Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
systems journals.sagepub.com/home/ase
Abstract
A mechanically post-installed anchor, which is one of the most widely used post-installed anchors in South Korea, was selected to eval-
uate long-term usage through a pullout test. Two types of specimens were constructed: the original specimens and freeze and thaw
specimens. Mechanically post-installed anchors were installed in both of them. A freeze and thaw test method was utilized to consider
the long-term usage. The compressive strength of concrete during the freeze and thaw test method is reduced by about 20% com-
pared to that of the original concrete. From the pullout test results, the pullout strength of the freeze and thaw specimen was smaller
by about 50% than that of the original specimens. Furthermore, the failure mode of the freeze and thaw specimens was changed.
Cone shape destruction of anchors and anchor pullout destruction occurred in the original specimens; concrete pullout destruction
occurred dominantly in the freeze and thaw specimens. Based on the comparison results, the reduction factor (l) for long-term usage
of the mechanically post-installed anchor was derived using a probability function and was proposed to modify the concrete capacity
design equation.
Keywords
concrete, freezethaw, long term, post-installed anchor, pullout test
and Europe. A design equation to calculate the resis- Table 1. Specifications of MPI anchors.
tance capacity of an anchor system was proposed by
the ACI Committee (ACI Committee 349, 2011; ACI Anchor name Total Diameter of Installation
length (mm) anchor (mm) depth (mm)
Committee 355, 2001; ACI Committee 446, 2011;
Jensen and Brstrup, 1976). Moreover, a correction M10L50 150 9.45 50
factor has been introduced for use in the ACI design M10L100 200 9.45 100
equation to account for the size effects of test speci- M12L50 150 12.70 50
M12L100 200 12.70 100
mens. Recently, concrete capacity design (CCD) the-
ory, which is based on concrete fracture modes, has
also been employed to assess the strength of anchor
systems (Fuchs et al., 1995). However, previous
research into post-installed anchor systems was
focused on performance just after installation of a
post-installed anchor system. Thus, study about the
long-term performance and long-term reliability of
post-installed anchor systems is required.
Post-installed anchor systems can be divided
according to the mechanism of load transfer into either
mechanically post-installed (MPI) anchors or chemi-
cally post-installed (CPI) anchors. The performance of
a post-installed anchor system is determined by the
strength of the receiving concrete, friction, and inter- Figure 1. MPI anchor used in South Korea.
lock adhesive strength. Friction, which is very weak in
terms of environmental effect, may govern both MPI
anchors and CPI anchors. The performance of con-
crete structures is decreased during usage since the sur-
face of a concrete structure can become chemically
neutral as time goes by. In order to achieve a safe and
affordable design, it is important to evaluate the beha-
vior of the post-installed anchor systems under tensile
loading. It is also important to evaluate anchor inter-
action with the anchorage surface in the primary
structure.
In this study, the performance capacity of MPI
anchors, which are the most commonly used type in
Figure 2. Dimensions of concrete blocks (unit = mm).
South Korea (Kim et al., 2013), was performed using
design characteristics such as the diameter and installa-
tion depth of the MPI anchors. A freeze and thaw test
devices attached in the MPI anchors. One type of MPI
method was also used to evaluate the long-term perfor-
anchor, which is commonly used in South Korea, was
mance of the MPI anchors. A pullout test was per-
selected for this study. Details of the selected MPI
formed to evaluate the performance of the MPI anchor
anchor are shown in Figure 1. Information on the four
system. The experimental results were compared with
types of anchors used in this study is summarized in
the calculated results of the CCD equation and ana-
Table 1.
lyzed using a statistical method.
Specimen Type 30% torque (N m) Installation depth (mm) Anchor diameter (mm)
Figure 6. Pullout test setup: (a) sketch of test setup (unit = mm) and (b) photo of test setup.
292 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)
Table 3. Compressive strength of concrete cores. are summarized in Table 5. Figure 9 presents the com-
parison of the results of pullout strength test. The
Type No. Compressive Ratio reduction of pullout strength was about 33% in the
strength (MPa)
SnM10L50 specimens. This value was 29% in the
Original 1 26.4 SnM10L100 specimens, 40% in the SnM12L50 speci-
2 24.3 mens, and 36% in the SnM12L100 specimens. The
3 22.6 pullout load of the post-installed anchor system was
Average 24.4 1 found to decrease due to deterioration of the concrete
Freezingthawing 1 17.5
2 22.2 by the freeze and thaw test method. Deterioration of
3 18.9 the concrete causes a reduction of concrete strength
Average 19.5 0.80 and decreases the friction strength between concrete
and anchor, creating localized crushing.
anchor installation, there can be cases in which the per-
formance of identical anchors is different. Therefore, Long-term usage
we used statistical analysis to evaluate the performance The standard deviation and coefficient of variation of
of the MPI anchors. pullout strength for specimens are shown in Table 6. It
seems that the deviation of the experimental results
increases due to freeze and thaw test method. In addi-
Pullout strength tion, coefficients of variations are found to increase
The freeze and thaw test method reduced the pullout with increases in the diameter of the MPI anchors.
strength of the post-installed anchor systems. Pullout With smaller installation depths, the coefficients of
strength results were compared to the test results and variation are shown to increase. According to these
Figure 7. Loaddisplacement relation of the experimental results: (a) M10L50, (b) M10L100, (c) M12L50, and (d) M12L100.
