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

net/publication/240434961

Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests

Article  in  Construction and Building Materials · March 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038

CITATIONS READS

26 276

3 authors, including:

F. Delhomme Zouhair Chaib

Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon Technical Centre for Mechanical Industry
19 PUBLICATIONS   329 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   173 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

anchorage in concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zouhair Chaib on 02 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests

F. Delhomme a,*, G. Debicki a, Z. Chaib b
a
Laboratory of Civil and Environmental Engineering (LGCIE), INSA Lyon, 69621Villeurbanne, France
b
French Industrial and Mechanical Technical Centre (CETIM), 42952 Saint Etienne, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The anchoring between a metallic component and a concrete block is an essential point in stability and
Received 14 January 2009 durability of the structure. This joint has to transfer the deadweight of the structure and tensile, compres-
Received in revised form 26 August 2009 sive and shearing loads created by the structure in service. This study focuses on the joint constituted of
Accepted 30 August 2009
long anchor bolts cast-in-place. The anchor rods are prestressed in order to minimize the effects of fatigue
Available online xxxx
stress. To design these anchors the long-term behaviour of concrete is not taken into account whereas the
concrete creep and shrinkage involves a decrease in the initial prestress level. This paper presents exper-
Keywords:
imental results of pull-out tests and mass-spring modelling of the joint is proposed. In this model the
Anchor
Pull-out test
long-term behaviour of the joint is taken into account using the creep and shrinkage laws given in Euro-
Concrete code 2. The modelling of the evolution in time of the rod prestress shows good agreement with the mea-
Bond surements obtained in relaxation tests.
Creep Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shrinkage

1. Introduction
In civil engineering or in industrial building, anchoring of
metallic elements such as columns in a reinforced concrete foun-
dation is often performed by means of cast-in-place anchors. Their
main function is to transfer normal loads (tension and compres-
sion) and possible shear loads according to efforts at the base of
the structure. The three main anchoring systems are the straight
rod, the hooked rod and the headed rod [1]. The tensile load is
transferred through a bond between the steel rod and the concrete
and/or abutment of the anchor plate or the hook on concrete. Load
capacities of the mechanisms depend on the type and dimensions
of anchor used. Under tension, the three main failure mechanisms
are the breaking of the rod, the sliding of the rod and cone-shaped
concrete breakout [2]. Numerous standard codes [3–6] enable the
anchor bolts and the foundation massif to be designed for static
stresses of traction and/or shearing. But long-term behaviour is of-
ten not taken into account although the mechanical characteristics
of concrete evolve in time.
This paper limits itself to the study of long and plain anchor rods
with an anchor plate on the end embedded in concrete. This type of
anchor bolt is notably used in mountainous areas to fasten the py-
lons of ski lifts to the reinforced concrete foundation (Fig. 1). During
their service life, these joints are subjected to cyclic loadings. So, the
challenge is to minimize the effects of fatigue stress in the steel an-
chor rod; to do that, a prestressed load must be kept at a level not
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 72 43 89 02; fax: +33 4 79 43 85 23.
E-mail address: fabien.delhomme@insa-lyon.fr (F. Delhomme).
exceeding 50% of the steel rod yield strength. The aim of this re-
search was to study the experimental behaviour of these anchoring
systems and the concrete foundation for a static tensile loading and
to analyze the long term evolution of the prestressed load.
2. Experimental investigations: pull-out tests
The aim of this experimental trial run was to analyze the short and long-term
behaviour of anchors of type ‘‘rod + anchor plate” during pull-out tests (Fig. 2) with
or without prestress applied to the rod. The following tests were performed:
 Three pull-out tests with only a smooth rod without an anchor plate (tests B1,
B2, B3) in order to determine the evolution of the steel/concrete bond along
the rod.
 Three pull-out tests with an anchor plate (tests P1, P2, P3) in order to identify
the failure modes of the anchor and to quantify the influence of the bond.
 Two pull-out tests (tests P4, P5), without and with prestress, in order to deter-
mine the strains and cracking state of the concrete block. The loading application
is described in Fig. 3. The loading is applied by a jack three times up to three
stress rod levels rL1, rL2, rL3. Between each stress level, the jack load was
released and the rod was maintained under tension with a locking plate at three
different prestress levels rP1, rP2, and rP3. The prestress levels were about
rP1  0.3 rr, rP2  0.6 rr and rP3  rr with rr the yield rod stress.
 Three relaxation tests (R1, R2, R3): a prestressed load is kept for several months
in order to show the evolution of the initial preload.
2.1. Tested components
The size of the anchor rods used in the tests was smaller than those used on sky
lifts (rod diameter = 45 mm) but the steel grade was the same. For similitude corre-
lations, the relation given by Eq. (1) was chosen. So, it was assumed that the failure
mechanisms were the same between the anchors tested and the anchors used on
site. Fig. 4 and Table 1 give the dimensions of tested components.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038

Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

vide sufficient stiffness during the pull-out tests. A minimum reinforcement (eight
rebars of 10 mm diameter) was placed close to the outer edge of the section to pre-
vent a brittle concrete breakout cone. The quasi-static loading was displacement
controlled with a loading rate between 0.25 and 0.5 mm min1. When a prestress
was needed, it was maintained through a locking plate fixed on the rod and bearing
against the concrete. The main mechanical characteristics of the concrete and of the
steel rods and plates are given in Table 2.

2.2. Measurement techniques

The common measuring devices used for all tests were the following (Fig. 5):

 Three displacement sensors measuring the relative displacement (global slip)

between the rod and the upper surface of the concrete block.
 Along the rod, measurements were made with five pairs of strain gauges (350 X)
regularly distributed, diametrically opposite, positioned following the y axis,
 Three displacement transducers placed on the corbels of the block to check the
global displacement of the specimen.
Fig. 1. Anchoring system used for ski-lift pylons.  Three strain gauges embedded in the concrete above the plate in order to quan-
tify the compressive strains (120 X 30 mm pattern) positioned following the y
axis.
F rod F bond
¼ ¼5 ð1Þ
F rod test F bond test
For tests P4 and P5, a more complete strain investigation of the concrete block
was performed. Sixteen strain gauges (references: 1a to 4a and 11a to 14a – Fig. 6),
where Frod is the failure load of the rod used on site, Frod test the failure load of the rod positioned following the y axis, were added in order to quantify the strain in the
tested, Fbond the load bond failure of the anchor used on site, and Fbond test is the load block. These gauges were placed on the two symmetrical planes of the block: along
bond failure of the anchor tested. the diagonal and the width. The concrete cracking around the anchor plate was de-
The concrete block was fixed at its base by means of two reinforced concrete tected through strain gauges (references: 1f to 3f and 11f to 13f – Fig. 6), as used by
corbels. This arrangement avoided the confinement of concrete at the free part of Ozbolt [8], positioned in a normal direction along the assumed cracking surface.
the anchor rod as in a classical pull-out test [7]. The corbel was reinforced to pro- Numerous authors [9] showed that the cracking cone for an anchor embedded in

Fig. 2. Experimental test setup.

Stress

σ3 Locking of the rod stress

with a locking plate

Stress applied to the rod

σ2 by the jack

Rod stress

σ1

Time

Fig. 3. Loading applied to the rod.

Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3

b
a

80
Screw
Tensile load thread

Rebars Rod
S

660
Φ== 10 mm Locking plate Φ18,5
3 bars by side Φl, tl
Washer
Anchor rod Φ

S
Concrete block

80
Nut
Φ20
Anchor washer

E
H Φ, t

Reaction load

Corbel

Fig. 4. (a) Tested components and (b) anchor rod (units = mm).

Table 1
Dimensions of the tested components.

Component Test Designation Dimension

Locking plate R1 – R2 – R3 Diameter, Ul 150 mm
P4 – P5 100 mm
R1 – R2 – R3 – P4 – P5 Thickness, tl 20 mm
Anchor plate P1 – P2 – P3 – R1 – R2 Diameter, U 150 mm
P4 – P5 90 mm
P1 – P2 – P3 – R1 – R2 – P4 – P5 Thickness, t 20 mm
Concrete block B1 – B2 – B3 – P1 – P2 – P3 – R1 – R2 – R3 Section, S 600  600 mm2
Height, H 700 mm
Embedment, E 520 mm
P4 – P5 Section, S 400  400 mm2
Height, H 700 mm
Embedment, E 520 mm

Table 2
Material characteristics.

