment depths are shown in Figure 4-5 at strain
rate of 10-5 s-1. As shown in the figure, for all embedment depths investigated, two failure
modes were observed: concrete cone breakout failure and steel anchor failure. Concrete
cone breakout failure was observed at embedment depth of 76.2 mm for all the anchor
diameters investigated. At embedment depth of 101.6 mm, concrete cone breakout failure
was observed for 15.9 mm and 19.1-mm diameter anchors while steel anchor failure was
observed for the 12.7 mm diameter anchor. With the increase in the anchor embedment
108
depth, the anchor requires higher loads to break the concrete and form concrete cone
failure. When the anchor is not capable to afford the high applied tensile load, anchor
fracture will occur.
At embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm, steel anchor failure was observed for all
anchor diameters except for anchor diameter of 19.1-mm with embedment depth of 127
mm where concrete cone breakout failure was observed. As shown in Figure 4-5, the
damage increases with the increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7-mm to 19.1-mm. The
increase in the anchor diameter increases the anchor head diameter and in turns the amount
of cracking in the concrete is increased.
d=12.7 mm d=15.9 mm d=19.1 mm
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
109
hef=152.4 mm
Figure 4-5: Plastic strain contours for cast-in-place anchor at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
Concrete cone breakout diameter (dcone) of 230 mm was obtained for the 12.7-mm diameter
anchor with embedment depth of 76.2 mm. An increase in the concrete cone breakout
diameter from 246 mm to 292 mm was obtained for the increase in the embedment depth
from 76.2 mm to 101.6 mm for the 15.9-mm diameter anchor. The increase in the concrete
cone breakout diameter was from 255 mm to 390 mm for the increase in the embedment
depth from 76.2 mm to 127 mm for the 19.1-mm diameter anchor. The concrete cone
breakout diameter increased with increase in the anchor embedment depth. Hence, the load
required to cause failure in the concrete increased due to the increase in the size of concrete
above the anchor head for the deep embedment depths. Figure 4-6 shows the relation
between the concrete cone breakout diameter, embedment depth and anchor diameter.
110
450
d=12.7 mm
400 d=15.9 mm
d=19.1 mm
350
Concrete cone diameter (mm)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
76.2 101.6 127 152.4
Embedment depth (mm)
Figure 4-6: Effect of anchor embedment depth on the concrete cone diameter
The concrete cone breakout angle was determined by measuring the angle of inclination of
the failure surface. Figure 4-7 shows the concrete cone breakout angle (𝜃𝑎 ) and the crack
propagation angle (𝜃𝑏 ). Where, the crack propagation angle is equal to 90-𝜃𝑎 . Table 4-3
shows the concrete cone breakout angle, cone diameter and corresponding failure mode for
the embedment depths and diameters of the cast-in-place anchor under tensile load
investigated. As shown in Table 4-3, average concrete cone breakout angle was 31.8o.
111
Tensile load
Failure surface
𝜃𝑏
𝜃𝑎
Figure 4-7: Cone breakout and crack propagation angles on the cast-in-place anchorage to
concrete system
Table 4-3: Concrete cone diameter and cone breakout angle for the cast-in-place anchor
at the static strain rate
hef d dcone 𝜃𝑎
Failure mode
(mm) (mm) (mm) (deg)
12.7 230 32 CC
76.2 15.9 246 32 CC
19.1 255 33 CC
12.7 - - S
101.6 15.9 292 31 CC
19.1 314 31 CC
12.7 - - S
127 15.9 - - S
19.1 390 32 CC
12.7 - - S
152.4 15.9 - - S
19.1 - - S
The failure mode of 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors with
different embedment depths at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1 is presented in
Figures 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10 respectively. At early stage of loading, cracks started to appear
above the anchor head, and with further increase in time the cracks appeared on the top
112
surface of the concrete around the anchor circumference. As shown in Figure 4-8, for the
anchor diameter of 12.7-mm with shallow embedment depth of 76.2 mm, cracks grow
along the embedment depth and transferred to a wider area on the concrete. These cracks
then propagated diagonally forming concrete cone and leads to concrete cone breakout
failure at strain rates up to 10 s-1. At high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 steel anchor
failure was observed. For embedment depths of 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm, steel
anchor failure is the dominant failure mode at the strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103
s-1.
As shown in Figure 4-9, the failure mode is concrete cone breakout failure for the anchor
diameter of 15.9-mm with embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm at strain rates of
10-3 s-1 to 10 s-1. Concrete cracking was observed at strain rate of 102 s-1 whereas steel
anchor failure was observed at strain rate of 103 s-1. For the anchor embedment depths of
127 mm and 152.4 mm steel anchor failure was observed at all the strain rates investigated.
Figure 4-10 shows concrete cone breakout failure mode for the 19.1-mm anchor diameter
with embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to
10 s-1. Concrete cracking was observed at strain rates of 102 s-1 while steel anchor failure
was observed at strain rate of 103 s-1. The increase in the strain rate increased the concrete
strength and thus resulting in steel anchor failure. At embedment depth of 127 mm concrete
cone breakout failure was observed at strain rates of 10-3 s-1 to 10 s-1. Steel anchor failure
was observed at strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1. Also, steel anchor failure was observed
at embedment depth of 152.4 mm at all the strain rates investigated.
113
hef
𝜀̇=10-3 s-1 𝜀̇=10-1 s-1 𝜀̇=10 s-1 𝜀̇=102 s-1 𝜀̇=103 s-1
(mm)
76.2
101.6
127.0
152.4
114
hef
𝜀̇=10-3 s-1 𝜀̇=10-1 s-1 𝜀̇=10 s-1 𝜀̇=102 s-1 𝜀̇=103 s-1
(mm)
76.2
101.6
127.0
152.4
115
hef
𝜀̇=10-3 s-1 𝜀̇=10-1 s-1 𝜀̇=10 s-1 𝜀̇=102 s-1 𝜀̇=103 s-1
(mm)
76.2
101.6
127.0
152.4
116
From Figures 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10, it can be seen that the failure mode is affected by the strain
rate. The increase in the strain rate decreased the concrete cone breakout diameter, however
the increase in the strain rate increased the strength of the concrete and steel resulted in
increasing the failure load. Table 4-4 shows the failure mode for cast-in-place anchors
under tensile load at different strain rates.
Table 4-4: Failure mode for cast-in-place anchors under tensile load at different strain
rates
Model d hef Failure mode*
No. (mm) (mm) Strain rate (s-1)
𝜀̇=10-5 𝜀̇=10-3 𝜀̇=10-1 𝜀̇=10 𝜀̇=102 𝜀̇=103
1 12.7 76.2 CC CC CC CC S S
2 12.7 101.6 S S S S S S
3 12.7 127.0 S S S S S S
4 12.7 152.4 S S S S S S
5 15.9 76.2 CC CC CC CC COC S
7 15.9 127.0 S S S S S S
8 15.9 152.4 S S S S S S
10 19.1 101.6 CC CC CC CC COC S
11 19.1 127.0 CC CC CC CC S S
12 19.1 152.4 S S S S S S
*
Failure mode: CC= concrete cone breakout, COC= concrete cracking, S=steel anchor failure
The crack propagation angle (𝜃𝑏 ) was measured for the cast-in-place anchors at the ultimate
tensile load and presented in Table 4-5. As shown in Table 4-5 and Figures 4-8, 4-9 and 4-
10, the crack propagation angle decreased with increasing the strain rate for the cast-in-
place anchors where concrete cone breakout failure is observed.
117
Table 4-5: Crack propagation angle for the cast-in-place anchors at different strain rates
Model d hef Crack propagation angle (deg)

𝛆̇ =10-5 𝛆̇ =10-3 𝛆̇ =10-1 𝛆̇ =10 𝛆̇ =102 𝛆̇ =103
1 12.7 76.2 58 56 53 50 - -
2 12.7 101.6 - - - - - -
3 12.7 127.0 - - - - - -
4 12.7 152.4 - - - - - -
5 15.9 76.2 58 56 53 48 - -
6 15.9 101.6 59 57 55 50 - -
7 15.9 127.0 - - - - - -
8 15.9 152.4 - - - - - -
9 19.1 76.2 57 55 50 46 - -
10 19.1 101.6 59 56 50 46 - -
11 19.1 127.0 58 55 51 48 - -
12 19.1 152.4 - - - - - -
4.1.5 Effect of design parameters on failure mode and ultimate tensile load
Figures 4-11, 4-12 and 4-13 show the effect of strain rate on the failure mode and ultimate
tensile load for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors
respectively. As shown in Figure 4-11, the tensile load increased from 64.5 kN to 79.4 kN
for the 76.2 mm embedment depth at the strain rates up to 10 s-1 where concrete cone
breakout failure was observed. At strain rate of 102 s-1 the ultimate tensile load increased
to 105.3 kN where steel anchor failure was observed. At high strain rate of 10 3 s-1
insignificant increase in the ultimate tensile load was obtained where steel anchor failure
was observed. Steel anchor failure was observed for 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm
embedment depths for all the strain rates investigated. The increase in the strain rate from
10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 increased the ultimate tensile load 12.6%, 12% and 10.6% for the anchor
embedment depths of 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm respectively.
118
300
CC, hef=76.2 mm
S, hef=76.2 mm
S, hef=101.6 mm
250 S, hef=127 mm
S, hef=152.4 mm
Ultimate tensile load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
place anchor diameter of 12.7 mm
As shown in Figure 4-12, the tensile load increased from 68.61 kN to 98.14 kN and from
104.17 kN to 128.75 kN for the 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm embedment depths as the strain
rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 10 s-1 where concrete cone breakout failure was observed.
Further increase in the strain rate to 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 increased the ultimate tensile load,
where concrete cracking and steel anchor failure were observed at strain rates of 102 s-1 and
103 s-1 respectively. Also, steel anchor failure was observed for 127 mm and 152.4 mm
embedment depths for all the strain rates investigated. The increase in the strain rate from
10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 increased the ultimate tensile load 17.4% and 16.5% for the anchor
embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm respectively.
119
300
CC, hef=76.2 mm CC, hef=101.6 mm
COC, hef= 76.2 mm COC, hef=101.6 mm
S, hef=76.2 mm S, hef=101.6 mm
250
S, hef=127 mm S, hef=152.4 mm

200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
As shown in Figure 4-13, the tensile load increased with the increase in the strain rates up
to 10 s-1 for anchor embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm and 127 mm where concrete
cone breakout failure was observed. The ultimate tensile load increased with further
increase in the strain rate to 102 s-1 where concrete cracking was observed for embedment
depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm while steel anchor failure was observed for embedment
depth of 127 mm. At high strain rate of 103 s-1, the ultimate tensile load increased where
steel anchor failure was observed. Also, steel anchor failure was observed for 152.4 mm
embedment depth at all the strain rates investigated with an increase in the ultimate tensile
load of 13.4%.
120
350
CC, hef=76.2 mm CC, hef=101.6 mm CC, hef=127 mm
COC, hef=76.2 mm COC, hef=101.6 mm S, hef=76.2 mm
300 S, hef=101.6 mm S, hef=127 mm S, hef=152.4 mm
Ultimate tensile load (kN) 250
200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
4.1.6 Effect of anchor embedment depth on the concrete cone depth
Figures 4-14, 4-15 and 4-16 show the effect of anchor embedment depth on concrete cone
depth and ultimate tensile load for 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place
anchors respectively. Different concrete cone depths are obtained from the models for
tension response at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 for the embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm,
127 mm, and 152.4 mm. As shown in Figure 4-14, for the 12.7-mm diameter cast-in-place
anchor, concrete cone breakout is obtained at embedment depth of 76.2 mm. For anchor
embedment depths of 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm steel anchor failure mode was
observed. For the anchor diameter of 15.9-mm (Figure 4-15), concrete cone breakout
failure is obtained for the embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm whereas steel
121
anchor failure is observed for the embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm. For the
19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor, as shown in Figure 4-16, the concrete cone depth
increased with the increase in the embedment depth from 76.2 mm to 127 mm where
concrete cone breakout failure was observed. Steel anchor failure was observed at
embedment depth of 152.4 mm. From Figures 4-14, 4-15 and 4-16, it can be seen that the
ultimate tensile load increases with the increase in the anchor diameter. Also, the ultimate
tensile load increased with the increase in the embedment depth when the concrete cone
breakout failure or transition from concrete cone breakout failure to steel anchor failure is
observed.
270 140
cone depth
240 Ultimate tensile load

120
210
Concrete cone depth (mm)

100
180
150 80
120 60
90
40
60
20
30
0 0
76.2 101.6 127 152.4
tensile load for 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor
122
270 140
cone depth
120
210
100

180
150 80
120 60
90
40
60
20
30
0 0
76.2 101.6 127 152.4
270 140
cone depth
120
210

100
180
150 80
120 60
90
40
60
20
30
0 0
76.2 101.6 127 152.4
123
4.1.7 Effect of strain rate on concrete cone breakout diameter
Figure 4-17 shows the displacement contours for 15.9-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor
with embedemnt depth of 76.2 mm under tensile load at strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-
1
s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1. As shown in the figure, the increase in the strain rate
decreased the concrete cone breakout diameter. The decrease in the concrete cone breakout
diameter is significant at strain rate of 102 s-1 while steel anchor failure is observed at
highest strain rate of 103 s-1.
(a) 𝜀̇ =10-5 s-1 (b) 𝜀̇ =10-3 s-1
(c) 𝜀̇ =10-1 s-1 (d) 𝜀̇ =10 s-1
(e) 𝜀̇ =102 s-1 (f) 𝜀̇ =103 s-1

Figure 4-17: Displacement contours of 15.9 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at strain
rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1
124
4.1.8 Effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of cast-in-place anchors
Tensile behaviour of cast-in-place anchor embedded into concrete was investigated at
strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. Figures 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22 and 4-23
present the load-displacement response for the 12.7-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor at
strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 respectively. The
displacement in the z-direction (shown in Figure 4-2) was measured at the top of the anchor
using History-Nodal-z-displacement in LS-DYNA post processor.
120
hef= 76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef= 127 mm
hef= 152.4 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
125
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
100
hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)

80
60
40
20
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
126
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
100
hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)

80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
at strain rate of 10 s-1
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
127
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4-23: Tensile load-displacement graph for 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place

anchor at strain rate of 103 s-1
As shown from the figures, the tensile load increased with the displacement until it reaches
the ultimate load, then the load decreased with further increase in displacement until
failure. The increase in the embedment depth from 76.2 mm to 101.6 mm shows an increase
in the ultimate tensile load for the cast in place anchor. This is attributed to the increase in
the amount of concrete above the anchor head and increase in the failure area as the
embedment depth increased. The increased failure surface area results in increased loads
required to breakout the concrete. Same trend for the effect of anchor embedment depth on
the tensile load was reported by Eligehausen et al. (Eligehausen et al., 1992). The increase
in embedment depth from 101.6 mm to 152.4 mm show very little increase in the ultimate
tensile load of the cast-in-place concrete anchorage system as the failure mode was by steel
anchor failure. As the strain rate increased the failure mode transitions from concrete cone
128
breakout failure to steel anchor failure. At this point the ultimate failure load of the
anchorage systems is the same irrespective of embedment depth. This trend is observed at
strain rate of 102 s-1 and higher for 12.7-mm diameter anchor.
In general, the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 increases the ultimate tensile
load. The ultimate tensile load increased from 64.48 kN to 110.13 kN for the anchor
embedment depth of 76.2 mm when the strain rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. The
load-displacement response of the cast-in-place anchorage system at increased strain rate
of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 is characterized by a linear response to the peak load and then shows
a drop in load.
Tensile load-displacement response of the 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place
anchors with embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm at strain
rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 show similar trends to the 12.7-
mm diameter anchor and are presented in Appendix C.
Tables 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8 show the ultimate tensile load (Fu) and corresponding
displacements (𝛿) for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors
at strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. As shown in the tables, the increase in the
strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 increases the ultimate tensile load for the cast-in-place
anchors.
129
in-place anchor
*
Model d hef 𝜀̇ Fu 𝛿 Failure
No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) (kN) (mm) mode
1 76.2 64.48 3.91 CC
2 101.6 98.03 5.82 S
12.7 10-5
3 127 98.64 6.72 S
4 152.4 99.86 7.62 S
5 76.2 68.63 5.46 CC
6 101.6 101.05 6.22 S
12.7 10-3
7 127 101.37 7.35 S
8 152.4 102.63 8.49 S
9 76.2 72.16 5.89 CC
10 101.6 103.55 7.07 S
12.7 10-1
11 127 103.74 7.74 S
12 152.4 104.10 8.47 S
13 76.2 79.39 5.49 CC
14 12.7 101.6 104.13 7.76 S
10
15 127 104.76 8.01 S
16 152.4 106.75 9.19 S
17 76.2 105.30 1.65 S
18 101.6 108.28 1.88 S
12.7 102
19 127 108.48 1.89 S
20 152.4 108.41 1.88 S
21 76.2 110.13 0.93 S
22 101.6 110.40 0.94 S
12.7 103
23 127 110.49 0.97 S
24 152.4 110.42 0.98 S
in-place anchor
*
1 76.2 68.61 1.34 CC
2 101.6 104.17 3.77 CC
15.9 10-5
3 127 163.26 6.23 S
4 152.4 166.35 7.14 S
5 15.9 76.2 10-3 76.32 3.20 CC
130
6 101.6 110.25 3.86 CC
7 127 170.01 7.54 S
8 152.4 171.81 8.17 S
9 76.2 83.96 3.08 CC
10 101.6 116.33 6.22 CC
15.9 10-1
11 127 173.22 7.68 S
12 152.4 177.95 8.58 S
13 76.2 98.14 3.67 CC
14 101.6 128.75 6.91 CC
15.9 10
15 127 174.02 8.06 S
16 152.4 178.35 9.29 S
17 76.2 144.46 1.05 COC
18 101.6 152.52 1.32 COC
15.9 102
19 127 183.74 1.54 S
20 152.4 184.52 1.30 S
21 76.2 191.15 1.24 S
22 101.6 191.71 1.39 S
15.9 103
23 127 191.73 1.36 S
24 152.4 193.82 1.41 S
in-place anchor
*
1 76.2 72.88 0.82 CC
2 101.6 116.65 1.31 CC
19.1 10-5
3 127 181.29 2.76 CC
4 152.4 241.37 6.91 S
5 76.2 83.09 1.76 CC
6 101.6 128.44 3.45 CC
19.1 10-3
7 127 189.80 4.63 CC
8 152.4 251.55 6.88 S
131
9 76.2 96.94 1.90 CC
10 101.6 138.88 3.98 CC
19.1 10-1
11 127 201.63 5.59 CC
12 152.4 258.58 7.82 S
13 76.2 126.83 2.14 CC
14 101.6 155.88 3.55 CC
19.1 10
15 127 218.48 4.19 CC
16 152.4 263.37 7.09 S
17 76.2 191.30 1.70 COC
18 101.6 192.14 1.98 COC
19.1 102
19 127 268.75 2.19 S
20 152.4 269.15 2.25 S
21 76.2 272.09 1.74 S
22 101.6 273.78 2.07 S
19.1 103
23 127 273.95 1.83 S
24 152.4 273.79 1.93 S
Tables 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8 show that the increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to
19.1 mm increased the ultimate tensile load for all the embedment depths and strain rates
investigated. The increase in the anchor diameter requires larger anchor head that increase
the bearing area above the anchor head and the failure surface area. Also, it can be seen
that the embedment depth has a greater effect on the ultimate tensile load at the same strain
rate when concrete cone breakout failure is the dominant failure mode. However, the
increase in the embedment depth has no influence on the ultimate tensile load when steel
anchor failure is the dominant failure mode. The increase in the ultimate tensile load with
the increase in the strain rate is attributed to the increase in concrete resistance under
increased strain rate (Ožbolt et al., 2006; Sato et al., 2004; Solomos and Berra, 2006).
132
4.1.9 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and dynamic increase factor of
Investigating the influence of strain rate on the behaviour of anchors is necessary to predict
a suitable DIF that can be used for design of anchorage systems subjected to different strain
rates. The ratio of the dynamic to static strength of the cast-in-place anchor is defined as
the dynamic increase factor (DIF). A safe and economical design of the anchors under
dynamic loading can be achieved by applying the DIF to the ultimate load measured under
static loading (Braimah et al., 2009). The DIF can be used to represent the effect of strain
rate on concrete strength (compressive and tensile), yield and ultimate strength of steel
(Malvar and Crawford, 1998; Murray, 2007; Solomos and Berra, 2006; Zhou et al., 2008).
The common approach to model the effect of strain rate on the concrete under tension and
compression loading is proposed by Committee Euro International du Beton (CEB) code
that introduced equations to predict the DIF of the concrete subjected to different strain
rates (Malvar & Ross, 1998). The CEB proposed equations demonstrate that the DIF is a
power function of the strain rate ratio (Malvar & Crawford, 1998; Malvar & Ross, 1998;
Gebbeken & Ruppert, 2000). In this research, in order to predict the increase in strength of
anchorage system due to increase in the steel and concrete strength with the increase in the
strain rate, DIF for the anchorage to concrete system was investigated. The lowest strain
rate of 10-5 s-1 is representative of static loading and will be used as the baseline for
comparison with cast-in-place anchor capacity at the higher strain rates for the anchors
exhibiting concrete cone breakout failure. For the anchors exhibiting steel failure mode at
strain rate higher than 10-5 s-1, the dynamic increase factor is taken as the ratio of ultimate
dynamic load to the ultimate static steel failure load.
133
Figures 4-24, 4-25, 4-26 and 4-27 present the ultimate tensile load and DIF plotted as a
function of the strain rate for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place
anchors with embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm
respectively. As shown in the figures, the ultimate tensile load increases with increase in
the anchor diameter from 12.7-mm to 19.1-mm. It can be seen from Figures 4-24 and 4-
25, the ultimate tensile load versus strain rate relationship is bilinear with a change in slope
at strain rate of 10 s-1 for anchor diameters of 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm. The ultimate tensile
load increases with increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 10 s-1. A significant increase
in the ultimate tensile load is observed when the strain rate increased from 10 s-1 to 103 s-1
for anchor diameters of 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm. The increase in the strain rate from 102 s-1
to 103 s-1 for the anchor diameter of 12.7-mm with embedment depth of 76.2 mm has a
slight influence on the ultimate tensile load where steel anchor failure is observed (Figure
4-24). For the anchor diameter of 12.7-mm with embedment depth of 101.6 mm (Figure 4-
25), an increase in the ultimate tensile load from 98.03 kN to 110.4 kN (12.6% increase)
was obtained where steel anchor failure is observed at all strain rates investigated.
Figure 4-24 is representative of DIF of anchorage systems failing by concrete cone
breakout. It can be seen from Figure 4-24 for anchor embedment depth of 76.2 mm the DIF
increased with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 102 s-1 for all anchor diameters,
except for anchor diameter of 12.7 mm where the dynamic increase factor is measures as
the ratio of the dynamic load to the steel failure load. The increase in the strain rate from
10-5 s-1 to 10-1 s-1 increased the DIF from 1 to 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 for the anchor diameters of
12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm respectively. The increase in the strain rate from 10 s-1
134
to 102 s-1 increased the DIF significantly from 1.43 to 2.11 and 1.74 to 2.62 for the anchor
diameters of 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm respectively. For the anchor diameter of 12.7 mm, DIF
of 1.07 was obtained where steel failure was observed. At high strain rate of 103 s-1, DIF
of 1.12, 1.17 and 1.13 were obtained for the anchor diameters of 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and
19.1-mm respectively where steel failure was observed.
Figure 4-25 for anchor embedment depth of 101.6 mm shows that the DIF increased with
the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 102 s-1 for the 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter
cast-in-place anchors where concrete cone failure was observed. At high strain rate of 103
s-1, DIF of 1.17 and 1.13 were obtained for the anchor diameters of 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm
where steel failure was observed. A slight increase in the DIF to 1.13 was obtained for the
anchor diameter of 12.7 mm with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 where
steel anchor failure was the dominant failure mode at all the strain rates investigated. This
increase is attributed to the increase in the strength of steel with the increase in the strain
rate.
135
350 4.0
DIF, d=12.7 mm DIF, d=15.9 mm DIF, d=19.1 mm
Fu, d=12.7 mm Fu, d=15.9 mm Fu, d=19.1 mm 3.5

300
Ultimate tensile load, Fu (kN) 3.0
Dynamic increase factor (DIF)

250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
of 76.2 mm embedment depth
350 4.0
Fu, d=12.7 mm Fu, d=15.9 mm Fu, d=19.1 mm
300 3.5
3.0

Ultimate tensile load, Fu (kN)
250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
136
As shown in Figure 4-26 for the embedment depth of 127 mm, the ultimate tensile load
increased 12% and 17.4% as the strain rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for anchor
diameters of 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm respectively. For the cast-in-place anchor diameter of
19.1-mm, the ultimate tensile load increased 20.5% when the strain rate increased from 10-
5
s-1 to 10 s-1 where concrete cone breakout failure was observed. The increase in the
ultimate load was 25.4% when the strain rate increased from 10 s-1 to 103 s-1. Transition
from concrete cone breakout to steel anchor failure was observed at strain rate of 10 2 s-1.
DIF of 1.12 and 1.17 are obtained when the strain rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for
anchor diameters of 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm respectively. For anchor diameter of 19.1 mm
the DIF increased to 1.21 at strain rate of 10 s-1 where concrete cone breakout failure is
observed. The DIF of 1.11 and 1.13 were obtained at strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 where
steel anchor failure is observed.
350 4.0
300 3.5
3.0

250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
of 127 mm embedment depth
137
As shown in Figure 4-27, at embedment depth of 152.4 mm, the ultimate tensile load
increased 10.6%, 16.5% and 13.4% for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-
in-place anchors when the strain rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 where the steel
fracture is the dominant failure mode. It can be seen that, approximately linear relation is
obtained between the ultimate tensile load and the strain rate. Figure 4-27 is representative
of the DIF of cast-in-place anchorage system failing by steel anchor fracture. DIF of 1.11,
1.17 and 1.13 were obtained for anchor diameters of 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm with
embedment depth of 152.4 mm at high strain rate of 103 s-1.
350 4.0
300 3.5
3.0

250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
It can be seen that maximum tensile loads of 110.42 kN, 193.82 kN and 273.79 kN were
obtained at high strain rate of 103 s-1 and embedment depth of 152.4 mm for the 12.7-mm,
15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors respectively.

138
The increase in the ultimate load with the increase in strain rate is attributed to the fact that
the strain rate has an effect on the mechanical properties of the concrete and steel materials.
For the concrete material, the tensile and compressive strengths increase with the increase
in the strain rate (Hentz et al., 2004). Hence, the concrete resistance increase results in
increase of the ultimate load capacity of the anchorage system. Also, increasing the strain
rate increases the modulus of elasticity of the concrete (Shkolnik, 2008) and its energy
absorption capacity (Bischoff & Perry, 1991). Moreover, the yield and ultimate strength of
the steel increase with increase in the strain rate (Fu et al., 1991). This is due to the increase
in the deformations and dislocations of steel at high strain rate. The strain rate has an effect
on the microstructure of the steel, increasing the strain rate resulted in increasing the
deformation level (Lee et al., 2007). In general, the DIF increased with the increase in the
strain rate where the concrete and steel strengths increased with the increase in strain rate.
The increase in the tensile strength of concrete with the increase in the strain rate is higher
than that for the steel (Malvar & Ross, 1998; Malvar & Crawford, 1998). Hence, maximum
DIF of 1.23 was obtained for anchor diameter of 12.7 mm with embedment depth of 76.2
mm at strain rate of 10 s-1 where concrete cone breakout failure was observed. Maximum
DIF of 2.11 and 2.62 were obtained for the anchor diameters of 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm
respectively with anchor embedment depth of 76.2 mm at high strain rate of 102 s-1.
The DIF of cast-in-place anchors at different strain rates can be represented as a function
of the strain rate ratio in accordance with Equation (4.4).
𝐹𝑢𝑑 𝜀̇ 𝐵
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = = 𝐴 ( 𝜀𝑑̇ ) (4.4)
𝐹𝑢𝑠 𝑠
139
𝜀̇ 𝐵
𝐹𝑢𝑑 = 𝐹𝑢𝑠 ∙ 𝐴 ( 𝜀𝑑̇ ) (4.5)
𝑠
Where
𝐹𝑢𝑠 , 𝐹𝑢𝑑 are the ultimate static and dynamic tensile loads of the anchorage to concrete
systems respectively. A and B are constants to be determined from experimental or
numerical parametric studies, and 𝜀𝑠̇ and 𝜀𝑑̇ are the static and dynamic strain rates
respectively.
Table 4-9 shows the maximum DIF for the cast-in-place anchors under tensile load where
concrete cone breakout failure and steel anchor failure modes were observed.
Table 4-9: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the cast-in-place anchors under tensile
load
Model d hef 𝜀̇ (s-1) DIF 𝜀̇ (s-1) DIF
No. (mm) (mm) CC S
1 12.7 76.2 10 1.23 103 1.12
2 12.7 101.6 - - 103 1.13
3 12.7 127.0 - - 103 1.12
4 12.7 152.4 - - 103 1.11
5 15.9 76.2 10 1.43 103 1.17
6 15.9 101.6 10 1.24 103 1.17
7 15.9 127.0 - - 103 1.17
3
8 15.9 152.4 - - 10 1.17
9 19.1 76.2 10 1.74 103 1.13
10 19.1 101.6 10 1.34 103 1.13
11 19.1 127.0 10 1.21 103 1.13
12 19.1 152.4 - - 103 1.13
140
4.1.10 Regression Analysis for cast-in-place anchors under tensile load
To develop an accurate predictive model based on the finite element results for determining
the DIF of the cast-in-place anchorage to concrete systems, regression analysis was
performed. The DIF is plotted as a function of the strain rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) based on the
numerical results obtained to account for the effect of the strain rate on the ultimate tensile
load. Where the strain rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) is the ratio of dynamic strain rate (𝜀̇𝑑 ) to the static
strain rate (𝜀̇𝑠 ). Average value of the DIF for the cast-in-place anchorage systems with
anchor diameters of 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm was calculated to adjust the DIF for
the effect of anchor diameter. Figure 4-28 shows the relation between the DIF and the strain
rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure
mode. The increase in the strain rate increased the strengths of concrete and steel materials
resulted in increasing the ultimate load and the DIF. Figure 4-29 shows the relation between
the DIF and the strain rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited steel anchor
failure mode.
141
3.0
Concrete cone breakout
2.5

2.0
y = 1.1142e6E-08x
R² = 0.727
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 4-28: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for cast-in-place anchor exhibiting
concrete cone breakout failure
2.4
Steel failure
2.0
1.6
y = 0.9978x0.0064
1.2 R² = 0.9076
0.8
0.4
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 4-29: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for cast-in-place anchor exhibiting steel
failure
142
Various regression models; exponential, linear, logarithmic and power models were used
to develop a formula that relates the DIF with the strain rate as shown in Tables 4-10 and
4-11 for concrete cone breakout and steel anchor failure respectively. The adequacy of the
predicted model is verified according to the following tests: calculating coefficient of
determination R2 and residual analysis (Montgomery, 2013). A good probability
distribution of the results is obtained when the coefficient of determination (R2) is closer
to one (Ceci et al., 2012).
cast-in-place anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure under tensile load
Statistical models Formulae Coefficient of determination (R2)

𝜀̇
Exponential 6E−08( 𝑑 ) 0.727
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.1142𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 9𝐸 − 08 ( ) + 1.1158 0.726
𝜀̇𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
Logarithmic 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.0435𝑙𝑛 ( ) + 0.8996 0.519
𝜀̇𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑 0.0313
Power 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9442 ( ) 0.640
𝜀̇𝑠
cast-in-place anchors exhibited steel failure under tensile load

𝜀̇
Exponential 9E−10( 𝑑 ) 0.600
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.0505𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 9𝐸 − 10 ( ) + 1.051
𝜀̇𝑠 0.618
𝜀̇
Logarithmic 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.0068𝑙𝑛 ( 𝜀̇ 𝑑 ) +0.9964
𝑠 0.899
𝜀̇𝑑 0.0064
Power 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9978 ( )
𝜀̇𝑠 0.908
143
As shown in Tables 4-10 and 4-11, the highest coefficients of determination of 73% and
91% are obtained from the exponential model and power model for the concrete cone
breakout and steel anchor failure modes respectively. The exponential model can represent
73% and 91% of the total variation between the DIF obtained from the finite element
analysis and the predicted values for the concrete cone breakout and steel anchor failure
modes respectively. The predicted formulae for the DIF can be presented in Equations (4.6)
and (4.7) for the concrete cone breakout and steel anchor failure modes respectively as
follows:
𝜀̇
6E−08( 𝑑 )
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.1142𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠 (4.6)
𝜀̇ 0.0064
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9978 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (4.7)
𝑠
Where 𝜀̇𝑠 is the static strain rate=10-5 s-1, 𝜀̇𝑑 is the dynamic strain rate ranging from 10-3 s-
1
to 103 s-1.
The proposed Equations (4.6) and (4.7) can be used to predict the ultimate dynamic load
(𝐹𝑢𝑑 ) for the concrete cone breakout and steel anchor failure modes respectively as
follows:
𝜀̇
6E−08( 𝑑 )
𝐹𝑢𝑑 = 𝐹𝑢𝑠 × 1.1142𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠 (4.8)
𝜀̇ 0.0064
𝐹𝑢𝑑 = 𝐹𝑢𝑠 × 0.9978 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (4.9)
𝑠
144
Where the ultimate static load (𝐹𝑢𝑠 ) can be determined from Equations 4.1 and 4.3 for the
concrete cone breakout and from Equation (4.2) for steel anchor failure mode.
Residual analysis has been performed to measure the difference between the results
obtained from finite element analysis of the cast-in-place anchors under tensile load and
fitted results of DIF obtained from Equations (4.6) and (4.7). Where the residual is the
difference between the observed values (FEA results) and the predicted values (obtained
from the equations). The residual plots are presented in Figures 4-30 and 4-31.
2
1.5
0.5
Residuals
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09
Strain rate ratio
Figure 4-30: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited
concrete cone breakout failure
145
2
Steel failure
1.5
0.5
Residuals
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
1.E-2 1.E+0 1.E+2 1.E+4 1.E+6 1.E+8 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 4-31: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited steel
failure
As shown in Figure 4-30, for the concrete cone breakout failure the variance in the residual
increases with the increase in the strain rate ratio. For the steel anchor failure (Figure 4-
31), the residual exhibited horizontal trend line at strain rate ratio up to 108.
In addition, to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed equations, new cast-in-place anchor
models with diameters of 9.5 mm, 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm and embedment depths
of 89 mm, 114 mm and 140 mm were developed. The relation between the DIF results of
the newly developed numerical models and the regression models (Equations (4.6) and
(4.7)) are presented as shown in Figures 4-32 and 4-33 for the concrete cone breakout
failure and steel failure modes respectively. As shown in the Figure 4-32, the DIF is
observed distributed around the equality line with some divergence for the anchors
146
exhibited concrete cone breakout failure for the higher values of the DIF where the residual
increased at higher strain rates. For the anchors exhibited steel failure as shown in Figure
4-33, the DIF is distributed around the equality line.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
DIF (Predicted)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
DIF (FEA)
Figure 4-32: DIF obtained from the finite element analysis versus the predicted DIF for
the cast-in-place anchor exhibited concrete cone breakout failure
147
2.2
Steel failure
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
DIF (Predicted)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
DIF (FEA)
the cast-in-place anchor exhibited steel failure
In order to verify the results obtained from the finite element analysis, a comparison has
been made between the ultimate dynamic load obtained from the finite element analysis
for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure and the proposed
Equation by Fujikake et al. (Equation (4.10)) (Fujikake et al., 2003). Fujikake et al. (2003)
proposed an equation to determine the ultimate dynamic cone resistance for the shallow
embedment depths (Fujikake et al., 2003) as follows:
𝛼
𝐹𝑐𝑑 = 𝐴𝑒 . 𝐹𝑡𝑑 . (4.10)
√ℎ𝑒𝑓
𝐴𝑒 = 𝜋. ℎ𝑒𝑓 . 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃(𝑑 + ℎ𝑒𝑓 . 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃) (4.11)
148
Where, 𝐹𝑡𝑑 is determined according to the proposed equation by Ross et al. (1989) (Ross
et al., 1989) as follows:
𝐹𝑡𝑑 𝜀̇
= 𝑒𝑥𝑝 [0.00126(𝑙𝑜𝑔10 𝜀̇𝑑 )3.373 ] (4.12)
𝐹𝑠 𝑠
𝐹𝑠 = 0.23(𝑓𝑐′ )2/3 (4.13)
Where Fcd is the ultimate dynamic concrete cone breakout, 𝐴𝑒 is the projected area of
concrete cone failure, 𝛼 =3.48 ×10-3, 𝜃 is the crack propagation angle (𝜃 = 60𝑜 ), where
the concrete cone breakout angle is equal to 30o. Fs and Ftd are the static and dynamic
tensile strength of concrete respectively. Table 4-12 shows a comparison of the ultimate
dynamic load obtained from the finite element analysis and the proposed equation by
Fujikake et al. (Fujikake et al., 2003). As shown in the table, the FEA results for the anchors
overpredict the ultimate load obtained by Fujikake et al. prediction equation.
149
Table 4-12: Comparison between ultimate dynamic load obtained from the FEA and proposed equations by Fujikake et al. (2003) for
the cast-in-place anchor exhibited concrete cone breakout failure
d hef 𝜺̇ 𝒔 𝜺̇ 𝒅 𝜺̇ 𝒅 ⁄𝜺̇ 𝒔 FEA Fud Fud Fud FEA/

