20

Design of resin anchors in comparison

TR 029 can do more

Dr. Rainer Malle

>In

terms of their load-bearing performance, resin

anchors differ in a number of properties from undercut
and expansion anchors. This means that specific rules and
regulations must be taken into account and observed in
their design. The Technical Report 029 lists these differences and new findings drawn from basic research in a
separate document.
Metal fixings with European Technical Approval (ETA) for
use in concrete are designed and dimensioned according
to Guideline ETAG 001, Annex C1) (in this article referred
to as Annex C). This method, known as CC Method,
applies to all types of fixings listed and specified in the
Guideline and hence also to resin anchors (capsule and
injection systems). However, it was found quite early on
that resin anchors differ in their load-bearing performance
from undercut and expansion anchors. One essential difference lies in the load introduction. Whereas undercut
and expansion anchors introduce focused tensile loads

Fig. 1: Group of 8 anchors covered by TR 029.

into the concrete in the zone of the undercut or the expansion shells, resin anchors introduce the load continually
over the entire length of the anchoring. This special loadbearing mechanism is the cause for the type of failure
known as combined failure through pull-out and concrete
pry-out which is not observed in the other anchor types.
There is no need to prove straight pull-out in resin anchors.
Regardless of the carrying mechanism, it is also assumed
that resin anchors have no higher concrete pry-out load
than undercut and expansion anchors set at the same
anchoring depth. This assumption is taken into account in
the design by means of an additional proof for straight
concrete pry-out.
Existing regulations for resin anchors account for these
differences from the known design methods1) by way of
special regulations in the text of the approval. This
approach is unsatisfactory and prone to errors because
two documents need to be observed and combined.

Fig. 2: Steel failure and concrete failure on the side facing away from
the load (pry-out): all anchors take the load.

VSd,v

VSd

VSd,v /4
VSd,h /4

Anchor plate
VSd,h
Anchor

VSd,h /4

VSd,v /4
VSd,h /4

VSd,h /4

DESIGN

This is why the Anchors study group at the European

Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA) has worked
out a separate document known as the Technical Report
TR 029 Design of Resin Anchors2). Next to the above
departures from the previous design methods, the report
also accounts for new findings and results from basic
research which have evolved over the past ten years since
the publication of Annex C.
The most important changes in TR 029 versus Annex C
are discussed below.

Scope
The design concept applied to date rests on empirical
data with resin anchors which have a bonding strength of
as much as 15 N/mm2 and with an anchoring depth of
about eight to twelve times the anchor diameter. In contrast, the TR 029 is also valid for resin anchors with a
higher bonding strength, and the scope has been enlarged
to include anchoring depths ranging from 4 d to 20 d.
This regulation allows injection anchors to be set at variable anchoring depths and so to use an important advantage over other types of anchors.

Fig. 3: Concrete edge failure under shear load at right angle to the edge:
only the most unfavourable anchors take the loads.

Annex C applies both to single anchors and to anchor

groups with 2, 3, 4 and 6 fixings. As the distribution of
the shear loads over the individual anchors of group cannot be predicted clearly because of the usual hole clearance, groups of three or six may be used only if their edge
spacing c in all directions is c 10 hef. Comparative computations have shown that, with such large edge spacings,
anchors exposed to shear loads fail through steel failure
and not as a result of concrete edge failure.
The scope of the TR 029 has been enlarged to include
groups with 8 fixings (Fig. 1) set in square or rectangular
configuration. Also, groups with 3, 6 and 8 fixings can be
arranged near the edge (c cmin) if no shear loads act on
the fixings. As before, the edge spacing in this group under
shear loads must be c 10 hef in all directions and an
additional c 60 d (d = diameter of the threaded rod).
The second condition has been introduced because short
and thick resin anchors are permitted due to the variable
anchoring depth. Limiting the edge spacing to multiples
of the anchoring depth alone would in these cases not
guarantee steel failure.

Fig. 4: Concrete edge failure under shear load parallel to the edge:
all anchors take the load.

Loads not taken into account in the

proof for concrete edge failure.

VSd,v

VSd,v /2

VSd,h
VSd,h /4

Edge

VSd,h /4

Edge

21

22

Distribution of shear loads

The distribution of the shear loads over the individual fixings of a group is more clearly defined in the TR 029 than
in Annex C. Although the author believes that there is
no change from Annex C, this regulation will again be
described in detail.

for a bending proof to be made for the fixings. This is often

difficult in practice as such thin layers can be achieved
and maintained only in rare cases. In the TR 029 this limit
thickness has been enlarged to d/2, but it is still relatively
small. There is an urgent need for further research in this
field.

