Performance limit states of concrete fastenings accounting assembly

geometrical uncertainties
P. Spyridis, A. Unterweger, S. Lachinger & K. Bergmeister
Institute of Structural Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna

ABSTRACT:

In bolted assemblies between steel and concrete sufficient installation tolerances have to be considered in or-
der to facilitate the connection of components at the building site. However, existence of tolerances may also
lead to adverse structural, functional and aesthetic effects. Apart from that, the definition of ultimate and ser-
viceability limit states for the two different building disciplines (i.e. steel and concrete construction) may be
based on different criteria (e.g. cracking or deformation limit values). An approach to couple the varying cri-
teria is attempted focusing on the structural performance of fastenings of steel elements on concrete structures
particularly prone to concrete related damage modes. The probabilistic aspects in the assessment of structural
impacts due to assembly tolerances are addressed and a probability-based module for the estimation of ulti-
mate and serviceability limit states for fastenings to concrete is proposed.

1 INTRODUCTION area of the investigations is restricted to concrete

Recently, in the field of fastenings to concrete, par-
ticular efforts are put toward the improvement of
structural standards, this being evident among others
by the publication of the relevant fib Design Guide
(fib 2011), the CEN TS (CEN, 2009) as well as the
amendments in the ACI 2011 building code (ACI,
2011). For anchor groups with hole clearance loaded
in shear toward a free edge of the concrete member,
definition of the various load bearing limit states
comes to particular interest. The present paper at-
tempts to provide feedback on this topic based on
literature and recent studies in the University of
Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna.
Scope of this paper is the behavior of shear load-
ed anchorages located close to a free edge of nor-
mal-strength concrete structural components, while
the anchoring system consists of two anchors or
rows of anchors arranged perpendicular to the edge.
Influence from either a second edge (i.e. corner situ-
ation) or small member thickness is not considered.
The investigated anchorages are realized through
grouping of post-installed anchors (or fasteners) by
means of a steel base plate, which often requires that
for the connection of the individual anchors, ade-
quate assembly tolerances must be provisioned in
the fixture. The load in the investigated cases is ap-
plied with direction towards the free edge, while the
edge failure modes. Particular interest of this work
lies in the influence of assembly tolerances on the
distribution of the shear load to the individual an-
chors of the group and on the group’s bearing histo-
ry. This encompasses different resistance levels
reached throughout the life-cycle of an anchorage
and their corresponding limit states.
Objectives of this paper are (a) to brief the reader
on the structural behavior of fastening systems load-
ed in shear towards the edge, (b) to discuss possible
approaches on the definition of limit states for such
anchorages, (c) to present recent reliability studies
relevant to limit state definition, and (d) to provide
feedback for potential improvements in codified de-
sign.
2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
2.1 Shear capacity of a single anchor
In the investigated cases concrete edge failure is as-
sumed to occur. This failure type can be understood
as fracture and detachment of a conical concrete
prism pushed by the shear loaded anchor (sketched
in Fig. 1 left), while the capacity of an anchor is
drastically influenced by the distance from the edge.
This failure mode is well described in (Eligehausen
et al. 2006), in the framework of the Concrete Ca-
pacity (CC) Method. The ultimate resistance of a
single anchor can be calculated through Equation (1)
(Hofmann, 2005), whereby the influence of the edge
distance (c1) can be understood through the expo-
nential of 1.5.
Vu ,c  3  d a  l f  f cc.200  c1
0 b 1.5
(1)
0.5
lf 
a  0.1    (1.1)
 c1 
0.2
d
b  0.1    (1.2)
 c1 
where Vu,c0 = ultimate shear resistance of a single
anchor for concrete edge failure; c1 = edge distance;
fcc.200 = 200 mm cube compressive strength of con-
crete; lf = effective load transfer length of the an-
chor; d = anchor’s diameter.
2.2 Interaction of anchors placed in vicinity within
an anchor group
In case of a row of anchors parallel to the edge,
combined capacity may be influenced by the an-
chors’ spacing. In order to calculate the resistance of
such a group according to the CC method, the ratio
between the ideal projected areas of the concrete
breakouts has to be multiplied with the resistance of
a single anchor, as described in equation (2).
Ac ,V
Vu , c  Vu , c 
0
0
(2)
Ac ,V
(Fuchs et al. 1995), where Vu,c = shear capacity of
a row of anchors parallel to the edge; Vu,c0 = shear
capacity of a single anchor (see eq. 1); Ac,V0 = ideal-
ized projected area of a concrete breakout, when the
fully developed shear capacity of a single anchor is
considered (Fig. 1 - left); Ac,V = idealized projected
area of a concrete breakout, for a failing row of an-
chors placed parallel to an edge (Fig. 1 - right).