Fus Fud Regression Fujikake Fud Fujikake
(mm) (mm) -1
(s ) -1
(s )
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
12.7 76.2 10-5 10-3 102 64.48 68.63 71.84 53.80 1.28
12.7 76.2 10-5 10-1 104 64.48 72.16 71.89 60.79 1.19
15.9 76.2 10-5 10-3 102 68.61 76.32 76.45 54.99 1.39
15.9 76.2 10-5 10-1 104 68.61 83.96 76.49 62.13 1.35
15.9 101.6 10-5 10-3 102 104.17 110.25 116.07 82.38 1.34
15.9 101.6 10-5 10-1 104 104.17 116.33 116.14 93.09 1.25
19.1 76.2 10-5 10-3 102 72.88 83.09 81.20 56.18 1.48
19.1 76.2 10-5 10-1 104 72.88 96.94 81.25 63.48 1.53
19.1 101.6 10-5 10-3 102 116.65 128.44 129.97 83.76 1.53
19.1 101.6 10-5 10-1 104 116.65 138.88 130.05 94.64 1.47
*
Fus FEA: ultimate static load obtained from FEA, Fud FEA: ultimate dynamic load obtained from FEA
150
4.2 Cast-in-place anchors under shear load
4.2.1 Finite element modelling for cast-in-place anchors under shear load
Analysis on the behaviour of cast-in-place anchors embedded into concrete under shear
load at different strain rates was performed using the explicit commercial finite element
code LS-DYNA (LSTC, 2014). Figure 4-34 shows the geometric configuration and
boundary conditions for the cast-in-place anchor model for investigating shear behaviour.
(a) Concrete mesh (b) Cast-in-place anchor mesh
Figure 4-34: Geometric configuration of cast-in-place anchor model under shear load
4.2.2 Validation of cast-in-place anchor model under shear load
The finite element model was validated by modeling the specimens in an experimental
investigation by Ueda et al. (1991) and comparing ultimate shear loads obtained from the
analysis with experimental tests. Two finite element models, representative of the test
specimens of Ueda et al. (1991) were developed. Two edge distances of 56 mm and 106
mm in the parallel direction (c1) to direction of the applied load and a larger edge distance
151
perpendicular to the applied shear load direction (c2) were investigated. Figure 4-35 shows
the direction of the applied load and the edge distances c1 and c2.
Figure 4-35: Applied shear load in the direction parallel to the edge distance c1 and
perpendicular to the edge distance c2
The anchors had a diameter of 16-mm and embedment depth of 200 mm and were cast into
concrete with compressive cylinder strength of 24 MPa. Mesh sensitivity analysis was
performed to determine the suitable mesh size that can best represent the experimental
results. The load-displacement relation was not presented in the experimental work
conducted by Ueda et al., hence the ultimate shear loads were considered for comparison
purpose. Table 4-13 presents a comparison of ultimate shear load from experimental tests
by Ueda et al. (Ueda et al., 1991) and finite element analysis (FEA) results under static
shear loading. Mesh sizes of 1×2×8 mm, 1×1×8 mm and 0.75×1×8 mm were investigated.
As shown in Table 4-13 the finite element analysis results with the mesh sizes of 1×1×8
mm and 0.75×1×8 mm give converged ultimate shear load results to the experimental
results with a percentage difference of 4.5% and 2.9% respectively for the edge distance of
56 mm and a percentage difference of 4.1% and 3.2% for the edge distance of 106 mm.
The finite element analysis results with mesh size of 0.75 mm for the steel anchor and a
152
biased mesh from 1 to 8 mm for the concrete show good agreement with the experimental
results and was selected for the analysis.
cast-in-place anchor
Model c1 Mesh size Ultimate shear load Failure mode
No. (mm) (mm) (kN)
Anchor Concrete FEA EXP.
Min. Max.
1 1 2 8 12.75 Concrete
56
2 1 1 8 13.11 13.70 cone
3 0.75 1 8 14.10 breakout
4 1 2 8 36.82 Concrete
5 106 1 1 8 38.05 39.60 cone
6 0.75 1 8 40.88 breakout
4.2.3 Comparison of finite element results with design method
When the anchors are installed far from the concrete free edge and subjected to shear
loading, pryout failure and or steel anchor failure are the dominant failure modes. The
pryout failure load of the anchor can be calculated according to ACI 318 (ACI Committee
318, 2011) as in Equation (4.14).
𝑉𝑐𝑝 = 𝑘𝑐𝑝 𝑁𝑐𝑏 (4.14)
where
1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑓 < 63.5 𝑚𝑚

𝑘𝑐𝑝 = { (4.15)
2 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑓 ≥ 63.5 𝑚𝑚
and
153
𝐴
𝑁𝑐𝑏 = 𝐴 𝑁 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑁 ∙ 𝜓𝑐,𝑁 ∙ 𝜓𝑐𝑝,𝑁 ∙ 𝑁𝑏 (4.16)
𝑁𝑜
𝑁𝑏 = 𝐾 √𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ℎ1.5
𝑒𝑓 (4.17)
𝑁𝑐𝑏 is the concrete tensile breakout capacity for the anchor, 𝐴𝑁 is the actual projected area,
𝐴𝑁𝑜 is the projected area for the failure surface of concrete, 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑁 is a modification factor
accounting for edge effects, 𝜓𝑐,𝑁 is a modification factor accounting for cracking, 𝜓𝑐𝑝,𝑁 is
a modification factor accounting for post-installed anchors embedded in concrete without
reinforcement, 𝑁𝑏 is the basic concrete breakout strength of a single anchor, 𝑘𝑐𝑝 is a
modification factor for embedment depth effects. K=15.5 for the cast-in-place anchors and
13.5 for post installed anchors (Fuchs et al., 1995).
The steel anchor failure for cast-in-place headed bolt can be calculated according to ACI
318 as in Equation (4.18) (ACI Committee 318, 2011).
𝑉𝑢 = 0.6 𝐴𝑠 ∙ 𝐹𝑢𝑡 (4.18)
where
As is the effective cross section area of the anchor, Fut is ultimate tensile strength of the
anchor.
Ultimate shear load obtained from the finite element analysis was compared with results
obtained from ACI 318 method. The anchors were embedded in 30 MPa compressive
154
strength concrete. The ultimate shear load was observed to increase with the increase of
the anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm.
Table 4-14 presents a comparison of ultimate shear load obtained from the finite element
analysis (FEA) and ACI 318 (ACI Committee 318, 2011) for the anchor diameters and
embedment depths investigated. The failure mode observed from the finite element
analysis is also presented in the Table. Minimum value of the ultimate shear load obtained
from Equations (4.14) and (4.18) is considered for comparison with the finite element
results and included in Table 4-14. It can be seen from Table 4-14 that the ACI method
underpredicts the failure load for the anchor diameter of 12.7-mm. This can be attributed
to the high bending, tensile and shear stresses that are generated in anchor diameter of 12.7-
mm due to the applied shear load where the interaction of these stresses causes steel anchor
failure. In general, the results show that the ultimate shear load obtained from the finite
element analysis is in a good agreement with the ACI 318 method.
Table 4-14: Comparison between FEA and ACI 318 method
Model d hef Failure Load FEA/ACI *Failure mode

No. (mm) (mm) (kN) (FEA)
FEA Static ACI 318
(𝜀 ̇ =10-5 s-1)
1 12.7 76.2 86.64 78.59 1.10 S
2 12.7 101.6 88.81 78.59 1.13 S
3 12.7 152.4 90.16 78.59 1.15 S
4 15.9 76.2 104.37 123.18 0.85 PR
5 15.9 101.6 118.79 123.18 0.96 S
6 15.9 152.4 120.67 123.18 0.98 S
155
7 19.1 76.2 124.18 125.43 0.99 PR
8 19.1 101.6 152.14 177.75 0.86 PR
9 19.1 152.4 174.09 177.75 0.98 S
*
Failure mode: PR=pryout, S=steel anchor failure
4.2.4 Crack pattern for cast-in-place anchors under shear load
Contours of effective plastic strain for cast-in-place anchors with different anchor
diameters and embedment depths at failure are shown in Figure 4-36 at strain rate of 10-5
s-1. Fringe levels in Figure 4-36 (level of plastic straining) represent the localized damage.
As shown in the figure, concrete pryout failure is observed at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 for
anchor diameters of 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm with embedment depth of 76.2 mm, while steel
anchor failure was observed for anchor diameter of 12.7 mm. Steel anchor failure was also
observed for all the anchor diameters at embedment depths of 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm
except for anchor diameter of 19.1 mm with embedment depth of 101.6 mm which
exhibited concrete pryout failure. This is attributed to the increase in the anchor diameter
which increased the strength of the anchor leading to initiation of cracking in the concrete
at the bottom of the anchor that propagate diagonally towards the concrete surface and
resulted in pryout failure. The pryout failure is characterized by concrete half cone breakout
behind the anchor associated with concrete cracking/crushing in front of the anchor. The
level of damage increased with the increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7-mm to 19.1
mm where more cracking was observed in the concrete.
156
d=12.7 mm d=15.9 mm d=19.1 mm
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
Figure 4-36: Plastic strain contours for cast-in-place anchor under shear load at strain rate
of 10-5 s-1
According to Zhao (Zhao, 1994) the applied shear load is transferred to the concrete
through four mechanisms. The first is the friction force between the concrete and the anchor
plate and oriented in opposite direction to the applied load (R1). The second is the reaction
force of the concrete towards the anchor bolt (R2). The third is the reaction force at the
front tip of the plate (R3). The fourth is the tensile force of the anchor bolt (R4) (Zhao,
1994). In addition, there is a reaction force on the anchor head that pushes on the concrete
resulting in concrete pryout failure (R5). Figure 4-37 presents the reaction forces on the
concrete due to the applied shear load on the anchor.
157
𝑉𝑐𝑝
𝑅1
𝑅3 𝑅 𝑅4
2
Front bearing Back bearing

𝑅5
Figure 4-37: Pryout failure mechanism of the cast-in-place anchor
The shear load applied on the anchor plate develops stresses in the concrete in front of the
anchor, produces a rotation moment of the anchor plate. As a result two forces are
developed; compression force on the concrete under the tip of the anchor plate and tensile
force in the anchor (Zhao, 1994). The stresses on the concrete in front of the anchor increase
with the increase in the applied shear load, create concrete fracture under the anchor plate
and increase the rotation of the anchor plate. As a result, half concrete cone breakout is
formed at the back side of the anchor leads to pryout failure.
4.2.5 Effect of strain rate on the level of damage and failure mode
To demonstrate the effect of strain rate on the failure mechanism and level of damage,
plastic strain contours for cast-in-place anchors subjected to different shear strain rates
were investigated. Figures 4-38, 4-39 and 4-40 present the failure mode for the 12.7-mm,
15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors respectively. As shown in Figure 4-
38, steel anchor failure is the dominant failure mode for the 12.7-mm diameter cast-in-
place anchor at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1. Also, steel anchor failure is the
158
dominant failure mode for the anchor diameter of 15.9-mm (Figure 4-39) at the strain rates
of 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1 except for embedment depth of 76.2 mm at strain rate of 10-3 s-1 where
pryout failure was observed. For the anchor diameter of 19.1 mm (Figure 4-40), pryout
failure mode was observed at embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm at strain rate
of 10-3 s-1. At early stage of loading, the cracks initiated on the top surface of the concrete
around the anchor in the direction of the applied load and propagated along the anchor
embedment depth. Cracking in the concrete was subsequently transferred to a wider area
in the concrete, leading to pryout failure. Steel anchor failure was observed at embedment
depth of 152.4 mm. At strain rate of 10-1 s-1, pryout failure mode was observed with
embedment depth of 76.2 mm while steel anchor failure was observed at embedment
depths of 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm. At strain rates of 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 steel anchor
failure was observed for all the embedment depths investigated.
𝜀̇ Failure mode
(s-1) hef=76.2 mm hef=101.6 mm hef=152.4 mm
10-3
10-1
10
159
102
103
rates
𝜀̇ Failure mode
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
rates
160
𝜀̇ Failure mode
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
rates
It can be seen from Figures 4-36, 4-38, 4-39 and 4-40 that as the anchor diameter increased
from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm cracking and level of damage in the concrete increased at all the
strain rates investigated. Also, it can be seen that the increase in the strain rate has an effect
on the failure mode of cast-in-place anchorage systems. Concrete pryout failure was
observed at strain rates of 10-5 s-1 and 10-3 s-1 for 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm diameters with 76.2
mm embedment depth. Also, pryout failure was observed for 19.1-mm diameter with
161
embedment depth of 101.6 mm at strain rates of 10-5 s-1 and 10-3 s-1. Concrete spalling
followed by steel anchor failure was observed at higher strain rates of 10-1 s-1 to 103 s-1.
In general, the faiure mode for the cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear load depends
on several factors such as edge distance, concrete compressive strength, embedment depth
to diameter ratio (ℎ𝑒𝑓 ⁄𝑑 ) and strain rate. In this section, concrete compressive strength of
30 MPa was investigated and the anchor was placed far from the free edge of the concrete.
Thus, the ratio (ℎ𝑒𝑓 ⁄𝑑 ) and strain rate are the factors that affect the failure mode and
considered for the analysis. At static strain rate of 10-5 s-1, the occurance of pryout failure
mode depends mainly on the ratio of (ℎ𝑒𝑓 ⁄𝑑 ). The failure mode is goverend by pryout
failure for the large anchor diameters with shallow embedment depths. On the other hand,
the failure mode is goverened by steel anchor failure when the embedment depth is large
enough compared to anchor diameter. Thus pryout failure mode was observed for the 15.9-
mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors for the shallow embedment depth of 76.2
mm. Also, the strain rate affect the failure mode where transition from pryout failure to
steel anchor failure is observed with the increase in the strain rate.
The steel failure process of 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 101.6 mm
embedment depth at strain rate of 10 s-1 is shown in Figure 4-41. Contours of Von Mises
stresses (MPa) are presented in the figure. As shown, the stresses are concentrated around
the top part of the anchor where the shear load is introduced followed by anchor bending
and fracturing. When the shear load is applied on the anchor plate, friction forces between
the anchor plate and the concrete surface are generated. When the applied shear load
exceeds the friction force, the anchor plate will slip and transfer the shear load to the bolt
162
(Cook et al., 2013), which in turns transfers the load to the concrete through bearing. The
concrete resists the shear forces transferred from the anchor causing concrete spall and
fracture. In addition to the shear stress on the anchor, bending and tensile stresses are also
generated. According to Cook et al., the interaction of these three stresses can lead to
anchor fracture (Cook et al., 2013).
(a) t=0.13 ms (b) t=0.66 ms (c) t= 0.84 ms (d) t=0.91 ms
Figure 4-41: Steel failure process of 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 101.6
mm embedment depth; (a) stress concentration around the anchor, (b) anchor bending, (c)
initiation of anchor fracture and (d) complete anchor fracture
The failure modes for the cast-in-place anchors at different strain rates is shown in Table
4-15. As shown in Table 4-15, at strain rates of 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1, steel anchor failure was
observed for 12.7-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor. Pryout failure mode was observed
for anchor diameters of 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm with embedment depth of 76.2 mm. Also,
pryout failure mode is observed for anchor diameter of 19.1 mm with embedment depth of
101.6 mm at strain rates of 10-5 s-1 and 10-3 s-1. Steel anchor failure is observed at the strain
163
rates of 10-1 s-1 up to 103 s-1 for all anchor diameters and embedment depths except for
anchor diameter of 19.1 mm with embedment depth of 76.2 mm at strain rate of 10-1 s-1
where pryout failure mode is observed.
Table 4-15: Failure mode for cast-in-place anchors under shear load at different strain
rates
Model d hef *
Failure mode
𝜀̇=10-5 𝜀̇=10-3 𝜀̇=10-1 𝜀̇=10 𝜀̇=102 𝜀̇=103
1 12.7 76.2 S S S S S S
2 12.7 101.6 S S S S S S
3 12.7 152.4 S S S S S S
4 15.9 76.2 PR PR S S S S
5 15.9 101.6 S S S S S S
6 15.9 152.4 S S S S S S
7 19.1 76.2 PR PR PR S S S
8 19.1 101.6 PR PR S S S S
9 19.1 152.4 S S S S S S
*
Failure mode: PR= pryout failure, S=steel anchor failure
4.2.6 Effect of design parameters on failure mode and ultimate shear load
shear load for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors
respectively. The figures indicate that the strain rate has an effect on the failure mode for
the anchor diameters of 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm where transition from pryout failure to steel
anchor failure is observed. Furthermore, the anchor diameter and embedment depth have
an effect on the failure mode. It can be seen from the figures that the ultimate shear load
increased with the increase in the strain rate for the cast-in-place anchors.
164
250
S, hef=76.2 mm S, hef=101.6 mm S, hef=152.4 mm
225
200
Ultimate shear load (kN)

175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
in-place anchor diameter of 12.7 mm
250
PR, hef=76.2 mm
225 S, hef=76.2 mm
S, hef=101.6 mm
200 S, hef=152.4 mm
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
165
250
PR, hef=76.2 mm
225 PR, hef=101.6 mm
S, hef=76.2 mm
200 S, hef=101.6 mm
S, hef=152.4 mm
Ultimate shear load (kN) 175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
4.2.7 Effect of strain rate on the shear behaviour of cast-in-place anchors
Shear behaviour of cast-in-place anchors embedded into concrete was investigated using
LS-DYNA finite element software. Strain rates ranging from low to high strain rates (10-5
s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1) were selected for the analysis. Effect of strain
rate on the shear capacity for different cast-in-place anchor diameters and embedment
depths was investigated. Load-displacement response for the 12.7-mm diameter cast-in-
place anchor at strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 is shown in
Figures 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49 and 4-50 respectively. Embedment depths of 76.2 mm,
101.6 mm and 152.4 mm were used for the analysis. The displacement in the y-direction
(shown in Figure 4-34) was measured at the top of the anchor using History-Nodal-y-
displacement in the LS-DYNA post processor.
166
140
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
120
hef=152.4 mm
Shear load (kN) 100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
strain rate of 10-5 s-1
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100
hef=152.4 mm
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
167
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=152.4 mm
80
Shear load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100
hef=152.4 mm
80
Shear load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)
strain rate of 10 s-1
168
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=152.4 mm
80
Shear load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100
hef=152.4 mm
80
Shear load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)
169
As shown from Figures 4-45 to 4-50, the increase in the strain rate increased the shear
capacity for the 12.7-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor. At strain rates of 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1,
the shear load increased with the displacement until the ultimate load was reached, and
then decreased until complete failure. This is attributed to the progressive crack
propagation in the concrete and anchor failure.
Shear load-displacement response for 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place
anchors with embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm at strain rates of 10-
5 -1
s , 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 is presented in Appendix D. Tables 4-16, 4-
17 and 4-18 present the ultimate shear load (Vu) and corresponding displacement (𝛿) for
the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors respectively.
in-place anchor
Model d hef 𝜀̇ Vu 𝛿 Failure
1 76.2 86.64 2.49 S

2 12.7 101.6 10-5 88.81 2.49 S
3 152.4 90.16 2.29 S
4 76.2 88.49 2.56 S
5 12.7 101.6 10-3 89.63 2.79 S
6 152.4 91.78 2.93 S
7 76.2 92.14 2.65 S
8 12.7 101.6 10-1 93.25 2.37 S
9 152.4 94.89 1.99 S
10 76.2 94.36 1.85 S
11 12.7 101.6 10 96.23 2.07 S
12 152.4 97.26 2.23 S
170
13 76.2 95.08 1.55 S
14 12.7 101.6 102 96.99 1.61 S
15 152.4 98.35 1.61 S
16 76.2 97.48 1.15 S
17 12.7 101.6 103 98.26 1.42 S
18 152.4 99.15 1.48 S
in-place anchor
1 76.2 104.37 2.05 PR
-5
2 15.9 101.6 10 118.79 2.42 S
3 152.4 120.67 2.53 S
4 76.2 113.74 3.67 PR
5 15.9 101.6 10-3 124.43 3.49 S
6 152.4 126.01 3.13 S
7 76.2 120.13 3.58 S
8 15.9 101.6 10-1 128.58 3.52 S
9 152.4 130.87 3.27 S
10 76.2 123.65 1.98 S
11 15.9 101.6 10 130.21 2.12 S
12 152.4 132.51 2.74 S
13 76.2 127.89 1.61 S
14 15.9 101.6 102 134.47 1.67 S
15 152.4 136.36 1.78 S
16 76.2 132.30 1.87 S
17 15.9 101.6 103 137.16 1.85 S
18 152.4 138.42 1.78 S
171
in-place anchor
1 76.2 124.18 1.73 PR
2 19.1 101.6 10-5 152.14 2.12 PR
3 152.4 174.09 3.08 S
4 76.2 143.04 2.47 PR
5 19.1 101.6 10-3 165.76 2.96 PR
6 152.4 178.96 3.29 S
7 76.2 154.56 3.16 PR
8 19.1 101.6 10-1 173.03 3.34 S
9 152.4 183.29 3.47 S
10 76.2 167.89 1.92 S
11 19.1 101.6 10 177.59 2.41 S
12 152.4 187.20 2.53 S
13 76.2 181.72 2.04 S
14 19.1 101.6 102 184.83 2.09 S
15 152.4 190.48 1.98 S
16 76.2 192.91 1.79 S
17 19.1 101.6 103 192.28 2.09 S
18 152.4 192.81 2.01 S
4.2.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate shear load and DIF of cast-in-place anchors
The relation between the ultimate shear load, DIF and the strain rate for the cast-in-place
anchor of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm embedment depths and different anchor
diameters is shown in Figures 4-51, 4-52 and 4-53. It can be seen that the ultimate shear
load increased with the increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm for all
the embedment depths and strain rates investigated. Anchor diameter of 12.7 mm exhibited
an increase in the ultimate shear load of 12.5%, 10.6% and 10.0% as the strain rate
172
increased from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for the 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm embedment
depths respectively. Anchor diameter of 15.9 mm exhibited an increase in the ultimate
shear load with the increase in the strain rate at embedment depth of 76.2 mm where the
failure mode transitioned from pryout failure to steel anchor failure. An increase of 15.5%
and 14.7% in the ultimate shear load is obtained with the increase in strain rate from 10-5
s-1 to 103 s-1 for anchor embedment depths of 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm respectively. For
anchor diameter of 19.1 mm, the ultimate shear load increased from 124.2 kN to 192.9 kN
and from 152.1 kN to 192.3 kN as the strain rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for anchor
embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm respectively. An increase in the ultimate
shear load of 10.75% was obtained with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103
s-1 at 152.4 mm embedment depth. Maximum ultimate shear loads of 99.2 kN, 138.4 kN
and 192.8 kN were obtained for anchor diameters of 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm
respectively with embedment depth of 152.4 mm at high strain rate of 103 s-1. At low strain
rate of 10-5 s-1, ultimate shear loads of 90.2 kN, 120.7 kN and 174.1 kN were obtained for
the anchor diameters of 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm respectively with embedment
depth of 152.4 mm. It can be seen from Figures 4-51, 4-52 and 4-53, the relation between
the ultimate shear load and the strain rate is almost linear for all the anchors investigated.
173
275 2.0
250 1.8
Vu, d=12.7 mm Vu, d=15.9 mm Vu, d=19.1 mm
225 1.6
Ultimate shear load, Vu (kN)

200
1.4
175
1.2
150
1.0
125
0.8
100
0.6
75
50 0.4
25 0.2
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
76.2 mm embedment depth
275 2.0
250 Vu, d=12.7 mm Vu, d=15.9 mm Vu, d=19.1 mm 1.8
225 1.6

200
1.4
175
1.2
150
1.0
125
0.8
100
0.6
75
50 0.4
25 0.2
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
174
275 2.0
225 1.6

200
1.4
175
1.2
150
1.0
125
0.8
100
0.6
75
50 0.4
25 0.2
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
As shown in Figure 4-51, for the 12.7-mm diameter anchor the DIF increased slightly with
the increase in the strain rate where steel anchor failure was observed at all the strain rates
investigated. For anchor diameter of 15.9 mm with embedment depth of 76.2 mm the DIF
increased from 1 to 1.09 at strain rate of 10-3 s-1 where pryout failure was observed. Further
increase in the strain rate resulted in steel failure with DIF of 1.11 at high strain rate of 103
s-1. The increase in the DIF is obvious for the anchor diameter of 19.1 mm with embedment
depth of 76.2 mm where the failure mode transitioned from pryout failure at low strain rate
of 10-5 s-1 to steel fracture at strain rate of 10 s-1. At high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1,
DIF of 1.04 and 1.11 were obtained for the 19.1 mm anchor diameter where steel failure
was observed. From Figure 4-52, DIF of 1.14 was obtained for the 19.1 mm anchor
diameter at strain rate of 10-1 s-1 where transition in the failure mode from pryout to steel
175
anchor failure is observed at higher strain rates. DIF of 1.1 was obtained at high strain rate
of 103 s-1. Very close DIF values were obtained for the 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm diameter
anchors that all fail by steel fracture at all strain rates investigated. From Figure 4-53, for
embedment depth of 152.4 mm, the DIF values are very close for all anchor diameters
where steel failure is the dominant failure mode at all the strain rates. Maximum DIF of
1.35 is obtained for the 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor with 76.2 mm embedment
depth at strain rate of 10 s-1. The DIF of cast-in-place anchors at different strain rates is
represented as a function for the strain rate ratio as follows:
𝑉𝑢𝑑 𝜀̇ 𝐵
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = = 𝐴 ( 𝜀̇ 𝑑 ) (4.19)
𝑉𝑢𝑠 𝑠
𝜀̇ 𝐵
𝑉𝑢𝑑 = 𝑉𝑢𝑠 ∙ 𝐴 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (4.20)
𝑠
Where 𝑉𝑢𝑠 , 𝑉𝑢𝑑 are the ultimate static and dynamic shear loads respectively. A and B are
constants to be determined by experimental testing or numerical parametric analysis.
Table 4-19 shows the maximum dynamic increase factor for the cast-in-place anchors
under shear load where pryout failure and steel failure modes were observed.
Table 4-19: Maximum DIF for the cast-in-place anchors under shear load
Model d hef 𝜀̇ DIF 𝜀̇ DIF
No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) PR (s-1) S
1 12.7 76.2 - - 103 1.13
2 12.7 101.6 - - 103 1.11
3 12.7 152.4 - - 103 1.10
-3 3
4 15.9 76.2 10 1.09 10 1.11
5 15.9 101.6 - - 103 1.15
6 15.9 152.4 - - 103 1.15
176
7 19.1 76.2 10-1 1.24 103 1.11
8 19.1 101.6 10-3 1.09 103 1.10
9 19.1 152.4 - - 103 1.11
4.2.9 Regression analysis for cast-in-place anchors under shear load
Regression analysis has been performed to predict the relation that accurately represents
the finite element results of the cast-in-place anchor subjected to shear load. As shown in
Figures 4-38, 4-39 and 4-40, steel anchor failure is the dominant failure mode for most of
the cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear load and subjected to strain rate in the range of
10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1, hence regression analysis is performed for the anchors exhibiting steel
failure mode. Average values of the DIF for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm cast-in-
place diameter anchors were considered to adjust the DIF for the effect of anchor diameter.
The relation between the DIF and the strain rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) is shown in Figure 4-54 for
the cast-in-place anchors exhibited steel anchor failure mode.
177
1.8
Steel failure
1.6
Dynamic increase factor (DIF) 1.4

y = 1.0016x0.006
1.2 R² = 0.8021
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 4-54: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for cast-in-place anchors exhibit
steel failure under shear load
Table 4-20 shows the statistical models used to predict a formula that relates the DIF with
the strain rate for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited steel anchor failure.
cast-in-place anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load
Statistical models Formulae Coefficient of determination
(R2)
𝜀̇
Exponential 6𝐸−10( 𝑑 )
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.0539𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠 0.277
𝜀̇𝑑
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 7𝐸 − 10 ( ) + 1.0548
𝜀̇𝑠 0.278
𝜀̇𝑑
Logarithmic 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.0064𝑙𝑛 ( ) + 1.0009
𝜀̇𝑠 0.790
𝜀̇𝑑 0.006
Power 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.0016 ( )
𝜀̇𝑠 0.802
178
As shown in Table 4-20 the highest coefficients of determination of 80% is obtained from
the power model for the steel anchor failure mode. The predicted formulae for the DIF for
cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear load and exhibited steel failure can be presented
as in Equation (4.21).
𝜀̇ 0.006
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.0016 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (4.21)
𝑠
The proposed Equation (4.21) can be used to predict the ultimate dynamic shear load (𝑉𝑢𝑑 )
for steel anchor failure mode as follows:
𝜀̇ 0.006
𝑉𝑢𝑑 = 𝑉𝑢𝑠 × 1.0016 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (4.22)
𝑠
Where the ultimate static load (𝑉𝑢𝑠 ) can be determined from Equation (4.18) for the cast-
in-place anchors exhibited steel failure under shear load.
Residual analysis has been performed for the cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear load
to determine the difference between the DIF results obtained from the finite element and
the DIF results obtained from the proposed Equation (4.21). Figure 4-55 presents the
residual plots for the cast-in-place anchors. As shown in Figure 4-55, the residual results
exhibit horizontal trend line with strain rate ratio.
179
2
Steel failure
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Residuals
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2
1.E-1 1.E+0 1.E+1 1.E+2 1.E+3 1.E+4 1.E+5 1.E+6 1.E+7 1.E+8 1.E+9 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 4-55: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the cast-in-place anchor subjected to
shear load and exhibited steel failure
In addition, new cast-in-place anchor models were developed with diameters of 9.5 mm,
12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm and embedment depths of 89 mm, 114 mm and 140 mm
to verify the proposed equation. A comparison has been made between the proposed
equation and the results of the new cast-in-place anchor models. Figure 4-56 presents the
relation between the DIF obtained from newly developed numerical models and the
regression models (Equation (4.21)) for cast-in-place anchors exhibited steel failure. As
shown in the figure, the DIF is distributed normally around the equality line, however some
divergence was observed for the high DIF values.
180
2.2
Steel failure
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
DIF (Predicted)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
DIF (FEA)
the cast-in-place anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load
181
4.2.10 Case study: effect of concrete compressive strength on the shear behaviour of
4.2.10.1 Level of damage and failure mode
Cast-in-place anchor diameters of 12.7 mm and 19.1 mm with embedment depths of 76.2
mm and 152.4 mm subjected to shear load were investigated at static (10-5 s-1) and high
strain rate (103 s-1). Three concrete compressive strengths of 20 MPa, 30 MPa and 40 MPa
were selected for the analysis. Figures 4-57 and 4-58 show the failure mode for the 12.7-
mm and 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place anchors respectively embedded in concrete
compressive strengths of 20 MPa, 30 MPa and 40 MPa at low and high strain rates of 10-5
s-1 and 103 s-1. As shown in Figure 4-57, at the low strain rate of 10-5 s-1, pryout failure
mode is observed for the concrete compressive strength of 20 MPa and embedment depth
of 76.2 mm. Steel anchor failure was observed for the concrete compressive strengths of
30 MPa and 40 MPa. Also, steel anchor failure was observed for the embedment depth of
152.4 mm at all concrete compressive strengths. At strain rate of 103 s-1 steel anchor failure
was observed for all the concrete compressive strengths and embedment depths
investigated. It can be seen from Figure 4-58, for the 19.1-mm diameter cast-in-place
anchor at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1, pryout failure was observed for all the concrete
compressive strengths at embedment depth of 76.2 mm. At the embedment depth of 152.4
mm pryout failure is observed for the compressive strength of 20 MPa whereas steel anchor
failure was observed for the compressive strengths of 30 MPa and 40 MPa. At high strain
rate of 103 s-1, steel anchor failure was observed for all the concrete compressive strengths
and embedment depths investigated.
182
𝜀̇ hef
𝑓𝑐′ =20 MPa 𝑓𝑐′ =30 MPa 𝑓𝑐′ =40 MPa
(s-1) (mm)
76.2
10-5 Pryout Steel fracture Steel fracture
152.4
Steel fracture Steel fracture Steel fracture
76.2

103
152.4
Figure 4-57: Effect of strain rate and concrete compressive strength on the failure mode for the 12.7 mm diameter cast-in-place
anchors
183
𝜀̇ hef
𝑓𝑐′ =20 MPa 𝑓𝑐′ =30 MPa 𝑓𝑐′ =40 MPa
(s-1) (mm)
76.2
10-5 Pryout Pryout Pryout
152.4
Pryout Steel fracture Steel fracture
76.2

103
152.4
Figure 4-58: Effect of strain rate and concrete compressive strength on the failure mode for the 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place
anchors
184
From Figures 4-57 and 4-58, it can be seen that for cast-in-place anchorage systems failing
in concrete pryout at the static strain rate transitioned to steel fracture failure at the high
strain rates. This is attributed to the higher DIF of concrete at high strain rates compared
with steel (Malvar and Crawford, 1998; Malvar and Ross, 1998).
It can be stated that at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1, the failure mode is influenced by the
concrete compressive strength where pryout failure is observed in most of the anchors at
shallow embedment depth of 76.2 mm. However, at high strain rate, the failure mode of
the anchorage system transitioned to steel failure for all the concrete compressive strengths
investigated. More severe concrete cracking was observed for the cast-in-place anchors
embedded in 20 MPa concrete compressive strength than that embedded in 30 MPa and 40
MPa concrete compressive strengths at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1. At high strain rate, it can
be seen that the damage extends to a small area in the concrete where anchor bending
followed by fracturing was observed.
4.2.10.2 Effect of strain rate and concrete compressive strength on shear behaviour
Shear behaviour of cast-in-place anchors was investigated using LS-DYNA finite element
software. Three concrete compressive strengths of 20 MPa, 30 MPa and 40 MPa were
selected for the analysis to investigate the effect of concrete strength on the shear response
of cast-in-place anchors. Anchor diameters of 12.7 mm and 19.1 mm with embedment
depths of 76.2 mm and 152.4 mm were investigated at low and high strain rates of 10-5 s-1
and 103 s-1 respectively. Figures 4-59 and 4-60 show the effect of concrete compressive
strength on the load-displacement response of the 12.7-mm diameter cast-in-place anchor
at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 with embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 152.4 mm respectively.
185
Effect of concrete compressive strength on the load displacement response of cast-in-place
anchor of 19.1 mm diameter with 76.2 mm and 152.4 mm embedment depths at low strain
rate of 10-5 s-1 is shown in Figures 4-61 and 4-62 respectively. As shown in the figures, the
ultimate shear load of the cast-in-place anchors increased with the displacement until the
maximum load then it decreased until failure. Concrete compressive strength of 40 MPa
resulted in higher ultimate shear load compared to the concrete compressive strength of 20
MPa. Similar observation was reported by Çalışkan et al. (Çalışkan et al., 2013) on the
adhesive anchors embedded in low strength concrete of 5 MPa and 10 MPa and subjected
to cyclic shear load (Çalışkan et al., 2013). The increment in the ultimate shear load is
found to be higher at the shallow embedment depth of 76.2 mm, where pryout failure is
observed, compared to deeper embedment depth of 152.4 mm where the failure mode was
by steel fracture. The increase in the embedment depth showed an increased shear capacity
when the pryout failure mode is the dominant.
100
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
90
fʹᴄ=30 MPa
80 fʹᴄ=40 MPa
70
Shear load (kN)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)

with 76.2 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
186
100
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
90 fʹᴄ=30 MPa
fʹᴄ=40 MPa
80
70
Shear load (kN)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)

200
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
180 fʹᴄ=30 MPa
160 fʹᴄ=40 MPa
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)

187
200
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
180
fʹᴄ=30 MPa
160 fʹᴄ=40 MPa
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Displacement (mm)

At high strain rate of 103 s-1, the shear load increased with the displacement until the
ultimate shear load, and then decreased with increased displacement until failure (Figures
4-63, 4-64, 4-65 and 4-66). The increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 resulted in
increased shear capacity of the cast-in-place anchorage systems.
188
120
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
fʹᴄ=30 MPa
100
fʹᴄ=40 MPa
Shear load (kN) 80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)

with 76.2 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 103 s-1
120
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
fʹᴄ=30 MPa
100
fʹᴄ=40 MPa
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)

189
225
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
200
fʹᴄ=30 MPa
175 fʹᴄ=40 MPa
Shear load (kN) 150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4-65: Shear load-displacement response of 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor

225
fʹᴄ=20 MPa
200 fʹᴄ=30 MPa
fʹᴄ=40 MPa
175
150
Shear load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)

