Received: 3 January 2017 Revised and accepted: 28 May 2017

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201700002

TECHNICAL PAPER

A new model for concrete edge failure of multiple row

anchorages with supplementary reinforcement—Reinforcement
failure
Akanshu Sharma1 | Rolf Eligehausen1,2 | Jörg Asmus2

1
Institute of Construction Materials, University of
Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
2
IEA GmbH, IEA Engineering Office
Eligehausen-Asmus-Hofmann, Stuttgart, Germany
Correspondence
Akanshu Sharma, Institute of Construction
Materials, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring
4, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany.
Email: akanshu.sharma@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
Funding information
Electricite De France.
The paper presents a new model for predicting the resistance of anchorages with
supplementary reinforcement loaded in shear toward and perpendicular to the edge
in case of reinforcement failure. The model is based on the evaluation of the
results of a comprehensive test program performed on anchorages with multiple
anchor rows and supplementary reinforcement, reported in an earlier paper. It is
shown that the existing models available in the codes and standards are conserva-
tive for low to medium amounts of supplementary reinforcement but tend to be
unconservative for high amounts of reinforcement. The new model is able to pre-
dict the failure loads corresponding to reinforcement failure under shear loads very
well. The approach to incorporate other failure modes into the design model for
anchorages with supplementary reinforcement under shear loads toward the edge
will be presented in another paper.

KEYWORDS

analytical model, anchorage, shear load, supplementary reinforcement

1 | INTRODUCTION
In an earlier paper,1 details and results of the experiments
performed on anchor groups with two to eight headed studs
cast in unreinforced and reinforced concrete, loaded in shear
perpendicular to the edge were reported. It was shown that
the failure load for concrete edge failure of the anchorages
with multiple anchor rows loaded in shear toward the edge
can be significantly increased by using supplementary rein-
forcement in the form of stirrups and edge reinforcement. In
case of anchorages with supplementary reinforcement, once
the concrete cracks, the stirrups get activated and provide
resistance to the applied shear loads until reinforcement
yielding or bond failure occurs or hook (node) of the sup-
plementary reinforcement fails. Thus, the shear strength of
anchorage can be increased by increasing the amount of
supplementary reinforcement. However, this increase in the
shear capacity is capped by the strut (compression) failure
of concrete. In current standards, such as EN1992-4,2 ACI
318,3 and fib bulletin 58,4 the strut failure is neglected and
a very conservative approach is given to consider stirrup
yielding and node failure.
In this paper, test results and observations are evaluated
in detail and compared with the existing model given in
EN1992-42 and the model proposed by Schmid5 for
anchorages with supplementary reinforcement loaded in
shear toward the edge. Based on the detailed evaluation of
test results, a new model is proposed for predicting the con-
crete edge failure loads for anchorages with supplementary
reinforcement undergoing reinforcement failure by modify-
ing the model proposed by Schmid.5 It is shown that with
the proposed model, the failure loads for the low to medium
amount of reinforcement (where reinforcement failure domi-
nates) can be predicted very well.
For high amounts of reinforcement, it is possible that
the concrete strut failure limits the failure load prior to rein-
forcement yielding. To consider this, an approach to incor-
porate strut failure in case of anchorages with relatively