2.3 Effect of assembly tolerances on the structural
behavior of anchorages
For the assembly of a group of post-installed an-
chors the provision of tolerances (i.e. hole clearance)
in the fixture is prerequisite. Direct consequence of
the existence of tolerances is that each anchor may
have any random position in the hole of the base
plate, so initially it is likely that not all the anchors
in the group will be in contact with the plate. There-
fore the actual participation of each anchor to the
group’s performance and the group’s load bearing
behavior is not precisely predictable in advance.
Furthermore, concrete edge failure can occur for
small deformations, which can be interpreted as a
probability that one anchor of the group may fail be-
fore other anchors are even activated. Such a behav-
ior does not necessarily denote failure of the entire
system, but it certainly poses a deterioration of the
system’s condition. Depending on the extent of
damage and the design approach, this condition can
be reflected to various structural limit states.
Regarding the ultimate failure mechanism of sys-
tems comprising two or more rows of anchors paral-
lel to the edge, e.g. quadruple fastenings, the effect
of tolerances can be decisive. Due to the strong de-
pendence of an anchor’s capacity on its distance
from the edge, each component in a shear loaded an-
chor group may have a different capacity. Addition-
ally, when a concrete breakout occurs, capacity of
nearby anchors is adversely affected. Consequently,
the capacity assessment of such anchorages may be
a highly non-linear procedure associated with great
uncertainties and depending on the geometry of the
anchorage system it can lead to either a direct or a
progressive collapse of the fixture.
In any case, general lack of confidence on the
structural performance of such anchorages can be
broken down to the following two aspects:
 In the case of two rows of shear loaded anchors, it
is probable that the anchors nearest to the edge
are activated first and fail. In that case, apart from
serviceability related issues, a reduction to the
capacity of the ones further from the edge is ex-
pected.
 Due to tolerances, the distribution of the shear
load to each individual anchor of an anchorage is
random.
Figure 1. Idealized concrete breakout for anchorages located
close to a free edge and loaded in shear for the case of single
anchors (left) and rows of two anchors parallel to the edge
(right) (c1: edge distance, s2: anchor spacing parallel to edge)
3 LIMIT STATES FOR FASTENINGS
3.1 Ultimate limit state (ULS)
In general, a limit state is defined as a condition of a
structure beyond which it no longer fulfills the rele-
vant design criteria. The ULS can be defined as the
condition where the resistance of the structure (or
the structural component) is exhausted and the struc-
ture collapses. According to (CEN, 2009), in the
ULS fasteners shall sustain all actions and influences
likely to occur during execution and use, with ap-
propriate degrees of reliability.

Figure 2. Elementary case of double fastening arranged per-
pendicularly to the edge with normal hole clearance. Load-
deformation curves obtained from a displacement controlled
experiment; M12 anchor, c1 = 60 mm, s1 = 60 mm, hole clear-
ance acl = 2 mm, fc,200 = 25 MPa. The bearing performances for
two extreme anchor configurations (dark line (a), and light line
(b)) are distinguished.
3.2 Serviceability limit state (SLS)
As discussed in (CEN, 2004), (fib, 2010),
(Bergmeister, 2010), excess of the SLS affects the
durability, the appearance, the functionality, or the
feeling of comfort. Design on the SLS is generally
realized through restrictions related to (a) stresses,
(b) crack widths, (c) deformations, and (d) vibra-
tions.
3.2.1 Damage tolerability limit state (DTLS)
DTLS can be defined as the condition that the struc-
ture continues to perform its basic function even af-
ter it sustains a specified level of damage
(Frangopol, 1992). This state, although rarely in-
cluded in routine structural design projects, proves
to be important for several types of structures and
structural elements such as e.g. trusses, bridges, or
connections for timber structures (Frangopol &
Curley, 1987), (Kirkegaard, 2009). This limit state
may also be conjoined with codified design if ex-
tended to robustness, redundancy and progressive
damage approaches (Kokot, 2009), (Biondini et al.
2008), (Starossek 2006).
