ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 119-S143

Pullout Strength of Embed Plates with Welded Anchor Bars

in Concrete
by Jungil Seo, Ata Ur Rehman, Amit H. Varma, and Sungmin Kim

Embedded plates are used to support external attachments such as hooked, straight, or headed, as the anchor elements. Here,
heavy piping, brackets, sprinkler systems, or other equipment in the word “anchor” defines a bar welded to a steel plate. The
concrete structures. The plates are typically welded with deformed nonstructural attachments or piping are attached to the face
reinforcing bars or deformed wires, which are embedded in rein- of the embed steel plate, as shown in Fig. 1(a). In SC walls,
forced concrete walls. The ACI Codes (ACI 318-19 and ACI 349-13)
the anchor bars (DRAs or DWAs) are welded to the face-
provide design equations to calculate the pullout strength of
plate, whereas the other end is embedded in concrete, as
anchors in concrete under tension loading. However, these empir-
ical equations are based on experiments conducted on headed shown in Fig. 1(b). The steel plate and anchors (embedment)
studs, hooked bars, headed bolts, and adhesive anchors. With the transfer the tensile forces to the concrete.
lack of experimental data and resulting Code provisions on straight According to ACI 349-13,1 the bar embedment length is
deformed reinforcing bars or deformed wires used as anchors, it calculated as the full development length (ld) of reinforcing
is believed that anchoring bars with the embedment length as per bars regardless of bar spacing or edge distance. Except for
the Code-prescribed development length will provide sufficient bar yield or bar rupture, the development length provisions
strength to transfer tensile forces to the concrete, ignoring other rule out other failure modes (concrete breakout, pullout, and
failure modes such as concrete breakout and pullout. The applica- so on) for such embedments. Accordingly, no check for the
bility of the concrete-governed adhesive bond model of ACI 318-19 concrete breakout is performed in the design of these embed
for bonded anchors is evaluated to estimate the strength and
plates. However, limited experimental data is available
failure modes of these connections. The current ACI adhesive bond
regarding the axial tension behavior and pullout strength of
model does not capture the correct failure mode and the influence
of anchor spacing and bond strength on the capacity. The issue is embed plates designed in this manner.
addressed by incorporating the correction factor (ψg,N). This paper represents the results of: 1) eight large-scale
This paper presents eight large-scale group-anchor test results to group-anchor tests conducted to investigate the concrete
evaluate their concrete breakout strength and the applicability of breakout behavior in tension of embed plates anchored with
the ACI 318-19 adhesive anchor/bond model to estimate connec- DRAs and DWAs; and 2) seven single-anchor tests conducted
tion capacities and failure modes. The mean average back-calculated to evaluate the bond behavior for DRAs and DWAs. The
effective k value is 33.3 for deformed reinforcing bar anchors paper also presents the database of group-anchor experiments
(DRAs) and 36.5 for deformed wire anchors (DWAs). Single-anchor used to evaluate the applicability of ACI 318-192 equations
tests were also performed to evaluate the bond behavior per the for concrete breakout strength and bond strength of anchors.
ACI 318-19 uniform bond model. The experimental study confirms
that the axial tension capacity of embedded plates anchored to
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
concrete using deformed reinforcing bars or deformed wires can
be limited by concrete breakout strength. The ACI bond model with Limited experimental data has led to the erroneous assump-
the correction factor appropriately estimates the failure mode and tion that if the reinforcing bars are fully developed as per
strength of such connections. ACI 349-131 and ACI 318-19,2 then no further design checks
are needed. However, regulators and code committees have
Keywords: concrete breakout; deformed reinforcing bars; deformed wire raised concerns regarding concrete breakout failure modes
anchors; embedded plates; pullout strength. in the design of such connections. The recent experimental
testing conducted by Chicchi et al.3 confirms that the axial
INTRODUCTION tensile strength of embed plates equipped with welded rein-
Embedments are often used in safety-related nuclear forcing bars can be limited by concrete breakout strength (as
facilities to provide equipment attachments or to anchor opposed to bar yield or bar rupture). The current provisions
components and piping. These facilities are constructed for anchorage to concrete in ACI 349-131 and ACI 318-192
using massive concrete members, including thick rein- were developed for headed studs, headed bolts, and adhe-
forced concrete (RC) walls and steel-plate composite (SC) sive (bonded) anchors with relatively shallow embedment.
walls. According to ACI 349-13,1 the term “embedment” Results of this study demonstrate that the concrete breakout
is used for a fabricated steel plate equipped with anchors
or reinforcing bars embedded in the concrete surface. Such ACI Structural Journal, V. 119, No. 6, November 2022.
MS No. S-2022-112.R2, doi: 10.14359/51737147, received April 13, 2022, and
steel embed plates may employ deformed reinforcing bar reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2022, American Concrete
anchors (DRAs conforming to ASTM A706) or deformed Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
wire anchors (DWAs conforming to ASTM A1064), either closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 313

Fig. 1—Anchorage assembly for: (a) reinforced concrete walls; and (b) steel-plate composite walls in safety-related structures.
strength associated with embed plates welded with DRAs Anco, the total projected failure area of a single anchor, is
and DWAs can be estimated using the ACI 349-131 and calculated as
ACI 318-192 breakout and adhesive bond models.
Anco = 9 ∙ hef2 (3)
CODE PROVISIONS
ACI 349-131 provides basic models for the design of where the basic concrete breakout strength, Nb, of a single
anchors in nuclear safety-related structures. ACI 318-192 anchor is
also provides the same design model with different nomen-
clature to determine the strength of anchors under tension Nb = kc ∙ λ ∙ √fc′ ∙ hef1.5 (4)
with relevant failure modes: yield/ultimate tensile strength
of steel, concrete breakout strength, bond/pullout strength, The factor kc is an empirical constant derived from a large
and concrete side-face blowout strengths. Anchors loaded database of tests performed by Fuchs et al.4 in uncracked
in tension in concrete often fail by pulling a breakout cone concrete. The influence of the so-called size effect is inte-
from the concrete base or by pullout, provided the steel grated into the kc factor. In ACI 318-19,2 the default value
strength of the anchors is not reached, and anchors are far of kc is 24 for cast-in anchors and 17 for post-installed
away from the edge. anchors for cracked concrete. The conversion factors from
cracked to uncracked concrete conditions for cast-in and
Concrete breakout strengths post-installed anchors are 1.25 and 1.4, respectively. In
ACI 349-131 (Appendix D) and ACI 318-192 (Chapter 17) the Code, the design equations are typically calibrated with
codes provide design equations to calculate the concrete 90% confidence to stipulate a prediction of the 5% fractile
breakout capacity as per the Concrete Capacity Design strength. Conservatively, the nominal to the mean value ratio
(CCD) model. It assumes a 35-degree breakout cone and is assumed to be 0.75. With a 95% probability, this relates to
incorporates the size and edge effects in determining anchor a ratio of 5% fractile to a mean of 0.75. The reported mean
capacity. The idealized projected failure area is a pyramid values of kc from breakout tests in uncracked concrete are
with a horizontal extent of three times the effective embed- 40 (24 × 4/3 × 1.25 = 40) for cast-in anchors and 35 (17 ×
ment depth (3hef). The nominal concrete breakout strength 4/3 × 1.4 = 31.7) for post-installed anchors. The value of
of a single and a group of anchors in tension in cracked kc for adhesive bonded anchors is approximately equal to
concrete is calculated by Eq. (1) and (2) the kc value of post-installed expansion anchors (that is,
kc = 35). However, kc for post-installed anchors is adjusted
Anc as per product-specific tests based on ACI 355.2-195 and
N cb = ∙ ψed,N ∙ ψc,N ∙ ψcp,N ∙ Nb (1)
Anco ACI 355.4-19.6