Struct Concrete. 2017;1–9. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2017 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 SHARMA
high amount of reinforcement is proposed analogous to the
approach proposed by Berger6 for anchorages with supple-
mentary reinforcement subjected to tension loads. This
approach will be presented in another paper.
2 | M O D E L BY EN 1 9 9 2 - 4
According to EN1992-4,2 in case of anchorages with sup-
plementary reinforcement in the form of stirrups and edge
reinforcement, the load corresponding to failure of rein-
forcement in the concrete breakout body can be obtained on
the basis of the strut-and-tie model as shown in Figure 1. In
this case, only bars within a distance ≤0.75 times the edge
distance from the fastener are assumed as effective. The stir-
rups are considered effective provided the anchorage length
l1 (Figure 1) in the concrete breakout body is at least equal
to 10 times the rebar diameter (straight bars) or at least
equal to 4 times the rebar diameter (bars with a hook, bend,
or loop).
According to the strut-and-tie model of EN1992-4,2 the
mean resistance VRm,re of the supplementary reinforcement
FIGURE 1 Simplified strut-and-tie model for anchor reinforcement by
EN1992-4.
ET AL.
of one fastener in case of anchorage failure in the concrete
edge breakout body is given by:
X
VRm, re = 0
VRm , re
ð1Þ
n
with
l1 πds fbm =ðα1 α2 Þ fym As, re
0
VRm , re = ≤ ð2Þ
x x
where n is the number of effective legs of the anchor rein-
forcement; l1 is the anchorage length in the theoretical
breakout body; ds is the diameter of the stirrup; fbm is the
characteristic bond strength (1.33 × 1.5 fbd = 2.0 fbd); fbd is
the design bond strength according to EN1992-1-17; fym is
the characteristic yield strength of rebar; As,re is the area of
one leg of stirrup; α1 is the influencing factor equal to 0.7
for hooked rebar if cd < 3dsre or 1.0 if cd ≥ 3dsre and 1.0
for straight rebar7; α2 is the factor to consider the influence
of cover on the bond strength7 defined for hooked bars as
α2 = 1− 0:15ðcd −3ds, re Þ=ds, re , with 0:7 ≤ α2 ≤ 1:0
where cd is the clear cover to the reinforcing bar in any
direction or half the clear distance to the adjacent rebar,
whichever is smaller; x is the factor to consider for the lever
arm between the reinforcement and the applied shear load
(compare Figure 1).
 
es
x= 1+
z
where es is the distance between reinforcement and shear
force acting on a fixture; z is the internal lever arm of the
concrete member that is approximately equal to 0.85d; d is
the min(depth of concrete member, 2hef, 2c1).
If calculated mean failure load of the anchorage corre-
sponding to concrete edge breakout in unreinforced concrete
is VRm,c, then the failure load for an anchorage with supple-
mentary reinforcement is given as
VRm = maxðVRm, c ;VRm, re Þ ð3Þ
3 | M OD E L PR OP OS E D B Y S CH M I D
Based on a number of tests on single anchors and two
anchors in a row parallel to the edge (1 × 2 configuration)
in concrete with supplementary reinforcement, Schmid5 pro-
posed the following formulation to evaluate the mean load-
carrying capacity of the anchorage. According to Schmid5
model, the load-carrying capacity of the anchor reinforce-
ment can be divided into two parts: the contribution of hook
and the contribution of bond. The mean ultimate shear load
corresponding to reinforcement failure is given as
NRm, re
VRm, re = ≥ VRm, c ð4Þ
x
SHARMA ET AL. 3

where VRm,re is the mean shear capacity of an anchorage anchors (stirrups marked 2 in Figure 2) are considered as
with anchor reinforcement; NRm,re is the total load-carrying most effective. The other stirrups that are intercepted by the
capacity of the anchor reinforcement; VRm,c is the shear crack (stirrups marked 4 in Figure 2) are considered to be
capacity of anchorage without anchor reinforcement; x is as much less effective. Any stirrup that is not intercepted by
defined earlier. the crack or whose anchorage length in the assumed break-
Thus, according to both the EN1992-42 model and the out body is ≤4ds does not contribute toward the load-
Schmid5 model, higher of the reinforcement failure load or carrying capacity of the anchorage.
the concrete edge failure load in unreinforced concrete is The mean value of the hook contribution for a particular
considered as the failure load for the anchorage with supple- stirrup leg is given as
mentary reinforcement.  
0 fcm, cube 0:1
The anchorage capacity of one stirrup leg, NRm , re is NRm, hook, i = ψ 1, i ψ 2 ψ 3 As fym 
0
ð6Þ
0
30
given by summing up the hook capacity, NRm , hook , and the
0
bond capacity, NRm, bond as where fym is the mean yield strength of the reinforcement;
fcm,cube is the mean compressive strength of concrete
, re = NRm, hook + NRm, bond ≤ As, i fym ð5Þ
0 0 0 obtained using 150 mm cubes.
NRm
The factor ψ 1,i considers the influence of the position of
where As,i is the area of one (ith) stirrup leg and fym is the the stirrup. A value of ψ 1,i = 0.95 is assumed for the most
mean yield strength of stirrup. effective stirrups (marked 1 and 2 in Figure 2) and a value
0
The contribution of the hook of the stirrup, NRm , hook , of ψ 1,i = 0.16 for other stirrups (marked 4 in Figure 2).
is determined on the basis of the position of the stirrup rela- The factor ψ 2 considers the influence of the diameter of
tive to the theoretical crack. The stirrups that are first inter- the edge reinforcement, ds,L (Figure 2), with respect to the
cepted by the diagonal crack from a single anchor or from diameter of the stirrup, ds, and is given as
the outermost anchors in a group (stirrups marked 1 in
 2 =3
Figure 2) as well as the stirrups intercepted by the crack ds, L
ψ2 = ≤ 1:2 ð7Þ
running parallel to the edge and in between the outermost ds
The factor ψ 3 considers the influence of the bond
length, l1, and is given as
 0:4  0:25
l1, i 10
ψ3 =  ð8Þ
c ds
where l1,i is the bond length of the ith stirrup (Figure 2) and
c is the edge distance for the anchors.
The contribution of the bond of one stirrup leg is
given as
0
, bond, i = πds l1, i fbm =α2 ð9Þ
0
NRm
with

