Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure analysis of anchors in shear under simulated seismic loads

Zhibin Lin a,, Jian Zhao b, Derek Petersen c
a

Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65401, USA Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA c Osmose Railroad Services Inc. Madison, WI 53716, USA
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a study of the failure analysis of anchors in shear in simulated seismic loads. Ductile failure is critical for anchor design in seismic applications to avoid brittle catastrophe while existing design codes and guidelines that usually accept steel failure as ductile failure are insufcient, and may overestimate shear capacities and ductility. In this study ductility was evaluated based on both effective connement due to anchor reinforcement and ductile steel. Those anchors with the proposed reinforcement showed a signicantly high strength and exhibited great ductility due to effective connement. Three types of anchor steel were also evaluated. The inuences of failure modes, shear capacities and ductility of anchors were taken in account by dening exposed length. Test results indicated both effective connement and specied ductile steel could ensure anchor have good seismic performance. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Article history: Received 31 July 2012 Accepted 22 January 2013 Available online 8 February 2013 Keywords: Concrete anchors Headed studs Anchor connections Fastening to concrete Anchor reinforcement

1. Introduction The behavior of cast-in-place anchors and headed studs subjected to static loading has been studied [15], and the results have been implemented in design codes (e.g., ACI 318 [6]; FIB [7]). Anchors and headed studs work as essential elements for shear transfer in connections for buildings and bridges when subjected to seismic loading. Dysfunction/damages in concrete anchors due to seismic loading, as reported during major earthquakes (Northridge, 1994; Wenchuan, 2008; Haiti, 2010; Chile, 2010, and Christchurch, 2011), have raised concerns in both experimental research and post-earthquake investigations for seismic performance of anchors. For example, brittle concrete breakout in bridge anchor connections (Fig. 1a) was observed in current post-earthquake investigations of Chile earthquake [8] while Fig. 1b presented two fractured anchor shafts, which was used in the connection of shear keys in bridges. It is well known that the behavior of anchors under seismic loading could be affected by loading history, concrete and steel materials, etc. Among them the requirement of ductility in anchor design is particularly important in earthquake-prone areas. The corresponding ductility-related provisions have been specied for the design of anchors. For example, ACI 318-08 stipulates the steel having a tensile elongation of at least 14% and 30% reduction in area can be dened as a ductile steel element. Also, the previous observations by Silva and Hoehler [9] revealed that using the concept of steel failure equivalent to ductile failure, as specied in existing design codes and guidelines (e.g., ACI 318-11 Appendix D and FIB), is inadequate in some cases. It is because ductile steel element only may not be sufcient to ensure ductile steel failure of anchor, which is also largely associated with anchors under different load cases [9,10]. To ensure ductile response corresponding to the desired behaviors, however, it is insufcient to only use the specied

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 414 229 1119; fax: +1 414 229 6958.
E-mail address: linzh@mst.edu (Z. Lin). 1350-6307/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.017

60

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

Nomenclature Asa Ase,v ca1 ca2 da db futa l area of anchor reinforcements effective cross-sectional area of single anchor in shear front edge distance of anchor side edge distance of anchor anchor diameter reinforcement diameter ultimate tensile strength of anchor steel distance from the applied shear force to a ctitious xed end

minimum elongation without specifying failure modes and connement from concrete which may signicantly affect the strength capacity and ductility of anchor bolts [11]. Moreover, most studies which investigated anchor rods in concrete anchors focused on concrete failure modes, rather than the failure of anchor rods. Few documented studies examined the effects of ductile anchor used for ductility requirement in design codes for the strength capacity of anchors. Thus, there is a lack of research which investigates anchor steel failure modes that may characterize the shear capacity of anchors. Based on the current design specications, for anchors controlled by steel failure in shear, no reduction is required for the anchor capacities corresponding to steel failure. Strength reductions under cyclic loading against the static loading, however, have been recognized in the literature [12,13]. For example, Pallars and Hajjar [12] suggested that the steel capacity of anchor in shear shall have a reduction by a factor of 0.76 while Petersens experimental tests [13] indicated a 0.85 reduction factor for anchor steel failure under cyclic loading. Such deviation iterated that extensive studies are required to appropriately characterize the effects of cyclic loading on the capacity of anchor rods in shear. It is therefore useful to carry out an investigation to assess potential interaction between ductility and shear strength for anchor design to verify the effectiveness of those ductility-related provisions and also anchor design practice in earthquake design requirements. 2. Behavior of anchor bolts in shear and ductility Based on ACI 318 Appendix D for the seismic design of anchors, current design regulations, as documented in Hoehler [10] and Petersen et al. [14], recommend three options for seismic design of anchor connections: (a) to design for ductile anchor steel failure as anchor capacity; (b) to design for ductile connection failure below the anchor capacity; and (c) to design for brittle failure of anchor using increased seismic force. Ductile anchor steel failure in shear in the rst case was only discussed in this paper. To better understand shear capacity, and ductility of anchors in seismic performance, the behavior of anchor with and without anchor shear reinforcement was reviewed and discussed below. 2.1. Anchor in shear in plain concrete Research on behavior of anchors/headed studs in shear in plain concrete has been conducted extensively [1,47] while anchor may end up with steel fracture or concrete breakout, as shown in Fig. 1a and b. Without introduction of any reinforce-