SINGLE-ANCHOR PULLOUT TESTS

Anc Test matrix and specimen details
N cbg = ∙ ψec,N ∙ ψed,N ∙ ψc,N ∙ ψcp,N ∙ Nb (2)
Anco Single-anchor pullout tests were conducted to evaluate the
where ψec,N, ψed,N, ψc,N, and ψcp,N are the eccentricity, edge bond behavior of DRAs and DWAs. Seven single-anchor
effect, cracking, and splitting factors, respectively. The specimens were designed to test DRAs (No. 5) and DWAs
factor Anc/Anco is the modification factor that considers the (D-1/2 and D-5/8) of varying embedment lengths. The spec-
effect of multiple (group) anchors and the spacing of anchors imens consisted of anchors (DRAs and DWAs) welded to an
on concrete breakout capacity under tension load. Anc is the ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel embed plate embedded in the
total projected failure area of a single or a group of anchors, RC block. For each bar type, one specimen was designed
calculated from the base of the exterior anchor projecting with an embedment length (lemb) approximately equal to or
the failure surface 1.5 times hef (effective embedment depth). less than the required development length (ld) calculated per

314 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022

Table 1—Test matrix of single-anchor tests
Block Block Block
Ab, fy, fu, fc′, tp, Expected width, length, depth,
Specimen Type db, in. in.2 Bar type lemb, in. ksi ksi Py, kip Pu, kip psi in. failure mode in. in. in.
SA-1 DRA No. 5 0.625 0.31 Straight 7.000 69.4 95.7 21.5 29.7 5540 1.0 Pullout 96 96 24
SA-2 DRA No. 5 0.625 0.31 Straight 9.000 69.4 95.7 21.5 29.7 5604 1.0 Pullout 96 96 24
SA-3 DWA D-4/8 0.500 0.20 Straight 9.000 84.2 90.0 16.8 18.0 4451 1.0 Pullout 96 96 24
SA-4 DWA D-4/8 0.500 0.20 Straight 11.750 84.2 90.0 16.8 18.0 5654 1.0 Pullout 96 96 24
SA-5 DWA D-5/8 0.625 0.31 Straight 10.875 85.6 90.7 26.3 28.1 4595 1.0 Pullout 96 96 24
SA-6 DWA D-5/8 0.625 0.31 Straight 13.000 85.6 90.7 26.3 28.1 5424 1.0 Pullout 96 96 24
Reinforcing
SA-7 DWA D-5/8 0.625 0.31 Straight 18.000 85.6 90.7 26.3 28.1 5411 1.0 96 96 24
bar rupture

Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 in.2 = 6.45 cm2; 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

Fig. 2—Sensor layout for single-anchor specimens: (a) linear variable displacement transducers (DT); and (b) strain gauges
(SG).
ACI 318-192 using nominal steel and concrete properties. in terms of loss of load-carrying capacity due to concrete
The development length (ld) for DWAs was increased by breakout failure or rupturing of the steel bars. Addition-
30% based on the previously conducted single-anchor tests ally, small loading-unloading cycles with load levels up to
by Chicchi et al.3 The remaining specimens from each bar 20 kip (89 kN) or 10% of the expected failure strength were
type were designed with lemb less than ld. A summary of the performed at the beginning of the test to check the loading
specimen details is presented in Table 1. The table includes system, sensor behavior, or elastic behavior of the specimen.
the anchor type, size and diameter (db), cross-sectional area The behavior of the test specimens was measured using
of the bar (Ab), measured yield and tensile stress of the bar displacement transducers (DTs) and strain gauges (SGs).
(fy and fu), measured compressive strength of the concrete The vertical displacement of the single-anchor specimens
(fc′), and embedment length of the bar (lemb). The table also within the concrete cone was measured using linear vari-
presents the expected failure mode of each test specimen. able displacement transducers (LVDTs) located in a circular
Finally, the concrete block dimensions of all the test speci- layout around the specimens, as shown in Fig. 2 and 3. The
mens are included in the table. As presented, all single-anchor vertical displacement of the single-anchor specimens was
specimens are 90 in. (228.6 cm) wide, 90 in. (228.6 cm) measured using two LVDTs (DT 1 and DT 2), as illustrated
long, and 24 in. (61 cm) deep. in Fig. 2(a). Two additional LVDTs (DT 3 and DT 4) were
placed on either side of the concrete block at the strong floor
Test setup and sensor layout to measure the potential uplift of the block. Two SGs were
The tension loading was applied to the steel plates at the used to measure the axial strain along the longitudinal axis
top of the specimen using a 660 kip (2935.8 kN) actuator, of the anchor, as illustrated in Fig. 2(b).
while the specimen was post-tensioned to the floor. The actu-
ator is connected to the cross beam of the loading frame. The SINGLE-ANCHOR PULLOUT TEST RESULTS
loading frame was built and has been used at Bowen Labora- DRA No. 5 specimens
tory in the past. This loading frame has been designed (and Specimens SA-1 and SA-2 had No. 5 DRAs with embed-
used in the past) to conduct tests with a maximum applied ment lengths (lemb) of 7.0 in. (17.8 cm) for Specimen SA-1
load of 660 kip (2935.8 kN), limiting the actuator capacity and 9.0 in. (22.9 cm) for Specimen SA-2. The lemb of the
used to conduct the tests. The applied loading was increased specimens was less than the development length (ld) of
monotonically until the failure of the specimen occurred the No. 5 DRAs (11.6 in. [29.5 cm]) calculated using the