Figure 8. Representative failure modes of MPI anchor: (a) original specimens and (b) freeze and thaw specimens.
results, it can be seen that the performance of any two diameter. Therefore, since uncertainties such as the
MPI anchors can be different, even when the same above must be considered, reliable performance based
conditions are obtained, such as installation depth and on probability is proposed as follows.
294 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)
Specimen Original specimen (S1, kN) Freezingthawing specimen (S2, kN) Ratio (S2/S1)
Table 6. Comparison results of mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation.
Type of specimen Specimen Mean value (kN) Standard deviation (kN) Coefficient of variation
q p 1:5
Table 7. The MPI anchor fragility evaluations with Nu = k 0 f 0c h1:5 0 4
ef = kl f c hef
respect to pullout strength are shown in Figure 11.
The reduction factor l is distributed between
0.290 and 0.895, as can be seen in the values shown in
Proposed design coefficient
Table 8. The reliability of the reduction factor, derived
In the CCD method, the capacity of a single anchor in from Q1 1.5IQR using the normal distribution since
tension is calculated based on 45 inclination of the the reliability has a wide probability distribution range,
failure surface of the concrete (ACI Committee 446, is found to be reduced. Therefore, it is more reasonable
2011). This corresponds to the assumption that the fail- to consider the reduction factor that is derived from
ure surface is approximately twice the effective embed- Q1 using a normal distribution and the 50% failure val-
ment depth of the anchor. The failure load, N (kN), ues by fragility function. In other words, the reduction
corresponds to the concrete cone breakout of a single factor l is distributed between 0.57 and 0.75. In addi-
anchor, given by equation (3) tion, the reduction factor was reduced when the dia-
q meter of the MPI anchors increased. On the other
Nu = k f 0c h1:5
ef 3 hand, the reduction factor increased when the insertion
depth of the anchors increased. After determining the
where k is 13.5 for post-installed anchors, k is 15.5 for reduction factor l that reflects these results, it is possi-
cast-in situ headed anchors bolts, fc0 is concrete com- ble to make a reasonable design for the performance of
pressive strength measured on cubes, and hef is the MPI anchors considering long-term usage.
effective embedment depth, in mm.
The CCD design method only has a coefficient k
Conclusion
value corresponding to the type of the anchor.
Therefore, we provide the coefficient of variable, In this study, the pullout strength of an MPI anchor
including its value in a freeze and thaw test method, in system for long-term usage was evaluated through an
this article. The coefficient k was replaced by k0 in the experimental program. The long-term usage of con-
CCD design method (equation (4)); k0 was set equal to crete was considered through a freeze and thaw test
kl. l is derived using probability methods that are pre- method. The CCD equation was modified based on an
sented in the previous sections; this is a reduction fac- evaluation of the pullout strength of MPI anchor sys-
tor for the freeze and thaw specimens tems installed in both the original and the freeze and
296 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)
Figure 11. Fragility evaluations for tests of the MPI anchor system: (a-1) S1M10L50, (a-2) S1M10L100, (a-3) S1M12L50, (a-4)
S1M12L100, (b-1) S2M10L50, (b-2) S2M10L100, (b-3) S2M12L50, and (b-4) S2M12L100.
thaw specimens. Furthermore, a coefficient that can be system using the probabilistic method was proposed.