(a) Concrete breakout

(b) Fractured anchors

Fig. 1. Anchor bolts damaged in bridge connection in Chile earthquake (Yen et al., [8]).

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

61

(a) Shear force vs. displacement curves

(b) steel fracture

Fig. 2. Shear steel failure of 19-mm diameter A 193 B7 threaded rods.

ment, plain concrete, a quasi-brittle material, may suffer sudden failure when anchor was subjected to shear loads, thus causing signicant reduction of shear capacity of anchor. The post-earthquake observations (e.g., photos shown in Fig. 1a) showed that anchor connection failed by large pieces of concrete breakout in front of anchors, thereby causing dysfunction of the connection between superstructure and bridge column. It was suggested that impacts of brittle failure on shear capacity could have played a signicant role in contributing to the failure of connection. It is well known that the concrete breakout leads to unreliable seismic performance and must be prevented in seismic design because of its nature of brittle failure. Such concrete failure modes may be associated with embedment length and the front edge distance from the anchor. Increasing anchor embedment length or the front edge distance may switch failure modes from concrete failure to steel fracture. Unlike concrete breakout, shear fracture of anchor shaft should behave in ductile manner. Existing building codes and design guidelines, such as ACI 318-11 Appendix D [6] and FIB [7], commonly accept steel fracture failure modes for the design of fastenings [9]. Additional ductile-based provisions are stipulated to ensure ductile steel failure of anchors for seismic applications. For example, elongation of anchor steel greater than 14%, as well as reduction of its cross section larger than 30%, is required for ductile element in ACI 318-08 Appendix D. However, steel failure is not equivalent to ductile failure [9] and the ductile performance of anchor may also correlate with loading cases and connement from concrete. For example, ASTM A193 Grade B7 threaded rods are widely accepted as ductile steel in tension with an elongation of up to 16%. The shear tests of 19-mm (3/4-in.) diameter anchor rods with 152-mm (6-in.) embedment length in concrete, however, showed that the rods were failed by steel fracture with only averaged 7 mm (0.3 in.) brittle shear deformation, as shown in Fig. 2a. Fracture surface of the rod, as illustrated in a photo in Fig. 2b, displayed an obviously brittle failure, similar to the observations in the shear tests in Kwon et al. [15] and Lin et al. [11]. The backscattered electron image of a sample cut from fracture anchor shafts was shown in Fig. 3. Micro-scale dimples in grains slipped and oriented uniformly parallel to the shear deformation direction, which correlated with the observed smooth and shining surface in fractured anchors. In general, shear capacity of anchor may not be fully developed due to concrete brittle failure while correspondingly ductility of anchor may be limited to concrete strength against anchor steel. Without the anchor reinforcement, anchor may either fail by brittle concrete breakout or brittle steel shear fracture, as indicated in Fig. 2a and b. Neither of them was

fracture

Fig. 3. Microstructure of a typical shear failure mode using SEM (50 and 1000).

