Design Considerations for Earthquake-Resistant Anchorages

John F. Silva, S.E.

Hilti, Inc., USA

Abstract

Robust connection design is one of the most important and least understood aspects of
the design of structures to successfully resist earthquake forces. In particular, the design
of connections between steel and concrete components that involve discrete anchorage
points (i.e., that employ anchor bolts) is an area of ongoing concern. Recent changes in
the approach to this problem as reflected in U.S. codes are discussed, and an example
illustrating the application of the new provisions is presented.

1. Background

The design of connections to resist earthquake-induced forces is a critical aspect of good

seismic design practice. It has long been recognized that the connections comprising the
primary lateral load path of the structure (e.g., diaphragm to wall or frame, beam to
column, brace to column, wall to foundation, etc.) often constitute the weakest links in
building structures. Indeed, the primary focus of many if not most mandatory retrofitting
(intervention) programs to improve the earthquake resistance capability of structures in
the U.S. has been connection strengthening, whereby the cost effectiveness (increase in
probability of survival per unit of expenditure) of these measures is clearly the
motivation.

The philosophy of connection capacity in the seismic design process has evolved over
the last 20 years to include one or more of the following strategies:

1. The connection is capable of developing the yield capacity of the elements framing
into the connection;
2. The connection is capable of resisting the maximum possible force deliverable by
the load path leading to the connection; and

SILVA, Design Considerations, 1/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
3. The connection is capable of resisting a multiple of the calculated seismic load for
delivered by the elements framing into the connection.

Regardless of which approach is adopted, the goal is always to avoid failure of the
connection, thereby preventing sudden failure and loss of stability and allowing the
structural system to effectively absorb/dissipate inertial energy generated by the strong
ground motion or other effects. All of these strategies recognize the inherent uncertainty
associated with the prediction of earthquake effects (displacement vs. force demand) and
the need to ensure good structural response well beyond the elastic limit. Nevertheless, I
refer to the first approach listed above as overload protection, since the objective is to
protect the connection from overload prior to attainment of the peak lateral load capacity
of the structural system as a whole.

2. Code Provisions

Examples for code implementation of overload protection strategies include:

a. requirements for beam column connections in moment-resisting frames (steel,
concrete and masonry)1
b. requirements for brace connection design in braced frames (steel)1
c. requirements for the design of cladding connections2

Figure 1 - Cladding connection detailing requirements 3

Judging from the degree to which they have been utilized in designs, the overload
protection requirements for cladding connections (and other like connections of building
components to the structural frame) have not been uniformly understood by the design

SILVA, Design Considerations, 2/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
community, nor have they received the same scrutiny as the analogous provisions for
primary frame connections. This is especially true of the design of the post-installed
anchors as required to satisfy the requirements for yield. One reason for this is the
difficulty of assessing the ultimate capacity of anchorages between steel and concrete
members. Another is the impracticality of forcing ductility in the anchor bolt itself. Well
it may be possible to ensure a measure of ductile behavior in a cast in place headed stud
connection (particularly if supplementary anchorage reinforcing is provided), post-
installed anchors do not typically benefit from the boundary conditions necessary to
ductile overload response. This is particularly true of shear loading.

It can be safely said that post-installed anchor design practice has not kept pace with
advances in the seismic design of structures in general. Currently in the U.S., the
majority of post-installed anchor connections are designed on an allowable stress basis
involving the use of mean ultimate capacities (based on tests) reduced with a global
safety factor. The inherent disadvantages of this methodology for the implementation of
limit state overload protection as outlined above are obvious.

Figure 2 - Precast panel connection4

The first comprehensive strength design provisions for the design of cast in place
anchors outside of the nuclear industry were introduced in the 1991 Uniform Building
Code5. Similar provisions have long been incorporated in the ACI 349 requirements6 for
design of nuclear structures. Until recently, however, neither the general building codes

SILVA, Design Considerations, 3/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
in the U.S. nor the nuclear design provisions have addressed the design of post-installed
anchors. This will change with the adoption of the most recent ACI provisions for
anchor design as contained in Appendix D of ACI 318-027 and the companion nuclear
standard, ACI 349-01 Appendix B8. Both of these documents incorporate the CCD
method for the design of cast in place as well as post-installed mechanical anchors in
concrete. (Provisions for the design of chemical anchors are in development.) In
addition, both ACI 318 and ACI 349 include language that specifically addresses
connection overload protection. The specific provisions in each are discussed below.

4. ACI 318-02 Appendix D

The relevant provisions of ACI 318-02 Appendix D are provided here in abbreviated
form for reference:

D3.3.3 – In regions of moderate or high seismic risk...the design

strength of anchors shall be taken as 0.75φNn and 0.75φVn, where φ is
given in D.4.4 or D.4.5 and Nn and Vn are determined in accordance
with D.4.1.

D.3.3.4 – In regions of moderate or high seismic risk...anchors shall be

designed to be governed by tensile or shear strength of a ductile steel
element, unless D.3.3.5 is satisfied.

