HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019

Jakarta, Indonesia

The Behaviour, Assessment, and Design of Post-

Installed Concrete Anchors in Seismic Conditions
Amol Singh (MSc – Structural)

Abstract

Becoming an ubiquitous part of the construction industry, post-installed anchors have offered designers and
engineers great flexibility with connections that aid in extending the lifespan of existing buildings or making
additions and alterations within. But while there exist detailed design guidelines for steel-to-steel or concrete-
to-concrete connections, there is little guidance available to connect steel members onto hardened concrete
surfaces, which can have fatal consequences if improperly selected or designed. In a country prone to seismic
conditions, this becomes even more important to address as failure of these connections, particularly non-
structural, can impact lives, assets, and impair building performance.

This paper addresses the behaviour of post-installed anchors in seismic conditions, ways in which this
behaviour is captured in global assessment and evaluation criteria, and finally discusses the design parameters
affecting the resistance of anchor systems, which designers and engineers can use in their evaluation of the
load-carrying capacity of their connections.

Introduction

As seismic design standards around the world shift from collapse prevention towards performance-based design
in the form of continuous or immediate building occupancy and operation after an earthquake, it implies that
both structural and non-structural systems must achieve harmony between their levels of performance as both
are subject to the same ground acceleration. Currently, however, the collapse of non-structural – termed as
architectural, mechanical, and electrical – components often lowers this performance as they are more
susceptible to seismic-induced damage and in many earthquakes over the past century, damage to and failure of
these components had limited the functioning of vital buildings such as hospitals, power plants, emergency
response centres, amongst others.

In the modern construction industry, connection of non-structural systems with their structural counterparts is
achieved through the widespread use of post-installed anchors subject to various loading conditions such as
static, fatigue, seismic, and shock, which have given designers, engineers, and contractors great flexibility in the
construction sequence. Whether fixing a structural steel member, a hand rail, or building services support,
designing these anchors pose little challenge once their behaviour is well-understood and prequalified through
approvals in accordance with standardised regulatory frameworks.

However, a lack of adequate standardised assessment criteria, approvals, and design guidelines often leads to
misconceptions that arise due to an incomplete knowledge of their behaviour. Moreover, misconceptions, or
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

worse, negligence can be disastrous to inhabitants of a building, assets contained within, and – in extreme cases
– the building itself, particularly in seismic conditions. Failures of structural and non-structural components
have resulted in extensive research being conducted, which in turn has led to the development of various global
guidelines that facilitate the design under different loading conditions (Filiatrault & Sullivan, 2014).

Albeit slowly, global research efforts of the past twenty years are finally filtering into national building codes
around the world, as evidenced by latest iteration of NBC that includes the common factors affecting the
behaviour of post-installed anchors in Section 8 of Part 6 and the key considerations for their installation. While
a commendable effort, there is still a dire need of local standards pertaining to the assessment and design of
post-installed anchors that will create harmony with the aforementioned IS design standards and perform
suitably in unfavourable loading conditions. Comment [AS1]: Confirm with Theo
/ Dominicus on the ACI referencing
system in the Indonesian codes
Behaviour of Post-Installed Anchors in Seismic Conditions

Before understanding the performance of these anchors in seismic conditions, their behaviour under static
conditions must first be known. Broadly split into two types – adhesive and mechanical – post-installed anchors
react differently to different loading conditions and are affected by three functioning mechanisms or a
combination of all – friction, keying, or bonding: some may only use friction, while others may use keying and
bonding. When an anchor system is installed in reinforced concrete, it introduces stress in concrete that must be
evenly distributed to carry any imposed load and any discontinuity – such as cracks – within the concrete,
reduces the loading capacity of the anchor system. Most reinforced concrete in use today is designed to codes
that are founded on limit state principles to withstand a maximum crack width of 0.05-0.2mm for liquid-
retaining structures and 0.3mm for normal ones under serviceability conditions.

The origin of these cracks – whether non-structural, structural, or thermal in nature – are well-documented and
understood by designers and engineers (The Concrete Society, 2008). However, it is difficult to predict where
they may form as a structure ages due to creep, shrinkage, thermal movement, and other effects (The Concrete
Society, 2010). In fact, it is desirable for cracks to arise due to two reasons: to dissipate the internal stress and
design the reinforcement efficiently and economically. Additionally, while these stipulated crack widths only
concern those visible on the concrete surface, it is impractical to determine the nature of cracks underneath this
surface without performing invasive and often destructive investigations.