62

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

reliable to provide a ductile manner, in particular under cyclic seismic loading. Without enough connement from concrete to allow anchor deform, anchor that tended to be designed by steel fracture may lose support due to the crushing of concrete around the anchor shaft when subjected to reversed seismic loads, which in turn resulted in the concrete failure, thereby ending up with pulling out failure. 2.2. Anchor in shear with anchor shear reinforcement To increase shear deformation and thus fully develop shear capacity of anchors, two types of steel reinforcement are recommended in ACI 318-11 Appendix D [6]: using horizontal hairpins wrapping around anchor (Fig. 4a) or hooked bars along the direction of the shear force. It should be noted that the concept of the anchor reinforcement in existing studies or existing codes and guidelines, as revealed in Petersen and Zhao [16], is based on the assumption that the connement of anchor reinforcement takes effect associated with the onset of the concrete breakout forming. As such, the anchor reinforcement may directly carry shear force from anchor but core concrete becomes ineffective after concrete spalling and breakout, as indicated by grey areas in Fig. 4a. Most of limited research on anchor in shear reinforcement has been performed by using hairpins [4,1720], as indicated in a detailed document by Petersen and Zhao [16]. Swirsky et al. [17] documented 24 experimental anchor tests under monotonic and cyclic shear loading using hairpins as reinforcement. Much higher shear capacity and relatively large shear deformation (up to 25 mm (1 in.)) in anchor tests were observed as compared to that in plain concrete. Such improvement in shear capacity was further conrmed by Klingner et al. [4] on the investigation of 28 anchors under monotonic and cyclic shear loading using U-shaped hairpins placed at varying locations through depth. The test results, however, also revealed that hairpins may not be effective to resist reversed cyclic shear loads. Crushed concrete through depth caused by the previous cycles may result in a considerable decrease in the lateral support to the anchor shaft such that the hairpins cannot provide effective load transfer to unrecovered crushed concrete when the anchor was loaded toward the opposite direction of the hairpins head. Similar conclusions were also drawn by Lee et al. [18], Paschen and Schnhoff [19], and Ramm and Greiner [20]. Some unexpectedly terminated tests due to signicant capacity reduction before anchor fracture, as observed in Swirsky et al. [17], Klingner et al. [4], and Lee et al. [18], also demonstrated that reliable shear deformation should be attributed to the effectiveness of the anchor reinforcement, with which anchor could be allowed to fully develop its capacity and experience large ductile shear deformation till steel fracture for seismic applications.

8d b

8d b

IV

A B <ca1

ca2

min (ca1, ca2)

IV

ca1 ca1 Hairpins

~ ~ 35

Ineffectively confined core

Ineffectively confined cover V V

0

breakout cone ~35

o

improve bearing Anchor control splitting cracks effectively confined core corner bars Section B-B

Section A-A

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Schematics of (a) Hairpins and (b) the proposed anchor reinforcement.