3.3 Current status in ULS and SLS design
When it comes to the ULS for anchorages close to
the edge with hole clearance, current design codes
(as for example the CEN/TS 1992-4 (CEN, 2009))
allow only anchor groups with not more than two
anchors in a row close to an edge and not more than
two anchor rows perpendicular to the edge. Fur-
thermore, for loads towards the edge, special men-
tion is made in the consideration of tolerances in the
determination of anchors participating in shear. As a
representative code background, (fib, 2009) suggests
that “only the anchors generating the assumed fail-
ure plane should be assumed to take up shear forc-
es”. Still, given the uncertainties on the contribution
of the rear anchors and the anchor configuration, in
relation to uncertainties on the available displace-
ment of the anchors at failure, a safe ULS design
would rise from the perceptions that (a) residual ca-
pacity of the anchors further from the edge is ne-
glected and (b) position of the anchors in the holes
of the fixture is considered to be the most unfavora-
ble: the anchors with the lowest resistance (i.e. clos-
est to the edge) are assumed to be activated first and
the position of the anchors further from the edge is
in a way that they are not activated until the annular
gap is exhausted (see also Fig. 2). This illustrates the
frequent design assumption yet without excluding
applicability of load distributions on certain premis-
es.
In view of a worst-case based situation related to
the SLS, (Mallée & Pusill-Wachtsmuth, 2007) sug-
gest that formulation of a crack in the front set of
anchors is unacceptable even if it doesn’t lead to di-
rect system failure. This study furthermore suggests
that for applications without hole clearance, the SLS
design should account the front anchors resistance;
however for anchorages with hole clearance, the
failure load (ULS) is assumed to act on the front an-
chors and an SLS calculation would be unnecessary
(the SLS and the ULS virtually coincide for anchor-
ages with hole clearance).
SLS in (CEN, 2009) is mainly associated to dis-
placements: in the serviceability limit state, it shall
be shown that the displacements occurring under the
relevant actions are not larger than the ones permit-
ted.
The guideline (fib, 2011) dictates that if the ULS
design is not allotted to the front anchors, a prema-
ture cracking of the concrete originating from the
near-edge anchors should be considered for the SLS,
especially when no anchor reinforcement is provided
in the concrete member.
It should herein also be noted that the formation of
crack at the front anchors, or the load for a frontal
edge failure may be strongly affected by the exist-
ence of reinforcement (Randl & John, 2001), (fib,
2011), while simultaneously the crack-durability
SLS criteria are based on the sensitivity of the rebar
to environmental exposure. Consequently, an am-
biguous designation of the SLS appears which has
not yet been adequately investigated. Simultaneous-
ly, existence of rebar reinforcement, may increase
ductility of the connection and consequently lead to
a transition in the governing SLS criteria. The crite-
ria can shift from cracking – compromising the aes-
thetics and durability – to deformations excessive in
term of functionality and comfort. Correspondingly,
the governing SLS design calculation in the region
of the connection may moreover relocate from the
concrete member to the structural steel component.

Figure 3. Idealized projected areas for the concrete edge failure
according to the assessment concept for the residual capacity of
shear loaded anchor groups close to the edge.
In general, it may be considered that cracking
originating from the near-edge anchors (see also
Fig. 3) in unreinforced concrete areas compromises
the serviceability of the structures.
4 STUDIES ON WORST-CASE APPROACH
For the case of anchor groups with standard hole
clearance (as defined in (CEN, 2009)) and the worst
case anchor configurations (e.g. Fig. 2a), extended
studies are described in (Unterweger et al. 2008a),
(Unterweger, 2008), (Spyridis et al., 2010). In these
studies, series of experiments have been conducted
in order to investigate the effect of tolerances on
shear loaded anchor groups. Focus of the studies was
to discuss the residual capacity of rear anchors once
a crack or failure takes place at the front anchors.
The tests involved double and quadruple anchorages
with M12 and M20 anchors, normal hole clearance,
unreinforced concrete C20/25, varying thickness of
the concrete component, varying spacing in both di-
rections and varying edge distance, while the param-
eters where selected in order to achieve concrete
edge failure in all cases. From these investigations,
an assessment concept emerged, according to which
the residual capacity of the rear anchor row can be
quantified through Equation (3).
Ac ,V , 2, red
Vu ,c ( 2), red  Vu ,c ( 2) 
0
0
(3)
Ac ,V ( 2)
where (see also Fig. 3) Vu,c(2)0 = the shear capacity
of a single anchor acc. to Equation (1) for an edge
distance of c1(2) (Fig. 3); Ac,V(2)0 is the idealized pro-
jected area of a concrete breakout of a single anchor,
when an edge distance of c1(2) is considered;
Ac,V(2)0 = 4.5c1(2)2; Ac,V,2,red = Ac,V,2 – Ac,V,1, reduced
idealized projected area of a concrete breakout for
the rear row of anchors with
Ac,V,I = 1.5c1(i) ∙ (3.0c1(i) + s2).
