0. _or": . . '::: ,-:;.-:.-: "-.' ; ;".,:,: : ;;; . . ',' ,"" ": i 5-'32' -.:, ,'-; . __ 99 .624153 ::C22a , .2 .- 0 " ,::e,-..--;;- ..... .. .', .... Principal Principal Engincer, VALlEY AUTHORITY DI VISION OF ENGIlrEERING DF..sIGU TlIEIU-tAL PO\'lliH ENGINEERnlG Civil Engineering Branch and Development Staff V,le. Ic"r-.J Al"llCHORJ\GE TO CONCRETE -.- Report No. CEB 75-32 ".' R'.:scnrch aml Development Staf:f: Chi.ef, Civil Branch: Isslle Date: _lzjI,b r Revision da'te: i t ' i I I t .. r I t .--: . ~ O - - -75'- - - '. ANCHORAGE TO CONCRETE BY Robert W. Cannon, Edwin G. Burdette, and Raymond R. Funk The results of an anchorage research testing program undertaken by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is described. Tests were performed to determine the limiting load capabilities and anchorage requirements for concrete inserts, anchor bolts, welded studs, and expansion anchors subject to loads applied in direct tension, direct shear, and under combined tension and shear. Three sizes of concrete inserts were tested using various numbers of connecting bolts and different insert patterns. Three different anchor bolt sizes and three different steels were utilized in the anchor bolt tests. Anchorages consisted of plates embedded in the concrete surface, (with and without shear bars) grouted plates, and plates fastened to hardened concrete. The effect of edge conditions, strength of concrete, size, strength, number, and spacing of anchors was found to control anchorage requirements while the method of attachment was a princi- pal factor controlling shear strength. Shear bars have practically no influence on the ultimate shear strength of ductile anchorages. Exclusive of edge effects the strength of anchorages is'unaffected by high bearing stress at the heads of bolts or under a standard washer at the concrete surface. Key Words Anchor bolts, bearing stress, concrete inserts, concrete tensile strength, edge effects, embedment, expansion anchors, shear, slip load, stress cones, tension, combined loading, welded studs. i. 1 I J wwm =me Biographical Sketches Robert W. Cannon FACI is Principal Civil Engineer, Research and Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. Since graduating from Georgia Tech in 1949 he has 26 years combined experience in structural design of hydro, fossil, and nuclear power plants and-in research. He is a registered professional engineer in the state of Tennessee, past chairman of ACI Committee 207, Mass Concrete and presently a member of Committees 207 and 349, Nuclear Structures. ACI member, Edwin G. Burdette is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and a consultant to the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1969 and, since that time, has been actively engaged in research at The University of Tennessee. He served as the Principal Investigator for the portion of the research - described in this paper which was performed at the University. He is a registered professional engineer in the state of Tennessee and a member of ACI Committee 359, Concrete Pressure Components for Nuclear Service. Raymond R. Funk is Senior Civil Engineer, Research and Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. Since graduating from The University of Tennessee in 1954 he has 21 years combined experience in structural design of industrial buildings, fossil, and nuclear power plants, and in research. He is a registered professional engineer in the state of Tennessee, and a member of the ASCE committee on steel chimney liners. -- - - -- --- ii .- . _. .. __ ._-.'-- - - - '. _ . :;.-=> . rPiiiT"S'rr_r
j f l 1 , I J I i Anchorage to Concrete Prior to the advent of nuclear power plants the anchorage of structural steel members to concrete was generally cqnsidered to be a part of the structural steel design. The design of base plates was essentially controlled by bearing restrictions on the concrete; shear was transmitted to the concrete largely through shear lugs or bars attached to the base plate and the tensile anchorage steel was generally proportioned only for bending or direct stress. The embedment requirements for anchorage steel were not clearly defined by any code and were left largely to the discretion of the design engineer or organization. In the design of nuclear plants extremely large forces are generated by design basis accidents and seismic considerations. The application of the above design approach is inefficient, expensive, and often creates clearance and concrete placement problems which result in bad construction details. In December 1973 TVA undertook an anchorage research program to develop a more efficient design approach and to determine the limiting load capa- bilities of various anchorage systems. The ultimate goal of such an approach was to match anchorage requirements with anchorage systems and reduce to a minimum the number of anchorages requiring final design information prior to concrete construction. -- The research program was divided into three parts or phases. The first part concerned the determination of embedment requirements of various anchorage systems by means of tensile pullout tests. The second phase involved the determination of shear strength for the more efficient tensile . -- .. ------.. - - -- S" 3T'W!iY1f5iSZF'WfZS1"FS3 anchorage systems. The third involved the effect of combined tension and shear on the various systems. Description of Tests The three testing phases involved 186 individual anchorage tests consisting of varying numbers and types of anchors and a wide variety of anchorage conditions. The number of tests for the various systems are summarized - below. A complete description of the tests is contained in the Appendix. A continuing program of sampling and testing both concrete and steel components was carried out for support and analysis of the anchorage test results. Two other expansion anchor test programs are included in the discussion, but are not listed in the table below. The "standard" concrete insert is a l2-gage galvanized channel 1-3/8 inches deep x 1-5/8 inches wide with punched anchors. The "heavy duty" insert is a lO-gage galvanized channel 2 inches wide x 2 inches deep with 1/2-inch stud anchors. The "modified 3/8" insert is a l2-gage painted channel 1-5/8 x 1-5/8 inches with 3/S-inch stud anchors and the "modified 1/2" insert is the same except 1/2-inch stud anchors. -.. .... - .. , . , 2 I :1 & i_t 'DWiwnrmsm 3 Number of Tests Anchor Phase I Phase II Phase III System Tensile Shear Combined Load Angle 30 60 Standard Insert 15 Heavy-duty Insert 13 Modified 3/8" Insert 4 24 6 6 Hodified 1/2" Insert 5 5/8" Welded studs 18 5 3/4" (A307) bolts 28 17 7 4 3/4" (A307) bolts (grouted) 8 5/8" (A307) bolts (grouted) 3 3/4" (A325) bolts 2 1 3/4" (A490) bolts 2 1 1" (A490) bolt 8 3/4" (S.D. ) Exp Anchor 2 2 3/4" (W. T.) Exp Anchor 2 2 GtW'PN" V Discussion of Test Results A complete listing of the test results are contained in the Appendix along with load deflection curves of individual tests which were not selected for inclusion with this paper. Embedment Requirements The peripheral shear area described in Section 11.10.2 of the 318 Building Code is the same area as the net resisting tensile stress area prescribed by a 45-degree line radiating from the edge of the loaded area to the bottom surface of the slab. If we apply the limiting stress of ~ f ' c of section 11.10.3 to this area the minimum embedments required to develop the minimum tensile strength requirement of A307 bolts (Table 2, ASTM A307) with 3000 psi concrete would vary from 6.64 bolt diameters for 1/4-inch bolts to 7.76 bolt diameters for 4-inch bolts. For direct tensile loading of individual A307 bolts an embedment requirement of 8 bolt diameters is therefore adequate to fully develop the tensile strength of these bolts. If an edge is located closer to a bolt than its embedment depth the tensile stress area is limited to the projected area within the concrete and a , deeper embedment is required to compensate for the lost area. In the same fashion if another loaded bolt is located closer to the bolt than twice the embedment depth than the overlapping area of the radiating stress cones also constitutes lost area which must be compensated for by increased embedment depth to assure full tensile strength development of the bolts. 