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

63

Clearly the important seismic design consideration for strength and ductility of anchor in shear is to have sufcient reinforcement to conne the compressed concrete in front of anchor. In addition to enhance strength, the requirements for ductile steel failure of an anchor should be coupled with both ductile steel element and also a specic shear deformation capacity to achieve ductility. Both good conned concrete and ductile anchor steel are essential to allow anchor have adequate rotation capacity to fully develop shear capacity and present ductile behavior, which were addressed in details followed by two sections below. 3. Strength enhancement and ductile deformation in proposed anchor reinforcement The observations in aforementioned previous studies in behavior of anchor in shear with and without reinforcement revealed that enhancement in strength and ductility of anchors in shear should be attributed to effective connement by anchor reinforcement to prevent concrete core around the anchors from splitting, and breaking out. This understanding has led to alternative designs and detailing for the anchor reinforcement [16]. The proposed anchor shear reinforcement, shown in Fig. 4b, consisted of: (a) closed stirrups placed parallel to the plane of the applied shear force and the anchor; and (b) straight reinforcing bars at corners and evenly distributed along the concrete surfaces. Two closed stirrups were installed next to the anchor shaft separately at both sides while remaining stirrups were installed with a spacing of 51 mm (2 in.) to 76 mm (3 in.) within an effective distance about 0.5 times the front edge distance. A distance of 8db on both sides of the anchor was required to have the development length of horizontal legs of the vertical closed stirrups, where db denotes the reinforcement diameter. Full details of the proposed anchor reinforcement and the corresponding behavior were discussed elsewhere [14,16]. With the proposed shear reinforcement, Petersen and Zhao [16] presented the investigation of 20 cast-in-place anchors, including sixteen 25 mm (1 in.) diameter ASTM A193 Grade B7 threaded rods and four 19 mm (3/4 in.) diameter ASTM F1554 Grade 55 anchors. Number of anchor reinforcement was designed in accordance with nominal strength of anchor in shear. Two closed No. 4 reinforcing bars were placed to both sides of the 19 mm (3/4 in.) diameter F1554 anchors while three different types of evenly distributed stirrups wrapping 25 mm (1 in.) diameter A193 anchors were used to account for the effects of varying stirrups spacing from 51 mm (2 in.) to 76 mm (3 in.) and effective distance from 51 mm (2 in.) to 250 mm (10 in.). Fig. 5 plotted the tests results with the proposed anchor reinforcement. The measured shear forces vs. shear deformation of anchor with three types of reinforcements were compared with that in unreinforced concrete breakout in Fig. 5. Note that results were normalized by nominal shear capacity of anchor (209 kN (47 kips)). Fig. 5 showed that anchor steel failure was achieved in all cases and resulted in a signicant increase in strength compared to that in unreinforced concrete breakout, indicating that the connement of concrete core by proposed arranged anchor reinforcement was effective. In particular, with the introduction of the proposed anchor reinforcement, the anchors exhibited a considerable improvement in ductility, with up to 40-mm (1.5-in) shear deformation, as compared to only 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) deformation in brittle concrete breakout. Unlike a signicant strength drop with the increase of the shear deformation in the most previous studies, strain hardening behavior during the relative large deformation also conrmed that the proposed anchor reinforcement design was reliable in seismic applications. Similar observation was found in all cases under reversed cyclic loading [14,16]. To demonstrate the effects of reinforcement on strength and ductility, the test results were also compared with three tests of anchor/headed studs without reinforcement: (a) in pure shear test [21], (b) in the nearly pure shear tests from 19-mm diameter A193 threaded rods in unreinforced concrete (Fig. 2), and (c) in the nearly pure shear tests of 22-mm (7/8-in.) diameter A193 steel by Kwon et al. [15], which were used in the design of headed studs in composite structures. All measured shear force were normalized by the design capacity of anchor bolts in shear in ACI 318-11, that is, shear force over 0.6 Ase,vfuta, where Ase,v is the effective area of anchor in shear; and futa is ultimate tensile strength of anchor steel. Pure shear failure had an only 3.8 mm (0.15 in.) deformation, though it had the highest shear capacity among all cases, a slightly higher than unity. Nearly pure shear tests cases displayed a slightly larger deformation, with up to 7.6 mm (0.3 in.) displacement while the strength had a slight drop to some extent. Thanks to connement of the reinforcement, the specimens presented a different behavior. The load vs. displacement curves indicated an initial exural-dominant behavior for the

Displacement (in.) Normalized shear force

0 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Normalized shear force

Pure shear (Anderson&Meinheit,2000) Unreinforced (Kwon et al.,2010)

Concrete breakout

Unreinforced(steel fracture) 4 No. 4@2 in. 2 No.4 &4 No.3 @3 in. 8 No.3 @ 2 in.

10

20

30

40

Displacement (mm)
Fig. 5. Normalized test results of anchor with and without shear reinforcement.

64

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

specimens with reinforcement. It was likely because concrete cover, due to the lack of connement, was spalled off early when the anchors are subjected to shear, leading to an exposed portion in the anchors, as shown in Fig. 4b. The exposed portion of an anchor (lever arm in Eligehausen et al., [5]) may undergo larger deformation. The stiffness regained at such larger displacements. As described in elsewhere [11], the strain hardening behavior was likely due to tension-dominant fracture, which was further explored and discussed in details below. As such, it was observed that the proposed anchor reinforcement provided over 400% increase in ductility compared to pure shear tests while strength maintained over 80% of nominal shear capacity. Comparison of tests results with pure and nearly pure shear tests without reinforcement indicated that closed stirrups can effectively conne concrete breakout such that the conned concrete can transfer shear force to the rest of structure. In this way, rather concrete splitting by relying on the tensile properties of concrete, concrete core under the connement due to the proposed anchor reinforcement, shaded blue areas within closed stirrups shown in Fig. 4b, could continue to carry shear forces at higher strains with the benet of compressive properties of concrete. Effective connement also allowed the anchor shaft to undergo larger shear deformation without apparent strength reduction. Such potential benets in turn resulted in higher deformation capacity of the anchor, which correlated with the contribution of the concrete compressive stress distribution through concrete core under high connement.