Depending on the edge distance and the spacing s1
of the two rows it is possible that the residual ca-
pacity of the rear row does not exceed the ultimate
resistance of the front one. In that case the failure of
the front row would be decisive for the failure of the
anchorage. Regarding this fact as well, the ULS ca-
pacity of the anchorage with two rows of anchors
parallel to the edge can be calculated based on the
following scheme (Unterweger et al. 2008b):
V
 u ,c ( 2), red
if the failure load of the rear row is predominant
Vu , c  max V (resistance of the front row according to Equation 2)


u , c (1)
if failure load of the front row is predominant
Based on these studies, (Unterweger, 2008) extends
a modified concept for the SLS assessment. In par-
ticular, given that the ULS definition departs form
the conservative consideration of design based on
the near-edge anchors, the ULS and the SLS are dif-
ferentiated, contrary to the provisions described in
section 3.3. Consequently, for a wide range of an-
chorage geometries, the ULS design is based on the
rear anchors (which yields higher admissible loads
due to greater edge distances), and the SLS design is
based on the front anchors (which yields higher ad-
missible loads due to the lower associated partial
safety factors).
5 RESULTS OF PROBABILISTIC STUDIES
As demonstrated above, the capacity of anchor
groups with two anchors perpendicular to the edge
and loaded towards the edge has been discussed
primarily for determinate anchor configurations.
This formulation not only enables handling the two
different failure modes in a unified way, but also in-
troduces probabilistic and reliability considerations,
which can be combined with different limit state
provisions. In the framework of this study it was at-
tempted to systematically calculate the shear capaci-
ty of an anchor group for any possible positioning of
the anchor bolts within the clearance holes of a fix-
ture. In order to achieve systematization in the calcu-
lations an appropriate algorithm has been developed,
which is subsequently stochastically elaborated. Aim
of this stochastic modeling is to apprehend the im-
pact of each different positioning set on the possible
load bearing histories of an anchorage, while super-
imposition of the anchors resistance (as seen in Fig.
2) is taken into account. This model furthermore
serves for the description of the probabilities of the
front- and rear-anchor damage (as a cracking or an
ultimate failure threshold), and the assessment of the
shear capacity with respect to random positions of
the anchors.
Details of the algorithm, validation, and results re-
lated to the ULS design of shear loaded anchor
groups are reported in previous publications by the
authors (Spyridis et al., 2008), (Spyridis et al.,
2010). An overview of the procedure is presented in
the flowchart of Figure 4.
A main element of these studies is the introduc-
tion of a quantified system-specific index that inte-
grates the effects of the geometry, the hole clear-
ance, and the secant modulus of flexibility κN (ratio
of displacement over load at failure), namely the
System Interdependence Index (SII), calculated
through Equation (4).
The term “interdependence” is used in this context
in order to express the participation and interaction
of the individual anchors forming the fastening sys-
tem. The possible values of this index lie within the
Figure 4. Overview of the stochastic solution
range of (0,1). SII = 1 (α = 0) represents the case of
no hole clearance in the connection. In that case all
individual anchors are activated simultaneously from
the beginning of the load-bearing history of the fas-
tening hence yielding a fully combined response of
anchors. SII = 0 (α → ∞) denotes very large clear-
ance or a very low anchor flexibility, and a de-
creased redundancy when the spacing of the anchor
rows is small. Under this condition the probability
that the anchor’s response is superimposed dimin-
ishes and a progressive collapse of the anchorage is
anticipated.
1
SII  (4)
(1   2 )12
Figure 5. Envelope of the occurrence probabilities of an unfa-
df d vorable failure chain for the two different geometry groups
 (4.1) (dark line c1(1) ≤ s1 and light line c1(1) > s1.), see also equations
 N Vmax 5.1 and 5.2.