Material Property Value Unit Test involved

Anchor rod steel Yield strength 850 MPa B1 – B2 – B3
Ultimate strength 1035 MPa P1 – P2 – P3 – P4 – P5
Elastic modulus 184,000 MPa R1 – R2 –R3
Concrete Maximum size aggregate 20 mm All
28 days cylinder compressive strength (fcm) 34.2 MPa B1 – B2 – B3 – P1 – P2 – P3 – R1 – R2 – R3
28 days tensile strength (fctm) 3.5 MPa
28 days cylinder compressive strength (fcm) 38.7 MPa P4 – P5
28 days tensile strength (fctm) 3.9 MPa

an infinite medium has a slope of about 35° (gauges 11f–13f). In our case of a med- the French standard [10] for smooth bars in reinforced concrete,
ium delimited by the block section, a cracking surface could also appear following
which is 1.4 MPa. The friction stress between rod and concrete
the smallest cross section, that is, horizontally (gauges 1f–3f). Fig. 6 shows the posi-
tions of sensors for tests P4 and P5.
after the breaking of the bond is 0.5 MPa.

r A
3. Experimental results s ¼ Ps s ð2Þ
Lb
3.1. Bond between rod and concrete
P
where rs is the tensile stress applied to the rod, As and are the
Using tests B1, B2 and B3 (without an anchor plate), the mean rod area and perimeter, respectively, Lb is the bonded length.
bond stress s was plotted versus free end rod slip (mean between Several authors [11,12] suggest a bond-slip relationship before
the three transducers) on Fig. 7. s was calculated with Eq. (2). The the peak bond was achieved, for deformed rebar embedded in con-
mean maximum bond stress of the three tests is 1.5 MPa for a slip crete. This analytical expression, given by Eq. (4), can be extended
of 0.6 mm. There is good agreement with the bond stress given in to smooth bars, as show by Xiao et al. [13]. Guo [14] also proposed

Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

4 F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

y y Tensile load y
LVDT sensor x
x x

110
0&1
110
2&3
Steel
110
gauge
4&5
110
Concrete 6&7
gauge 110
8&9
a b c 110

20 Tensile load

110
0&1
110
Φ 70 a 2&3
110
4&5
Rod 120 °
110
120 ° c 6&7
b 110
8&9
110
LVDT sensor Plate
a b c
Fig. 5. (a) Common instrumentation for all tests, (b) detailed positions of the strain gauges embedded in the concrete, (c) detailed positions of the strain gauges on the anchor
rods with and without anchor plate.

100
50
LVDT sensor
Rod Block
50

14a 4a
175

Steel
335

13a 3a
gauge
520
460

Concrete
12a 2a
gauge
f
f 13
11a 1a 12
11
f 35°
Symmetrical
55
1f 2f 3f plane (width)
85
115 Symmetrical
y
plane (diagonal)
x

Fig. 6. Positions of sensors for tests P4 and P5.

an expression for the descending portion of the curve (Eq. (5)). The s ¼ ðsÞa for s 6 1 ð4Þ
following dimensionless bond stress and slip parameters are used: s
s ¼ for s P 1 ð5Þ
s s bðs  1Þ2 þ s
s¼ and s ¼ ð3Þ
s0 s0
where s0 is the peak bond stress and s0 is the slip corresponding to where a and b are constants which have to be determined from
s0. tests results.

Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 5

Fig. 9. Measured mean strains of the rod at different heights (test B2).
Fig. 7. Stress bond versus the global slip of the rod (test B2).

