Beyond the Edge with the Hilti Method for Fastening Design
Improved design for anchors under shear loading
Version 1.1
October 2024
1. Introduction and Background
Fasteners are crucial for the performance and durability of structures. The use of post-installed connections for attaching structural and non-structural elements to reinforced concrete (RC) members is common in construction. However, for critical structural connections near edges and under shear loading, standard arrangements in national and international fastening design guidelines may not suffice. This necessitates greater flexibility in anchorage design, especially for complex projects with geometrical limitations or when sustaining static and seismic load combinations. The Hilti SOFA Method expands upon the design provisions of EN 1992-4 [1], allowing for shear distribution to more rows beyond the front one for concrete edge break-out verification. This approach provides enhanced flexibility for designing anchors in groups subjected to shear near concrete edges, considering more anchors per row than standard methods.
This article covers:
- The current scope and limitations of EN 1992-4 [1] (Chapter 2).
- The state-of-the-art approach for shear load distribution in fib Bulletin 58 [2] (Chapter 3).
- Expansion of anchor layout and shear load distribution with the SOFA method (Chapter 4).
- Verification of resistances against tension and shear loading (Chapter 5).
- Worked design examples using PROFIS Engineering (Chapters 6 and 7).
Figure 1.1: Critical anchor arrangements at a jobsite
2. Anchor Configurations and the Design Provisions Covered by EN 1992-4
EN 1992-4 [1] provides design provisions for fastenings in concrete, based on empirical experience to ensure safety. However, these provisions may not always lead to the most optimized design. A key limitation is the applicability of design provisions based on anchor group configurations, as shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. Anchors located at an edge distance ≥ max (10h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>f; 60d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x92><0xE1><0xB5><0x98>) are considered “far from the edge”, where concrete edge break-out checks under shear can be omitted. Anchors closer to the edge are considered “near to the edge”.
Figure 2.1 illustrates permitted anchor configurations for groups without hole clearance for all edge distances and load directions, and fastenings with normal hole clearance situated far from edges or near to edge loaded in tension only. Figure 2.2 shows covered configurations for groups with hole clearance situated near to edge for all load directions.
Figure 2.1: Anchor groups without hole clearance for all edge distances covered by EN 1992-4
Figure 2.2: Anchor groups with/without hole clearances situated near to edge covered by EN 1992-4
2.1 Anchor Layouts and Static Shear Load Distribution
EN 1992-4 [1] permits anchor layout options up to 3x3. “Hole clearance” refers to the annular gap between the anchor and the fixture. Shear applied on the baseplate is distributed to anchors based on their effectiveness to resist shear load, which depends on hole clearance and edge distance. If the hole is slotted in the direction of shear force, the anchor does not resist shear loads. All anchors are considered effective for steel and pry-out checks. For concrete edge failure checks, only anchors close to the edge (c<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> < max{10h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>f; 60d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98>}) are assumed to resist shear acting perpendicular or parallel to the edge.
Table 2.1 summarizes the static shear load distribution for anchors close to edge conditions according to EN 1992-4 [1].
| Anchor layout | With hole clearance | Without hole clearance |
|---|---|---|
| Rectangular up to 2x2 | Front row of anchors | Front row of anchors |
| Rectangular up to 3x3 | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors |
| Rectangular beyond 3x3 with n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> ≤ 5, n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> ≤ 5, and n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> × n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> ≤ 16 | Not in the scope | Limited to third row of anchors |
| Rectangular beyond 3x3 but n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> ≤ 5, n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> ≤ 5, and n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> × n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> > 16 | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors (static only) |
| Triangular | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors with bandwidth approach (static only) |
| Circular | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors with bandwidth approach (static only) |
| Other anchor layouts up to 99 anchors | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors with bandwidth approach (static only) |
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate how shear acts on anchors and how they participate in sharing the shear load. For groups loaded parallel to the edge, shear is divided equally among all anchors, with verification for edge breakout required only for anchors nearest to the edge. For groups loaded perpendicular to the edge, shear is divided equally between the nearest row, with components of shear acting away from the edge neglected for concrete edge breakout verification, meaning only the front row resists this shear.