Vmax  Vc (1)1  Vc (1) 2 (4.2)
 for c1(1) > s1, the resistance resulting from a single
where df = diameter of the fixture’s clearance hole; simulation is V ≤ Vc1(1).
d = anchor diameter; κN = secant modulus of flex- As illustrated in Figure 5, the results disclose a par-
ibility of the anchoring component (mm/kN); Vc1(1) ticular decrease of the worst-case occurrence proba-
= ultimate resistance of the anchor row closest to the bility with increase of the SII, described above.
edge (front row) according to equation (2); Vc1(2) Through fitting equations on the envelope of the
= the ultimate resistance of the anchor row furthest results (eq. 5.1 for c1(1) > s1; eq. 5.2 for c1(1) ≤ s1), it
from the edge (rear row), according to equation (2); is made effective to estimate the probability of a
Vmax = the sum of the independent shear capacities failure governed by a frontal edge breakout (see also
of the front and the rear anchor rows. Fig. 5).
Based on the discussed stochastic studies an as-
1
sessment of the probability of occurrence for an un- Pwcs  0.032  (5.1)
favorable load-bearing history, accounting for the ef- SII  0.10
fect of the hole clearance is made possible. In this 1
context, the conception of the probability of a “worst Pwcs  0.005  (5.2)
case scenario” is handled as the probability that fail- SII  0.02
ure of the system is induced by failure of the front where Pwcs = probability of occurrence for a failure
anchor row. In order to evaluate this probability, the chain governed by edge failure of the front anchor
Probability Distribution Functions for each solved row; SII = System Interdependence Index according
parameter set are implemented. In this set of anal- to Equation (4). Pwcs can be viewed as the probabil-
yses (sample size = 1000) it is supposed that failure ity of exceeding the SLS. Apparently for small spac-
of the anchorage is governed by the failure of the
ing of the anchor rows, an increased likelihood
front row when:
emerges that cracking at the front anchors denotes
 for c1(1) ≤ s1, the resistance resulting from a single
simulation is V ≤ Vs1, ultimate failure (ULS = SLS). Still, the probability
of this effect is quite lower than a unit. This proba-
bility diminishes for high values of the SII (high
flexibility, small hole clearance) and large spacing in
the perpendicular direction (s1).
6 CONCLUSIONS
Fastenings, typically serving as connections between
components of different materials (i.e. also designed
under different concepts and standards) should be
treated with special approaches in the design, which
may not necessarily adhere to either steel or concrete
codes. Failure can precede large deformation, RC
durability criteria are sometimes irrelevant to fas-
tening in unreinforced concrete, while what may
govern in the SLS design is whether a crack for-
mation at the near-edge anchors is per se acceptable.
Consequently, the concept of damage tolerability
(associated with robustness, redundancy, or progres-
sive damage criteria) can provide an alternative for a
pre-ultimate limit state definition.
In the view of current codes and standards for the
investigated structural systems the two limit states
ULS and SLS may coincide. However, by differenti-
ating the two limit states and applying different safe-
ty factors (e.g. γSLS = 1.0 and γULS = 1.5) a lower SLS
load can be permitted for a wide range of fastening
layouts. Recent investigations presented in this paper
indicate that this is indeed possible. Studies on an-
chor groups with the so-called worst-case configura-
tion prove to have a surplus in ultimate capacity,
thus leaving a margin for a surplus also in the SLS
admissible load levels.
Besides, relevant stochastic studies described
herein, support the theory that the worst-case scenar-
io approach is conservative under certain circum-
stances. In addition, through these studies, the oc-
currence probability of this worst-case becomes
quantifiable. For generally robust systems (i.e. with
a favorable geometry and the related high SII) the
probability that a crack will appear in the front an-
chor row throughout its lifetime is eliminated. For
less robust / more brittle systems, this probability is
less than 0.40.
In terms of reliability, by redefining the SLS and
for average performance requirements (JCSS 2001),
the admissible probability of failure can shift from
pf,ULS = 10-5/year to pf,SLS = 5∙10-2/year for exactly the
same failure mechanism. This can also substantially
affect a systematic life-cycle assessment (e.g. of an
infrastructure project with a large number of assem-
bly details): the discussed limit state (frontal crack-
ing) criterion can be dealt with a preventive mainte-
nance measure instead of a replacement. This can
lead to a significant decrease of life-cycle costs
and/or an extension of the project’s lifetime.
In the present paper a definite room for further
development in the design of fastenings to concrete
is revealed. An advanced description of the limit
states that such systems may meet throughout their
life-cycle can lead to engineered improvements of
their utilization and consequently to improvements
of reliability and feasibility in construction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support and the professional feed-
back of the firms “fischerwerke GmbH & Co. KG”
and “Hilti Aktiengesellschaft” is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The opinions and conclusions presented in
this paper are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organiza-
tions.
