Boundary element analysis of the pullout behaviour of an anchor bolt embedded in concrete

Abstract

A boundary element formulation for the analysis of pullout behaviour of an anchor bolt embedded in concrete is presented. The pullout analysis involves modelling two different bodies (i.e. anchor head and concrete) which are in contact over a certain region. The fracture of concrete is represented by the fictitious crack model (FCM) in which the fracture zone is replaced by applying closing forces on both crack surface. The FCM in conjunction with the boundary element method (BEM) allows the simulation of crack growth in concrete in a straight forward manner without remeshing. The crack path need not be known in advance as it is calculated during the iteration process. The numerical results obtained are compared with the round‐robin analysis of pullout test proposed by RILEM TC 90‐FMA.

Effect of Undercut Bolt Anchor Depth on Failure Cone Geometry: A Numerical FEM Analysis and Experimental Verification

“…Furthermore, the angle of fracture propagation, this time measured relative to the load direction (90 • − α), increases with greater embedment depth. For smaller embedment depths, the cone is steeper compared to larger depths, which is contrary to findings from studies such as [35,40,51].…”

“…For anchors installed in groups, it is crucial to determine a safe spacing that eliminates interaction effects between anchors, which can reduce the load-bearing capacity of the anchor assembly [25,26]. Research in this area is conducted analytically using linear fracture mechanics and relevant mechanical models [27][28][29][30], numerical methods such as the Finite Element Method (FEM) [31][32][33][34], or the Boundary Element Method (BEM) [35].…”

“…This representation helps to demonstrate the relationship between embedment depth and the geometry of the failure zone, particularly the dependency of the cone angle α on varying anchoring depths. According Saleh and Aliabadi [35], increasing the anchoring depth h ef from 100 mm to 200 mm resulted in a corresponding increase in the angle α, from approximately 38 • to around 44 • (the estimation was based on drawings presented in [35]). Jonak et al, in [40], found that the anchoring depth h ef significantly influences the pattern of rock medium destruction.…”

“…According Saleh and Aliabadi [ 35 ], increasing the anchoring depth h ef from 100 mm to 200 mm resulted in a corresponding increase in the angle α, from approximately 38° to around 44° (the estimation was based on drawings presented in [ 35 ]). Jonak et al, in [ 40 ], found that the anchoring depth h ef significantly influences the pattern of rock medium destruction.…”

Parametric Study of the Effect of Anchor Drive Bolt Geometry on Stress Distribution and Direction of Crack Formation in the Rock Medium

“…In light of the obtained results, the growing role of advanced computational methods—such as the Finite Element Method (FEM) [ 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ]; the Boundary Element Method (BEM) [ 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 ]; and artificial neural network (ANN)-based models [ 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 ]—should be highlighted in engineering analysis of complex contact problems. The use of such tools enables a deeper understanding of the mechanisms governing crack initiation and propagation in brittle materials while also significantly reducing the need for costly and time-consuming experimental testing in the early design phase.…”