Model Code 90 [15] suggests a value of 0.4 for a and b is esti-

mated as 0.15 in comparison with the experimental results. The
test curve and the model curve provided by Eqs. (4) and (5) are
plotted in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the model curve fits the test
curve up to the peak bond stress. The difference during the
descending portion can be explained by the fact that the relation-
ships are used for smooth bars and there is an abrupt decrease of
the stress bond after the peak bond stress.
The data of the strain gauges fixed on the rod at different
heights (Fig. 9) for test B2 show the progressive failure of the
steel–concrete bond. In fact, gauges 8 and 9 (the points farthest
from the applied load) show a significant strain level only at a
rod stress of 110 MPa while gauges 0 and 1 (the points closest to
the applied load) already show a strain value reaching
560 lm m1. The bond failure occurs for a stress applied to the
rod of 180 ± 30 MPa (mean of three tests).
The progressive failure phenomenon of the steel–concrete bond
also appears for tests P1, P2 and P3 with an anchor plate. Fig. 10
gives the rod strains versus the stress applied to the rod. Rod Fig. 10. Mean strains along the rod (continuous lines) and simple tensile test
behaviour is similar to tests B1, B2 and B3 (without the anchor (dotted line) (test P3).
plate) until bond failure. Then, rod strains become uniform from

a stress of 280 MPa and rod behaviour during a simple tensile test
(without a bond) is found. The anchor failure occurs by breaking of
the rod at the level of the upper screw thread for a mean stress ap-
plied to the rod of 1035 MPa.
The tensile load is first supported by a rod/concrete bond, then
by bearing throughout the anchor plate and the concrete. These
two mechanisms are not simultaneous and they cannot be added
to design the anchor. There is no advantage in placing the bearing
plate deeper than require to avoid a concrete cone type failure. The
tangential friction stress being negligible, the bond has an influ-
ence on the anchor behaviour only for stresses below 180 MPa,
20% of the elastic rod strength. The prestress applied to the rod is
about 50% of the elastic strength; consequently the bond can be ig-
nored for the behaviour in service stage.

3.2. Strain field in concrete

Just above the anchor plate near the rod, gauges a, b, c for tests
P1, P2, P3 (Fig. 11) show that the concrete is stressed following two
different steps:

 Before failure of the bond, the concrete near the rod is under
Fig. 8. Comparison of the analytical bond-slip relationship with test results. tension due to bonding with the rod. A maximum strain value

Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
Fig. 11. Concrete strains above the anchor plate (test P2).
of 17 lm m1 was obtained. However, this value remains below
the ultimate concrete tensile strain which is 100 lm m1. So,
there was no cracking of the concrete induced by the bond
stress.
 After failure of the bond, the concrete is stressed in triaxial com-
pression by the action of the anchor plate. The maximum strain
reached in three tests is – 450 lm m1. This value corresponds
to 1/5 of the ultimate uniaxial compressive strain of concrete.
Note that is the fatigue limit stress in compression of concrete.
From test P4, the concrete strains are plotted for different load-
ings and different prestress levels (Fig. 12). During the loading step,
only the anchor plate had an action on the concrete, only half of the
height of the block above the anchor plate was stressed. There is a
quick decrease in strains inside the block as soon as we move away
from the anchor plate. Moreover, the tensile strains recorded on
gauge 11a (located at 100 mm from the rod axis and 60 mm from
the plate) show that the gauge is outside the compression cone
created by the abutment of the plate.
Fig. 12. Concrete strains for (a) different stress levels applied to the rod and (b) different rod prestress levels (test P4), plain line = gauge 1a–4a, dotted line = gauges 11a–14a.
Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
When the anchor is prestressed with a load locked by a plate of
100 mm, there is a mirroring of the strain distribution. The tension
load of the rod was transmitted by the anchor and locking plates. In
the central part, the maximal stresses range between 2 and 3 MPa.
In a current use of anchor when a prestress of 425 MPa (50% of the
rod yield strength) is applied, the maximal concrete stress above
the anchor plate is 19 MPa.
In considering a constant stress for a given depth, the compres-
sive concrete zone was estimated with the concrete strain mea-
sured by gauges 1a–4a. A circular surface Sn is calculated with
Eq. (6) for different depths of gauges. So, Fig. 13 shows the com-
pressive cone zone obtained when the anchor is prestressed.
Tr
Sn ¼ ð6Þ
ecn Ec
where Tr is the uniform rod tensile load calculated with the gauges
fixed on the rod (Tr = Sr Er er; er = the rod strain and Sr = rod cross
section), ecn the concrete strain of gauge n, and Ec is the concrete
elastic modulus (33,000 MPa).
3.3. Concrete cracking
Tests P4 and P5 enable the cracking state around the anchor
plate to be quantified. The ultimate tensile strain of used concrete
is 100 lm m1. This strain value corresponds to the equivalent
strain at crack opening. During the loading step, a crack appears
from a stress applied to the rod of 500 MPa. The crack length is less
than 40 mm for an applied stress of 822 MPa (Fig. 14). Tensile
strains are recorded following the two chosen slopes (0 and 35°).
Nevertheless, the gauges along the horizontal surface (i.e. follow-
ing the smallest cross section) are the most stressed.
When the rod was prestressed, the strain gauges remain
stressed in tension. Consequently, there was no closing of cracks.
Nevertheless, we can conclude that for current prestress levels of
approximately 50% of the rod yield strength, no cracking occurs
around the anchor plate. On the other hand, the tension could be
induced by a jack, which is put on the locking plate. In this case,
no investigation was carried out; it seems that the cracking,
brought to the fore, will be notably reduced.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 13. Concrete compressive zone for different prestress levels (test P4).

