See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237152094

A practical method of design of concrete pedestals for columns for anchor rod
tension breakout

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · October 2010

DOI: 10.1139/L10-103

CITATIONS READS
0 2,094

1 author:

Konstantin Ashkinadze
Konstantin The Engineer
11 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Konstantin Ashkinadze on 31 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

A PRACTICAL METHOD OF DESIGN OF CONCRETE PEDESTALS FOR

COLUMNS FOR ANCHOR ROD TENSION BREAKOUT

Konstantin Ashkinadze, P.Eng., D.Sc.(Eng)

Bantrel Co., Suite 401, 4999 - 98 Avenue,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6B 2X3

Please address all correspondence to:

Konstantin Ashkinadze, P.Eng., D.Sc.(Eng)

1228 Wershof Road

Edmonton, AB T6M 2M2, Canada

Phone (780) 945-9746

E-mail konstant@planspls.com

2,499 words

2 figures

2,999 word-equivalents
 2

ABSTRACT: This Technical Note considers concrete pedestals bearing steel and

concrete columns attached to the foundation with cast-in anchor rods. One specific

mechanism of pedestal failure, namely the anchor rod breakout in tension, is considered.

Uplift and shear forces and bending moments in the base contribute to tension in the

anchor rods. Classical methods based on statics and FEA are applicable to establish the

anchor likely to fail first.

For the design of the anchor rod embedment in the concrete, the new “cone balancing”

method is proposed, which considers equilibrium of the pullout cone of concrete,

ascertained by development of vertical reinforcing bars into the pullout cone and below

the failure plane. The method allows determination of tensile force in each individual

rebar and direct verification of its size and development length.

Key words: anchor rod, column base, concrete, embedment, pedestal, reinforcing bars

(rebars), tension.
 3

INTRODUCTION

Bases of columns of rigid frames in commercial and industrial facilities resist tension and

shear forces and bending moments. Design of pedestals bearing these columns must

consider multiple modes of failure: tensile and shear breakout, anchor pullout, pryout,

side-face blowout, etc., listed in CSA 2004 Annex D. The present paper deals specifically

with one mode of failure  the breakout of the embedded anchor rods in tension.

Base uplift forces and bending moments produce reactive tensile forces in the anchor

rods. These forces can be calculated by simple statics in elementary cases, or by FEA in

more complex cases, using programs such as RISABase (RISA Technologies 2009). The

present paper assumes that the most loaded anchor and the force in it is known, and

focuses on the subsequent transfer of the anchor tensile force to the pedestal.

Additional tension in the anchor rods may result from the action of shear forces. Shear in

typical column bases without shear lugs and with oversized bolt holes is predominantly

resisted by shear friction (ASCE 1997). In this approach, the base shear capacity equals

the coefficient of friction multiplied by the clamping force due to the supplementary

tension in the anchor rods.

THE RELATIVE ROLE OF CONCRETE AND REINFORCEMENT

The current Canadian and American codes consider the pullout concrete cone

unreinforced. The breakout resistance of the rod is governed by tensile strength of the
 4

concrete; the pedestal reinforcement is only “supplementary”. The problem with this

approach is low reliability of the resulting embedment and the brittle nature of its failure,

which may lead to catastrophic collapse of the frame.

Heavily loaded concrete pedestals for large-scale frames in industrial and commercial

facilities are designed by a different principle (ASCE 1997, Widianto et al. 2007). The

pullout cone is considered in the post-rupture state when the tensile strength of the

concrete is lost. The anchor rod is retained in place by the rebars penetrating the concrete

cone, while the transverse reinforcement in the pedestal together with the shear-friction

force in the compression zone resists the applied lateral force. Design methodologies are

available elsewhere for the transverse reinforcement design, e.g. the strut-and-tie model

proposed by Widianto et al. (2007).

The pullout cone in this method is considered rigid and its deformations are neglected.

Thus, the entire work produced by the anchor rod force transforms into the energy of

deformation of the reinforcing bars, which is the most critical case for the rebar design.

The anchor rod embedment shall satisfy the following conditions:

 The rebars shall keep the pullout cone in equilibrium;

 The tensile stresses in the rebars shall be within their yield limit;

 The rebar development in the pullout cone and below the failure plane shall sustain the

applied force.
 5

The strength of the concrete pullout block dictates which rebars are effective in resisting

the anchor tensile force. The block must be able to span between the adjacent vertical

rebars, therefore the reinforcement must be positioned close to the anchors. ACI (2008)

Clause D5.2.9 only allows consideration of vertical rebars that are within 0.5hef from the

anchor (hef = the embedment depth of the anchor). Widianto et al. (2007) recommend an

even more stringent limitation (0.33hef) for reinforced pedestals. However, closely spaced

horizontal reinforcement ties at the top of the pedestal may significantly increase the

ability of the concrete to span between the adjacent rebars, which can be confirmed by

direct analysis.

THE “CONE BALANCING” METHOD

The cited sources advocating reliance on the rebar tensile capacity do not provide any

algorithm for calculating the tensile forces in individual rebars. For symmetrical pinned

bases, the rebar forces can be calculated by basic statics. However, in a more general case

of unsymmetrical bases, moment-resisting bases, complex patterns of pedestal

reinforcement etc., assignment of tensile forces in the rebars is not intuitive.

