by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Concrete In Australia : March 2013
Concrete in Australia Vol 39 No 1 33 load-time. e panels with edge-lift plate anchors were tested horizontally and supported off the floor on timber gluts whilst the panel reacted against a steel frame with an open span of 1.8 m as the load was applied to the anchor. e spacing of the reaction frame for the anchors was outside the predicted failure zone for the concrete by at least 450 mm as shown in Figure 4. e foot anchors embedded in the face of the panels and blocks were tested at the same loading rate in direct tension. e load was applied to the footed anchors via a tripod reaction frame with the legs of the reaction frame placed at a distance from the anchor of least three times the effective embedment depth of the anchor. 3.2 Test results and preliminary analysis From the analysis presented in Table 4 of the footed anchor tests which failed due to cone failure of the concrete (Series 7 test specimens), it can be said that the ACI 318-08M average concrete capacity approach (four sided pyramid) better predicts the behaviour of the concrete failure load due to the Figure 4. Panel plan indicating open span to the reaction frame (for edge- lift plate anchor tests). Figure 3. Typical test panels prior to casting. Figure 3(a). Series 1 anchor with no reinforcement. Figure 3(c). Series 3 test panel prior to installation of perimeter bar with SL82 mesh. Figure 3(b). Series 2 prior to installation of shear bar. Figure 3(d). Series 4/5.