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 315

Fig. 3—Layout of linear variable displacement transducers (DT 1 to DT 4) for single-anchor specimen.
ACI 318-192 equation with the nominal material proper-
ties. Figure 4 shows the applied force-displacement (P-Δ)
response of the two specimens. In the figure, the dashed
red line represents the yield strength of the anchor bar (Py =
21.5 kip [95.6 kN]), and the solid red line represents the
tensile strength of the anchor bar (Pu = 29.7 kip [132.1 kN]).
These steel bar strengths (Py and Pu) were calculated
using the measured steel properties and the nominal cross-
sectional area of the bar. As shown in the figure, Specimen
SA-1 developed its yield strength reaching Py of 21.5 kip
(95.6 kN). The anchor then debonded from the RC block
after applying an additional axial tension force of 1.4 kip
(6.2 kN), reaching the maximum load (Pmax) of 22.9 kip
(101.9 kN). The average bond stress value for Specimen
SA-1 was 1667 psi (11.5 MPa). Specimen SA-2 also devel-
Fig. 4—Applied force-displacement (P-Δ) responses of Spec-
oped its yield strength. However, the specimen failed in the
imens SA-1 and SA-2.
bar rupture at 30.6 kip (136.1 kN), which was close to the
tensile strength of the anchor bar (Pu = 29.7 kip [132.1 kN]). As shown, Specimen SA-3 failed at a maximum load (Pmax)
Figure 5 shows the two specimens after the tests. of 12.5 kip (55.6 kN) with the bar pullout, whereas Specimen
SA-4 failed in the bar rupture at Pmax 17.8 kip (79.2 kN) after
DWA specimens developing its yield strength (Py). The average bond stress
The two DWA specimens with a 1/2 in. (1.27 cm) anchor value estimated for Specimen SA-3 was 883.5 psi (6.1 MPa).
diameter had embedment lengths (lemb) of 9.0 in. (22.9 cm) Three additional specimens (Specimens SA-5, SA-6, and
for Specimen SA-3 and 11.75 in. (29.8 cm) for Specimen SA-7) with 5/8 in. (1.59 cm) diameter DWAs were tested.
SA-4. The lemb of the specimens was less than the develop- The respective lemb was 10.75 in. (27.3 cm) for Specimen
ment length (ld) of the bar (14.1 in. [35.8 cm]), so the spec- SA-5, 13.0 in. (33.0 cm) for Specimen SA-6, and 18.0 in.
imens were expected to fail in the bar pullout. Figure 6(a) (45.7 cm) for Specimen SA-7. Figure 6(b) shows the
shows the applied force-displacement (P-Δ) response of applied force-displacement (P-Δ) responses of the three
the two specimens. The dashed red line represents the bar’s specimens. As shown, Specimen SA-5 failed in the bar
yield strength (Py = 16.8 kip [74.7 kN]), with a yield stress pullout at a maximum load (Pmax) of 16.5 kip (73.4 kN).
of 84.2 ksi (580.5 MPa) measured from the material testing. Specimen SA-6 developed the bar’s yield strength, followed
The solid red line represents the bar’s tensile strength (Pu = by debonding of the anchor bar from the RC block at
18 kip [80.1 kN]), with a tensile stress of 90.0 ksi (620.5 kN). 27.5 kip (122.3 kN). Specimen SA-7 failed in the bar rupture

316 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022

Fig. 5—DRA No. 5 specimens after tests: (a) pullout failure for Specimen SA-1; and (b) bar rupture for Specimen SA-2.

Fig. 6—Applied force-displacement (P-Δ) responses: (a) Specimens SA-3 and SA-4; and (b) Specimens SA-5, SA-6, and SA-7.
at 27.7 kip (123.2 kN) after developing its yield strength. GROUP-ANCHOR PULLOUT TESTS
The average bond stress values for Specimens SA-5 and Test matrix and specimen details
SA-6 are 774.6 psi (5.3 MPa) and 1078.2 psi (7.4 MPa), The group-anchor test specimen details were selected
respectively. while considering the typical embedment plate design used
in safety-related nuclear structures. The thickness of RC
Summary of single-anchor test results walls of nuclear-related structures typically ranges from
A summary of the single-anchor test results is provided 2 to 5 ft (61 to 152.4 cm). Hence, bars (anchors) smaller
in Table 2. It includes the calculated bar yield and tensile than No. 11 are typically used in such structures to allow
strengths (Py and Pu), predicted and observed failure modes, for sufficient embedment length of the anchors. In addition,
maximum loads, and average bond stresses. The bond stress multiple anchor bars (for example, 2 x 2, 3 x 3, 4 x 4, 5 x
was calculated by dividing the maximum load by the surface 5, and so on) are needed in general to provide appropriate
area of the bar, assuming the uniform bond stress distribu- tension capacity to embedment plates exceeding the design
tion along the length of the bar. As presented in the table, demand. Even with multiple anchor bars, the reinforcing bar
Specimens SA-2 and SA-4 underwent bar rupture even with spacing can influence the tension capacity of embedment
the embedment lengths (lemb) less than the Code-prescribed plates. That is, the tension capacity can be controlled by the
development lengths (ld). Specimens SA-1 and SA-6 failed concrete breakout capacity if the anchors are closely spaced,
in pullout after developing their yield strengths. The bond resulting in the reduction of the concrete breakout surface.
stress of the DRAs appears to be higher than that of the The typical reinforcing bar anchor spacing ranges from 3 to
DWAs. The average bond stress was 1667 psi (11.5 MPa) 9 in. (7.62 to 22.9 cm) in the application to safety-related
for the DRA No. 5 specimen (Specimen SA-1), 883.5 psi nuclear facilities.
(6.1 MPa) for the DWA 1/2 specimen (Specimen SA-3), and Eight group-anchor test specimens were fabricated and
926.4 psi (6.4 MPa) for the DWA 5/8 specimens (Specimens tested in this study. Table 3 presents details of the eight
SA-5 and SA-6). This difference in bond strength of DRAs group-anchor test specimens. As presented in the table, four
and DWAs plays a vital role in determining the appropriate test parameters were considered, including: 1) the bar layout
failure mode and capacities of group anchors. (3 x 3 or 5 x 5); 2) bar type (DRA or DWA); 3) bar size
(db = 0.5 and 0.625 in. [1.3 and 1.6 cm] diameter); and 4)

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 317

Table 2—Summary of test results
Specimen Type lemb, in. ld,ACI318, in. Py, kip Pu, kip fc′, psi Pmax, kip Expected failure Observed failure Bond stress, psi
Bar yielding and
SA-1 DRA No. 5 7.00 11.6 21.5 29.7 5540 22.92 Pullout 1667.0
pullout
SA-2 DRA No. 5 9.00 11.6 21.5 29.7 5604 30.16 Pullout Steel rupture —
SA-3 DWA D-4/8 9.00 14.1 16.8 18.0 4451 12.49 Pullout Pullout 883.5
SA-4 DWA D-4/8 11.75 14.1 16.8 18.0 5654 17.80 Pullout Steel rupture —
SA-5 DWA D-5/8 10.75 17.6 26.5 28.1 4595 16.54 Pullout Pullout 774.6
Bar yielding and
SA-6 DWA D-5/8 13.00 17.6 26.5 28.1 5424 27.52 Pullout 1078.2
pullout
SA-7 DWA D-5/8 18.00 17.6 26.5 28.1 5411 27.67 Steel rupture Steel rupture —

Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.

Table 3—Test matrix of group-anchor tests

Specimen Type Size db, in. Ab, in.2 n s, in. Bar type ld,ACI318, in. lemb, in. fy, ksi fu, ksi tp, in. fc′, psi
GA-1 DRA 5 x 5 No. 5 0.625 0.31 25 3 Straight 11.6 11.75 69.3 95.7 1.5 7711
GA-2 DRA 5 x 5 No. 5 0.625 0.31 25 3 Straight 11.6 11.75 69.3 95.7 1.5 7753
GA-3 DWA 5 x 5 D-4/8 0.500 0.20 25 3 Straight 10.8 11.00 80.1 89.6 1.5 6521
GA-4 DWA 5 x 5 D-4/8 0.500 0.20 25 3 Straight 10.8 11.00 80.1 89.6 1.5 5599
GA-5 DWA 5 x 5 D-5/8 0.625 0.31 25 3 Straight 13.6 14.00 82.1 88.7 1.5 7294
GA-6 DWA 5 x 5 D-5/8 0.625 0.31 25 3 Straight 13.6 14.00 82.1 88.7 1.5 6300
GA-7 DWA 3 x 3 D-5/8 0.625 0.31 9 4.5 Straight 13.6 14.00 82.1 88.7 1.5 6200
GA-8 DWA 3 x 3 D-5/8 0.625 0.31 9 6 Straight 13.6 14.00 82.1 88.7 1.5 6361

Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 in. = 6.45 cm ; 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa.
2 2

bar spacing (s = 3, 4.5, and 6 in. [7.6, 11.4, and 15.2 cm]). and GA-8. Figure 7(b) shows the cross section view of the
All the test specimens had straight bars with an embedment group-anchor test specimens.
length (lemb) close to their development length (ld) calculated The pullout capacity of each specimen was expected to
per ACI 318-192 using nominal material properties. The be limited by the concrete breakout strength by comparing
table also presents the material properties of concrete and the bar strengths (Py and Pu) with the concrete breakout
steel measured by performing material testing. For concrete, strength Ncbg_keff of each specimen. The yield strength (Py)
normalweight concrete with a nominal compressive strength and tensile strength (Pu) of each specimen were calculated
(fc′) of 6000 psi (41.4 MPa) with 1/2 in. (1.3 cm) aggregate by multiplying the measured yield stress (fy) and ultimate
was used. The concrete compressive strength was measured tensile stress (fu) with the nominal cross-sectional area of the
per ASTM C39/C39M-147 for each specimen on the day anchor bar (Ab) and the number of anchors (n). The Ncbg_keff
of the test. For steel, the material tests were conducted per of each specimen was calculated using the design equa-
ASTM E8/E8M-138 to measure the yield and ultimate tensile tions in ACI 318-19,2 as presented in Eq. (2). However, kc
strengths of the bars. was replaced with keff values experimentally measured and
The thickness of the embed plates is 1.5 in. for all the back-calculated from previously conducted tests by Chicchi
specimens. The eight group-anchor test specimens were et al.3 The value of keff was 35.4 for the DRA specimens
embedded in RC blocks that were post-tensioned to the (Specimens GA-1 and GA-2) and 31.4 for the DWA spec-
laboratory floor to prevent uplift. The blocks were 114  in. imens (Specimens GA-3, GA-4, GA-5, GA-6, GA-7, and
(289.6 cm) wide, 114 in. (289.6 cm) long, and 30 in. GA-8).
(76.2 cm) deep. These dimensions were determined so that
post-tensioning forces (anchoring the RC block to the labo- Test setup and sensor layout
ratory floor acting at 45-degree angles) would not interfere The tension loading setup for the group-anchor tests
with the breakout cone (35 degrees from the exterior anchor) was similar to the single-anchor tests. The behavior of the
of the concrete block specimen, as illustrated in Fig. 7(a). group-anchor specimens was measured using DTs and SGs.
In addition, the reinforcement mat was placed at the top The vertical displacement of the group-anchor specimens
and bottom of the blocks to avoid shear and flexural fail- within the concrete cone was measured using LVDTs (DT
ures due to the large forces applied by the actuator at the 3 to DT 6), as shown in Fig. 8. The LVDTs were placed on
midspan of the block. Grade 60 reinforcing bars (No. 5) the concrete surface in a circular pattern at 1.5 times hef from
were provided at both the top and bottom (in both directions) the embed plate. The vertical displacement of the embed
at 6 in. (15.2 cm) for Specimens GA-1, GA-2, GA-5, GA-6, plate was measured using two DTs (DT 1 and DT 2). Two
and at 8 in. (20.3 cm) for Specimens GA-3, GA-4, GA-7, additional LVDTs were placed on the laboratory floor along

318 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022

Fig. 7—Specimen design: (a) concrete breakout cone with effect of post-tensioning (PT) forces; and (b) typical cross section
view of group-anchor test specimens (Specimen GA-7 shown).

Fig. 9—Applied force-displacement (P-Δ) response of Spec-

imens GA-1 and GA-2.
load (Pmax) corresponds to a back-calculated effective k (keff)
Fig. 8—Linear variable displacement transducers (DT 1 to value of 33.9. Specimen GA-2 also underwent concrete
DT 6) installed on concrete surface of specimen. breakout failure at 234.9 kip (1084.9 cm) (Pmax), less than
adjacent sides of the RC block to determine the potential the predicted breakout strength (Ncbg) by 7.8% (19.9 kip
uplift of the specimen. The axial strains of the anchors were [88.5 kN]). The average vertical displacement measured by
measured by installing SGs along the longitudinal axis of the LVDTs is 0.028 in. (0.071 cm) at Pmax. The back-calculated
bar. The SGs on the anchors were installed at a distance of effective k value of 33.8 was less than the predicted keff of
1 in. (2.5 cm) below the embed plate. 35.4.
Figure 10 shows photographs of Specimens GA-1 and
GROUP-ANCHOR PULLOUT TEST RESULTS GA-2 after the tests. Concrete cracks resulting from the
5 x 5 DRA No. 5 specimens breakout failure are visible in the figure. The cracks were
Specimens GA-1 and GA-2 consisted of 5 x 5 DRA No. 5 formed in a circular ring pattern around the embed plate on
bars with an effective embedment length (hef) of 13.25 in. the top surface of the specimens. The crack distances were
(33.65 cm). Figure 9 shows the applied force-displacement measured from the exterior anchor to the crack, depicting
(P-Δ) response of Specimens GA-1 and GA-2. Specimen the boundaries of the breakout cone on the surface. For
GA-1 underwent a breakout failure at 243.2 kip (1081.8 kN) Specimen GA-1, the measured crack distance to the exterior
(Pmax), which was less than the predicted breakout strength anchors varied from 12 to 23 in. (30.5 to 58.4 cm) with an
(Ncbg) of 254.1 kip (1130.3 kN) by 4.3% (11.6 kip [51.6 kN]). average distance of 1.1hef. For Specimen GA-2, the average
The breakout failure load (Pmax) is significantly less than the distance to the exterior anchors was 19.95 in. (50.7 cm)
measured yield strength (537.6 kip [2391.4 kN]) of the 5 x (1.06hef), which is less than the Code-specified value of
5 DRA No. 5 bars. The average vertical displacement of the 1.5hef.
embed plate measured using LVDTs (DT 1 and DT 2) at Pmax Figure 11 shows the breakout cones of Specimens GA-1
was approximately 0.0325 in. (0.0825 cm). The maximum and GA-2. The breakout cones were removed from the spec-
imens to observe the failure plane. The measured breakout

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 319

Fig. 10—Failed 5 x 5 DRA specimens: (a) Specimen GA-1; and (b) Specimen GA-2.