190
In general, it can be seen from Figures 4-59 to 4-66 that the increase in the anchor diameter
from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm increased the ultimate shear load for the cast-in-place anchors.
Effect of concrete compressive strength is significant at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 where
pryout failure is observed while a slight (almost negligible) increase in the shear capacity
is observed with the increase in the concrete compressive strength at the high strain rate of
103 s-1. The increase in the shear load is attributed to increase concrete resistance to the
applied shear load with the increase in the concrete compressive strength. Maximum
increment in the ultimate shear load of 40.8% was obtained for the 19.1-mm diameter cast-
in-place anchor at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 when the concrete compressive strength increased
from 20 MPa to 40 MPa where pryout failure mode is observed. Maximum increment in
the ultimate shear load of 2.7% is obtained at high strain rate of 103 s-1 when the concrete
compressive strength increased from 20 MPa to 40 MPa where steel anchor failure is the
dominant failure mode. At high strain rate the strength of concrete and steel materials
increased. When steel failure occurs, the increment in the shear failure load is attributed to
the increase in the steel strength at high strain rate rather than the increase in the concrete
strength. Hence, the concrete compressive strength has a slight influence on the shear load
at high strain rate.
4.3 Summary
This chapter introduces finite element analyses for the cast-in-place anchorage to concrete
system models that were developed and presented in chapter three. Tensile and shear
behaviour of the cast-in-place anchors at strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 were
investigated. Different design parameters (anchor diameter and embedment depth) were
191
considered in the analyses. The chapter starts with validation of the cast-in-place anchor
model with the experimental test data from the literature. Level of damage and failure mode
for different strain rates was investigated. For the cast-in-place anchors subjected to tensile
load; two types of failure modes were observed: concrete cone breakout failure and steel
anchor failure. For the cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear load, two types of failure
modes were observed; pryout and steel anchor failure. At high strain rate of 103 s-1 steel
anchor failure was the dominant failure mode for all the cast-in-place anchors investigated.
Concrete cone depth, concrete cone breakout diameter and concrete cone propagation angle
were determined.
Tensile and shear load-displacement relations for the cast-in-place anchors at different
strain rates were drawn and analyzed. The relation between the ultimate tensile load, strain
rate and failure mode for different design parameters was introduced and discussed. Also,
the relation between the ultimate shear load, strain rate and failure mode for different
design parameters was introduced and discussed. Comparison has been made between the
results obtained from the finite element analysis and the prediction analytical methods
(ACI and CCD). Dynamic increase factor was determined for the cast-in-place anchors
subjected to tensile and shear loads at all the strain rates investigated. Equations were
developed to predict the relation between the strain rate and the DIF for the cast-in-place
anchors under tensile and shear loads. Effect of strain rate on the concrete compressive
strengths of 20 MPa, 30 MPa and 40 MPa for the cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear
load was investigated. Plastic strain contours that represent the level of damage were drawn
and discussed. Shear load-displacement relation for the cast-in-place anchors was drawn
for the concrete compressive strengths investigated.
192
Chapter 5 : Strain rate effect on adhesive anchors
5.1 Finite element modelling for adhesive anchors under tensile load
Finite element models were developed using LS-DYNA software (LSTC, 2014) to
investigate the tensile behaviour of adhesive anchors embedded into concrete at strain rates
ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. A single adhesive anchor was placed in the center of each
concrete block to ensure that the edge distance was sufficient for concrete cone formation
without edge effects. A biased mesh refinement towards the adhesive and anchor along the
embedment depth was developed to improve the accuracy of the analysis and to minimize
discretization error. A schematic view of the adhesive anchorage to concrete system is
shown in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-2 shows the geometric configuration and boundary condition
of the adhesive anchor model under tensile load.
Figure 5-1: A schematic view of the adhesive anchorage to concrete system
193
(a) Concrete mesh (b) Adhesive anchor mesh
Figure 5-2: Geometric configuration with boundary condition for the adhesive anchor
model
5.1.1 Validation of adhesive anchor model under tensile load
To ensure the material models chosen for the concrete, adhesive and steel elements are
adequate for the research program, two finite element models of adhesive anchorage to
concrete system representing drop-mass experimental program conducted by Braimah et
al. (Braimah et al., 2004) were developed in LS-DYNA to validate the numerical model.
The experimental test setup consisted of a 6.4-mm diameter steel anchor with embedment
depth of 114 mm and 9.5-mm diameter anchor with embedment depth of 89 mm embedded
into a 34.5 MPa compressive strength concrete. The 6.4-mm and 9.5-mm diameter
adhesive anchors were modeled with yield strengths of 874 MPa and 1030 MPa
respectively. The epoxy adhesive material was 1.5 mm thick with 30 MPa tensile strength,
23 MPa shear strength and 4900 MPa modulus of elasticity (Braimah et al., 2004). A mesh
sensitivity analysis was carried out to achieve an optimum mesh size that resulted in high
accuracy in comparison with experimental results and minimized computational effort. The
194
drop mass impact effect on the anchor was not modeled in the analysis. The experimental
displacement profile from a drop-mass test was applied to the steel anchor in the numerical
model by using BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET in order to apply the
tensile load. Mesh sizes of 0.75×0.75×3 mm, 0.75×0.75×1 mm, 0.75×0.5×1 mm and
0.5×0.5×1 mm were investigated. For the anchor diameter of 6.4 mm, mesh sizes of
0.75×0.5×1 mm and 0.5×0.5×1 mm give a percentage difference of 3.7% and 3.3% in the
ultimate tensile load respectively compared to the experimental results. Less computational
time is obtained using mesh size of 0.75×0.5×1 mm than that obtained using mesh size of
0.5×0.5×1 mm and hence was selected for the analysis. Table 5-1 shows the results of the
mesh sensitivity analysis for the adhesive anchor models.
adhesive anchor
Model d Mesh size Ultimate tensile Displacement Failure
No. (mm) (mm) load (mm) mode
(kN)
Concrete
Anchor Adhesive FEA EXP. FEA EXP.
Min. Max.
Steel
1 0.75 0.75 3 8 29.50 0.83
failure
Steel
2 0.75 0.75 1 8 32.11 0.86
failure
6.4 34.37 0.99
Steel
3 0.75 0.50 1 8 33.14 0.89
failure
Steel
4 0.50 0.50 1 8 33.28 0.89
failure
Concrete
5 0.75 0.75 3 8 69.55 0.93
cone
Concrete
6 0.75 0.75 1 8 72.14 0.91
cone
9.5 74.53 0.80
Concrete
7 0.75 0.50 1 8 76.71 0.88
cone
Concrete
8 0.50 0.50 1 8 76.71 0.85
cone
195
For the anchor diameter of 9.5 mm, mesh sizes of 0.75 mm for the steel anchor, 0.5 mm
for the adhesive and biased 1 to 8 mm for the concrete yielded converged results to the
experimental results obtained by Braimah et al. (Braimah et al., 2004) (Table 5-1). Further
decreasing the mesh size of the steel anchor to 0.5 mm did not result in better results
however the computational time increased significantly. Hence mesh size of 0.75×0.5×1
was selected for the analysis Figure 5-3 presents a comparison of load-displacement
response of the experimental tests and the finite element analysis results for the 6.4-mm
diameter adhesive anchor. The figure shows that as the mesh sizes decrease the load-
displacement response approaches the experimental. The tensile load-displacement
response was almost linear up to the peak load followed by a sharp drop in the load. Load
fluctuation about the residual tensile load was observed. The load fluctuation can be
attributed to the pullout of the anchor to a small displacement associated with concrete
cracking in a small area around the anchor followed by steel anchor failure. The results
obtained from the finite element analysis were in good agreement with the experimental
results with the same failure mode (steel anchor failure) as shown in Figure 5-4.
196
40
Mesh size (0.75x0.75x3) mm
35
30 Experimental
Tensile load (kN)
25
20
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Displacement (mm)

experimental results obtained by Braimah et al. (Braimah et al., 2004) for anchor
diameter of 6.4 mm
(a) FEA (b) Experimental ( Braimah et al., 2004)
Figure 5-4: Failure mode obtained from the finite element analysis and the experimental
results obtained by Braimah et al. (Braimah et al., 2004)
Figure 5-5 presents a comparison of load-displacement response of the experimental tests
and the finite element analysis results for the 9.5-mm diameter adhesive anchor. A good
agreement is obtained between the finite element analyses using mesh size of Model No. 7
197
and the experimental results. Shallow concrete cone breakout failure was observed similar
to that obtained from the experimental results.
100
mesh size (0.75x0.75x3) mm
90 mesh size (0.75x0.75x1) mm
mesh size (0.75x0.5x1) mm
Experimental
70
Tensile load (kN)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6
Displacement (mm)

experimental results obtained by Braimah et al. (Braimah et al., 2004) for anchor
diameter of 9.5 mm
After the adhesive anchor system was validated against the experimental results, the
appropriate mesh size for the concrete, adhesive and steel anchor together with material
models were used in a parametric analysis to investigate the effect of various design
parameters (anchor diameter and embedment depth) on the capacity of the adhesive
anchorage system when subjected to strain rates ranging from the static strain rate of 10 -5
s-1 to higher strain rate of 103 s-1. The results of the investigation are presented and
discussed in the following sections.
198
5.1.2 Comparison of finite element results with ACI and CCD design methods
Ultimate tensile loads of the adhesive anchors obtained from the finite element analysis
(FEA) at the static strain rate of 10-5 s-1 were compared with the ACI design method (ACI
349-85) and CCD method as shown in Table 5-2. According to the ACI method (Fuchs et
al., 1995), the ultimate tensile load of post-installed anchors failing by the concrete cone
breakout failure mode can be determined by Equation (4.1). For the steel anchor failure,
the ultimate tensile load can be determined using Equation (4.2). Hole diameters of 14.7
mm, 18 mm, and 22 mm were used for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter
adhesive anchors respectively. According to CCD design method (Committee Euro-
International du Beton (CEB), 1994; Fuchs et al., 1995), the ultimate tensile load of
anchors can be determined using Equation (4.3). Minimum value of the ultimate tensile
load obtained from Equations (4.1) and (4.2) is considered for comparison of ACI method
with the FEA results. Also, minimum value of ultimate tensile load obtained from
Equations (4.2) and (4.3) is considered for comparison of CCD method with the FEA
results and included in Table 5-2.
methods
*
d hef Ultimate tensile load FEA/ACI FEA/CCD Failure mode
(mm) (mm) (kN) (FEA)
ACI CCD FEA
76.2 40.45 54.62 57.12 1.41 1.05 CC
101.6 69.00 84.10 80.45 1.17 0.96 CC
12.7
127.0 105.09 117.53 95.72 0.91 0.81 S
152.4 130.98 130.98 96.79 0.74 0.74 S
15.9 76.2 41.92 54.62 65.69 1.57 1.20 CC
199
101.6 70.96 84.10 87.31 1.23 1.04 CC
127.0 107.53 117.53 126.18 1.17 1.07 CCB
152.4 151.64 154.49 159.72 1.05 1.03 S
76.2 43.70 54.62 69.62 1.59 1.27 CC
101.6 73.33 84.10 105.49 1.44 1.25 CC
19.1
127.0 110.50 117.53 157.28 1.42 1.34 CC
152.4 155.20 154.49 179.40 1.16 1.16 CC
*Failure mode: CC=concrete cone breakout, CCB=combined cone bond, S=steel failure
It can be observed from Table 5-2 that the ACI and CCD methods underpredict the ultimate
tensile load in comparison with the FEA results for most of the adhesive anchors as the
design methods incorporate more conservatism than the FEA. However, the CCD method
gives a better agreement with the finite element results. Fuchs et al. (1995) found that the
CCD method agree well with the experimental results in comparison to ACI method (Fuchs
et al., 1995). This is attributed to the ACI method disregard the size effect (Fuchs et al.,
1995). Same material properties were used for the finite element analysis and the design
codes. However, in the finite element analysis assumptions such as materials model,
boundary conditions and contact formulation, were considered to develop the numerical
model for the adhesive anchorage to concrete system. These assumptions may have an
influence on the variation between the FEA results and the design methods results.
5.1.3 Effect of strain rate on the level of damage and failure mode of adhesive anchors
Contours of effective plastic strain for adhesive anchor diameters of 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm
and 19.1-mm with embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm at
the static strain rate of 10-5 s-1 are shown in Figure 5-6. The crack patterns are presented
200
with the plastic strain contour fringe plots in the figure. As shown in the figure, concrete
cone breakout failure was observed at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 for most of the adhesive
anchors investigated. Cracking started to appear on the top surface of the concrete around
the anchor and subsequently the cracks generated at the bottom of the anchor propagated
diagonally forming concrete cone and leading to failure of the anchorage system. Also, it
can be seen that the level of concrete damage increased with the increase in the anchor
diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm for the same embedment depth. The increase in the
anchor diameter increases the pullout load. As the anchor diameter increase the contact
area between the anchor and the adhesive and between the adhesive and the concrete
increases leading to increase the friction resistance (Wang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017).
Combined cone bond failure was observed for the 15.9-mm diameter anchor at embedment
depth of 127 mm; wherein a shallow cone was observed at the top of the concrete
accompanied by adhesive bond failure at the remaining part of the embedment depth below
the shallow concrete cone. Steel anchor failure was observed for the 12.7-mm diameter
adhesive anchor at embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm. Also, steel anchor failure
was observed for the 15.9-mm diameter anchor at embedment depth of 152.4 mm.
d=12.7 mm d=15.9 mm d=19.1 mm
hef=76.2 mm
201
hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
Figure 5-6: Plastic strain contours for adhesive anchor with different anchor diameters
and embedment depths at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
Table 5-3 shows the concrete cone breakout diameter (dcone), cone breakout angle (𝜃𝑎 ) and
corresponding failure mode of the adhesive anchor under tensile load. The increase in the
embedment depth resulted in increase in the concrete cone diameter. The concrete cone
breakout diameter for the 12.7-mm diameter adhesive anchor increases from 225 mm at
embedment depth of 76.2 mm to 268 mm at embedment depth of 101.6 mm. Similarly, the
concrete cone breakout diameter for the 15.9-mm anchor increased from 236 mm at
embedment depth of 76.2 mm to 291 mm at embedment depth of 101.6 mm. Further
increase in the anchor embedment depth resulted in steel anchor failure of the 12.7-mm
diameter adhesive anchor and combined concrete cone bond failure for 15.9-mm diameter
adhesive anchor, as shown in Figure 5-6. The increase in the concrete cone breakout
202
diameter was from 244 mm to 421 mm for the 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchor for the
increase in the embedment depth from 76.2 mm to 152.4 mm.
Concrete cone breakout angle was determined by measuring the angle of inclination of the
failure surface. Figure 5-7 shows a sketch of the concrete cone breakout angle. As shown
in Table 5-3, the concrete cone breakout angle (𝜃𝑎 ) varies between 32o and 35o for all
anchors investigated. The average concrete cone angle was 33.5 o mm. Crack propagation
angle of 56.5o was obtained where the crack propagation angle is equal to (90-𝜃𝑎 ).
According to ACI and CCD design methods, the concrete cone angle is 45o and 35o
respectively. The concrete cone angle obtained from the finite element analysis is
approximately comparable to the concrete cone breakout angle of the CCD method. The
concrete cone angle has an influence on the ultimate tensile load where the decrease in the
concrete cone angle increases the concrete cone area and hence increased ultimate tensile
load.
𝜃𝑎
Figure 5-7: Cone breakout angle on the adhesive anchorage to concrete system.
203
Table 5-3: Concrete cone diameter and cone breakout angle for the adhesive anchor
hef d dcone 𝜃𝑎
Failure mode
(mm) (mm) (mm) (deg)
12.7 225 33 CC
76.2 15.9 236 33 CC
19.1 244 35 CC
12.7 268 34 CC
101.6 15.9 291 34 CC
19.1 295 33 CC
12.7 - - S
127.0 15.9 - - CCB
19.1 370 34 CC
12.7 - - S
152.4 15.9 - - S
19.1 421 32 CC
Figures 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10 show the failure mode of 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm
diameter adhesive anchors at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1. As shown in Figure
5-8 for the 12.7-mm diameter adhesive anchor, combined cone bond failure was observed
for the 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm embedment depths at strain rates of 10-3 s-1 to 102 s-1. Steel
anchor failure was observed for the 127 mm and 152.4 mm embedment depths at all the
strain rates investigated. As shown in Figure 5-9 for the 15.9-mm diameter adhesive
anchor, combined cone bond failure was observed at embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6
mm and 127 mm at strain rates of 10-3 s-1 to 102 s-1; whereas steel anchor failure was
observed at embedment depth of 152.4 mm at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1.
Also, steel anchor failure was observed at strain rate of 103 s-1 for the embedment depths
of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm. As shown in Figure 5-10 for the 19.1-mm diameter adhesive
204
anchor at embedment depth of 76.2 mm, concrete cone breakout failure is observed at strain
rate of 10-3 s-1. The increase in the strain rate to 102 s-1 resulted in combined cone-bond
failure. For the anchor embedment depths of 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm, combined
cone-bond failure mode was observed at strain rates of 10-3 s-1 to 102 s-1. At high strain rate
of 103 s-1 steel anchor failure was observed for all the anchor diameters and embedment
depths investigated.
It is clear from Figures 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10 that the strain rate has an influence on the failure
mode. The failure mode is observed to transition from concrete cone or combined cone-
bond failure mode to steel anchor failure mode with increase in strain rate. This behaviour
can be attributed to the increase in concrete and steel capacity with increase in strain rate.
The increase in the tensile capacity of the concrete is higher than the increase in the steel
capacity (Malvar & Crawford, 1998; Malvar & Ross, 1998). Hence, the concrete resistance
to the tensile load at high strain rate increase resulted in steel anchor failure.
205
hef
𝜀̇=10-3 s-1 𝜀̇=10-1 s-1 𝜀̇=10 s-1 𝜀̇=102 s-1 𝜀̇=103 s-1
(mm)
76.2
101.6
127.0
152.4
206
hef
𝜀̇=10-3 s-1 𝜀̇=10-1 s-1 𝜀̇=10 s-1 𝜀̇=102 s-1 𝜀̇=103 s-1
(mm)
76.2
101.6
127.0
152.4
207
hef
𝜀̇=10-3 s-1 𝜀̇=10-1 s-1 𝜀̇=10 s-1 𝜀̇=102 s-1 𝜀̇=103 s-1
(mm)
76.2
101.6
127.0
152.4
208
tensile load for the adhesive anchor. As shown in Figure 5-11 the tensile load increased
from 57.1 kN to 107.2 kN and 80.5 kN to 107.9 kN for the anchor embedment depths of
76.2 mm and 101.6 mm respectively, where the failure mode transitioned from concrete
cone breakout at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to combined cone bond failure at strain rates up to
102 s-1 and steel anchor failure at strain rate of 103 s-1. The ultimate tensile load increased
13.3% and 12.5% for the embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm respectively as the
strain rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 mm where steel anchor failure is the dominant
failure mode at all the strain rates.
300
CC, hef=76.2 mm CC, hef=101.6 mm
CCB, hef=76.2 mm CCB, hef=101.6 mm
250 S, hef=76.2 mm S, hef=101.6 mm

S, hef=127 mm S, hef=152.4 mm
200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
anchor diameter of 12.7 mm
209
As shown in Figure 5-12, the ultimate tensile load increased with the increase in the strain
rate. For the embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm, the failure mode transitioned
from concrete cone breakout at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to combined cone bond failure at strain
rates up to 102 s-1 and steel anchor failure at strain rate of 103 s-1. For anchor embedment
depth of 127 mm, the failure mode transitioned from combined cone bond failure at strain
rates up to 102 s-1 to steel anchor failure at strain rate of 103 s-1. For anchor embedment
depth of 152.4 mm, the ultimate tensile load increased 11.8% where steel anchor failure
was observed at all strain rates investigated.
200
CC, hef=76.2 mm CC, hef=101.6 mm CCB, hef=76.2 mm
CCB, hef=101.6 mm CCB, hef=127 mm S, hef=152.4 mm
180
S, hef=76.2 mm S, hef=101.6 mm S, hef=127 mm
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1.0E-5 1.0E-3 1.0E-1 1.0E+1 1.0E+2 1.0E+3
Strain rate (s-1)
As shown in Figure 5-13, the ultimate tensile load increased with the increase in the strain
rates for all the embedment depths investigated. For the 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and
210
152.4 mm embedment depths, the failure mode transitioned from concrete cone breakout
at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to combined cone bond at strain rates up to 102 s-1 and then to steel
anchor failure at strain rate of 103 s-1. For the adhesive anchor of 76.2 mm embedment
depth concrete cone breakout failure was observed at strain rate of 10-3 s-1.
300
CC, hef=76.2 mm CC, hef=101.6 mm CC, hef=127 mm CC, hef=152.4 mm
CCB, hef=76.2 mm CCB, hef=101.6 mm CCB, hef=127 mm CCB, hef=152.4 mm
S, hef=76.2 mm S, hef=101.6 mm S, hef=127 mm S, hef=152.4 mm
250
200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
It can be seen from Figures 5-11, 5-12 and 5-13, that the failure mode of the adhesive
anchor is affected by the strain rate. Also, it can be seen from the figures that, the failure
mode is influenced by the embedment depth and anchor diameter. The increase in the
embedment depth from 76.2 mm to 152.4 mm resulted in steel anchor failure for the anchor
diameter of 12.7 mm at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1. The increase in anchor diameter from
12.7 mm to 19.1 mm changed the failure mode from steel anchor failure to concrete cone
breakout for the embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 and
211
from steel failure to combined cone bond failure at strain rates of 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1 and
102 s-1 for the same embedment depths. Also, it can be seen from the figures that the
ultimate tensile load increased with the increase in the strain rate and embedment depth.
The failure modes for the adhesive anchors under tensile load at different strain rates are
summarized as in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Failure mode for adhesive anchors under tensile load at different strain rates
Model d hef Failure mode*

𝜀̇=10-5 𝜀̇=10-3 𝜀̇=10-1 𝜀̇=10 𝜀̇=102 𝜀̇=103
1 12.7 76.2 CC CCB CCB CCB CCB S
3 12.7 127.0 S S S S S S
4 12.7 152.4 S S S S S S
7 15.9 127.0 CCB CCB CCB CCB CCB S
8 15.9 152.4 S S S S S S
9 19.1 76.2 CC CC CCB CCB CCB S
Failure mode: CC= concrete cone breakout, CCB= combined cone bond, S=steel anchor failure
*
5.1.5 Effect of anchor embedment depth on concrete cone depth
Effect of anchor embedment depth on ultimate tensile load and concrete cone depth for the
12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors is shown in Figures 5-14, 5-
15 and 5-16 respectively. It can be seen from Figure 5-14 the ultimate tensile load of the
12.7-mm diameter adhesive anchor increased as the anchor embedment depth increased
212
from 76.2 mm to 127 mm under tensile loading at the static strain rate. The increase in the
anchor embedment depth from 76.2 mm to 101.6 mm increased the concrete cone depth
and hence the failure surface area. Further increase in the embedment depth to 152.4 mm
shows no influence on the ultimate tensile load as the ultimate load was limited by the steel
anchor failure.
For the 15.9-mm diameter adhesive anchor (Figure 5-15), the increase in the embedment
depth from 76.2 mm to 152.4 mm increased the ultimate tensile load from 65.7 kN to 159.7
kN. The concrete cone depth increased with the increase in the anchor embedment depth
from 76.2 mm to 101.6 mm. Combined cone bond failure was observed at embedment
depth of 127 mm with cone depth of 40 mm and steel anchor failure is observed at
embedment depth of 152.4 mm. For the anchor diameter of 19.1 mm (Figure 5-16), it can
be seen that the ultimate tensile load and concrete cone depth increased with the increase
in the anchor embedment depth from 76.2 mm to 152.4 mm.
213
200 180
cone depth
180 Ultimate tensile load 160
160
140

140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20 20
0 0
76.2 101.6 127 152.4
tensile load for 12.7 mm diameter adhesive anchor
200 180
cone depth
160
140
140

120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20 20
0 0
76.2 101.6 127 152.4
214
200 180
cone depth
160
140

140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20 20
0 0
76.2 101.6 127 152.4
5.1.6 Concrete cone breakout diameter for adhesive anchors
Figure 5-17 shows the displacement contours for adhesive anchors with embedment depth
of 76.2 mm under tensile load at the static strain rate of 10-5 s-1. As shown in the figure, the
increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm increased the concrete cone
breakout radius from 113 mm to 122 mm.
Front view
215
Top view
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5-17: Displacement contours for adhesive anchors at strain rate of 10-5 with
diameters of: (a) 12.7 mm, (b) 15.9 mm and (c) 19.1 mm
5.1.7 Effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of adhesive anchors
In order to investigate the tensile behaviour of the adhesive anchors, numerical models of
adhesive anchorage to concrete systems were developed. Tensile capacity at different strain
rates (𝜀̇) was investigated for different anchor diameters and embedment depths. Figures
5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22 and 5-23 present the load-displacement response for the 12.7-
mm diameter adhesive anchor at strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and
103 s-1 respectively. The anchor embedment depths used in the investigation were 76.2 mm,
101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm.
216
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
217
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
218
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
100 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
219
Figures 5-18 to 5-23 show that the tensile load increased with the displacement until the
ultimate load. This is attributed to the concrete resistance to the applied load where the
tensile load transfers from the anchor to the concrete through the adhesive material. The
post-peak response shows a reduction in the load with further increase in displacement
until failure. The ultimate tensile load increased with the increase in the strain rate from
10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 as shown in the figures and Table 5-5. Similar observation on the effect of
loading rate for the adhesive anchors was obtained by Braimah et al., where the dynamic
capacity increased at high loading rate of impulse ( Braimah et al., 2009).
At intermediate strain rate of 10 s-1, the tensile load increased as the embedment depth
increased from 76.2 mm to 127 mm where the failure mode changed from combined cone-
bond failure at embedment depth of 76.2 mm to steel anchor failure at embedment depth
of 127 mm. Further increase in the embedment depth to 152.4 mm shows no increase of
the tensile load as steel failure is observed. At embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6
mm, the post peak behaviour at strain rate of 10 s-1 shows a decrease in the tensile load due
to bond failure at the lower part of the anchor accompanied by crack initiation and
propagation to the top surface of the concrete. The crack initiation and propagation lead to
fracturing of the concrete and results in combined cone-bond failure as shown in Figure 5-
8.
As the strain rate increased from 10 s-1 to 103 s-1, the tensile load increased with the
displacement until the maximum load. The post peak behaviour shows a decrease in the
tensile load due to steel anchor failure. The failure mode transitioned from combined cone-
bond failure to steel anchor failure for the embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm.
220
At embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm steel anchor failure was the dominant
failure mode (Figure 5-8). At the large embedment depths, the ultimate failure load of the
anchorage systems is the same as failure is dependent on steel anchor resistance.
The increase in the ultimate load with increase in strain rate is attributed to the fact that
strain rate affects the mechanical properties of the concrete and steel materials. Concrete
has been reported to have increased tensile and compressive strengths with increase in the
strain rate (Hentz et al., 2004). Hence, the concrete resistance increases results in increase
of the ultimate load capacity of the anchorage system when failure is by either cone or
combined cone-bond failure.
Tensile load-displacement relations of the 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive
anchors with embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm at strain
rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 are presented in Appendix E.
Tables 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7 present the results of ultimate tensile load and corresponding
displacement (𝛿) for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors
respectively.
adhesive anchor
1 76.2 57.12 1.65 CC
2 101.6 80.45 1.78 CC
12.7 10-5
3 127 95.72 2.12 S
4 152.4 96.79 2.41 S
221
5 76.2 63.33 1.05 CCB
6 101.6 88.59 1.87 CCB
12.7 10-3
7 127 96.27 2.16 S
8 152.4 97.74 2.23 S
9 76.2 67.39 1.22 CCB
10 101.6 92.31 1.66 CCB
12.7 10-1
11 127 97.29 1.95 S
12 152.4 98.82 2.09 S
13 76.2 71.14 1.37 CCB
14 101.6 95.49 1.44 CCB
12.7 10
15 127 99.73 1.58 S
16 152.4 99.95 1.83 S
17 76.2 88.11 1.08 CCB
18 101.6 98.60 1.46 CCB
12.7 102
19 127 102.19 1.62 S
20 152.4 103.38 1.76 S
21 76.2 107.24 1.25 S
22 101.6 107.93 1.26 S
12.7 103
23 127 108.43 1.27 S
24 152.4 108.85 1.27 S
adhesive anchor
1 76.2 65.69 1.11 CC
2 101.6 87.31 1.47 CC
15.9 10-5
3 127 126.18 1.82 CCB
4 152.4 159.72 2.09 S
5 76.2 69.70 1.42 CCB
-3
6 15.9 101.6 10 94.88 1.61 CCB
7 127 135.36 1.77 CCB
222
8 152.4 162.02 2.24 S
9 76.2 74.94 1.25 CCB
10 101.6 101.48 1.53 CCB
15.9 10-1
11 127 143.56 1.61 CCB
12 152.4 164.08 2.36 S
13 76.2 87.36 1.04 CCB
14 101.6 108.31 1.03 CCB
15.9 10
15 127 151.14 1.22 CCB
16 152.4 168.41 1.54 S
17 76.2 118.21 1.06 CCB
18 101.6 124.28 1.02 CCB
15.9 102
19 127 162.82 1.60 CCB
20 152.4 171.08 1.76 S
21 76.2 173.63 1.26 S
22 101.6 175.89 1.26 S
15.9 103
23 127 177.57 1.42 S
24 152.4 178.59 1.37 S
adhesive anchor
1 76.2 69.62 0.80 CC
2 101.6 105.49 1.06 CC
19.1 10-5
3 127 157.28 1.36 CC
4 152.4 179.40 2.04 CC
5 76.2 78.68 1.19 CC
6 101.6 113.94 1.59 CCB
19.1 10-3
7 127 161.79 1.77 CCB
8 152.4 187.48 1.99 CCB
9 76.2 89.32 1.29 CCB
19.1 10-1
10 101.6 120.78 1.32 CCB
223
11 127 169.02 1.51 CCB
12 152.4 196.47 1.47 CCB
13 76.2 114.01 1.07 CCB
14 101.6 139.14 1.02 CCB
19.1 10
15 127 185.58 1.23 CCB
16 152.4 211.45 1.34 CCB
17 76.2 180.25 0.67 CCB
18 101.6 196.53 0.84 CCB
19.1 102
19 127 217.96 1.47 CCB
20 152.4 234.18 1.40 CCB
21 76.2 262.69 1.26 S
22 101.6 264.59 1.29 S
19.1 103
23 127 266.13 1.26 S
24 152.4 266.96 1.39 S
In general, it can be seen from Tables 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7 that the ultimate tensile load
increased with the increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm for the
embedment depths and strain rates investigated. The increase in anchor diameter increases
the contact area between the adhesive anchor and concrete and hence the bond capacity of
the anchorage system. It can be seen from the tables that at the low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 for
shallow embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm concrete cone breakout failure was
observed for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors. Also,
concrete cone breakout failure was observed for the 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchor at
embedment depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm, where the tensile load was higher than the
concrete strength. Steel anchor failure was observed for anchor embedment depth of 127
mm with anchor diameter of 12.7 mm. Also, steel anchor failure was observed at
embedment depth of 152.4 mm for anchor diameters of 12.7 mm and 15.9 mm. For long
embedment depths and smaller anchor diameters of 12.7 mm and 15.9 mm, the steel anchor
224
is not capable to withstand the applied load resulting in steel fracture. The tensile load is
influenced by the strain rate. From Tables 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7 it can be seen that the adhesive
anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure transitioned to steel failure at high strain
rate. This can be attributed to the increased strength of concrete and steel due to increased
strain rate and hence, the concrete resistance to the tensile load increased resulted in steel
anchor failure.
In general, it can be seen that the displacement (𝛿) at the ultimate load decreased with the
increase in anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm, at the same embedment depths. At
high strain rate the effect of anchor diameter on the ultimate displacement is insignificant.
The tensile load was also observed to increase with increase in the embedment depth from
76.2 mm to 152.4 mm for the anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure mode. The
increase in the anchor embedment depth increased the displacement at the ultimate tensile
load. The embedment depth was observed to have a greater effect on the ultimate tensile
load at the same strain rate when concrete cone breakout failure is the dominant failure
mode. However, the increase in the embedment depth has no influence on the ultimate
tensile load when steel anchor failure is the dominant failure mode.
5.1.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and DIF of adhesive anchors
In order to predict the increase in strength of anchorage system due to increase in the steel
and concrete strength with the increase in the strain rate, DIF for the anchorage to concrete
system was investigated. The lowest strain rate of 10-5 s-1 is representative of static loading
rate and was used as the baseline for comparison with adhesive anchor capacity at the
higher strain rates for the adhesive anchors exhibiting concrete cone breakout failure and
225
combined cone bond failure. For the anchors exhibiting steel failure mode the dynamic
increase factor is taken as the ratio of ultimate dynamic load to the ultimate static steel
failure load. Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and DIF is shown in Figures
5-24, 5-25, 5-26 and 5-27 for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive
anchors with embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 127 mm and 152.4 mm
respectively. It can be seen from the figures that the ultimate tensile load increased with
increase in strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for all the adhesive anchors investigated. The
increase in anchor embedment depth resulted in increase in ultimate tensile load at all strain
rates investigated. Maximum tensile loads of 108.85 kN, 178.59 kN and 266.96 kN were
obtained at high strain rate of 103 s-1 and embedment depth of 152.4 mm for the 12.7-mm,
15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors, respectively. On the other hand, at low
strain rate of 10-5 s-1 and for the same embedment depth of 152.4 mm, the ultimate tensile
loads were 96.79 kN, 159.72 kN and 179.40 kN for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm
diameter adhesive anchors, respectively.
As shown from Figures 5-24 and 5-25, the relationship between the ultimate tensile load
and the strain rate appears to be bilinear with a change in slope at strain rate of 10 s-1 for
all anchor diameters at embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm where concrete cone
breakout failure was observed at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1. Then the failure mode
transitioned to combined concrete cone bond failure at strain rates up to 102 s-1, and to steel
anchor failure at high strain rate of 103 s-1 where higher load is required to fracture the
anchor. This is similar to the reported relationship between tensile concrete strength and
strain rate (Malvar & Crawford, 1998; Hentz et al., 2004). Also, Malvar & Crawford
226
reported that the relationship between compressive concrete strength and strain rate is
bilinear (Malvar & Crawford, 1998).
It can be seen from Figures 5-24 and 5-25, the 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchor exhibited
higher DIF than that obtained for anchor diameters of 12.7 mm and 15.9 mm for the strain
rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 102 s-1. At high strain rate of 103 s-1, average DIF of 1.1 was
obtained for the anchor diameters of 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm where steel failure
was observed. Also, it can be seen that the DIF is higher for the shallow embedment depth
of 76.2 mm compared to the deep embedment depth of 152.4 mm. Maximum DIF of 1.54,
1.80 and 2.59 were obtained for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive
anchors with embedment depth of 76.2 mm at the high strain rate of 102 s-1 where combined
cone bond failure is observed for all the adhesive anchors.
It can be seen from Figure 5-26 bilinear relationship between the ultimate tensile load and
strain rate was obtained for the 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm anchor diameters at embedment
depth of 127 mm; whereas almost linear relation was obtained for the 12.7-mm diameter
adhesive anchor where steel anchor failure was observed at all the strain rates investigated.
As shown in Figure 5-26, the DIF increased slightly from 1.01 at strain rate of 10-3 s-1 to
1.13 at strain rate of 103 s-1 for anchor diameter of 12.7 mm. The DIF increased from 1.07
to 1.29 and from 1.03 to 1.39 for the anchor diameters of 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm
respectively when the strain rate increased from 10-3 s-1 to 102 s-1. At high strain rate of 103
s-1, average DIF of 1.11 was obtained for the 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm diameter adhesive
anchors. Combined cone bond failure was observed for anchor diameters of 15.9 mm and
227
19.1 mm at strain rate of 10-3 s-1 and transitioned to steel anchor failure at high strain rate
of 103 s-1.
At embedment depth of 152.4 mm (Figure 5-27), bilinear relationship was obtained for the
19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchor where concrete cone breakout failure mode at low
strain rate of 10-5 s-1 transitioned to combined cone bond failure at higher strain rates up to
102 s-1 followed by steel anchor failure at strain rate of 103 s-1. While linear relation was
obtained for the 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm diameter adhesive anchors where steel anchor
failure was the dominant failure mode at all the strain rates investigated. The DIF increased
slightly for anchor diameters of 12.7 mm and 15.9 mm. For the 19.1-mm diameter adhesive
anchor, the DIF increased from 1.05 at strain rate of 10-3 s-1 to 1.31 at strain rate of 102 s-1
where combined cone bond failure was observed. At high strain rate of 103 s-1 DIF of 1.11
was obtained for the 19.1 mm diameter anchor where steel failure was observed.
350 4.0
Fu, d=12.7 mm Fu, d=15.9 mm Fu, d=19.1 mm 3.5

300
3.0

250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
228
350 4.0
300 3.5
3.0

250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
350 4.0
300 3.5
3.0

250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
127 mm embedment depth
229
350 4.0
300 3.5
3.0

250
2.5
200
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50 0.5
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
The increase in the strain rate increased the ultimate load and the DIF for the concrete and
steel. The DIF for concrete tensile strength is much higher than that for steel (Malvar &
Crawford, 1998; Malvar & Ross, 1998). Hence as the strain rate increases, the increase in
the anchor capacity for concrete cone and combined concrete cone-bond failure exceeds
the increase attributed to steel anchor failure where the concrete cone failure is observed at
strain rates of 10-5 s-1 for most of the adhesive anchors (Figure 5-6). Combined cone-bond
failure is observed at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 102 s-1 for most of the adhesive
anchors while steel failure is the dominant failure mode for all the adhesive anchors at high
strain rate of 103 s-1 as shown in Figures 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10.
230
Table 5-8 shows the maximum DIF for the adhesive anchors under tensile load where
concrete cone breakout, combined cone bond and steel failure modes were observed. The
DIF at static strain rate of 10-5 s-1 (𝜀̇𝑠 ) is equal to one where concrete cone breakout failure
was observed as shown in Table 5-8. For the anchor diameter of 12.7 mm with embedment
depths of 127 mm and 152.4 mm and for the anchor diameter of 15.9 mm with embedment
depth of 152.4 mm, steel anchor failure was observed at all the strain rates investigated.
For the anchor diameter of 15.9 mm with embedment depth of 127 mm, combined cone
bond failure was observed at strain rates of 10-5 s-1 and 102 s-1, maximum DIF of 1.29 for
the combined cone bond failure was obtained at strain rate of 102 s-1. For anchor diameter
of 19.1 mm with embedment depth of 76.2 mm concrete cone breakout failure was
observed at strain rates of 10-5 s-1 and 10-3 s-1, maximum DIF of 1.13 for the concrete cone
breakout was obtained at strain rate of 10-3 s-1.
Table 5-8: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the adhesive anchors under tensile load
Model d hef 𝜀̇ DIF 𝜀̇ DIF 𝜀̇ DIF
-1 -1 -1
No. (mm) (mm) (s ) CC (s ) CCB (s ) S
1 12.7 76.2 10-5 1.00 102 1.54 103 1.12
2 12.7 101.6 10-5 1.00 102 1.23 103 1.13
3 12.7 127.0 - - - - 103 1.13
4 12.7 152.4 - - - - 103 1.12
5 15.9 76.2 10-5 1.00 102 1.80 103 1.09
6 15.9 101.6 10-5 1.00 102 1.42 103 1.10
7 15.9 127.0 - - 102 1.29 103 1.11
8 15.9 152.4 - - - - 103 1.12
9 19.1 76.2 10-3 1.13 102 2.59 103 1.09
10 19.1 101.6 10-5 1.00 102 1.86 103 1.10
11 19.1 127.0 10-5 1.00 102 1.39 103 1.10
12 19.1 152.4 10-5 1.00 102 1.31 103 1.11
231
5.1.9 Regression Analysis for adhesive anchors under tensile load
Regression analysis was carried out to develop an accurate predictive formula for
determining the DIF of the adhesive anchorage to concrete systems based on the finite
element results. As shown form Figures 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10, most of the adhesive anchors
investigated at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1 exhibited combined cone bond
and steel anchor failure under tensile load. Hence regression analysis was performed for
these failure modes. Average value of the DIF for the adhesive anchorage systems with
anchor diameters of 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm was calculated to adjust the DIF for
the effect of anchor diameter. Figures 5-28 and 5-29 present the relation between the DIF
and the strain rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) for the combined cone bond and steel anchor failure modes
respectively.
3.0
Combined cone bond
2.5
2.0
y = 0.9689x0.0198
1.5
R² = 0.7708
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 5-28: Effect of strain rate ratio on DIF for adhesive anchor exhibited combined
cone bond failure under tensile load
232
3.0
Steel failure
2.5

2.0
y = 0.9846x0.0056
1.5 R² = 0.8577
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 5-29: Effect of strain rate ratio on DIF for adhesive anchor exhibited steel failure
under tensile load
Various statistical models are used to predict the relation between the DIF of the adhesive
anchors and strain rate ratio as shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10.
adhesive anchors exhibited combined cone bond failure under tensile load
𝜀̇
Exponential 2𝐸−8( 𝑑 ) 0.532
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.1272𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 3𝐸 − 8 ( ) + 1.1306 0.544
𝜀̇𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
𝜀̇𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑 0.0198
Power DIF = 0.9689 ( ) 0.771
𝜀̇𝑠
233
adhesive anchors exhibited steel failure under tensile load
𝜀̇
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.0253𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠 0.790
𝜀̇𝑑
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 9𝐸 − 10 ( ) + 1.0255
𝜀̇𝑠 0.800
𝜀̇𝑑
𝜀̇𝑠 0.849
𝜀̇𝑑 0.0056
Power 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9846 ( )
𝜀̇𝑠 0.858
From Tables 5-9 and 5-10, it can be seen that power model exhibits the highest coefficient
of determination of 77% and 86%. The predicted formula for the DIF for the adhesive
anchors can be presented as in Equations (5.1) and (5.2) for the combined cone bond failure
and steel failure respectively.
𝜀̇ 0.0198
DIF = 0.9689 ( 𝜀̇ 𝑑 ) (5.1)
𝑠
𝜀̇ 0.0056
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9846 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (5.2)
𝑠
The ultimate dynamic load (𝐹𝑢𝑑 ) for the combined cone bond and steel anchor failure
modes can be determined as in Equations (5.3) and (5.4) respectively as follows:
𝜀̇ 0.0198
𝐹𝑢𝑑 = 𝐹𝑢𝑠 × 0.9689 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (5.3)
𝑠
𝜀̇ 0.0056
𝐹𝑢𝑑 = 𝐹𝑢𝑠 × 0.9846 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (5.4)
𝑠
234
Where the ultimate static load (𝐹𝑢𝑠 ) can be determined from Equation (B.11) for the
combined cone bond and from Equation (4.2) for steel anchor failure mode.
The adequacy of the predicted model is verified by calculating coefficient of determination
R2 and residual analysis (Montgomery, 2013). Residual analysis has been performed to
measure the difference between the results obtained from finite element analysis and fitted
results of DIF obtained from Equations (5.1) and (5.2). Figures 5-30 and 5-31 present the
residual plots. As shown in Figure 5-30, for the combined cone-bond failure, the variance
in the residual increases with the increase in the strain rate ratio. For the steel anchor failure
(Figure 5-31), the residual exhibits horizontal trend line at strain rate ratio up to 108.
2
Combined cone bond
1.5
0.5
Residuals
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
1.E-1 1.E+0 1.E+1 1.E+2 1.E+3 1.E+4 1.E+5 1.E+6 1.E+7 1.E+8 1.E+9
Strain rate ratio
Figure 5-30: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the adhesive anchor exhibited combined
cone bond failure
235
2
Steel failure
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Residuals
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2
1.E-1 1.E+0 1.E+1 1.E+2 1.E+3 1.E+4 1.E+5 1.E+6 1.E+7 1.E+8 1.E+9
Strain rate ratio
Figure 5-31: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the adhesive anchor exhibited steel
failure
In addition, to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed equations, new adhesive anchor
models with diameters of 9.5 mm, 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm and embedment depths
of 89 mm, 114 mm and 140 mm were developed. The relation between the DIF obtained
from the finite element analysis of the new developed models and the regression models
(Equations (5.1) and (5.2)) are presented as shown in Figures 5-32 and 5-33 for the
combined cone-bond failure and steel failure modes respectively. As shown in the figures,
the DIF is distributed around the equality line. However, some divergence was observed
for the higher values of the DIF for the combined cone bond failure mode where the
residual increased at higher strain rates.
236
2.4
Combined cone bond
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
DIF (Predicted)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
DIF (FEA)
the adhesive anchors exhibited combined cone bond failure
2.2
Steel failure
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
DIF (Predicted)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
DIF (FEA)
the adhesive anchors exhibited steel failure
237
As mentioned in Chapter 4, Fujikake et al. (2003) proposed equation to determine the
ultimate dynamic load of the anchorage system exhibited concrete cone breakout failure
(Equation 4.10). Also, Fujikake et al. (2003) proposed equations to determine the ultimate
dynamic load for the combined cone bond failure mode (Fujikake et al., 2003) as follows:
𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑏 = 𝐹𝑐𝑑 + 𝐹𝑏 (5.5)
𝜀̇
𝐹𝑏 = 𝜋. 𝑑ℎ . ℎ𝑏 . 𝜏𝑏𝑠 . ( 𝜀̇ 𝑑 )0.013 (5.6)
𝑠
Where Fccb is the ultimate tensile load for the combined cone bond failure, Fcd is the
ultimate dynamic concrete cone breakout calculated by Equation (4.10), Fb is the ultimate
tensile load for the bond failure mode, hb is the bond failure depth (ℎ𝑏 = ℎ𝑒𝑓 − ℎ𝑐 ), hc is
the failure cone depth in the combined cone bond failure mode (hc=35 mm), 𝛼=3.48×10-3,
𝜃 is the crack propagation angle (𝜃 = 60𝑜 ), where the concrete cone breakout angle is
equal to 30o, 𝜏𝑏𝑠 is the static bond strength (𝜏𝑏𝑠 =19 MPa).
In order to verify the results obtained from the finite element analysis, a comparison has
been made between the ultimate load obtained from the finite element analysis and the
proposed equations by Fujikake et al. (Equations 4.10 and 5.5) for the concrete cone
breakout failure and the combined cone-bond failure modes respectively (Fujikake et al.,
2003). The embedment depth (hef) substituted in Equation (5.5) is equal to the cone failure
depth (hc) for the combined cone-bond failure mode. Tables 5-11 and 5-12 show a
comparison of the ultimate load obtained from the finite element analysis for the concrete
cone breakout failure and combined cone-bond failure modes and the proposed equations
238
by Fujikake et al. (Fujikake et al., 2003). It can be seen from Tables 5-11 and 5-12 that the
ultimate loads obtained from the finite element analysis agree well with the proposed
equations by Fujikake et al. (2003).
Table 5-11: Comparison between ultimate load obtained from the FEA and the proposed
equations by Fujikake et al. (2003) for concrete cone breakout failure mode
d hef Fus FEA Fcd Fujikake Fus FEA/