4 .. ----,a i 1 I I i j , I ! ! I I I i' I ~ - - - - - - - -';". - . o . ~ : 5 For embedment depths less than 5 inches the resisting stress cone defined by 45-degree lines becomes increasingly conservative with decreasing embedment depth. This was not only demonstrated in the test results of Phase I, but also by the pullout tests of expansion anchors by a number of different manufacturers. Our investigations indicate a 4-degree change in the angle of inclination for each inch of embedment depth less than 5 inches is conservative. Tensile tests with 2-inch edge distance for the 3/4-inch bolts and 4-l/2-inch edge distance for the linch A490 bolts clearly indicates that a minimum side cover dimension is required to fully restrain the side pressure resulting from full load transfer in bearing at the head of the bolt. A complete side cone blowout occurred with the 19-inch embedment of the A490 bolts leaving the bolt embedded in the concrete with one face of the bolt head exposed. For deep embedments the apparent side thrust is approximately 1/4 of the bolts' tensile capacity. For bolts of "d" diameter located "m" distance from the centerline of the bolt to the edge of concrete the design yield strength should not exceed: Under combined shear and tensile loads embedment requirements are also affected by the shift in location of the resultant force at the base of the anchorage (plane connecting the bolt heads). If there is an edge condition this shift in location of the center of gravity of the restraining tensile stress zone results in an increased loss of projected stress area. This was quite evident in the concrete block failures which occurred in the 60-degree load angle tests but did not occur at 0, 30, and 90 degrees with the same embedment depth. The apparent embedment requirements for shear are approximately one-half of the requirements for tension based on AISC requirements for shear connectors. Considering the effect of embedment depths less than 5 inches on the inclination of the effective pullout cone, the effective tensile restraint force for shear connectors ~ y range from 1/4 to 1/2 of the imposed shear. If so the critical angle for anchorage would be somewhere between 77 degrees and 63 degrees to develop the tensile component plus 1/4 or 1/2 of the shear component. The corresponding resultant tensile restraint force in the concrete would be 1.03 and 1.12 times that of a pure tensile anchorage. Discussion of Phase 1--ln the tensile testing of concrete inserts the depth of anchorage was not a factor in any of the four different inserts tested. When the load was transmitted to an insert through a single l/2-inch connecting bolt, the channel lip failed by pullout. The failure loads varied from 5.S to 8.8 kips for the standard insert which basically agrees with the manufactures design recommendations of 2 kips per foot using a safety factor of 3. For the heavy duty insert the lip failure load for a single l/2-inch connecting bolt was 9.7 kips; however, the failure mechanism for all tests on the heavy duty insert was lip tensile failure. Lip failure did not control in the standard and modified inserts when the load was transmitted through 3 or more loading bolts. For multiple loading bolts the failure mechanism for these inserts is tearout of the anchor or stud from the back of the channel. For multiple loading bolts a summary of the failure loads on a per foot basis is given below. 6 Failure Load in Kips per Foot Insert Minimum Average High Standard 9.2 12.2 14.9 3/8-inch studs 15 16 .. 3 17.7 Heavy Duty 15.8 17.7 20.1 l/2-inch studs 16.1 18.5 20.4 On a cost per anchorage capacity basis the standard insert is probably the least expensive and the heavy duty insert the most expensive. In a total evaluation of anchorage requirements the increased capacity of the modified insert with 3/8-inch stud anchors was the basis for selection by TVA. Subsequent testing to establish welding procedures failed to show any increased pullout capacity from the l2-gage metal for the l/2-inch studs over the 3/8-inch studs. A broader range of procedures and more uniformity is achieved with the 3/8-inch studs. The above test results apply to ungalvanized channel. While the galvanized coating does not appear to have any significant effect on weld strength, the difference in hot rolled and cold rolled metal reduces the pullout capacity of welded studs approximately 30 percent with galvanized channel. The tensile testing of anchor bolts and 5/8-inch studs covered a wide variety of anchorage conditions. The factors concerning embedment requirements were discussed above. A comparison of the predictability of failure loads with actual failure loads was made using 4 ~ tensile stress acting on the net projected area for predicting the failure load, giving due consideration to edge conditions overlapping stress cones and limiting effects of inadequate side cover. Of the 7 .. " --- .. - ~ - - - . - 2Y&' 22 tests which were concrete (uninfluenced by tents) the predicted failure loads were less than the actual failure loads in 19 tests. Of the 3 tests predicting higher failure loads, 2 had edge conditions and the third had some indication of damage from previous tests. The average prediction w<!s 89 percent of the actual and the least conservative prediction was 110 percent. From this it can be seen that if the normal factor of 85 percent is applied then the predicted failure load would be less than the actual in all of the tests. For the 37 tests involving failure of the bolt or anchor steel the predicted concrete failure loads did exceed the actual steel failure loads in 95 percent of the cases. the bolts or studs are spaced close enough for an intersection of the 90 degree pullout cones, the concrete failure plane is always a straight line between the bolt heads. The tensile strength of the concrete between bolts in mUltiple connectors is a major factor in determining anchorage requirements. If a steel plate is used at this location inside the concrete, the tensile strength of concrete between bolt heads does not apply and a deeper anchorage must be applied to make up for this loss of effective concrete tensile strength. Since interior plates only serve to weaken an anchorage they should not be used. The average tensile strength of the embedded 3/4-inch bolts was 25.4 kips with no bolt failures less than specification requirements. All but 3 of the 16 bolts tested failed in the shank of the bolts. The average tensile strength of the S/8-inch studs was 16.1 kips in 4 tests with individual studs and 18.5 kips per stud in 14 tests involving B " ! I: 9 30 studs in multiple stud anchorages. Material specification require a minimum strength of 16.9 kips for a 55,0000 