Therefore, assuming the concrete substrate as “cracked” for assessment and design purposes will accurately
represent both the behaviour and performance of any post-installed connection anchored to concrete. However,
in a seismic event, these cracks often contract and expand even further than the previously mentioned limits and
this further reduces the performance of a post-installed anchor by as much as 50%. Higher crack widths, often
between but not limited to 0.5-0.8mm, can arise due to seismic conditions and these can further increase in
plastic hinge zones up to a few millimetres. Consequently, most standards currently exclude both the design of
anchors and do not recommend their installation in these zones.

The Effect of Crack Cycling on the Anchor

Typically, the performance of a post-installed anchor is determined by its load-displacement behaviour.

Coupled with the constant cycling of cracks under static conditions and exacerbated by seismic actions, the
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

anchor’s behaviour is evaluated best when subjected to tests in different crack widths – 0.0mm, 0.1mm, and
0.3mm – that remain constant to mimic static loading conditions. This is incorporated in most international
testing standards such as ACI 355.2 and ETAG 001, which recommend installing the anchor in existing cracks,
then subjecting them to a sustained load, and followed by 1,000 crack cycles.

Just as these procedures provide a reference point for the anchor’s performance under static loading conditions
when placed in a crack, a reference point also is needed to establish baseline performance in seismic conditions,
where the load pulsates and the crack width does not stay constant. In effect, both the loading – in shear and
tension – and the repetitive closing and opening of cracks from 0.0-0.8mm in the concrete mimic the conditions
of an actual earthquake, which is the worst possible scenario for an anchor. Note that this does not assume
anchors installation in zones where plastic hinges may form in the concrete. Factors such as the annular gap
between the baseplate and the anchor, eccentricity in tension and shear loads, gaps between the baseplate and
the substrate, combine to greatly influence the resistance of an anchor.

Fastening Safety in Construction

Prior to the introduction of regulations and standardised assessment procedures for evaluating the performance
of post-installed anchors under various parameters, designers and engineers had relied heavily on anchor
manufacturers’ load tables and catalogues. Although this is still case in certain countries, huge investment into
researching the anchors’ behaviour has borne fruit and led to the development of many national standards, with
the European (ETAG) and American (ACI) frameworks being the two oldest and most commonly referenced
internationally.

However, while designers and engineers understand the importance of structural safety, the designing and fixing
of non-structural components is left to those at site such as contractors, their subsidiaries, and others who fail to
appreciate that, just like normal connection design, this too is ‘real’ structural engineering and that most
fastenings simply cannot be designed out of a catalogue. As mentioned earlier, these non-structural components
are more vulnerable to failure and progressive collapse during a seismic event due to their inability to withstand
the same forces and displacement as structural members; these components often lack the stiffness
characteristics and usually require bracing in both directions. Another problem that arises is that clients and
their advisors typically delegate these fixings in the scope of the subsidiary contractor’s work, who not only fail
to appreciate the engineering challenge but also do not engage a qualified structural engineer to either design or
verify the design of these connections.

While some common misconceptions that arise with post-installed anchors are indeed related to the incorrect
delegation of work, others include not bothering at all with design – since no construction code in Southeast
Asia currently provides a direct reference or guidance on this – and applying additional, often unnecessary,
safety factors on the design load or the anchor’s loading capacity. Thus, an anchor unapproved for seismic
conditions will not exhibit the desired load-displacement behaviour and cause an unexpected loss in
performance of the fastening that leads to premature failure. No amount of over-strength design through
additional load or safety factors will compensate for this. Even when using an anchor approved for seismic
conditions, a proper design of the anchor still needs to be carried out to ensure safety of the connection. The
design will typically include certain reduction factors on the reduced baseline performance values for failure
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

modes related to steel, concrete cone, pryout, edge breakout, and pullout. Again, simply applying additional
factors is no guarantee of adequate performance or acceptable behaviour.

European Assessment & Design Criteria

The European Technical Approval Guidelines (ETAG) 001, developed by European Organisation for Technical
Approvals (EOTA) provides guidance on assessing and designing post-installed anchors for structural and non-
structural connections. Parts 1 through 6 of ETAG 001 define the assessment criteria requirements for anchors
under static conditions and include identification tests, reference tests, reliability tests, and service condition
tests. The assessment produces an ETA document, containing the resistances of the anchor under various
conditions. Annexure C of ETAG 001 & EOTA TR 029 allows designers to evaluate the design resistance in
static conditions for mechanical and adhesive anchors, respectively, using limit state method. The imposed
design loads on the connection can be calculated from standard structural analysis using this method.