l01, i = l1, i −4ds

where fbm is the mean bond strength = 1.33 × 1.5fbd = 2
fbd; fbd = design bond strength given in EN1992-1-1.7
The total capacity of the anchor reinforcement is calcu-
lated by summing up the capacities of all effective stir-
rup legs
X
NRm, re = 0
NRm , re ð10Þ
n

with n is the number of effective stirrup legs of the anchor-

FIGURE 2 Effectiveness of stirrups according to Schmid model—high
effectiveness: stirrups 1 and 2; low effectiveness: stirrups 4.
age. Effective are stirrups with an anchorage length,
l1 ≥ 4ds in the theoretical breakout body; NRm 0
, re is the
capacity of one stirrup leg according to Equation (5).
The resistance provided by the supplementary reinforce-
ment against applied shear loads is then calculated using
Equation (4).
4 SHARMA
4 | C O M P A R I S O N OF TE S T R E S U L T S
WITH EXISTING MODELS
The mean failure loads for the anchorages tested were calcu-
lated following the formulations described in the previous
sections using the EN1992-42 model and the Schmid5 model.
Here, the calculated mean failure loads using the two models
are compared with the experimentally obtained mean failure
loads.1 The mean failure loads for concrete edge failure in
unreinforced concrete, VRm,c is calculated using mean con-
crete strength and considering that the factor to calculate con-
crete edge failure load has a mean value of 1.33 times its
characteristic value.8 Although, both the models assume a
failure crack initiating from front anchor rows, the theoretical
failure loads are calculated considering crack once from front
anchor row and once from back anchor row.
4.1 | Groups 1 × 2
In case of groups 1 × 2 (Figure 3), the mean test failure
load for groups tested in unreinforced concrete matches rea-
sonably well with the evaluated mean failure load value.
However, due to a short anchorage length, in no case any
contribution from stirrups is considered by the EN1992-42
model or the Schmid5 model. Therefore, the failure loads
predicted by both the models are exactly the same and the
analytically evaluated failure capacity for the anchor group
1 × 2 is independent of the diameter of stirrups.
4.2 | Groups 2 × 2
The comparison of experimentally obtained and analytically
evaluated mean failure loads for group 2 × 2, as calculated
by EN1992-42 and Schmid5 models considering crack once
from front and once from back anchors is given in Figure 4.
If the crack is considered from the front anchors, no
FIGURE 3 Comparison of mean failure loads obtained from the tests with
the mean failure loads predicted by the EN1992-4 model and the Schmid
for groups 1 × 2.
ET AL.
FIGURE 4 Comparison of mean failure loads obtained from the tests with
the mean failure loads predicted by the EN1992-4 model and the Schmid
for groups 2 × 2.
enhancement in the load-carrying capacity is given by both
the models, because no stirrup is considered as effective.
When the failure crack for concrete edge failure is consid-
ered from the back anchors, for 12-mm diameter stirrups,
the failure load corresponding to reinforcement failure is
less than that of concrete edge failure. Therefore, the failure
load is equal to that of concrete edge failure in unreinforced
concrete. For medium reinforcement (ds 16 stirrups), an
enhancement of the failure loads is recognized by the
Schmid5 model but not by the EN1992-42 model. For the
highest amount of reinforcement (ds 16 + 14 stirrups), both
the models consider the increase in the capacity due to the
reinforcement. However, in any case, the capacity calcu-
lated by both the models is significantly conservative com-
pared to the test results. Additionally, the trend of increase
of calculated failure load as a function of the area of supple-
mentary reinforcement is opposite to the trend of experi-
mental failure load. This suggests that if the reinforcement
amount would be further increased, probably the calculated
failure load would be more than the experimental failure
load, which would be unconservative.
4.3 | Groups 4 × 2
Figure 5 shows the comparison of mean failure loads evalu-
ated using the EN1992-4 model and the Schmid model with
the mean failure loads obtained from the experiments1 for
group 4 × 2. When the crack is considered from front
anchors, again no stirrups are considered effective by both
the models and hence the failure load in reinforced concrete
is the same as that in unreinforced concrete. Obviously this
is unrealistic and overly conservative compared to the
experimentally obtained failure loads. When the crack is
considered from the back anchors, according to EN1992-42
model, two stirrups on either side of the anchorage are
effective. For the case of 12-mm stirrups, the calculated
SHARMA ET AL.
FIGURE 5 Comparison of mean failure loads obtained from the tests with
the mean failure loads predicted by the EN1992-4 model and the Schmid
for groups 4 × 2.
failure load corresponding to reinforcement failure is less
than the concrete edge failure load in unreinforced concrete
and hence the failure; no enhancement in the load-carrying
capacity is obtained even when the crack is considered from
back anchors. However, for the other two cases, the failure