4. Ductile element in anchor bolt Failure analysis of anchor with anchor reinforcement showed that anchor can display different behavior under varying connement, which was schematically summarized in Fig. 6. To behave in effective ductile manner, the rotation capacity, shown in Fig. 6, may be largely correlated with connement from the reinforcement and ductile material. Therefore, in addition to the proposed anchor reinforcement offering effective connement to allow anchor to behave in ductile manner, the ductility of anchor steel itself also play another key role in ensuring anchor achieve ductile performance in seismic design. With effective connement to ensure anchor deform, the capacity of ductile deformation of anchor steel not only affects the failure modes, but also may cause differences in ultimate shear capacity. For example, a coefcient w in shear capacities (Vsa = wAse,vfuta) with different values of 0.375 and 0.25 are used for different grade steels (metric Grade 4.6 and 8.8 anchor steel, respectively) in Dutch Standard (NEN 6770, 1990). ACI-318 Code [6] species the design factor to account for the effects for the ductility. However, such factor is only to avoid the brittle failure instead of explaining the difference in strength due to ductility of steel. A review of such existing design guidelines reveals that shear behavior of anchor bolts with different ductile element are not well understood, and methods to characterize strength capacities in shear are not adequately supported by experimental data. To evaluate the effects of ductility of anchor steel material on the shear capacity and also provide data to verify current design guidelines and capacity predictions (e.g., in the Appendix D in ACI 318-08), A total of 18 double-shear tests were conducted using three different types of 19-mm (3/4-in.) diameter ASTM threaded rods: (a) ASTM A193 Grade B7, referred as A193; (b) ASTM A307 Grade 55, referred as A307 and (c) stainless ASTM A304 Grade 105, referred as A304. The observation in the anchor tests with reinforcement revealed that the portion of anchor, due to the lack of connement after concrete cover spalling, was exposed and may experience relatively large deformation without lateral support when the anchors are subjected to cyclic shear loading. Exposed length, as described in the previous study [11], is a critical variable among the inuential factors for the shear behavior of the anchor. In order to simulate behavior of anchor under seismic loading to account for the impact of the anchor exposed length to the ductility of anchor, hence, double-shear tests using ASTM threaded rods with various exposed lengths were conducted: under monotonic shear displacement in the rst group of tests while under reversed cyclic shear load for the specimens in the second group. Fixed boundary conditions at both

Tensile resistance Shear-dominant steel fracture Shear resistance

Flexural-dominant steel fracture

Tensile-dominant steel fracture Unreinforced concrete Rotation capacity

c s

Shear deformation,

Fig. 6. Schematics of steel failure modes, shear capacity and ductility.

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

65

Fig. 7. Load vs. shear deformation curves of A193 Grade 7 threaded rods under monotonic and cyclic shear loading.

Table 1 Matrix of double-shear experimental tests for different types of anchor steel (kips). Steel A 193 l/da 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 Load type Mono. disp. Mono. disp. Mono. disp. Cyclic load Cyclic load Cyclic load Mono. disp. Mono. disp. Mono. disp. Cyclic load Cyclic load Cyclic load Mono. disp. Mono. disp. Mono. disp. Cyclic load Cyclic load Cyclic load Ultimate capacities 16.77 12.98 17 16.95 12.4 16.15 10.82 12.5 9.84 10.4 11.95 9.45 24.3 15.4 17.95 18.3 13.7 15.85 Deviationa (%) 96 96 96 101 96 95 75 89 88

A 307

A 304

1 kN = 0.2248 kips. a Deviation of shear capacity of anchor under cyclic loading over monotonic loading.