D.3.3.5 – Instead of D.3.3.4, the attachment that the anchor is

connecting to the structure shall be designed so that the attachment will
undergo ductile yielding at a load level corresponding to anchor forces
no greater than the design strength of anchors specified in D.3.3.3.

Note that all three strategies (overstrength, ductility, overload protection) are employed
to varying degrees in these provisions. D3.3.3 limits the nominal strength of the
anchorage, thereby indirectly increasing the capacity-demand ratio for the anchor.
D3.3.4 requires the design of a ductile anchorage, in effect forcing the anchor to yield
prior to failure. This has also long been the approach taken in ACI 349, further discussed
below. D3.3.5 represents the most direct attempt to implement connection overload
protection into U.S. codes.

5. ACI 349-01 Appendix B

ACI 349-01 Appendix B contains a provision analogous to ACI 318 Appendix D,

D.3.3.5, but with some significant differences. The relevant text is provided here for
reference:

SILVA, Design Considerations, 4/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
 B.3.6.2 – As an alternate to [ductile design of the anchor], the
attachment shall be designed to yield at a load level corresponding to
anchor forces not greater than 75% of the anchor design strength
specified in B.4.1.2. The anchor design strength shall be determined
using the strength reduction factors specified in B.4.4 (b) or (c).

In each case, the requirement is for the limiting anchor design strength to be
1 4
= = 1.33 times the yielding load of the connected part.
0.75 3

6. NEHRP Provisions

The 1997 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures9 contains a similar set of requirements, in this case
applied specifically to the anchorage of non-structural elements in a building structure.
The relevant provision is as follows:

6.1.6.2: Anchors embedded in concrete or masonry shall be

proportioned to carry the least of the following:

a. The design strength of the connected part,

b. 2 times the force in the connected part due to the prescribed forces,
and
c. The maximum force that can be transferred to the connected part
by the component structural system.

This approach, which was first proposed by the author in 1996 and originally included in
part b. a link to the ductility assumed for the system as a whole, again employs all three
connection overload protection devices, and is based on the requirements for braced
frame connections in AISC.

7. Example including the effects of prying

For cast in place anchor design where limited edge distance, anchor spacing, or member
thickness are not limiting factors, satisfying the ductile anchor provisions of the relevant
code is the most common approach to seismic design of the anchorage. In many cases,
however, and in most cases involving post-installed anchor design, ductile anchor design
is not possible either because the anchor cannot be embedded sufficiently deep to
develop the steel yield, or because the geometrical constraints of the problem dictate that
a non-ductile failure mode (concrete fracture, splitting, anchor pullout, etc.) will govern
the design. In these cases, it is necessary to explore connection overload protection via
an intermediate yielding element. One such case is described below, whereby a simple
angle connection designed for uplift is considered. Note that specific consideration for

SILVA, Design Considerations, 5/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
the effects of prying are included in this calculation, based on the approach used by
AISC since 1980 for hanger-type connections10. The use of this approach is undoubtedly
conservative, since the stiffness of the steel to steel bearing interface is characteristically
greater than the steel to concrete bearing interface. Nevertheless, it is presumed adequate
for assessing the anchor tension load amplification associated with angle flexibility.
T
b a
4” (102 mm) L6x4

2-1/2” 5” 2-1/2”
(64 mm) (127 mm) (64 mm)

Prying Force
Bolt
Q
Force Bc
T

d'
a p
Mc
a
Q tf
Bc
d′ Ratio of the net area (at
δ = 1− the bolt line) and the
b p gross area (at the face of
the angle leg) where is
the bolt hole diameter
parallel to angle leg and is
α δ Mc the tributary length of
b angle leg.
Q

Figure 3 - Prying in a single angle subject to uplift, after Thornton11

Consider a single angle anchor bolt connection rigidly connected to a stiff element that is
experiences uplift due to seismic actions. The angle dimensions are 6” x 4” x 0’-10”
long (152 x 102 x 254 mm). Two anchors are to be used for the connection (see Fig. 3).

SILVA, Design Considerations, 6/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
A nominal seismic uplift of 10,000 lb (44.5 kN) has been calculated for the connection.
Design the connection such that the angle will yield prior to bolt failure.

T M1

M2

T+Q Q
Distribution of
Resultant contact pressure
between angle
and anchor

Bc
b' a'

d/2
Figure 4 - Deformation associated with prying, after Thornton11
Thornton11 provides the relevant equilibrium and limit state equations for prying action
associated with T- and double angle hanger connections as follows:

M c − Tb + Qa = 0 .................................................................................(1)
T + Q − Bc = 0 .......................................................................................(2)
Qa − δ α M c = 0 ...................................................................................(3)

SILVA, Design Considerations, 7/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
Replace b with b ′ = b − d / 2 and a with a ′ = a − d / 2 , (see Fig. 4) and rearrange:

Tb ′
= M c ..........................................................................................(4)
1+ δα

 δα  b′
T 1+ ρ  = Bc where ρ = .....................................................(5)
 1+ δα  a′
where 0 < α ≤ 1.0

Limit state equations:

M c ≤ M ..............................................................................................(6)
Bc ≤ B ..................................................................................................(7)
where B is the design bolt capacity ( φN n ), and