load increases due to the presence of reinforcement.
Although, according to Schmid5 model, more number of
stirrups are activated on either side of the anchorage, the
predicted loads are only marginally higher compared to the
EN1992-4 model. This is because except for the first stir-
rups intercepted by the theoretical crack, all the other stir-
rups are assigned a value of ψ 1 = 0.16 (Equation 6). The
predicted failure loads are conservative compared to the
experimental failure loads.
4.4 | Groups 2 × 4
Group 2 × 4 is different from all the other groups in the
sense that the distance between the outermost anchors in this
case is 450 mm instead of 150 mm and that two reinforcing
bars lie in between the outermost anchors unlike any other
anchor group that was tested in this program. The compari-
son of failure loads obtained for group 2 × 4 using the two
models is given in Figure 6. Although for this group, no tests
were performed in concrete reinforced with 16-mm stirrups,
the analytical failure loads for such a case are included in
Figure 6. The dashed line shows a probable trend that the
failure loads would have followed if tests were performed
also in concrete reinforced with 16-mm stirrups. For this
group, same as for previous cases, the reinforcement does not
contribute to the failure load, according to both the models
when assuming the crack from front anchors.
While considering the crack from back anchors, accord-
ing to the Schmid5 model, the stirrups lying between the out-
ermost anchors as well as the stirrups closest to outermost
anchors are assigned a value of ψ 1 = 0.95 (see Equation 6).
5
FIGURE 6 Comparison of mean failure loads obtained from the tests with
the mean failure loads predicted by the EN1992-4 model and the Schmid
for groups 2 × 4.
Consequently, the failure loads for this group according to
the Schmid5 model considering the failure crack from back
anchors are closer to the experimental failure loads compared
to the prediction by the EN1992-42 model.
In summary, it was observed that if the failure crack is
assumed from the front anchors, in none of the cases, any
contribution from the stirrups could be considered by both
the existing models. When the crack was considered from
rear anchors, the stirrups contribution becomes significant.
For cases with low amount of reinforcement, the reinforce-
ment capacity is less than the concrete capacity and there-
fore the addition of reinforcement does not enhance the
calculated load-carrying capacity of the anchor groups.
Thus, the current models to evaluate failure loads for
anchorages with more than one anchor row perpendicular to
the edge in reinforced concrete loaded in shear perpendicu-
lar to the edge are in general, over conservative even when
the crack is assumed from the back anchors. However,
because no cap on the load-carrying capacity for strut fail-
ure is assumed in both models, the analytical failure loads
have a tendency to be unconservative for high amounts of
shear reinforcement in the concrete slabs (higher than pro-
vided in the tests). Therefore, there is a need to develop a
more rational and reliable method to analytically evaluate
the shear failure loads of anchorages with more than one
anchor row in reinforced concrete
5 | D ET AI LE D E VA LU ATI O N OF TEST
RE SUL TS
The Schmid5 model was developed based on the tests on
single anchors and anchor groups with a single anchor row
only. Further in these tests, the reinforcement did not yield.
In order to understand the real behavior of the anchorages
with multiple anchor rows and with supplementary rein-
forcement, the test results1 were evaluated in detail.
6 SHARMA
In two of the three slabs reinforced with ds 12 mm stirrups,
strain gauges were provided at specified locations where the
crack was predicted to intercept the reinforcement. The read-
ings from the strain gauges were evaluated in order to estimate
the amount and extent of forces carried by reinforcing bars.
The total tensile force was converted using Equation (4) into
the contribution of reinforcing bars toward resisting the applied
shear loads. The difference of the total applied shear load and
the shear force resisted by stirrups gave the contribution of con-
crete in taking up the shear forces.
Figure 7 displays the tension force carried by individual
reinforcing bars for the tests performed on 4 × 2 group. For
this group, four stirrups on either side of headed studs were
provided with strain gauges. It can be observed that load is
first carried by stirrups marked 4 and 5 that are closest to
the headed studs. When these stirrups are stressed close to
yield, the next two stirrups marked 3 and 6 become more
effective. Similarly, once these stirrups reach yield, the next
stirrups marked 2 and 7 become effective and finally the
stirrups 1 and 8 that are farthest from the headed studs
become active. When the peak load is reached, six out of
eight stirrups have reached the yield strength (62.2 kN).
This suggests that the effectiveness of the stirrups in carry-
ing load depends on yielding or nonyielding of the stirrup
closer to the anchorage intersected by the crack than the
stirrup in consideration. This aspect could not be captured