Under seismic conditions, methods described in Eurocode 8 allow evaluation of seismic actions and the
structural response to these actions, while Eurocode 2 defines the design methods and resistance of the concrete
members to seismic actions. Similarly, for post-installed anchors, EOTA TR045 enables engineers to design
their connections using the resistance of a selected anchor in its respective ETA. This ETA is obtained only
after the anchor performs suitably in tests conforming to ETAG 001: Annex E. This is summarised by the
following diagram in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Comparison of the European Regulatory Framework for structural post-installed anchor design
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

Assessment & Design Criteria under the ACI framework

Similarly, for the US and other countries following the ACI framework, post-installed mechanical and adhesive
anchors must be qualified for use according to ACI 355.2 (2007) and ACI 355.4 (2011), respectively. Based on
the assessment according these guidelines, an approval document “ESR” is issued by the technical assessment
bodies such as the ICC. Chapter 17 of ACI 318-14 provides guidance on the design of post-installed anchors
and the scope covers the design requirements for cast-in-place anchors as well as post-installed adhesive and
mechanical anchors in concrete for structural and non-structural, safety-related connections like heavy
suspended pipes, barrier rails, amongst others.

Section 17.2.3 of ACI 318-14 mentions that if installed in structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories C
through F, post-installed anchors must qualify in accordance with ACI 355.2 or 355.4. If the structure is
designed to withstand seismic actions, then post-installed anchors must be at least qualified to do so as well,
regardless of whether or not the seismic load combination governs the anchor’s design.

Figure 2: Comparison of the ACI Regulations for structural & post-installed anchor design

Comparison of Seismic Performance Categories & Testing Processes

Before proceeding to the design parameters in detail, a brief explanation is warranted on how the testing process
splits the anchor performance under seismic conditions into two sub-categories – C1 & C2. According to ETAG
001: Annex E, anchors tested to the first category, C1, must successfully sustain pulsating tension and
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

alternating shear loads that are 50% of the total design load when set in 0.5mm wide cracks. The evaluation
parameter is the residual load capacity of the anchor. As illustrated by Table 2 below, this category is best
suited to non-structural, non-critical applications in seismic zones where the peak ground acceleration is less
than 0.1g and where occupant safety is not jeopardised or operational downtime is not compromised.

Category C2 is more stringent; in this, an anchor must sustain reference tension and shear tests in low and high
strength concrete on top of sustaining the tests required by Category C1. Moreover, the anchor must withstand
intense cyclical opening and closing of crack widths up to 0.8mm wide with the applied loading at 85% of the
total design loads. Three evaluation parameters for this test are: (1) the anchor’s displacement must be less than
7mm, (2) the anchor’s residual load-carrying capacity must exceed 90% of its static load-carrying capacity, and
(3) the scatter plot of the seismic resistance also must be similar to that of the static resistance. Note that there is
currently no equivalent testing in ACI 355.2 or 355.4.

However, the pre-requisite to conducting the tests is that the anchor must first be approved for cracked concrete
(with 0.3mm crack width). If an anchor is not tested and approved for cracked concrete, it stands no chance of
safely functioning under the cyclic opening and closing of cracks under Category C2. Thus, an anchor that
qualifies for seismic conditions should be able to withstand cyclic loading in large crack widths that open and
close with great intensity thereby completely changing the design performance of the anchor and, subsequently,
the anchor group.

The combination of qualification parameters, testing procedures, and design ensures a properly-engineered post-
installed anchor connection in concrete. Table 1 provides a brief comparison between the two ACI & ETAG
assessment criteria regulations based on the conducted tests and crack widths. The tests recommended in
category C1 can be compared to those recommended by both ACI 355.2 and ACI 355.4. Since ETAG splits the
evaluation criteria in two, Table 2 categorises the C1 & C2 anchors according to the seismicity level (peak
ground acceleration), the type of application (connection), and the importance class of the building; Class IV
structures are the most important and Class I the least according to Eurocode 8.

ACI 355.2 / 355.4 ETAG 001: Category C1 ETAG 001: Category C2

Static Cracked Concrete
Static Crack Tests Most tests performed in 0.3mm crack widths and some performed in larger ones
according to the testing regime
Crack Cycle Tests 0.1 – 0.3mm 0.1 – 0.3mm 0 – 0.8mm
Seismic
Tension 0.5mm 0.5mm 0.5mm and 0.8mm
Shear 0.5mm 0.5mm 0.8mm
Table 1: Comparison of ACI & ETAG regulations for testing in static and seismic conditions
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

Table 2: European Seismic Category for Post-Installed Anchors (EOTA, 2013)

Limit State Design and Baseplate Modelling Approaches

Qualifying under in the appropriate seismic category is one part to guarantee connection safety under seismic
conditions and designing these anchors using the limit state design concept, as illustrated in Figure 2, is the
other part. The aforementioned common misconception of merely increasing the design loads by additional
partial safety factors and not accounting for the reduction in the resistance under seismic conditions can lead to
unsafe connections.

