Mechanics of Materials 28 Ž1998.

113–122

The failure mechanism and the pull-out strength of a bond-type

anchor near a free edge
a,)
Makoto Obata , Michio Inoue b, Yoshiaki Goto a

a
Department of CiÕil Engineering, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Gokiso-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya 466, Japan
b
Goyo Kensetu Corporation, 2-2-8 Koraku, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112, Japan
Received 19 November 1996; revised 27 June 1997

Abstract

A bond-type anchor bolt has been used as a post-installed type anchor. Recent developments in construction technology
have diversified the use of this type of anchor even in a new construction site. Since this type of anchor exhibits a complex
failure mode involving cone and bond failure, its design method is still to be investigated in depth. Among the various
conditions to be considered, we focus on the effect of a free edge on the pull-out strength both experimentally and
analytically. We propose a new method to estimate the cone failure strength using the theory of linear fracture mechanics.
The experimental results coincide well with the analytical estimation. The reduction of the strength is much larger than
expected by the analysis based on the current design method. q 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Bond-type anchors fasten structures to massive concrete or rock by their bonding strength on the surfaces of
anchor bolts. They are so-called post-installed systems and have been used often in the retrofitting of masonry
or concrete structures. The recent developments in construction technology have diversified their applicability,
and now in some cases they are used in new construction sites. The bond-type anchor, unlike the usual headed
anchor, exhibits complex failure modes. If we preclude the trivial failure by the yielding of the anchor bolt, the
potential failure modes of the bond-type anchor are classified as Ža. bond failure, Žb. cone-failure, and Žc. mixed
bond–cone failure depending on material and geometric conditions ŽFig. 1.. When the bonding resistance on the
bolt surface is weak, the anchor fails by pulling out and when the bond between the bolt and the surroundings is
perfect, only cone failure is possible and permissible. The usual failure mode, therefore, is somewhere between
these two extreme cases, resulting in the complex mixed bond–cone failure. Although there have been plenty of
references regarding the behavior of headed anchors ŽACI349-85, 1985; Krenchel and Shah, 1985; Rehm et al.,
1985; and CEB, 1991 for a state-of-the-art report., those of the bond type anchor are not yet well investigated
because of the complexities of its failure mode ŽGoto et al., 1993; Cook, 1993.. In the basic case of a single

)
Corresponding author.

0167-6636r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 6 3 6 Ž 9 7 . 0 0 0 5 2 - 5
114 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122

Fig. 1. Failure modes of bond-type anchor.

anchor bolt embedded in a large concrete block, we have already proposed a method to evaluate the pull-out
strength and the failure mode ŽGoto et al., 1993.. An analytical method for various loading conditions is,
however, necessary to establish a rational and practical design method for the bond-type anchor. Among the
important cases to be contemplated, in this work, we focus on the effect of a free edge. The objective of this
work is to elucidate the ultimate behavior of the bond type anchor under the influence of a free edge. The
proximity of a free edge affects the ultimate behavior in two different ways. One is due to the decrease of lateral
pressure on the anchor bolt, and the other is more essential and is due to the cutout of the anticipated cone
failure surface ŽFig. 2.. For a headed anchor, there are several methods to predict the pull-out strength exhibiting

Fig. 2. Bond-type anchor near a free edge.

 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122 115

the cone failure. For example, ACI349-85 Ž1985. gives a method based on the simple mechanical model of a
stress cone, which is unfortunately not very good in many cases. Bode and Roik Ž1987. and Rehm et al. Ž1988.
propose the methods based on regression analysis and apparently do not mention a corresponding failure
mechanism. The applicability of these methods to the failure behavior of a bond-type anchor near a free edge is
yet to be discussed. We begin with proposing a mechanical model for the cone failure of a bond type anchor,
which can explain the empirical formula of regression analysis. The effect of a free edge is considered using the
mechanical model. Finally, we carry out the pull-out experiments to confirm the analytical results.