in the tests performed by Schmid5 because in those tests,
the stirrups did not reach yield.
The shear contribution of the rebars is plotted as a function
of group shear displacement in Figure 8. The total contribution
FIGURE 7 Force carried by individual stirrups as a function of group
shear displacement obtained from the tests carried out on group 4 × 2.
ET AL.
of reinforcing bars toward carrying the shear forces was
deducted from the total applied shear force to obtain the shear
force carried by concrete. It can be observed that initially, the
plot of total load coincides with the plot of concrete contribu-
tion. After reaching a shear load of approximately 350 kN,
which is close to the failure load valid for concrete edge failure
in unreinforced concrete,1 the concrete contribution saturates
and the reinforcement starts to take up load.
Even for this relatively small amount of reinforcement,
the contribution of the reinforcement in taking up shear loads
is significant. It is interesting to note that once the applied
load reaches the load corresponding to concrete edge failure,
the concrete does not drop the load suddenly but continues
to carry this load even at very large displacements. However,
this could be due to the fact that the uplift of the base plate
was prevented by the test setup.1 For the tests with uplift
restraint as performed in this program, the peak load corre-
sponds to the point when reinforcement reaches its yield
strength and concrete retains the load corresponding to con-
crete edge failure. However, in case of test setup without
uplift restraint (Figure 9), there is a possibility of rotation of
the baseplate inducing an additional tension force leading to
a secondary breakout body and the full load corresponding
to the concrete edge failure might not be retained when the
reinforcement yields. This needs further investigation.
6 | NEW MODEL FOR SUPPLEMENTARY
RE IN FORC EME NT FA IL UR E
Based on the information gathered from the tests, a new
model is proposed that is, in principle, a modification of the
existing Schmid5 model. The following major modifications
are proposed in the Schmid5 model:
1. The failure crack is assumed from the back row of
anchors.
2. The value of the effectiveness factor, ψ 1,i for the ith stir-
rup, used in the Schmid5 model (Equation 6) is
FIGURE 8 Separate contribution of concrete and reinforcement toward
resisting the applied shear load in case of tests performed on group 4 × 2.
SHARMA ET AL.
FIGURE 9 Influence of uplift restraint on failure mechanism.
dependent on yielding/nonyielding of the (i − 1)th stir-
rup previously intercepted by the crack.
3. The total failure load for an anchorage is given by add-
ing the contribution of concrete to the contribution of
reinforcement.
In the proposed model, the following step-by-step pro-
cedure is followed to assign the value to the effectiveness
factor, ψ 1,i.
Step 1: Assign the effectiveness factor, ψ 1,1 = 0.95 to the
stirrups lying between the outermost anchors as well as to the
stirrups that lie outside the anchorage but would be first inter-
cepted by the theoretical crack (same as in Schmid5 model).
Step 2: Evaluate the hook resistance (Equation 6) and
bond resistance (Equation 9) for the first intercepted stirrups
and obtain total stirrup resistance (Equation 5).
Step 3: If yielding of the stirrups first intercepted by the
crack takes place, the next stirrup is assigned a value of
effectiveness factor, ψ 1,2 = 0.95 else, ψ 1,2 = 0.16.
Step 4: Repeat steps 2 and 3 for all the stirrups inter-
cepted by the theoretical crack.
Through this procedure, the individual contribution of
the activated stirrups is considered one after the other.
Further, in this model it is proposed that provided the
uplift of the base plate is restrained, then the peak failure
load is given as the failure load corresponding to concrete
edge failure in unreinforced concrete plus the load
7
corresponding to reinforcement failure calculated in accord-
ance with the new model.
VRm = VRm, c + VRm, re ð11Þ
Following the step-by-step procedure, the failure loads
were calculated for all anchor groups in reinforced concrete
based on the new model. It may be noted that in the new
model, the contribution of only edge reinforcement is unac-
counted for due to its unreliable nature. Therefore, the fail-
ure loads for group 1 × 2 by the new model and the
Schmid5 model are equal. It was noticed in the experi-
ments1 that for these groups the additional resistance
mainly came from the rope action of the edge reinforcement
and was unreliable, since it depends on whether the anchors
are touching the reinforcement directly or not and is diffi-
cult to calculate. Therefore the comparison of calculated
and experimental failure loads for groups 1 × 2 is not
repeated here.
6.1 | Groups 2 × 2
Figure 10 displays the comparison of experimentally
obtained and theoretically predicted mean failure loads for
the group 2 × 2 as a function of the area of reinforcing bars
used as stirrups. It is clearly observed that the failure loads
predicted by the new model are much closer to the actual
failure loads obtained from the experiments, compared to
8 SHARMA ET AL.