Fig. 11—Breakout cones: (a) Specimen GA-1; and (b) Specimen GA-2.
cone angle varied from 31.2 to 38.9 degrees, with an average greater than the expected breakout strength. The vertical
breakout cone angle of 34.2 degrees for Specimen GA-1 and displacement measured at Pmax was approximately 0.047 in.
36.8 degrees for Specimen GA-2, which are comparable (0.120 cm) and 0.048 in. (0.122 cm) for Specimen GA-3 and
with the ACI-prescribed angle of 35 degrees (CCD method). Specimen GA-4, respectively. The back-calculated effective
k value was 36.2 for Specimen GA-3 and 36.01 for Spec-
5 x 5 DWA D-1/2 specimens imen GA-4, which was higher than the keff of 31.4 reported
Specimens GA-3 and GA-4 had 5 x 5 DWA D-1/2 bars with by Chicchi et al.3 by up to 4.8.
an effective embedment length (hef) of 12.5 in. (31.75 cm). Figure 13 shows photographs of Specimens GA-3 and
Figure 12 shows the applied force-displacement (P-Δ) GA-4 after the tests. As shown, the concrete cracks encircled
response of Specimens GA-3 and GA-4. Specimen GA-3 the embed plate in a circular ring pattern. The edge distances
experienced no concrete cracking until it failed in concrete were measured from the exterior anchor to the crack. The
breakout at 225.1 kip (1001.3 kN) (Pmax). The initial stiffness distance varied from 12.5 to 29 in. (31.75 to 73.7 cm) (1hef
of the specimen decreased significantly after reaching the to 1.50hef) with an average distance of 1.21hef for Spec-
expected breakout strength (Ncbg). Pmax for Specimen GA-3 imen GA-3 and 1.5hef for Specimen GA-4. The breakout
was greater than the predicted (Ncbg) of 195.3 kip (868.7 kN) cones were removed from the specimens and are shown
by 15.2% (29.2 kip [129.9 kN]). Specimen GA-4 also in Fig. 14. As shown, the breakout cone angle varied from
exhibited similar behavior and failed in concrete breakout 33 to 41.05 degrees, with an average breakout cone angle
at 207.5 kip (923.0 kN) (Pmax), 14.7% (26.6 kip [73.8 kN])

320 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022

of 36.23 degrees for Specimen GA-3 and an average cone GA-6. The breakout cone angle was also measured and
angle of 30.15 degrees for Specimen GA-4. is shown in Fig. 17. The breakout cone angle varied from
30.3 to 20.5 degrees, with an average breakout cone angle
5 x 5 DWA D-5/8 specimens of 26.25 degrees for Specimen GA-5 and 26.56 degrees for
Specimens GA-5 and GA-6 consisted of DWA D-5/8 Specimen GA-6.
anchors in a 5 x 5 configuration with an effective embed-
ment length (hef) of 15.5 in. (39.4 cm). The specimens 3 x 3 DWA D-5/8 specimens
were predicted to fail in concrete breakout. The applied Specimens GA-7 and GA-8 were designed and tested to
force-displacement (P-Δ) responses of the specimens are evaluate the effect of bar spacing on the anchorage capacity.
shown in Fig. 15. It depicts a similar behavior and governing The specimens were configured to have 3 x 3 DWA D-5/8
failure mode for both Specimens GA-3 and GA-4. Both with 4.5 in. (11.4 cm) (Specimen GA-7) and 9 in. (22.8 cm)
Specimens GA-5 and GA-6 failed in the concrete breakout (Specimen GA-8) anchor spacing (s) with an effective
at 283.2 and 295.2 kip (1259.7 and 1313.1 kN), which were embedment length (hef) of 15.5 in. (39.37 cm). The spec-
greater than the expected concrete breakout strength (Ncbg) imens were expected to fail in concrete breakout as the
by up to 22.6%. The average vertical displacement at Pmax estimated breakout strengths were 215.8 kip (959.9 kN)
was approximately 0.066 in. (0.167 cm) for Specimen GA-5 for Specimen GA-7 and 241.9 kip (1076.0 kN) for Spec-
and 0.076 in. (0.193 cm) for Specimen GA-6. The measured imen GA-8, which were less than the tensile strength (Pu =
Pmax corresponds to back-calculated keff values of 34.3 244.8 kip [1088.9 kN]) of the bars.
(Specimen GA-5) and 38.5 (Specimen GA-6). The average Specimen GA-7 exhibited almost a linear response up to
edge distance measured from the crack to the exterior anchor the applied force of 200 kip (889.6 kN), followed by the
is shown in Fig. 16. As shown, the average distance was bar pullout failure before reaching the expected concrete
31.8 in. (80.7 cm) (equivalent to 2hef) for Specimen GA-5 breakout strength (215.8 kip [959.9 kN]), as shown in
and 30.2 in. (76.7 cm) (equivalent to 1.9hef) for Specimen Fig. 18. Specimen GA-7 failed at a maximum load (Pmax)
of 210.4 kip (935.9 kN). Figure 18 also shows the same
displacement response of Specimen GA-8. As shown, the
specimen exhibited a somewhat similar response to Spec-
imen GA-7. The specimen underwent pullout failure at
approximately 225 kip (1000.8 kN). It was followed by
rupturing four out of nine bars at the maximum load (Pmax)
of 235 kip (1045.3 kN). Pmax was still less than the estimated
breakout strength (Ncbg = 241.9 kip [1076.0 kN]) by 6.9 kip
(30.7 kN) and less than the tensile strength (Pu = 244.8 kip
[1088.9 kN]) of the bars by 9.8 kip (43.6 kN). Three more
bars ruptured with additional loading, and the two remaining
bars were pulled out from the concrete block, as shown in
Fig. 19.

Summary of group-anchor test results

The results of the group-anchor tests are summarized in
Fig. 12—Applied force-displacement (P-Δ) response of Table 4. It includes the specimen number, bar type, bar size,
Specimens GA-3 and GA-4.

Fig. 13—Failed 5 x 5 DWA 4/8 specimens: (a) Specimen GA-3; and (b) Specimen GA-4.

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 321

Fig. 14—Breakout cones: (a) Specimen GA-3; and (b) Specimen GA-4.
the Code equations and the effective k (keff) reported by
Chicchi et al.3 The average effective k (keff) calculated based
on the test results was 36.5 for the DWAs, which is approxi-
mately 16% greater than the keff of 31.4 reported by Chicchi
et al.3 In contrast, the average effective k (keff) back-calculated
for the DRAs was 33.3, approximately 6% less than the
keff of 35.4 reported by Chicchi et al.3 The back-calculated
effective k (keff) values are close to the kc value of 35.0 for
post-installed anchors.
Specimen GA-7 (3 x 3 DWA 5/8, 4.5 in. [11.4 cm] spacing)
failed in bar pullout, while Specimen GA-8 (3 x 3 DWA 5/8,
6 in. [15.2 cm] spacing) failed in pullout and eventually the
bar rupture. The maximum applied force for these speci-
mens was lower than their expected breakout strengths. This
experimental observation gave rise to the question of how to
Fig. 15—Applied force-displacement (P-Δ) response of predict the failure mode for DRAs and DWAs with increased
Specimens GA-5 and GA-6. spacing and low bond strengths. To consider this concern,
number of anchor bars (n), measured concrete strengths (fc′), the applicability of the adhesive bond model to DRAs and
measured yield strength (Py), measured tensile strength (Pu), DWAs is evaluated in the subsequent section.
estimated concrete breakout strength (Ncbg using previously
reported keff of 35.4 for DRAs and 31.4 for DWAs), and COMPILATION OF GROUP-ANCHOR TESTS
maximum applied load (Pmax). As presented, the maximum The database of group-anchor experiments comprising
load (Pmax) of the test specimens that failed in concrete DRAs and DWAs welded to a base plate conducted in the
breakout was less than the yield strengths (Py) and tensile recent past was compiled and compared in this section. The
strength (Pu) of the anchors by up to 50 to 60%. As a result, database includes previously conducted group-anchor tests
the axial strength calculation for embed plates based on the by Chicchi et al.3 and group-anchor tests by the authors and
bar yield strength with sufficient embedment length greater research collaborators from Tongji University in China.
than the development length can be unconservative as it can Table 5 presents a summary of the group-anchor tests in the
overestimate the capacity. Therefore, breakout checks are database. It includes the bar layout and spacing of anchors
recommended for embed plates designed in this manner. (s), steel rupture strengths of anchors (Pu), maximum load
The observed breakout strengths were close to the esti- (Pmax), observed failure mode, and back-calculated effective
mated breakout strengths of the specimens calculated using k (keff) values. As presented, the bar layout varied from 3 x 3

322 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022

Fig. 16—Failed specimens: (a) Specimen GA-5; and (b) Specimen GA-6.