2. The failure of the bond-type anchor near a free edge

2.1. Analysis of the pull-out failure of the bond-type anchor

In what follows, we assume that the bond stress is uniformly distributed and independent of the distance to a
free edge. As far as an anchor bolt deforms elastically, it is easily verified that the uniformity of the bond stress
distribution is a realistic assumption for usual bond type anchors. As the load increases, cone failure becomes
possible at depth x c when the strength of a stress cone and the bonding resistance at depth x c are balanced
there. The following equations hold,
Pc Ž x . s P b Ž x . Ž 1.
and
d Pc d Pb
s , Ž 2.
dx xs x c dx xsx c

where Pc Ž x . and P b Ž x . are the strength of a stress cone and the bond resistance up to depth x ŽGoto et al.,
1993.. The failure behavior of a bond-type anchor, therefore, depends solely on the specific expression for
Pc Ž x . and P b Ž x .. Let us consider the case in which an anchor bolt is embedded in a concrete block and located
at a distance c from a free edge ŽFig. 2.. The effect of a free edge is reflected in the expression of Pc Ž x . since
we assume that P b Ž x . is independent of c. According to ACI349-85 Ž1985., which uses the effective projected
area of a stress cone, Pc Ž x . is given by
° D 2
D

Pc Ž x . s ~
½
sconep b 2 y 2 y ž /5
2
for u F b x F c y
2
,

2
D D
¢ ½
scone b 2 y 2 Ž p y u . q b 2 y 2 cos u sin u y p ž /5
2
for c y
2
F b x F b Ž l q u. ,

D c D
ysxq , b s tan f , cos u s , cy F b x F b Ž l q u. , Ž 3.
2b by 2
where scone is the cone failure strength. The apex angle of the cone, f , is equal to 458 Ž b s 1. in usual
engineering practice. Since we assume that the bond stress is uniformly distributed, P b Ž x . is
xyu
Pb Ž x . s P , u F x F l q u. Ž 4.
l
u is the length of the unbonded part ŽFig. 2., which is set to prevent the premature cracking at low levels of
loading. For these Pc Ž x . and P b Ž x ., Fig. 3 schematically shows how a free edge affects the mixed bond–cone
116 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122

Fig. 3. Effect of a free edge.

failure of the bond type anchor. Since the depth of the stress cone x c is the solutions of Eqs. Ž1. and Ž2., x c is
the contact point of the two curves of Pc Ž x . and P b Ž x ., whose tangent, Prl, is determined by the pull-out load.
If bond resistance is strong enough and a free edge does not exists, x c for the first cone failure is
(
x c s u q u 2 q Durb . Ž 5.
Fig. 3 indicates the necessity of the unbonded part to avoid pathological behaviors. Without the unbonded part,
this model predicts cone failure of zero depth and the equilibrium of Eqs. Ž1. and Ž2. is never satisfied. As a free
edge obstructs the growth of the projected area of a stress cone, the curve Pc Ž x . kinks at x s Ž1rb . Ž c y Dr2.
ŽFig. 3.. Therefore, while the pull-out strength continuously changes, the depth of the stress cone can have a
jump from xXc to x c in the existence of a free edge. As Fig. 3 shows, the apex of the first cone failure, x c , is
deeper than that given by Eq. Ž5.. The behavior of the bond type anchor can be more sensitive to the proximity
of a free edge than the usual headed anchor. This poses an important problem regarding the reinforcement of the
bond type anchor. Fig. 3 shows the significance of the shape of Pc Ž x . and P b Ž x . curves, i.e., the mechanical
model of each failure mode on the pull-out strength of the bond type anchor. Despite their accuracy, the
application of the empirical expression to a bond-type anchor is not straightforward since no corresponding
physical failure mechanism is elucidated.

2.2. The eÕaluation of Pc (c) based on fracture mechanics

ACI349-85 Ž1985. estimates the strength of the stress cone by assuming that cone failure occurs when the
averaged stress on the stress cone reaches the critical value. This immediately leads to the fact that Pc Ž x . is
proportional to x 2 . However, it oversimplifies the progressive development of the stress cone before the load
attains the pull-out strength. In fact, many pull-out experimental results of headed anchors imply that the
dependence of Pc Ž x . on the depth x is closer to x 1.5 than x 2 , especially when x becomes larger ŽCEB, 1991..
It should be also noted that the crack, which eventually makes a cone failure surface, initiates and propagates
when only 30–40% of the critical load is applied. This is confirmed not only by the direct measurement by
strain gauges but also by acoustic emissions ŽKrenchel and Shah, 1985.. These facts suggest that consideration
of the initiation and propagation of a cone-shaped crack surface is necessary for the accurate estimation of the
strength of a stress cone.
According to these experimental observations, we assume the failure mechanism of a stress cone as follows.
The crack initiates at the small pull-out load and propagates in a stable way as the load increases. After the load
reaches the critical value, the pull-out strength, the crack unstably extends itself to make a final cone failure
 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122 117