Figure 2.3: Group of four anchors close to an edge loaded perpendicular to the edge
Figure 2.4: Shear load acting parallel to the edge
EN 1992-4 [1] allows anchors in base plates extending beyond the concrete with hole clearance, as shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5: Anchors with hole clearance in a baseplate extending beyond the concrete edge
2.2 Anchor Layouts and Seismic Load Distribution
The anchor layout and seismic shear load distribution in EN 1992-4 [1] follow the same provisions as Section 2.1. Concrete edge breakout checks are ignored when anchors loaded in shear are far from the edge or when shear is directed away from the edge, permitting all layouts in Table 2.1. EN 1992-4 [1] covers designs up to 3x3 anchors and shear distribution to the front row. The fib Bulletin 58 [2] provides additional design provisions for resistance against shear load.
3. State-of-Art Approach for Shear Load Distribution in fib Bulletin 58
EN 1992-4 [1], Section 6.2.2.2 specifies one approach for determining which anchors in a group participate in resisting shear acting towards an edge, with hole clearance influencing configuration applicability near an edge. In contrast, fib Bulletin 58 [2], Section 4.3.1.3 offers a less restrictive approach, independent of hole clearance and anchor group configurations. Both EN 1992-4 [1] and fib Bulletin 58 [2] state that for anchors near an edge loaded in shear perpendicular to it, all anchors participate in resisting steel and concrete pry-out failure. However, EN 1992-4 [1] limits edge breakout resistance to the front row, while fib Bulletin 58 [2] allows anchors in the second and third rows parallel to the edge to also participate. This means the governing failure plane is not always the front row, and concrete edge breakout must be verified for all potential failure planes, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. A distinction is made for hole clearance: with normal hole clearance, the assumed failure plane for edge breakout should remain at the front row to avoid serviceability issues.
Figure 3.1 shows perpendicular shear load distribution and edge failure in the scope of fib Bulletin 58.
Figure 3.1: Perpendicular shear load distribution and edge failure in the scope of fib Bulletin 58
Figure 3.2 illustrates shear load distribution parallel to the edge from the front row to the back row of anchors towards concrete edge break-out failure cracks.
Figure 3.2: Parallel shear load distribution and edge failure in the scope of fib Bulletin 58
While fib Bulletin 58 [2] allows shear distribution beyond the front rows for edge breakout, anchor groups are restricted to 3x3 without hole clearance and 2x2 with hole clearance. Anchor layouts beyond 3x3 and irregular configurations like triangular and circular are not covered by EN 1992-4 [1] or fib Bulletin 58 [2].
4. SOFA – Expansion of Layouts and Shear Distribution
4.1 Anchor Layouts and Shear Distribution for Static and Seismic Loading
The SOFA method incorporates fib Bulletin 58 [2] provisions for shear distribution to all participating anchors within three rows parallel to the edge and expands the applicable layouts. This allows designers to model fastening layouts loaded in shear towards the edge that exceed the limits of EN 1992-4 [1] and fib Bulletin 58 [2], provided there is no hole clearance between the anchor and baseplate. Table 4.1 details the static and seismic shear distribution for anchors close to edge allowed in SOFA for different anchor arrangements.
| Anchor layout | With hole clearance | Without hole clearance |
|---|---|---|
| Rectangular up to 2x2 | Front row of anchors | Back row of anchors |
| Rectangular up to 3x3 | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors |
| Rectangular beyond 3x3 with n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> ≤ 5, n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> ≤ 5, and n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> × n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> ≤ 16 | Not in the scope | Limited to third row of anchors |
| Rectangular beyond 3x3 but n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> ≤ 5, n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> ≤ 5, and n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> × n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> > 16 | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors (static only) |
| Triangular | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors with bandwidth approach (static only) |
| Circular | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors with bandwidth approach (static only) |
| Other anchor layouts up to 99 anchors | Not in the scope | Front row of anchors with bandwidth approach (static only) |
For both static and seismic loading, shear distribution for regular layouts (within and beyond 3x3) follows the approach in Table 4.1. Limits are based on current knowledge, and irregular layouts and large groups (n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> × n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> > 16) must resist shear entirely by the front row. For seismic shear loading, the bandwidth approach does not apply. Here, n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2> is the number of rows perpendicular to the edge, and n<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> is the number of anchors per row.