Figure 3: The Ultimate Limit State Design Concept

Before covering the factors that reduce the design resistance of the anchor subjected to seismic loads, there are
three conceptual approaches for baseplate design available for engineers – (i) Capacity design; (ii) Elastic
design, and (iii) Ductile anchor. These conceptual approaches dictate the forces required to be resisted onto the
anchors and, subsequently, the behaviour of the connection. Using the first and third options results in a ductile
failure (but high plastic moments) and the second option results in brittle failure (high elastic moments). Higher
ductility is preferred in the seismic design of structural elements, and this is also similar for post-installed
anchors, although brittle failure is still allowed.
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

The Capacity Design approach requires that the anchor must be designed to resist the load-carrying capacity of
the attached elements or fixture. For example, multiplying the section modulus of a steel section with its
material grade provides the moment of resistance; it is this resistance that must be resisted by the anchor.
Pinpointing where the plastic hinge will form, either in the baseplate or near the member support is extremely
difficult to obtain unless a weak point such as a hinge or rubber bearing already exists. Figure 3 illustrates this.

Figure 4: Capacity Design mechanisms for ductile failure per TR 45 (EOTA, 2013)

Approach (ii) assumes that the attachment will remain rigid and not yield, thus transmitting all forces to the
anchor and permitting the evaluation of concrete failure modes in seismic conditions. This design option
assumes no energy dissipation for the whole structural system and requires each component – the attached steel
member, the baseplate, the anchors, and the concrete base – to maintain elasticity under seismic conditions. It is
a more conservative approach that considers the brittle nature of concrete, which has a lower resistance than
either the anchor (Ductile Anchor) or the member attached to the baseplate (Capacity Design). This is illustrated
in Figure 4.

Figure 5: Elastic Design mechanism for brittle failure per TR 45 (EOTA, 2013)

Design approach (iii) states that steel (ductility) requirements like material elongation, cross-sectional area
reduction, and adequate stretch length must govern the baseplate failure, illustrated in Figure 5. Achieving such
high loads before failure of the (typically brittle) base material is extremely difficult and unlikely unless the
anchor’s material strength is lower than that of concrete. This, coupled with the complexity of defining the
plastic hinge on the baseplate or attached member for the capacity design, means that the elastic design
approach for the baseplate is best suited for seismic design of post-installed anchors and correctly reflects the
seismic loads acting upon the structure.
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

Figure 6: Ductile Anchor mechanism for ductile failure per TR 45 (EOTA, 2013)

Failure Modes & Resistance Reduction

Just as the design loads are amplified, anchor resistance must be reduced from its basic characteristic resistance
to the design resistance using the steps mentioned in Figure 2. Failure modes in tension – steel failure, concrete
cone failure, bond failure, and splitting failure – and in shear – steel failure, concrete edge failure, and pry-out
failure – are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 7: Failure Mechanisms of Post-Installed Anchors (EOTA, 2002)

αgap is the reduction factor that accounts for the annular gap between anchor and the baseplate: this gap will
increase the shear load due to a pulsating punching effect of the baseplate against the anchor and likely cause
steel failure. Should the the shear force exceed the friction between the baseplate and concrete surface, then the
fixture will move by same amount as the annular gap, as illustrated in Figure 7. Note that this factor currently
does not exist in ACI 318-14 but must be referred to from the anchor’s ESR.
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

Figure 8: Shearing of the anchor rod because of the annular gap

This reduction factor is 0.5 unless this gap is filled with an adhesive mortar (suited to adhesive anchors) or
using a “Filling Set” (suited to mechanical anchors), with the latter preventing loosening of the nut by adding an
additional lock nut, as seen in Figure 8.

Figure 9: A typical seismic "filling set" to prevent loosening of the nut and filling the annular gap between the
anchor rod and baseplate

αseis accounts for the reduction under seismic loads and comes on top of all safety and influencing factors
considered in static conditions. The values in the table below are taken directly from Table 5.4 of TR045.