surface. In order to verify the assumption, we carried out FEM analysis to simulate the failure by unstable
propagation of a crack within the framework of linear fracture mechanics. In this problem, as the crack grows
axi-symmetrically from the anchor bolt, the length of the crack front increases with stress singularity.
Two-dimensional analysis is, therefore, inadequate to capture this failure mechanism. Instead, we employ the
axi-symmetric three-dimensional model ŽFig. 4.. A cone shaped crack is located at the depth x at the central
axis. The finite element mesh and the boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4. We consider the two different
boundary conditions. One is the concentrated force P at AX representing the headed anchor and the other is the
distributed force along AAX corresponding to a bond type anchor. The J-integral is calculated for the various
lengths of the crack. Since the objective of the analysis is to obtain the qualitative aspects of the failure
mechanism, we ignore all the secondary effects due to the non-linear characteristics of the material. The FEM
analysis is carried out by the use of the general-purpose finite element code, ABAQUS ŽHKS, 1995..
Fig. 5 shows the relation between the J-integral value and the crack length for a different apex angle, f . The
logarithmic scale is used in Fig. 5Žb.. As shown in Fig. 5Ža., J decreases while brx is small, indicating stable
crack growth. However, these curves in Fig. 5 have the local minimum at brx f 0.6. For brx G 0.6, the crack
begins to grow unstably to make a cone shaped failure surface immediately. This tendency agrees with
experimental observation ŽCEB, 1991.. The apex angle f is usually greater than 458 and around 50–558 but the
effect of f on the critical crack length brx is not significant. It is interesting that the normalized J curves
almost coincide with each other for the crack depth x s 175–215. In other the words, the critical crack length is
proportional to the crack depth. Fig. 5 contains the results of the concentrated load, which supposedly
corresponds to the case of a headed anchor. When a crack is short enough, the stress intensity factor at a tip is
close to the one of a penny shaped crack in an infinite medium with a concentrated force applied at the center.
In this case, K A Prb1.5 and therefore J is proportional to P 2rb 3. In fact, J A P 2rb 3 is observed in Fig. 5Žb.

Fig. 4. Axi-symmetric model and FEM mesh for the analysis.

118 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122

Fig. 5. J-integral curves.

when the crack is very short. Suggested by this observation, for a bond-type anchor, we expect the relation
between K and b to be as follows
K A prb 0.5 , Ž 6.
2
for a short crack, since P s px. This presumption, which yields J A p rb, is certainly justified in Fig. 5Žb..
Since the pull-out load reaches the maximum when J has the local minimum, we have
J Ž Pc , bc . s Jc , Ž 7.
as the critical condition. As far as linear fracture mechanics is concerned, the equivalent condition can be
expressed using the stress intensity factors as
pc
K c s C Ž bc . 0.5
, Ž 8.
Ž bc .
where K c is the fracture toughness and bc is the critical length of the crack. C is a non-dimensionalized
coefficient that should be determined by the geometry of the crack and the specimen. K represents the symbolic
expression of the stress intensity factors. As observed in Fig. 5Ža., bc is nearly proportional to the depth of the
crack, x c . If we let the coefficient be m and remember that Pc s pc x, we have another expression of Eq. Ž8. as
follows,
Kc
Pc s m0.5 x 1.5 . Ž 9.
C Ž bc .
Eq. Ž9. describes the relation between the strength of a stress cone and its depth, x, using linear fracture
mechanics. It should be noted that the pull-out strength Pc is proportional to x 1.5, not to x 2 in this expression.
At the same time, Pc is linearly dependent on K c but not explicitly on the compressive strength of the concrete,
 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122 119