With a mortar compensating layer between concrete and

fixture greater than 3 mm, the existing regulation provides

In stand-off or spaced installations, the degree of restraint

M allows a restraint of the fixing into the fixture to be
taken into account, provided that the fixture is capable
of taking up the developing moment. With a full restraint
(M = 2.0) this leads to the halving of the bending moment
acting on the fixing. Although this regulation has not been
changed with respect to Annex C, experience has shown
that it often leads to misinterpretations in practice because
it is often assumed that an anchor plate resting on a pressure-resistant mortar compensating layer already causes
the full restraint of the fixing. In the opinion of the author,
which is shared by others, this cannot be assumed if a
hole clearance exists between the fixing and the fixture.
This hole clearance can cause the fixing to rotate to some
degree in the region of the fixture, with the effect that the
restraint moment is noticeably reduced. The degree of
restraint should in these cases not differ substantially from
the value of free rotation ( M = 1.0), and the fixing would
be overloaded if full restraint is assumed in arithmetical
terms. This is the reason why Annex C and the TR 029
specify further conditions for the degrees of restraint
M > 1.0. The hole clearance must be smaller than the
maximum value given in Table 4.1 of the Guidelines, or
the fixing must be clamped (countered) against the fixture using a nut and washer. The first of these requirements is most likely quite difficult to observe in building
practice, and the second requirement can, by the nature
of things, not be met for an anchor plate resting on a
mortar layer.

Fig. 5: Concrete edge failure under inclined shear load: Load component

Fig. 6: Failure of a group of two resin anchors with small axial spacing;

The distribution of the shear loads depends on the type

of failure. In the event of steel failure and concrete failure
on the side facing away from the load (pry-out), it is assumed that all the fixings of the group will take up shear loads
(Fig. 2) provided that the diameter of the holes in the fixture does not exceed the values specified in TR 029, Table
4.1. The theory of elasticity applies in the event of eccentric load exposure.
For proofs of concrete edge failure and shear loads perpendicular to the edge, the hole clearance causes only the
most unfavourable fixings to take up the shear loads (Fig.
3). If the shear load acts parallel to the edge, all the fixings
of the group will be involved in taking up the load (Fig. 4),
and only the shear loads near the edge (red) will be used
for proving the concrete edge failure. Both the shear loads
remote from the edge have no influence on the failure load
of the unfavourable fixings close to the edge. Fig. 5 shows
the distribution for a shear load inclined in relation to the
edge of the component. For the proof of the concrete edge
failure, it is again only the loads in the figure on the right
(red) which are taken into account.

Shear loads with lever arm

at right angle to the edge is taken up by the anchors set close to the

combined failure through pull-out and concrete break-out 3).

edge parallel to the edge by all anchors.

VSd,v

Loads not taken into account in the

proof for concrete edge failure.

VSd

Surface of the break-out element

VSd,h

VSd,v /2
VSd,h /4

VSd,h /4

Edge

DESIGN

Proof of combined failure through pull-out and concrete

pry-out under tensile load

roughly equal to the value of a single anchor according to

equation (1). In reality however, the bonding area is larger
than that of a single anchor. This is taken into account by
means of the group factor according to3) which is:

The equation for the characteristic resistance NRk,p with

the combined failure by pull-out and concrete breakout is
similar to the equation for the characteristic resistance in
concrete breakout according to Annex C:

(2)

where: s = axial spacing, for anchor groups with several

different axial spacings (e.g. groups of four or six), the
mean axial spacing is used

(1)

It differs from the equation for concrete breakout only by

the group factor g,Np and by the absence of the factor
ucr,N , which accounts for the position of the fixing in
cracked or non-cracked concrete. The position of the fixing
is taken into account in the base value N 0 Rk,p of the
resistance of a single anchor which, assuming a constant
bonding tension over the entire anchoring length, is
calculated according to the following equation:

(2a)

n = number of anchors in the group

k = 3.2 for applications in non-cracked concrete
k = 2.3 for applications in cracked concrete
Rk and fck,cube [N/mm], hef and d [mm] acc. to approval

(1a)
Proof of concrete pry-out under tensile load
As mentioned above, the TR 029 demands an additional
proof for concrete breakout to limit the resistance of resin
anchors to the value of undercut and expansion anchors
with the same anchoring depth. This proof does not differ
from the corresponding assumption in Annex C, although
the factor ucr,N . is ignored. The difference in resistance
between non-cracked and cracked concrete is again
accounted for in the equation for the resistance of a
single anchor.

For the application in non-cracked concrete Rk = Rk,ucr

is used, and Rk = Rk,cr in cracked concrete. The influencing areas A p,N and A0 p,N are determined as before,
although the characteristic axial spacing s cr,Np is not a
multiple of the anchoring depth hef, but instead depends
on the characteristic bonding tension Rk,ucr The assumptions according to Annex C remain unchanged for the
factors s,Np, ec,Np and re,Np.
The group factor g,Np accounts for the influence of the
surface of the breakout body in groups of anchors. If two
resin anchors are arranged at an axial spacing of s = d (Fig.
6), the characteristic resistance of this group of two is

Fig. 7: Group of two, under torsion load:

shear loads changing their direction.