(mm) (mm) (kN) (kN) Fcd Fujikake
12.7 76.2 57.12 53.10 1.08

12.7 101.6 80.45 79.96 1.01
15.9 76.2 65.69 54.27 1.21
15.9 101.6 87.31 81.31 1.07
19.1 76.2 69.62 55.45 1.26

19.1 101.6 105.49 82.67 1.28
239
Table 5-12: Comparison between ultimate dynamic load obtained from the FEA and the proposed equations by Fujikake et al. (2003)
for combined cone bond failure mode
FEA
d hef 𝜺̇ 𝒔 𝜺̇ 𝒅 Regression Fujikake Equation (5.5) Fud FEA/
𝜺̇ 𝒅 ⁄𝜺̇ 𝒔
(mm) (mm) (s-1) (s-1) Fu (kN) Fccb Fujikake
Fus (kN) Fud (kN) Fcd (kN) Fb (kN) Fccb (kN)
-5 -3 2
12.7 76.2 10 10 10 57.12 63.33 60.63 18.48 38.38 56.86 1.11
12.7 76.2 10-5 10-1 104 57.12 67.39 66.42 20.88 40.75 61.63 1.09
-5 6
12.7 76.2 10 10 10 57.12 71.14 72.76 31.01 43.26 74.28 0.96
12.7 76.2 10-5 102 107 57.12 88.11 76.15 44.55 44.58 89.12 0.99
-5 -3 2
12.7 101.6 10 10 10 80.45 88.59 85.39 18.48 62.04 80.52 1.10
12.7 101.6 10-5 10-1 104 80.45 92.31 93.54 20.88 65.87 86.75 1.06
12.7 101.6 10-5 10 106 80.45 95.49 102.47 31.01 69.93 100.95 0.95
12.7 101.6 10-5 102 107 80.45 98.60 107.25 44.55 72.06 116.61 0.85
-5 -3 2
15.9 76.2 10 10 10 65.69 69.70 69.72 19.28 47.00 66.28 1.05
15.9 76.2 10-5 10-1 104 65.69 74.94 76.38 21.79 49.90 71.69 1.05
15.9 76.2 10-5 10 106 65.69 87.36 83.67 32.37 52.97 85.34 1.02
15.9 76.2 10-5 102 107 65.69 118.21 87.57 46.49 54.58 101.07 1.17
15.9 101.6 10-5 10-3 102 87.31 94.88 92.67 19.28 75.97 95.25 1.00
15.9 101.6 10-5 10-1 104 87.31 101.48 101.52 21.79 80.66 102.45 0.99
15.9 101.6 10-5 10 106 87.31 108.31 111.21 32.37 85.63 118.00 0.92
15.9 101.6 10-5 102 107 87.31 124.28 116.40 46.49 88.23 134.73 0.92
19.1 76.2 10-5 10-1 104 69.62 89.32 80.95 22.70 60.98 83.68 1.07
-5 6
19.1 76.2 10 10 10 69.62 114.01 88.68 33.72 64.75 98.47 1.16
240
19.1 101.6 10-5 10-3 102 105.49 113.94 111.97 20.09 92.85 112.94 1.01
19.1 101.6 10-5 10-1 104 105.49 120.78 122.66 22.70 98.58 121.28 1.00
19.1 101.6 10-5 10 106 105.49 139.14 134.37 33.72 104.66 138.38 1.01
19.1 101.6 10-5 102 107 105.49 196.53 140.63 48.44 107.84 156.28 1.26
19.1 127.0 10-5 10-3 102 157.28 161.79 166.94 20.09 128.26 148.35 1.09
19.1 127.0 10-5 10-1 104 157.28 169.02 182.87 22.70 136.18 158.88 1.06
19.1 127.0 10-5 10 106 157.28 185.58 200.33 33.72 144.58 178.30 1.04
19.1 127.0 10-5 102 107 157.28 217.96 209.68 48.44 148.97 197.41 1.10
19.1 152.4 10-5 10-3 102 179.40 187.48 190.42 20.09 163.67 183.76 1.02
19.1 152.4 10-5 10-1 104 179.40 196.47 208.59 22.70 173.77 196.47 1.00
19.1 152.4 10-5 10 106 179.40 211.45 228.51 33.72 184.49 218.22 0.97
19.1 152.4 10-5 102 107 179.40 234.18 239.17 48.44 190.10 238.54 0.98
*
Fus: ultimate static load obtained from FEA, Fud: ultimate dynamic load obtained from FEA
241
5.2 Adhesive anchors under shear load
5.2.1 Finite element modelling for adhesive anchors under shear load
Shear behaviour of adhesive anchors was investigated using LS-DYNA finite element
program. Adhesive anchor diameters of 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm with embedment
depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, and 152.4 mm, respectively, were investigated. Figure 5-
34 shows the geometric configuration and boundary conditions for the adhesive anchor
model.
(a) Concrete mesh (b) Adhesive anchor mesh

Figure 5-34: Geometric configuration and boundary conditions of adhesive anchor model
5.2.2 Validation of adhesive anchor model under shear load
The adhesive anchor model was validated by comparing the finite element results with the
experimental results obtained by Cattaneo and Muciaccia (Cattaneo & Muciaccia, 2015).
A finite element model, representing the test conducted by Cattaneo and Muciaccia, was
242
developed using LS-DYNA. The adhesive anchor was placed at a distance of 40 mm from
the concrete free edge. Epoxy adhesive of 1 mm thickness was used. The steel anchor used
had yield strength of 400 MPa, diameter of 12-mm and embedment depth of 110 mm. The
compressive strength of the concrete block used in the experimental test and numerical
model was 90 MPa.
A mesh sensitivity analysis was carried out to obtain optimum mesh size that gives
converged results to the experimental test results.
BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET in y direction was applied on the anchor
plate to represent the shear load. Table 5-13 shows the results of the mesh sensitivity
analysis for the adhesive anchor under shear load.
adhesive anchor
Model Mesh size Ultimate shear load Displacement Failure

No. (mm) (kN) (mm) mode
Anchor Adhesive Concrete FEA EXP. FEA EXP.
Min. Max.
Concrete
1 1 1 2 8 17.26 1.27
cracking
Concrete
2 1 1 1 8 17.96 1.27
18.65 0.85 cracking
Concrete
3 0.75 0.50 1 8 19.31 1.24
cracking
Mesh sizes of 1×1×2 mm, 1×1×1 mm and 0.75×0.5×1 mm give percentage difference of
8.1%, 3.8% and 3.5% in the ultimate shear load respectively compared to the experimental
work. Mesh size of model No. 3 yielded converged shear load–displacement behaviour to
the experimental behaviour reported by Cattaneo and Muciaccia and selected for the
analysis. A comparison of shear load–displacement response of the experimental tests and
the finite element analysis is presented in Figure 5-35 and shows that the shear load
243
increased with the displacement up to the ultimate load followed by a reduction in the shear
load until failure. A good agreement was obtained between the finite element analysis and
the experimental results. Concrete cracking failure mode was observed from the finite
element results similar to that observed by Cattaneo and Muciaccia as shown in Figure 5-
36.
24
mesh size (1x1x2) mm
22
mesh size (1x1x1) mm
18 Experimental
16
Shear load (kN)
14
12
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Displacement (mm)

experimental results obtained by Cattaneo et al. (Cattaneo & Muciaccia, 2015)
(a) (b)
results obtained by Cattaneo et al. (Cattaneo & Muciaccia, 2015)
244
5.2.3 Comparison of finite element results with design methods
For the adhesive anchors placed far away from the concrete free edge, pryout failure mode
or anchor failure is often the dominant failure modes. The shear failure load of anchors
exhibiting pryout failure can be calculated according to ACI 318 (ACI Committee 318,
2011) Equation (4.14). The shear failure load of anchors that exhibit steel anchor failure
can be calculated according to ACI 318 as in Equation (4.18) (ACI Committee 318, 2011).
A comparison of the ultimate shear load obtained from the finite element analysis at strain
rate of 10-5 s-1 and ACI 318 method (Equations 4.14 and 4.18) is presented in Table 5-14.
It can be seen that the ultimate shear capacity increased with increase in the anchor
diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm, at the same embedment depth. Similar observation on
the effect of anchor diameter on the shear capacity was reported by Jebara et al. (Jebara et
al., 2016). A good agreement is obtained between the ultimate shear load obtained from
the finite element analysis and the ACI 318 method.
Table 5-14: Comparison between FEA and ACI 318 method

*
Model d hef Failure load FEA/ Failure mode
No. (mm) (mm) (kN) ACI 318 (FEA)
FEA static
ACI 318
(𝜀 ̇ =10-5 s-1)
1 12.7 76.2 79.93 78.59 1.02 S
2 12.7 101.6 81.64 78.59 1.04 S
3 12.7 152.4 81.85 78.59 1.04 S
4 15.9 76.2 94.31 109.24 0.86 PR
5 15.9 101.6 103.73 123.18 0.84 S
6 15.9 152.4 106.5 123.18 0.86 S
7 19.1 76.2 116.26 109.24 1.06 PR
8 19.1 101.6 146.45 168.19 0.87 PR
9 19.1 152.4 164.33 177.76 0.92 S
*Failure mode: S = Steel anchor failure, PR = Pryout failure
245
5.2.4 Crack pattern for adhesive anchors under shear load
Contours of effective plastic strain for adhesive anchors with 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1
mm diameters and embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm at strain rate
of 10-5 s-1 are shown in Figure 5-37. Two failure modes were observed for the adhesive
anchors at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1: pryout failure and steel anchor failure.
As shown in the figure, pryout failure was observed for the 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter
anchors with embedment depth of 76.2 mm whereas steel anchor failure was observed for
the 12.7-mm anchor diameter. For the embedment depth of 101.6 mm pryout failure was
observed for the anchor diameter of 19.1 mm. Steel anchor failure was observed for the
12.7-mm and 15.9-mm anchor diameters wherein the embedment depth to anchor diameter
ratio was sufficient to prevent pryout failure. Also, steel anchor failure was observed for
all the diameters at embedment depth of 152.4 mm. In general, the failure mode of the
adhesive anchor system depends on the anchor stiffness (diameter) and embedment depth.
For the same anchor diameter, increase in the embedment depth can change the failure
mode from concrete pryout failure to steel anchor fracture. Conversely at the same
embedment depth, increase in anchor diameter can lead to concrete pryout failure. When
the shear load is applied on the anchor plate, the anchor resists the shear load and transfers
the load to the adhesive and then to the concrete resulting in compressive stresses in the
concrete in front of the anchor. These stresses increase with the increase in the applied
shear load, create concrete cracking under the anchor plate, result in displacement of the
anchor plate in vertical direction, rotation of the anchor plate and generating a compression
force on the concrete at the front end tip of the plate. A rotational moment will be generated
due to the tensile force in the steel anchor and the compression force on the concrete that
246
results in breaking half concrete cone at the back side on the anchor resulting in pryout
failure. On the other hand, when the concrete resistance to the applied shear load is higher
than the anchor strength, the anchor bends due to the applied shear load resulted in steel
anchor failure. Cook et al. attributed the steel anchor failure of the anchorage to concrete
system under shear load to the interaction of the shear, tensile and bending stresses (Cook
et al., 2013).
d=12.7 mm d=15.9 mm d=19.1 mm
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
Figure 5-37: Plastic strain contours for adhesive anchor under shear load at strain rate of
10-5 s-1
247
Figures 5-38, 5-39 and 5-40 present failure mechanism for 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-
mm diameter adhesive anchors subjected to different shear strain rates of loading. The
cracks initiated at the interface between concrete and adhesive on the top surface of the
concrete in the direction of the applied load (ahead of the anchor) and propagated along the
anchor embedment depth leading to failure. As shown in Figures 5-38 and 5-39, at strain
rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1, concrete spalling followed by steel anchor failure was
observed for the 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm diameter anchors. For anchor diameter of 19.1 mm
(Figure 5-40) concrete spalling was observed at strain rates of 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1 and 10 s-1 at
embedment depth of 76.2 mm, while steel anchor failure was observed at strain rates of
102 s-1 and 103 s-1. Also, steel anchor failure was observed for embedment depths of 101.6
mm and 152.4 mm at strain rates ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1. When concrete spalling
occurs, the stresses are concentrated in the concrete in front of the anchor resulting in
concrete cracking without breakout of a concrete cone behind the anchor.
𝜀̇ Failure mode
10-3
10-1
10
248
102
103
𝜀̇ Failure mode
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
249
𝜀̇ Failure mode
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
It can be seen from Figure 5-38, 5-39 and 5-40 that the strain rate has an influence on the
failure mode. The figures show that, anchor diameter of 19.1 mm exhibited higher level of
concrete damage compared to the smaller anchor diameter of 12.7-mm for all the strain
rates investigated.
Typical Von-Mises stress contours (MPa) in the steel anchor are presented in Figure 5-41
to show the mechanism of steel anchor failure of 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchor with
152.4 mm embedment depth at strain rate of 10 s-1. As shown in the figure, the Von-Mises
250
stresses are concentrated around the top part of the anchor where the shear load is applied
then propagated along the embedment depth of the anchor, followed by anchor bending,
bond failure and steel anchor failure.
(a) t= 0.05 ms (b) t= 0.28 ms (c) t= 0.40 ms (d) t= 0.5 ms
Figure 5-41: Failure mechanism of 19.1 mm diameter adhesive anchor with 152.4 mm
embedment depth; (a) stress concentration around the anchor, (b) anchor bending with
bond failure, (c) initiation of anchor fracture, (d) complete anchor failure
Table 5-15 presents the failure modes for the adhesive anchors at diffent strain rates.
Table 5-15: Failure mode for adhesive anchors under shear load at different strain rates
*
Model d hef Failure mode
𝜺̇ =10-5 𝜺̇ =10-3 𝜺̇ =10-1 𝜺̇ =10 𝜺̇ =102 𝜺̇ =103
1 12.7 76.2 S S S S S S
2 12.7 101.6 S S S S S S
3 12.7 152.4 S S S S S S
4 15.9 76.2 PR S S S S S
5 15.9 101.6 S S S S S S
6 15.9 152.4 S S S S S S
7 19.1 76.2 PR CS CS CS S S
8 19.1 101.6 PR S S S S S
9 19.1 152.4 S S S S S S
*
Failure mode: PR= pryout failure, CS= concrete spalling, S=steel anchor failure
251
shear load for the adhesive anchors. As shown in Figure 5-42 and Figure 5-43, slight
increase in the ultimate shear load with the increase in the strain rate is observed for the
anchor diameters of 12.7 mm and 15.9 mm. Also, it can be seen that increasing the
embedment depth from 76.2 mm to 152.4 mm at the same strain rate has insignificant
influence on the ultimate shear load. Where, steel anchor failure was observed for the 12.7-
mm and 15.9-mm diameter adhesive anchors at all the strain rates investigated except for
the 15.9-mm diameter adhesive anchor with 76.2 mm embedment depth which exhibited
pryout failure. This is attributed to the concrete resistance to the applied load is higher than
the capacity of the small anchor diameters of 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm leads to steel fracture.
However, the increase in the shear load with increasing the embedment depth is remarkable
for the 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchor (Figure 5-44).
As shown in Figure 5-44 for the 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchor with embedment depth
of 76.2 mm, the failure mode transitioned from pryout failure (PR) at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
to concrete spalling (CS) at strain rates of 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, and 10 s-1 and then to steel failure
(S) at strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1. Concrete spalling failure mode occurs when the
anchor placed far from the concrete free edge where the concrete resists the shear forces
transferred from the anchor causing concrete spall. However, when the anchor placed near
the concrete free edge, concrete breakout can occur. It can be seen from Figure 5-44, at
strain rates of 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1 and 10 s-1 transitions in the failure mode from concrete
spalling to steel anchor failure is observed when the embedment depth increased from 76.2
mm to 152.4 mm. At the 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm embedment depths, steel anchor failure
252
was observed at all the strain rates investigated, while at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 with
embedment depth of 101.6 mm, pryout failure was observed.
It can be seen from Figure 5-44 the ultimate shear load for the 76.2 mm embedment depth
increased from 116.26 kN at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to 154.81 kN at strain rate of 10 s-1. These
values are 180.18 kN and 184.17 kN at strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 respectively. The
increase in the ultimate shear load is due to the increase in the concrete and steel strength
with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 10 s-1, where concrete spalling failure
mode is observed. However, at high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1, the increase in the
ultimate shear load is due to the increase of steel strength at high strain rate where steel
anchor failure is observed. For the embedment depth of 101.6 mm, the increase in the
ultimate load was from 146.45 kN at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to 170.49 kN at strain rate of 10-
3 -1
s . Further increase in the strain rate exhibited slight increase in the ultimate shear load.
Similar behaviour was observed for the anchor embedment depth of 152.4 mm where steel
anchor failure is the dominant failure mode at all the strain rates investigated.
As shown in Figure 5-44, the strain rate affects the failure mode for the anchor diameter of
19.1-mm where transition from pryout failure to concrete spalling and then to steel anchor
failure is observed. Also, it can be seen from Figures 5-43 and 5-44 that the failure mode
is influenced by the anchor diameter and embedment depth. Pryout failure (PR) is observed
at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 for anchor diameters of 15.9-mm and 19.1 mm at embedment
depth of 76.2 mm. Also, pryout failure was observed for anchor diameter of 19.1-mm at
embedment depth of 101.6 mm. Concrete spalling (CS) was observed at strain rate of 10-
253
3 -1
s to 10 s-1 for anchor diameter of 19.1-mm at embedment depth of 76.2 mm. Steel anchor
failure (S) was observed for most of the adhesive anchors investigated. Also, it can be seen
from the figures that the ultimate shear load increased with the increase in the strain rate
and diameter for the adhesive anchors investigated. Anchor diameter of 19.1-mm gave the
highest ultimate shear load at all the embedment depths investigated. This is attributed to
the increase in the anchor stiffness and anchor resistance to the applied shear load and thus
higher load is required for fracturing the anchor.
250
S, hef=76.2 mm
225 S, hef=101.6 mm
S, hef=152.4 mm
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1.E-5 1.E-3 1.E-1 1.E+1 1.E+2 1.E+3
Strain rate (s-1)
adhesive anchor diameter of 12.7 mm
254
250
PR, hef=76.2 mm
225 S, hef=76.2 mm
S, hef=101.6 mm
200 S, hef=152.4 mm
Ultimate shear load (kN) 175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
250
PR, hef=76.2 mm PR, hef=101.6 mm
225 CS, hef=76.2 mm S, hef=76.2 mm
S, hef=101.6 mm S, hef=152.4 mm
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
255
5.2.7 Effect of strain rate on the shear behaviour of adhesive anchors
The shear behaviour of the adhesive anchors embedded into concrete at strain rates in the
range of 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 was investigated. Load-displacement behaviour of the 12.7-mm
diameter adhesive anchor at strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-
1
are shown in Figures 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49 and 5-50 respectively at embedment
depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm.
110
hef=76.2 mm
100
hef=101.6 mm
90
hef=152.4 mm
80
70
Shear load (kN)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Displacement (mm)
256
110
hef=76.2 mm
100 hef=101.6 mm
90 hef=152.4 mm
Shear load (kN) 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Displacement (mm)
110
hef=76.2 mm
100
hef=101.6 mm
90 hef=152.4 mm
80
Shear load (kN)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Displacement (mm)
257
110
hef=76.2 mm
100
hef=101.6 mm
90 hef=152.4 mm
Shear load (kN) 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Displacement (mm)
110
hef=76.2 mm
100
hef=101.6 mm
90 hef=152.4 mm
80
Shear load (kN)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Displacement (mm)
258
110
hef=76.2 mm
100
hef=101.6 mm
90 hef=152.4 mm
80
70
Shear load (kN)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Displacement (mm)
As shown from the Figures 5-45 to 5-50, the shear load increased with the displacement
until the ultimate value. This is attributed to the concrete resistance to the applied load
where the shear load is transferred from the anchor plate to the anchor and then to the
concrete through the adhesive material. The post-peak response shows a reduction in the
load with further increase in displacement until failure. It can be seen from Table 5-16 that
the shear capacity of the adhesive anchor increased as the strain rate increased from 10-5 s-
1
to 103 s-1. At strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1 and 10-1 s-1 (Figures 5-45, 5-46 and 5-47) the
shear load increased with the displacement until reaching the ultimate value, and then
decreased until complete failure. At strain rates of 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 (Figures 5-48,
5-49 and 5-50), the shear load increased with the displacement up to the ultimate shear load
followed by a decrease in the shear load and fluctuation about the residual shear load. It
259
can be seen from the figures that the ultimate shear loads of the anchors at strain rates
ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 were almost the same irrespective of the embedment depth
as the predominant failure mode was steel anchor fracture.
The shear load-displacement behaviour of 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive
anchors with embedment depths of 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm at strain rates in the
range between 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 is showed similar response to the 12.7-mm diameter
adhesive anchor. The results for these adhesive anchors are presented in Appendix F.
Tables 5-16, 5-17 and 5-18 present the ultimate shear load-displacement results for the
12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors respectively. Where 𝛿 is the
displacement at the ultimate shear load. It can be seen from Tables 5-16, 5-17 and 5-18 that
as the strain rate increased the ultimate shear capacity of the adhesive anchorage systems
increased. The increased shear capacity is enhanced with increased anchor diameter from
12.7-mm to 19.1-mm and for all the embedment depths investigated. It can be seen from
Tables 5-16 and 5-17, steel failure is the dominant failure mode for adhesive anchor
diameters of 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm for all embedment depths and strain rates investigated,
except for the 15.9-mm diameter anchor with embedment depth of 76.2 mm at low strain
rate of 10-5 s-1 that exhibited pryout failure, where the embedment depth to diameter ratio
is sufficient to obtain pryout failure. For adhesive anchor diameter of 19.1-mm (Table 5-
18), pryout failure was observed for the embedment depths of 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm
while steel failure was observed at embedment depth of 152.4 mm at low strain rate of 10-
5 -1
s . Concrete spalling was observed for the shallow embedment depth of 76.2 mm at strain
260
rates of 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1 and 10 s-1 while steel anchor failure was observed for the
embedment depths of 101.6 mm and 152.4 mm. Also, steel failure was observed at strain
rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 and for all embedment depths investigated. It can be stated that
the strain rate has an effect on the shear load and failure mode.
adhesive anchor
Model d hef 𝜀̇ Vu 𝛿 Failure mode
No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) (kN) (mm)
1 76.2 79.93 1.32 S
2 12.7 101.6 10-5 81.64 1.35 S
3 152.4 81.85 1.25 S
4 76.2 81.75 1.68 S
5 12.7 101.6 10-3 84.07 1.63 S
6 152.4 84.26 1.72 S
7 76.2 84.69 2.89 S
8 12.7 101.6 10-1 85.72 2.54 S
9 152.4 87.63 2.56 S
10 76.2 87.47 3.00 S
11 12.7 101.6 101 89.74 2.89 S
12 152.4 89.91 2.92 S
13 76.2 89.19 1.98 S
14 12.7 101.6 102 92.68 2.21 S
15 152.4 92.75 2.25 S
16 76.2 91.14 2.50 S
17 12.7 101.6 103 94.39 2.73 S
18 152.4 94.82 2.97 S
adhesive anchor
No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) (kN) (mm)
1 76.2 94.31 1.57 PR
2 15.9 101.6 10-5 103.73 1.41 S
3 152.4 106.50 1.39 S
4 76.2 106.38 3.07 S
5 15.9 101.6 10-3 109.69 2.81 S
6 152.4 109.98 2.57 S
7 76.2 109.55 2.52 S
8 15.9 101.6 10-1 113.02 2.73 S
9 152.4 114.41 2.45 S
10 15.9 76.2 10 113.19 2.65 S
261
11 101.6 115.97 3.51 S
12 152.4 116.58 3.29 S
13 76.2 116.43 2.62 S
14 15.9 101.6 102 117.99 3.16 S
15 152.4 119.87 3.09 S
16 76.2 121.21 2.59 S
17 15.9 101.6 103 122.16 3.17 S
18 152.4 122.62 3.22 S
adhesive anchor
No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) (kN) (mm)
1 76.2 116.26 1.12 PR
2 19.1 101.6 10-5 146.45 1.26 PR
3 152.4 164.33 1.47 S
4 76.2 129.89 2.08 CS
5 19.1 101.6 10-3 170.49 1.93 S
6 152.4 172.78 1.91 S
7 76.2 140.24 2.74 CS
8 19.1 101.6 10-1 174.37 3.56 S
9 152.4 178.02 3.43 S
10 76.2 154.81 1.36 CS
11 19.1 101.6 10 177.65 1.11 S
12 152.4 183.08 1.28 S
13 76.2 180.18 1.19 S
14 19.1 101.6 102 181.34 1.24 S
15 152.4 186.14 1.23 S
16 76.2 184.17 1.66 S
17 19.1 101.6 103 186.51 1.58 S
18 152.4 189.42 1.77 S
5.2.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate shear load and DIF of adhesive anchors
Figures 5-51, 5-52 and 5-53 present the effect of strain rate on the ultimate shear load and
DIF for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors with different
embedment depths. As shown in the figures, the ultimate shear load increased with the
increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for the adhesive anchors investigated.
Similar observation on the cast-in-place and post-installed (undercut and expansion)
262
anchors subjected to dynamic shear load was reported by Gross et al. (2001) (Gross et al.,
2001). Gross et al. found that the ultimate shear loads for the investigated anchors under
dynamic load is higher than that under static load.
The relationship between the ultimate shear load and strain rate is approximately linear for
the 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm diameter adhesive anchors at all embedment depths. The linear
relationship between the ultimate shear load and strain rate for the 12.7-mm and 15.9-mm
diameter adhesive anchors is attributed to the slight increase in ultimate shear load with the
increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 where steel anchor failure is the dominant
failure mode at all the strain rates. The steel strength increased with the increase in the
strain rate resulting in increased ultimate shear load. However, for the 19.1 mm diameter
adhesive anchor with embedment depth of 76.2 mm an almost bilinear relation is obtained
with change in slope at strain rate of 10 s-1. The change in slope is attributed to the transition
from pryout failure mode to steel anchor failure. At embedment depth of 101.6 mm, linear
relation was observed for the 19.1-mm diameter anchor for the strain rates ranging from
10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1. At strain rate of 10-5 pryout failure was observed, transition from pryout
failure mode to steel anchor failure was observed at strain rate of 10-3 s-1. For pryout failure
mode both steel and concrete materials contribute in increasing the shear load where their
strength increased with increasing the strain rate. Increasing anchor embedment depth from
76.2 mm to 152.4 mm increased the ultimate shear load for the anchors exhibiting pryout
or concrete spalling failure. Maximum ultimate shear loads of 94.82 kN, 122.62 kN and
189.42 kN were obtained for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive
anchors respectively with embedment depth of 152.4 mm at high strain rate of 103 s-1. At
263
low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 the shear loads were 81.85 kN, 106.50 kN and 164.33 kN for the
12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors, respectively.
Comparing with the ultimate shear load at embedment depth of 76.2 mm (Figure 5-51), the
increase in the ultimate shear load for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter
adhesive anchors over the static (strain rate of 10-5 s-1) was 14%, 28.5% and 58%,
respectively at high strain rate of 103 s-1. While the increase in the ultimate shear load was
16%, 18% and 27% for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors,
respectively for the embedment depth of 101.6 mm at high strain rate of 103 s-1 (Figure 5-
52). The increase in the ultimate shear load was 16%, 15% and 15% for the 12.7-mm, 15.9-
mm and 19.1-mm diameter adhesive anchors, respectively for the embedment depth of
152.4 mm at high strain rate of 103 s-1 where steel anchor failure is observed at all the strain
rates investigated (Figure 5-53). At high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1, the concrete
strength increased and thus the concrete resistance to the applied shear load increased. The
increase in the concrete strength at high strain rate is attributed to the internal cracking that
is propagated severely in the concrete. The concrete is a brittle material when subjected to
failure load there is no time for unloading and this resulted in confining stresses in the
concrete and thus increase the dynamic strength (Bischoff & Perry, 1991). Also, the strain
rate has an influence on the mechanical properties of the steel, both the tensile and yield
strength of the steel increased with the increase in the strain rate (Fu et al., 1991;
Hopperstad et al., 2003; Yu et al., 2009). Furthermore, the strain rate has an influence on
the flow stress-strain response and the microstructure of the steel (Lee et al., 2007). The
increase in the strain rate increased the level of deformation of the steel where severe strain
264
concentration is observed along narrow area called adiabatic shear band (Odeshi et al.,
2005). The adiabatic shear band creates plastic instability that leads to fracture (Lee et al.,
2007).
300 2.0
240 1.6

210 1.4
180 1.2
150 1.0
120 0.8
90 0.6
60 0.4
30 0.2
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
mm embedment depth
265
300 2.0
240 1.6

210 1.4
180 1.2
150 1.0
120 0.8
90 0.6
60 0.4
30 0.2
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
mm embedment depth
300 2.0
240 1.6

210 1.4
180 1.2
150 1.0
120 0.8
90 0.6
60 0.4
30 0.2
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
mm embedment depth
266
The findings in the Figures 5-51, 5-52 and 5-53 demonstrate that the DIF increased with
the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. For the 19.1 mm diameter adhesive
anchor with 76.2 mm embedment depth (Figure 5-51), the DIF increased with the increase
in the strain rate up to 10 s-1 where transition in the failure mode from pryout failure to
concrete spalling was observed. Steel failure was observed at high strain rates of 10 2 s-1
and 103 s-1 with a slight increase in the DIF to 1.12. The increase in DIF is due to the
increase in the strength of steel and concrete materials with the increase in strain rate. The
increase in the concrete strength at high strain rate is higher than the increase in the steel
strength. Maximum DIF of 1.33 was obtained for the 19.1 mm diameter adhesive anchor
with embedment depth of 76.2 mm at strain rate of 10 s-1. It can be noticed from Figure 5-
53, that the influence of anchor diameter on the DIF at embedment depth of 152.4 mm is
insignificant for the strain rates investigated where steel anchor failure is the dominant
failure mode. Average DIF of 1.15 was obtained for adhesive anchors with embedment
depth of 152.4 mm at high strain rate of 103 s-1. This is comparable to the DIF of 1.2
reported by Braimah et al. for adhesive anchors subjected to impulse dynamic load and
penetrated in normal substrate angle (Braimah et al., 2009). Cowell (1969) obtained DIF
values of 1.25, 1.33 and 1.53 for A36 steel at strain rates of 0.03 s-1, 0.1 s-1 and 1 s-1
respectively (Cowell, 1969). Wakabayashi et al. investigated the effect of strain rate on the
yield strength of round and deformed steel. The authors obtained 1.07% and 1.08%
increase in the yield strength at strain rate of 5×10-3 s-1 for the deformed and round steel
bars respectively, the increase was 1.18% and 1.16% at strain rate of 10-1 s-1 (Wakabayashi
et al., 1980).
267
Table 5-19 shows the maximum DIF for the adhesive anchors under shear load where
pryout and steel anchor failure modes were observed. The value of DIF equal to one
represents the DIF at the static strain rate of 10-5 s-1, where pryout failure mode is observed.
Steel anchor failure was observed for most of the adhesive anchors at low strain rate of 10-
5 -1
s and higher strain rates up to 103 s-1. Maximum DIF for the adhesive anchors exhibited
steel failure was obtained at high strain rate of 103 s-1 and presented in Table 5-19.
Table 5-19: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the adhesive anchors under shear load
Model d hef 𝜺̇ DIF 𝜺̇ DIF
No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) PR (s-1) S
1 12.7 76.2 - - 103 1.14
2 12.7 101.6 - - 103 1.16
3 12.7 152.4 - - 103 1.16
4 15.9 76.2 10-5 1.00 103 1.17
5 15.9 101.6 - - 103 1.18
6 15.9 152.4 - - 103 1.15
7 19.1 76.2 10-5 1.00 103 1.12
8 19.1 101.6 10-5 1.00 103 1.13
3
9 19.1 152.4 - - 10 1.15
5.2.9 Regression analysis for adhesive anchor under shear load
Regression analysis was carried out to predict the relation between the DIF and the strain
rate ratio for the adhesive anchors subjected to shear load. Steel anchor failure was
observed as the dominant failure mode for the adhesive anchors subjected to shear load
investigated in this research (Figures 5-38, 5-39 and 5-40). Hence regression analysis was
conducted to this failure mode. Average value of the DIF for anchor diameters of 12.7 mm,
15.9 mm and 19.1 mm was calculated to adjust the DIF for the effect of anchor diameter.
Figure 5-54 presents the relation between the DIF and the strain rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) for the
268
adhesive anchors exhibiting steel failure mode. The minimum recommended embedment
depth for the adhesive anchor diameter of 19.1 mm is 89 mm (Hilti, 2014), hence anchor
diameter of 19.1 mm with embedment depth of 76.2 mm was excluded from the regression
analysis.
1.8
Steel failure
1.6
1.4
y = 0.9978x0.0075
1.2 R² = 0.9813
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 5-54: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for adhesive anchor exhibiting steel
failure under shear load
Various statistical models are used to predict the relation between the DIF and strain rate
ratio as shown in Table 5-20.
269
adhesive anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load
𝜀̇
Exponential 9𝐸−10( 𝑑 ) 0.454
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.0607𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1𝐸 − 9 ( ) + 1.0616 0.471
𝜀̇𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
𝜀̇𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑 0.0075
Power 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9978 ( ) 0.981
𝜀̇𝑠
From Table 5-20, it can be seen that power model exhibits the highest coefficient of
determination (R2) of 98% for the adhesive anchors exhibiting steel failure mode. The
predicted formulae for the DIF of the adhesive anchor under shear load can be presented
using the power model as in Equation (5.7).
𝜀̇ 0.0075
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9978 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (5.7)
𝑠
The proposed Equation (5.7) can be used to predict the ultimate dynamic shear load (𝑉𝑢𝑑 )
as follows:
𝜀̇ 0.0075
𝑉𝑢𝑑 = 𝑉𝑢𝑠 × 0.9978 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (5.8)
𝑠
Where the ultimate static load (𝑉𝑢𝑠 ) can be determined from Equation (4.18) for steel
anchor failure mode.
Residual analysis has been performed for the adhesive anchors to measure the difference
between the results obtained from finite element analysis and results of DIF obtained from
270
Equation (5.7). Figure 5-55 presents the residual plots for the adhesive anchors. As shown
in Figure 5-55, the residual exhibits horizontal trend line with strain rate ratio.
2
Steel failure
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Residuals
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2
1.E-2 1.E+0 1.E+2 1.E+4 1.E+6 1.E+8 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 5-55: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the adhesive anchor subjected to shear
load and exhibited steel failure
New adhesive anchor models with diameters of 9.5 mm, 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm and 19.1 mm
and embedment depths of 89 mm, 114 mm and 140 mm were developed. The adequacy of
the proposed equation was validated by comparing the results with the new adhesive anchor
models with different design parameters. Figure 5-56 presents the relation between the DIF
obtained from the finite element analysis of the newly developed models and the regression
models (Equation (5.7)) for adhesive anchors exhibited steel failure. As shown in the
figure, the DIF is observed distributed around the equality line.
271
2.2
Steel failure
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
DIF (Predicted)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
DIF (FEA)
the adhesive anchor exhibited steel failure under shear load
5.3 Summary
In this chapter finite element analyses were performed to investigate the tensile and shear
behaviour of the adhesive anchorage to concrete system models. The chapter begun with
validation of the adhesive anchor models with the experimental results from the literature.
Mesh sensitivity analyses were performed to obtain the optimum mesh size that can
represent the experimental results accurately. The results of the finite element analysis have
been compared with the ACI and CCD design methods. Also, the results of the finite
element analysis were compared with the results obtained from the literature. Level of
damage and failure mode for the adhesive anchors subjected to tensile and shear loads at
strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 were drawn and discussed. For the adhesive
272
anchors subjected to tensile load, three types of failure modes were observed: concrete
cone breakout, combined cone-bond failure and steel anchor failure. For the adhesive
anchors subjected to shear loads three types of failure modes were observed: pryout,
concrete spalling and steel anchor failure. Concrete cone depth and concrete cone breakout
diameter for adhesive anchor under tensile load were determined. Load-displacement
relations for adhesive anchor under tensile and shear loads were drawn and analyzed. The
relation between ultimate load, failure mode and strain rate for the adhesive anchors
subjected to tensile and shear loads were drawn and discussed. Dynamic increase factor
(DIF) was determined for the adhesive anchors at all the strain rates investigated. Equations
were developed to determine the relation between the DIF and strain rate for the adhesive
anchors investigated.
273
Chapter 6 : Strain rate effect on the undercut anchors
6.1 Finite element modelling for undercut anchors under tensile load
Finite element analyses were performed to investigate the tensile behaviour of the undercut
anchors using LS-DYNA. Undercut anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm with
recommended effective embedment depths of 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm, respectively
(Hilti, 2011) were investigated. In addition, embedment depth of 100 mm was investigated.
Figure 6-1 shows a schematic view of the undercut anchorage to concrete system. Figure
6-2 shows the geometric configuration and boundary conditions for the undercut anchor
model under tensile load.
Figure 6-1: A schematic view for the undercut anchor model
274
(a) concrete mesh (b) undercut anchor mesh
model
6.1.1 Validation of undercut anchor model under tensile load
To assess the ability of LS-DYNA model to predict the tensile behaviour of the undercut
anchor, a finite element model representing the experimental test conducted by Mahadik
et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016) was developed to validate the undercut anchor model. Concrete
block size of (700×300×400) mm and cube compressive strength of 42.6 MPa (𝑓𝑐′ = 33.5
MPa) was used. Hilti undercut anchor, through-set type, of 12-mm diameter, 125 mm
embedment depth and 640 MPa yield strength was used for the analysis. Mesh sensitivity
analyses were carried out to determine the optimum mesh size for both the steel undercut
anchor and concrete block to maximize accuracy of the results while minimizing required
computer resources. Table 6-1 shows various element mesh sizes for the steel anchor and
concrete, the ultimate load, and failure mode for each mesh size.
275
undercut anchor
Model Mesh size Ultimate tensile load Displacement Failure mode
No. (mm) (kN) (mm)
Min. Max.
1 2 4 12 66.5 5.13 Steel failure
2 2 2 12 71.4 72.8 4.74 4.67 Steel failure
3 1 1 12 74.2 4.71 Steel failure
A percentage difference between the finite element analysis and the experimental results
of 9.47%, 1.96% and 1.92% for the ultimate tensile load were obtained for the models No.
1, 2 and 3 respectively. Mesh size of model No. 2 gave converged results to the
experimental results conducted by Mahadik et al. with better computation time and was
selected for the analysis. Figure 6-3 shows a comparison of tensile load-displacement
response between the experimental results obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik et al.,
2016) and the finite element results. Ultimate tensile loads of 71.4 kN and 72.8 kN were
obtained from the finite element analysis and the experimental test conducted by Mahadik
et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016), respectively. The experimental results exhibited 1.96% higher
ultimate tensile load than the finite element analysis results. Both the finite element
analysis and experimental test resulted in steel anchor failure mode as shown in Figure 6-
4.
276
90
mesh size (2x4) mm