3.4. Long-term behaviour

The strains along the rod were uniform because of the bond fail-
ure was achieved. The strain measures on the anchor rod for relax-
ation tests R1, R2 and R3 gave a decrease in the prestress of 5%
after one week of loading and 15% after 9 months for initial pre-
stress of 425 MPa. The previous results showed that just after the
application of the prestress value, the concrete does not crack
around the anchor plate and bond failure is reached. Consequently,
this decrease is only due to concrete creep. The maximal stresses in
the concrete under the plates are below 45% of the ultimate con-
crete compressive strength; that means the creep remains in a pri-
mary or secondary stage and achieves an asymptotic value in the
long term [16–18]. Fig. 14. Distribution of strains along two cracking surfaces (0 and 35°) for (a)
different stress levels applied to the rod and (b) different rod prestress levels (test
P4), plain line = gauge 1f–3f, dotted line = gauges 11f–13f.
4. Mass-spring model of joint

4.1. Bolted joints

concrete is not taken into account. Fig. 15 shows the operating
An anchor bolt can be simulated as a bolted joint [19,20] during principle of the prestressed anchor bolt.
sustained loading between a steel bolt of stiffness Kr and a concrete According to Fig. 15, the length variation of anchor rod and con-
piece of stiffness Kc. In this model, the bond between the rod and crete is the same (Eq. (7)).

Fo Fo

Locking plate
δc/2 = δr/2
Q + Fr Q - Fc
Q Q

Kr Kc Kr Kc

Q + Fr Q - Fc
Q Q
Q + Fr Q - Fc
δc/2 = δr/2
Anchor plate
Fo

Prestressed Anchor Prestressed anchor loaded by Fo Loads equilibrium

Fc = concrete load δc = concrete displacement

Fr = rod load δr = rod displacement
Q = preload Κc = concrete stiffness
F0 = outside load applied to the anchor rod Κr = rod stiffness

Fig. 15. Mass-spring model of the anchor bolt with an initial preload Q and an outside load Fo.

Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

8 F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

dr ¼ dc ð7Þ K c;i
K c ðtÞ ¼ ð13Þ
Fr þ Q Q  Fc 1 þ uðt; t0 Þ
¼ ð8Þ
Kr Kc where Kc,i is the initial concrete stiffness, and u(t,t0 ) is the creep
Er Ar coefficient at age t for the first loading applied at age t0 .
Kr ¼ ð9Þ
Lr u(t,t0 ) depends on the relative humidity (=40%), the volume to
surface ratio of the piece, the concrete compressive strength and
where Ar is the rod cross section, Lr the rod length taking into ac-
the cement type.
count the swivels and the plates (=590 mm), and Er is the rod elastic
Where Lc is the length between the anchor plate and the locking
modulus.
plate, and Ec is the concrete elastic modulus.
The load equilibrium is given by.
The concrete shortening dc,creep due to creep is given by.
Q  Fc  Q þ Fr þ Fo ¼ 0 ð10Þ F c ðtÞ
dc;creep ðt þ DtÞ ¼ dc ðtÞ  60 ð14Þ
With Eqs. (8) and (10), anchor rod load is given by Eq. (6). K c ðt þ DtÞ