V1=T/s

=>

V2= T/s

23

24

Proof of splitting under tensile load

Annex C states that proof of splitting in non-cracked concrete may be waived if the edge distance of the fixing in
all directions is c 1.5 ccr,sp and if the component thickness is h 2 hef. This regulation makes sense for undercut
and expansion anchors because their minimum component thickness is about twice the anchoring depth. Resin
anchors, on the other hand, can be set in thinner building
components. The required component thickness depends
only on the cover of the drill hole on the side facing away
from the anchor which, in turn, must be sufficiently large
to avoid spalling or pry-out on the back of the component
during the drilling operation. For this reason, the factor
h,sp for the influence of the component thickness on
the splitting resistance and the conditions for waiving
the proof of splitting in non-cracked concrete has been
changed from Annex C (c 1,2 ccr,sp and h 2 hmin).

as for the anchor group, although the influencing areas

Ac,N and A0 c,N are calculated for each single anchor including the edge distances and axial spacings. Examples
are shown in the TR 029, Fig. 5.5b.

Proof of concrete edge failure under shear load

The known equation from Annex C essentially applies for
the proof of the concrete edge failure, although the assumptions for V0Rk,c and ,V are changed and the factor
ucr,V is renamed re,V. According to4), the characteristic
resistance of a single anchor V0Rk,c is:
(3)
where:
k1 = 2.4 for applications in non-cracked concrete
k1 = 1.7 for applications in cracked concrete

Proof of concrete failure at the load-opposing side

(pry-out) under shear load

(3a)

The proof of concrete failure on the side facing away from

the load has been supplemented with a proof for the
most unfavourable anchor in a group. This proof has
been left out in Annex C because no torsion moments
were taken into account during its preparation. If shear
loads and/or torsion loads act on a group of anchors, the
direction of the forces acting on the anchors of the group
may reverse. Fig. 7 shows this by way of a group of two,
loaded with a torsion moment. The equation for the proof
of the anchor group according to Annex C is unsuitable
in this case because the two shear forces cancel each
other out and the impact effect is therefore V Sd = 0. The
TR 029 therefore introduces the proof for the most unfavourable anchor of the group. It uses the same equation

(3b)
d, hef and c1 [mm], fck,cube [N/mm]
Equation (3) delivers more realistic results than the
previous equation in Annex C and no longer overrates
the resistance for anchors with a diameter d > 25 mm.
Diameters of this size are not unusual in resin anchors.
Factor ,V according to4) is:
(4)

Fig. 8: Group of two set at the edge, exposed to inclined shear load
and torsion moment.
b) Load acting on each anchor

a) Impact

Shear loads ignored. The sum of the components is directed away from the edge.

V
T

Edge

Edge

DESIGN

If one inserts the angle of the shear load at V = 90 in

equation (4) (load parallel to the edge), then ,V = 2.5 and
is therefore greater than the corresponding value according to Annex C ( ,V = 2.0). Also, unlike in Annex C, ,V
is limited to the angle V 90 Shear load components
pointing away from the edge (V = 180) may be ignored
in the proof for concrete edge failure. An example is shown
in Fig. 8. Under the previous regulation, they had to be
taken into account and the factor ,V was set for
,V = 2.0.

European Organisation for Technical Approvals

(EOTA): Leitlinie fr die europische technische
Zulassung fr Metalldbel in Beton. Anhang C:
Bemessungsverfahren fr Verankerungen. Mitteilungen. Deutsches Institut fr Bautechnik,
28. Jahrgang, Sonderheft Nr. 16, Berlin, Dezember
1997.
European Organisation for Technical Approvals
(EOTA): Bemessung von Verbunddbeln. EOTA
Technical Report TR 029, Brssel 2007.

Outlook
Besides a number of special features inherent in resin anchors, the new Technical Report TR 029 Design of Resin
Anchors also considers the state of engineering in the
design and dimensioning of fixings. It seemed obvious,
therefore, to transpose this state also to other metal anchors such as undercut and expansion anchors. As a result,
Annex C (1998) has meanwhile been revised by the EOTA
Anchors study group and has since been approved in
February 2008 by the Technical Steering Committee of
the EOTA5).

Eligehausen, R.; Appl, J. J.; Lehr, B.; Meszaros, J.;

Fuchs, W.: Tragverhalten und Bemessung von Befestigungen mit Verbunddbeln unter Zugbeanspruchung, Teil 2: Dbelgruppen und Befestigungen
am Bauteilrand. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 100,
Heft 10, S. 856 bis 864.
Hofmann, J.: Tragverhalten und Bemessung von
Befestigungen am Bauteilrand unter Querlasten mit
beliebigem Winkel zur Bauteilkante. Dissertation,
Lehrstuhl fr Werkstoffe im Bauwesen, Universitt
Stuttgart, 2004.
Bernholz, M.: Kurzbericht ber die 60. Sitzung des
Technischen Lenkungsausschusses der EOTA
(EOTA Technical Board) am 6./7. Februar 2008 in
Brssel. Mitteilungen. Deutsches Institut fr Bautechnik, 39. Jahrgang, Heft 2, Berlin, April 2008..

c) Load acting on anchor group

Edge

25