psi stress limit. We have no explanation why none of the individual stud tests met requirements and all of the multiple stud tests exceeded requirements. The average tensile strength of the I inch A490 bolts was 117 kips. All 3 tests failed in the threads. The minimum embedment depth of these 3 was 12.6 inches. At a minimum depth of 10.5 inches the concrete test block split down the middle instead of the typical concrete cone pullout which normally occurs. We have analyzed this as a bending failure of the unreinforced test block. The location of the neutral axis and distribution limits of the maximum tensile bending stress in the top surface is obviously influenced by the location of the head of the bolt. In future tests involving minimum embedment depths of large diameter, high strength bolts, a minimum reinforcing steel ratio of 0.001 is recommended. Splitting faHure did not occur when 3/4-inch A-490 bolts were torqued to failure in a 27-inch block with both edge distance and embedment depth of 9.5 inches and concrete strength of 2,900 psi. There was also no surface distress despite the use of only a standard washer to transmit bearing. Tensile testing of some types of expansion anchors were done prior to these investigations and are only discussed here briefly to coordinate the total anchorage picture. The basic failure mechanism for expansion anchors in tension is anchor slip. The embedment requirement for most expansion anchors has been set so the average slip failure load will closely correspond to a concrete tensile cone failure with 3,500 psi - - ~ - . - - ------- - - . ~ . - - - . ."P'I; .n concrete. Most manufacturers report data on average failure loads for individual anchors with guidance given, by some, on the application of the data to spacing limitations. Our tests clearly show that unless slip failure occurs at a lower load the maximum failure load for multiple expansion anchors is a function of anchor spacing as described in the embedment discussion. For expansion anchors any manufactures' claims which exceed the calculated concrete pullout failure load as discussed under "embedment requirements" should be questioned. Discussion of Phase II--The failure mechanism for shear on the concrete insert is shear failure of the 1/2-inch connecting bolts for shear perpendicular to the channel slot and continuous slip for shear along the slot. The average shear strength of the l/2-inch bolts was 7.4 kips per bolt. The slip load is strictly a function of the 50 foot- pounds of preload torque. The range of washer lift-off loads in the tensile tests (2.2 kips to S . ~ kips) is almost identical to the range of measured slip loads in the shear tests. The average slip load was 3.'4 kips per bolt. In the cross connections each element contributes its full shear capabilities as indicated by an average failure load of 5.4 kips per bolt. When the loads were applied at any angle other than the principal axis of the cross the failure load per bolt is higher. The average shear strength of the SIS-inch welded studs was 17.3 kips per stud or 94 percent of the average tensile strength of the stud groups. Typically failure occurred in the shank of the stud at a point just below the weld I 10 11 Shear testing of the individual 3/4-inch bolts was directed principally toward establishing the restrictions needed for edge loaded bolts. The tests were not fully successful because the hairpin anchors which were installed to prevent (if possible) concrete wedge failures turned out to be plain bars instead of deformed bars ~ n d bond failures occurred. The tests did confirm the need to restrict edge shear to prevent concrete failure. Examination of the failed wedges indicated that the entire shearing force was transferred from the bolt to the concrete within 1/2 bolt diameter of the surface shear plane. Applying 4 ~ allowable stress to the effective tensile stress area the estimated shear wedge failure load for an individual bolt would be: v = 2'71(m + d/2_'2 /f' u tan 0) .V r ~ o = (m + d/2) 4 + 25 ~ 45 Shear testing of the various 4 bolt groups established the effect of the method of attachment on the shear strength of bolts. The average shear strength of bolts fastened to hardened concrete (without grout) was 21.5 kips per bolt or approximately 83 percent of the tensile strength of representative bolts. There was no difference in the ultimate strength between preloading bolts or tightening nuts finger tight however under service load conditions the preloaded bolt connections were much stiffer. The average shear strength of the embeded plate connections was approximately 91 percent of the tensile strength of representative samples. There was no discernible difference in ultimate strength of plates with and without shear bars. Prior to concrete bearing failure aMI" at the ends of the plate and shear bar, the load deflection curves (figure 1) indicate most of the load is being carried by the shear bar. The sudden transfer of load from concrete to steel at concrete failure was undoubtedly a contributing factor to the failure of the test rig in these tests. On the other hand most of the load is carried by the bolts prior to concrete failure for the plate without shear bars and concrete failure apparently does not occur prior to yielding of the bolts. The added stiffness of the shear bar connection prior to concrete failure does not appear to be significant. The average shear strength of the bolts with the grouted plates was only 53 percent of the tensile strength of representative samples. Grout failure occurs on the front side transferring almost the entire shear load to the back bolts. An improved bonding condition between grout and concrete could conceivably increase the strength of this type of connection; however, the grout pad does create an , edge loaded condition of sorts. Unless the grout is recessed, reduced load allowables should be used. The A325 and A490 high strength bolt connections were" made by fastening the plates to hardened concrete with preloaded bolts. The average shear strength of these connections was 86 percent and 77 percent respectively of representative tensile strength samples. The average shear strength of 3/8-, 1/2-, and 3/4-inch self-drilling expansion anchors was 75, 67, and 91 percent of the average tensile slip lond for these respective anchors in individual anchor tests. In group tests the shear strength of 3/4-inch anchors was only 80 12 percent of the individual shear tests. This strength loss is attributed to nonuniform distribution of load due to the tensile slip characteristics of the anchors. In the individual tests the bolts failed in shear. In the group tests failure occurred in the shank of the anchor shell. A comparison of the relptive shear strength and load deflection characteristics of the various bolted systems is shown in figure 1. This shows the shear strength of the self-drilling type anchor to be approximately 40 percent of the shear strength of the same size of embedded A307 bolts. The shear strength of the deeper-bedded wedge-type anchor is approximately 91 percent of the embedded A307 bolts in this comparison; however, these bolts are 21 percent higher in tensile strength than the 307 bolts. Thus the probable shear strength of these anchors is 75 percent of the shear strength of embedded bolts of the same size and materials. Discussion of Phase III--The load producing slip is substantially greater under combined loading than for shear alone in the testing of concrete inserts as shown '1n figure 2. The preload torque of the connecting bolts apparently controls the depth of bite of the special saw teeth into the lip of the channel. When the tensile component of the load is less than the preload then slippage does not occur until the shear component exceeds the preload. When the tensile component exceeds the preload the additional bearing load of the bolt head on the lip is spread over a wider contact area and the friction coefficient is reduced. The effect of combined loading on bolted anchorage systems is shown in figures 3 and 4. The basic trends of the effect of angle of applied load on resultant load are shown in figure 3 and load 13 J i l 1 J ------------------ deflection characteristics in figure 4. When the ratio of tensile strength to shear strength (To/Vo) for a given anchorage system is known the resultant failure load Pu is a function of the anchorage tensile capacity "To" and the angle of applied load "9" as follows: P u = T o sin + (T Iv ) cos o 0 Under combined loading the minimum load producing failure for bolted connections occurs at some angle between 25 degrees and 45 degrees depending on To/Vo. There is also an apparent decrease in stiffness of these connections under In these bolts the failure stress is a combination of direct tension, bending, and the cutting or shearing action of the loading plate on the back side of the bolt. Under combined loading the tensile component not only adds direct stress, but lifts the plate off the concrete surface and thereby increases the bending radius and bending stress as well. The load deflection characteristics of the various types of anchorages should be considered in establishing safety factors for design, particularly where expansion anchors are used. Smaller safety factors should be utilized in those anchorages which can tolerate relatively large deflections. Conclusions (1) Embedment is the key to anchorage design. When the requirements for embedment are met the mode of failure is restricted to the material strength of the anchor. (Expansion anchors which fail in slip at lesser loads than required to fail the concrete are an exception.) When embedment requirements are not met the mode 14 1 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___________ _4 ------ of failure is tensile failure of the concrete. Embedment requirements are dependent on the tensile strength of concrete; the size, strength, number and spacing of anchors; and the proximity of any' edge conditions within the tensile stress zone of the concrete. (2) Embedment can be assured by equating the pullout cone strength of the concrete to the tensile strength of the anchors using a uniform concrete tensile stress of 4 0 / f ~ acting on a projected area confined within the limits of intersecting cones radiating from the heads of bolts at the base of the anchorage. (3) The strength capabilities of concrete inserts can be improved by utilization of 3lB-inch welded studs on standard 12-gage channel sections I-SIB-inches deep. Utilizing optimized welding procedures stud pullout strength in excess of S kips per stud can be acheived and working stress design loads of S kips per foot of channel can be utilized with multiple bolt connections. (4) The shear strength of channel inserts depends on the direction of the applied load, the strength of connecting bolts, and the preload torque on the searated edges of the connecting nuts and bolts. (5) The shear strength of bolted connections depends on the strength of bolts and the method of attachment. (6) For plates embeded with the top surface flush with the concrete surface, the shear strength of connections fastened with bolts or welded studs is slightly more than 90 percent of the tensile strength of the bolts or studs. --------.--- 1.5 It I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . (7) (8) (9) The ultimate shear strength of embedded plates is dependent entirely on the strength of the anchorage steel and is relatively unaffected by the use of shear bars when there is sufficient anchorage steel to provide a ductile failure. Under these conditions shear bars appear only to have a small influence on the load at which concrete fails on the frontside of the plate. Under combined tensile and shear loads shear bars add nothing to the stiffness characteristics of the anchorage and should not be used since they create problems in concrete placement. Plates may be fastened to hardened concrete by preloading embedded bolts to yield by a 2/3 turn of the nut beyond an initial snug tight fit. Such connections have a shear capacity of slightly more than 80 percent of the tensile capacity of the bolts and provide stiffness characteristics similar to embedded plates. Bolts grouted into drilled holes (with roughened sides) have the same anchorage strength and embedment requirements as cast-in- place bolts assuming equal strengths of concrete and grout. (10) The shear strength of grouted plates with the surface of the grout exterior to the concrete surface should not be taken as more than 50 percent of the tensile capacity of the connecting bolts. (11) The shear strength of bolts or anchors must be reduced for edge loaded bolts located closer than 1.25 times the required embedment for the bolt. 16 i. - i t 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 t I (12) High bearing stress at the heads of bolts is of no consequence as long as the side cover at the bolt head is equal to or (13) greater than one half of the embedment depth. For smaller cover distances a reduction in design yield strength may be required (see discussion). High bearing stresses at the surface of the concrete also appears to be of no consequence with bolts. As long as the distance to the side of the block is equal to or greater than the embedment depth of the bolt, a standard washer is all that is required for bearing. (Lesser edge distances were not tested.) (14) The use of bearing plates in the interior of the concrete to reduce stress at the heads of bolts will require a deeper anchorage because of the loss of the tensile strength contribution of the concrete between bolt heads in resisting pullout. They are not recommended since they perform no useful function and only create a bad construction condition. (15) The general mode of failure for tensile loading of expansion anchors tested by TVA was anchor slip. (16) Preloading of expansion anchors to any degree of certainity does not appear to be practical because of the slip characteristics of these anchorages. (17) The general mode of failure in shear for a group of self-drilling anchors appears to be shell failure at the bottom of the connecting bolt. 17 e &B - - . ~ 18 (18) For expansion anchors with embedment depths of 4 bolt diameters or less, shear strength appears to be influenced by the pullout strength of the concrete even though failure in single bolt tests occurs in the bolt. (19) Larger safety factors must be utilized with expansion anchors to limit deflections to those commensurable to bolted connections. /II I" :t,. " I I, i' i i : , , ',; U) 0.. !IoC t- ...J 0 CD a::: UJ 0.. 0 < 0 ...J 50 IJO 30 20 10 o SHEAR SB SHEAR BAR EP EMBEDDED PLATE GP GROUTED PLATE I<B EXP. ANCHOR (6" DEEP) RH EXP. ANCHOR (3&" DEEP) , 0.0 0.1 0.3 O.Q. 0.5 0.6 DEFLECTION INCHES FIGURE 1 CONCRETE INSERT 5 - (f) 0.. :.:: 3 - .... ~ 0 m 0::: UJ 0.. 2 Q <I: 0 ~ o 0.0 0.2 0.3 o.q. 0.5 DEFLECTION (INCHES) FIGURE 2 :. nrn I I I I I I I I I I
Ii . -C.C-._ IJ "- ----. - 1 t>' ..... .......... 15 - -
l> .... , '- 10 - - - - .5
.
10 ''CC ." "","" -""'" - .20
........ -- --.-- .... - 30 lW 50 60 e IN DEGREES SYMBOLS o = EMBEDDED PLATE $ = EMB PL + SHEAR BAR X = PLATE ON HARDENED CONCRETE o = GROUTED PLATE <> = I LL I NG EXPANSION ANCHOR FIGURE 3 j" 70 80 \ I . .. __ ___ ._ , .. ---.;.......:---;-- t iiiiII - IiiiiiItiI .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ... ... .. .. all ali; .. ... ,- i' I .. j " f . " ; : 1 ! ' ! I , i COMBINED LOADING 30 SB SHEAR BAR EP PLATE GP GROUTED PLATE KB EXP. ANCHOR (Gil DEEP) 20 RH EXP. ANCHOR CI) DEEP) 0-
PY PRELOADED BOLT I- -' FT FINGER-TIGHT BOLT 0 al 0:: UJ PY @ 30 a.. 0 5/8 @ 67 ..::c 0 ...J 10 o 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 DEFLECTION INCHES FIGURE 4 6ieWlilliifii'wnn_ ..... ... ... sa;;w:; ..... .... - ..... I I I I I I , I I I I I t I I t t tJ 11 Anchorage to Concrete APPENDIX Phase I (Tensile Tests)--The first series of tests were performed on two commercially available concrete inserts, on 3/4-inch A307 anchor bolts, and on SIS-inch welded studs. The bolts were tested at varying depths and edge distances and the studs were tested for the effects of number, spacing, and anchorage pattern. The heavy duty insert was a 2-inch by 2-inch la-gage steel channel and the standard insert was a l-3/S-inch by 1-S/S-inch 12-gage steel channel. The various anchorages were embedded in 30-inch square by 4-foot long test blocks utilizing as many faces as possible to reduce the number of test blocks required and to reduce the variable effect of concrete strength. The testing apparatus consisted of a 50-ton calibrated hydraulic jack with a loading beam to spread the reaction loads to a point on the concrete block beyond the expected failure cone. The two concrete inserts were tested in 1-, 2_, and 4-foot lengths using a loading bar between the jack and the inserts to spread the load uniformly to the special l/2-inch connecting bolts. The loading bar was clamped to the insert 50 foot-pounds of torque preload applied to the l/2-inch bolts. A total of 13 tests were performed on the heavy duty insert and 15 on the regular insert. As a result of these tests a second series was run using a modified insert consisting of I-SIS-inch by I-SIS-inch 12-gage channel with welded studs on 4-inch centers for anchors. A total of five tests were performed using l/2-inch studs and four tests using 3/B-inch studs in this series. 19 C'@7WVC7S".UWWW = I- 20 1 The 3/4-inch A307 bolts were embedded to depths varying from 4 inches to 1 8 inches with edge distances varying from 2 inches to 6 inches, but not more than the embedded depth. All 18 bolts were embedded in a single , test block. As a result, some of the concrete failures influenced the test results of others and a second series of 10 bolts were tested. With I the exception of one test each in the center of the block for 3-inch and I 4-inch embedment depths, the remaining eight tests were run with 2-inch and 3-inch edge distances. Only one test out of this group was apparently i influenced by concrete failure of prior tests. J The initial testing of the S/8-inch welded studs consisted of four single- stud pull tests, eight double-stud pull tes'ts at 4-inch through 8-inch t spacing, and one test with four studs at a 4-inch spacing in a square pattern. All studs were welded to 3/8-inch thick plates. Some of the t pull bars, required for attaching the test rig, were welded to the t 3/8-inch plates prior to embedment and some after embedment to check the effects of welding on the anchorage. In some instances the welding t heat caused sufficient expansion of the plate to spall the concrete at the edges. It did not, however, effect the ultimate strength since edge t spalling also occurred at very low tensile stress with the prewelded I pull bars. t Five additional tests were performed on studs at 2-, 3-, and 4-inch spacing. Two tests were performed with groups of two, and three tests I with groups of four. All five tests in this series resulted in concrete failure in comparison to all steel failure in the initial series. I Tests were also performed on 3/4-inch grouted bolts set in holes drilled I in hardened concrete with a l-l/2-inch diameter core drill. Failure'to I ~ - - - ,. I i I i f I , J t l J 1 f t t J 1 f - roughen the slick surface of the holes in the limestone aggregate concrete resulted in bond failure with both epoxy and portland cement grouts in the initial tests. Tests were repeated with a minimum of surface roughening and no bond failures occurred. Each series consisted of 8 tests for embedment depths of 4, 5, and 6 inches w i ~ h edge distances of 2 and 3 inches to the center of the bolts. Additional pull tests were performed using I-inch diameter high strength (ASTM A490) bolts to determine what effect, if any, the higher bearing stress at the head of these bolts had on embedment requirements. These bolts were tested in 3-foot by 3-foot by 3-foot concrete blocks. One block was cast with six bolts of varying depths with one bolt in the center of each face. In the other block four bolts were cast one in each face with 4-1/2-inch edge distances. An increase in the size of test rig was required for these tests. Phase II (Shear Tests)--The tests for both Phase II and Phase III were performed at The University of Tennessee utilizing a testing facility which was designed specifically for linear anchorage tests for TVA's Bellefonte Nuclear Plant. 21 This test facility is a self-contained system with a 400-kip loading capacity. A Gilmore hydraulic pump and control console supply hydraulic fluid to the loading rams which are controlled by a servo valve through this control console. The console compares a preset voltage to the voltage from either a load or a deflection control device and sends an electrical signal to the servo valve to adjust the loading rams until the two voltages are equal. The load control devices consist of load cells which were calibrated in the compression testing machine. The deflection control
I ~ I I - I I I a I I I I I device is a Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT). The test apparatus thus has the ability to imput either load or deflection and to measure both. Special connecting devices were designed for the various types of anchorages to be tested. The devices were pin connected to the loading rig such that the center of the loading pin and the desired plane of shear could be aligned. The stiffness of the beams through which the load was transmitted from loading pin to test block was such that essentially no rotation occurred for the normal loading conditions achieving very close to pure shear conditions. The fixed height of the testing apparatus established a maximum test block dimension of 27 inches. The test block was therefore cast as a 27-inch cube in order to utilize as many faces of each block as possible. The shear load in the test block was transmitted back to the test rig through bearing on the forward face of the test block. The moment induced in the block through the resulting eccentricity was removed by clamping the back side of the test block to the laboratory slab. As a result of the evaluation of the tensile tests on concrete inserts, shear tests were only performed on the modified insert with 3/8-inch studs. A total of 12 tests were performed on 2-foot-Iong sections embedded in the faces of the 27-inch cubical test blocks. Tests were performed both in the direction of and perpendicular to the channel slot utilizing from two to five connecting bolts. These inserts were also cast into blocks in the configuration of a cross and tested for shear along the principal axis of the cross for 4-, 8-, and l2-bolt connections. Later tests were 22 I l i i ~ i f t I 1 I I J I I m ru I 1,,-- -- -. - - ~ run with 4- and 8-bolt connections for shear applied at IS, 30, and 45 degrees to the principal axis of the cross. 23 A total of five shear tests were performed on groups of S/8-inch studs welded to 3/B-inch plates and embedded in the 27-inch cubical blocks. Three of these tests were on groups of two, three" and four studs spaced in a single line pattern on 4-inch centers. The other two tests were on groups of four in a square pattern with one group spaced on 4-inch centers and the other on 6-inch centers. In the first series of shear tests with the 3/4-inch bolts only the bolts were embedded in the concrete. Four single bolts were tested for edge effects on shear, two with 3-inch edge distance and two with 6-inch edge distance. In addition, two groups of four bolts in a square pattern on 8-inch centers were tested. All bolts were embedded 6 inches deep and the loading plates were fastened to the hardened concrete without grout. Half of the plates were fastened under "finger tight" conditions and half were preloaded by the AISC "turn-of-the-nut" method. Additional turns of the nut could easily have been made without breaking the bolts. A second series of 3/4-inch bolts were tested. This series involved eight single bolt tests and three mUltiple bolt tests utilizing four bolts in square patterns. The single bolt tests followed the pattern of the first series except that all bolts were preloaded to yield. The edge' distances varied from 3-1/8 inches to 10-3/4 inches. One of the plates in the multiple bolt connections was grouted to the block surface and fastened with "finger tight" nuts. The other two plates were embedded with their top surfaces flush with the concrete surface. One of these plates had a I-inch deep shear bar and the other did not. In both cases the nuts were fastened to a "finger tight" fit. ... " ____ c __ - __ ____ --.. ---.----------..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I ru W ~ I A third series of four-bolt configurations was tested using ASTM A325 and A490 bolts with the plates fastened to hardened concrete and the bolts preloaded to yield as in the first series. Two types of 3/4-inch expansion anchors were tested in shear using the same grouping pattern as the bolts. Similar anchors are manufactured by a number of different concerns and are commonly used. The self-drilling type anchor uses its own shell as a drill bit and accomplishes its anchorage by driving the shell down over a wedge which expands the shell base. These anchors have a I-inch outside shell diameter and 3-1/4-inch embedment. Connections to these anchors was made with 3/4-inch A307 bolts. The other type of anchor requires a special drill bit to control hole size and achieves its anchorage by wedges on each side of the bolt which expand when the bolt is tightened. These bolts are made of high strength steel and can be purchased in different lengths. The bolts tested in this series were set 6 inches deep. Phase III (Combined Loading)--In these tests the test apparatus and 27-inch cubical blocks were arranged to transmit the load to the anchorage at angles of 30 and 60 degrees to the face of the connecting plate. The connecting plates were also designed to control the location of the intersection of the line of force and the bottom surface of the connecting plate. In some instances a small eccentricity was used to detect, if possible, the clamping effect of bending. A total of 12 tests were performed on the modified insert with varying numbers of connecting bolts at both 30- and 60-degree angles. In all of these tests the loads were aligned with the weak shear plane longitudinal to the channel slot. 24 25 A total of seven tests were performed at a 30-degree load angle on the , basic four-bolt configuration using 3/4-inch A307 bolts with embedded plates (with and without shear bars), grouted plates, and plates fastened to I hardened concrete. Only four tests were performed with 3/4-inch bolts at a 60-degree load angle because of unexpected block failures and because of expiration of ~ h ~ contract completion date. Three additional tests I were performed at the 60-degree loading on 5/S-inch bolts fastened to hardened concrete. These bolts were set by drilling into existing I blocks and set with an expansive grout. They were set at 3-1/2-inch, I 7-inch, and S-inch depths. (Tests were also planned at 5-inch and 6-inch depths but could not be performed because the bolt alignment I did not match the holes in the connecting plate. The end of the school year and expiration of the contract did not allow time for I retest.) I A total of five tests were performed with expansion anchors at a load angle of 30 degrees. Two of these were performed on the self-drilling type anchor, two on a super-bolt with two expanding wedges per bolt and set 9 inches deep, and one test on the standard expanding wedge bolt set 6 inches deep. Supporting Tests I A continuing program of sampling and testing concrete and steel was carried out for correlation with the above anchorage tests. - -- ~ . .... ~ , .. - - - - - ~ .. - ~ . - . - ., - .--,. .. --' . .,...... - -- ~ ~ ~ J-'!J P'iiiif ~ -- - - - till .. - ,.
Table I Tension Tests Concrete Failure Number Size Embed Edge Spacing f'c Failure Load Inches Depth Distance Inches psi Actual Estimate Est Remarks Inches Inches 1000 lb. 1000 lb. Act. 1 3/4 3 15 3500 16 11. 7 0.73 A307 4 2 4870 9.9* 14.3 Embedded 4 2 4315 16.6 13.5 .81 Bolts 4 3 4870 13.3* 16.4 4 3 4315 18.3 15.4 .84 4 4 4870 19.9* 18.1 .91 4 15 4315 25.4 17.5 .69 5 2 4635 14.5 16.0 1.10 5 2 3500 14.9 13.9 .93 5 3 4635 20.5 18.3 .89 5 4 4635 22 20.3 .92 6 2 4635 22.7 2h2 .93 6 2 3500 17.7* 19.0 6 3 4315 28.2 23.9 .85 7 2 5050 23.8* 29.7 1 3/4 5 2-3/4 5500+ 23.2 19.4 .84 A307 7 1-1/4 5500+ 22.1 19 .86 Grouted 4 2-1/4 5500+ 14.4 15.75 1.10 Bolts 4 2-1/4 5500+ 16.6 15.75 .95 4 5/8 6-3/8 16 2 4000 59.7 46.2 0.77 Welded I I 15 3 4000 63 53.9 .86 Studs 14 4 4400 63.4* 65.5 1.03 1 1 10.5 18 4300 98 90.8 .93 A490 18.9 4-1/2 4245 94 76.3 .82 Bolts 16.8 4-1/2 4300 82 76.8 .94 14.7 4-1/2 4300 82 76.8 .94 12.6 4-1/2 4300 76 76.8 1.01 ,.1 . * Concrete damaged from previous tests i:, ~ ! : II ~ MM. ~ II III' til ., .. .. .. Number 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 ~ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Size Inches 5/8 Embed Depth Inches 6-3/8 Edge Distance Inches +7 Table 2(a) Tension Tests Steel Failure Spacing Inches 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 8 8 4 f'e psi 4635 5050 4870 4635 4315 4315 4315 3500 3500 4635 4635 5050 5050 4870 4870 4635 4635 5050 Failure Load Actual Concrete Unit Remarks 1000 lb. (Estimate) 1000 1000 lb. lb/bolt 16 34.8 16 Welded 15.5 36.3 15.5 Studs 16.4 35.6 16.4 16.5 34.8 16.5 40.9 40.2 20.5 39.2 40.2 19.6 35.4 40.2 17.7 34 43.6 17 38.1 43.6 19.1 36.5 48.7 18.3 36.5 48.7 18.3 34.8 54.4 17.4 38.1 54.4 19.1 39.3 57 19.7 36.5 57 18.3 37 62.5 18.5 35 62.5 17.5 74 69.8 18.5 ~ , --- Uumber 1 1 1 I " . Size Inches 3/4 3/4 1 I ,- Embed Depth Inches 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 5 6 6 7 8 8 12.6 14.7 16.8 Table 2 Tension Tests Steel Failure Edge Distance Inches 5 3 4 5 6 2 4 5 2 4 3-3/4 2-1/2 3 2-3/4 2-3/4 2-3/4 18 18 18 Spacing Inches ... _--_ ............... - f'c psi 4635 5050 5050 5050 5050 4000 5050 5050 3500 3500 5500+ 5500+ 5500+ 5500+ 5500+ 5500+ 4300 4245 4200 Failure Load Actual Concrete Unit Remarks 1000 lb. (Estimate) 1000 1000 lb. lb/bo1t 21 21.4 21 A(307) 26 25.9 26 Embedded 26.1 28.6 26.1 Bolts 26.1 30.9 26.1 26.2 32.1 26.2 25.4 26.5 25.4 26.3 36.9 26.3 29.6 39.9 , 29.6 23.2 31.3 23.2 24.4 46 24.4 29.9 21. 7 29.9 A(307) 25.4 25.4 25.4 Grouted 26 27 26 Bolts 30.4 34 30.4 29.3 42.6 29.3 27.7 42.6 27.7 116 130.8 116 A(490) 118 176.8 118 Bolts 118 229.7 118 JUiJ .L . : . . . ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - -' J!!'!I!! ~ ~ .... .... .- ~ ~ @!!Ii. @!!I!IIJ 1iIh, .. , Table 3 Tension Test Concrete Inserts Connecting Length End Washer Failure Load Type Bolts of Anchors Lift-off Total Per Foot of No. Spacing Channel Yes No Failure Inches Inches kips/bolt 1000 Ib 1000 lb 1-5/8 x 1-3/8 Standard Insert 1 48 x 3.3 5.5 LP 48 x 3.9 8.3 LP 48 x 2.2 8.8 LP * 48 x 4.4 5.3 * 48 x 5.5 8.4 LP * 48 x 5.5 8.1 LP 2 3 12 x 4.2 10.7 AT 3 6 24 x 4.4 17.3 11.5 AT , 4 3 14 x 3.2 16 16 AT 4 3 12 x NM 14.9 14.9 AT 4 3 12 x 2.6 11.6 11.6 AT 6 3 24 x NM 14.9 9.9 AT 6 3. 24 x NM 13.8 9.2 AT 2 x 2 Heavy Duty Insert 1 3 24+ x NM 9.7 LT 2 3 18 x 15.5 LT 3 3 12 x 17 .2 17.2 LT 3 6 12 x 16.6 16.6 LT 3 6 24 x 24.7 16.5 LT 3 3 24 x 30.1 20.1 LT 3 3 12 x 18.3 18.3 LT 4 3 12 x 16.6 16.6 LT .4 3 16 x 18.8 18.8 LT 6 3 18 x 23.8 15.8 ST 6 3 20 x 26 17.3 LT 6 3 20 x 29 19.3 LT *Edge Load Description of Failure LP - Pullout of Lip LT Tear of Lip ST - Stud tear from channel web AT - Anchor tear from channel web Connecting Bolts No. Spacing Inches 3 3 4 3 6 3 6 3 2 3 3 3 3 6 4 3 4 3 Description of Failure LP - Pullout of Lip LT - Tear of Lip , ., ; ~ . ( Table 3 Tension Test Concrete Inserts Length I End Washer of Anchors Lift-off Channel Yes No Inches kips/bolt 1-5/8 x 1-5/8 Modified with 3/8 12 x NM 12 x 18 x 20 x 1-5/8 x 1-5/8 Modified with 1/2 18 x NM 12 x 24 x 12 x 16 x ST Stud tear from channel web AT Anchor tear from channel web Failure Load Type Total Per Foot of Failure 1000 1b 1000 1b Studs 17.7 17.7 LP 16.6 16.6 ST 18.8 15 ST 23 15.9 ST Studs 16.1 ST 19.9 19.9 ST 21.6 16.1 ST 17.7 17.7 ST 20.4 20.4 ST .< - .. '. Number Size 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 3/4 4 3/4 4 3/4 4 3/4 4 3/4 4 3/4 4 3/4 4 3/4 2 5/8 3 5/8 4 5/8 '., : i: 4 5/8 . 1 4 5/8 ! .. ----._-- - ~ '., - .. Embed Depth 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 (A325) (A490) Studs Studs Studs Studs Studs Edge Distance 3 6 3 6 3-1/8 4-3/16 5 6-3/16 7-3/8 8-3/16 9-5/16 10-3/4 'Table 4' Shear Tests Spacing (A307 Bolts) 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 --- flc 5600 5700 5600 5800 3825 3825 5080 3700 4100 4100 4550 4600 4600 4500 5350 5100 4450 2400 2400 6000 4500 5000 4500 3900 - Concrete 1000 1bs 11 11 17 9 18 20 40 70 76 60 60 Failure Load Steel Per Anchor Remarks 1000 1bs kips/bolt 04 HPA 22 22 06 HPA 22 22 fl6 HPA 20 20 fl4 HPA fJ6 HPA 18 18 fJ6 HPA 20 20 06 HPA 18 18 #6 HPA 24 24 #6 HPA 19 . 19 fl6 HPA 18 18 fl6 HPA 25 25 fl6 HPA 85 21.3 SM 87 21.8 SM 6 16 GP 110 27.5 EP 112 28 EP & SB 182 45.5 SM 183 45.8 SM 36 18 EP 51 17 EP 67 16.8 EP 73 18.3 EP 65 16.3 EP ' ~ : : : ; ; ~ ; . J ~ . ' : ~ ",.";; .. ~ .. ' 1 ~ . ' .. . : . ,>" '!'. ' Number 4 4 4 Size 3/4 3/4 3/4 HPA Hairpin anchor GP Grouted plate SB - Shear Bar EP - Embedded plate Embed Depth 3-1/4 3-1/4 6 SM - Surface Mounted Plate Table 4 (Continued) Edge Distance (Exp.) (Exp.) (Exp. ) Shear Tests Spacing (A307 Bolts) 8 8 8 flc 5550 5600 4550 Concrete 1000 lbs Failure Load Steel Per Anchor 1000 lbs kips/bolt 44.4 49.6 100 11.1 12.4 25 Remarks SM SM 8M Number of Connecting Bolts 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 8 12 Direction of Load Perpendicular to slot Longitudinal to slot Cross Connections - Table 5 Concrete Inserts Shear Tests Angle with Principal Axis Degrees 0 0 0 of Load with Face of Block Degrees 0 Average 0 Average 0 Average Maximum Load Total Per Bolt Kips Kips 14 7 16 8 21 7 26 8.7 29 7.3 26 6.5 36 7.2 39 7.8 7.4 5 2.5 11 5.5 6 2 6 2 12 3 14 3.5 16 3.2 26 5.2 3.36 18 4.5 22 5.5 26 6.5 40 5 65 5.4 5.38 { ,. - Number of Connecting Bolts 8 4 8 4 8 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 Direction of Load Cross Connections Longitudinal to slot Table 6 Concrete Insert Shear and Combined Load Angle of Load with with Principal Face of Axis Block Degrees Degrees 45 0 45 30 30 15 15 0 30 0 30 0 60 0 60 Haximum Load Total Per Bolt Kips Kips 50 6.25 24 6.0 52 6.5 28 7 51 6.37 20 5 11.5 5.75 11.5 3.83 17.5 4.38 9 4.5 16 5.33 15.5 3.88 13.8 6.9 15.6 5.2 17.75 4.37 13.5 6.73 13.6 4.53 19.6 4.9 Number 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SM - CP - EP - SB - GB - Size Inches 3/4 - 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 5/8 5/8 5'!8 ASTM AJ07 AJ07 AJ07 A307 A307 AJ07 AJ07 AJ07 AJ07 AJ25 A490 Exp Exp Exp Exp Exp AJ07 AJ07 AJ07 Surface Mounted Plate Grouted Plate Embed Plate Shear Bar Grouted Bolt Embed Depth Inches 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8-1/2 9-1/2 3-1/4 3-1/4 6- 9 9 3-1/2 7 8 j Combined Loads Connection SM SM SM SM GP GP GP EP SB SM SM SM SM SM SM 8M CB GB GB f'c psi 5200 4550 4750 5100 3700 4650 4200 3750 4000 5450 5400 4650 4600 4500 4500 4500 5400 5300 5300 Angle of Load Degrees 60 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 Failure Load Total Per Bolt 1000 1bs 1000 1bs 73 18.3 75 18.8 68 16.9 81 20.3 50.5 12.6 58 14.5 61 15.3 94 23.5 108 27 83 20.8 104 26.1 41.8 10.5 33.2 8.3 63 15.8 776 19.1 76.7 19.2 47.7 11.9 47.6 11.9 44.2 11.0 A307 30 S8 SHEAR BAR EP EMBEQDED PLATE . GP GROutED PLATE 20 (I) Q. !lie !3 0 = Q: IJJ Q. Q oct 0 10 -' I i o 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 O.q. 0.5 \ DEFLECTION INCHES FIGURE 5 i: , ; ~ .'- ,; . J. )' CI) 4. lie: ~ ...J 0 m 0:: UJ 4. Q -< 0 ...J -. ",t' 50 qO SO 20 10 o 0.0 0.1 DEFLEctiON INCHES --. A325, Aq90, EXP ANCHORS KB EXP. ANCHOR f::J0 (6" DEEP) ~ \ l c ~ O : ....... RH EX', ANCHOR ...... '" (a. DIE') , , K8 @ S O O ~ -----_ ..... -.. - ~ .. -.. , , 0.'" F,IGURE 6 " I i' -' ,- .', 8 6 2 o i i I I \ \ 1 I i; > ., - 0.0 DEFLECTION INCHES O. I .. .- .. ' ~ ~ ' .. - -- INSERT CROSS CONNECTIONS 0.3 FIGURE 7 . '1,' ".' ", '.