mesh size (1x1) mm
70 Experimental
60
Tensile load (kN)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Displacement (mm)
Figure 6-3: Tensile load-displacement response of the FEA and experimental results
obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016)
(a) Finite element analysis (b) Experimental (Mahadik et al., 2016)
Figure 6-4: Failure mode of the undercut anchors under tensile load observed from the
finite element analysis and the experimental results by (Mahadik et al., 2016)
277
6.1.2 Comparison of FEA results with the ACI and CCD design methods
Ultimate tensile loads obtained from the finite element analysis (FEA) at strain rate of 10-
5
s-1 were compared with anchor capacity obtained by use of the American Concrete
Institute ACI 349-85 (Equations 4.1 for concrete cone breakout failure and 4.2 for steel
anchor failure) and Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) (Equation 4.3) methods, as presented
in Table 6-2. Fuchs et al. (1995) proposed an equation to predict the concrete cone breakout
failure for the cast-in-place and post-installed anchors (Equation 4.3) which was
subsequently adopted by ACI 318 code (Eligehausen, et al., 2006; Fuchs et al., 1995). The
equivalent anchor head diameter (dh) (in Equation 4.1) of undercut anchors is ≥ 2.5𝑑 (Hilti,
2011). For safe anchorage to concrete design, minimum ultimate load obtained from
(Equations 4.1 and 4.2) is considered for the comparison of the FEA results with the ACI
method. Also, minimum ultimate value obtained from (Equations 4.2 and 4.3) is considered
for the comparison of the FEA results with the CCD method and included in Table 6-2.
It can be seen from Table 6-2 that the ACI and CCD methods underpredict the ultimate
load for the anchor with a diameter of 12 mm and embedment depth of 100 and anchor
diameters of 16 mm and 20 mm with embedment depths of 100 mm and 125 mm. The ACI
method underestimate the failure load for the shallow embedment depths (Fuchs et al.,
1995). Also, the anchor diameter is not considered in the ACI (Equation 4.1) and CCD
(Equation 4.3) methods. In general the finite element analysis results are in good agreement
with the ACI and CCD methods.
278
methods
d hef Ultimate tensile load δ FEA/ACI FEA/CCD *Failure
(mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) mode
FEA ACI CCD (FEA)
100 83.14 75.91 82.12 1.32 1.10 1.01 S
12 125 83.22 90.48 90.48 1.34 0.92 0.92 S
190 83.94 90.48 90.48 1.38 0.93 0.93 S
100 101.09 81.75 82.12 1.78 1.24 1.23 CC
16 125 126.62 120.44 114.76 1.88 1.05 1.10 S
190 127.16 160.85 160.85 1.87 0.79 0.79 S
100 118.41 87.59 82.12 1.27 1.35 1.44 CC
20 125 168.66 127.74 114.76 1.81 1.32 1.47 CC
190 211.46 251.33 215.06 2.03 0.84 0.98 S
*Failure mode: CC=concrete cone breakout, S=steel anchor fracture
Figure 6-5 shows the level of damage for the undercut anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm
and 20 mm with different embedment depths at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1. As shown in the
figure, two types of failure modes were observed at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1: concrete cone
breakout failure and steel failure. Concrete cone breakout failure was observed at
embedment depth of 100 mm for anchor diameters of 16 mm and 20 mm whereas steel
anchor failure was observed for the anchor diameter of 12 mm. At the beginning of the
loading, cracks started to appear at the lower ends of the sleeve, then the cracks grow and
propagate diagonally along the embedment depth and transferred to a wider area on the
concrete forming concrete cone breakout failure. Steel anchor failure was observed at
embedment depths of 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm for all the undercut anchor diameters
except anchor diameter of 20 mm with embedment depth of 125 mm where concrete cone
breakout failure was observed.
279
d=12 mm d=16 mm d=20 mm
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
Figure 6-5: Plastic strain contours for the undercut anchors at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
Figures 6-6, 6-7 and 6-8 present the failure mode of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm diameter
undercut anchors with 100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm embedment depths at
different strain rates. As shown in the Figures 6-6 and 6-7, steel anchor failure was the
dominant failure mode for the 12-mm and 16-mm diameter undercut anchors at strain rates
ranging from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1.
280
𝜀̇ (s-1) hef=100 mm hef=125mm hef=190 mm hef=250 mm
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
Figure 6-6: Failure mode of 12 mm diameter undercut anchor at different strain rates
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
281
As shown in Figure 6-8, concrete cone breakout failure was observed for the undercut
anchor diameter of 20 mm with embedment depth of 100 mm at strain rates of 10-3 s-1, 10-
1 -1
s and 10 s-1 while steel anchor failure was observed at strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1.
At strain rates of 10-3 and 10-1 s-1 there was sufficient time to initiate and propagate the
cracks in the concrete, formation of the conical shape resulting in concrete cone breakout
failure. Whereas at high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1, the steel anchor failure is
attributed to the fast pullout of the anchors and increase in the concrete tensile strength at
high strain rate. At embedment depth of 125 mm, concrete cone breakout failure was
observed at strain rates of 10-3 s-1 and 10-1 s-1 whereas steel anchor failure was observed at
strain rates of 10 s-1,102 s-1 103 s-1. Also, steel anchor failure was observed at embedment
depths of 190 mm and 250 mm for all the strain rates investigated.
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
282
Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and failure mode for the undercut anchors
is shown in Figures 6-9, 6-10 and 6-11 for the 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm diameter undercut
anchors respectively. It can be seen from the figures that the tensile load increased with the
increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 where steel anchor failure is observed for
most of the undercut anchors investigated. From Figures 6-9, 6-10 and 6-11, it can be seen
that the strain rate has an influence on the failure mode of the undercut anchors.
300
S, hef=100 mm S, hef=125 mm
250
200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
anchor diameter of 12 mm
283
300
CC, hef=100 mm S, hef=100 mm
250
S, hef=250 mm

200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
350
CC, hef=100 mm CC, hef=125 mm
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
284
Figures 6-9, 6-10 and 6-11, show that the embedment depth and anchor diameter also have
an effect on the failure mode. Increasing the embedment depth from 100 mm to 190 mm
resulted in steel anchor failure for the anchor diameter of 20 mm at low strain rate of 10-5
s-1. Increasing the anchor diameter from 12 mm to 20 mm resulted in changing the failure
mode from steel anchor failure to concrete cone breakout for the embedment depths of 100
mm and 125 mm at strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1 and 10-1 s-1. Also, the failure mode
changed from steel failure to concrete cone breakout for embedment depth of 100 mm at
strain rate of 10 s-1 with the increase in the anchor diameter from 12 mm to 20 mm. Table
6-3 presents the failure mode for the undercut anchors under tensile load at different strain
rates.
Table 6-3: Failure mode for undercut anchors under tensile load at different strain rates
*
𝜺̇ =10-5 𝜺̇ =10-3 𝜺̇ =10-1 𝜺̇ =10 𝜺̇ =102 𝜺̇ =103
1 12 100 S S S S S S
2 12 125 S S S S S S
3 12 190 S S S S S S
4 12 250 S S S S S S
5 16 100 CC S S S S S
6 16 125 S S S S S S
7 16 190 S S S S S S
8 16 250 S S S S S S
9 20 100 CC CC CC CC S S
10 20 125 CC CC CC S S S
11 20 190 S S S S S S
12 20 250 S S S S S S
*
Failure mode: CC= concrete cone breakout, S= steel anchor failure
285
6.1.5 Effect of anchor embedment depth on the ultimate tensile load
Figures 6-12, 6-13 and 6-14 show the ultimate tensile load and concrete cone depth for the
12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors for different embedment depths at
low strain rate of 10-5 s-1. It can be seen that nearly same ultimate tensile load is obtained
for the 12-mm anchor diameter at all the embedment depths investigated where steel anchor
failure is observed as shown in Figure 6-12. For the anchor diameter of 16 mm (Figure 6-
13) the ultimate tensile load increased from 101.09 kN to 126.62 kN as the embedment
depth increased from 100 mm to 125 mm. No increase in the ultimate tensile load was
obtained for further increase in the embedment depth to 190 mm. Concrete cone breakout
failure was observed at embedment depth of 100 mm with concrete cone breakout diameter
of 291 mm. Steel anchor failure was observed at embedment depths of 125 mm and 190
mm.
For the anchor diameter of 20 mm as shown in Figure 6-14, the ultimate tensile load
increased with the increase in the embedment depth from 100 mm to 190 mm. Concrete
cone breakout failure mode was observed at embedment depths of 100 mm and 125 mm.
The concrete cone breakout diameter increased from 340 mm to 378 mm as the embedment
depth increased from 100 mm to 125 mm. Steel anchor failure was observed at embedment
depth of 190 mm.
286
250 250
cone depth
200 200

175 175
150 150
125 125
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
0 0
100 125 190
tensile load for 12 mm diameter undercut anchor
250 250
cone depth
200 200
175 175

150 150
125 125
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
0 0
100 125 190
287
250 250
cone depth
225 225
Ultimate tensile load
200 200

175 175
150 150
125 125
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
0 0
100 125 190
6.1.6 Effect of strain rate on concrete cone breakout diameter and cone propagation
angle
Figure 6-15 shows the displacement contours of 20-mm diameter undercut anchor with
embedemnt depth of 100 mm under tensile load at strain rates ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103
s-1. As shown in the figure, the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 10 s-1 decreased
the concrete cone breakout diameter. At high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1, steel anchor
failure is observed.
288
(a) 𝜀̇ =10-5 s-1 (b) 𝜀̇ =10-3 s-1
(c) 𝜀̇ =10-1 s-1 (d) 𝜀̇ =10 s-1
(e) 𝜀̇ =102 s-1 (f) 𝜀̇ =103 s-1

Figure 6-15: Displacement contours for 20 mm undercut anchor diameter at strain rates
ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1
The crack propagation angle was monitored and recorded at the ultimate capacity and
presented in Table 6-4. As shown in the table, the crack propagation angle decreases with
289
the increase in the strain rate for the undercut anchors exhibiting concrete cone breakout
failure. The crack propagation angle was measured from the direction of the applied load
to the failure surface.
Table 6-4: Crack propagation angle for the undercut anchors at different strain rates
Model d hef Crack propagation angle (deg)

𝛆̇ =10-5 𝛆̇ =10-3 𝛆̇ =10-1 𝛆̇ =10 𝛆̇ =102 𝛆̇ =103
1 12 100 - - - - - -
2 12 125 - - - - - -
3 12 190 - - - - - -
4 12 250 - - - - - -
5 16 100 63 - - - - -
6 16 125 - - - - - -
7 16 190 - - - - - -
8 16 250 - - - - - -
9 20 100 62 50 46 42 - -
10 20 125 62 52 47 - - -
11 20 190 - - - - - -
12 20 250 - - - - - -
6.1.7 Effect of strain rate on the tensile behaviour of the undercut anchors
Tensile behaviour of 12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors with
embedment depths of 100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm were investigated. Figures
6-16, 6-17, 6-18, 6-19, 6-20 and 6-21 present the load-displacement relation for the 12-mm
diameter undercut anchors subjected to tensile load. Strain rates from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 were
investigated.
290
120
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
100 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
Tensile load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
100
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
Tensile load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement (mm)
291
120
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
100 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
100
hef=250 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement (mm)
292
120
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
100 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement (mm)
120
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
100 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
80
Tensile load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement (mm)
293
As shown in the Figures 6-16 to 6-21, the load increased with displacement up to the
ultimate capacity and then decreased until failure. Higher tensile loads were obtained at
high strain rate of 103 s-1 compared to that obtained at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1. Maximum
tensile load for the 12-mm diameter undercut anchor of 113.46 kN was obtained at high
strain rate of 103 s-1. The increase in the embedment depth has no effect on the tensile
capacity where steel anchor failure is observed.
The results of the load-displacement graphs for the 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut
anchors with embedment depths of 100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm at different
strain rates are presented in Appendix G. Similar behaviour for the load-displacement
relation of the 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors were observed at the different
strain rates.
Figures 6-22 and 6-23, show the load-displacement behaviour for undercut anchors with
embedment depths of 100 mm and 190 mm respectively at the static strain rate of 10-5 s-1.
294
175
d=12 mm
d=16 mm
150
d=20 mm
125
Tensile load (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)

anchors at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
250
d=12 mm
225 d=16 mm
d=20 mm
200
175
Tensile load (kN)
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)

anchors at strain rate of 10-5 s-1
295
As shown in Figure 6-22 the increase in the anchor diameter from 12 mm to 20 mm resulted
in an increase in tensile capacity from 83.1 kN to 118.4 kN and from 83.9 kN to 211.5 kN
for embedment depths of 100 mm and 190 mm respectively. At embedment depth of 100
mm, steel anchor failure was observed for anchor diameter of 12 mm. Concrete cone
breakout failure was observed for the anchor diameters of 16 mm and 20 mm. At
embedment depth of 190 mm steel anchor failure was observed for all the anchor diameters.
Tables 6-5, 6-6 and 6-7, show the ultimate tensile load and corresponding displacement (𝛿)
for the 12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors respectively at strain rates
ranging from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. As shown in the tables, the increase in the strain rate resulted
in increased ultimate tensile load for the undercut anchors investigated. It can be seen that
the increase in the anchor diameter increased the ultimate tensile load for the undercut
anchors. This is attributed to the increase in the cross-sectional area of the anchor and this
requires higher load to cause steel failure. On the other hand, the increase in the anchor
diameter increased the concrete cone breakout diameter that require higher load to breakout
the concrete cone and hence increasing the tensile capacity.
Table 6-5: Ultimate tensile load and displacement for the 12 mm diameter undercut
anchor
Model d hef 𝜺̇ Fu 𝜹 Failure
1 100 83.14 1.32 S
2 125 83.22 1.34 S
12 10-5
3 190 83.94 1.39 S
4 250 84.07 1.44 S
5 100 87.19 1.58 S
6 125 88.43 1.55 S
12 10-3
7 190 89.61 1.54 S
8 250 89.72 1.59 S
9 100 93.18 1.74 S
12 10-1
10 125 93.37 1.73 S
296
11 190 94.90 1.84 S
12 250 95.30 1.86 S
13 100 98.09 1.76 S
14 12 125 98.25 1.64 S
10
15 190 99.52 1.61 S
16 250 99.86 1.65 S
17 100 104.06 1.06 S
18 125 105.13 0.95 S
12 102
19 190 105.70 0.95 S
20 250 106.40 0.95 S
21 100 112.46 0.78 S
22 125 112.74 0.79 S
12 103
23 190 113.32 0.72 S
24 250 113.46 0.66 S
anchor
1 100 101.09 1.78 CC
2 125 126.62 1.88 S
16 10-5
3 190 127.16 1.87 S
4 250 127.43 1.82 S
5 100 124.46 2.29 S
6 125 130.07 2.26 S
16 10-3
7 190 131.56 2.19 S
8 250 132.25 2.31 S
9 100 139.35 1.96 S
10 125 140.31 1.93 S
16 10-1
11 190 141.42 2.05 S
12 250 142.33 1.95 S
13 100 150.14 1.79 S
14 125 151.05 1.66 S
16 10
15 190 151.19 1.59 S
16 250 151.63 1.73 S
17 100 165.21 0.99 S
18 125 165.58 0.99 S
16 102
19 190 165.84 0.99 S
20 250 165.94 1.02 S
21 100 182.46 0.87 S
22 125 182.76 0.88 S
16 103
23 190 182.88 0.79 S
24 250 183.16 0.79 S
297
anchor
1 100 118.41 1.27 CC
2 125 168.66 1.81 CC
20 10-5
3 190 211.46 2.10 S
4 250 213.29 2.14 S
5 100 142.16 3.2 CC
6 125 185.01 2.75 CC
20 10-3
7 190 220.52 2.81 S
8 250 221.83 2.79 S
9 100 161.18 3.19 CC
10 125 208.53 3.31 CC
20 10-1
11 190 232.39 2.74 S
12 250 233.64 2.84 S
13 100 186.60 3.49 CC
14 125 236.30 3.59 S
20 10
15 190 242.02 4.02 S
16 250 244.50 4.10 S
17 100 258.89 0.99 S
18 125 258.05 0.95 S
20 102
19 190 259.19 1.09 S
20 250 260.39 1.07 S
21 100 283.96 0.83 S
22 125 284.84 0.65 S
20 103
23 190 284.66 0.74 S
24 250 286.36 0.78 S
6.1.8 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate tensile load and DIF of undercut anchors
Figures 6-24, 6-25, 6-26 and 6-27 present the relation between the ultimate tensile load,
DIF and the strain rate, for undercut anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm, at
embedment depths of 100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm respectively. The ultimate
tensile load increases with increasing anchor diameter from 12 mm to 20 mm for the same
strain rate. The ultimate tensile load increased almost linearly with the strain rate for anchor
diameters of 12 mm and 16 mm where steel anchor failure is the dominant failure mode at
all the strain rates investigated (Figure 6-24, 6-25, 6-26 and 6-27). Hence the increase in
298
the tensile load is attributed to the increase in steel strength at high strain rate. For 20-mm
diameter undercut anchor, as the strain rate increased from 10-5 s-1 to 10 s-1, the ultimate
tensile load was observed to increase according to a nearly bilinear relationship with a
change in slope at a strain rate of about 10 s-1 where concrete cone breakout failure was
observed (Figures 6-24, 6-25, 6-26 and 6-27). The ultimate tensile load increased with
further increase in the strain rate to 102 s-1 where the failure mode transitioned to steel
anchor failure. The increase in the ultimate load with the increase in the strain rate is
attributed to the increase in the tensile strength of the concrete and steel materials with the
increase in the strain rate. Maximum tensile loads of 113.5 kN, 183.2 kN and 286.4 kN
were obtained for the 12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors respectively
at high strain rate of 103 s-1.
Strain rate of 10-5 s-1 represents the static strain rate and is taken as the base line to
determine the DIF at different strain rates for the anchors exhibited concrete cone failure.
For the anchors exhibited steel failure, the DIF is taken as the ratio of the ultimate dynamic
load at strain rates higher than 10-5 s-1 to the ultimate static steel failure load for the anchors.
As shown in Figures 6-24 and 6-25, the DIF for anchor diameters of 12 mm and 16 mm
increases with the increase in the strain rate from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1 where steel failure was
observed. The increase in the DIF is attributed to the increase in the steel strength with the
increase in the strain rate. For anchor diameter of 20 mm with embedment depth of 100
mm (Figure 6-24), the DIF increased to 1.58 at strain rate of 10 s-1 where concrete cone
failure was observed. At high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 steel failure was observed
and the DIF was taken as the ratio of the dynamic ultimate load to the static steel failure
299
load with DIFs of 1.22 and 1.34 respectively. For anchor diameter of 20 mm with
embedment depth of 125 mm (Figure 6-25), the DIF increased to 1.24 at strain rate of 10-1
s-1 where concrete cone failure was observed. At higher strain rates of 10 s-1 up to 103 s-1
steel failure was observed with maximum DIF of 1.35.
It can be seen from Figures 6-26 and 6-27, the DIF increased with the increase in the strain
rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for all anchor diameters investigated. Maximum DIF of 1.35 and
1.44 are obtained for the anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm respectively at highest strain
rate of 103 s-1 where steel failure was the dominant failure mode at all the strain rates
investigated. For the anchor diameter of 20 mm maximum DIF of 1.58 was obtained at
strain rate of 10 s-1 with embedment depth of 100 mm where concrete cone breakout failure
was observed. The failure mode transitioned from concrete cone breakout failure to steel
failure at high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1.
350 2.8
DIF, d=12 mm DIF, d=16 mm DIF, d=20 mm
Fu, d=12 mm Fu, d=16 mm Fu, d=20 mm

300 2.4

250 2.0
200 1.6
150 1.2
100 0.8
50 0.4
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
Figure 6-24: Ultimate tensile load and DIF versus strain rate for the undercut anchor at
300
350 2.8
300 2.4

Ultimate tensile load, Fu (kN) 250 2.0
200 1.6
150 1.2
100 0.8
50 0.4
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
350 2.8
300 2.4

250 2.0
200 1.6
150 1.2
100 0.8
50 0.4
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
301
350 2.8
300 2.4

250 2.0
200 1.6
150 1.2
100 0.8
50 0.4
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
Table 6-8 shows maximum DIF for the undercut anchors under tensile load where concrete
cone breakout and steel anchor failure modes were observed. The value of DIF equal to
one represents the DIF at the static strain rate of 10-5 s-1 where concrete cone breakout
failure mode is observed for the 16 mm and 20 mm diameter undercut anchors with
embedment depth of 100 mm. Also, concrete cone breakout failure was observed for the
20 mm diameter with 125 mm embedment depth. Steel anchor failure was the dominant
failure mode for most of the undercut anchors at the static strain rate of 10-5 s-1 and higher
strain rates up to 103 s-1. Maximum value of the DIF for the undercut anchors exhibited
steel failure was obtained at high strain rate of 103 s-1 and presented in Table 6-8.
302
Table 6-8: Maximum Dynamic increase factor for the undercut anchors under tensile load
Model d hef 𝜺̇ DIF 𝜺̇ DIF
No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) CC (s-1) S
1 12 100 - - 103 1.35
2 12 125 - - 103 1.35
3 12 190 - - 103 1.35
4 12 250 - - 103 1.35
5 16 100 10-5 1.00 103 1.44
6 16 125 - - 103 1.44
7 16 190 - - 103 1.44
8 16 250 - - 103 1.44
9 20 100 10 1.58 103 1.34
10 20 125 10-1 1.24 103 1.35
11 20 190 - - 103 1.35
12 20 250 - - 103 1.34
6.1.9 Regression analysis for the undercut anchors under tensile load
Regression analysis was performed for the undercut anchors under tensile load to develop
an accurate predictive model based on the finite element results for determining the DIF of
undercut anchors. Most of the undercut anchors exhibited steel anchor failure when
subjected to strain rates in the range of 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1, hence regression analysis has been
performed for the steel anchor failure mode. The relation between the DIF and the strain
rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) for the undercut anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm exhibited
steel failure is shown in Figure 6-28.
303
2.0
Steel failure
1.8
1.6
Dynamic increase factor (DIF) 1.4 y = 0.9744x0.0164

R² = 0.9324
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 6-28: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for the undercut anchors exhibited steel
failure under tensile load
A formula relating DIF with the strain rate was developed using various regression models;
namely, exponential, linear, logarithmic and power regression models. The predicted
formulae obtained from various regression models is shown in Table 6-9.
undercut anchors exhibited steel failure under tensile load

𝜀̇
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.1061𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠 0.597
𝜀̇
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 3𝐸 − 09( 𝜀̇ 𝑑) +1.1094 0.639
𝑠
𝜀̇𝑑
Logarithmic 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.019 ln ( ) + 0.9645
𝜀̇𝑠 0.908
𝜀̇𝑑
Power 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9744 ( )0.0164
𝜀̇𝑠 0.932
304
As shown in Table 6-9, the power regression model was observed to be best fit for the
results with coefficients of determination (R2) of 93% for the undercut anchors exhibited
steel failure. The DIF is represented by Equation (6.1) for the undercut anchors subjected
to tensile load and exhibited steel failure.
𝜀̇
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9744 ( 𝜀̇ 𝑑 )0.0164 (6.1)
𝑠
The ultimate dynamic load (𝐹𝑢𝑑 ) for the undercut anchors exhibited steel anchor failure
can be determined as in Equation (6.2) as follows:
𝜀̇
𝐹𝑢𝑑 = 𝐹𝑢𝑠 × 0.9744 ( 𝜀̇ 𝑑 )0.0164 (6.2)
𝑠
Where the ultimate static load (𝐹𝑢𝑠 ) can be determined from Equation (4.2) for steel anchor
failure mode.
Figure 6-29 presents the residual analysis for undercut anchor subjected to tensile load and
exhibited steel anchor failure. Where the difference between the finite element analysis and
the DIF results obtained from Equations (6.1) is presented. As shown in Figure 6-29,
approximately horizontal trend line was observed for the residual with the increase in the
strain rate ratio.
305
2
Steel failure
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Residuals
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2
1.E-2 1.E+0 1.E+2 1.E+4 1.E+6 1.E+8 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 6-29: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the undercut anchors exhibited steel
failure
In order to verify the accuracy of the proposed equation, new undercut anchors with
diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm with embedment depths of 140 mm, 160 mm and
220 mm were developed. Figure 6-30 shows the relation between the DIF obtained from
the newly developed numerical models and the predicted DIF obtained from Equation
(6.1). As shown in the figure, the DIF values are uniformly distributed around the equality
line. This means that power model presented in the Equation (6.1) can best represent the
finite element results.
306
2.4
Steel failure
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
DIF (Predicted)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
DIF (FEA)
the undercut anchors exhibited steel failure
Also, in order to verify the results obtained from the finite element analysis, a comparison
has been made between the ultimate dynamic load obtained from the finite element analysis
for the undercut anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout and the proposed equation by
Fujikake et al. (Fujikake et al., 2003) Equation (4.10) as shown in Table 6-10. As shown
in the table the finite element results for the undercut anchors overpredict the dynamic load
obtained from the proposed equation by Fujikake et al.
307
Table 6-10: Comparison between ultimate dynamic load for the undercut anchor obtained
from the FEA and proposed equation by Fujikake et al. (2003)
d hef 𝜺̇ 𝒔 𝜺̇ 𝒅 𝜺̇ 𝒅 ⁄𝜺̇ 𝒔 Fus FEA Fud FEA Fud Fujikake Fud FEA/
(mm) (mm) (s-1) (s-1) (kN) (kN) (kN) Fujikake
16 100 10-5 10-5 1 101.09 101.09 101.12 1.00

20 100 10-5 10-5 1 118.41 118.41 103.02 1.15
20 100 10-5 10-3 102 118.41 142.16 104.38 1.36
20 100 10-5 10-1 104 118.41 161.18 117.94 1.37
20 100 10-5 10 106 118.41 186.6 175.20 1.07
20 125 10-5 10-5 1 168.66 168.66 141.32 1.19
-5 -3 2
20 125 10 10 10 168.66 185.01 143.17 1.29
20 125 10-5 10-1 104 168.66 208.53 161.78 1.29
308
6.2 Finite element modeling for undercut anchors under shear load
Finite element analyses were performed to investigate the shear behaviour of undercut
anchors. Three anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm with embedment depths of
100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm were investigated. Figure 6-31 shows the
geometric configuration and boundary conditions for the undercut anchor model under
shear load.
(a) Concrete mesh (b) Undercut anchor mesh
model
6.2.1 Validation of undercut anchor model under shear load
The numerical model of the undercut anchor under shear load was validated by comparing
the finite element results with the experimental results obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik
et al., 2016). A finite element model, representing the test conducted by Mahadik et al.,
was developed using LS-DYNA software. Hilti undercut anchor through-set type was used.
The undercut anchor used had yield strength of 640 MPa, tensile strength of 800 MPa,
309
diameter of 12 mm and embedment depth of 125 mm. The cube compressive strength of
the concrete block used in the finite element analysis of 42.6 MPa (𝑓𝑐′ = 33.5 MPa) same as
in the experimental test conducted by Mahadik et al. Mesh sensitivity analyses were carried
out to obtain a mesh size that improve the accuracy and give converged results to the
experimental results conducted by Mahadik et al. Table 6-11 shows the effect of mesh size
refinement on the convergence of the ultimate shear load and failure mode.
undercut anchor
Model Mesh size Ultimate shear load Displacement Failure mode
No. (mm) (kN) (mm)
Min. Max.
1 2 4 12 126.21 19.10 Steel failure
2 2 2 12 128.65 131.9 18.89 18.71 Steel failure
3 1 1 12 134.73 18.82 Steel failure
The finite element analysis exhibited a percentage difference of 4.5%, 2.5% and 2.1% for
the ultimate shear load for the models No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in comparison with the
experimental results. Mesh size of model No. 2 gave load-displacement results agree well
with the experimental results reported by Mahadik et al. with better computation time and
selected for the analysis. A comparison of shear load–displacement response of the finite
element analysis and experimental results is shown in Figure 6-32. As shown in the figure
same shear load-displacement behaviour was observed for the all mesh sizes investigated.
Finite element analysis results exhibited steel anchor failure mode similar to that observed
by Mahadik et al. as shown in Figure 6-33.
310
160
mesh size (2x4) mm
mesh size (2x2) mm
Experimental
120
100
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Displacement (mm)

experimental results obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016)
(a) (b)
results obtained by Mahadik et al. (Mahadik et al., 2016)
6.2.2 Comparison of finite element results with design methods
For the anchors placed far away from the concrete free edge, pryout failure mode or anchor
failure is often the dominant failure modes. The shear failure load of anchors exhibiting
pryout failure can be calculated according to ACI 318 Equation (4.14) (ACI Committee
311
318, 2011). The shear failure load of anchors that exhibit steel fracture failure can be
calculated according to ACI 318 method as in Equation (4.18) (ACI Committee 318, 2011).
The ultimate shear load obtained from the finite element analysis was compared with ACI
318 method (Table 6-12). It can be seen that for the anchor diameter of 12-mm with
embedment depths of 125 mm and 190 mm, a slight difference in the shear load where
steel failure is observed. This can be attributed to the influence of embedment depth on the
bending, tensile and shear stresses that are generated in the anchor due to the applied shear
load. As shown in Table 6-12, the ACI 318 method overestimates the shear capacity for
the undercut anchors investigated except for the anchor diameter of 20-mm where pryout
failure mode was observed. The ACI method takes into account the effect of embedment
depth, however the influence of anchor diameter is not considered in the case of pryout
failure mode. In general, the FEA results show good agreement with the ACI 318 method.
Table 6-12: Comparison of ultimate shear load obtained from FEA and ACI 318 method
*
d hef Failure Load FEA/ Failure mode
(mm) (mm) (kN) ACI 318
FEA static ACI 318
(𝜀 ̇ =10-5 s-1)
12 100 132.27 164.23 0.81 PR
12 125 148.09 166.25 0.89 S
12 190 153.57 166.25 0.92 S
16 100 152.26 164.23 0.93 PR
16 125 199.42 229.52 0.87 PR
16 190 270.05 317.05 0.85 PR
16 250 304.6 317.05 0.96 S
20 100 175.37 164.23 1.07 PR
20 125 227.49 229.52 0.99 PR
20 190 344.63 430.13 0.80 PR
20 250 420.84 488.58 0.86 S
*Failure mode: PR= pryout failure; S= steel anchor fracture
312
6.2.3 Crack pattern for the undercut anchors under shear load
Figure 6-34 shows the crack patterns for the undercut anchors of different diameters and
embedment depths at strain rate of 10-5 s-1. As shown in the figure, pryout failure mode was
observed for the undercut anchors with embedment depth of 100 mm. At embedment
depths of 125 mm and 190 mm, steel anchor failure was observed for the 12-mm diameter
anchor whereas pryout failure was observed for the 16-mm and 20-mm diameter anchors.
At embedment depth of 250 mm, steel anchor failure was observed for all the anchor
diameters investigated.
Level of damage and cracking in the concrete increased with the increase in the anchor
diameter. It can be seen that, at the low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 the anchor diameter and
embedment depth have an effect on the failure mode. The increase in the embedment depth
from 100 mm to 125 mm resulted in concrete spalling followed by anchor fracture for the
12-mm diameter undercut anchor. The increase in the anchor diameter from 12 mm to 20
mm for the same embedment depth of 125 mm resulted in pryout failure of the anchor. It
can be stated that, the increase in the undercut anchor diameter at low strain rate increases
the probability of pryout failure as the anchor stiffness increases.
313
d=12 mm d=16 mm d=20 mm
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
Figure 6-34: Plastic strain contours for undercut anchors under shear load at strain rate of
10-5 s-1
When the shear load is applied on the anchor plate, the load is transferred from the anchor
plate to the undercut anchor. For the through-set type undercut anchor used in the analysis,
both the sleeve and the anchor body share in resisting the shear load and transfer it to the
314
concrete resulting in developing compressive stresses in the concrete in front of the anchor.
These stresses increase with the increase in the applied shear load, create concrete cracking
under the anchor plate and result in displacement of the anchor plate in vertical direction
and rotation about the point of contact on the concrete surface. Three failure modes were
observed; concrete pryout, concrete spalling and steel anchor failure modes. For the pryout
failure mode, cracks initiate at the bottom of the sleeve and propagate diagonally towards
the concrete surface resulting in breakout of a half concrete cone at the backside of the
anchor, leading to pryout failure. For the concrete spalling, the stresses are concentrated in
the concrete in front of the anchor resulting in concrete cracking without breakout of a half
concrete cone behind the anchor. On the other hand, when the tensile, bending and shear
stresses concentrated on the anchor, steel failure is observed. Failure mode for the 12-mm,
16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors at different strain rates is presented in
Figures 6-35, 6-36 and 6-37 respectively.
315
𝜀̇ (s-1) hef=100 mm hef=125mm hef=190 mm
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
Figure 6-35: Failure mode of 12-mm diameter undercut anchor at different strain rates
316
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
317
𝜀̇ (s-1) hef=100 mm hef=125 mm hef=190 mm hef=250 mm
10-3
10-1
10
102
103
318
From Figures 6-35, 6-36 and 6-37, it can be seen that the behaviour and failure mode of
the undercut anchor is affected by the strain rate. As shown in Figure 6-35, steel anchor
failure is observed for anchor diameter of 12 mm at strain rates of 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1. As
shown in Figure 6-36 for the anchor diameter of 16 mm, at strain rates of 10-3 s-1 and 10-1
s-1, concrete spalling is observed for embedment depths of 100 mm and 125 mm while steel
anchor failure is observed for embedment depths of 190 mm and 250 mm. At strain rates
of 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 concrete spalling followed by steel anchor failure is observed
for all the embedment depths investigated. As shown in Figure 6-36 more concrete
cracking and damage was observed for the embedment depths of 100 mm and 125 mm
compared to the deeper embedment depths of 190 mm and 250 mm. For the shallow
embedment depths of 100 mm and 125 mm the cracks initiated in front of the anchor and
at the lower end of the anchor resulted in concrete cracking in a wider area. However, for
the deeper embedment depths concrete spalling followed by steel anchor failure was
observed.
It can be seen from Figure 6-37 for the 20-mm diameter undercut anchor, at strain rate of
10-3 s-1, pryout failure is observed for embedment depths of 100 mm and 125 mm, concrete
spalling is observed for embedment depth of 190 mm whereas steel anchor failure is
observed for embedment depth of 250 mm. At strain rate of 10-1 s-1 concrete spalling is
observed for embedment depths of 100 mm and 125 mm while steel anchor failure is
observed for embedment depths of 190 mm and 250 mm. Also, steel anchor failure
preceded by concrete spalling was observed for all embedment depths at strain rates of 10
s-1, 102 s-1 and 103 s-1. As shown in Figure 6-37 more concrete cracking is observed for the
319
shallow embedment depths. It can be seen from Figures 6-35, 6-36 and 6-37 that concrete
cracks and damage increased with the increase in anchor diameter from 12 mm to 20 mm.
Figure 6-38 shows the failure progression of a 12-mm diameter undercut anchor embedded
190 mm in the concrete. Contours of Von Misses stresses (MPa) are shown in the figure.
It can be seen that the stresses are concentrated around the sleeve and anchor at the top
where the shear load is applied. Combination of the tensile, bending and shear stresses due
to the applied load leads to initiation and propagation of cracks in the top part of the
undercut anchor resulting in steel anchor failure.
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6-38: Failure process of 12-mm diameter undercut anchor with 190 mm
embedment depth; (a) stress concentration around the undercut anchor, (b) anchor
bending, (c) crack initiation and (d) anchor fracture
320
shear load for the 12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors respectively. As
shown in the figures, the strain rate affects the failure mode for the 16-mm and 20-mm
diameter undercut anchors where transition from pryout failure to concrete spalling and
then to steel anchor failure is observed. Also, the anchor diameter and embedment depth
affect the failure mode. It can be seen from the figures that the ultimate shear load increased
with the increase in the strain rate and anchor diameter for the undercut anchors.
600
PR, hef=100 mm
S, hef=100 mm
525 S, hef=125 mm
S, hef=190 mm
450
375
300
225
150
75
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
undercut anchor diameter of 12 mm
321
600
PR, hef=100 mm PR, hef=125 mm PR, hef=190 mm
CS, hef=100 mm CS, hef=125 mm S, hef=100 mm
525 S, hef=125 mm S, hef=190 mm S, hef=250 mm
450
375
300
225
150
75
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
600
PR, hef=100 mm PR, hef=125 mm
PR, hef=190 mm CS, hef=100 mm
525 CS, hef=125 mm CS, hef=190 mm
450
375
300
225
150
75
0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
322
Table 6-13 presents the failure modes for the undercut anchors subjected to shear loads at
different strain rates.
Table 6-13: Failure mode for the undercut anchors under shear load at different strain
rates
*
𝜀̇=10-5 𝜀̇=10-3 𝜀̇=10-1 𝜀̇=10 𝜀̇=102 𝜀̇=103
1 12 100 PR S S S S S
2 12 125 S S S S S S
3 12 190 S S S S S S
4 16 100 PR CS CS S S S
5 16 125 PR CS CS S S S
6 16 190 PR S S S S S
7 16 250 S S S S S S
8 20 100 PR PR CS S S S
9 20 125 PR PR CS S S S
10 20 190 PR CS S S S S
11 20 250 S S S S S S
*
Failure mode: PR= pryout, CS=concrete spalling, S= steel anchor failure
6.2.6 Effect of strain rate on the shear behaviour of undercut anchors
Figures 6-42, 6-43, 6-44, 6-45, 6-46, and 6-47 present the shear load-displacement graphs
for the 12-mm diameter undercut anchor at strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1,
102 s-1 and 103 s-1 respectively.
323
200
hef=100 mm
180 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
160
Shear load (kN) 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
Figure 6-42: Shear load-displacement graph for 12-mm diameter undercut anchor at
200
hef=100 mm
180 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
160
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
324
200
hef=100 mm
175 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
150
Shear load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
175
hef=190 mm
150
Shear load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
325
240
hef=100 mm
210 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
180
Shear load (kN)
150
120
90
60
30
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
240
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
210
hef=190 mm
180
Shear load (kN)
150
120
90
60
30
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
326
As shown from Figures 6-42 to 6-47, Tables 6-14, 6-15 and 6-16 the shear load for the
undercut anchors increased with the increase in the strain rate. At strain rates of 10 -5 s-1 to
103 s-1, the shear load increased with the displacement until maximum value then decreased
with further increase in displacement until failure. At high strain rate, load fluctuations
were observed in the post peak behaviour of the undercut anchors. This is attributed to the
progressive propagation of the cracks in the concrete at high strain rate. Also, it can be seen
that at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 the increase in the embedment depth from 100 mm to 190
mm increased the ultimate shear capacity. However, at high strain rates the increase in the
embedment depths increased the ultimate shear load slightly where steel anchor failure
mode was observed.
Shear load-displacement graphs for 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors with
embedment depths of 100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm at strain rates ranging from
10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 are presented in Appendix H.
The ultimate shear load and displacement results for the 12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm
diameter undercut anchors are presented in Tables 6-14, 6-15 and 6-16 respectively. Where
𝛿 is the displacement of the undercut anchor at the ultimate shear load. As shown in the
tables, the ultimate shear loads increased with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to
103 s-1 for all the undercut anchors investigated. Also, it can be seen that the ultimate shear
load for the undercut anchors increased with the increase in the anchor diameter.
327
Table 6-14: Ultimate shear load and displacement results for the 12-mm diameter
undercut anchor
Model d hef 𝜺̇ Vu 𝜹 Failure
1 100 132.27 2.14 PR
2 12 125 10-5 148.09 2.68 S
3 190 153.57 3.01 S
4 100 154.21 4.65 S
5 12 125 10-3 158.74 4.09 S
6 190 161.19 4.02 S
7 100 166.17 4.91 S
8 12 125 10-1 168.49 4.91 S
9 190 171.25 4.79 S
10 100 182.34 2.35 S
11 12 125 10 182.16 2.36 S
12 190 184.79 2.13 S
13 100 201.66 2.32 S
14 12 125 102 204.59 2.33 S
15 190 207.46 2.26 S
16 100 211.98 1.98 S
17 12 125 103 214.21 2.01 S
18 190 218.27 2.44 S
undercut anchor
1 100 152.26 1.13 PR
2 125 199.42 1.65 PR
16 10-5
3 190 270.05 3.73 PR
4 250 304.60 3.76 S
5 100 197.88 2.14 CS
6 125 243.42 2.98 CS
16 10-3
7 190 307.24 4.44 S
8 250 321.59 3.67 S
9 100 244.19 3.26 CS
10 125 278.38 3.94 CS
16 10-1
11 190 328.13 3.51 S
12 250 336.46 3.61 S
13 100 322.91 2.67 S
14 125 329.50 2.90 S
16 10
15 190 344.53 2.97 S
16 250 347.23 2.71 S
17 100 360.02 2.55 S
18 125 364.76 2.92 S
16 102
19 190 366.70 2.34 S
20 250 370.66 2.28 S
328
21 100 374.52 1.95 S
22 125 376.11 1.84 S
16 103
23 190 379.07 1.89 S
24 250 380.84 2.10 S
undercut anchor
1 100 175.37 0.86 PR
2 125 227.49 1.15 PR
20 10-5
3 190 344.63 2.22 PR
4 250 420.84 2.93 S
5 100 242.86 1.90 PR
6 125 280.99 2.22 PR
20 10-3
7 190 391.77 4.04 CS
8 250 439.63 3.79 S
9 100 314.72 3.47 CS
10 125 345.56 4.52 CS
20 10-1
11 190 446.87 6.41 S
12 250 452.59 3.89 S
13 100 446.46 2.41 S
14 125 453.73 2.33 S
20 10
15 190 479.50 2.19 S
16 250 480.93 2.79 S
17 100 489.11 2.42 S
18 125 506.24 2.44 S
20 102
19 190 510.41 2.81 S
20 250 511.22 2.17 S
21 100 518.84 1.18 S
22 125 522.53 1.34 S
20 103
23 190 526.32 1.59 S
24 250 528.37 1.61 S
6.2.7 Effect of strain rate on the ultimate shear load and DIF of undercut anchors
Figures 6-48, 6-49, 6-50 and 6-51 present the relation between the ultimate shear load, DIF
and the strain rate for the 12-mm, 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors at
embedment depths of 100 mm, 125 mm, 190 mm and 250 mm respectively. It can be seen
that the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 increased the ultimate shear load
329
for the undercut anchors. In general, the ultimate shear load increased with the increase in
the anchor diameter and embedment depth. As shown in Figure 6-48 the ultimate shear
load increased for anchor diameters of 16 mm and 20 mm with the increase in the strain
rate from 10-5 s-1 to 10 s-1 where the failure mode changed from pryout to concrete spalling
and then to steel failure at strain rate of 10 s-1. A slight increase in the ultimate shear load
of 4% and 6% is obtained with the increase in the strain rate from 102 s-1 and 103 s-1 for the
16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors respectively. The increase in the ultimate
load is attributed to the increase in steel strength with the increase in strain rate. For the
anchor diameter of 12 mm the ultimate shear load increased with the increase in the strain
rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 where transition in the failure mode from pryout failure at strain
rate of 10-5 s-1 to steel anchor failure is observed.
At embedment depth of 125 mm (Figure 6-49), a similar behaviour of the ultimate shear
load with the strain rate was observed for the anchor diameters of 16 mm and 20 mm. The
ultimate shear load for the anchor diameter of 12 mm and embedment depth of 125 mm
increased with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1, where steel failure is
the dominant failure mode at all the strain rates investigated.
As shown in Figure 6-50, for embedment depth of 190 mm, the ultimate shear load
increased with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 for anchor diameters of
12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm respectively. At embedment depth of 250 mm (Figure 6-51)
the ultimate shear load increased 25% and 25.6% for the 16-mm and 20-mm diameters
undercut anchor with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 where the steel
fracture is the dominant failure mode. The increase in the ultimate shear load is attributed
330
to the fact that steel material is sensitive to the increase in the strain rate that increases the
anchor capacity by increasing the yield and tensile strengths of the steel material.
675 4.0
600 Vu, d=12 mm Vu, d=16 mm Vu, d=20 mm 3.6
3.2
525