REFERENCES
ACI – American Concrete Institute. 2011. ACI 318-11, Build-
ing Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Com-
mentary.
Bergmeister, K. 2009. Skriptum zur VU Konstruktion (Lecture
notes on Building Engineering - Structural Design – in
German), University of Natural Resources and Applied
Life Sciences, Vienna
Biondini, F., Frangopol, D.M. & Restelli, S. 2008. On structur-
al robustness, redundancy and static indeterminacy. ASCE
SEI Structures Congress 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
CEN – European Committee for Standardization. 2004. EN
1992-1-1:2004 Design of concrete structures. General rules
and rules for buildings, Brussels
CEN – European Committee for Standardization. 2009.
CEN/TS 1992-4: 2009, Design of fastenings for use in con-
crete, Parts 4-1 to 4-5, Brussels
Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R. and Silva, J. 2006. Anchorage in
Concrete Construction, Berlin: . Ernst & Sohn.
fib – International Federation for Structural Concrete. 2011. fib
Bulletin No. 58, Design of anchorages in concrete.
Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R. & Breen, J.R. 1995. Concrete Ca-
pacity Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete.
ACI Structural Journal 92 (1): 73-94
Frangopol, D.M. & Curley, J.P. 1987. Effects of Damage and
Redundancy on Structural Reliability. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 113 (7): 1533-1549.
Frangopol, D.M. 1992. Design for Safety, Serviceability, and
Damage Tolerability. ACI Special Publication 133: 225-
254.
Hofmann, J. 2005. Tragverhalten und Bemessung von Befesti-
gungen unter beliebiger Querbelastung in ungerissenem
Beton (Behaviour and design of anchorages under arbitra-
ry shear load direction in non-cracked concrete – in Ger-
man). Dissertation, University of Stuttgart
JCSS – Joint Committee on Structural Safety. 2001. Probabil-
istic Model Code. Pt.1: Basis of design. (www.jcss.ethz.ch,
04.05.2010), Zurich.
Kirkegaard, P. H. & Sørensen, J. 2010. System Reliability of
Timber Structures : ductility and redundancy. In: J. Köhler,
H. Narasimhan & M. H. Faber. (eds) Proceedings of the
Joint Workshop of COST Actions TU0601 and E55 Ljublja-
na, 21-22 September 2009: 165-174.
Kokot, S. 2009. Literature Survey on Current Methodologies of
Assessment of Building Robustness and Avoidance of Pro-
gressive Collapse. Joint Research Centre. Scientific and
 technical Reports. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publi-
cations of the European Communities
Malleé, R. & Pusil-Wachtsmuth, P. 2007. Design of Anchors
Close to an Edge under Shear Loading. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau (102) Special Edition: 7-15.
Randl, N., John, M.. 2001. Shear anchoring in concrete close to
the edge. In: Eligehausen, R; (editor) International RILEM
Symposium on Connections between Steel and Concrete,
Stuttgart: 251 – 260
Spyridis, P., Unterweger, A., Mihala, R. & Bergmeister, K.
2008. Querbeanspruchung von Ankergruppen in Randnähe
- Stochastische Studien (Shear response of anchor groups
close to an edge – stochastic studies – in Gemran). Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 103 (9): 617 - 624
Spyridis, P., Unterweger, A. & Bergmeister, K. 2010. Novel
design approaches for shear loaded fastenings in concrete.
In: The third international fib Congress and PCI Annual
Convention, Washington, 29 May – 1 June 2010
Starossek, U. 2006. Progressive collapse of structures: Nomen-
clature and procedures. Structural Engineering Interna-
tional, 16(2): 113-117.
Unterweger, A. 2008. Anker unter Querlast.(Anchors under
shear loads – in German) Dissertation. University of Natu-
ral Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna
Unterweger Α., Spyridis P., Mihala, R. & Bergmeister K.
2008a. Randnahe Vierfachbefestigungen unter Querlast -
Experimentelle und numerische Untersuchung (Shear Loa-
ded Quadruple Fastenings Close to edge – Experimental
and Numerical Analysis – in German). Beton- und Stahlbe-
tonbau 103 (11): 741-747
Unterweger Α., Spyridis P. & Bergmeister K. 2008b. Randnahe
Vierfachbefestigungen unter Querlast - Vorschlag eines
neuen Bemessungskonzepts (Shear Loaded Quadruple
Fastenings Close to edge – Proposal for New Design Con-
cept – in German) Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 103 (12): 800-
806