Fig. 17—Breakout cones: (a) Specimen GA-5; and (b) Specimen GA-6.
to 5 x 5, and Pmax was less than Pu (except Specimen GA-8), Comparison with ACI adhesive bonded
resulting in the governing failure mode of concrete breakout. anchor model
The average back-calculated effective k (keff) value was 39.6 The application of the adhesive (bonded) anchor model
for the DRAs and 34.3 for the DWAs, which is comparable of Eligehausen et al.9 to the DRA and DWA group anchors
to the mean k value of 35 for post-installed anchors. was evaluated by Chicchi et al.3 and Eligehausen et al.10 The
application was further evaluated in this study by comparing
the test results from the database and corresponding ACI
design equations. The design equations are based on the

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 323

uniform bond model theory. The strength of adhesive ACI 318-192 provides the equation for calculating the basic
anchors is limited by the concrete breakout failure load of bond strength (Nba) of adhesive anchors, shown in Eq. (5)
post-installed mechanical anchors (Eligehausen et al.10). The
basic bond strength of a single anchor in tension depends Nba = λa ∙ τ ∙ π ∙ da ∙ hef (5)
on the embedment length, the diameter of the bar, anchor
spacing, and the characteristic bond stress of the anchors. where da is the anchor diameter; τ is the characteristic bond
stress; hef is the effective embedment depth of the anchors;
and λa is the adjustment factor used for lightweight concrete.
The bond strength of a group of adhesive anchors is calcu-
lated as

ANa
N ag = ∙ ψec,Na ∙ ψed,Na ∙ ψcp,Na ∙ Nba (6)
ANao
where ANa is the projected influence area of a group of adhe-
sive anchors and is determined as a rectangle with a side
length of 2cNa + Σsi–1, where s is the row spacing and i is the
number of rows of anchors. ANao is the projected influence
area of a single bonded anchor, taken as (2cNa)2. cNa is a func-
tion of the bond stress, and the 5% fractile calculation for cNa
is given in ACI 318-192 as follows

τuncr
Fig. 18—Applied force-displacement (P-Δ) response of cNa = 10 ∙ da ∙ (in.-lb) (7)
Specimens GA-7 and GA-8. 1100

Fig. 19—Mixed failure mode observed for Specimen 8: (a) reinforcing bar rupture; and (b) pullout.

Table 4—Summary of test results

Specimen Type Size n s, in. hef, in. fc′, psi Py, kip Pu, kip Ncbg_keff, kip Pmax, kip Failure mode Back-calculated keff
GA-1 DRA 5 x 5 No. 5 25 3 13.25 7771 537.6 741.8 254.1 243.2 Breakout 33.9
GA-2 DRA 5 x 5 No. 5 25 3 13.25 7753 537.6 741.8 254.8 234.9 Breakout 32.6
GA-3 DWA 5 x 5 D-4/8 25 3 12.50 6251 400.5 448.0 195.3 225.1 Breakout 36.2
GA-4 DWA 5 x 5 D-4/8 25 3 12.50 5599 400.5 448.0 180.9 207.5 Breakout 36.0
GA-5 DWA 5 x 5 D-5/8 25 3 15.50 7294 629.5 680.1 259.0 283.1 Breakout 34.3
GA-6 DWA 5 x 5 D-5/8 25 3 15.50 6300 629.5 680.1 240.7 295.2 Breakout 38.5
GA-7 DWA 3 x 3 D-5/8 9 4.5 15.50 6200 226.6 244.8 215.8 210.4 Pullout —
GA-8 DWA 3 x 3 D-5/8 9 6 15.50 6361 226.6 244.8 241.9 235.0 Rupture/pullout —

Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 in.2 = 6.45 cm2; 1 psi = 6.895 kPa; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

324 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022

Table 5—Database of group-anchor tests
Testing program Specimen Layout s, in. lemb, in. Pu, kip Pmax, kip Observed failure mode Back-calculated keff
1 5 x 5 No. 6 DRA 4.0 24.00 1119.8 454.0 Breakout 35.0
2 5 x 5 No. 6 DRA 4.0 24.00 1119.8 482.0 Breakout 35.9
Chicchi et al.
3
3 5 x 5 No. 3 DWA 3.0 13.63 269.9 206.7 Breakout 31.6
4 5 x 5 No. 6 DWA 4.0 27.00 870.4 495.0 Breakout 29.9
5 5 x 5 No. 6 DWA 4.0 27.00 870.4 487.0 Breakout 32.9
GA-1 5 x 5 No. 5 DRA 3.0 11.75 741.8 243.2 Breakout 33.9
GA-2 5 x 5 No. 5 DRA 3.0 11.75 741.8 234.9 Breakout 32.6
GA-3 5 x 5 No. 4 DWA 3.0 11.00 448.0 225.1 Breakout 37.0
GA-4 5 x 5 No. 4 DWA 3.0 11.00 448.0 207.5 Breakout 36.0
Authors
GA-5 5 x 5 No. 5 DWA 3.0 14.00 680.1 283.2 Breakout 34.3
GA-6 5 x 5 No. 5 DWA 3.0 14.00 680.1 295.2 Breakout 38.5
GA-7 3 x 3 No. 5 DWA 4.5 14.00 244.8 210.4 Pullout —
GA-8 3 x 3 No. 5 DWA 6.0 14.00 244.8 235.0 Rupture/pullout —
1 3 x 3 No. 4 DRA 3.0 11.40 162.0 150.8 Breakout 40.8
2 5 x 5 No. 4 DRA 3.0 11.40 450.0 221.2 Breakout 42.8
3 3 x 3 No. 5 DRA 3.0 11.60 243.0 185.9 Breakout 41.4
Tongji University
4 3 x 3 No. 5 DRA 3.0 11.60 243.0 193.4 Breakout 43.1
5 5 x 5 No. 5 DRA 3.0 11.60 675.0 259.7 Breakout 44.6
6 5 x 5 No. 5 DRA 3.0 11.60 675.0 267.1 Breakout 45.8

Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

However, cNa was calculated in this section using Eq. (8), Pu to determine the governing failure mode. The predicted
which is the function of critical spacing scr. The equation is governing failure mode for all the test specimens was bar
based on the mean predictor recommended by Eligehausen pullout, which is significantly different from the experi-
et al.,10 further modified (addition of square root) by the mental results. In addition, the average ratio of the minimum
authors to achieve a better fit with the existing test data. of Ncbg and Nag to PmaxTest was 1.82 with a standard deviation
of 0.35, suggesting that the current ACI equations for Ncbg
τuncr together with Nag underestimate the axial tension capacity of
scr = 2cNa = 14.7 ∙ da ∙ (in.-lb) (8) group anchors significantly.
1450
In Eq. (6), the ψec,Na, ψed,Na, and ψcp,Na values are 1 for Comparison with correction factor (ψg,N)
simplicity. Table 6 summarizes the comparison of the test It was observed that the ACI 318-192 bond model underpre-
results in the database with the ACI 318-192 bond model of dicts the axial tension capacity of group anchors because the
adhesive anchors. In the table, PmaxTest is the experimentally equation does not address the influence of bond area on the
measured maximum load, and Ncbg is the concrete breakout strength of adhesive anchors. The ACI Code only suggests
strength calculated using the current ACI equations given in using a correction factor for closely spaced anchors given in
Eq. (2) with an effective k value of 35.0 (for post-installed Eligehausen et al.9 For a group of adhesive bonded anchors,
anchors). The calculated value of Ncbg was compared with Eligehausen et al.10 recommends including the influence of
PmaxTest and the tensile strength of the bars (Pu) of each test bond area on the strength of adhesive anchors by adding the
specimen to determine the predicted governing failure. The ψg,N factor for calculating bond strength (Nag). The ψg,N factor
predicted failure mode of all the test specimens was concrete depends on the number and spacing of anchors in the group
breakout. The current ACI equations for Ncbg predict the and the mean bond strength of the anchors. For the same
concrete breakout strength reasonably well with an average number of anchors, group anchors with low bond strength
PmaxTest/Ncbg ratio of 1.05 and a standard deviation of 0.14. fail in bar pullout, whereas group anchors with high bond
The concrete breakout calculation was followed by the strength fail in concrete breakout. The ψg,N factor is calcu-
bond strength calculation, as the axial tension capacity of lated as
group anchors can be limited by the bond strength (Nag) of
the bars. Nag was calculated using the current ACI equa- s
tions given in Eq. (5) and (6). In Eq. (5), the bond stress  g , N   0g , N 
scr
1   0g , N   1 (9)
(τ) was assumed to be 1450 psi (10 MPa) for DRAs and
870 psi (6 MPa) for DWAs. The PmaxTest of each test spec-
imen was compared with the minimum of Ncbg with Nag and  0g , N  n  (10)

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 325

Table 6—Comparison of test results with adhesive bonded anchor model
PmaxTest/
Testing Test s, lemb, PmaxTest, Observed Ncbg, Nag, Minimum Predicted PmaxTest/ Minimum
program No. Layout in. in. kip failure mode kip kip (Ncbg, Nag) failure mode Ncbg (Ncbg, Nag)
5 x 5 No. 6
1 4.0 24.00 454.0 Breakout 454.4 533.7 454.4 Breakout 1.00 1.00
DRA
5 x 5 No. 6
2 4.0 24.00 482.0 Breakout 470.1 533.7 470.1 Breakout 1.03 1.03
DRA
Chicchi 5 x 5 No. 3
3 3.0 13.63 206.7 Breakout 229.2 217.6 217.6 Pullout 0.90 0.95
et al.3 DWA
5 x 5 No. 6
4 4.0 27.00 495.0 Breakout 578.7 490.9 490.9 Pullout 0.86 1.01
DWA
5 x 5 No. 6
5 4.0 27.00 487.0 Breakout 517.3 490.9 490.9 Pullout 0.94 0.99
DWA
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-1 3.0 11.75 243.2 Breakout 251.2 200.6 200.6 Pullout 0.97 1.21
DRA
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-2 3.0 11.75 234.9 Breakout 251.9 200.6 200.6 Pullout 0.93 1.17
DRA
5 x 5 No. 4
GA-3 3.0 11.00 225.1 Breakout 217.6 165.0 165.0 Pullout 1.03 1.36
DWA
5 x 5 No. 4
GA-4 3.0 11.00 207.5 Breakout 201.7 165.0 165.0 Pullout 1.03 1.26
DWA
Authors
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-5 3.0 14.00 283.2 Breakout 288.7 191.1 191.1 Pullout 0.98 1.48
DWA
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-6 3.0 14.00 295.2 Breakout 268.3 191.1 191.1 Pullout 1.10 1.55
DWA
3 x 3 No. 5
GA-7 4.5 14.00 210.4 Pullout 239.6 135.8 135.8 Pullout 0.88 1.55
DWA
3 x 3 No. 5
GA-8 6.0 14.00 235.0 Pullout/rupture 269.6 191.1 191.1 Pullout 0.87 1.23
DWA
3 x 3 No. 4
1 3.0 11.40 150.8 Breakout 129.4 93.2 93.2 Pullout 1.17 1.62
DRA
5 x 5 No. 4
2 3.0 11.40 221.2 Breakout 180.8 195.7 180.8 Breakout 1.22 1.22
DRA
3 x 3 No. 5
3 3.0 11.60 185.9 Breakout 157.2 98.0 98.0 Pullout 1.18 1.90
Tongji DRA
University 3 x 3 No. 5
4 3.0 11.60 193.4 Breakout 157.2 98.0 98.0 Pullout 1.23 1.97
DRA
5 x 5 No. 5
5 3.0 11.60 259.7 Breakout 204.0 190.8 190.8 Pullout 1.27 1.36
DRA
5 x 5 No. 5
6 3.0 11.60 267.1 Breakout 204.0 190.8 190.8 Pullout 1.31 1.40
DRA
Avg 1.05 1.33
SD 0.14 0.29

Note: Avg is average; SD is standard deviation; 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

For ψg,N, α in Eq. (10) was taken as 0.5 for simplicity, and ratio of the minimum of Ncbg and Nag to PmaxTest is 1.33 with
n was taken as the total number of anchor bars. The critical a standard deviation of 0.29. The inclusion of ψg,N resulted in
spacing, scr, was calculated using Eq. (8). Table 7 presents higher Nag, which accurately predicted the governing failure
a summary of the comparison of the test results in the data- modes. In addition, the ratio of the minimum of Ncbg and Nag
base with the ACI 318-192 bond model of adhesive anchors to PmaxTest was improved with the inclusion of the ψg,N factor.
with the ψg,N correction factor. Figures 20 and 21 show This ratio varies from 0.86 to 1.31, resulting in an average
the governing anchor capacities—that is, the minimum of ratio of 1.05 and a standard deviation of 0.14.
ACI 318-192 breakout and pullout capacity, with and without
the correction factor. The model without the correction CONCLUSIONS
factor could not predict the pullout/reinforcing bar rupture The test results described in this paper suggest that the kc
failure modes with a high standard deviation. The average (35) value for post-installed anchors is close to the average