sc . We can obtain the same relation as Eq. Ž9. for headed anchors since K A Prb1.5 in that case. The equivalent
expression to Eq. Ž9. for headed anchors gives the theoretical explanation to the empirical expression by Bode
and Roik Ž1987. and Rehm et al. Ž1988.. Note that their expression gives a better prediction of the experimental
results when the anchor is installed at a deeper location. In such a case, the nonlinear region around the crack
front is small compared to the surrounding medium and the assumption of linear fracture mechanics is
materialized. On the other hand, Eq. Ž9. has no direct linkage to the current engineering practice that the
(
pull-out strength is proportional to the square root of the compressive strength of the concrete, sc . At this
(
moment, little has been reported to support the assertion that the fracture toughness is proportional to sc . The
(
current expression, where the pull-out strength is proportional to sc , comes from the empirical formula that the
(
tensile strength is proportional to sc . However, the coefficient of variation of the pull-out strength for the same
compression strength but a different mixture is as large as 10–20%. It suggests that the relation between the
compressive and the tensile stress is to be studied further. Despite the ambiguity, we employ the following 1.5
power rule as an alternative to Eq. Ž3.,
Pc Ž x . s Cx 1.5 . Ž 10 .
C is a constant that depends on the fracture toughness, the elastic moduli of the surrounding material, and the
geometry. The depth of the first cone failure corresponding to Eq. Ž5. is given by
x c s 3u q Drb . Ž 11 .
Therefore, the present 1.5 power rule yields a deeper cone failure surface than the method given by ACI.
Accordingly, the failure behavior of an anchor bolt near a free edge will be more sensitive to the proximity to
the free surface. Since consideration of the evolution of a cone-shaped crack leads to Eq. Ž10., the influence of
the proximity of a free edge can be accounted for in terms of the arc length of a crack front, i.e., the portion that
has stress singularity. The reduction of the crack front yields the following equation,
°C Ž 2pb y . 1.5
b uFb x-cy
D
,
2
Pc Ž x . s ~ 1.5
u D
¢ ž ž
C 2pb 1 y
p //
y cy
2
F b x F b Ž l q u. ,

c D
b s tan f , cos u s , cy Fb xFb Ž uql. , Ž 12 .
by 2
as a possible alternative to Eq. Ž3..

3. Experiments and discussion

We carried out a simple pull-out test of a bond-type anchor embedded in a concrete block ŽObata et al.,
1996.. The specimen is illustrated as Type A in Fig. 6, which is designed according to a series of experiments
by the authors ŽGoto et al., 1993.. We used no reinforcement bars in the block to avoid their influence on the
pull-out strength and the failure modes. The shear studs are welded on to enhance the bonding stress of the
deformed anchor bolt. We employed this particular method of enhancement because Goto et al. Ž1993.
suggested that the studs did not alter the basic failure characteristics of the bond-type anchor. The studs are,
however, located in a direction parallel to a free edge to minimize the interaction between the studs and a free
surface. See Tables 1 and 2 for the material and geometric properties of the specimens. The proximity of the
free surface, cra Ž a s 195 mm., varies from 0.5 ŽF0.5. to 2.0 ŽF2.0.. Since the studs are welded on the surface
of the anchor bolt, we chose cra s 0.5 as the minimum value. The pull-out load was applied statically to the
120 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122

Fig. 6. Specimens.

anchor bolt by a center-holed hydraulic jack. For some specimens, we observed the crack surface in the concrete
block by injecting a dye after the pull-out test. In addition, we also performed the pull-out test to examine the
bond strength of the studded anchor bolt with the type B specimen shown in Fig. 6.
Since the compressive strength of the concrete of the specimen F1.2 and FS is different from the rest, in what
'
follows, the pull-out strength and the bond strength are normalized by 24.6r28.9 according to the usual
(
engineering assertion, i.e., scone ,tmax A sc . The average bond strength of the anchor bolts was 12.8 MPa in the
pull-out test. Since the ultimate bond strength is P bu s 225 kNŽs tmax p Dl . and the pull-out strength of FC was
equal to 176 kN, we may preclude the bond failure mode in these experiments. Actually, we observed that all
specimens failed exhibiting a cone-shaped crack. The crack propagates with a large apex angle towards a free
edge while it grows upwards to the upper surface otherwise. Fig. 7Ža. shows the effect of a free edge on the
crack depth. The comparisons between the analytical and the experimental results are given in Fig. 7Žb..