To facilitate this necessary step in the analysis, the following “cone balancing” approach

is proposed. This method considers equilibrium of the pullout cone of concrete under the

action of the anchor force, balanced by the tensile forces in the vertical rebars. It assumes

that the tensile forces in all anchor rods have been determined and the critical anchor(s)

established from the column base analysis.

 6

The “cone balancing” method considers statically admissible systems of forces acting on

the pullout cone, i.e. the systems of forces expressly satisfying the conditions of

equilibrium. This is convenient because static equilibrium equations are easy to formulate.

However, in all but the simplest cases of reinforcement arrangement, static equations

alone are not sufficient to determine all of the rebar forces.

The need to expressly consider deformational compatibility can be avoided by the use of

Castigliano theorem of mechanics. This theorem states that among all statically

admissible systems of forces acting on a body, the actual one brings minimum to the

complementary energy of deformation.

In the case of an anchor rod pulling out of a pedestal, the static equations (taking

moments about the center of the anchor rod in both directions) are:

[1a] T
i
i  Tanc ,

[1b] M
i
xi  Ti xi  0 ,
i

[1c] M
i
yi  Ti y i  0 ,
i

where Ti is the unknown tensile force in the i-th rebar, xi and yi are the distances from the

i-th rebar to the anchor rod, and the summation includes all rebars falling into the

perceived pullout cone. The complementary energy of deformation for a linear elastic

system equals:
 7

Ti 2
[2]   min ,
i 2 E s Asi

where Es is the Young’s modulus of the reinforcing steel and Asi is the sectional area of

the i-th rebar. If all vertical rebars in the pedestal are the same size, which is most

commonly the case, only the sum of squares of the rebar forces needs to be minimized.

Mathematically, Eqs.1 and 2 form a conditional minimization problem. If any of the

rebars exceeds its yield limit (and its section cannot be increased, for example, in analysis

of uploaded existing foundations in expansion projects), the corresponding condition can

be added to the formulation of the same problem. Therefore, the proposed method can

consider plastification of the rebars, which is very difficult to do in conventional

methods. When solving problems with rebars reaching plasticity, the corresponding rebar

should be excluded from the target function Eq.2 for minimization purposes, because this

expression only applies to linearly elastic materials. Also, the rebars allowed to yield

must have sufficient development length both above and below the tearoff crack to attain

their full tension capacity.

The solution of the minimization problem is afforded by add-in routines to conventional

spreadsheet programs, such as Solver in Microsoft Excel. Below, a practical example is

considered and the design procedure explained step by step.

 8

ANALYSIS EXAMPLE

Consider a 750  750 mm symmetrical pedestal made of 30 MPa concrete, bearing a

W25049 column on a 450  450  25 mm base plate. The base plate is attached to the

pedestal with 425 mm diameter anchor rods spaced at 350 mm in both directions. The

base carries factored tensile force T = 30 kN, shear force V = 15 kN, strong axis moment

Mx = 40 kN-m and weak axis moment My = 10 kN-m. The layout and reinforcement of the

pedestal is shown on Fig.1. It is convenient to draw the cross-section in a CAD program,

then the distances can be measured and exported directly into the spreadsheet.

Using the concept of shear friction, transform the shear force into additional tension:

V
[3] Teff  T  .


According to ASCE (1997), the coefficient of friction of steel plates on grout equals 0.55,

15
therefore Teff  30   57 kN.
0.55

The plate was analyzed by RISABase program to determine the forces and capacity of the

anchor rods, bearing stresses in the concrete and bending stresses in the base plate, with

the following results:

 Maximum bearing stress in the concrete 28 MPa, i.e. slightly greater than the concrete

pedestal bearing capacity of 25.5 MPa;

 9

 Maximum bending stress in the plate 240 MPa vs. factored resistance 270 MPa  OK;

 Maximum anchor rod force in the rod labelled I on Fig.1 = 103 kN, which is less than

the tensile capacity of a 25 mm diameter ASTM A307 anchor rod = 111 kN  OK;

 Next largest anchor rod force (in rod III) = 85.5 kN.

Suppose that 1 anchor rod with the largest force is pulling out. From consideration of

geometry of the pullout cone, bars 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 are resisting the pullout and balancing

the cone. The equilibrium equations Eq.1 will take the following form:

[4a] T1  T2  T3  T6  T8  103 (kN),

[4b]  129T1  23T2  175T3  129T6  129T8  0 (kN-mm),

[4c] 129T1  129T2  129T3  23T6  175T8  0 (kN-mm).

The distances are taken from the center of the anchor rod to the center of the

corresponding rebar, with their respective signs. Assuming that all reinforcing bars are

the same diameter, Eq.2 transforms into

[5] T12  T22  T32  T62  T82  min .