326 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022

Table 7—Comparison of test results with correction factor
PmaxTest/
Testing Test Observed Minimum Predicted Minimum
program No. Layout s, in. lemb, in. PmaxTest, kip failure mode Ncbg, kip Nag, kip (Ncbg, Nag) failure mode PmaxTest/Ncbg (Ncbg, Nag)
5 x 5 No. 6
1 4.0 24.00 454.0 Breakout 454.4 1894.1 454.4 Breakout 1.00 1.00
DRA
5 x 5 No. 6
2 4.0 24.00 482.0 Breakout 470.1 1894.1 470.1 Breakout 1.03 1.03
DRA
Chicchi 5 x 5 No. 3
3 3.0 13.63 206.7 Breakout 229.2 476.5 229.2 Breakout 0.90 0.90
et al.3 DWA
5 x 5 No. 6
4 4.0 27.00 495.0 Breakout 578.7 1534.7 578.7 Breakout 0.86 0.86
DWA
5 x 5 No. 6
5 4.0 27.00 487.0 Breakout 517.3 1534.7 517.3 Breakout 0.94 0.94
DWA
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-1 3.0 11.75 243.2 Breakout 251.2 741.1 251.2 Breakout 0.97 0.97
DRA
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-2 3.0 11.75 234.9 Breakout 251.9 741.1 251.9 Breakout 0.93 0.93
DRA
5 x 5 No. 4
GA-3 3.0 11.00 225.1 Breakout 217.6 477.2 217.6 Breakout 1.03 1.03
DWA
5 x 5 No. 4
GA-4 3.0 11.00 207.5 Breakout 201.7 477.2 201.7 Breakout 1.03 1.03
DWA
Authors
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-5 3.0 14.00 283.2 Breakout 288.7 633.1 288.7 Breakout 0.98 0.98
DWA
5 x 5 No. 5
GA-6 3.0 14.00 295.2 Breakout 268.3 633.1 268.3 Breakout 1.10 1.10
DWA
3 x 3 No. 5
GA-7 4.5 14.00 210.4 Pullout 239.6 235.7 235.7 Pullout 0.88 0.89
DWA
3 x 3 No. 5 Pullout/
GA-8 6.0 14.00 235.0 269.6 251.0 251.0 Pullout 0.87 0.94
DWA rupture
3 x 3 No. 4
1 3.0 11.40 150.8 Breakout 129.4 203.5 129.4 Breakout 1.17 1.17
DRA
5 x 5 No. 4
2 3.0 11.40 221.2 Breakout 180.8 659.2 180.8 Breakout 1.22 1.22
DRA
3 x 3 No. 5
3 3.0 11.60 185.9 Breakout 157.2 230.1 157.2 Breakout 1.18 1.18
Tongji DRA
University 3 x 3 No. 5
4 3.0 11.60 193.4 Breakout 157.2 230.1 157.2 Breakout 1.23 1.23
DRA
5 x 5 No. 5
5 3.0 11.60 259.7 Breakout 204.0 704.7 204.0 Breakout 1.27 1.27
DRA
5 x 5 No. 5
6 3.0 11.60 267.1 Breakout 204.0 704.7 204.0 Breakout 1.31 1.31
DRA
Avg 1.05 1.05
SD 0.14 0.14

Note: Avg is average; SD is standard deviation; 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

back-calculated effective k (keff) value of 33.3 for deformed As shown in Table 6, the ACI Code equations for concrete
reinforcing bar anchors (DRAs) and 36.5 for deformed wire breakout mode predict the tensile capacity reasonably well
anchors (DWAs); therefore, it can be used for estimating the but fail to predict the pullout (bond) failure mode for speci-
concrete breakout strength of embed plates with anchor bars. mens (GA-7 and GA-8) having a lesser number of bars with
In addition, the experimentally measured average bond stress greater anchor spacing. Additionally, the current ACI Code
of a single-anchor bar is comparable to the bond stress given equation for estimating the bond strength of anchor bars
in ACI 318-19.2 The test results also support the fact that the underestimates this bond strength, and thus predicts incor-
tensile capacity of embed plates with welded anchor bars can rect (pullout) failure modes for all the specimens.
be limited by the concrete breakout strength rather than the Modifying the ACI 318-192 bond strength model with a
yield or rupture strengths of bars with embedment lengths correction factor (ψg,N ) provides a better (more accurate)
based on the development length provisions of the Code. estimate of the tensile strength and governing failure mode

ACI Structural Journal/November 2022 327

Fig. 20—Basic breakout and pullout strength without Fig. 21—Basic breakout and pullout strength with correc-
0 0
correction factor, ψ g,N . tion factor, ψ g,N .
of embed plates with welded anchor bars. However, the anchorage to concrete, steel-concrete composite structures, steel structures,
and modular construction.
scope of the testing program was limited to specific bar sizes
(5/8 and 1/2 in. [1.6 and 1.3 cm] diameter), spacing (6 in. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
[15.2 cm]), and the design concrete compressive strength The authors wish to express their gratitude and sincere appreciation
of 6000 psi (41.4 MPa). Additional testing is required with to KEPCO and Hilti for funding this research project. The experimental
work presented in this paper was performed at the Robert L. and Terry L.
different bar sizes, anchor spacing, and concrete strengths Bowen Laboratory for Large-Scale Civil Engineering Research at Purdue
with various configurations (for example, 2 x 2, 3 x 3, 4 x 4, University.
and so on) to verify the applicability of the bond model with
a correction factor. REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 349, “Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related
Concrete Structures (ACI 349-13) and Commentary,” American Concrete
AUTHOR BIOS Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 196 pp.
Jungil Seo is a Research Assistant Professor at Purdue University, West
2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Lafayette, IN. He received his BS from Illinois Institute of Technology,
Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19),” American
Chicago, IL, in 2006, and his MS and PhD from Purdue University in 2010
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 624 pp.
and 2014, respectively. His research interests include concrete breakout,
3. Chicchi, R.; Varma, A. H.; Seo, J.; Bradt, T.; and McCarty, E., “Exper-
reinforcing bar anchorage, steel-concrete (SC) composite structures, steel
imental Testing of Tension-Loaded Deformed Anchors in Concrete,” ACI
structures, composite structures, soil-structure interaction, impact/blast
Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 5, Sept. 2020, pp. 133-146.
resistance, and modular construction.
4. Fuchs, W.; Eligehausen, R.; and Breen, J. E., “Concrete Capacity
Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete,” ACI Structural
ACI member Ata Ur Rehman is a PhD Student at Purdue University, where
Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 73-94.
he received his master’s degree in civil engineering in 2020. His research
5. ACI Committee 355, “Qualification of Post-Installed Mechan-
interests include the analysis and design of concrete anchorages.
ical Anchors in Concrete (ACI 355.2-19) and Commentary,” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 92 pp.
Amit H. Varma is the Karl H. Kettelhut Professor of Civil Engineering at
6. ACI Committee 355, “Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive
Purdue University, and the Director of the Robert L. and Terry L. Bowen
Anchors in Concrete (ACI 355.4-19) and Commentary (Reapproved
Laboratory for Large-Scale Civil Engineering Research. He received his
2021),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 51 pp.
PhD from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. He is a Vice Chair of ACI
7. ASTM C39/C39M-14, “Standard Test Method for Compressive
Committee 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures, and a member of Joint
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West
ACI-TMS Committee 216, Fire Resistance and Fire Protection of Struc-
Conshohocken, PA, 2014, 7 pp.
tures. His research interests include experimental and numerical evalua-
8. ASTM E8/E8M-13, “Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of
tions of the fundamental behavior of steel, concrete, and composite struc-
Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013,
tures for extreme loading conditions and combinations including seismic,
28 pp.
fire, missile impact, and blast.
9. Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.; and Silva, J. F., Anchorage in Concrete
Construction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2006, 391 pp.
Sungmin Kim is a Principal Engineer at Korea Electric Power Corpo-
10. Eligehausen, R.; Cook, R. A.; and Appl, J., “Behavior and Design
ration Engineering and Construction. His research interests include
of Adhesive Bonded Anchors,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. 822-831.

328 ACI Structural Journal/November 2022