ends of test anchors were used to simulate the effective connement from concrete. The exposed lengths in all of tests (i.e., the net distance between the load plates and the xed plates) varied from da to 4da. Nine standard 12.7-mm (1/2-in.) diameter coupons of A193, A307 and A304 (three for each steel) were tested to derive the constitutive relationship for the steel material. It was observed that the all steel coupons exhibited a local necking, and the cupcone tensile fracture surfaces, which is a typical feature for ductile metals. The elongation of A193, A307 and A304 were 17%, 25% and 63%, respectively. The load vs. displacement curves of A193 anchor rods under monotonic and cyclic shear loading were shown in Fig. 7 and ultimate shear capacities for each case were listed in Table 1. Due to ignoring any lateral support from partially damaged concrete during cyclic loading, the shear capacity for all cases may derive a low bound for the actual anchor capacities application. In general, the specimen with an exposed length of da represents anchors with a relatively short exposed length (e.g., the cases in Kwon et al. [15] and in Fig. 2), and showed a shear-dominant behavior. There was obvious shear deformation with sudden failure based on the loaddisplacement curve. This was also conrmed by the fracture surfaces of the anchor, as shown in Fig. 8a. It illustrated that the fracture of the anchor rod initiated a exural crack at the location of yellow solid line (in Fig. 8a) and then failed in shear fracture after crack opening till purple dashed line (in Fig. 8a). The fracture surface exhibited the shear-dominant fracture with a shining at zone due to crystal slip, as described in Fig. 3.

66

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

(a)A193-da

(b)A193-2da

(c)A193-4da

Crack opening Flexural crack initiation

Fig. 8. Fracture surfaces of A193 anchor rods in shear.

The behavior changed for specimens with larger exposed lengths. The load vs. displacement curves, shown in Fig. 7, indicated a exural-dominant behavior for the specimens with an exposed length of 2da. Flexural yielding of the specimens, shown by the stiffness degradation in Fig. 7, indicated a larger impact from bending and a larger reduction of cross sectional area, which may explain the lower capacity observed in these specimens. Flexural crack initiation sites were present, with one main crack that led to failure. The cracks initiated at a diameter transition opposite to the support bearing and the most area of nal failure (the area as shown intersected by yellow solid line and purple dashed line (in Fig. 8b), was caused by opening of exural crack associated with the major crack. There was a small fracture area near the fracture edge along shear direction. This was most likely caused by mechanical damage of the fracture surface that occurred due to tension prior to nal failure (However, the area of tension was relative small and thus nal capacity had no apparent increase). The initial part of the load vs. displacement behavior (Fig. 7) for specimens with an exposed length of 4da showed a exural-dominant behavior as well. However the stiffness and shear capacity increased at larger displacements. Such post-hardening/strain hardening type of behavior was observed due to tension close to failure. Such understanding led to the explanation of the observation of strain hardening behavior shown in those anchors with the proposed reinforcement (Fig. 5). The fracture surface, shown in Fig. 8c, exhibited an obvious transition (in dashed line) from different fracture modes, which initially showed exural-dominant fracture and then ended up with a failure mode with a 45 shear lip due to the tension. Qualitatively, both anchor rod experiments (monotonic and cyclic loadings) followed a similar progression of events, as presented in Fig. 6. Flexural crack was triggered by initial yielding. The damage to the anchor rods progressively increased due to the propagation of the crack, resulting in lower strength and stiffness, compared to those results obtained under monotonic loading. In fact, such degradation in strength and stiffness were not signicant because of the following posthardening behavior as the exposed length increases. Compared to the measured shear capacities of anchor rods under monotonic loading presented in Table 1, the ultimate load (of all three anchor rods) was approximately 5% lower than those under monotonic loading for A193 and A307 while over 12% for A304. Fatigue effects may account for such reduction. No strength reduction was recommended in this study. Table 1 displayed the comparison of three different steel specimens with various exposed lengths. The stiffness and shear capacities may decrease with the increase of exposed lengths. The initial yielding is followed by strength as well as stiffness degradation at repeated cyclic loadings. However, with the relatively larger exposed lengths, an increase in strength due to tension effects as the rods deformed further, thereby resulting in a post-yielding increase (referred as strain-harden) in shear capacities.

5. Conclusions In summary, with a goal to achieve anchor seismic performance in ductile manner and verify the ductility-related provisions in existing design codes and guidelines, behavior of anchor in shear with and without reinforcement was reviewed and ductility for seismic applications were evaluated from both effective connement due to anchor reinforcement and ductile steel. The proposed reinforcement was based on the contribution of the concrete compressive stress distribution through concrete core under high connement to anchor. Such effective connement provided effectively lateral support to anchor shaft and allowed it to undergo larger shear deformation without apparent strength reduction. Test results of anchor with the proposed anchor reinforcement showed consistent strength enhancement and great ductile behavior under static and cyclic shear loading. Steel fracture was achieved in all cases. Failure analysis of the fracture mechanism of anchors demonstrated that the shear capacities, failure modes and ductility were correlated each other. Moreover, all of the three types of anchor steel widely used in anchor material exhibited great ductile (ductile material is dened to have at least 14% elongation for anchor steel in ACI standard). Ductility of steel not only provides enough deformation before failure to avoid catastrophe, but also develops the strain hardening behavior, leading to different failure modes (from shear or exural failure to tension failure) and correspondingly resulting in higher capacities and great