Loading Failure Mechanism Single Anchor Anchor Group

Steel Failure 1.0 1.0
Pull-out Failure 1.0 0.85
Tension
Concrete Cone Failure 0.85 0.75
Splitting Failure 1.0 0.85
Steel Failure 1.0 0.85
Shear Concrete Edge Failure 1.0 0.85
Concrete Pry-out Failure 0.85 0.75

Achieving the design resistance now requires partial material safety factors for both steel and concrete to be
applied on the characteristic resistance and these are illustrated in Table 3.

Tension Shear
2
𝜸𝑴𝒔 1.2/(𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝑓𝑢𝑘 ) ≥ 1.4 For 𝑓𝑢𝑘 ≤ 800 𝑁/𝑚𝑚 and 𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝑓𝑢𝑘 ≤ 0.8, 𝛾𝑀𝑠 = 1.2/(𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝑓𝑢𝑘 ) ≥ 1.4
⁄
For 𝑓𝑢𝑘 > 800 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 or 𝑓𝑦𝑘 ⁄𝑓𝑢𝑘 > 0.8, 𝛾𝑀𝑠 =1.5
𝜸𝑴𝒄 1 𝛾𝑐 ∙ 𝛾2 𝛾𝑐 ∙ 𝛾2
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

𝜸𝑴𝒑 𝛾𝑀𝑐 𝛾𝑀𝑐

𝜸𝑴𝒔𝒑 𝛾𝑀𝑐 𝛾𝑀𝑐
1
𝜸𝑴𝒄 = 1.5 for concrete; 𝜸𝒄 is dependent on anchor and is provided in the approval document but is typically 1.0
for shear loading.
Table 3: Partial Safety Factors for Steel and Concrete per ETAG 001 (EOTA, 2002)

Following these steps allows a comparison of the design loads with the design resistance and results in an
engineered approach to designing post-installed anchors in concrete. Note that design according to ACI 318-14
uses a reduction factor, ϕ, that is used instead of the partial safety factors, which are outlined in the ESR. For
best practice, it is recommended that design follows standard similar in philosophy to the design standard of the
building.

Design Restrictions

Stand-off applications and grouts are not considered currently in the seismic design regulation TR045 due to the
complexity of seismic loads. However, this may not be always applicable and under certain conditions, can be
ignored. Both of the following conditions must be fulfilled to ignore stand-off: (1) the strength of the grout
exceeds 30 MPa and (2) the grout thickness is less than or equal to half the anchor rod diameter.

Additionally, certain parts of concrete members can be subjected to extreme inelastic deformation in seismic
conditions and yielding of the reinforcement and very intense crack cycling can result in cracks several
millimetres wide, particularly in areas subject to plastic hinging. The qualification procedures presently do not
anticipate such large crack widths and post-installed anchorages should be avoided in zones that are expected to
form plastic hinges unless specific design measures are implemented to mitigate such cracks. Figure 9 illustrates
the zones suitable for anchor installation.

Figure 10: Concrete Member Cracking, assuming a strong column-weak beam design

Conclusion

Many of the misconceptions and associated with post-installed anchors stem from a lack of appreciation of a
true structural engineering application by those who do not design them. This further makes the work of those
designers and engineers who do rely on proper design very difficult, especially when a lack of assessment and
design criteria do not exist to capture the behaviour of anchors, particularly in regions with high seismicity.
HAKI Seminar 2019 August 27-28, 2019
Jakarta, Indonesia

Engineers may refer to either the ETAG or ACI guidelines and the associated anchor approval documents –
ETA or ICC-ESR – respectively, to design connections post-installed anchors for all sorts of structural and non-
structural connections to withstand seismic events.

References
 ACI Committee 318, 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete & Commentary:
Appendix D, Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.

 ACI Committee 355, 2007. Qualification of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete &
Commentary, Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.

 ACI Committee 355, 2011. Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in Concrete, Farmington
Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.

 EOTA, 2002. ETAG 001: Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for Use in
Concrete, Brussels: European Organisation for Technical Approvals.

 EOTA, 2013. TR 45: Design of Metal Anchors for Use in Concrete Under Seismic Actions, Brussels:
European Organisation for Technical Approvals.

 Filiatrault, A. & Sullivan, T., 2014. Performance-based seismic design of non-structural components:
The next frontier of earthquake engineering. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
August, 13(1), pp. 17-46.

 The Concrete Society, 2008. TR67: Movement, Restraint, and Cracking in Concrete Structures,
Camberley, Surrey: The Concrete Society.

 The Concrete Society, 2010. TR22: Non-Structural Cracks in Concrete, Camberley, Surrey: The
Concrete Society.