Structural Behavior of Anchored Plates in Tilt-up Construction

Ulric Ibanez, REU Student Bill Sheu, Graduate Mentor Y. L. Mo, Faculty Advisor

8/6/2010

 

2  

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 

1.  Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 

2.  Experimental Program .......................................................................................................................... 5 

2.1 Materials ................................................................................................................................................. 5 

2.2 Specimens ........................................................................................................................................... 7 

2.3 Loading Protocol ................................................................................................................................. 8 

3.  Experimental Results ............................................................................................................................ 9 

3.1 Panel 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 9 

3.2 Panel 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 10 

3.3 Panel 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 11 

3.4 Panel 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 12 

3.5 Panel 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 13 

3.6 Panel 6 ............................................................................................................................................... 14 

4.  Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 15 

5.  References ........................................................................................................................................... 17 

6.  Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 17 

 

3  

Abstract

 

One of the most important connections in tilt up construction is the anchorage plates which are

connecting the walls with the roof trusses. The main goal of this research project was to find the

effect of the number studs, their arrangement, and their length on the ultimate load capacity of

the whole anchorage plate. After testing six different anchored plate configurations, it seems that

the major contributing factors to the capacity are the stud length and the distance between studs.

1. Introduction

For the summer of 2010 I am assisting Bill Sheu with his research concerning the structural

behavior of anchored plates in tilt-up construction. This research will consist of several

experimental tests using the universal panel tester. This panel tester was constructed at the

University of Houston in 1986 (Hsu et al. 1995). Each specimen will be made of concrete and

have an attached anchored plate with several legs protruding from the plate and bonded to the

concrete. A concentrated load will then be applied to the anchored plate until failure. The results

will then be analyzed and used in Bill Sheu's thesis defense. Figures 1 and 2 show the universal

panel tester and the typical set up for each of the experiments

 

4  

Figure 1: Universal Panel Tester

Figure 2: Typical setup for testing a panel

 

5  

2. Experimental Program

2.1 Materials

For each anchored plate that was going to be tested a Reinforced concrete panel with dimensions

of 55" x 55" x 7" was constructed to resemble the vertical tilt up wall in the real practice. Each

panel has a simple mesh reinforcement configuration using number 6 rebar. The rebar's are

welded to inserts and then placed into the pattern as shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Reinforcement Configuration

Sheplers Premium concrete mix is being used to make the panel (Sheplers Premium Concrete

Mix). This particular concrete meets ASTM Spec C 387 and meets or exceeds 4000 psi. Each

panel requires two batches of concrete from the concrete mixer being used. One batch is made

from eleven bags of the Sheplers Premium concrete mix and the second made from ten bags.

Water was added using engineering judgment until the desired workability was obtained. A

slump test was done for each batch to check the workability ,and more water was added if

needed. From each batch there was a minimum of two 4 x 8 cylinders taken to obtain a more

precise measurement of the concrete strength. The anchored plate is attached to the panel

reinforcement using steel ties around the center of the panel. Once the concrete was poured into

 

6  

the form work and leveled, it was set to cure for about two weeks. Figures 4 and 5 show the

pouring process and how the anchored plate is tied into the panel.

Figure 4: Pouring Concrete to fill the form

Figure 5: The anchored plate is tied to the steel reinforcement

 

7  

2.2 Specimens

Each of the anchored plates has a different configuration. In total there are six anchored plates

that will be tested and each configuration is shown below.

Plate Configuration

1 8” x 10” with four ½” dia. X 4” stud

2 8” x 10” with four ½” dia. X 5” stud

3 8” x 12” with six ½” dia. X 4” stud ( three studs on each side)

4 8” x 12” with six ½” dia. X 5” stud ( three studs on each side)

5 8” x 12” with six ½” dia. X 4” stud ( three studs on top and bottom)

6 12” x 8” with six ½” dia. X 4” stud (three studs on top and bottom)

Each plate in placed in the center of panel and tied to the reinforcement to prevent it from

moving during the pouring process. A o-ring is welded on top of the plate in order to guide the

loading rod to prevent from shifting laterally during testing. Figure 6 shows the attached o-ring

on the anchored plate.

Figure 6: O-ring used to guide the loading rod

 

8  

2.3 Loading Protocol

Each test is done using the universal panel tester. A custom rod was fabricated by Jeff to apply

the concentrated load onto the angle. The rod is attached to one of the actuators on the universal

panel tester and lowered to apply the load. Before the test is conducted two LVDT sensors are

attached to the angle and extend upward and attach to fixed angles. These sensors will be used

to monitor the deflection or vertical movement the angled plate. Below is a figure of a two inch

LVDT.

Figure 7: 2" LVDS used on the panels

Once the LVDTs are in place the loading rod is lowered until it is barley touching the plate. The

loading is done in steps and continued until failure. Below is a table of the loading steps.

STEP LOAD (KIPS) TIME (SEC)

1 0-10 600

2 10-20 600

3 20-30 600

4 30-40 600

5 40-50 900

6 50-60 1200

7 60-70 1200

 

9  

3. Experimental Results

3.1 Panel 1

Panel one was test on June 21st, 2010. Panel 1 reached a maximum load of about 46 kips. Panel

1's failure mode was a mixture of tension and bending. The angle was pulled out of the concrete

panel a bit which is the bending, and further loading caused the legs of the studs to rupture.