Z. Lin et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 5967

67

ductility, which can be easily observed from all test results. It can be envisioned that both effective connement and specied ductile steel could ensure anchor have good seismic performance. Acknowledgments The study reported in this paper is from a project supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0724097. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Dr. Joy Pauschke, who served as the program director for this grant. The authors also thank the colleagues in ACI committee 355 for their valuable inputs. Any opinions, ndings, and recommendations or conclusions expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of NSF. References
[1] Cannon R. Straight talk about anchorage to concrete part I. ACI Struct J 1995;92(5):17. [2] Cannon R. Straight talk about anchorage to concrete part II. ACI Struct J 1995;92(5):711. [3] Cook R, Doerr G, Klingner R. Design guide for steel-to-concrete connections. Research report No. 1126-4, USA: Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin; 1989. [4] Klingner R, Mendonca J, Malik J. Effect of reinforcing details on the shear 19 resistance of anchor bolts under reversed cyclic loading. ACI J 1982;79(1):4719. [5] Eligehausen R, Malle R, Silva J. Anchorage in concrete construction. Berlin (Germany): Wilhelm Ernst and Sohn; 2006. [6] American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08). Michigan (USA): Farmington Hills; 2008. [7] Federation Internationale du Beton (b). Fastenings to concrete and masonry structures. Special Activity Groups (SAG) report; 2008, [obtained from prof. Eligehausen]. [8] Yen W, Chen G, Buckle I, Allen T, Alzamora D, Ger J, Arias JG. Post-earthquake reconnaissance report on transportation infrastructure impact of the February 27, 2010 Offshore maule earthquake in Chile. No. FHWA-HRT-11-030, USA: Federal Highway Administration; 2011. [9] Silva JF, Hoehler MS. Ductility requirements for the anchorage of nonstructural components. Struct Congr 2008:18. [10] Hoehler MS, Behavior and testing of fastenings to concrete for use in seismic applications. PhD dissertation, Germany: Institute for Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart; 2006. [11] Lin Z, Petersen D, Zhao J, Tian Y. Simulation and design of exposed anchor bolts in shear. Int J Theor Appl Multiscale Mech 2011;2(2):11129. [12] Pallars L, Hajjar J. Headed steel stud anchors in composite structures, Part I: Shear. J Construct Steel Res 2009;66(2):198212. [13] Petersen D. Seismic behavior and design of cast-in-place anchors in plain and reinforced concrete. MS thesis, USA: Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee; 2011. [14] Petersen D, Lin Z, Zhao J. Behavior of cast-in-place anchors under simulated seismic loads. ACI Struct J (in press). [15] Kwon G, Engelhardt MD, Klingner RE. Behavior of post-installed shear connectors under static and fatigue loading. J Construct Steel Res 2010;66(4):53241. [16] Petersen D, Zhao J. Design of anchor reinforcement for seismic shear loads. ACI Struct J 2013;110(1):5362. [17] Swirsky R, Dusel J, Crozier W, Stoker J, Nordlin E. Lateral resistance of anchor bolts installed in concrete. report no. FHWA-CA-ST-4167-77-12. USA: California Department of Transportation; 1978. [18] Lee NH, Park KR, Suh YP. Shear behavior of headed anchors with large diameters and deep Embedment. ACI Struct J 2010;108(1):3441. [19] Paschen H, Schnhoff T. Untersuchungen ber in Beton eingelassene Scherbolzen aus Betonstahl. Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton Heft 346. Verlag Ernst and Sohn; 1983. [20] Ramm W, Greiner U. Gutachten zur Bemessung von Kopfbolzenveran-kerungen, Teil II. Verankerungen mit Rckhngebewehrung, Fachgebiet Massivbau und Baukonstruktion. Universitt Kaiserslautern; 1993. [21] Anderson N, Tureyen K, Meinheit D. Design criteria for headed studs, Phase I Steel capacity and back edge effects. PCI J 2000;45(5):4675.