M pl 1 2
M = = pt f F y .........................................................................(8)
2 8

3″
We select a location for the anchor in the angle leg of b = a = 2 and select a trial
4
angle leg thickness10:
Tb
M ≈ ................................................................................................(9)
2
10 ,000lb lb k
where T = = 1,000 =1 (note: 1k = 1,000 lb )
10 ′′ in. in.
t 2f ⋅ 0.75 ⋅ 36 k / in.2
Taking Fb = 0.75 F y and M allow = SFb = yields:
6
27
M allow = t 2f ⋅ ..................................................................................(10)
6
k
2.75 ′′ × 1.0
bT
Equating and solving for t f ≈ = in. = 0.55 in. (14mm )
3 3

Try an angle with thickness t f = 0.5 in. Estimate the bolt force corresponding to
yielding of the angle leg:

SILVA, Design Considerations, 8/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
M pl =
t 2f F y
=
(0.5 in.)2 × 36 k / in.2 = 2.25 in. − k / in. (10.0 Nm / mm )
4 4

2M 2(2.25in. − k )
Back-calculating for TM pl ≈ = = 1.64 k / in. (0.287 kN / mm)
b 2.75 ′′

∴ T pl = 1.64 k / in.× 5 ′′ = 8.2 k (36.5 kN ) required to yield angle leg (prying not
included).

3 / 4 ′′
δ = 1− = 0.85
5 ′′

Re-arrange10 Eq. 4 to solve for α :

 Tb ′  1
α = − 1 ....................................................................................(11)
M δ
5 ′′ × (0.5 in.)2
From Eq. 8: M = × 36 k / in.2 = 5.63 in − k (636 Nm )
8
3″ 1″
b ′ = 2.75 ′′ − = 2.375 ′′ (60 mm ) and a ′ = 6 ′′ − − 2.375 ″ = 3.125 ′′ (79 mm)
8 2

 8.2k × 2.38 ′′  1
∴α =  − 1 = 2.90 > 1.0 ∴α = 1.0 and δ ⋅ α = 0.85 × 1.0 = 0.85
 5.63 in. − k  0.85

b ′ 2.375 ′′
= = 0.76
a ′ 3.125 ′′

Substituting in Eq. 5 to estimate the total bolt force associated with angle yielding:
  0.85  
Bc = 1+   0.76 8.2k = 1.35 × 8.2k = 11.1k / bolt (49.4 kN )
  1+ 0.85  

Adopting the connection overstrength provisions of ACI as outlined above, the required
bolt capacity becomes:
φN n = 1.33 × 11.1k = 14.8k / bolt (65.7 kN )
Note that for a given angle size, re-positioning the anchor further out on the angle leg
will increase the moment, thereby reducing the anchor force corresponding to angle
yield. However, the reduced toe dimension also increases the prying effect.

SILVA, Design Considerations, 9/11

Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
 FH

M FH
RV RV+Q Q
M/2

M
Freebody

3M/2L
M/2
M M
θ
3M/2L
2L/3 L/3
Deformed shape
Figure 5 - Prying associated with imposition of a rotation θ
A similar approach may be taken for evaluating the bolt tension force required to
develop yield in the angle subject to a horizontal load (see Fig. 5). In this case, an
imposed rotation of the vertical angle leg is assumed, and the corresponding anchor bolt
loads corresponding to angle leg yield are determined from the freebody diagram. The
effect of prying can then be estimated as before.

8. Summary

The design of connections that incorporate overload protection is encouraged by U.S.

codes. It is possible to execute such designs for simple anchor bolt connections.
Secondary effects (e.g., prying) such as might increase the anchor bolt load should be
included in the design. A wider use of overload protection in anchor bolt design will
likely result in fewer anchor failures in future earthquakes.

SILVA, Design Considerations,

10/11
Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com
References

1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Seismic Provisions for Structural

Steel Buildings, Chicago, Illinois, 1997.
2. International Code Council, International Building Code, 2000 Edition, Whittier,
CA 90601, p 378.
3. Phillips, W. A., Sheppard, D.A., Plant Cast Precast and Prestressed Concrete,
Prestressed Concrete Manufacturers Association of California, 1980, p. 25.3.
4. Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute, web site: www.cpci.ca, 1996.
5. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, 1991
edition, Whittier, California, 1991, pp. 516-518.
6. American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 349, ‘Code Requirements for Nuclear
Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-85)’, Detroit, Illinois, 1985.
7. American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 318, ‘Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02)’, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2002.
8. American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 349, ‘Code Requirements for Nuclear
Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-01)’, Farmington Hills, Michigan,
2001.
9. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Washington D.C., 1997.
10. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., AISC Manual of Steel Construction,
8th Edition, Chicago, Illinois, 1980, pp. 4-88 through 4-93.
11. Thornton, W.A., Prying Action – A General Treatment, AISC Engineering Journal,
Vol. 22, No. 2 (2nd Qtr), Chicago, Illinois, 1985, pp. 67-75.

SILVA, Design Considerations,

11/11
Fax: (415) 507 1695
E-mail: silva@hilti.com