Kr The law of Eurocode 2 [21] is also used in order to compute the

Fr ¼ Q þ Fo ð11Þ strain shrinkage esh(t) of concrete.
Kc þ Kr

When an outside load Fo is applied, the additional load in the rod is
proportional to Fo and a coefficient depending only on concrete and
rod stiffness K cKþK
r
.
r shrinkage coefficient at age t for a beginning of drying at age t0.
Eq. (6) is a straight line equation Fr = f(Fc) with a slope given by
Eq. (12)
Kr
Slope ¼
Kc þ Kr
Fig. 16 gives the load in the rod (obtained by measurement of the
strain gauges) versus the load applied to the rod for different pre-
loading levels.
The calculation of the straight line slope during loading enables
a mean concrete stiffness of 1000 ± 120 kN mm1 to be obtained.
4.2. Long-term behaviour: shrinkage and creep of concrete
The long-term behaviour of anchor depends on the creep and
shrinkage of compressive concrete between the anchor plate and
the locked plate.
The creep law of Eurocode 2 [21] is used in order to compute
the decrease in concrete stiffness in time.
esh ðtÞ ¼ ecs0  bs ðt; t0 Þ ð15Þ
where ecs0 is the strain unrestrained shrinkage, and bs(t,t0) is the
ecs0 and bs(t,t0) depend on the relative humidity, the volume to
surface ratio of the piece, the concrete compressive strength and
the cement type.
ð12Þ The concrete shortening dc,shrinkage due to shrinkage is given by.
dc;shrinkage ðtÞ ¼ esh ðtÞ  Lc 6 0 ð16Þ
where Lc is the length between the anchor plate and the locking
plate.
The total concrete shortening due to shrinkage and creep is gi-
ven by.
dc;creepþsh ðtÞ ¼ dc;creep ðtÞ þ dc;shrinkage ðtÞ ð17Þ
The concrete shortening being equal to the anchor rod shorten-
ing, Eq. (18) of the load in the rod is obtained.
F r ðt þ DtÞ ¼ F r ðtÞ þ dc;creepþsh ðt þ DtÞ  K r ð18Þ
With Eq. (18), the evolution of the rod stress is computed by
successive iterations and compared with experimental data

Fig. 16. Load in the rod versus the load applied to the rod for different initial preloading levels Q1, Q2 and Q3 (test P4).

Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038

F. Delhomme et al. / Construction and Building Materials xxx (2009) xxx–xxx
400
390
380
Rod Stress (MPa)
370
360
350
340
330
0,00
Fig. 17. Comparison of the evolution of the rod stress between the mass-spring model of joint and the experimental results (test R2).
provided by the mean of the strain gauges glued on the anchor rod
(Fig. 17).
The creep and shrinkage model given by Eurocode 2 enables the
decrease in the prestress in the anchor rod to be simulated and
shows good agreement with the experimental results. The total
stress decrease for an infinite time, given by Eq. (11), is estimated
as 28% of the initial stress.
5. Conclusions
The pull-out tests carried out on the long anchor bolt with an
anchor plate cast-in-place show that the tensile load is transferred
in the first stage only through the rod/concrete bond, then through
pressure between the anchor plate and the concrete. These two
mechanisms are not simultaneous and they can be considered
independently. For the anchors studied and with the concrete
and steel material’s proprieties used, the bond failure being
achieved when the prestress is applied and the tangential friction
stress being negligible, the bond will not have to be taken into ac-
count in a design stage.
Concerning the damage to concrete, the experimental results
showed that for a prestress under 50% of the steel rod yield
strength, the concrete does not crack around the anchor plate.
The stress state in the concrete block demonstrates that the con-
crete is less and less stressed as soon as we move away from the
application surfaces of loads. The maximal stress when the anchor
is prestressed remains under 45% of the ultimate compressive
strength of concrete.
The proposed simplified model proves that anchor bolts can be
represented as classical bolted joints taking into account the stiff-
ness of the rod and concrete. From experimental tests, the stiffness
of the concrete was calculated. It depends on the embedment
length, the plate diameter and characteristics of the concrete. Nev-
ertheless, from the Eurocode 2 creep and shrinkage laws, it is pos-
sible to estimate the evolution of the prestress in the anchor.
In fatigue design, the long-term behaviour of the joint is assured
if the rod stays under tension, in spite of the creep and shrinkage of
the concrete. The tested joint equipment gave satisfaction on this
point, placing concrete and steel under effort simultaneously. The
presented joint concept seems to be very efficient in resisting fati-
gue. Nevertheless, experimental investigations are going onto
determine whether the damage to the concrete induced any evolu-
tion in the prestress of the rod under cyclic loading.
Please cite this article in press as: Delhomme F et al. Experimental behaviour of anchor bolts under pullout and relaxation tests. Constr Build Mater (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.038
View publication stats
ARTICLE IN PRESS
9
Experiment
Shrinkage
Shrinkage+Creep
50,00 100,00 150,00 200,00 250,00
Time (days)
Acknowledgements
The writers wish to thank D. Barroudi and B. Hugueny for their
support in carrying out the experiments. Sincere thanks are also
extended to ‘‘CETIM” for its financial assistance.
References
[1] Comité euro-International du béton. Fastenings to concrete and masonry
structures – State of the art report. London: Thomas Telford Services Ltd.;
1994.
[2] Breen JE, Eichinger E-M, Fuchs W. Anchoring to concrete: the new ACI
Approach. In: International symposium on connections between steel and
concrete: RILEM Publication, University of Stuttugart, Germany, September
2001. p. 10–2.
[3] Steel Design Guide. Base plate and anchor rod design. AISC; 2006.
[4] Comité euro-international du béton. Design of fastenings to concrete. London:
Thomas Telford Services Ltd.; 1997.
[5] ACI 349-79. Code requirements for nuclear safety related concrete structures.
Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 1976.
[6] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structure – Part 1–8: design of joints. Brussels:
European Standards, CEN; 2005.
[7] Cairns J, Plizzari GA. Towards a harmonized bond test. Mater Struct
2003;36:498–506.
[8] Ozbolt J, Eligehausen R, Reinhardt HW. Size effect on the concrete cone pull-
out load. Int J Fract 1999;95:391–404.
[9] Eligehausen R, Sawade G. A fracture mechanics based description of the pull-
out behaviour of headed studs embedded in concrete structure. RILEM Report,
London: Chapman and Hall; 1989.
[10] Règles BAEL 91, révisées 99. Règles techniques de conception et de calcul des
ouvrages et constructions en béton armé suivant la méthode des états limites.
French Standards; 1999.
[11] Ciampi V, Eligehausen R, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Analytical model for deformed-
bar bond under generalized excitations. In: Trans IABSE Colloquium on
advanced mechanics of reinforced concrete, Delft, Netherlands; 1981.
[12] Haraji MH. Development/splice strength of reinforced bars embedded in plain
and fiber reinforced concrete. ACI Struct J 1994;91(5):511–20.
[13] Xiao J, Falkner H. Bond behaviour between recycled aggregate concrete and
steel rebars. Construct Build Mater 2007;21:395–401.
[14] Guo Z. Strength and deformation of concrete–experimental foundation and
constitutive relationship. Beijing: Press of Tsinghua University; 1997.
[15] CEB-FIB. CEB-FIB model code 1990. London: Thomas Thelford; 1993.
[16] Poh KW. General creep-time equation. J Mater Civil Eng 1998;10(2):118–20.
[17] Smadi MM, Slate FO, Nilason AH. Shrinkage and creep of high, medium and
low strength concretes, including overloads. ACI Mater J 1987;84(3):224–34.
[18] Beres L. La macrostructure et le comportement du béton sous l’effet de
sollicitations de longue durée. Matériaux Construct/Mater Struct
1969;2(8):103–10.
[19] Alkatan F, Stephan P, Daidie A, Guillot J. Equivalent axial stiffness of various
components in bolted joints subjected to axial loading. Finite Elem Anal Des
2007;43(8):589–98.
[20] Guillot J. Assemblage par éléments filetés. Modélisat Calculs Techni l’ingénieur
1997;1:1–11.
[21] Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures – Part 1 – 1: general rules and rules
for buildings. Brussels: European Standards, CEN; 2003.