2.8
450
2.4
375
2.0
300
1.6
225
1.2
150
0.8
75 0.4
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
mm embedment depth
675 3.0
2.4
525

2.1
450
1.8
375
1.5
300
1.2
225
0.9
150
0.6
75 0.3
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
mm embedment depth
331
675 3.0
2.4
525

2.1
450
1.8
375
1.5
300
1.2
225
0.9
150
0.6
75 0.3
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
mm embedment depth
675 3.0
DIF, d=16 mm DIF, d=20 mm
600 Vu, d=16 mm Vu, d=20 mm 2.7
2.4
525

2.1
450
1.8
375
1.5
300
1.2
225
0.9
150
0.6
75 0.3
0 0.0
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03
Strain rate (s-1)
mm embedment depth
332
It can be seen from Figures 6-48 and 6-49 that the DIF increased with the increase in the
strain rate from 10-3 s-1 to 103 s-1 for anchor diameter of 12 mm where steel failure was
observed. For anchor diameters of 16 mm and 20 mm, DIF increased with the increase in
the strain rate up to 10-1 s-1 where transition in the failure mode from pryout to concrete
spalling was observed. Steel failure was observed at strain rates higher than 10 -1 s-1. The
increase in the strain rate from 10 s-1 to 103 s-1 increased the DIF from 1.06 to 1.23 for the
anchor diameters of 16 mm and 20 mm respectively with embedment depth of 100 mm.
The increase in the DIF was from 1.08 to 1.23 and from 1.08 to 1.24 for anchor diameters
of 16 mm and 20 mm respectively with embedment depth of 125 mm.
As shown in Figure 6-50, the DIF increased with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-
1
to 103 s-1 for the 12 mm and 16 mm diameter anchors. For anchor diameter of 20 mm the
DIF increased to 1.14 at strain rate of 10-3 s-1 where transition from pryout failure to
concrete spalling was observed. The increase in the strain rate from 10-1 s-1 to 103 s-1
increased the DIF from 1.06 to 1.25 where steel failure was observed. As shown in Figure
6-51, average DIF of 1.25 was obtained for the undercut anchors with embedment depth of
250 mm at high strain rate of 103 s-1.
It can be seen from Figures 6-48, 6-49, 6-50 and 6-51, maximum DIF of 1.6 and 1.79 were
obtained at strain rate of 10-1 s-1 for the 16-mm and 20-mm diameter undercut anchors with
100 mm embedment depth where concrete spalling was observed. Maximum DIF of 1.45
was obtained for the 12 mm diameter anchor with embedment depth of 125 mm at high
strain rate of 103 s-1 where steel failure was observed. It can be seen from the figures that
the influence of anchor diameter on the DIF decreased with the increase in the embedment
333
depth from 100 mm to 250 mm. At the deeper embedment depth of 250 mm the influence
of anchor diameter is insignificant where steel anchor failure is observed for all the strain
rates.
Table 6-17 shows the maximum DIF for the undercut anchors under shear load where
pryout, concrete spalling and steel anchor failure modes were observed.
Table 6-17: Maximum dynamic increase factor for the undercut anchors under shear load
Model d hef 𝜺̇ DIF 𝜺̇ DIF 𝜺̇ DIF

No. (mm) (mm) (s-1) PR (s-1) CS (s-1) S
1 12 100 10-5 1.00 - - 103 1.43
2 12 125 - - - - 103 1.45
3 12 190 - - - - 103 1.42
5 16 100 10-5 1.00 10-1 1.60 103 1.23
6 16 125 10-5 1.00 10-1 1.40 103 1.23
7 16 190 10-5 1.00 - - 103 1.24
8 16 250 - - - - 103 1.25
9 20 100 10-3 1.38 10-1 1.79 103 1.23
10 20 125 10-3 1.24 10-1 1.52 103 1.24
11 20 190 10-5 1.00 10-3 1.14 103 1.25
12 20 250 - - - - 103 1.26
6.2.8 Regression analysis for undercut anchors under shear load
Regression analysis was performed for the undercut anchors subjected to shear loading to
predict the relation between the DIF and the strain rate. Steel anchor failure is observed as
the dominant failure mode for most of the undercut anchors investigated. Average DIF for
the anchor diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm were considered in the regression
analysis for the undercut anchors to adjust DIF for the effect of anchor diameter. The
relation between the DIF and the strain rate ratio (𝜀𝑑̇ ⁄𝜀𝑠̇ ) is shown in Figure 6-52 for the
undercut anchors exhibiting steel failure mode.
334
3.0
Steel failure
2.5

2.0
1.5 y = 0.9843x0.0135
R² = 0.9097
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 6-52: Effect of strain rate ratio on the DIF for undercut anchors exhibited steel
failure under shear load
Various regression models were used to develop a formula that relates the DIF with the
strain rate. Table 6-18 shows the statistical models used to predict the relation between the
DIF with the strain rate for the undercut anchors subjected to shear load.
undercut anchors exhibited steel failure under shear load
𝜀̇
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 1.1028𝑒 𝜀̇ 𝑠 0.499
𝜀̇𝑑
Linear 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 2𝐸 − 9 ( ) + 1.1055
𝜀̇𝑠 0.525
𝜀̇𝑑
𝜀̇𝑠 0.894
𝜀̇𝑑 0.0135
Power 𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9843 ( )
𝜀̇𝑠 0.910
335
As shown in the table, the power regression model gave the highest coefficient of
determination of 0.91 and was used for prediction of DIF of undercut anchors exhibited
steel failure as in Equation (6.3).
𝜀̇ 0.0135
𝐷𝐼𝐹 = 0.9843 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (6.3)
𝑠
The ultimate dynamic load (𝑉𝑢𝑑 ) for the undercut anchors subjected to shear load exhibited
steel anchor failure can be determined as in Equations (6.4) as follows:
𝜀̇ 0.0135
𝑉𝑢𝑑 = 𝑉𝑢𝑠 × 0.9843 ( 𝜀̇𝑑 ) (6.4)
𝑠
Where the ultimate static load (𝑉𝑢𝑠 ) can be determined from Equation (4.18) for steel
anchor failure mode.
Residual analysis is performed for the undercut anchors subjected to shear load to
determine the difference between the DIF obtained from the finite element analysis and the
predictive equation (Equation 6.3). The relation between the residual and the strain rate
ratio is shown in Figure 6-53. As shown in the figure, the residual exhibits a horizontal
trend line with the strain rate ratio. However, a slight divergence of the residual is observed.
336
2
Steel failure
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Residuals
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-1.6
-2
1.E-2 1.E+0 1.E+2 1.E+4 1.E+6 1.E+8 1.E+10
Strain rate ratio
Figure 6-53: Residual versus strain rate ratio for the undercut anchors under shear load
exhibited steel failure
New undercut anchorage to concrete models subjected to shear load were developed to
verify the accuracy of the proposed equation (Equation 6.3). Undercut anchor diameters of
12 mm, 16 mm and 20 mm with embedment depths of 160 mm and 220 mm were
investigated. The DIF results obtained from Equation (6.3) were compared with the DIF
results of the newly developed numerical models. Figure 6-54 shows the relation between
the DIF obtained from the finite element analysis and the DIF results obtained from the
predictive equation. Normal distribution of the DIF values around the equality line is
observed. This indicates that the finite element results well represented using the power
model proposed in Equation (6.3).
337
2.4
Steel failure
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
DIF (Predicted)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
DIF (FEA)
the undercut anchors exhibited steel failure under shear load
6.3 Summary
This chapter addressed the tensile and shear behaviour for the undercut anchorage to
concrete systems subjected to strain rates of 10-5 s-1, 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1, 10 s-1, 102 s-1 and 103
s-1. The chapter begins with validation of the undercut anchor model with the experimental
results in the literature. To improve the accuracy of the analysis, mesh sensitivity analyses
were performed to determine the adequate mesh size that can best represent the
experimental results in the literature. The results obtained from the finite element analysis
were compared with the ACI and CCD prediction analytical methods. Level of damage
and failure mode for the undercut anchorage to concrete systems for different design
parameters and at different strain rates were presented and discussed. For the undercut
338
anchors subjected to tensile load, two failure modes were observed: concrete cone breakout
and steel anchor failure. On the other hand, for the undercut anchors subjected to shear
load, three types of failure modes were observed: pryout, concrete spalling and steel anchor
failure.
It is observed that the strain rate has influence on the failure mode of the undercut anchors,
where the failure mode transitioned from concrete cone breakout failure or pryout failure
to steel anchor failure with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1. Concrete
cone depth, concrete cone breakout diameter and cone propagation angle for the undercut
anchors subjected to tensile load were determined. Ultimate load-displacement, failure
mode and strain rate relations for the undercut anchorage to concrete systems subjected to
tensile and shear loads were analyzed. Predicting the failure mode and the ultimate load
for the undercut anchorage to concrete systems can improve the level of safety for the
structures that contain undercut anchors.
DIFs for the undercut anchorage to concrete systems subjected to tensile and shear loads
were determined at different strain rates. Equations were developed to determine the
relation between the DIF and the strain rate for the undercut anchorage to concrete systems
subjected to tensile and shear loads.
339
Chapter 7 :Conclusions and recommendations for future research
7.1 Introduction
In this research, numerical models for cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchorage to
concrete systems were developed to investigate the tensile and shear behaviour of the
anchorage systems subjected to strain rates in the range from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 using LS-
DYNA– a multi-physics based finite element analysis program. Various design parameters
(anchor diameter and embedment depths) of the anchorage systems were investigated. A
procedure was considered for developing the numerical model for the anchorage to
concrete systems, to best represent the tensile and shear behaviour of the anchorage to
concrete systems, started with selecting the design parameters for the anchors and concrete
block, contact formulation and boundary conditions. The commonly used material
constitutive models in LS-DYNA for concrete, steel and adhesive materials were evaluated
to select the most suitable material models that can best represent the behaviour of the
anchorage to concrete systems under different strain rates. The selected material models
have the required features to represent the strain rate effect, damage and failure criteria of
the material. The numerical model results were validated with the experimental results and
with the design prediction methods. The contributions of this thesis is in providing a
comprehensive and validated database on the behaviour of anchorage to concrete systems
subjected to different strain rates, that can assist designers to predict the performance of
anchorage systems under different strain rate loading conditions and accordingly put the
suitable measures to mitigate or prevent the failure.
340
7.2 General conclusions
The main conclusions obtained from the finite element analyses on the cast-in-place,
adhesive and undercut anchors can be summarized as follows:
 The developed cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchorage to concrete system
models are capable to predict the tensile and shear behaviour, failure load and
failure mode of the anchorage systems subjected to different strain rates.
 Increasing the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1 increases the ultimate tensile and
shear capacity of cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors. Irrespective of the
anchor diameter or embedment depth.
 The ultimate tensile load increased with the increase in the embedment depth at
the same strain rate when concrete cone breakout failure is dominant.
 The ultimate shear load capacity of anchors depends on embedment depth when
the pryout failure mode is the dominant failure mode. The longer the embedment
depth the higher the ultimate shear load.
 The ultimate shear load capacity of the anchors depends on the anchor diameter;
the larger the diameter the higher the ultimate shear load. This is also observed for
the tensile capacity of the anchors.
 The DIF for the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors under tensile and
shear loads increases with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103 s-1.
 Crack propagation is influenced by the anchor diameter and embedment depth. The
increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm increased the concrete
cracking and level of damage sustained by the concrete substrate.
341
 Crack propagation angle decreased with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1
to 103 s-1 for the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors subjected to tensile
load.
 The failure mode of the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors subjected to
tensile and shear loads is influenced by the strain rate.
 The concrete cone breakout diameter increased with the increase in the anchor
diameter. However, the concrete breakout diameter decreased with the increase in
the strain rate.
 Regression analysis was performed to develop an accurate predictive formula to
relate the DIF and the strain rate of the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors
at different strain rates and proposed for use in design of anchors under high strain
rate loading.
7.3 Behaviour of cast-in-place anchorage system under different strain rates
 For cast-in-place anchors subjected to tensile load, maximum DIF of 1.74 was
obtained for the anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure at strain rate of
10 s-1. Maximum DIF of 1.17 was obtained for the cast-in-place anchors exhibited
steel failure at high strain rate of 103 s-1.
 For cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear load, maximum DIF of 1.24 was
obtained for the anchors exhibited pryout failure at strain rate of 10-1 s-1.
Maximum DIF of 1.15 was obtained for the anchors exhibited steel failure at high
strain rate of 103 s-1.
342
 Average value of the crack propagation angle decreased from 58 o at strain rate of
10-5 s-1 to 48o at strain rate of 10 s-1 for the cast-in-place anchors subjected to tensile
load. Steel failure was observed at high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1.
 The failure mode transitioned from concrete cone breakout failure at low strain
rate of 10-5 s-1 to steel anchor failure at higher strain rates for the cast-in-place
anchors subjected to tensile load. While the failure mode transitioned from pryout
failure to steel anchor failure with the increase in the strain rate from 10-5 s-1 to 103
s-1 for the cast-in-place anchors subjected to shear load.
 Concrete cone breakout diameter increased from 230 mm to 255 mm for the
increase in anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 19.1 mm at embedment depth of 76.2
mm. The increase in the concrete cone breakout diameter at embedment depth of
101.6 mm was from 292 mm to 314 mm when the anchor diameter increased from
15.9 mm to 19.1 mm. While steel anchor failure was observed for the 12.7 mm
anchor diameter.
 The ultimate shear load increased with the increase in the concrete compressive
strength when pryout failure is the dominant failure mode. Maximum increase in
the ultimate shear load of 40.8% was obtained for the cast-in-place anchors when
the concrete compressive strength increased from 20 MPa to 40 MPa at low strain
rate of 10-5 s-1. While at high strain rate of 103 s-1 increasing concrete compressive
strength has no influence on the failure mode.
343
7.4 Behaviour of adhesive anchorage system under different strain rates
 For adhesive anchors subjected to tensile load, maximum DIF of 1.13 was
obtained for the adhesive anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure at strain
rate of 10-3 s-1. Maximum DIF of 2.59 was obtained for the adhesive anchors
exhibited combined cone bond failure at strain rate of 102 s-1. Maximum DIF of
1.13 was obtained for the adhesive anchors exhibited steel failure at high strain
rate of 103 s-1.
 For adhesive anchors subjected to shear load, maximum DIF of 1.18 was obtained
for the adhesive anchors exhibited steel failure at high strain rate of 103 s-1.
 Concrete cone failure was observed at the static strain rate of 10 -5 s-1, while
combined cone-bond failure was observed at strain rates of 10-3 s-1, 10-1 s-1 and 10
s-1 for most of the adhesive anchors subjected to tensile load. Steel anchor failure
was observed at high strain rate of 103 s-1.
 Average crack propagation angle of 56.5o was observed at low strain rate of 10-5
s-1 for the adhesive anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout failure under tensile
load. Increasing the strain rates higher than 10-5 s-1 exhibited combined cone bond
failure and steel failure.
 Failure mode transition from pryout failure at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to steel
anchor failure at high strain rate of 103 s-1 was observed for most of the adhesive
anchors subjected to shear load. However, failure mode transition from pryout
failure at low strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to concrete spalling and steel anchor failure at
high strain rate of 103 s-1 was observed for 19.1 mm diameter adhesive anchor with
embedment depth of 76.2 mm.
344
 The concrete cone breakout diameter increased from 225 mm to 236 mm with the
increase in the anchor diameter from 12.7 mm to 15.9 mm at embedment depth of
76.2 mm. The increase was from 268 mm to 291 mm at embedment depth of 101.6
mm. At embedment depth of 127 mm, steel anchor failure was observed for the
12.7 mm diameter and combined concrete cone bond failure for 15.9 mm diameter
adhesive anchor. Steel anchor failure was observed at embedment depth of 152.4
mm. The concrete cone breakout diameter increased from 244 mm to 421 mm for
the 19.1 mm diameter adhesive anchor as the embedment depth increased from
76.2 mm to 152.4 mm.
7.5 Behaviour of undercut anchorage system under different strain rates
 Maximum DIF of 1.58 was obtained for the undercut anchors subjected to tensile
load at strain rate of 10 s-1, where concrete cone breakout failure is observed.
Maximum DIF of 1.44 was obtained at strain rate of 103 s-1, where steel failure is
observed.
 For the undercut anchors subjected to shear load. Maximum DIF of 1.38 was
obtained for the undercut anchors exhibited pryout failure at strain rate of 10-3 s-1.
Maximum DIF of 1.79 was obtained for the undercut anchors exhibited concrete
spalling at strain rate of 10-1 s-1. Maximum DIF of 1.45 was obtained for the
undercut anchors exhibited steel failure at high strain rate of 103 s-1.
 Steel anchor failure is the dominant failure mode for the 12-mm and 16-mm
diameter undercut anchors subjected to tensile load at all the embedment depths
and strain rates investigated. While concrete cone breakout failure is observed for
345
the 20-mm diameter undercut anchor with 100 mm and 125 mm embedment
depths at strain rates up to 10-1 s-1. Also, concrete cone breakout failure was
observed for embedment depth of 100 mm at strain rate of 10 s-1. Steel anchor
failure is observed at high strain rates of 102 s-1 and 103 s-1. Also, steel anchor
failure was observed at embedment depths of 190 mm and 250 mm at all the strain
rates investigated.
 Average crack propagation angle decreased from 62o at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to 42o
at strain rate of 10 s-1 for the undercut anchors exhibited concrete cone breakout
failure.
 Failure mode transition from pryout failure at strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to concrete
spalling and then to steel anchor failure at high strain rate of 103 s-1 was observed
for the undercut anchors subjected to shear load.
 The concrete cone breakout diameter increased from 291 mm to 340 mm with the
increase in the anchor diameter from 16 mm to 20 mm at embedment depth of 100
mm. While steel anchor failure was observed for anchor diameter of 12 mm.
Further increase in the anchor embedment depths for the 12 mm, 16 mm diameter
undercut anchors resulted in steel failure. Concrete cone breakout diameter of 378
mm was observed for the 20 mm diameter undercut anchor at 125 mm embedment
depth.
7.6 Research limitations
In this research plain concrete was used. Effect of reinforcement confinement was not
considered for the analysis. Effect of edge distance was not considered where single anchor
346
is placed at the center of the concrete block far from the concrete free edge. Effect of group
anchors on the behaviour of anchorage to concrete system was not considered for the
analysis. This research is limited to investigate the tensile and shear behaviour of anchorage
to concrete system. Effect of combined tensile and shear loads on the behaviour of the
anchorage to concrete system was not investigated.
7.7 Future resreach
The research performed in this thesis focused on the effect of strain rate on the tensile and
shear capacity for the cast-in-place, adhesive and undercut anchors. The recommended
future work can be summarized as follows:
 Effect of strain rate on the combination of the tensile and shear load of the
anchorage systems.
 Influence of concrete confinement on the tensile and shear capacity of the
anchorage system at different strain rates.
 Effect of hole shape (tapered shape) for the adhesive anchor on the tensile and shear
capacity.
 Strain rate effect on the tensile and shear capacity for group of anchorage systems.
 Influence of temperature on the tensile and shear behaviour of anchorage to
concrete systems at high strain rates.
 Strain rate effect on anchors near the concrete edge.
347
7.8 Contributions
7.8.1 Journal papers
 Lenda T. Ahmed and Abass Braimah (2019). Tensile behaviour of adhesive anchors
under different strain rates. Engineering Structures, (192), 113-125.
 Lenda T. Ahmed and Abass Braimah (2017). Behaviour of undercut anchors
subjected to high strain rate loading. Procedia Engineering, (210), 326-333.
 Lenda T. Ahmed and Abass Braimah (2019). Shear behaviour of adhesive anchors
under different strain rates. (Submitted to Engineering Structures).
7.8.2 Conference papers
 Lenda T. Ahmed and Abass Braimah (2018). Shear behaviour of cast-in-place
anchors at low and high strain rates. CSCE 2018 Annual Conference, New
Brunswick, Canada.
 Lenda T. Ahmed and Abass Braimah (2016). Strain Rate Effect on the behaviour
of cast-in-place anchors under tensile load. 2nd International Conference on
Advances in Civil Architecture and Environmental Engineering (ICCAEE), KL,
Malaysia.
 Lenda T. Ahmed and Abass Braimah (2016). Strain rate effect on the behaviour of
cast-in-place concrete anchors under shear loading. 2nd International Conference
on Advances in Civil Architecture and Environmental Engineering (ICCAEE), KL,
Malaysia. (Best paper presentation award).
348
References
A Mitek’ Company. (1997). DUC UNDERCUT ANCHORS.
Abebe, M. S., & Qiu, H. S. (2016). Numerical modeling of geotextile reinforcement of soft
subgrade ballasted railway under high speed train. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 21(12), 4327–4343.
ACI Committee (349). (1990). Code requirements for nuclear safety related structures
(ACI) 349-85, Appendix B- steel embedment”. American concrete institute, Detroit.
ACI Committee 318. (2005). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete ( ACI
318-05 ) and Commentrary ( ACI 318R-05 ).
ACI Committee 318. (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-11) and Commentary.
ACI Committee 355. (2000). Commentary on Evaluating the Performance of Post-
Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (ACI 355.2R-00).
Ansell, A. (2006). Dynamic testing of steel for a new type of energy absorbing rock bolt.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62(5), 501–512.
Ashour, A. F., & Alqedra, M. A. (2005). Concrete breakout strength of single anchors in
tension using neural networks. Advances in Engineering Software, 36, 87–97.
Bala, S. (2008). Tolerance used for Tying Slave Nodes in TIED contacts.
Barnat, J., Bajer, M., & Vyhnankova, M. (2012). Bond strength of chemical anchor in high-
strength concrete. Procedia Engineering, 40, 38–43.
Bathe, K.-J., Walczak, J., Guillermin, O., Bouzinov, P. A., & Chen, H.-Y. (1999).
Advances in crush analysis. Computers & Structures, 72, 31–47.
Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B., & Chaallal, O. (1996). Bond strength and load distribution
349
of composite GFRP reinforcing bars in concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 93(3), 246–
252.
Bergan, P. G., Horrigmoe, G., Krakeland, B., & Soreide, T. H. (1978). Solution techniques
for non-linear finite element problems. International Journal for Numerical Methodds
in Engineering, 12, 1677–1696.
Bermejo, M., Goicolea, J. M., Gabald´on, F., & Santos, A. (2011). Impact And Explosive
Loads On Concrete Buildings Using Shell And Beam Type Elements. 3rd ECCOMAS
Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 1–14.
Bi, K., & Hao, H. (2013). Numerical simulation of pounding damage to bridge structures
under spatially varying ground motions. Engineering Structures, 46, 62–76.
Bickel, T. S., & Shaikh, A. F. (2002). Shear Strength of Adhesive Anchors. PCI Journal,
47(5), 92–101.
Bischoff, P. H., & Perry, S. H. (1991). Compressive behaviour of concrete at high strain
rates. Materials and Structures, 24(6), 425–450.
Boh, J. W., Louca, L. A., & Choo, Y. S. (2004). Strain rate effects on the response of
stainless steel corrugated firewalls subjected to hydrocarbon explosions. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 60(1), 1–29.
Børvik, T., Hopperstad, O. S., & Berstad, T. (2003). On the influence of stress triaxiality
and strain rate on the behaviour of a structural steel. Part II. Numerical study.
European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, 22, 15–32.
Braimah, A., Contestabile, E., & Guilbeault, R. (2009). Behaviour of adhesive steel
anchors under impulse-type loading. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(11),
350
1835–1847.
Braimah, A., Guilbeault, R., & Contestabile, E. (2004). High strain rate behaviour of
chemically bonded steel anchors. Canadian explosives research laboratory (CERL),
Report No. 20, Natural Resources Canada (Vol. 20).
Braimah, A., Guilbeault, R., & Contestabile, E. (2014). Strain rate behaviour of adhesive
anchors in masonry. Engineering Structures, 67, 96–108.
Bridge Design Aids. (2012). Anchorage to Concrete.
British Standards Institution Draft for development. (1992). Concrete performane,
production, placing, and compliance criteria.
BS EN 206. (2013). BSI Standards Publication Concrete — Specification , performance ,
production and conformity. British Standard, (May), 1–93.
Cadoni, E., Labibes, K., Albertini, C., Berra, M., & Giangrasso, M. (2001). Strain-rate
effect on the tensile behaviour of concrete at different relative humidity levels.
Materials and Structures, 34, 21–26.
Cai, M., Champaigne, D., & Kaiser, P. K. (2010). Development of a fully debonded
conebolt for rockburst support. In 5 th International Seminar on Deep and High Stress
Mining (pp. 329–342).
Çalışkan, Ö., Yılmaz, S., Kaplan, H., & Kıraç, N. (2013). Shear strength of epoxy anchors
embedded into low strength concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 38, 723–
730.
Cattaneo, S., & Muciaccia, G. (2015). Adhesive anchors in high performance concrete.
Materials and Structures, 1–12.
Ceci, A. M., Casas, J. R., & Ghosn, M. (2012). Statistical analysis of existing models for
351
flexural strengthening of concrete bridge beams using FRP sheets. Construction and
Building Materials, 27(1), 490–520.
Cement Association of Canada. (2010). Concrete design handbook, third edition.
Chan, Y., Chen, Y., & Liu, Y. (2003). Development of bond strength of reinforcement steel
in self-consolidating concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 100(4), 490–498.
Chapman, R. A., & Shah, S. P. (1987). Early-Age bond strength in reinforced concrete.
ACI Materials Journal, 501–510.
Chen, S., Zang, M., Wang, D., Yoshimura, S., & Yamada, T. (2017). Numerical analysis
of impact failure of automotive laminated glass: A review. Composites Part B, 122,
47–60.
Chen, W., & Hao, H. (2012). Numerical study of a new multi-arch double-layered blast-
resistance door panel. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 43, 16–28.
Choi, S., Joh, C., & Chun, S.-C. (2015). Behavior and strengths of single cast-in anchors
in Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) subjected to a
monotonic tension or shear. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 19(4), 964–973.
Chou, C., Chen, P., Le, J., & Tamini, N. (2004). A benchmark study of CAE sensor
modeling using LS-DYNA. Eighth International LS-DYNA User Conference, (2), 3–
22.
Committee Euro-International du Beton (CEB). (1994). Fastenings to concrete and
masonry structures. State of the Art Report. Thomas Telford Ltd.
Cook, R. A. (1993). Behavior of chemically bonded anchors. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 119(9), 2744–2762.
Cook, R. A., Collins, D. M., Klingner, R. E., & Polyzois, D. (1992). Load-Deflection
352
Behavior of Cast-in-Place and Retrofit Concrete Anchors. ACI Structural Journal,
89(6), 639–649.
Cook, R. A., Doerr, G. T., & Klingner, R. E. (1993). Bond stress model for design of
adhesive anchors. ACI Structural Journal, 90(5), 514–524.
Cook, R. a., Eligehausen, R., & Appl, J. J. (2007). Overview: Behavior of Adhesive
Bonded Anchors. Beton- Und Stahlbetonbau, 102, 16–21.
Cook, R. A., Fagundo, F. E., Biller, M. H., & Richardson, D. E. (1991). Tensile behavior
and design of single adhesive anchors. Structures and Materials Res, (91–3).
Cook, R. A., & Konz, R. C. (2001). Factors Influencing Bond Strength of Adhesive
Anchors. ACI Structural Journal, 98(1), 76–86.
Cook, R. A., Kunz, J., Fuchs, W., & Konz, R. C. (1998). Behavior and design of single
adhesive anchors under tensile load in uncracked concrete. ACI Struct., 95(1), 9–26.
Cook, R. A., Prevatt, D. O., Mcbride, K. E., & Potter, W. (2013). Steel shear strength of
anchors with stand-off base plates.
Cowell, W. L. (1969). Dynamic tests on selected structural steels.
da Silva Lucas F. M., Öchsner, A., & Adams, R. D. (2011). Handbook of Adhesion
Technology.
Das, A., Ghosh, M., Tarafder, S., Sivaprasad, S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2017).
Micromechanisms of deformation in dual phase steels at high strain rates. Materials
Science and Engineering A, 680, 249–258.
Davidson, J. S., Fisher, J. W., Hammons, M. I., Porter, J. R., & Dinan, R. J. (2005). Failure
Mechanisms of Polymer-Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls Subjected to Blast.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(August), 1194–1205.
353
de Larrard, F., Schaller, I., & Fuchs, J. (1993). Effect of bar diameter on the bond strength
of passive reinforcement in high-performance concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 90(4),
333–339.
Delhomme, F., Roure, T., Arrieta, B., & Limam, A. (2015a). Static and cyclic pullout
behavior of cast-in-place headed and bonded anchors with large embedment depths in
cracked concrete. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 287, 139–150.
Delhomme, F., Roure, T., Arrieta, B., & Limam, A. (2015b). Tensile behaviour of cast-in-
place headed anchors with different embedment depths. European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, 19(6), 703–716.
Dogan, F., Hadavinia, H., Donchev, T., & Bhonge, P. S. (2012). Delamination of impacted
composite structures by cohesive zone interface elements and tiebreak contact.
Central European Journal of Engineering, 2(4), 612–626.
El-Hage, H., Mallick, P. K., & Zamani, N. (2005). A numerical study on the quasi-static
axial crush characteristics of square aluminum tubes with chamfering and other
triggering mechanisms. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 10(2), 183–195.
Eligehausen, R. (1987). Anchorage to Concrete by Metallic Expansion Anchors.
Anchorage to Concrete, SP-103, 181–201.
Eligehausen, R., Bouska, P., Cervenka, V., & Pukl, R. (1992). Size effect of the concrete
cone failure load of anchor bolts. In First international conference on fracture
mechanics of concrete structures (FraMCoS1) (pp. 517–525).
Eligehausen, R., Cook, R. A., & Appl, J. (2006). Behavior and Design of Adhesive Bonded
Anchors. ACI Structural Journal, 103(6), 822–831.
Eligehausen, R., Fuchs, W., & Sippel, T. M. (1998). Anchorage to concrete. Progress in
354
Structural Engineering and Materials, 1(4), 392–403.
Eligehausen, R., Hofacker, I., & Lettow, S. (2001). Fastening technique-current status and
future trends. In International symposium on connections between steel and concrete
(pp. 11–27).
Eligehausen, R., Mallee, R., & Rehm. (1984). Fastenings with bonded anchors.
Betonwerk+ Fertigteil -Technik, 10, 686–692.
Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R., & Silva, J. F. (2006). Anchorage in concrete construction.
Ernst & Sohn,1st edition.
Epackachi, S., Esmaili, O., Mirghaderi, S. R., & Behbahani, A. A. T. (2015). Behavior of
adhesive bonded anchors under tension and shear loads. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 114, 269–280.
Fabbrocino, G., Verderame, G. M., & Manfredi, G. (2005). Experimental behaviour of
anchored smooth rebars in old type reinforced concrete buildings. Engineering
Structures, 27(10), 1575–1585.
Fang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2013). Three-dimensional modelling of steel fiber reinforced
concrete material under intense dynamic loading. Construction and Building
Materials, 44, 118–132.
Fu, B. H. C., Erki, M. A., & Seckin, M. (1991). Review o f effects of loading rate on
reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(12), 3660–3679.
Fu, X., & Chung, D. D. L. (1999). Interface between steel rebar and concrete, studied by
electromechanical pull out testing. Composite Interfaces, 6(2), 81–92.
Fuchs, W. (2001). Evolution of fastening design methods in Europe. In International
Symposium on connections between steel and concrete (pp. 45–60).
355
Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., & Breen, J. E. (1995). Concrete capacity design (CCD)
approach for fastening to concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 92(1), 73–94.
Fujikake, K., Nakayama, J., Sato, H., Mindess, S., & Ishibashi, T. (2003). Chemically
Bonded Anchors Subjected to Rapid Pullout Loading. ACI Materials Journal, 100(3),
246–252.
Gebbeken, N., Greulich, S., & Pietzsch, A. (2001). Performance of Concrete Based
Building Materials Against Blast and Impact. In Proceedings of the fib-Symposium on
Concrete and Environment, Berlin (pp. 1–11).
Gebbeken, N., & Ruppert, M. (2000). A new material model for concrete in high-dynamic
hydrocode simulations. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 70, 463–478.
Georgin, J. F., & Reynouard, J. M. (2003). Modeling of structures subjected to impact:
concrete behaviour under high strain rate. Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(1),
131–143.
Gesoğlu, M., Güneyisi, E. M., Güneyisi, E., Yılmaz, M. E., & Mermerdaş, K. (2014).
Modeling and analysis of the shear capacity of adhesive anchors post-installed into
uncracked concrete. Composites : Part B, 60, 716–724.
Gesoglu, M., Ozturan, T., Ozel, M., & Guneyisi, E. (2005). Tensile Behavior of Post-
Installed Anchors in Plain and Steel Fiber-Reinforced Normal- and High-Strength
Concretes. Structural Journal, 102(2), 224–231.
Goncalves, M. C., & Margarido, F. (2015). Materials for Construction and Civil
Engineering.
González, F., Fernández, J., Agranati, G., & Villanueva, P. (2018). Influence of
construction conditions on strength of post installed bonded anchors. Construction
356
and Building Materials, 165, 272–283.
Graf, T., Haufe, A., & Andrade, F. (2014). Adhesives modeling with LS-DYNA : Recent
developments and future work.
Gross, H. J., Klingner, R. E., & Graves III, H. L. (2001). Dynamic Behavior of Single and
Double Near-Edge Anchors Loaded in Shear. ACI Structural Journal, 98(5), 665–
676.
Hallquist, J. O. (2006). LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore Software Technology
Corporation.
Han, H., Taheri, F., Pegg, N., & Lu, Y. (2007). A numerical study on the axial crushing
response of hybrid pultruded and ±45° braided tubes. Composite Structures, 80(2),
253–264.
Hariyadi, Munemoto, S., & Sonoda, Y. (2017). Experimental Analysis of Anchor Bolt in
Concrete under the Pull-Out Loading. Procedia Engineering, 171, 926–933.
Hashimoto, J., & Takiguchi, K. (2004). Experimental study on pullout strength of anchor
bolt with an embedment depth of 30 mm in concrete under high temperature. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 229, 151–163.
Hawkins, N. (1987). Strength in shear and tension of cast-in-place anchor bolts. American
Concrete Institute (ACI), 103(12), 233–255.
Hentz, S., Donzé, F. V., & Daudeville, L. (2004). Discrete element modelling of concrete
submitted to dynamic loading at high strain rates. Computers & Structures, 82, 2509–
2524.
Hilti. (2011). Anchor Fastening Technical Guide 2011.
Hilti. (2014). Adhesive anchoring systems.
357
Hopperstad, O. S., Børvik, T., Langseth, M., Labibes, K., & Albertini, C. (2003). On the
influence of stress triaxiality and strain rate on the behaviour of a structural steel. Part
I. Experiments. European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, 22, 1–13.
Jaime, M. C. (2011). Numerical modeling of rock cutting and its associated fragmentation
process using the finite element method. PHD Thesis, Civil Engineering Department,
University of Pittsburgh.
Jang, J. B., & Suh, Y. P. (2006). The experimental investigation of a crack’s influence on
the concrete breakout strength of a cast-in-place anchor. Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 236(9), 948–953.
Jebara, K., Ozbolt, J., & Hofmann, J. (2016). Pryout failure capacity of single headed stud
anchors. Materials and Structures, 49, 1775–1792.
Jensen, M. R., Hallquist, J., Grimes, R., Day, J., Lu, H., & Tabiei, A. (2007). Introduction
to LS-DYNA, 1–145.
Johnsonwindowfilms.com. (2018). http://www.johnsonwindowfilms.com/protective-films
/anchoring-systems/.
Kashani, M. H., Alavijeh, H. S., Akbarshahi, H., & Shakeri, M. (2013). Bitubular square
tubes with different arrangements under quasi-static axial compression loading.
Materials and Design, 51, 1095–1103.
Keller, T., & Vallée, T. (2005). Adhesively bonded lap joints from pultruded GFRP
profiles. Part I: Stress-strain analysis and failure modes. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 36(4), 331–340.
Kim, J.-S., Jung, W.-Y., Kwon, M.-H., & Ju, B.-S. (2013). Performance evaluation of the
post-installed anchor for sign structure in South Korea. Construction and Building
358
Materials, 44, 496–506.
Kinsho, T., Satake, M., & Miyazaki, T. (2000). Epoxy curing agent and one component
(type) epoxy resin composition.
Kulkarni, S. M., & Shah, S. P. (1998). Response of Reinforced Concrete Beams at High
Strain Rates. ACI Structural Journal, 95(6), 705–715.
Kwasniewski, L. (2010). Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a
multistory building. Engineering Structures, 32(5), 1223–1235.
Kyei, C., & Braimah, A. (2013). Seismic Reinforcement Detailing Effects on Blast
Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Columns. In 3rd Specialty Conference on
Diasaster Prevention and Mitigation (pp. 1–9).
Lee, N. H., Park, K. R., & Suh, Y. P. (2011). Shear behavior of headed anchors with large
diameters and deep embedments in concrete. Nuclear Engineering and Design,
241(3), 608–616.
Lee, W.-S., & Lam, H.-F. (1996). The deformation behaviour and microstructure evolution
of high-strength alloy steel at high rate of strain. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 57(3–4), 233–240.
Lee, W.-S., Lin, C.-F., & Liu, T.-J. (2007). Impact and fracture response of sintered 316L
stainless steel subjected to high strain rate loading. Materials Characterization, 58(4),
363–370.
Li, Y., Eligehausen, R., Ozbolt, J., & Lehr, B. (2002). Numerical Analysis of Quadruple
Fastenings with Bonded Anchors. ACI Structural Journal, 99(2), 149–156.
Liu, Y. (2008). ANSYS and LS-DYNA used for structural analysis. International Journal
of Computer Aided Engineering and Technology, 1(1), 31–44.
359
Livermore software technology Corporation, L. (2012). LS-DYNA Keyword User’ S
Manual VOLUME II Material Models (Vol. II).
Livermore Software Technology Corporation, L. (2015). LS-DYNA Theory Manual.
Lou, K.-A., & Perciballi, W. (2008). Finite Element Modeling of Preloaded Bolt Under
Static Three-Point Bending Load. In 10th International LS-DYNA Users Conference
(pp. 1–10).
LSTC, Livermore Software Technology Corporation. (2015). LS-DYNA Keyword User’S
Manual Volume II material models.
LSTC, Livermore Software Technology Corporation. (2014a). LS-DYNA Keyword User’s
Manual Volume II Material Models. Livermore California (Vol. II).
LSTC, Livermore Software Technology Corporation. (2014b). Strain rate LS-DYNA
support.
Lu, J. Z., Zhong, J. S., Luo, K. Y., Zhang, L., Qi, H., Luo, M., XU, X. J., Zhou, J. Z. (2013).
Strain rate correspondence of fracture surface features and tensile properties in
AISI304 stainless steel under different LSP impact time. Surface and Coatings
Technology, 221, 88–93.
Mackay-Sim, R. (1990). Limit State Design: Fastening to Concrete (Vol. 355).
Madico Safety Shield Premier Partener. (2012). http://www.windowfilmuk.com/window-
film-bomb-blast-protection/lifeline-anchoring-window-film.html.
Mahadik, V., Sharma, A., & Hofmann, J. (2016). Inelastic seismic behavior of post-
installed anchors for nuclear safety related structures: Generation of experimental
database. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 297, 231–250.
Mahrenholtz, C., & Eligehausen, R. (2013). Dynamic performance of concrete undercut
360
anchors for Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear Engineering & Design, 265, 1091–1100.
Mahrenholtz, P., & Eligehausen, R. (2015). Post-installed concrete anchors in nuclear
power plants: Performance and qualification. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 287,
48–56.
Maker, B., & Zhu, X. (2000). Input parameters for metal forming simulation using LS-
DYNA. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2, 1–10.
Mallonee, S., Shariat, S., Stennies, G., Waxweiler, R., Hogan, D., & Jordan, F. (1996).
Physical Injuries and Fatalities Resulting From the Oklahoma City Bombing. JAMA,
276(5), 382–387.
Malvar, L. J., & Crawford, J. E. (1998). Dynamic Increase Factors for Concrete. In Twenty-
Eight DDESB Seminar, Orlando, FL (pp. 1–17).
Malvar, L. J., & Ross, C. A. (1998). Review of Strain Rate Effects for Concrete in Tension.
ACI Materials Journal, 95(6), 735–739.
Marcon, M., Ninčević, K., Boumakis, I., Czernuschka, L.-M., & Wan-Wendner, R. (2018).
Aggregate effect on the concrete cone capacity of an undercut anchor under quasi-
static tensile load. Materials, 11(5), 1–17.
Marzi, S., Hesebeck, O., Brede, M., & Kleiner, F. (2009). A Rate-Dependent Cohesive
Zone Model for Adhesively Bonded Joints Loaded in Mode I. Journal of Adhesion
Science and Technology, 23(6), 881–898.
Marzi, S., Ramon-villalonga, L., Poklitar, M., & Kleiner, F. (2008). Usage of Cohesive
Elements in Crash Analysis of Large, Bonded Vehicle Structures Experimental Tests
and Simulation. In LS DYNA FORUM, Bamberg.
May, M., Voß, H., & Hiermaier, S. (2014). Predictive modeling of damage and failure in
361
adhesively bonded metallic joints using cohesive interface elements. International
Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 49, 7–17.
McMullin, P. W., Price, J. S., & Persellin, E. H. (2016). Concrete design, Routledge Taylor
and Francis Group, New York.
McVay, M., Cook, R. A., & Krishnamurthy, K. (1996). Pullout Simulation Of Postinstalled
Chemically Bonded Anchors. Structural Engineering, 122(9), 1016–1024.
Min, F., Yao, Z., & Jiang, T. (2014). Experimental and numerical study on tensile strength
of concrete under different strain rates. The Scientific World Journal, 1–11.
Montgomery, D. C. (2013). Design and Analysis of Experiments (8th Edition). John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Mousavi, R., Champiri, M. D., & Willam, K. J. (2016). Efficiency of damage-plasticity
models in capturing compaction-expansion transition of concrete under different
compression loading conditions. In VII European Congress on Computational
Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (pp. 1–12).
Moutoussamy, L., Herve, G., & Barbier, F. (2011). Qualification of * Constrained _
Lagrange_In_Solid command for steel / concrete interface modeling. In 8th European
LS-DYNA Conference.
Muratli, H., Klingner, R. E., & Graves III, H. L. (2001). Behavior of shear anchors in
concrete: statistical analysis and design recommendations. In International
Symposium on connections between steel and concrete (pp. 220–230).
Muratli, H., Klingner, R. E., & Graves III, H. L. (2004). Breakout Capacity of Anchors in
Concrete - Part 2 : Shear. ACI Structural Journal, 101(6), 821–829.
Murray, Y. (2007). Users Manual for LS-DYNA Concrete Material Model 159.
362
Nammur Jr, G., & Naaman, A. (1989). Bond stress model for fiber reinforced concrete
based on bond stress-slip relationship. ACI Materials Journal, 45–57.
Nilforoush, R., Nilsson, M., & Elfgren, L. (2017). Experimental evaluation of tensile
behaviour of single cast-in-place anchor bolts in plain and steel fibre-reinforced
normal- and high-strength concrete. Engineering Structures, 147, 195–206.
Nilforoush, R., Nilsson, M., & Elfgren, L. (2018). Experimental evaluation of influence of
member thickness, anchor-head size, and orthogonal surface reinforcement on the
tensile capacity of headed anchors in uncracked concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 144(4), 1–14.
Norville, H. S., & Conrath, E. J. (2001). Considerations for blast-resistant glazing design.
Journal of Architectural Engineering, 7(3), 80–86.
Norville, H. S., & Conrath, E. J. (2006). Blast-Resistant Glazing Design. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, 12(3), 129–136.
Norville, H. S., Harvill, N., Conrath, E. J., Shariat, S., & Mallonee, S. (1999). Glass-related
injuries in Oklahoma City Bombing. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 13(2), 50–56.
Odeshi, A. G., Al-Ameeri, S., & Bassim, M. N. (2005). Effect of high strain rate on plastic
deformation of a low alloy steel subjected to ballistic impact. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 162–163(SPEC. ISS.), 385–391.
Ozbolt, J., & Eligehausen, R. (1990). Numerical analysis of headed studs embeded in large
plain concrete blocks. Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Concrete Structures,
1, 645–656.
Ožbolt, J., Rah, K. K., & Meštrović, D. (2006). Influence of loading rate on concrete cone
363
failure. International Journal of Fracture, 139, 239–252.
Pallarés, L., & Hajjar, J. F. (2009). Headed steel stud anchors in composite structures, Part
II: Tension and interaction. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66, 1–38.
Park, S. W., Xia, Q., & Zhou, M. (2001). Dynamic behavior of concrete at high strain rates
and pressures : II . numerical simulation. International Journal of Impact Eng, 25,
887–910.
Paultre, P. (2010). Dynamics of Structures. ISTE Ltd, UK and John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
USA. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, USA.
Petersen, D., Lin, Z., & Zhao, J. (2013). Behavior and Design of Cast-in-Place Anchors
under Simulated Seismic Loading (Vol. II).
precast-prestressed concrete Institute. (1999). PCI design handbook.
Primavera, E. J., Pinelli, J. P., & Kalajian, E. H. (1997). Tensile behavior of cast-in-place
and undercut anchors in high-strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 94(5), 583–
592.
Qian, S., & Li, V. C. (2011). Headed Anchor/Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC)
Pullout Behavior. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 9(3), 339–351.
Rao, G. A., & Arora, J. (2013). Strength and Modes of Failure of Adhesive Anchors in
Confined Concrete Under Direct Tensile Loading. In VIII International Conference
on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures FraMCOS-8 (pp. 1–11).
Reinhardt, H., Rossi, P., & van Mier, J. (1990). Joint investigation of concrete at high rates
of loading. Materials and Structures, 23, 213–216.
Remani, C. (2013). Methods for Solving Systems of Nonlinear Equations.
Rodriguez, M., Zhang, Y., Lotez, D., Graves III, H. L., & Klingner, R. E. (1997). Dynamic
364
behaviour of anchors in cracked and uncracked concrete: a progress report 1. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 168, 23–34.
Ross, C. A., Jerome, D. M., Tedesco, J. W., & Hughes, M. L. (1996). Moisture and Strain
Rate Effects on Concrete Strength. ACI Materials Journal, 93(3), 293–298.
Ross, C. A., Tedesco, J. W., & Kuennen, S. T. (1995). Effects of Strain Rate on Concrete
Strength. ACI Materials Journal, 92(1), 37–45.
Ross, C. A., Thompson, P. Y., & Tedesco, J. W. (1989). Split-Hopkinson Pressure-Bar
Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression. ACI Materials Journal,
86(5), 475–481.
Rossi, P., Mier, J. G. M. Van, Toutlemonde, F., Maou, fabrice le, & Boulay, C. (1994).
Effect of loading rate on the strength of concrete subjected to uniaxial tension.
Materials and Structures, 27, 260–264.
Rust, W., & Schweizerhof, K. (2003). Finite element limit load analysis of thin-walled
structures by ANSYS (implicit), LS-DYNA (explicit) and in combination. Thin-
Walled Structures, 41(2–3), 227–244.
Sagals, G., Orbovic, N., & Blahoianu, A. (2011). Sensitivity Studies of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs Under Impact Loading. In Transactions, SMiRT 21 (pp. 1–8).
Sato, H., Fujikake, K., & Mindess, S. (2004). Study on dynamic pullout strength of anchors
based on failure modes. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–7.
Shariat, S., Mallonee, S., & Stidham, S. S. (1998). Summary of Reportable Injuries in
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City Bombing Injuries.
Shima, H., Chou, L. L., & Okamura, H. (1987). Micro and macro models for bond in
reinforced concrete. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, The Uinversity of Tokyo,
365
XXXIX(2), 133–194.
Shkolnik, I. E. (2008). Influence of high strain rates on stress–strain relationship, strength
and elastic modulus of concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 30(10), 1000–
1012.
Solomos, G., & Berra, M. (2006). Testing of anchorages in concrete under dynamic tensile
loading. Materials and Structures, 39, 695–706.
Spyridis, P., & Bergmeister, K. (2014). Effects of Assembly Tolerances on Bolted
Anchorages in Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(1), 1–12.
Subramanian, N. (2000). Recent developments in the design of anchor bolts. The Indian
Concrete Journal, 407–414.
Sugiman, S., & Ahmad, H. (2017). Comparison of cohesive zone and continuum damage
approach in predicting the static failure of adhesively bonded single lap joints. Journal
of Adhesion Science and Technology, 31(5), 552–570.
Tedesco, J. W., Hughes, M. L., & Ross, C. a. (1994). Numerical simulation of high strain
rate concrete compression tests. Computers & Structures, 51(1), 65–77.
Toikka, L., Braimah, A., Razaqpur, G., & Foo, S. (2015). Strain Rate Effect on
Development Length of Steel Reinforcement. Journal of Structural Engineering,
141(11), 1–14.
Trautwein, B. (2017). Anchor US Patent, US9677586 B2.
Tserpes, K. I., & Koumpias, A. S. (2012). Comparison between a Cohesive Zone Model
and a Continuum Damage Model in Predicting Mode-I Fracture Behavior of
Adhesively Bonded Joints. CMES, 83(2), 169–181.
Tu, Z., & Lu, Y. (2009). Evaluation of typical concrete material models used in hydrocodes
366
for high dynamic response simulations. International Journal of Impact Engineering,
36(1), 132–146.
Ueda, T., Kitipornchai, S., & Ling, K. (1990). Experimental Investigation of Anchor Bolts
Under Shear. Structural Engineering, 116(4), 910–924.
Ueda, T., Stitmannaithum, B., & Matupayont, S. (1991). Experimental Investigation on
Shear Strength of Bolt Anchorage Group. ACI Structural Journal, 88(3), 292–300.
Upadhyaya, P., & Kumar, S. (2015). Pull-out capacity of adhesive anchors: An analytical
solution. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 60, 54–62.
Vuletic, R., & Pearson, J. (2008). Use of Adhesive Anchors to Resist Long-Term Loads.
Structural Engineering Magazine, (January), 1–6.
Wakabayashi, M., Nakamura, T., Yoshida, N., Iwai, S., & Watanabe, Y. (1980). Dynamic
loading effects on the structural performance of concrete and steel materials and
beams. Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
6(3), 271–278.
Wang, D., Wu, D., He, S., Zhou, J., & Ouyang, C. (2015). Behavior of post-installed large-
diameter anchors in concrete foundations. Construction and Building Materials, 95,
124–132.
Wang, D., Wu, D., Ouyang, C., He, S., & Sun, X. (2017). Simulation analysis of large-
diameter post-installed anchors in concrete. Construction and Building Materials,
143, 558–565.
Wu, Y., Crawford, J. E., & Magallanes, J. M. (2012). Performance of LS-DYNA Concrete
Constitutive Models. In 12 th International LS-DYNA Users Conference (pp. 1–13).
Xing, G., Zhou, C., Wu, T., & Liu, B. (2015). Experimental study on bond behavior
367
between plain reinforcing bars and concrete. Advances in Materials Science and
Engineering, 1–9.
Xiong, R., Fu, R. Y., Su, Y., Li, Q., Wei, X.-C., & Li, L. (2009). Tensile Properties of
TWIP Steel at High Strain Rate. Journal of Iron and Steel Research International,
16(1), 81–86.
Xu, S., Ruan, D., Beynon, J. H., & Rong, Y. (2013). Dynamic tensile behaviour of TWIP
steel under intermediate strain rate loading. Materials Science and Engineering A,
573, 132–140.
Yilmaz, S., Özen, M. A., & Yardim, Y. (2013). Tensile behavior of post-installed chemical
anchors embedded to low strength concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 47,
861–866.
Yoon, Y.-S., Kim, H.-S., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001). Assessment of fracture behaviors for CIP
anchors fastened to cracked and uncracked concretes. KCI Concrete Journal, 13(2),
33–41.
Yu, H., Guo, Y., & Lai, X. (2009). Rate-dependent behavior and constitutive model of
DP600 steel at strain rate from 10-4 to 103 s-1. Materials and Design, 30, 2501–2505.
Zamora, N. A., Cook, R. A., Konz, R. C., & Consolazio, G. R. (2003). Behavior and Design
of Single, Headed and Unheaded, Grouted Anchors under Tensile Load. ACI
Structural Journal, 100(2), 222–230.
Zhao, C. F., Chen, J. Y., Wang, Y., & Lu, S. J. (2012). Damage mechanism and response
of reinforced concrete containment structure under internal blast loading. Theoretical
and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 61, 12–20.
Zhao, G. (1994). Load-Carrying Behavior of Headed Stud Anchors in Concrete Breakout
368
Away From an Edge. University Stuttgart, Germany.
Zhao, J. (2014). Seismic behavior of single anchors in plastic hinge zones of RC columns.
In Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Zhao, T., Guo, W., Yin, Y., & Tan, Y. (2015). Bolt Pull-Out Tests of Anchorage Body
under Different Loading Rates. Shock and Vibration, 1–8.
Zhou, X. Q., Kuznetsov, V. A., Hao, H., & Waschl, J. (2008). Numerical prediction of
concrete slab response to blast loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering,
35, 1186–1200.
369
Appendix A: Design methods for cast-in-place anchors
A.1 Design methods for cast-in-place anchors under tensile load
A.1.1 American Concrete Institute (ACI)
According to ACI 349-85 design method, the ultimate tensile failure load for cast-in-place
headed anchors can be determined by Equation (4.1) (Fuchs et al., 1995; Subramanian,
2000; Fuchs, 2001). Equation (4.1) is derived assuming sufficient thickness of the concrete
member to ensure that there is no decrease in the failure load (Fuchs et al. 1995). For
anchors with edge distance (c) less than hef, and/or the distance between anchors (spacing)
(s) less than 2×hef , the ultimate failure load can be determined by Equation (A.1) (Fuchs
et al., 1995; Subramanian, 2000).
𝐴
𝑁𝑢 = 𝐴 𝑁 ∙ 𝑁𝑢𝑜 (A.1)
𝑁𝑜
2 𝑑
𝐴𝑁𝑜 = 𝜋 ∙ ℎ𝑒𝑓 (1 + ℎ ℎ ) (A.2)
𝑒𝑓
Where 𝐴𝑁 is the actual projected area of stress cone of a single anchor, 𝐴𝑁𝑜 is the projected
area of stress cone of a single anchor unlimited by edge effect or spacing between the
anchors. According to Fuchs et al. (1995), the strength of anchor with shallow embedment
depth is underestimated by using ACI 349 and is unconservative for anchors with large
embedment depth. In addition, the ACI 349-85 method calculates the failure surface area
using complex calculations (Subramanian, 2000). The complexity appears in determining
370
the angle and the actual projected area (AN) for the case of multiple anchors and thin
concrete member (member thickness less than edge distance) (Fuchs et al., 1995).
ACI 318-11 Appendix D is proposed to design structural anchors that transfer structural
loads to the concrete by tension, shear or combination of tension and shear. These anchors
are used either to connect the structural elements or in safety related attachments that are
assembled externally to the structure such as sprinkler system, pipes and barrier rails. The
ACI 318-11 code is concerned with the levels of safety for the structural anchors. The
combination of the load factor and the capacity reduction factors (∅ factors) represent the
levels of safety. These levels of safety are suitable for structural applications. The load
factors are used to increase the load to consider the uncertainties in determining the dead
and live loads. Capacity reduction factors are used to reduce the strength of the material to
consider the uncertainties in material strengths and dimensions. The ACI 318-11 design
provisions depend on the CCD method theory in predicting the concrete breakout capacity,
where the failure surface forms a 35o cone. The CCD method coefficients were calibrated
based on extensive experimental tests, the theory is based on 5% fractile failure, 90%
confidence level, this means that for 95% of the performed tests the actual strength of the
anchor is more than the nominal strength. Adhesive anchors were included in the design
provisions of ACI 318-11 for the first time, as the previous versions of ACI code didn’t
include the adhesive anchors in the design (ACI Committee 318, 2011).
ACI 318 proposed equations to calculate the tensile load for each failure mode. Steel
anchor failure (Figure 2-5a) is likely to happen in high strength concrete, the strength of
371
the steel anchor can be determined by Equation (4.2). Where the ultimate tensile strength
is calculated as the minimum value of 1.9 𝑓𝑦 and 125000 psi, to assure there is no steel
anchor yielding during the service loads (Cement Association of Canada, 2010).
According to ACI 318 the nominal concrete breakout capacity (Fig. 2-5b) for a single
anchor can be determined as in Equation (4.16). For group of anchors, the concrete
breakout capacity can be determined as follows:
𝐴
𝑁𝑐𝑏𝑔 = 𝐴 𝑁 𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑁 ∙ 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑁 ∙ 𝜓𝑐,𝑁 ∙ 𝜓𝑐𝑝,𝑁 ∙ 𝑁𝑏 (A.3)
𝑁𝑜
1
𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑁 = ′ /(3ℎ ) ≤1 (A.4)
1+2𝑒𝑁 𝑒𝑓
𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑁 = 1 if 𝑐 ≥ 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 (A.5)
𝑐
𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑁 = 0.7 + 0.3 1.5ℎ if 𝑐 < 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 (A.6)
𝑒𝑓
For cracked concrete at service load:
𝜓𝑐,𝑁 = 1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠
For the uncracked concrete at service load:
1.25 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠

𝜓𝑐,𝑁 = {
1.4 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠
372
1 𝑖𝑓 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≥ 𝑐𝑐
𝜓𝑐𝑝,𝑁 = { 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 1.5 ℎ𝑒𝑓
≥ 𝑖𝑓 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 < 𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
Where 𝐴𝑁 is the actual projected area, 𝐴𝑁𝑜 is the projected area for the failure surface of
concrete where 𝐴𝑁 ≤ 𝑛𝐴𝑁𝑜 , 𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑁 is a modification factor account for eccentricity effect
for group anchors, 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑁 is a modification factor account for edge effect, 𝜓𝑐,𝑁 is a
modification factor account for cracking, 𝜓𝑐𝑝,𝑁 is a modification factor account for post
installed anchors embedded in uncracked concrete without reinforcement to control
concrete splitting, 𝑐𝑐 is the critical distance, 𝑁𝑏 is the basic concrete breakout strength of a
single anchor and can be determined using Equation (4.17), 𝑒𝑁′ is the distance between the
resultant tensile force of the group anchors and the centroid of the group anchors.
The geometrical calculations of the projected area 𝐴𝑁𝑜 and the actual area 𝐴𝑁 are shown
in Figure A-1.
𝐴𝑁 = (𝑐𝑎1 + 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 ) × (2 × 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 ) For 𝑐𝑎1 < 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓
373
𝐴𝑁𝑜 = (2 × 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 ) × (2 × 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 ) = 9ℎ𝑒𝑓 2 𝐴𝑁 = (𝑐𝑎1 + 𝑠1 + 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 ) × (2 × 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 )
For 𝑐𝑎1 < 1.5ℎ𝑒𝑓 and 𝑠1 < 3ℎ𝑒𝑓
Figure A-1: Calculation of Projected area ANo and actual area AN for single anchor and
double anchors (Cement Association of Canada 2010; ACI Committee 318 2011)
Side-face blowout failure (Figure 2-5c) occurs for single cast-in-place anchors with deep
embedment depths and located near the concrete free edge (Cement Association of Canada,
2010; ACI Committee 318, 2011). The side face blowout strength can be determined as
follows:
𝑁𝑠𝑏 = 160 𝑐1 √𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑔 √𝑓𝑐′ (A.7)
Where 𝑐1 < 0.4ℎ𝑒𝑓
𝑐 𝑐
If 𝑐2 < 3𝑐1 Equation (A.7) shall be multiplied by (1 + 𝑐2 ) /4 where the proportion of (𝑐2 )
1 1
𝑐
should be in the range of 1 ≤ 𝑐2 ≤ 3.
1
For group of anchors with deep embedment depths and 𝑐1 < 0.4ℎ𝑒𝑓 , 𝑠 < 6𝑐1 , the strength
of the anchors can be calculated as follows:
𝑠
𝑁𝑠𝑏𝑔 = (1 + 6𝑐 ) 𝑁𝑠𝑏 (A.8)
1
374
Where 𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑔 is the bearing area, 𝑁𝑠𝑏 is the blowout strength for a single anchor, 𝑁𝑠𝑏𝑔 is the
blowout strength for a group of anchors.
According to ACI 318 the pullout load of single anchor in tension can be determined as in
Equation (A.9).
𝑁𝑝𝑛 = 𝜓𝑐,𝑝 ∙ 𝑁𝑝 (A.9)
1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒

𝜓𝑐,𝑝 ={
1.4 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒
𝑁𝑝 = 8𝐴𝑏𝑟𝑔 ∙ 𝑓𝑐′ (A.10)
Where 𝑁𝑝𝑛 is the pullout force of a single anchor, 𝑁𝑝 is the nominal pullout stress.
A.1.2 Concrete Capacity Design (CCD)
According to Concrete Capacity Design Method (CCD) the ultimate tensile load of the
cast-in-place and post installed anchors in uncracked concrete can be determined as in
Equation (4.3), where complete concrete cone is formed (Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs et al., 1995;
Committee Euro-International du Beton (CEB), 1994; Subramanian, 2000; Ashour and
Alqedra, 2005).
Large strain gradient in concrete for fastenings resulted in increasing the size effect and
this behaviour is similar to linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) mode. This means
375
1
that, the nominal failure stress decreases with and the failure load increases with ℎ1.5
𝑒𝑓
√ℎ𝑒𝑓
(Fuchs et al., 1995).
When the anchor is placed near to the edge of the concrete, complete concrete cone will
not be produced and resulted in a decrease in the ultimate tensile load. Also, when the
anchors located near to each other, the ultimate tensile load will decrease due to the overlap
in the concrete cone breakout. The CCD method takes into consideration the effect of edge
distance, spacing, and eccentricity effect in determining the tensile load, and it uses simple
geometric relations in calculating these effects (Fuchs et al., 1995).
For the edge distance effect, assuming that the tensile load is applied concentrically on the
anchors, the ultimate tensile strength can be determined as in Equation (A.11).
𝐴
𝑁𝑢 = 𝐴 𝑁 ∙ 𝜓2 ∙ 𝑁𝑢𝑜 (A.11)
𝑁𝑂
Where 𝐴𝑁 is the actual projected area of stress cone of a single anchor. 𝐴𝑁𝑜 , is the projected
area of single anchor, unlimited by edge effect or spacing between the anchors, adopting
the approach of four-sided pyramids cone to predict the failure surface.
2
𝐴𝑁𝑜 = 9ℎ𝑒𝑓 (A.12)
𝜓2 is a modification factor considering the disorder of the radial symmetric stress
distribution due to the edge effect for the anchors far from the edge. Existence of free edge
causes distortion in the stress distribution of the concrete around the anchor, this distortion
376
is similar to that occurs in case of crack existence in the concrete around the anchor
(Cement Association of Canada, 2010).
𝑐
𝜓2 = 1 if c1 ≥ 1.5 hef , 𝜓2 = 0.7 + 0.3 1.5ℎ1 if c1 ≤ 1.5 hef (A.13)
𝑒𝑓
where c1 is the distance from center of anchor to edge of concrete in the direction of the
applied load.
For the eccentricity effect and/or edge distance effect, the ultimate tensile strength can be
determined as in Equation (A.14).
𝐴𝑁
𝑁𝑢 = ∙ 𝜓1 ∙ 𝜓2 ∙ 𝑁𝑢𝑜 (A.14)
𝐴𝑁𝑂
𝜓1 is factor considering the eccentricity of the resultant tensile force on the anchors.
1
𝜓1 = 1+2𝑒 ′ /(3ℎ ≤1 (A.15)
𝑁 𝑒𝑓 )
Where 𝑒𝑁′ is the distance between the resultant tensile force of the set anchors and the
centroid of these anchors. If the tensile load acts on one anchor of group anchors, the
ultimate tensile load of the group of anchors is same as the ultimate tensile load of one
anchor without spacing effects (Fuchs et al., 1995).
377
When the largest edge distance (cmax) is less than or equal to 1.5 hef , embedment depth of
𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥
ℎ𝑒𝑓 = is used in Equations (A.17) and (A.18) (Fuchs et al., 1995).
1.5
A.2 Design methods for cast-in-place anchors under shear load
A.2.1 American concrete institute (ACI)
ACI 349-85 design method assumes fully developed semi concrete cone with height equal
to edge distance to predict the concrete failure surface. The concrete capacity for a single
anchor is determined by assuming the angle between failure surface and the concrete
surface 45o. ACI 349 is applied for the anchors used in safety related structures and nuclear
power plant. The ultimate shear failure load for single anchor can be determined by
Equation (A.16) (Fuchs et al., 1995; Subramanian, 2000; Fuchs, 2001; Zamora et al., 2003).
𝑉𝑛𝑜 = 0.48 √𝑓𝑐𝑐′ (𝑐1 )2 (A.16)
Where 𝑉𝑛𝑜 is the ultimate shear load (N), 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ is the cube compressive strength of concrete
(MPa), and c1 is the edge distance parallel to the direction of the applied load (mm).
For small concrete depth (h less than c1) or anchor spacing, s, (less than 2×c1) or the edge
distance perpendicular to the load direction, c2, less than the edge distance parallel to the
load, c1, the ultimate shear failure load (Vn) can be determined by the modified Equation
(A.17) (Fuchs et al., 1995; Gross et al., 2001).
378
𝐴
𝑉𝑛 = 𝐴 𝑣 𝑉𝑛𝑜 (A.17)
𝑣𝑜
𝜋
𝐴𝑣𝑜 = 2 𝑐12 (A.18)
Where Av is the actual projected area considering edge effects and overlap with adjacent
anchors and Avo is the projected area for one anchor unlimited by edge effects, concrete
depth or cone overlapping.
According to ACI 318-11 the shear strength for the anchors can be calculated depending
on the steel strength of the anchor, edge distance, concrete strength, and anchor spacing
that in turn affects the failure mode.
Steel anchor failure (Figure 2-6a) occurs for anchors with deep embedment depths and far
from the concrete edge, where the bending stresses in the anchor are higher than the tensile
strength of the steel anchor. This failure characterized by bending followed by yielding and
fracture the steel anchor. Concrete spall may be observed at the surface of the concrete in
front of the anchor because of the high local pressure generated in front of the anchor
(Cement Association of Canada, 2010). Steel strength of cast-in-place anchor under shear
loading can be calculated as in Equation (4.18).
Concrete cone breakout failure (Figure 2-6c) occurs when the anchors located close to the
concrete free edge and subjected to shear load towards the edge, where the tensile strength
of the steel anchor is sufficient to prevent anchorage failure. According to ACI 318-11,
379
assuming the failure surface makes 35o cone with the surface of the concrete, the nominal
concrete breakout strength for a single anchor subjected to shear load perpendicular to an
edge can be determined as in the following Equation:
𝐴
𝑉𝑐𝑏 = 𝐴 𝑣𝑐 ∙ 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑣 ∙ 𝜓𝑐,𝑣 ∙ 𝑉𝑏 (A.19)
𝑣𝑐𝑜
The concrete breakout strength for a group of anchors subjected to shear load can be
determined as follows:
𝐴
𝑉𝑐𝑏𝑔 = 𝐴 𝑣𝑐 𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑣 ∙ 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑣 ∙ 𝜓𝑐,𝑣 ∙ 𝑉𝑏 (A.20)
𝑣𝑐𝑜
𝐴𝑣𝑐𝑜 = 4.5 𝑐12 (A.21)
1
𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑣 = 1+2𝑒 ′ /(3𝑐 ) ≤ 1 (A.22)
𝑣 1
𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑣 = 1 if 𝑐2 ≥ 1.5𝑐1 (A.23)
2 𝑐
𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑉 = 0.7 + 0.3 1.5𝑐 if 𝑐2 < 1.5𝑐1 (A.24)
1
Where
𝜓𝑐,𝑉 = 1.4 in uncracked concrete
380
The geometrical calculations of the projected area 𝐴𝑐𝑜 are shown in Figure A-2.
The critical edge

distance is equal to
1.5 ca1 for headed
studs, headed bolts,
expansion anchors,
and undercut anchors
(a) Plan view
(b) Front view (c) side view