reflected in the performance design of the MPI anchor The conclusions of this article are as follows:
Kwon et al. 297
Specimen Type of specimen Mean (1) Q1 (2) Q1 1.5IQR (3) Fragility 50% failure (4) Ratio
(2)/(1) (3)/(1) (4)/(1)
S1M10L50 Original (a) 28.6 28.2 27.1 28.6 0.986 0.945 1.000
Freezingthawing (b) 19.2 16.4 7.8 18.9 0.852 0.408 0.984
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.67 0.58 0.29 0.66
S1M10L100 Original (a) 43.4 39.8 29.0 43.2 0.917 0.668 0.995
Freezingthawing (b) 31.0 29.7 26.0 31.0 0.959 0.837 0.999
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.71 0.75 0.90 0.72
S2M12L50 Original (a) 37.3 34.2 24.6 37.2 0.915 0.660 0.996
Freezingthawing (b) 22.3 19.6 11.3 22.1 0.877 0.507 0.989
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.60 0.57 0.46 0.59
S2M12L100 Original (a) 92.6 92.1 90.8 92.6 0.995 0.981 1.000
Freezingthawing (b) 58.9 52.4 32.7 58.4 0.889 0.556 0.991
Ratio: (b)/(a) 0.64 0.57 0.36 0.63
1. Both larger anchor diameter and deeper (15SCIP-B065985-03) from Smart Civil Infrastructure
installed depth lead to large pullout strength of Research Program (SCIP) funded by Ministry of Land,
anchor systems. Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government.
2. The compressive strength of the freeze and
thaw concrete was reduced by about 20% com- References
pared to that of the original concrete due to the
ACI Committee 349 (2011) Code Requirement for Nuclear
freeze and thaw test method.
Safety Related Concrete Structures and Commentary.
3. The pullout strength of the freeze and thaw spe- Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
cimen is reduced by about 50% compared to ACI Committee 355 (1997) State-of-the-Art Report on Ancho-
that of the original specimens. rage to Concrete (1991, Reapproved). Detroit, MI: Ameri-
4. The pullout strength of the anchor system and can Concrete Institute.
the failure mode of the specimens were changed ACI Committee 355 (2001) Evaluating the Performance of
using the freeze and thaw test method. Cone Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (Report).
shape destruction of anchors and anchor pull- Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
out destruction occurred in the original speci- ACI Committee 446 (2011) Fracture Mechanics of Concrete.
mens; concrete pullout destruction occurred Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
dominantly in the freeze and thaw specimens. ASTM-C666/C666M-03 (2008) Standard Test Method for
Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing.
5. The CCD equation can be changed using k0 ,
West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing
including the reduction factor l, for long-term
and Materials.
usage; this value is derived using a probability ASTM-E488/E488M-10 (2010) Standard Test Method for
function. The reduction factors are distributed Strength of Anchor in Concrete Element. West Consho-
between 0.57 and 0.75. hocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
6. By applying a probabilistic method to anchor Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB) (1994) Task
design, we have shown the possibility of deriv- Group VI/5: Fastenings to Concrete and Masonry Struc-
ing a more economical and reasonable design tures. London: Thomas Telford Services Ltd.
equation. Cook RA and Konz RC (2001) Factors affecting bond
strength of adhesive anchors. ACI Structural Journal
98(1): 7686.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Cook RA, Kunz J, Fuchs W, et al. (1998) Behavior and
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with design of single adhesive anchors under tensile load in
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this uncracked concrete. ACI Structural Journal 95: 926.
article. Eem SH, Jung HJ, Kim MK, et al. (2013) Seismic fragility
evaluation of isolated NPP containment structure consid-
ering soil-structure interaction effect. Journal of Earth-
Funding quake Engineering 17(2): 5359.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial Fuchs W, Eligehausen R and Breen JE (1995) Concrete
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of capacity design (CCD) approach for fastening to con-
this article: This research was supported by a grant crete. ACI Structural Journal 92: 7394.
298 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(3)
Gesoglu M and Guneyisi E (2007) Prediction of load- School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pusan
carrying capacity of adhesive anchors by soft computing National University, Busan, South Korea.
techniques. Materials and Structures 40(9): 939951. Kim JS, Jung WY, Kwon MH, et al. (2013) Performance
Hwang Y (2011) A study on the fracture resistance character- evaluation of the post-installed anchor for sign structure
istics of post-installed anchor. Master Degree Thesis, in South Korea. Construction and Building Materials 44:
Structural Engineering, Seoul National University of Sci- 496506.
ence and Technology, Seoul, South Korea. Salas JD, Smith RA, Tabios GQ III, et al. (2002) Statistical
Jang JB and Suh YP (2006) The experimental investigation computing techniques in water resources and environmen-
of a cracks influence on the concrete breakout strength tal engineering. Unpublished book in CE622, Colorado
of a cast-in-place anchor. Nuclear Engineering and Design State University, Fort Collins, CO.
236(9): 948953. Shang HS and Song YP (2006) Experimental study of
Jensen BC and Brstrup MW (1976) Lok-Test Determine the strength and deformation of plain concrete under biaxial
Compressive Strength of Concrete. Stockholm: Nor- Disk compression after freezing and thawing cycles. Cement
Betong, #2. and Concrete Research 36(10): 18571864.
Jin SH (2011) Tension and shear strength evaluation of large
size concrete anchor bolt. Masters Thesis, Graduate