Figure 8, below, shows the angled plate after the top three studs ruptured.

Figure 8: Panel 1 after failure

 

 

10  

  

3.2 Panel 2 Panel 2 was tested on June 29th, 2010. Panel 2 reached a maximum load of about 52 kips. Panel

2's failure mode was due to shear. Unlike panel 1, panel 2 did not pull out of the concrete. The

angle plate on panel 2 shifted straight down and was loaded until all four studs on the plate failed

due to shear. The figure below shows how the studs sheared off the anchored plate.

Figure 9: This is Panel 2 after failure. The anchored plate was completely sheared off.

 

11  

3.3 Panel 3

Panel 3 was tested on July 9th, 2010. Panel 3 reached a maximum load of about 56 kips. Panel

3's failure was due to shear cone failure in the concrete (Embedment Properties of Headed

Studs). Panel 3's failure was complete different from the failure of the previous two panels. For

this panel the concrete failed before the studs or plate did. The figure below shows the effect of

shear cone failure. A great deal of the concrete separated from the panel

Figure 10: This is Panel 3 showing the concrete failure

 

12  

3.4 Panel 4

Panel 4 was tested on July 22nd 2010. Panel 4 reached a maximum load of about 68 kips. Panel

4's failure was similar to panel 1. The failure was due to a mix of bending and tension. One key

difference was that panel 4's plate consisted of 6, 5" studs and not 4, 4" studs like the first panel.

Still the plate bent away from the wall and the two studs on the most top of the plate ruptured.

The figure below shows the anchored plate after the rupture of the two studs.

Figure 11: This Panel 4 after failure.

 

13  

3.5 Panel 5

Panel 5 was a bit of a deviation from the other. For this panel the plate was rotated 90°. This

panel was tested on July 27th 2010. This panel was similar to panel 3 in that the concrete failed

due to shear cone failure. Like before, the concrete failed before the studs did. This panel was

able to reach a capacity of 52 kips. Below is a picture showing the shear cone failure of panel 5.

Figure 12: This Panel 5 after failure.

 

14  

3.6 Panel 6

Panel 6 was tested on July 30th 2010. This panel had an anchored plate with six ½” dia. X 4”

stud (three studs on top and bottom). This was the weakest of all the panels having a maximum

load of 40 kips. Below is a picture of panel 6 after testing.

Figure 13: This Panel 6 after failure.

 

 

4. Conc

When lo

correlatio

Deflectio

construct

From the

panels th

4" long s

same pla

the shear

experime

failure in

space bet

clusion

ooking at th

on between

on curve th

ting and its c

e plot you ca

hat had an an

studs. It is in

ate just orien

r cone crea

entation shou

n 3000 psi c

tween the st

he aftermath

the anchore

e you will

capacity.

Figure 14:

an see that th

nchored plat

nteresting to

ntated differe

ated in the

uld be condu

oncrete or if

uds increase

h of each e

ed plate and

be able to

: Load defle

he range of

te with 5" lo

o see that the

ently, but sti

concrete (E

ucted to con

f it is just co

es the capaci

15 

experiment i

d the failure

see the co

ection curve

capacity is f

ong studs are

e anchored p

ill cause the

Embedment

nclude if thi

oincidental.

ity according

it may be d

e mode. Wh

orrelation be

e for all the

from 40 kips

e much more

plates put on

same failur

Properties o

s particular

It can also

g to panels 5

difficult to

hen looking

etween the

plates.

s to about 68

e ductile the

n panels 3 an

re. Both pan

of Headed

setup is pro

be noted th

5 and 6. Pan

see any kin

g at the Loa

anchored p

8 kips. Also

n those that

nd 5 are the

nels failed d

Studs). Fu

one to shear

hat decreasin

nels 5 and 6

nd of

ad vs.

plate's

o, the

have

exact

due to

urther

cone

ng the

have

 

16  

the same anchored plate but the distance between the studs in higher on panel 6 than 5. Panel 5

has a higher capacity than panel 6. The increase in space between the studs allows for more

bending causing the lower capacity. The two major contributors to the capacity seem to be the

length of the stud and the distance between the studs.

 

17  

5. References

1. "What is Tilt- Up Construction? How are Tilt-Up Concrete Buildings Constructed?"

Tiltup.com, August 5th 2010. <http://www.tiltup.com/commercial-construction-

articles/concrete-panel-building/>

2. Hsu, Thomas T. C.; Belarbi A.; and Pang. X.B., "Universal Panel Tester," Journal of testing

and Evaluations, ASTM, V.23, No. 1, 1995, pp. 41-19

3. "Shep Premium Concrete Mix" cmcconstructionservices.com, August 5th 2010.

< http://www.cmcconstructionservices.com/en/catalogs/items/view.asp?catalogid=526>

4. Embedment Properties of Head Studs. TRW Inc., 1977

6. Acknowledgements

The research study described herein was sponsored by the National Science Foundation

under the Award No. EEC-0649163. The opinions expressed in this study are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.