Title:
Influence of Tension Loading Protocol on Crack Cycling Tests on Undercut Anchors
Author(s):
Akanshu Sharma, Vinay Mahadik, and Jan Hofmann
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
113
Issue:
4
Appears on pages(s):
779-790
Keywords:
crack-cycling tests; seismic qualification; tension load cycling; undercut anchors
DOI:
10.14359/51688622
Date:
7/1/2016
Abstract:
Crack cycling tests govern the seismic approvals of most of the mechanical anchors. Currently, the guidelines recommend performing crack cycling tests with constant tension load for simplification of test setup. This assumption is deemed conservative. In this work, crack cycling tests on undercut anchors are performed with three different extremities of tension loading protocols—namely, 1) constant load during crack cycling; 2) load cycling in-phase with crack cycling; and 3) load cycling out-of-phase with crack cycling. The tests are performed on two different types of undercut anchors and are principally compared with the tests on headed studs available in literature. The results indicate that depending on the anchor type, the assumption of constant load during crack cycling may not always be conservative considering the displacement demands on the anchor. The in-phase crack and load cycling test is more realistic while being conservative from induced displacements viewpoint.
Related References:
1. Eligehausen, R.; Mallée, R.; and Silva, J., Anchorage in Concrete Construction, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 2006, 391 pp.
2. Deutches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), “Guideline for Fastenings in Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Technical Facilities,” Berlin, Germany, 2010, 23 pp.
3. European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), “ETAG 001 – Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete – Annex E: Assessment of Metal Anchors under Seismic Action,” Brussels, Belgium, 2013, 42 pp.
4. ACI Committee 355, “Qualification of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete (ACI 355.2-07) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2007, 39 pp.
5. Hoehler, M. S., “Behavior and Testing of Fastenings to Concrete for Use in Seismic Applications,” PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2006, 207 pp.
6. Mahrenholtz, P., “Experimental Performance and Recommendations for Qualification of Post-Installed Anchors for Seismic Applications,” PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2013, 319 pp.
7. Hoehler, M. S., and Eligehausen, R., “Behavior and Testing of Anchors in Simulated Seismic Cracks,” ACI Structrual Journal, V. 105, No. 3, May-June 2008, pp. 348-357.
8. Mahrenholtz, C.; Eligehausen, R.; and Sharma, A., “Behavior of Post-Installed Concrete Undercut Anchors Subjected to High Loading Rate and Crack Cycling Frequency,” 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Reaching beyond Borders, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 25-29, 2010.
9. Eligehausen, R.; Sharma, A.; and Hofmann, J., “On Seismic Safety Issues of Post-Installed Anchors in Nuclear Power Plants,” 1st International Conference on Technological Innovation in Nuclear Civil Engineering: Construction and Strengthening of Nuclear Buildings (TINCE), Paris, France, Oct. 28-31, 2013.
10. European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), “European Technical Approval ETA-99/0009 for Hilti HAD,” CSTB, Paris, France, 2013, 26 pp.
11. European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), “European Technical Approval ETA-98/0004 for Fischer-Zykon-Anchor FZA,” DIBt, Berlin, Germany, 2009, 22 pp.
12. Mahrenholtz, C., and Eligehausen, R., “Dynamic Performance of Concrete Undercut Anchors for Nuclear Power Plants,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, V. 265, 2013, pp. 1091-1100. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.09.038
13. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 514 pp.
14. EN 1992-4:2013, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 4: Design of Fastenings for Use in Concrete,” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2013, 170 pp.