FIGURE 10 Comparison of mean failure loads obtained from the tests FIGURE 11 Comparison of mean failure loads obtained from the tests
with the mean failure loads calculated using the new model for the with the mean failure loads calculated using the new model for the
groups 2 × 2. groups 4 × 2.

5
the loads predicted by the Schmid model or the EN1992-4
model even when calculated assuming the failure crack
from back anchor row.
For the tests performed in unreinforced concrete, and
tests performed in concrete slabs reinforced with stirrups of
12 and 16 mm diameter, the calculated failure loads accord-
ing to new model are not only close to the experimental fail-
ure loads but also follow the same trend. This is an important
aspect, which is not captured by the Schmid5 model or the
EN1992-42 model. For the case of tests in concrete reinforced
with ds 16 + 14 bundled stirrups, the calculated failure load
over-predicts the measured failure load. This may be attribu-
ted to the fact that in the tests, strut failure may have been
started. This suggests that it is important to provide an upper
limit, given by strut failure, to the enhancement of the failure
load for anchor groups due to presence of reinforcement.
However, the test results show that the failure load for this
case was limited by strut failure.
6.3 | Groups 2 × 4
For groups 2 × 4 with two anchor rows and four anchor
columns, the comparison of experimentally determined
mean failure loads and those calculated using the new pro-
posed model is given in Figure 12. The calculated mean
failure loads according to the new model are very close to
the experimental mean failure loads for all three levels of
supplementary reinforcement.
It is interesting to note that in this case, the ratio of fail-
ure load for the test in concrete reinforced with ds 16 + 14
bundled stirrups to that for the test in unreinforced concrete
is much greater for the 2 × 4 group (~4.3) than for 2 × 2 or
4 × 2 groups (~2.6). This suggests that anchorages with
more anchor columns may have a higher strut failure