The spreadsheet for the solution of this problem is shown on Fig.2. The unknown tensile

forces in the rebars are contained in the shaded cells. The minimization problem is solved

by setting the target cell (proportional to the complementary energy) to minimum under

the condition that the residual terms in the three static equations equal zero. After Excel
 10

Solver run, the resulting force in each rebar appears in the corresponding cell of the

shaded area. As seen, rebars ##3 and 8 have the greatest force (35.2 kN). The sum of all

rebar forces equals 103 kN, i.e. the pullout force in the anchor rod.

It is also necessary to check the case when 2 heaviest loaded anchor rods (Nos. I and III)

pull out simultaneously. The rebars holding and balancing the pullout block are 1, 2, 3, 6,

8, 10, 12, 13, and 14. The moments are now taken about the midpoint between the two

pullout anchors. Eqs.4 and 5 transform into

[6a] T1  T2  T3  T6  T8  T10  T12  T13  T14  103  85.5  188.5 (kN),

[6b] 129T1  23T2  175T3  129T6  129T8  129T10  129T12  23T13  175T14  0 (kN-mm)

[6c]  304T1  304T2  304T3  152T6  0  T8  152T10  304T12  304T13  304T14 

 103   175  85.5  175  3063 (kN-mm).

[7] T12  T22  T32  T62  T82  T102  T122  T132  T142  min .

Solving the minimization problem, find that the largest force, attained in bar #3, equals

30.1 kN, which is smaller than in the case of 1 anchor rod pulling out.

20M straight (unhooked) rebars are used in this pedestal. Made of 400 MPa steel, it can

carry 102 kN and requires 513 mm for its full development in 30 MPa concrete (Table

12-1 in CSA 2004). Therefore, to attain the 35 kN rebar capacity, (35/102)  513 = 176

mm development both above and below the tearoff crack is required.

 11

To assure the development length at the top, need to consider the farthest rebar from the

anchor rod. Bar #3 is 218 mm away from the centre of the rod. Considering the pullout

cone rising at 35° to horizontal from the anchor head (CSA 2004 Annex D, ACI 2008

Appendix D) and 50 mm clear cover from the rebar end to the top of the concrete, the

required anchor rod embedment into the concrete is

[8] hef  176  218  tan 35   50  379 mm.

Another condition to satisfy is the requirement that the rebars considered effective in

resisting the pullout force be located no farther than 0.33hef from the corresponding

anchor. This necessitates the anchor embedment length hef = 218 / 0.33 = 660 mm, which

is very large. The provision of ACI (2008) Clause D5.2.9 that requires hef = 218 / 0.50 =

436 mm seems more realistic. Assume hef = 450 mm.

To assure the development length at the bottom, conversely, need to consider the closest

rebar to the anchor rod. Bar #2 is located 131 mm away from anchor rod I and has the

maximum force of 24.4 kN, which necessitates a 123 mm development length. The

required depth of the pedestal is

[9a] H  123  450  131  tan 35   50  531 mm.

For rebar #3, which is located farther away from the corresponding anchor rod but has a

greater tensile force,

 12

[9b] H  176  450  218  tan 35  50  523 mm.

Note that this depth only satisfies the conditions of anchor rod embedment. Other

conditions may require greater depth of the pedestal. For example, if the column pedestal

also serves as a pile cap, extra depth of the concrete is required to assure proper pile

embedment into the pile cap and pile rebar development.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed “cone balancing” method of design of pedestals for column bases with

tensile forces, shear forces, and moments for anchor tension breakout positively assures

pullout resistance of the anchor rods and load transfer to the reinforcing bars in the

pedestal. Since the tensile strength of the pedestal concrete is not counted on, greater

reliability and plastic nature of failure is achieved.

The proposed approach allows determination of tensile forces in each rebar in the

pedestal for any number and arrangement of the rebars. The method uses solver add-in

programs included with most commercially available spreadsheet software, in

combination with CAD software for geometrical measurements. Consideration of

yielding of the reinforcement is also possible.

The proposed method is a significant improvement in comparison with ignoring the

vertical reinforcement altogether, as in CSA (2004) and ACI (2008), or utilizing its
 13

tensile strength without an algorithm to calculate the tensile force in individual rebars, as

in ASCE (1997) and Widianto et al. (2007).

REFERENCES

ACI 2008. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and

commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ASCE 1997. Wind loads and anchor bolt design for petrochemical facilities / Task

Committee on Wind Induced Forces & Task Committee on Anchor Bolt Design,

Petrochemical Committee, Energy Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,

Reston, VA.

CSA 2004. Design of concrete structures. National Standard of Canada CAN/CSA-

A23.3-04. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON.

RISA Technologies. 2009. RISABase 2.0  Fast, easy and accurate biaxial design and

analysis of steel base plates. Available from http://www.risatech.com/p_risabase.html

[accessed 20 December 2009].

Widianto, Patel, C., and Owen, J. 2007. Design of anchor reinforcement in concrete

pedestals. CSA Today, III(12). Available from http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/

TechPapers/design-of-anchor-reinforcement.pdf [accessed 20 December 2009].

 14

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig.1 Design example: 4-anchor column base on a pedestal (a  anchor rod, b 

reinforcing bar).

Fig.2 Spreadsheet for solution in the case of 1 anchor rod pulling out.
View publication stats