Table 1
Material properties
Material
Concrete scX s 24.6 Mpa Ž28 days.
scX s 28.9 MPa Ž28 days.
Anchor bolt D35 SD295, s Y s 368 MPa
Stud B 6 Ø 35 SS400, s Y s 235 MPa
 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122 121

Table 2
Specimens
X
No. Type Distance to free edge Ž c . Žmm. cr a fc ŽMPa.
FC A 400 2.0 24.6
F1.2 A 234 1.2 28.9
F1.0 A 195 1.0 24.6
F0.7 A 137 0.7 24.6
F0.5 A 98 0.5 24.6
FS B — — 28.9

The solid curves are the analytical results for these specimens. In both Eqs. Ž3. and Ž12., the analysis
suggests that the depth of the cone failure surface discontinuously changes under the influence of a free edge.
As expected, the 1.5 power rule makes the failure behavior much more sensitive to the proximity of a free edge.
According to the method of ACI, the effect of the free surface appears when cra F 0.54 and the deeper cone
failure surface initiates. The same effect is observed even when cra F 1.0 for the 1.5 power rule and the cone
failure surface occurs at the bottom of the anchor bolt. The 1.5 power rule yields a steeper decrease in the
pull-out strength than the ACI method. As the apex angle, f , gets larger, the effect of the free surface becomes
more important.
The experimental pull-out strength is normalized by that of FC Ž172 kN., which is supposedly the result
without the effect of a free edge. As mentioned in the preceding section, the correction due to the difference of
the compressive strength of the concrete seems to have nothing to do with the implication of Eq. Ž12.. We gave
the result without the strength correction in the same figure for reference. The reduction of the pull-out strength
is experimentally observed even when cra ) 1.0, as expected by the 1.5 power rule. The tendency of the
pull-out strength is close to that predicted by Eq. Ž12.. At least, Eq. Ž3. is not giving a reasonable explanation
for these behaviors. Despite the limitation of linear fracture mechanics, Eq. Ž12. give a better estimation of the
effect of a free edge on the pull-out strength. Regarding the cracking pattern, the injection of a dye into the
crack revealed that the cracks initiated from the bottom of the anchor bolt in all cases, as predicted by Eq. Ž12..

Fig. 7. Results.
122 M. Obata et al.r Mechanics of Materials 28 (1998) 113–122

4. Conclusion

We investigate the behavior of the bond type anchor under the influence of a free edge both analytically and
experimentally. In order to estimate the strength of the stress cone, we use two different assumptions. One is the
uniform stress distribution on the cone failure surface according to ACI349-85 Ž1985. and the other is the
unstable crack growth at the critical load. Within the framework of linear fracture mechanics, we show that the
strength of a stress cone is proportional to 1.5 power of the depth. The relation happens to be identical to that of
the empirical equation by Bode and Roik Ž1987. and Rehm et al. Ž1988.. The experimental results show that the
failure behavior under the influence of a free edge is closer to those predicted by Eq. Ž12. than to those by
ACI349-85 Ž1985.. Despite some ambiguities regarding the relation between the compressive stress and the
pull-out strength, Eq. Ž12. give the rational estimation of the ultimate behavior of bond-type anchor bolts.
Finally, it should be noted that the bonded anchor used in this work is a special type with welded studs on its
surface. Although the basic failure behavior is basically close to that of the usual types, when a free edge is very
close to the anchor bolt, this difference may not be ignored.

References

ACI349-85, 1985. Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Structures. American Institute of Concrete.
Bode, H., Roik, K., 1987. Headed studs-embedded in concrete and loaded in tension. In: Anchorage to Concrete, ACI, SP-103, Detroit, pp.
61–89.
CEB, 1991. Fastenings to Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures, Part I, II, Comite´ du Euro-International du Beton.
Cook, R.A., 1993. Behavior of chemically bonded anchors. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 119, 2744–2762.
Goto, Y., Obata, M., Maeno, H., Kobayashi, Y., 1993. Failure mechanism of new bond-type anchor bolt subject to tension. J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE 119, 1168–1187.
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorrensen, Inc., 1995. ABAQUSrStandard User’s Manual.
Krenchel, H., Shah, S., 1985. Fracture analysis of the pull out test. Mater. Struct., 18, 439–446.
Obata, M., Inoue, M., Goto, Y., 1996. Effect of free edge on the pull-out strength of bond type anchor bolt. J. Struct. Eng., JSCE, 42A,
1131–1138.
Rehm, G., Eligehausen, R., Mallee, R., 1988. Befestigungstechnik. In: Betonkalender, Vol. 2, Berlin, pp. 564–663.
Rehm, G., Schlaich, J., Schaefer, K., Eligehausen, R., 1985. Fritz-Leonhardt-Kolloquium. Forschungskolloquium des Deutschen Auss-
¨ Stahlbeton. Beton-und Stahlbetonbau, 6, 156–161.
chusses fur