DISCUSSION

Design of Headed Anchor Bolts

Paper by JOHN G. SHIPP AND EDWARD R. HANINGER (Second Quarter, 1983)

Discussion by William C. Sherman The methods for design of anchor bolts presented by John Shipp and Edward Haninger are useful in describing the problems encountered in anchor bolt design. However, some of the information presented appears to be inconsistent. The paper states the governing design approach used is that presented in ACI 349, Supplement 1979, although some of the data presented is inconsistent with ACI 349. The formula presented for determination of embedment depth "per ACI-349, Appendix B, Section B.4.2" is as follows:

anchor heads as shown in Fig. B.4 of the ACI 349-80 commentary. Clarification on these points should provide a useful guide for the design of headed anchor bolts. Closing discussion by John G. Shipp and Edward R. Haninger The writers wish to thank William Sherman for his comments. The items he presented demonstrate the fine edge between "governing design approach" and literal interpretation of the ACI 349, Supplement 1979. In reference to the computation for embedment depth (Ld) an arbitrary factor of safety of 1.33 was applied to account for variations in the material values (', FH and (3) and basic, conservative good engineering practice to insure a ductile failure under all conditions. Regarding the Ld values, it is recognized that all codes allow an increase in factor of safety. The values of rm are based on the computed values without the additional factor of safety because it is already accounted for in the computation of Ld. As stated in the paper, it is the writers' position that the closest bolt edge distance should not be less than mt or 4 in. The provisions for required reinforcement for edge distances less than this are provided in ACI 349 but are based on limited test data. In view of this, and the extensive reinforcement recommended, the limitations presented for design are preferred. The specific condition given (e.g., r > rm and m < rJ2) is a type " c " basic bolt type, as is any combination of spacing that produced overlapping of truncated failure cones. The increase in pier size from 20 in. square to 24 in. square is necessary to provide sufficient concrete for embedment of the anchor bolts into the pier (i.e., to satisfy the effective projected stress area Ae). Alternately, tension reinforcement may be provided for direct tensile load transfer, without satisfying Ae (see the commentary of Ref. 3). This would require hairpin reinforcement located within Ld/3 of each anchor bolt. Essentially what is presented is development of the anchor bolts within the top portion of the pier, and then the attachment of that top portion of the pier to the remainder of the pier and/or foundation. Sherman's interpretation of the location of the "critical failure plane" for the computation of the development length is correct. The figures in the published paper should show the 45 failure cone surface as the correct plane to be used to calculate the embedment length. As additional clarification of the failure criteria, it should be noted that 4(3\/' is the ultimate concrete stress which is to be applied to the affective stress area Ae. The area Ae used for design is the "plan" area which is projected vertically (not the actual area of the failure cone surface).

In Table 4, presented in Appendix A, it is stated that Lid value has been modified "by an arbitrary factor of safety of 1.33." There is no provision in ACI 349 for such an additional factor for safety. Thus, the embedment depths listed in Table 2A could be reduced. This also creates an apparent inconsistency in the values presented for rm. To prevent overlapping failure cones, rm should be equal to two times Ld. This appears inconsistent in Table 2A, due to the additional safety factor applied to Ld. The paper also limits all edge distances m to be greater than or equal to mt. ACI 349 permits the edge distance to be reduced below mt if adequate reinforcement is provided in accordance with ACI 349 Section B.4.4. The four types of anchor bolts presented are useful for general classifications, but do not cover all possible combinations (e.g., r > rm and m < rm/2). Example 2: Type D presented in the paper is technically inconsistent with the definition of a Type D anchor bolt. In the example r is not less than rm, and the pier size is increased to meet the requirements of a Type C anchor bolt. The pier size could have remained smaller with the reinforcement design presented. The increase in pier size should be presented as an alternative to the reinforcement design. Figures 4 and 7 for the Type D anchor bolt require that the bolt be embedded at least Ld. However Ld does not relate to Type D anchor bolts, and the embedment depth need only be related to ldh for development of the reinforcement. Also, the "critical failure plane" in Fig. 4 should be shown as 45 failure cones radiating from the
William C. Sherman is a Registered Professional Engineer in Denver, Colorado.

118

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION