Anchor Bolts in Masonry Under Combined

Tension and Shear Loading

Anne M. Fabrello-Streufert1, David G. Pollock2 and David I. McLean3
Anchor bolts are often used in masonry construction.
A common design situation is to resist combined lateral
and gravity loads, causing both tension and shear loading
on the anchor bolt. This loading scenario can result from
eccentrically loaded anchors or during earthquakes, hurricanes, and other loading conditions that combine lateral
loads with gravity loads. The behavior of anchor bolts in
concrete masonry under combined loading is not well documented, leading to the adoption of conservative design
procedures in the past.
Current code provisions in the Uniform Building Code
[UBC (1997)], the Masonry Standards Joint Committee
Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures
[MSJC(1999)], and the International Building Code [IBC
(2000)] for the design of anchor bolts in masonry specify
a linear interaction between design tension and design shear
strengths. Limited test data from previous research suggests that the behavior of anchor bolts in masonry may
follow an elliptical interaction line [Whitlock (1983)].
Furthermore, test results for anchor bolts in concrete have
resulted in an elliptical interaction relationship for combined tension and shear design [UBC (1997); IBC (2000)].
Curvilinear interactions result in greater allowable anchor
bolt strengths that can be utilized by the designer and may
provide a more uniform margin of safety for all conditions of combined tension and shear loading.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Anchor Bolts in Masonry
Anchor bolt design equations from the MSJC (1999),
UBC (1997), and IBC (2000) are reviewed in the following paragraphs. The MSJC(1999) specifies working stress
design (WSD) procedures. The UBC (1997) specifies both
WSD procedures and strength design (SD) procedures.
The IBC (2000) specifies SD procedures and refers to the
MSJC(1999) for WSD applications.
For combined tension and shear loading of anchor
bolts in masonry, both WSD and SD methods use a linear
interaction between design tension and design shear
strengths. The WSD procedure, Equation 1, is given in
the MSJC (1999), Section 2.1.2.2.4, and in the UBC (1997),
Section 2107.1.5.4. The SD procedure, Equation 2, is
given in the UBC (1997), Section 2108.1.5.2. Note that
the SD procedure in the IBC (2000), Section 2108.6.4,
uses the same equation as for WSD, Equation 1. This is
because the - factors are already applied to the Ba and Bv
terms [IBC (2000)].

OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this research was to obtain
a better understanding of the interaction behavior of anchor bolts in grouted concrete masonry under combined
tension and shear loading. A supplementary objective included determining whether there are differences in the
combined tension/shear interaction behavior of anchor
bolts when the shear loading is applied parallel to the
bedjoint of the wall, representing lateral or horizontal loading on a masonry wall, versus perpendicular to the bedjoint
of the wall, representing gravity or vertical loading on a
masonry wall.

Design Engineer, KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle,

WA.
Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

TMS Journal September 2003

ba bv
+ 1.0
Ba Bv

(1)

btu bsu

+
1.0
Btn Bsn

(2)

where:
Ba or Btn = tension force on anchor bolt; in WSD this is an
allowable force (Ba in the MSJC (1999) and Bt in the
UBC (1997)); in SD it is a nominal capacity (Btn in
the UBC (1997)) or a design strength (Ba in the IBC
(2000)) (lbs or N)
Bv or Bsn = shear force on anchor bolt; in WSD this is an
allowable force (Bv in the MSJC (1999) and in the
UBC (1997)); in SD it is a nominal capacity (Bsn in
the UBC (1997)) or a design strength (Bv in the IBC
(2000)) (lbs or N)
ba or btu = computed design tensile force on anchor bolt; in
WSD this is a total applied force (ba in the MSJC
(1999) and bt in the UBC (1997)); in SD this is a factored force (btu in the UBC (1997) and ba in the IBC
(2000)) (lbs or N)

13

bv or bsu = computed design shear force on anchor bolt; in

WSD this is a total applied force (bv in the MSJC
(1999) and in the UBC (1997)); in SD this is a factored force (bsu in the UBC (1997) and bv in the IBC
(2000)) (lbs or N)

tion committees subsequently proposed continued usage

of the straight-line interaction curve since it provided simplicity and additional conservatism in the absence of extensive test data for establishing a curvilinear interaction
relationship [MSJC (1999)].
P
P

= strength reduction factor; = 0.8 for Equation 2

WSD provisions in the MSJC (1999) incorporate a
nominal factor of safety of five for variability and the
possibility that anchor bolts may be used in a nonredundant
manner [MSJC (1999)]. However, past test results show
average factors of safety of approximately 8 to 9 for pure
tension and pure shear loading [Whitlock (1983); Tubbs
(1999)], based on test results in which a failure cone develops in the masonry. If edge distances, center-to-center
spacing between bolts, or embedment depths are limited,
additional reductions in strength must be taken.
There has been limited research pertaining to combined
tension and shear loading of anchor bolts in masonry. Previous studies have primarily investigated monotonic and cyclic
loading of anchor bolts in tension or shear, but not both loadings applied simultaneously. Provisions for combined tension and shear loading of anchor bolts in masonry has been
established through past experience and the desire for conservatism and simplicity. A linear interaction is used for combined tension and shear loading design in all United States
masonry codes. However, previous limited test results indicate that this may be overly conservative.
Only one project was found that studied anchor bolts
in masonry under combined tension and shear [Whitlock
(1983)]. Whitlock conducted this research at Clemson
University under the guidance of Professor Russell Brown.
Wall panels constructed from both concrete masonry units
and clay masonry bricks were tested. Bolt sizes for
combined tension and shear tests included 3/8 inch (10 mm),
1
/2 inch (13 mm), 3/4 inch (19 mm), 1 inch (25 mm), and
1 inch (32 mm) diameters. Anchor bolts were loaded in
pure tension, pure shear and combined tension and shear.
For combined tension and shear loading, an actuator was
oriented at a 45 degree angle from the face of the wall to
load the bolt with a resultant force composed of equal parts
tension and shear. These three series of anchor bolt
capacities were plotted to create three points on an
interaction diagram.
Whitlock (1983) proposed Equations 3 and 4 for anchor strength in combined tension and shear loading. Equation 3 was recommended for anchor strength based on masonry capacity, and Equation 4 was recommended for anchor strength based on steel capacity. These equations
were similar to those found in the 1971 Precast and Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Design Handbook
[Whitlock (1983)]. However, the masonry code specifica-

14

4/3

S
+
S

4/3

1.0

(3)

P + S 1.0
P S

(4)

where:
P, S = applied tension and shear loads, respectively (lbs
or N)
P, S = calculated tensile and shear capacities, respectively (lbs or N)
In Equations 1 through 4 there is no distinction between shear loading parallel to the bedjoint versus shear
loading perpendicular to the bedjoint. However, past research for anchor bolts in clay units has indicated that shear
capacity in the direction perpendicular to bed joints (vertical loading) is approximately 8 percent higher than shear
capacity in the direction parallel to the bed joints (lateral
loading) [Kelly et al. (1975)].

Anchor Bolts in Concrete

Curvilinear equations are currently used to model
tension/shear interaction behavior of anchor bolts in
concrete. These provisions have been established through
research by McMackin et al. (1973), the Euro-International
Concrete Committee [Comite Euro-International du Beten,
CEB (1995)], and the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
349 Committee. The WSD procedure for combined tension
and shear for anchor bolts in concrete, Equation 5, is given
in the UBC (1997), Section 1923.1. The SD procedure
for combined tension and shear for anchor bolts in concrete,
Equation 6 and an equation similar to Equation 4, are given
in the UBC (1997), Section 1923.3.4. Equations 5 and 6
are elliptical interaction curves based on masonry capacity.
The circular interaction curve similar to Equation 4 is based
on anchor bolt steel capacity.
Ps

Pt

5/ 3

V
+ s
Vt

5/ 3

1.0

5/ 3
5/ 3
Vu
1 Pu

+ 1.0
Pc
Vc

(5)

(6)

where:
Ps , Vs = applied service tension and shear load, respectively
(lbs or N)
Pt , Vt = allowable tension and shear service load, respectively (lbs or N)

TMS Journal September 2003

Pu , Vu = required tension and shear strength from factored

loads, respectively (lbs or N)
Pc , Vc = design tension and shear strength, respectively
(lbs or N)
= strength reduction factor; = 0.65 in Equation 6
McMackin et al. (1973) tested a series of anchors including inch (19 mm) diameter bolts under combined
tension and shear loading in concrete. The bolts were tested
in a series of loading combinations by varying the loading
angle of the actuator. In addition to pure tension and pure
shear tests, angles included were 30 degrees and 60 degrees from pure tension. Anchors in normal weight concrete with normal and partial embedments were tested. The
partially embedded anchors were placed at a depth of 4
inches (100 mm). This embedment depth is comparable
to that used for anchor bolts in masonry. Equation 7 best
represented the combined interaction behavior. The authors added that the margin of safety for pure tension and
the 30-degrees loading cases was not quite as great as the
60-degrees and pure shear conditions.
P

Pcu

5/ 3

S
+
S

5/ 3

1.0

where:
Rut = factored tensile load on the bolt (lbs or N)
Rnt = nominal strength of the bolt in tension (lbs or N)
Ruv = factored shear load on the bolt (lbs or N)
Rnv = nominal strength of the bolt in shear (lbs or N)
t, v = strength reduction factors; t = 0.75 and v = 0.75
for Equation 8

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Engineering practitioners and researchers have questioned whether the current linear interaction equation accurately represents the actual behavior exhibited by the
combined tension and shear loading of an anchor bolt in
masonry. However, no studies to date have thoroughly
addressed the interaction behavior of anchor bolts in masonry. The linear interaction may be overly conservative,
resulting in inefficient utilization of anchor bolts. A curvilinear interaction could make it possible to use more
consistent factors of safety for various combinations of
tension and shear loading. In order to address these concerns, the following experimental plan was developed.

(7)

Specimen Description

where:
Pcu = allowable tensile strength with a reduction for partial
embedment (lbs or N)
R.A. Cook and R.E. Klingner (1989) conducted research on multiple-anchor steel-to-concrete connections.
In the process of studying multiple-anchor connections,
single-anchor connections were considered in various loading conditions, including that of combined tension and
shear. The authors identified the steel failure mechanism
for single-anchor connections in combined tension and
shear to be characterized by yielding and fracture of the
anchor due to stretching, kinking, and bending. The authors concluded that an elliptical tension/shear interaction
is justified and that a linear interaction is conservative.

Anchor bolt specimens were placed in masonry wall

panels constructed from nominal 8 inch by 8 inch by 16
inch (200 mm by 200 mm by 400 mm) ASTM C 90 concrete masonry units (CMU). The units were obtained from
a local block producer and were selected from the same
lot to provide uniformity. The units were arranged in running bond to form panels that were nominally 40 inches
by 40 inches (1.0 m by 1.0 m), 5 courses high by 2.5 units
wide (see Figure 1).
Local masons constructed the wall panels to ensure
construction typical of that on an actual job site. Faceshell
bedding with Type S sacked mortar was employed throughout construction. Coarse grout was used for all test speci-

Steel Connections

4040 Inches
I40
12 Inches
Inchesnches

Not all anchor bolts in masonry fail by formation of a

masonry failure cone. When the failure mode is that of
steel bolt failure, design provisions for bolted connections
in steel structures may be more applicable. Previous research has shown that a circular relationship best represents the combined tension and shear interaction of bolts
in steel-to-steel connections [Salmon and Johnson (1996);
Segui (1999)]. The circular interaction equation for steelto-steel connections is given in Equation 8.
2

12 Inches
40 Inches

Anchor Bolt

Rut Ruv
= 1.0

+
t Rnt v Rnv

TMS Journal September 2003

Noninal 8 Inch
by 8 Inch
by 16 Inch CMU

(8)

Figure 1Masonry Walls with Anchor Bolt Specimen

Layout (1 in. = 25 mm)
15

mens and the grout was vibrated during placement. Testing was conducted in two phases, with walls for each phase
constructed separately because the test parameters for
phase two were dependent on the test results from phase
one. Anchor bolts for both the first and the second phases
of testing consisted of cast-in-place bolts that were nominally inch (19 mm) diameter ASTM 307, grade C, Lbolts. Two batches of bolts were purchased from a local
hardware supplier, one batch for each phase of testing.
High slump grout from a local ready-mix supplier was
obtained for all walls in both phases of testing.
Anchor bolt holes of 7/8 inch (22 mm) diameter were
drilled through the faceshells of the units at the specified
locations with a rotary hammer using a 7/8 inch (22 mm)
diameter concrete/masonry bit. Holes were approximately
centered in the CMU cores and drilled prior to wall construction to accommodate the anchor bolts. Current code
requirements specify that all bolts shall be grouted into
place with at least 1 inch (25.4 mm) of grout between the
bolt and the masonry [UBC (1997)]. This requirement is
to ensure proper grout penetration into the hole surrounding the bolt. However, previous research has shown that
larger holes are not needed to obtain adequate anchor bolt/
masonry strength [Tubbs (1999); Tubbs et al. (2000)].
Therefore holes were drilled just large enough to insert
the bolts for this project. During grout vibration operations, the space between the bolt and the masonry partially filled with grout. The effective anchor embedment
depth was 4 inches (100 mm) per current masonry codes
[UBC (1997); MSJC (1999); IBC (2000)]. Spacing, edge
distances and embedment depths were sufficient to provide full strength in accordance with code provisions.

Material Properties
The average measured yield and ultimate tensile
strengths for the A307 anchor bolts in the first phase of
the project were 79 ksi (540 MPa) and 86 ksi (590 MPa),
respectively. The average measured yield and ultimate
strengths for the A307 anchor bolts in the second phase
were 57 ksi (390 MPa) and 71 ksi (490 MPa), respectively.
Following ASTM standard procedures, samples of the
grout and mortar used to construct the wall panels were
collected and tested. The resulting average ultimate
compressive strengths of grout and mortar for the first
phase were 6,700 psi (46 MPa) and 3,450 psi (24 MPa),
respectively. The resulting average ultimate compressive
strengths of grout and mortar for the second phase were
8,500 psi (59 MPa) and 2,700 psi (19 MPa), respectively.
In addition, six grouted masonry prisms were fabricated
at the time of construction, three in the first phase and
three in the second phase. The average compressive
strength of the prisms in the first phase was 2,850 psi (20
MPa). The average compressive strength of the prisms in
the second phase was 2,950 psi (20 MPa).

16

Testing Matrix
Fourteen wall panels were constructed during phase
one of the project, each containing four anchor bolts, resulting in a total of 56 anchor bolts. However, during testing of some of the anchor bolts, cracks propagated through
the masonry walls to untested bolts, resulting in unusable
bolts. A total of 42 bolts were actually tested in phase
one.
Eleven wall panels were constructed during phase two
of the project, each containing four anchor bolts, resulting
in 44 anchor bolts. As in phase one, crack propagation to
untested bolts rendered some bolt specimens unusable.
Furthermore, during the testing of some of the bolts in
phase two, the shear test fixture lifted off the wall panel
thereby introducing a flexural loading component, rather
than pure shear loading, on the bolt. Due to this problem,
test data collected for 14 bolts was judged to be invalid
and was discarded. The total number of bolts with valid
test data in phase two was 22.

Test Setup
All pure tension and pure shear tests of anchor bolts
conformed to ASTM E 488 (1996). Test procedures for
combined tension and shear loading were developed based
on the procedures in ASTM E 488 (1996). Wall panels
were laid flat on a pallet. For all tests, hydraulic actuators
were used to apply the loads to the anchor bolts. The test
apparatus was positioned such that the axis of the tension
actuator was coincident with the centroidal axis of the
anchor bolt and the axis of the shear actuator intersected
the centroidal axis of the anchor bolt.
The bolt was attached to the tension actuator by a
steel fixture. A hinge was provided at the end of the hydraulic actuator to minimize any load contribution on the
bolt from friction or changes in vertical alignment of the
actuator during combined loading. The bolt was attached
to the shear actuator by the use of a steel channel that conformed to ASTM E 488 (1996). A sheet of teflon material
was placed between the steel channel and the wall panel
to reduce the friction between the two surfaces. A hinge
was provided at the end of the hydraulic actuator to minimize any load contribution on the bolt from friction. Details of the attachment between the actuators and the anchor bolt can be seen in Figure 2.
In previous tests of combined tension and shear loading on anchor bolts in concrete and masonry, combined
loads were applied by the use of a single actuator at varying angles [McMackin et al. (1973); Adihardjo and Soltis
(1979); Whitlock (1983)]. For this project, two actuators
were employed to apply the combined loading on the anchor bolts, one loading the bolt in pure tension and the

TMS Journal September 2003

to prevent the actuators from rapidly moving after failure

and damaging the remaining anchors in the wall. The ultimate tension load resisted by the anchor bolt was recorded
along with the shear load at failure. The process was repeated for various percentages of pure shear capacity. An
analogous loading procedure was used for various percentages of pure tension capacity. The test setup for combined loading can be seen in Figure 3.

Data Acquisition

Figure 2Details of the Attachment Between the Actuators and the Anchor Bolt
other loading the bolt in pure shear. The average pure
tension and pure shear capacities of the embedded anchor
bolts were found for a representative sample of the anchor
bolts. These capacities were used to establish target load
levels in the combined loading of the anchor bolts. For
example, in one set of the combined loading tests, the bolts
were loaded in shear to a selected percentage of the pure
shear capacity. After the actuator reached the chosen percentage of pure shear capacity on the bolt, the tension actuator was used to simultaneously load the bolt in tension
to failure. Displacement control of both actuators was used

Loading was applied at an approximately constant displacement rate until failure was achieved either in the form
of significant masonry cracking, bolt failure, or a significant drop in load applied by the actuator. The displacement rate was selected so that the failure would occur in
approximately one minute to three minutes. Deflection
and load were recorded at a rate of 2 Hz.
A representative Time versus Load curve for a
combined loading test can be seen in Figure 4. The top
line represents a shear load that was held approximately
constant while a tension load (the lower line in the plot)
was simultaneously increased until failure of the anchor.
For the test represented in Figure 4, the anchor bolt was
loaded in shear to 50 percent of the average ultimate shear
capacity then loaded in tension to failure. Fifty percent of
the average ultimate shear capacity of the anchor bolt under
combined loading was 7.8 kips (35 kN). The tension
capacity of the anchor under combined loading was 8.9
kips (40 kN).

200 kip Steel

Testing Frame

55 kip Actuator
22 kip Actuator
Test Anchor Bolt

Wood Reaction Frame

Wall Panel

Tie Downs
Support Pallet

Figure 3Combined Tension and Shear Test Setup

TMS Journal September 2003

17

Figure 4Time versus Load Curve for a Typical Anchor Bolt Test

RESULTS
All data points from both phases of the project are
provided in Figure 5 and the averages of each testing series are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Pure tension and pure
shear tests were conducted first. These average capacities
were used as a basis to determine combined loading parameters in phase one. All coefficient of variation (COV)
values were within the limits set by ASTM E 488 (1996)
for data analysis.
While the majority of the anchor bolts in phase one
were loaded in shear parallel to the bedjoint, five anchor
bolts in phase one were tested in pure shear perpendicular
to the bedjoint. This was done to determine if there was a
difference in anchor bolt pure shear capacities when loaded
in different directions relative to the bedjoint. The average
shear capacity in the first phase for the anchors loaded

perpendicular to the bedjoint was 8.4 percent higher than

those loaded parallel to the bedjoint. Therefore testing in
phase two focused on shear loading perpendicular to the
bedjoints to investigate whether or not the interaction
behavior would change when the direction of shear load
changed.
The average pure tension capacity was 8.7 percent
higher in the second phase than the average pure tension
capacity found in phase one. The average pure shear capacity for loading perpendicular to the bedjoint in phase
two was 6.5 percent lower than the average pure shear
capacity for loading perpendicular to the bedjoint found
in phase one. These differences can be attributed to the
fact that wall panels were constructed at different times.
Although an attempt was made to construct identical wall
panels, different mortar, grout and steel material properties were found in the different phases of the project. It

Figure 5Plot of All Data Points (1 kip = 4.448 kN)

18

TMS Journal September 2003

Table 1. Average Tension and Shear Loads for Each Series of Anchor Bolt Tests
Direction
of Shear
Loading

Parallel to
Bedjoint
(Phase 1)

Perpendicular
to Bedjoint
(Phase 2)

Series

# of
tests

Pure Tension (Phase 1)

Pure Tension (Phase 2)
Pure Shear
50% Shear
25% Shear
50% Tension
75% Shear
Pure Shear (Phase 1)
Pure Shear (Phase 2)
50% Shear
75% Shear
75% Tension
25% Shear

10
5
10
5
5
2
5
5
5
5
1
5
1

appears that different grout and mortar properties resulted

in a higher average pure tension capacity in phase one,
while the lower strength bolts resulted in a lower average
pure shear capacity in phase two.

Average Results for Each Series of Tests

Table 1 provides the average loads resisted by the
anchors under various combinations of tension and shear
loading and the COV for each series of tests. The COV
values shown in Table 1 were calculated for the loads that
were increased to failure. For instance, in the case of the
anchor bolt test illustrated in Figure 4, the anchor bolt was
held at a constant shear load near 50 percent of the aver-

Average Tension
Load at Failure,
kips (kN)
9.2
10.0
0
6.9
8.1
4.5
6.3
0
0
8.8
7.1
7.8
9.3

(41)
(44)

Average Shear
Load at Failure,
kips (kN)
0
0
15.6
7.1
3.6
12.4
10.7
16.9
15.8
7.6
11.1
7.8
3.7

(31)
(36)
(20)
(28)

(39)
(32)
(35)
(41)

Coefficient of
Variation (COV),
percent
12.0
7.5
10.3
20.8
11.1
n/a
13.0
7.7
11.0
11.3
n/a
17.2
n/a

(69)
(32)
(16)
(55)
(48)
(75)
(70)
(34)
(49)
(35)
(17)

age pure shear capacity and then a tension load was applied until the anchor bolt failed. Because the shear load
was held approximately constant, the COV shown in Table
1 for 50 percent shear corresponds to the variation in
the tension loads at failure for multiple test specimens.
Table 2 provides the average percentages of pure tension
and shear capacities resisted by the anchor bolts at various combinations of tension and shear in each series of
tests.
In Table 1 it can be seen that some of the series of
tests included fewer than five specimens. This can be attributed primarily to occasional problems with the testing
apparatus. During testing of some bolts, the shear test

Table 2. Average Percentages of Pure Tension and Pure Shear Capacities Resisted by Anchor Bolts at Various
Combinations of Tension and Shear
Direction
of Loading

Parallel to
Bedjoint

Perpendicular
to Bedjoint

Series

Percent of Pure
Tensile Capacity

Percent of Pure
Shear Capacity

Pure Tension (Phase 1)

Pure Tension (Phase 2)
Pure Shear
50% Shear
25% Shear
50% Tension
75% Shear
Pure Shear (Phase 1)
Pure Shear (Phase 2)
50% Shear
75% Shear
75% Tension
25% Shear

100
100
0
75.7
88.5
49.5
68.9
0
0
88.1
71.3
78.0
92.9

0
0
100
45.6
22.9
79.8
68.7
100
100
48.4
70.6
49.7
23.7

TMS Journal September 2003

19

Figure 6Radial Cracking

Figure 7Straightening of a Bolt

fixture lifted off the wall panel, thereby introducing a flexural loading component on the bolt. Due to this problem,
test data for some bolts were judged to be invalid and were
discarded. This problem was apparent only in tension/
shear combinations that included high percentages of pure
shear capacity (i.e., the lower right of Figure 5) and was
more prevalent in phase two tests that included bolts with
lower average yield strengths.

various prediction models on a consistent basis, the shear

data points were non-dimensionalized by taking the actual shear load at failure (V) and dividing it by the average
pure shear capacity (Vp), resulting in x-coordinates of (V/
Vp). Similarly, the actual tension loads at failure (T) were
divided by the average pure tension capacity (Tp), resulting in y-coordinates of (T/Tp). The average capacities used
as denominators (Vp and Tp) corresponded to the applicable phase of testing and direction of loading, either parallel or perpendicular to the bedjoint. Non-dimensionalized
data from this study is compiled in Figure 8.

Failure Modes
A majority of the anchors (56 out of 64 total anchors)
failed due to radial cracks in the masonry propagating from
the anchor bolt. These failures were categorized as
combinations of shear pryout and tensile pullout or tensile
breakout [Allen et al. (2000)]. An example of an anchor
bolt that failed by radial cracking in the masonry can be
seen in Figure 6. Some anchor bolts started to pull out of
the masonry by straightening of the hook at the end of the
bolt (tensile pullout), as shown in Figure 7. This occurred
in 13 of 15 pure tension tests. This type of anchor bolt
pullout was also seen in combinations of tension and shear
that approached pure tension capacity (e.g., 25 percent
shear strength and tension loaded to failure; 75 percent
tension strength and shear loaded to failure). All but one
of these pullout failures occurred in conjunction with other
failure modes including crushing/spalling of the CMU
around the anchor, yielding of the anchor steel due to shear
loading, cracking of masonry parallel or perpendicular to
the load (shear pryout), and tension failure cone formation
(tensile breakout). Only one anchor bolt failed by steel
fracture under pure shear loading. Thus, all anchor bolts
that were subjected to combined tensile and shear loading
ultimately failed due to masonry failure (combinations of
shear pryout and tensile breakout or tensile pullout).
Furthermore, all but one of the pure shear failures was
due to masonry failure. Further details regarding failure
modes can be found in Appendix A and in Fabrello (2001).

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Interaction Curves
Equation 9 represents the current allowable interaction curve for combined tension and shear loading of anchor bolts in masonry. Equation 10 represents the suggested interaction curve from Whitlock (1983) based on
masonry capacity. Equation 11 represents the current allowable interaction curve for combined tension and shear
loading of anchor bolts in concrete based on concrete capacity. Equation 12 represents an interaction curve based
on steel capacity. The four interaction curves are superimposed with all of the non-dimensionalized data from this
study in Figure 9.
T V
T + V = 1.0
p p

T
T
p

4/3

T
T
p

5/ 3

In order to normalize the data in phases one and two,

and to be able to compare the results from each phase with
20

V
+
Vp

4/3

V
+
Vp

5/ 3

(9)

= 1.0

(10)

= 1.0

(11)

T V
T + V = 1.0
p p

(12)

TMS Journal September 2003

Figure 8Plot of All Non-Dimensionalized Data Points

The proposed interaction curves are compared to data
that has been non-dimensionalized using average pure tension and average pure shear capacities. Therefore, as
shown in Figure 9, half of the pure tension data points will
fall above the value of (T/Tp = 1.0) on the vertical axis and
half of the data will fall below. Similarly, half of the pure
shear data will fall above the value of (V/Vp = 1.0) on the
horizontal axis and half of the data will fall below. An
appropriate interaction curve for combined tension and
shear should similarly fall on a mean trend line.
Based on a visual assessment of Figure 9, the combined tension and shear interaction behavior appears to be

best represented by an elliptical interaction curve with 5/3

exponents, Equation 11. Approximately half of the data
points lie above the curve and half below the curve. This
is the case for anchor bolts loaded both parallel and perpendicular to the bedjoint. The elliptical interaction with
4/3 exponents, Equation 10, is a slightly conservative estimate of the combined tension and shear interaction behavior found in these tests. The linear interaction curve,
Equation 9, is the most conservative representation of the
data. Nearly all of the data is located above the curve.
This conservatism is consistent with previous observations
for anchor bolts under combined tension and shear loading in masonry [Whitlock (1983); UBC (1997); MSJC

Figure 9Plot of All Data Points with Proposed Interaction Curves

TMS Journal September 2003

21

Table 3. Test-Strength-to-Predicted-Strength Ratios

Interaction
Equation

Linear
4/3
Elliptical
5/3
Elliptical

Circular

avg.
max
min
avg.
max
min
avg.
max
min
avg.
max
min

Pure
Tension

25%
Shear

50%
Shear

75%
Shear

75%
Tension

50%
Tension

Pure
Shear

1.00
1.18
0.84
1.00
1.18
0.84
1.00
1.18
0.84
1.00
1.18
0.84

1.12
1.51
0.97
1.00
1.10
0.86
0.95
1.05
0.81
0.92
1.02
0.78

1.29
1.56
1.04
1.10
1.33
0.88
1.00
1.22
0.79
0.95
1.16
0.74

1.39
1.51
1.24
1.17
1.27
1.04
1.05
1.15
0.94
0.98
1.07
0.88

1.28
1.41
1.15
1.09
1.19
0.99
0.99
1.07
0.90
0.93
1.00
0.86

1.29
1.35
1.24
1.10
1.15
1.05
1.00
1.05
0.95
0.94
0.99
0.89

1.00
1.27
0.89
1.00
1.27
0.89
1.00
1.27
0.89
1.00
1.27
0.89

Comparison of Interaction Equations with

Test Data

The difference between the test strength and the predicted strength for each data point were determined for
each of the proposed interaction equations in this study.
This difference is the amount of error associated with estimating the test strength. Positive error was defined as the
difference when the test strength was greater than the predicted strength (underprediction of actual test data). Negative error was defined as the difference when the test
strength was less than the predicted strength
(overprediction of actual test data). The errors were plotted versus the angle from pure tension (see Figure 10). A

22

Data Point

St
re
ed
Pr

From Table 3 it is evident that the elliptical interaction equation with 5/3 exponents provides a more consistent prediction of strength since the average test-strengthto-predicted-strength ratio is near unity for the various combinations of tension and shear loading. On average, the
elliptical interaction equation with 5/3 exponents predicts
actual test strengths within 5 percent, and this equation
best represents the mean trend of the test data in this study.
On average, the linear interaction equation underpredicts

ict

ed

The effectiveness of the proposed interaction relationships for predicting anchor strength under combined loading was evaluated by projecting a line from the origin of
the tension/shear interaction diagram (Figure 9) through
each data point, with the length of this radial line representing the test strength under combined loading. The point
at which each radial line crossed each interaction curve
was found and defined as the predicted strength value (see
Figure 10). A test-strength-to-predicted-strength ratio of
1.00 indicates that the interaction equation exactly predicts the observed anchor bolt performance. Ratios under
1.00 indicate that the interaction equation overpredicts the
observed anchor bolt performance and ratios over 1.00
indicate that the interaction equation underpredicts the observed anchor bolt performance. Average test-strengthto-predicted-strength ratios are summarized in Table 3.

A
ng
Pu ngle
th
re fro
Er
Te m
ro
ns
Te
r
ion
st
St
ren
gth

test strength by 12 to 39 percent for the various combinations of tension and shear loading. The elliptical interaction equation with 4/3 exponents underpredicts test strength
by 10 to 17 percent for the various combinations of tension and shear loading. The circular interaction equation
overpredicts test strengths by 2 to 8 percent for the various combinations of tension and shear loading.

Tension

(1999)]. The circular interaction curve, Equation 12, provides an unconservative representation of the data from
this study. This is because only 1 of 64 anchors failed due
to steel fracture. If more anchors had failed due to anchor
bolt steel fracture, previous observations have suggested
that the data would have been represented by a circular
interaction curve [Whitlock (1983)].

Proposed
Interaction Curve

Shear

Figure 10Formulation of Test Strengths and

Predicted Strengths
TMS Journal September 2003

best-fit trendline was determined for each of the data sets

using spreadsheet software. The error plots are given in
Figures 11 through 14. An interaction equation with minimal average error in predicting the test strength should
exhibit a horizontal best-fit trendline that follows the xaxis (average error = 0), and the sum of the errors should
be approximately equal to zero for all combinations of
tension and shear loading.
From Figures 11 through 14 it can be concluded that
the elliptical interaction equation with 5/3 exponents has
the smallest amount of average error when predicting test
strengths. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, the sum of

the errors associated with the elliptical interaction equation with 5/3 exponents is +0.016, or approximately zero,
for all combinations of tension and shear loading. In conTable 4. Summary of Predicted Strength Analysis
Interaction Curve

Sum of Errors for All

Loading Combinations

Linear
4/3 Elliptical
5/3 Elliptical
Circular

+ 5.897
+ 2.305
+ 0.016
- 1.524

Figure 11Error Versus Angle from Pure Tension for Linear Interaction

Figure 12 Error Versus Angle from Pure Tension for Elliptical Interaction with 4/3 Exponents
TMS Journal September 2003

23

Figure 13: Error Versus Angle from Pure Tension for Elliptical Interaction with 5/3 Exponents

Figure 14Error Versus Angle from Pure Tension for Circular Interaction

Figure 15. Proposed Design Interaction Curves Superimposed with Data Points
24

TMS Journal September 2003

trast, the sums of the errors for the linear, 4/3 elliptical,
and circular interaction curves are substantially larger.

Safety Factors
The test data from this study are plotted in Figure 15.
The dashed line is an elliptical interaction curve with 5/3
exponents representing the best-fit interaction behavior for
combined tension and shear loading of the anchor bolts
tested in this project. In addition, proposed elliptical interaction design curves with 5/3 exponents for WSD and
SD are represented as solid lines in the lower left of Figure 15. These design curves were generated by determining the allowable and nominal pure tension and pure shear
capacities from the UBC (1997), and plotting the proposed
5/3 elliptical interaction equation between these points.
The design curves easily fit within the safe design region
of the test data, falling well below the best-fit elliptical
interaction curve (dashed line).
Factors of safety were calculated by projecting a line
from the origin of the tension/shear interaction diagram
(Figure 15) through each data point, with the length of this
radial line representing the test strength under combined
loading. The point at which each radial line crossed the
proposed interaction design curve was also found and defined as the proposed allowable or nominal strength value.
The interaction diagram was divided into six sectors, starting at pure tension and ending at pure shear. Each sector
represented a range of approximately 15 degrees on a nondimensionalized interaction plot (see Figure 9). For example, sector 1 included all combined loading data points
located between the vertical (T/Tp) axis and a radial line
drawn through the origin at approximately 15 degrees inclination from the vertical axis. Sector 2 included all com-

bined loading data points located between the 15 degree

inclination line and another radial line drawn through the
origin at 30 degrees inclination from the vertical axis. A
summary of the average factors of safety in each sector is
provided in Table 5. Since all of the combined loading
data points from this study were located in Sectors 2, 3
and 4, average factors of safety are listed for these three
sectors as well as for the pure tension and pure shear loading conditions. The elliptical interaction equation with 5/
3 exponents provides the most consistent average factor
of safety, ranging between 8.9 and 9.7 for data in all sectors of the interaction diagram. Average factors of safety
range from 9.0 to 10.2 for the interaction equation with 4/
3 exponents, and range from 9.0 to 11.9 for the linear interaction equation.

Proposed Interaction Equation

Whitlock (1983) concluded that the interaction of tension and shear loading on anchor bolts in masonry was
best represented by curvilinear interaction between tension and shear. The MSJC (1999) recognizes this curvilinear interaction behavior, but for simplicity and conservatism a straight-line interaction between design tension and design shear strengths is currently required [MSJC
(1999)].
A linear interaction is a conservative approximation
that would be appropriate in the absence of extensive combined loading test data. However, this research project
has contributed substantial data that supports the use of
the elliptical interaction equation with exponents of 5/3
for the design of anchor bolts in masonry under combined
tension and shear. A wide range of combined tension and
shear loading combinations were tested, representing loads

Table 5. Factors of Safety (Test-Strength-to-Predicted-Strength Ratios)

Interaction
Equation

Linear
4/3
Elliptical
5/3
Elliptical

Circular

Pure
Tension
(T/Tp axis)
avg.
max
min
avg.
max
min
avg.
max
min
avg.
max
min

TMS Journal September 2003

9.69
7.90
11.39
9.69
7.90
11.39
9.69
7.90
11.39
9.69
7.90
11.39

Angles from Pure Tension (T/Tp) Axis

Sector 2
Sector 3
Sector 4
(15-30 degrees
(30-45 degrees
(45-60 degrees
inclination)
inclination)
inclination)
11.71
9.01
14.96
10.20
7.95
12.82
9.49
7.47
11.76
9.11
7.23
11.15

11.88
9.34
13.54
10.05
7.87
11.40
9.10
7.11
10.28
8.54
6.64
9.60

11.68
10.90
12.33
9.86
9.24
10.37
8.92
8.34
9.35
8.36
7.79
8.72

Pure
Shear
(V/Vp axis)
8.97
7.81
11.07
8.97
7.81
11.07
8.97
7.81
11.07
8.97
7.81
11.07
25

on anchor bolts from pure tension to pure shear. Factor of

safety and error analyses clearly indicate that an elliptical
interaction equation with 5/3 exponents provides the best
representation of combined loading test data for this
project.
Adoption of the elliptical interaction equation for
combined loading design strengths will increase anchor
bolt design strengths by as much as 32 percent in combinations of tension and shear. This 32 percent increase is
found at a 45 degree angle from pure tension, representing equal portions of tension and shear.

No published data could be found for combined loading in high V/Vp regions for anchor bolts in masonry or
concrete. Data in this region of tension/shear interaction
should be explored in the future. Using only one actuator
to apply a load that can be separated into resultant tension
and shear loads could possibly solve the problem experienced with the test apparatus in this study. A single-actuator method of applying combined tension and shear loads
has been used in previous research on anchor bolts in masonry and concrete [McMackin et al. (1973); Adihardjo
and Soltis (1979); Whitlock (1983)].

CONCLUSIONS
Effect of the Direction of Shear Loading
The average pure shear capacity of anchor bolts was
slightly higher in the tests with the shear loading perpendicular to the bedjoint versus with the shear loading parallel to the bedjoint. This is apparent in Table 1 when comparing similar series and different directions of pure shear
loading. Looking at the bolt specimens in phase one only,
the average shear capacity of the bolts increased from 15.6
kips (69 kN) when the bolts were loaded parallel to the
bedjoint, to 16.9 kips (75 kN) when the bolts were loaded
perpendicular to the bedjoint. This is an increase of 8.4
percent. This slight increase is consistent with previous
data [Kelly et al. (1975)]. However, the pure shear capacities perpendicular to the bedjoint for the second phase
of construction were 6.5 percent lower than those found
for the first phase of construction. This difference is attributable to variations in material properties for each phase
of wall construction in the project. Therefore, the data
was non-dimensionalized for comparison purposes. As
shown in Figure 8, there is no apparent difference in combined loading behavior when the shear load is applied parallel to the bedjoint versus perpendicular to the bedjoint.
Therefore, a single tension/shear interaction equation is
proposed as being sufficient to address both shear loading
directions.

Future Research
Limited test data is available for combined tension
and shear loads in combinations that approach pure shear
(high V/Vp regions). This region can be seen in the bottom
right of Figures 5 and 8, and is also apparent in Table 5
due to the absence of data beyond an angle of inclination
of 60 degrees from the T/Tp axis. In this research project,
attempts were made to collect data in the region of high V/
Vp. However, problems with the test apparatus prevented
meaningful data from being collected. The steel channel
that applied the shear load to the bolt repeatedly lifted
off the wall panel as bolts deformed due to high shear
loading, introducing a flexural load component rather than
a pure shear load on the anchor bolt. These problems are
assumed to be primarily associated with the lower yield
strength of the anchor bolts used in phase two.
26

An elliptical interaction equation with 5/3 exponents,

Equation 11, provides a better representation of the actual
behavior exhibited by the combined tension and shear
loading of anchor bolts in masonry than the current codespecified linear interaction equation. The linear interaction
is unnecessarily conservative, resulting in inefficient
utilization of anchor bolts. An elliptical interaction will
make it possible for designers to consider higher design
strengths when bolts are subjected to combined tension
and shear loading. Furthermore, the proposed elliptical
interaction equation will provide a more consistent factor
of safety for various combinations of tension and shear
loading on anchor bolts in masonry.
Combined tension and shear loading parallel to the
bedjoint and perpendicular to the bedjoint result in similar
interaction behavior. Therefore a single tension/shear
interaction equation is proposed as being sufficient to
address all shear loading directions.
Based on this research, it is recommended that an elliptical interaction with 5/3 exponents, Equation 13, be
adopted in the current masonry design codes for combined
tension and shear interaction for anchor bolts in concrete
masonry governed by masonry capacity. The elliptical interaction equation models actual behavior very accurately
and will allow designers to more efficiently use anchor
bolts.
ba

Ba

5/ 3

b
+ v
Bv

5/ 3

1.0

(13)

ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author would like to acknowledge the support received through the Bob Fraser Masonry Graduate
Fellowship at Washington State University. The Eastern
Washington Masonry Producers Association, the Northwest Concrete Masonry Association, and the Masonry Industry Promotion Group of Spokane, Washington, are
gratefully acknowledged for their support of this project.

TMS Journal September 2003

REFERENCES
Adihardjo, R. and Soltis, L., Combined Shear and Tension on Grouted Base Details, Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Vol.16,
No.1, First Quarter, 1979, pp.23-26.
Allen, R., Borchelt, J.G., Klingner, R.E. and Zobel, R.,
Proposed Provisions for Design of Anchorage to Masonry, The Masonry Society Journal, The Masonry Society (TMS), Vol.18, No.2, December 2000, pp.35-59.
American Society For Testing Materials (ASTM), ASTM
Standard E 488-96, Standard Test Method for Strength
of Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements, 1996
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
Comite Euro-International du Beten (Euro-International Concrete Committee, CEB), Design of Fastenings in Concrete
(Draft CEB Guide, Parts 1 to 3). and Fastenings for Seismic Retrofitting (State-of-the-Art Report on Design and Application). Task Group 3.5 (Embedments), CEB Bulletin
CInformation No. 226, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1995.
Cook, R.A. and Klingner, R.E., Behavior and Design of
Ductile Multiple-Anchor Steel-to-Concrete Connections,
Center of Transportation Research, University of Texas,
Austin, Research Report CTR 1126-3, Austin, Texas, 1989.
Fabrello, A.M., Behavior and Design of Anchor Bolts in
Concrete Masonry Under Combined Tension and Shear
Loading, M.S. Thesis, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington, 2001.
International Code Council (ICC), International Building
Code (IBC), Falls Church, Virginia, 2000.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO),
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Volume Two, Whittier,
California, 1997.
Kelly, Pittelko, Fritz and Forssen, Consulting Engineers,
Four Inch Reinforced Hollow Unit Masonry Test Report,
Western States Clay Products Association, Los Angeles,
California, 1975.
McMackin, P.J., Slutter, R.G., and Fisher, J.W., Headed
Steel Anchor under Combined Loading, Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),
Vol.10, No.2, Second Quarter, 1973, pp.43-52.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Building Code
Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI 530-02/ASCE
5-02/TMS 402-02, American Concrete Institute (ACI),
Farmington Hills, MI, American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), Reston, VA, The Masonry Society, Boulder, CO,
1999.
TMS Journal September 2003

Salmon, C.G. and Johnson, J.E., Steel Structures, Design

and Behavior, Fourth Edition, Harper Collins College
Publishers, New York, New York, 1996.
Segui, W.T., LRFD Steel Design, Second Edition, Brooks/
Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California, 1999.
Tubbs, J.B., Performance of Anchor Bolts in Concrete
Block Masonry, M.S. Thesis, Washington State
University, Pullman, Washington, 1999.
Tubbs, J.B., Pollock, D.G. and McLean, D.I., Testing of
Anchor Bolts in Concrete Block Masonry, The Masonry
Society Journal, The Masonry Society (TMS), Vol.18,
No.2, December 2000, pp.75-88.
Whitlock, A.R., Strength of Anchor Bolts in Grouted
Masonry, Ph.D. Dissertation, Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina, 1983.

NOTATION
ba = computed design tensile force on anchor bolt (lbs
or N).
bsu = computed design shear force on anchor bolt (lbs
or N).
bt = computed design tensile force on anchor bolt (lbs
or N).
btu = computed design tensile force on anchor bolt (lbs
or N).
bv = computed design shear force on anchor bolt (lbs
or N).
Ba = tension force on anchor bolt (lbs or N).
Bsn = shear force on anchor bolt (lbs or N).
Bt = tension force on anchor bolt (lbs or N).
Btn = tension force on anchor bolt (lbs or N).
Bv = shear force on anchor bolt (lbs or N).
P = applied tension load (lbs or N).
Pc = design tension strength (lbs or N).
Pcu = allowable tensile strength with a reduction for
partial embedment (lbs or N).
Ps = applied service tension load (lbs or N).
Pt = allowable tension service load (lbs or N).
Pu = required tension strength from factored loads (lbs
or N).
P = calculated tension capacity (lbs or N).
Rnt = nominal strength of the bolt in tension (lbs or N).
Rnv = nominal strength of the bolt in shear (lbs or N).
Rut = factored tensile load on the bolt (lbs or N).
Ruv = factored shear load on the bolt (lbs or N).
S = applied shear load (lbs or N).
S = calculated shear capacity (lbs or N).
T = actual tension load resisted by the anchor bolt at
the time of failure (kips or kN).
Tp = average pure tension capacity from pure tension
tests (kips or kN).

27

V
Vc
Vs
Vt
Vu

28

= actual shear load resisted by the anchor bolt at the

time of failure (kips or kN).
= design shear strength (lbs or N).
= applied service shear load (lbs or N).
= allowable shear service load (lbs or N).
= required shear strength from factored loads (lbs
or N).

Vp = average pure shear capacity from pure shear tests

(kips or kN).
V = calculated shear capacity (lbs or N).
= strength reduction factor.

TMS Journal September 2003

Appendix A: Anchor Bolt Failure Mode Descriptions and Ultimate Capacities

Test
Description

Direction of
Shear Load

Pure Tension
(Phase 1)

N/A

Pure Shear
(Phase 1)

Parallel
to
Bedjoint

50% Shear,
Tension to
Failure
(Phase 1)

Parallel
to
Bedjoint

25% Shear,
Tension to
Failure
(Phase 1)

Parallel
to
Bedjoint

50% Tension,
Shear to Failure
(Phase 1)

Parallel
to
Bedjoint

75% Shear,
Tension to
Failure (Phase 1)

Parallel
to
Bedjoint

Pure Shear
(Phase 1)

Perpendicular
to
Bedjoint

TMS Journal September 2003

Specimen

Failure Mode
Descriptions*

Ultimate
ShearLoad,
kips (kN)

Ultimate
Tension Load,
kips (kN)

100TH-1
100TH-2
100TH-4
100TH-5
100TH-6
100TH-7
100TH-8
100TH-9
100TH-10
100TH-11
100SH-1
100SH-2
100SH-4
100SH-5
100SH-6
100SH-7
100SH-8
100SH-9
100SH-10
100SH-11
50SH-1
50SH-2
50SH-3
50SH-4
50SH-5
25SH-1
25SH-2
25SH-3
25SH-4
25SH-5

1, 2, 4, 10
1, 2, 4, 10
1, 3, 4
1, 4, 10
10
1, 3, 4, 9, 10
1, 4, 10
1, 4, 10
1, 7, 10
1, 4, 10
1, 2, 3
3, 5, 6
1, 2, 3, 4, 6
1, 2, 4, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 6
1, 2, 3, 4, 8
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 8
1, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 4
1, 2, 4
1, 2, 4, 8
1, 2, 4, 8
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 4, 8, 10
1, 2, 4, 10
1, 2, 4, 8, 10
1, 4, 8

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.69 (69.8)
19.66 (87.5)
14.32 (63.7)
14.54 (64.7)
15.66 (69.7)
14.80 (65.8)
14.73 (65.5)
16.55 (73.6)
14.57 (64.8)
15.08 (67.1)
6.86 (30.5)
6.98 (31.0)
7.29 (32.4)
7.30 (32.5)
7.07 (31.4)
3.22 (14.33)
3.51 (15.59)
3.81 (16.94)
3.92 (17.46)
3.32 (14.77)

8.22 (36.6)
10.76 (47.9)
7.84 (34.9)
10.80 (48.0)
8.86 (39.4)
9.02 (40.1)
7.69 (34.2)
9.33 (41.5)
9.95 (44.3)
9.20 (40.9)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.85 (26.0)
7.80 (34.7)
6.99 (31.1)
5.25 (23.4)
8.83 (39.3)
7.79 (34.7)
6.85 (30.4)
8.91 (39.6)
9.03 (40.2)
7.96 (35.4)

50TH-1

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8

11.62 (51.7)

4.46 (19.86)

50TH-2

1, 2, 4, 8

13.20 (58.7)

4.61 (20.5)

75SH-1
75SH-2
75SH-3
75SH-4
75SH-5
100SV-1
100SV-2
100SV-3
100SV-4
100SV-5

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
1, 2, 4, 6
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 8
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 7
2, 3
1, 2, 3, 7
1, 2, 3, 7

10.83 (48.2)
11.05 (49.1)
10.85 (48.2)
10.40 (46.3)
10.46 (46.5)
17.05 (75.9)
16.06 (71.4)
18.16 (80.8)
17.94 (79.8)
15.09 (67.1)

7.48 (33.3)
6.19 (27.5)
6.24 (27.8)
6.51 (28.9)
5.17 (23.0)
0
0
0
0
0

29

Appendix A: Anchor Bolt Failure Mode Descriptions and Ultimate Capacitiescontinued

Test
Description
Pure Shear
(Phase 2)

50% Shear,
Tension to Failure
(Phase 2)

Direction of
Shear Load
Perpendicular
to
Bedjoint

Perpendicular
to Bedjoint

Specimen

Failure Mode
Descriptions*

Ultimate
ShearLoad,
kips (kN)

Ultimate
Tension Load,
kips (kN)

100SV-6
100SV-7
100SV-8
100SV-9
100SV-11
50SV-1
50SV-3
50SV-4
50SV-5
50SV-6
75TV-1
75TV-2
75TV-3
75TV-4
75TV-5

2, 11
2, 3, 11
1, 2, 3, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 6
1, 2, 3, 4, 7
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 8
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 7
2, 3, 10
1, 3, 4, 7, 10
1, 2, 4
1,2,4
1, 2, 3, 6, 10

13.86 (61.7)
18.37 (81.7)
14.64 (65.1)
15.69 (69.8)
16.28 (72.4)
7.54 (33.5)
7.82 (34.8)
7.31 (32.5)
7.39 (32.9)
8.09 (36.0)
7.77 (34.6)
9.72 (43.2)
8.37 (37.2)
6.04 (26.9)
7.32 (32.5)

0
0
0
0
0
8.78 (39.1)
8.89 (39.5)
7.86 (35.0)
7.99 (35.6)
10.34 (46.0)
7.94 (35.3)
7.81 (34.8)
7.55 (33.6)
7.62 (33.9)
7.94 (35.3)

75% Tension,
Shear to Failure
(Phase 2)

Perpendicular
to Bedjoint

85% Shear,
Tension to Failure
(Phase 2)
25% Shear,
Tension to Failure
(Phase 2)

Perpendicular
to Bedjoint

85SV-1

2, 3, 6, 11

11.13 (49.5)

7.10 (31.6)

Perpendicular
to Bedjoint

25SV-1

1, 2, 4, 6

3.74 (16.62)

9.25 (41.1)

100TV-1
100TV-2
1,3,4,9
1,3,4,10
1,4,10

10
1, 10
0
0
0

0
0
9.10 (40.5)
11.09 (49.3)
9.83 (43.7)

10.19 (45.3)
9.60 (42.7)

N/A
Pure Tension
(Phase 2)

100TV-3
100TV-4
100TV-5
*Failure Mode Descriptions:
1. Radial cracking
2. Crushing/spalling of CMU around anchor
3. Yielding of anchor steel (either in yield, or in tensile pullout)
4. Radial cracking to mortar joints
5. Fracture of anchor steel
6. Cracking of masonry parallel to load
7. Wall splitting from cracking parallel to load
8. Wall splitting from cracking perpendicular to load
9. Cone failure formation (tensile breakout)
10. Straightening of anchor (associated with tensile pullout)
11. Excessive yield of anchor in shear

30

TMS Journal September 2003