Figure A-2: Calculation of projected area Avco for single anchor (Cement Association of
Canada, 2010; ACI Committee 318, 2011)
Where 𝐴𝑣𝑐 is the actual projected area, 𝐴𝑣𝑐𝑜 is the projected area for the failure surface of
concrete, 𝐴𝑣𝑐 and 𝐴𝑣𝑐𝑜 are calculated assuming the failure surface as a half pyramid
projected on the face of the concrete near the edge, where 𝐴𝑣𝑐 ≤ 𝑛𝐴𝑣𝑐𝑜 , 𝜓𝑒𝑐,𝑣 is a
modification factor accounts for eccentricity effect for group anchors subjected to
eccentrically shear load, 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑣 is a modification factor accounts for edge effect, 𝜓𝑐,𝑣 is a
modification factor accounts for cracking, 𝑉𝑏 is the basic concrete breakout strength of a
single anchor subjected to shear load in cracked concrete, 𝑉𝑐𝑏 is the nominal shear strength
381
acting perpendicular to the free edge of a single anchor, 𝑉𝑐𝑏𝑔 is the shear strength acting
perpendicular to the free edge of a group anchors.
When the shear load acts parallel to the concrete free edge the shear load value obtained
from Equations (A.19) and (A.20) will be doubled, with 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑣 = 1. For the anchors located
far from the concrete free edge Equations (A.19 and A.20) will not be used where the
concrete break out failure will not occur (ACI Committee 318, 2011).
Concrete pryout failure (Figure 2-6b) occurs when the anchors located far from the
concrete free edge. The failure characterized by concrete cracking in the direction of the
applied shear load accompanied by concrete spalling in the opposite direction. The concrete
spalling initiated behind the anchor at its lower end and propagates forming a conical shape
towards the surface of the concrete. This type of failure occurs for stiff anchors with
shallow embedment depths (Cement Association of Canada, 2010). The shear load of the
anchor that exhibits pryout failure can be calculated as in Equation (4.14) (ACI Committee
318, 2011). The ACI 318 calculates the pryout capacity depending on the tensile concrete
breakout capacity multiplied by a factor to consider the shear effect (ACI Committee 318,
2011). The ACI 318 method takes into account the effect of embedment depth and didn’t
consider the influence of anchor diameter in the calculation of the shear load for the case
of the pryout failure.
Jebara et al. (Jebara et al., 2016) proposed an equation to determine the pryout capacity of
cast-in-place concrete anchors embedded in concrete based on a regression analysis made
as follows:
382
1.5
𝑉𝑐𝑝 = 6 √𝑑 √𝑓𝑐𝑐 (ℎ𝑒𝑓 ) (A.25)
A.2.2 Concrete Capacity Design (CCD)
The ultimate shear load of single anchor in uncracked concrete can be determined in
accordance with the CCD method as in Equation (A.26) (Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs et al., 1995;
Committee Euro-International du Beton (CEB), 1994; Subramanian, 2000; Ashour and
Alqedra 2005). The shear load is calculated based on the test results of a single anchor
diameter of 𝑑 ≤ 25 and effective length of ℎ𝑒𝑓 ≤ 8 𝑑𝑜 embedded in thick uncracked
concrete (Fuchs et al., 1995).
ℎ𝑒𝑓 0.2
𝑉𝑛𝑜 = ( 𝑑
) √𝑑𝑓𝑐𝑐′ (𝑐1 )1.5 (A.26)
Where ℎ𝑒𝑓 is the effective length or embedment depth of cast-in-place anchors (mm), and
d is the diameter of the anchor (mm). As presented in Equation (A.26), the increment in
the ultimate shear load is proportional to 𝑐11.5 due to the size effect. Also, the failure load
is affected by the anchor stiffness and diameter (Fuchs et al., 1995; Subramanian, 2000).
When the anchor or group of anchors is located near the edge of concrete specimen, the
shear capacity for the concrete calculated in accordance with the CCD method is adjusted
in accordance with Equation (A.27).
𝐴
𝑉𝑛 = 𝐴 𝑣 ∙ 𝜓4 ∙ 𝜓5 ∙ 𝑉𝑛𝑜 (A.27)
𝑣𝑜
383
1
𝜓4 = 1+2𝑒 ′ /(3𝑐 (A.28)
𝑣 1)
1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐2 ≥ 1.5𝑐1
𝜓5 = {0.7 + 0.3 𝑐2 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐 ≤ 1.5𝑐 (A.29)
1.5𝑐 2 1
1
Where Av is the actual shear breakout area, Avo is the projected area for one anchor unlimited
by edge effects, concrete depth or cone overlapping, adopting the approach of half-
pyramids to predict the failure surface, 𝜓4 is the eccentricity effect of shear load on anchor
groups, 𝜓5 is a modification factor takes into consideration disorder of symmetric stress
distribution resulting from edge effects, 𝑒𝑣′ is the distance between resultant shear force of
the anchor group and the centroid of the anchors.
The CCD method assumes the fracture shear area as a half pyramid, the effect of edge
distance and spacing is calculated based on rectangular projected area. This assumption
makes the CCD method relatively simple compared to the ACI 349 method that assumes
circular projected area in the calculation. In addition, the CCD method is concerned in the
disorder of the stresses in the concrete due to the edge effect or eccentricity effect, while
ACI 349 neglect this effect (Fuchs et al., 1995; Subramanian, 2000).
384
Appendix B: Design methods for adhesive anchors
B.1 Design methods for adhesive anchors under tensile load
B.1.1 Concrete cone breakout failure
According to the Concrete Capacity Design Method (CCD), the pullout capacity for
adhesive anchors under tensile load was introduced by Eligehausen et al.(1984) as in
Equation (B.1)(Cook et al., 1998).
2
𝑁𝑢 = 0.92 ℎ𝑒𝑓 √𝑓𝑐ˊ (B.1)
Where Nu is the pullout force (N).
Cook et al. 1998 introduced another equation for determining the pullout capacity of
adhesive anchors under tensile load and based on the model developed by Fuchs et al. 1995
for cast-in-place anchors (Cook et al.,1998).
𝑁𝑢 = 16.5 ℎ1.5
𝑒𝑓 √𝑓𝑐
ˊ (B.2)
Anchor pullout failure occurs for the adhesive anchor when the friction between the anchor
and the concrete is less than the applied tensile load. According to the American Concrete
Institute method, the pullout capacity for adhesive anchors under tensile load is given as in
the following equation ( Eligehausen, 1987; Fuchs et al., 1995; Gesoglu et al., 2005):
385
𝑁𝑢 = 𝑓𝑐𝑡 𝐴𝑁 (B.3)
𝑓𝑐𝑡 = 𝑜. 33 √𝑓𝑐ˊ (B.4)
2 𝑑
𝐴𝑁 = 𝜋 ℎ𝑒𝑓 (1 + ℎ ℎ ) (B.5)
𝑒𝑓
Where
𝑓𝑐𝑡 is the concrete capacity, AN is the projected area of a single anchor, 𝑑ℎ is the diameter
of the anchor head, where anchor diameter (d) is used instead of 𝑑ℎ for the adhesive anchors
(Gesoglu et al., 2005).
Hence, the equation (B.3) can be expressed as follows (Eligehausen, 1987)
2 𝑑
𝑁𝑢 = 1.043 √𝑓𝑐ˊ ℎ𝑒𝑓 (1 + ℎ ℎ ) (B.6)
𝑒𝑓
B.1.2 Anchor steel failure
The pullout failure load for the steel anchor can be determined using Equation (4.2).
B.1.3 Bond failure
For the uniform bond stress model, where the bond failure occurs at the steel/adhesive
interface, the pullout force can be predicted as follows (McVay et al., 1996; Cook et al.,
1998; Cook, 1993; Eligehausen et al., 2007):
𝑁𝑢 = 𝜏𝑜 𝜋 𝑑𝑜 ℎ𝑒𝑓 (B.7)
386
Where Nu is the pullout force (N), 𝜏𝑜 is the uniform bond stress in the adhesive layer (MPa),
do is the diameter of the hole (mm), hef is the effective embedment depth (mm).
According to Cook et al. (1991) and McVay et al.(1996), the uniform bond stress of the
ℎ𝑒𝑓
adhesive is in the range between (9-13 MPa). Equation (B.7) is suitable for 4 ≤ ≤
𝑑
20, 𝑑 ≤ 50 𝑚𝑚 and bond area of 𝜋𝑑ℎ𝑒𝑓 ≤ 58000 𝑚𝑚2 (Eligehausen et al., 2006).
On the other hand, for the uniform bond stress model, where the bond failure occurs at the
adhesive/concrete interface, the pullout force can be predicted as follows (Cook et al.,
1998).
𝑓′
𝑁𝑢 = 𝜏𝑜 𝜋 𝑑𝑜 ℎ𝑒𝑓 √𝑓′ 𝑐 (B.8)
𝑐,𝑙𝑜𝑤
′
Where 𝑓𝑐,𝑙𝑜𝑤 is the low strength concrete.
For the elastic bond stress model, the bond strength can be predicted as in the following
Equation (McVay et al., 1996; Cook et al., 1998; Cook et al., 1993; Cook, 1993):
√𝑑𝑜 𝜆ˊ ℎ𝑒𝑓
𝑁𝑢 = 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜋 𝑑𝑜 [ tanh ] (B.9)
𝜆ˊ √𝑑𝑜
Where 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum bond stress in the adhesive layer, 𝜆ˊ is the elastic constant that
depends on the shear stiffness of the adhesive-concrete system and axial stiffness of the
anchor, 𝜆ˊ is independent of the hole diameter. The maximum bond stress of the adhesive
387
is in the range between (10-14.5 MPa) according to Cook et al. (Cook et al., 1991) and
McVay et al. (McVay et al., 1996).
Similar results can be obtained from the uniform bond stress model and elastic bond stress
model for embedment depths up to 40 √𝑑𝑜 . Over prediction of the pullout force can be
seen in the uniform bond stress model for the embedment depths higher than 40 √𝑑𝑜
(McVay et al., 1996; Cook et al., 1993).
B.1.4 Combined cone-bond failure
According to Cook (1993), the pullout failure load for the combined cone-bond model can
be determined as in Equation (B.10).
𝑁𝑢 = 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 𝑁𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑑 (B.10)
So that, by combining concrete cone breakout failure with bond failure, combined cone-
bond capacity equation can be written as follows for the uniform bond stress (McVay et
al., 1996; Cook, 1993):
2
𝑁𝑢 = 0.92 ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 √𝑓𝑐ˊ + 𝜏𝑜 𝜋 𝑑𝑜 (ℎ𝑒𝑓 − ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 ) (B.11)
The concrete cone depth (hcone) at the minimum failure load can be determined by taking
the derivative of the combined cone-bond capacity equation with respect to the cone depth
as follows:
388
𝑑𝑁𝑢
=0 (B.12)
𝑑ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒
So that,
𝜏𝑜 𝜋 𝑑𝑜
ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 = (B.13)
1.84√𝑓𝑐ˊ
For the elastic bond stress, the combined cone-bond failure load can be determined as in
the following Equation (McVay et al., 1996; Cook, 1993):
2 𝑑 𝜆ˊ (ℎ𝑒𝑓−ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 )
𝑁𝑢 = 0.92 ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 √𝑓𝑐ˊ + 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜋 𝑑𝑜 [ 𝑜ˊ tan ] (B.14)
𝜆 √𝑑𝑜
By taking the derivative for Equation (B.14) with respect to hcone, resulted in the following
Equation for the concrete cone depth:
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜋 𝑑𝑜 𝜆′ (ℎ𝑒𝑓 −ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒

ℎ𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑒 = (𝑠𝑒𝑐ℎ2 ) (B.15)
√𝑑0
1.84√𝑓𝑐′
The uniform shear stress (𝜏0 ) and maximum shear stress (𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) are identical for shallow
embedment depths. While, the maximum shear stress (𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) becomes higher than the
uniform shear stress (𝜏0 ) for the large embedment depths (Cook, 1993).
389
For small concrete size, anchors located near to the edge of the concrete or small spacing
distance between the anchors, concrete splitting would occur as shown in Figure 2-3d
(Cement Association of Canada, 2010; Rao and Arora, 2013).
B.2 Design methods for adhesive anchors under shear load
The shear load of adhesive anchors can be determined according to Concrete Capacity
Design method (CCD), American Concrete Institute (ACI) method and Precast/ Pre-
stressed Concrete Institute (PCI) method.
The failure surface of the concrete become a semi-cone when the concrete thickness is less
than edge distance parallel to the direction of the applied load (c1), and or the spacing
between two anchors (s) is less than 2c1, or (c2) is less than c1 (Alqedra and Ashour, 2005;
Fuchs et al., 1995).
The shear load of the adhesive anchor can be calculated based on (ACI 349-78) as follows
(Ueda et al., 1990):
𝑉𝑢 = 0.522 𝑐12 √𝑓𝑐′ (B.16)
The anchor shear strength in Equation (B.16) is derived based on the tensile strength of the
concrete acts on the projected area of half cone shaped (Ueda et al., 1990).
ACI 318 can be used to predict the ultimate load for cast-in-place and post installed
expansion and undercut anchors (ACI Committee 318, 2005). According to ACI 318-05,
the ultimate shear load can be predicted as follows:
390
ℎ 0.2
𝑉𝑏 = 0.6 ( 𝑑𝑒𝑓 ) √𝑑𝑜 √𝑓𝑐′ (𝑐1 )1.5 (B.17)
𝑜
ACI 318-11 deals with the structural anchors and can be used to predict the ultimate load
for cast-in-place and post installed anchors including the adhesive anchors (ACI
Committee 318, 2011). The failure surface of the concrete makes a 35o angle with the
contact concrete edge. Impact and blast loads on anchors are not included in the ACI 318-
11.
For single anchor, where the shear force perpendicular to the edge, the concrete breakout
shear strength can be calculated as follows:
𝐴
𝑉𝑐𝑏 = 𝐴 𝑣𝑐 𝜓𝑒𝑑,𝑣 ∙ 𝜓𝑐,𝑣 ∙ 𝜓ℎ,𝑣 ∙ 𝑉𝑏 (B.18)
𝑣𝑐𝑜
1 for anchors in cracked concrete without reinforcement

𝜓𝑐,𝑣 = {1.2 for anchors in cracked concrete with reinforcement
1.4 for anchors in uncracked concrete
1.5𝑐1
𝜓ℎ,𝑣 = √ (B.19)
ℎ
According to CCD method, the shear load of the adhesive anchor can be calculated as
follows (Gesoğlu et al., 2014; Bickel and Shaikh, 2002):
ℎ
𝑉𝑢 = 1.1 ( 𝑑𝑒𝑓 )0.2 √𝑑0 √𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 𝑐11.5 (B.20)
0
Equation (B.20) can be used for calculating the shear force of a single anchor embedded
into thick uncracked concrete, where the shear load is applied towards the free edge (Bickel
and Shaikh 2002).
391
Fuchs et al (1995) proposed equation (B.20) based on experimental shear tests for a single
anchor with diameter 𝑑𝑜 ≤ 25 𝑚𝑚 and ℎ𝑒𝑓 ≤ 8𝑑𝑜 . In order to include a wide range of
anchor diameters and embedment depths Equation (B.20) is modified. The modification of
the Equation (B.20) is based on experimental tests and numerical simulations. According
to the modified CCD method the shear capacity of the adhesive anchor can be calculated
as follows (Lee et al., 2011; Spyridis and Bergmeister, 2014):
𝑉𝑢 = 3 𝑑𝑜𝑎 ℎ𝑒𝑓 𝑏 √𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 𝑐11.5 (B.21)
Where
ℎ 𝑑
𝑎 = 0.1( 𝑐𝑒𝑓 )0.5, 𝑏 = 0.1( 𝑐 0 )0.2 (B.22)
1 1
Where 𝑉𝑢 is the shear capacity of the anchor near to edge and ℎ𝑒𝑓 is the effective length.
PCI 1978 can predict the failure of the concrete based on a conical failure surface. Since
2004 the PCI method relied on the ACI 318 which is in turn based on the CCD method by
adopting the approach of four-sided pyramids cone to predict the failure surface (Pallarés
and Hajjar, 2009). PCI method is more suitable for predicting the shear capacity for
adhesive anchors than cast-in-place anchors (Bickel and Shaikh, 2002). According to
Precast/ Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Design Handbook (precast-prestressed
concrete Institute, 1999), the shear capacity of single anchor in uncracked concrete can be
calculated as follows:
𝑉𝑢 = 5.2 𝑐11.5 √𝑓𝑐′ (B.23)
392
Appendix C:Tensile load-displacement relation for cast-in place
anchors
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175
hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
393
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
394
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175
hef=127 mm
150 hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175
hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
395
300
hef=76.2 mm
275
hef=101.6 mm
250 hef=127 mm
225 hef=152.4 mm
200
Tensile load (kN)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
300
hef=76.2 mm
275
hef=101.6 mm
250
hef=127 mm
225 hef=152.4 mm
200
Tensile load (kN)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
396
300
hef=76.2 mm
275
hef=101.6 mm
250 hef=127 mm
225 hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN) 200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
300
hef=76.2 mm
275 hef=101.6 mm
250 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
225
200
Tensile load (kN)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
397
300
hef=76.2 mm
275 hef=101.6 mm
250 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
225
Tensile load (kN)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
300
hef=76.2 mm
275 hef=101.6 mm
250 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
225
200
Tensile load (kN)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Displacement (mm)
398
Appendix D: Shear load-displacement relation for cast-in-place anchors
150
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
125
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
150
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
125 hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
399
150
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
125
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
150
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
125
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)
400
150
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
125
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)
150
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
125 hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement (mm)
401
200
hef=76.2 mm
175 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
125
Shear load (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
175 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Shear load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Displacement (mm)
402
200
hef=76.2 mm
180 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
160
Shear load (kN) 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Displacement (mm)
Figure D-9: Shear load-displacement graph for 19.1 mm diameter cast-in-place anchor
mm at strain rate of 10-1 s-1
225
hef=76.2 mm
200 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
175
150
Shear load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Displacement (mm)
403
225
hef=76.2 mm
200 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
175
150
Shear load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Displacement (mm)
225
hef=76.2 mm
200 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
175
150
Shear load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Displacement (mm)
404
Appendix E: Tensile load-displacement relation for adhesive anchors
180
hef=76.2 mm
160 hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
140 hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
180
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
160
hef=127 mm
140 hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
405
180
hef=76.2 mm
160 hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
140 hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
180
hef=76.2 mm
160 hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
140 hef=152.4 mm
Tensile load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
406
200
hef=76.2 mm
180 hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
160 hef=152.4 mm
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
180
hef=127 mm
160 hef=152.4 mm
140
Tensile load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
407
200 hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
175
hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
408
225
hef=76.2 mm
200 hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
175 hef=152.4 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
250
hef=76.2 mm
225 hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
200 hef=152.4 mm
175
Tensile load (kN)
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
409
250
hef=76.2 mm
225 hef=101.6 mm
hef=127 mm
200
hef=152.4 mm
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
300
hef=76.2 mm
275 hef=101.6 mm
250 hef=127 mm
hef=152.4 mm
225
Tensile load (kN)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
410
Appendix F: Shear load-displacement relation for adhesive anchors
140
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
120
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
140
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
120
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
411
140
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
120
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
140
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
120
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
412
140
hef=76.2 mm
120 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Displacement (mm)
140
hef=76.2 mm
hef=101.6 mm
120
hef=152.4 mm
100
Shear load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
413
200
hef=76.2 mm
180 hef=101.6 mm
160 hef=152.4 mm
Shear load (kN) 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
180 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
160
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Displacement (mm)
414
200
hef=76.2 mm
180 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
160
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
180
hef=101.6 mm
160 hef=152.4 mm
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Displacement (mm)
415
200
hef=76.2 mm
180
hef=101.6 mm
160 hef=152.4 mm
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=76.2 mm
180 hef=101.6 mm
hef=152.4 mm
160
140
Shear load (kN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Displacement (mm)
416
Appendix G: Tensile load-displacement relation for undercut anchors
140
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
120
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
100
Tensile load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
140
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
120 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
100
Tensile load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
417
160
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
140
hef=190 mm
120 hef=250 mm
Tensile load (kN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
175
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
150 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
125
Tensile load (kN)
100
75
50
25
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
418
180
hef=100 mm
160 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
140 hef=250 mm
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
200
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
175
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
150
Tensile load (kN)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement (mm)
419
250
hef=100 mm
225 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
200 hef=250 mm
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
275
hef=100 mm
250 hef=125 mm
225 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
200
Tensile load (kN)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
420
275
hef=100 mm
250 hef=125 mm
225 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
200
Tensile load (kN)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
275
hef=100 mm
250 hef=125 mm
225 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
200
Tensile load (kN)
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
421
300
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
250 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
200
Tensile load (kN)
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
350
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
300
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
250
Tensile load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
422
Appendix H: Shear load-displacement relation for undercut anchors
350
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
300 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
250
Shear load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
rate of 10-5 s-1
350
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
300 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
250
Shear load (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
rate of 10-3 s-1
423
400
hef=100 mm
350 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
300 hef=250 mm
Shear load (kN)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
rate of 10-1 s-1
400
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
350 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
300
Shear load (kN)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Displacement (mm)
rate of 10 s-1
424
400
hef=100 mm
350 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
300 hef=250 mm
Shear load (kN)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
rate of 102 s-1
400
hef=100 mm
350 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
300 hef=250 mm
Shear load (kN)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Displacement (mm)
rate of 103 s-1
425
500
hef=100 mm
450 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
400 hef=250 mm
Shear load (kN) 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Displacement (mm)
rate of 10-5 s-1
500
hef=100 mm
450 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
400 hef=250 mm
350
Shear load (kN)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
rate of 10-3 s-1
426
500
hef=100 mm
450 hef=125 mm
hef=190 mm
400
hef=250 mm
Shear load (kN) 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
rate of 10-1 s-1
525
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
450 hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
375
Shear load (kN)
300
225
150
75
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
Figure H-10: Shear load-displacement graph for 20 mm diameter undercut anchor at

427
600
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
525
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
450
Shear load (kN)
375
300
225
150
75
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)

600
hef=100 mm
hef=125 mm
525
hef=190 mm
hef=250 mm
450
Shear load (kN)
375
300
225
150
75
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Displacement (mm)

strain rate of 103
428
Appendix I: LS-DYNA keyword files for anchorage to concrete systems
Cast-in-place anchor under tensile load

$# LS-DYNA Keyword file
$# Created on Jan-15-2018 (19:25:44)
*KEYWORD MEMORY=900000000 NCPU=4
*TITLE
$#
title
LS-DYNA keyword deck by LS-PrePost
*DATABASE_SECFORC
$# dt binary lcur ioopt
0.05 0 0 1
*DATABASE_BINARY_D3PLOT
$# dt lcdt beam npltc psetid
0.5 0 0 0 0
$# ioopt
0
*DATABASE_CROSS_SECTION_PLANE_ID
$# csid
title
8
$# psid xct yct zct xch ych
zch radius
0 0.0 3.82 -4.01051 0.0 3.82
13.241 0.0
$# xhev yhev zhev lenl lenm id
itype
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
*BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_MOTION_SET
$# nsid dof vad lcid sf vid
death birth
4 3 0 1 1.0
01.00000E28 0.0
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
$# nsid cid dofx dofy dofz dofrx
dofry dofrz
5 0 1 1 1 1
1 1
*SET_NODE_LIST_TITLE
NODESET(SPC) 5
$# sid da1 da2 da3 da4 solver
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
$# nid1 nid2 nid3 nid4 nid5 nid6
nid7
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
6 0 0 1 0 1
0 1
429
NODESET(SPC) 6
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
7 0 1 0 0 0
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 7
7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7
*CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_ID
$# cid
title
0anhea con
$# ssid msid sstyp mstyp sboxid mboxid
spr mpr
1 26 2 3 0 0
0 0
$# fs fd dc vc vdc penchk
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
$# sfs sfm sst mst sfst sfmt
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
$# soft sofscl lcidab maxpar sbopt depth
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
$# penmax thkopt shlthk snlog isym i2d3d
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*SET_PART_LIST_TITLE
an head
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
$# pid1 pid2 pid3 pid4 pid5 pid6
pid7 pid8
20 21 0 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
an
$# pid secid mid eosid hgid grav
adpopt tmid
430
20 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*SECTION_SOLID
$# secid elform aet
1 1 0
*MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY_TITLE
anchor
$# mid ro e pr sigy etan
fail tdel
1 7.85 200000.0 0.3 896.0 1018.0
0.14 0.0
$# c p lcss lcsr vp lcf
40.0 5.0 0 0 0.0 0
$# eps1 eps2 eps3 eps4 eps5 eps6
eps7 eps8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
$# es1 es2 es3 es4 es5 es6
es7 es8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
head
adpopt tmid
21 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
con
adpopt tmid
26 2 2 0 0 0
0 0
*SECTION_SOLID_TITLE
con
$# secid elform aet
2 10 0
*MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE_TITLE
concrete
$# mid ro nplot incre irate erode
recov itretrc
2 2.4 1 0.0 1 1.05
0.0 0
$# pred
0.0
$# fpc dagg units
30.0 19.0 1
*DEFINE_CURVE
$# lcid sidr sfa sfo offa offo
dattyp lcint
431
1 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0 0
$# a1 o1
0.0 0.0
250.0 0.02
300.0 0.02
top
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7
*CONTROL_ACCURACY
$# osu inn pidosu iacc
0 1 0 0
*CONTROL_ENERGY
$# hgen rwen slnten rylen
2 2 1 1
*CONTROL_TERMINATION
$# endtim endcyc dtmin endeng endmas
298.0 0 0.0 0.01.000000E8
*CONTROL_TIMESTEP
$# dtinit tssfac isdo tslimt dt2ms lctm
erode ms1st
0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0
0 0
$# dt2msf dt2mslc imscl unused rmscl
0.0 0 0 0.0
*ELEMENT_SOLID
$# eid pid n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 n6
n7
*END
Cast-in-place anchor under shear load

$# Created on Feb-09-2018 (10:15:11)
*TITLE
$#
title
*CONTROL_ACCURACY
0 1 0 0
*CONTROL_CONTACT
$# slsfac rwpnal islchk shlthk penopt thkchg
orien enmass
0.1 0.0 2 0 1 0
1 1
$# usrstr usrfrc nsbcs interm xpene ssthk
ecdt tiedprj
432
0 0 0 0 4.0 0
0 0
$# sfric dfric edc vfc th th_sf
pen_sf
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
$# ignore frceng skiprwg outseg spotstp spotdel
spothin
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0
$# isym nserod rwgaps rwgdth rwksf icov
swradf ithoff
0 0 1 0.0 1.0 0
0.0 0
$# shledg pstiff ithcnt tdcnof ftall unused
shltrw
0 0 0 0 0
0.0
*CONTROL_ENERGY
2 2 1 1
$# endtim endcyc dtmin endeng endmas nosol
358.0 0 0.0 0.01.000000E8 0
*CONTROL_TIMESTEP
erode ms1st
0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0
0 0
$# dt2msf dt2mslc imscl unused unused rmscl
0.0 0 0 0.0
*DATABASE_SECFORC
0.05 0 0 1
0.5 0 0 0 0
$# ioopt
0
$# csid
title
9
zch radius
0 0.0 0.0 -74.1947 0.0 37.0974 -
74.1947 0.0
itype
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
death birth
433
3 2 0 1 1.0
01.00000E28 0.0
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
1 0 1 1 1 1
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 1
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7
nid8
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
2 0 1 0 0 0
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 2
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
$# cid
title
0anhea con
spr mpr
1 108 2 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
anhe
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
434
pid7 pid8
21 100 0 0 0 0
0 0
$# cid
title
2plate con
spr mpr
106 108 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
3plate an
spr mpr
106 100 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
435
$# cid
title
4plate washer
spr mpr
106 104 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
5washer an
spr mpr
104 100 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
6nut anc
spr mpr
436
102 100 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
7washer nut
spr mpr
104 102 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
head
adpopt tmid
21 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*SECTION_SOLID
$# secid elform aet
1 1 0
437
anchor
fail tdel
1 7.85 200000.0 0.3 896.0 1018.0
0.14 0.0
$# c p lcss lcsr vp
40.0 5.0 0 0 0.0
eps7 eps8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
es7 es8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
anc
adpopt tmid
100 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
nut
adpopt tmid
102 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
washer
adpopt tmid
104 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
plate
adpopt tmid
106 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
con
adpopt tmid
438
108 2 2 0 0 0
0 0
con
$# secid elform aet
2 10 0
concrete
recov itretrc
2 2.4 1 0.0 1 1.05
0.0 0
$# pred
0.0
$# fpc dagg units
30.0 19.0 1
*DEFINE_CURVE
dattyp lcint
1 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0 0
$# a1 o1
0.0 0.0
300.0 0.015
360.0 0.015
*SET_NODE_LIST
3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
180413 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
NODESET(CNRB)
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*CONSTRAINED_NODAL_RIGID_BODY
$# pid cid nsid pnode iprt drflag
rrflag
109 0 4 0 0 0
0
*ELEMENT_SOLID
n7 n8
*END
439
Adhesive anchor under tensile load

$# Created on Feb-10-2018 (16:49:30)
*TITLE
$#
title
*CONTROL_ACCURACY
0 1 0 0
*CONTROL_ENERGY
2 2 1 1
218.0 0 0.0 0.01.000000E8 0
*CONTROL_TIMESTEP
erode ms1st
0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0
0 0
0.0 0 0 0.0
*DATABASE_SECFORC
0.05 0 0 1
0.5 0 0 0 0
$# ioopt
0
$# csid
title
4
zch radius
0 0.0 7.63449 74.2458 0.0 7.63449
111.564 0.0
itype
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
death birth
4 3 0 1 1.0
01.00000E28 0.0
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
440
5 0 1 1 1 1
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 5
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
6 0 1 0 0 0
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 6
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
7 0 0 1 0 1
0 1
NODESET(SPC) 7
7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_ONE_WAY_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_TIEBREAK_ID
$# cid
title
0adan
spr mpr
11 10 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
$# option nfls sfls param eraten erates
ct2cn cn
9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
441
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_ID
$# cid
title
0adco
spr mpr
11 16 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*CONTACT_ERODING_SINGLE_SURFACE
$# cid
title
spr mpr
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
$# isym erosop iadj
1 1 0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*SET_SEGMENT_TITLE
442
ad
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
$# n1 n2 n3 n4 a1 a2
a3 a4
*PART
$#
title
an
adpopt tmid
10 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
an
$# secid elform aet
1 1 0
anchor
fail tdel
1 7.85 200000.0 0.3 896.0 1018.0
0.14 0.0
$# c p lcss lcsr vp
40.0 5.0 0 0 0.0
eps7 eps8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
es7 es8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
ad
adpopt tmid
11 1 3 0 0 0
0 0
*MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE_TITLE
Adhes
$# mid ro e pr tenmax gcten
shrmax gcshr
3 1.2 3034.0 0.4 56.0 3.0
44.0 8.0
$# pwrt pwrs shrp sht_sl edot0 edot2
thkdir extra
2.0 2.0 0.0 0.01.00000E-5 0.0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
443
New part from tetrahedron mesher
adpopt tmid
16 2 2 0 0 0
0 0
co
$# secid elform aet
2 10 0
concrete
recov itretrc
2 2.4 1 0.0 1 1.05
0.0 0
$# pred
0.0
$# fpc dagg units
30.0 19.0 1
*DEFINE_CURVE
dattyp lcint
1 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0 0
$# a1 o1
0.0 0.0
200.0 0.02
220.0 0.02
top
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
conc
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
pid7 pid8
16 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
an
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
pid7 pid8
10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
*ELEMENT_SOLID
n7 n8
*END
444
Adhesive anchor under shear load
$# Created on Feb-02-2018 (02:34:40)
*KEYWORD MEMORY=900000000
*TITLE
$#
title
*CONTROL_ACCURACY
0 1 0 0
*CONTROL_CONTACT
$# slsfac rwpnal islchk shlthk penopt thkchg
orien enmass
0.1 0.0 2 0 1 0
1 1
$# usrstr usrfrc nsbcs interm xpene ssthk
ecdt tiedprj
0 0 0 0 4.0 0
0 0
$# sfric dfric edc vfc th th_sf
pen_sf
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
$# ignore frceng skiprwg outseg spotstp spotdel
spothin
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0
$# isym nserod rwgaps rwgdth rwksf icov
swradf ithoff
0 0 1 0.0 1.0 0
0.0 0
$# shledg pstiff ithcnt tdcnof ftall unused
shltrw
0 0 0 0 0
0.0
*CONTROL_ENERGY
2 2 1 1
378.0 0 0.0 0.01.000000E8 0
*CONTROL_TIMESTEP
erode ms1st
0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0
0 0
0.0 0 0 0.0
*DATABASE_SECFORC
0.05 0 0 1
445
0.5 0 0 0 0
$# ioopt
0
$# csid
title
9
zch radius
0 0.0 0.0 -74.1947 0.0 37.0974 -
74.1947 0.0
itype
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
death birth
3 2 0 1 1.0
01.00000E28 0.0
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
5 0 1 1 1 1
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 5
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
9 0 1 0 0 0
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 9
9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*SET_SEGMENT_TITLE
conc
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
$# n1 n2 n3 n4 a1 a2
a3 a4
$# cid
title
2plate con
446
spr mpr
106 110 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
3plate an
spr mpr
106 100 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
4plate washer
spr mpr
106 104 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
447
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
5washer an
spr mpr
104 100 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
6nut anc
spr mpr
102 100 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
448
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
7washer nut
spr mpr
104 102 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 2
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_ONE_WAY_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_TIEBREAK_ID
$# cid
title
0ad an
spr mpr
1 100 2 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
$# option nfls sfls param eraten erates
ct2cn cn
9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
bsort frcfrq
449
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
adh
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
pid7 pid8
113 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
*CONTACT_TIED_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE_ID
$# cid
title
0ad con
spr mpr
3 2 0 0 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
15 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*SET_SEGMENT_TITLE
ad
3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
$# n1 n2 n3 n4 a1 a2
a3 a4
*CONTACT_ERODING_SINGLE_SURFACE_ID
$# cid
title
0ad
spr mpr
3 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
bt dt
450
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
$# isym erosop iadj
1 1 0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
anc
adpopt tmid
100 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*SECTION_SOLID
$# secid elform aet
1 1 0
anchor
fail tdel
1 7.85 200000.0 0.3 896.0 1018.0
0.14 0.0
$# c p lcss lcsr vp
40.0 5.0 0 0 0.0
eps7 eps8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
es7 es8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
nut
adpopt tmid
102 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
451
washer
adpopt tmid
104 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
plate
adpopt tmid
106 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
conc
adpopt tmid
110 2 2 0 0 0
0 0
con
$# secid elform aet
2 10 0
concrete
recov itretrc
2 2.4 1 0.0 1 1.05
0.0 0
$# pred
0.0
$# fpc dagg units
30.0 19.0 1
*PART
$#
title
ad
adpopt tmid
113 1 3 0 0 0
0 0
*MAT_ARUP_ADHESIVE_TITLE
adhesive
$# mid ro e pr tenmax gcten
shrmax gcshr
3 1.2 3034.0 0.4 56.0 3.0
44.0 8.0
$# pwrt pwrs shrp sht_sl edot0 edot2
thkdir extra
2.0 2.0 0.0 0.01.00000E-5 0.0
0.0 0.0
*DEFINE_CURVE
452
dattyp lcint
1 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0 0
$# a1 o1
0.0 0.0
280.0 0.014
380.0 0.014
*SET_NODE_LIST
3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
180413 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
NODESET(CNRB)
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
rrflag
109 0 4 0 0 0
0
*ELEMENT_SOLID
n7 n8
*END
Undercut anchor under tensile load

$# Created on Feb-16-2018 (11:30:16)
*TITLE
$#
title
*CONTROL_ENERGY
2 2 1 1
549.0 0 0.0 0.01.000000E8 0
*CONTROL_TIMESTEP
erode ms1st
0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0
0 0
453
0.0 0 0 0.0
*DATABASE_SECFORC
0.05 0 0 1
0.5 0 0 0 0
$# ioopt
0
$# csid
title
12
zch radius
0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
24.9375 0.0
itype
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
death birth
2 3 0 1 1.0
01.00000E28 0.0
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
5 0 1 1 1 1
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 5
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
6 0 1 0 0 0
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 6
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
7 0 0 1 0 1
0 1
454
NODESET(SPC) 7
7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
$# cid
title
0ansleco
spr mpr
1 43 2 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
ansl
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
pid7 pid8
4 40 0 0 0 0
0 0
$# cid
title
3an sle
spr mpr
4 40 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
455
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
sleeve
adpopt tmid
4 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
an
$# secid elform aet
1 1 0
an
fail tdel
1 7.85 200000.0 0.3 640.0 1170.0
0.14 0.0
$# c p lcss lcsr vp
40.0 5.0 0 0 0.0
eps7 eps8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
es7 es8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
an
adpopt tmid
40 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
con
adpopt tmid
43 2 2 0 0 0
0 0
co
456
$# secid elform aet
2 10 0
co
recov itretrc
2 2.4 1 0.0 1 1.05
0.0 0
$# pred
0.0
$# fpc dagg units
30.0 19.0 1
*DEFINE_CURVE
dattyp lcint
1 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0 0
$# a1 o1
0.0 0.0
500.0 0.01
550.0 0.01
top
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*ELEMENT_SOLID
n7 n8
*END
Undercut anchor under shear load

$# Created on Feb-25-2018 (20:28:00)
*KEYWORD MEMORY=900000000
*TITLE
$#
title
*CONTROL_ENERGY
2 2 1 1
398.0 0 0.0 0.01.000000E8 0
*CONTROL_TIMESTEP
erode ms1st
457
0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0
0 0
0.0 0 0 0.0
*DATABASE_SECFORC
0.05 0 0 1
0.5 0 0 0 0
$# ioopt
0
$# csid
title
1
zch radius
0 0.0-3.942E-16 -43.5094 0.0 21.7547 -
43.5094 0.0
itype
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
ansle
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
pid7 pid8
128 129 0 0 0 0
0 0
death birth
3 2 0 1 1.0
01.00000E28 0.0
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
5 0 1 1 1 1
1 1
NODESET(SPC) 5
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
*BOUNDARY_SPC_SET
dofry dofrz
6 0 1 0 0 0
1 1
*SET_NODE_LIST
458
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
$# cid
title
0ansleco
spr mpr
1 142 2 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
2plco
spr mpr
139 142 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
459
$# cid
title
4waspl
spr mpr
131 139 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
5wasanslee
spr mpr
131 1 3 2 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
6wasnut
spr mpr
460
131 135 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
7ansleepla
spr mpr
1 139 2 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
$# cid
title
8Sleean
spr mpr
129 128 3 3 0 0
0 0
bt dt
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0.01.00000E20
461
fsf vsf
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
bsort frcfrq
1 0.1 0 1.025 2.0 2
0 1
sldthk sldstf
0.0 0 0 0 1 0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
an
adpopt tmid
128 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
an
$# secid elform aet
1 1 0
an
fail tdel
1 7.85 200000.0 0.3 640.0 1170.0
0.14 0.0
$# c p lcss lcsr vp
40.0 5.0 0 0 0.0
eps7 eps8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
es7 es8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
*PART
$#
title
sleeve
adpopt tmid
129 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
washer
adpopt tmid
462
131 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
nut
adpopt tmid
135 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
plate
adpopt tmid
139 1 1 0 0 0
0 0
*PART
$#
title
co
adpopt tmid
142 2 2 0 0 0
0 0
co
$# secid elform aet
2 10 0
co
recov itretrc
2 2.4 1 0.0 1 1.05
0.0 0
$# pred
0.0
$# fpc dagg units
30.0 19.0 1
*DEFINE_CURVE
dattyp lcint
1 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0 0
$# a1 o1
0.0 0.0
300.0 0.014
400.0 0.014
*SET_NODE_LIST
3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
463
523359 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
NODESET(CNRB)
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
nid7 nid8
con
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0MECH
pid7 pid8
142 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
rrflag
140 0 4 0 0 0
0
*ELEMENT_SOLID
n7 n8
*END
464

Alsaeab Finiteelementmodellingofanchoragetoconcrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alsaeab Finiteelementmodellingofanchoragetoconcrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alsaeab Finiteelementmodellingofanchoragetoconcrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Modelling of Anchorage to Concrete

Systems at Different Strain Rates

Lenda T. Ahmed Al Saeab

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral

and the life of building occupants.

response and capacity under impact and blast loading.

invaluable recommendations in all phases of the research.

I would like to thank Carleton University, Department of Civil and Environmental

Finally, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my parents, my husband, my brothers

and sisters for their continuous encouragement and support.

To my father and mother,

To the memory of my brother.

Table of contents ............................................................................................................ vi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xv

List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xxxix

Notations ..................................................................................................................... xliv

Chapter 1 : Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives and significance of research program ..................................................... 4

1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 6

1.4 Scope of the research............................................................................................... 11

1.5 Structure of the thesis .............................................................................................. 12

Chapter 2 : Literature review ........................................................................................ 15

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 15

2.2 Classification of anchors ......................................................................................... 18

2.3 Classification of adhesive materials ........................................................................ 22

2.4 Bond strength .......................................................................................................... 23

2.5 Cast-in-place anchors .............................................................................................. 29

2.5.1 Cast-in-place anchors under tensile load .......................................................... 29

2.5.2 Cast-in-place anchors under shear load ............................................................ 34

2.6.1 Adhesive anchors under tensile load ................................................................ 39

2.6.2 Adhesive anchors under shear load .................................................................. 47

2.7 Undercut anchors..................................................................................................... 49

2.7.1 Undercut anchors under tensile load ................................................................ 49

2.7.2 Undercut anchors under shear load .................................................................. 51

2.8 Strain rate effect on material properties .................................................................. 52

2.8.1 Effect of strain rate on concrete ........................................................................ 52

2.8.2 Effect of strain rate on steel .............................................................................. 57

2.9 Design methods for anchorage system .................................................................... 60

2.9.1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) .................................................................. 60

2.9.2 Concrete Capacity Design (CCD) .................................................................... 61

2.10 Anchorage failure modes ...................................................................................... 62

2.10.1 Failure modes of cast-in-place anchors under tensile load ............................. 62

2.10.2 Failure modes of cast-in-place anchors under shear load ............................... 63

2.10.3 Failure modes of adhesive anchors under tensile load ................................... 64

2.10.3.1 Concrete cone breakout failure .................................................................... 65

2.10.3.2 Bond failure ................................................................................................. 65

2.10.3.3 Combined cone-bond failure ....................................................................... 65

2.10.3.4 Steel anchor failure ...................................................................................... 66

2.10.4 Failure modes of adhesive anchors under shear load ..................................... 66

2.10.5 Adhesive bond failure ..................................................................................... 66

2.10.6 Failure modes of undercut anchors under tensile load ................................... 67

2.11 Summary ............................................................................................................... 67

Chapter 3 : Finite element modelling of anchorage systems....................................... 70

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 70

3.2 Implicit and explicit analysis................................................................................... 71

3.3 Theoritical aspects (hydrocode) .............................................................................. 75

3.4 Finite element type .................................................................................................. 76

3.4.1 Solid element .................................................................................................... 77