6.2 | Groups 4 × 2
For groups 4 × 2, the comparison of experimentally deter-
mined mean failure loads and those calculated using the
new model is given in Figure 11. Again, the calculated
loads for the group according to new model show a signifi-
cant improvement over the loads calculated by Schmid5
model and the EN1992-42 model, when compared to the
experimental mean failure loads.
The failure loads predicted by the new model for group
4 × 2 in concrete reinforced with 12 and 16 mm stirrups
are very close to the experimental results. The experimental
failure mode obtained for these cases was reinforcement
failure. Thus, it can be said that the new model is able to
predict the failure loads corresponding to reinforcement fail-
ure quite realistically. For the case of tests in concrete rein- FIGURE 12 Comparison of mean failure loads obtained from the tests
forced with ds16 + 14 bundled stirrups, the calculated with the mean failure loads calculated using the new model for the
failure load is significantly higher than the measured value. groups 2 × 4.
SHARMA ET AL. 9

capacity than groups with a smaller number of anchor col- 5. Schmid K. Behavior and Design of Fastenings at the Edge with Anchor Reinforce-
ment Under Shear Loads Towards the Edge [PhD thesis]. Stuttgart, Germany:
umns, for same reinforcement configuration. Nevertheless,
Institute of Construction Materials, University of Stuttgart; 2010 (In German).
an upper limit to the failure capacity due to strut failure is 6. Berger W.: Load-Displacement Behavior and Design of Anchorages with
extremely important to correctly predict the failure loads for Headed Studs with and without Supplementary Reinforcement under Tension
Load [PhD thesis]. Stuttgart, Germany: Institute of Construction Materials,
anchorages in reinforced concrete.
University of Stuttgart; 2015 (In German).
7. EN1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings; 2004.
7 | SUM M AR Y A ND C ON C LUS IONS 8. Eligehausen R, Mallee R, Silva JF. Anchorage in Concrete Construction.
Berlin, Germany: Ernst & Sohn; 2006.
In this paper, a new model is proposed to calculate failure
loads for anchor groups with supplementary reinforcement
AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHIES
loaded in shear perpendicular to the edge undergoing rein-
forcement failure. The model is based on the modification
Akanshu Sharma
of the Schmid5 model. A detailed evaluation of the test
Junior Professor, Institute of Construc-
results reported in an earlier paper1 on anchor groups with
tion Materials, University of Stuttgart,
up to four anchor rows perpendicular to the edge tested in
Pfaffenwaldring 4, 70569 Stuttgart,
concrete with four different levels of shear reinforcement is
Germany. Tel.: 0049-711-685-68034;
performed to support the development of the new model.
Fax: 0049-711-685-62285. Email:
The new model is based on realistic assumptions for partici-
akanshu.sharma@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
pation of activated stirrups as well as combination of con-
crete and reinforcement contribution toward the shear
resistance of the groups. The model is able to predict the
failure loads of anchorages in reinforced concrete quite well, Rolf Eligehausen
if the failure mode is governed by reinforcement failure. In Professor Emeritus, Institute of Con-
order to consider the upper limit of beneficial effect of the struction Materials, University of
supplementary reinforcement, an approach to consider strut Stuttgart, Germany, and Partner, IEA
failure is required to be included in the model, which will Engineering Office Eligehausen-
be presented in another paper. Due to the limited scope of Asmus-Hofmann, Stuttgart, Germany
the tests performed, the model is valid only for the anchor
groups with maximum four anchor rows and four anchor
columns and when the uplift of the base plate is restrained. Jörg Asmus
For anchor groups where uplift of base plate is not CEO, IEA Engineering Office Elige-
restrained, further investigations are needed. hausen-Asmus-Hofmann, Stuttgart,
Germany
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was sponsored by Électricité de France, 9, rue

de Culrasslers, 8P3180, 69003 LYON 03, France.

REFERENC ES
1. Sharma A, Eligehausen R, Asmus J. Experimental investigations on concrete
edge failure of multiple row anchorages with supplementary reinforcement.
Struct Concr. 2017;18(1):153-163.
2. EN1992-4. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 4: Design of
How to cite this article: Sharma A, Eligehausen R,
Fastenings for Use in Concrete. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for
Standardization, CEN/TC 250; 2015 Asmus J. A new model for concrete edge failure of
3. ACI 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI multiple row anchorages with supplementary reinforce?
318–14). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2014. ment—Reinforcement failure. Struct Concrete.
4. fib Bulletin 58. Design of Anchorages in Concrete—Guide to Good Practice.
Lausanne, Switzerland: fib Special Activity Group 4, International Federation 2017;0:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700002
for Concrete (fib); 2011.