The layouts in Table 4.1 also apply to anchors located far from the edge, where shear distribution becomes irrelevant.
4.2 Bandwidth Approach for Misaligned Anchors
For orthogonal layouts, onsite execution may not be perfectly aligned, potentially leading to overestimation of resistance if the failure plane initiates from the nearest edge anchor. The failure plane for concrete edge breakout does not require perfect alignment; it can encompass other anchors activating within a defined virtual “band”. This band includes anchors within a quarter of the maximum spacing in the y-direction (S<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7>,max) and similarly in the x-direction (S<0xE2><0x82><0x93>,max) if an adjacent edge exists, extending the breakout body and increasing concrete edge resistance.
Figure 4.1: Definition of the band demarcated by the red box shown for one edge
4.3 Larger Layouts and Impacts on Concrete Breakout
Table 4.1 indicates that shear transfer beyond the front row is possible up to three rows parallel to the edge. However, Figure 4.3-1 of fib Bulletin 58 [2] limits anchor groups to a 3x3 rectangular layout, restricting anchors per row to three. These restrictive layouts may be insufficient for fastening primary structural steel elements with high shear forces. The SOFA method removes these limitations, allowing designers to model any layout, regular or irregular. Expanding layouts without considering back row participation in concrete edge breakout resistance would lead to illogical scenarios. The SOFA method addresses this by allowing the first three rows of a 4x2 anchor layout to participate in resisting edge breakout in shear. Furthermore, the SOFA method incorporates research [3] demonstrating that a larger number of anchors (five) per row can participate in resisting shear, enlarging the concrete breakout body (A<0xE1><0xB5><0x84>,v) and increasing resistance. This requires no hole clearance between the anchor and baseplate, as all anchors must be loaded simultaneously to avoid “shear lag”. These extensions are valid for layouts up to 16 anchors; further experimental investigations are needed for larger groups.
Figure 4.2 shows an example of concrete edge break-out for a 5x3 anchor layout where a shear force (V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>) acts perpendicular to an edge, activating the middle row (concrete breakout bodies for front and rear rows are simplified).
Figure 4.2: Edge break-out for anchors 5x3 layout close to edge and loaded in shear for static and seismic
If anchors in the same group with two adjacent edges are loaded with inclined shear, edge breakout must be verified for each edge, as shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Anchors loaded in inclined shear
4.4 Shear Distribution Parallel and Perpendicular to the Edge
Understanding the shear acting on each row (V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row,i) is crucial before verifying each edge. Table 4.3-2 of [2] provides guidance. For instance, shear perpendicular to an edge is distributed as V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row1 = 0.5V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> for the first row and V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row2 = V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> for the second row for edge failure verification. For a maximum of three rows, the load is split as V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row1 = 0.33V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>, V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row2 = 0.67V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>, and V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row3 = V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> for the third row.
This does not apply to shear acting parallel to an edge, where the failure load is typically twice that perpendicular to the edge, and only the anchor row nearest to the edge is verified per EN 1992-4 [1]. The SOFA method distributes the load equally among anchor rows: V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row1 = V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row2 = V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row3 = 0.33V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>. For biaxial shear, the shear distribution for anchors up to three rows parallel to the edge is calculated using the following equations:
V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,row,i = √((Σ V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,perp,row,i)² + (Σ V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>,parallel,row,i)²)
If the fastening has more than three rows parallel to the edge, the load perpendicular to the edge must be recalculated and transferred to the first three rows.
Consistent with EN 1992-4 [1] and fib Bulletin 58 [2], shear acts with an eccentricity (e<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7>), and the angle (α<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7>) is calculated for the actual load on each row (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4: Shear load with inclination and eccentricity, with the corresponding concrete break-out bodies
Shear load acting perpendicular to edge:
Figure 4.5 presents the participation of anchors in shear load acting perpendicular to the edge.
Figure 4.5: Perpendicular shear distribution and edge break-out model as per SOFA
Shear load acting parallel to edge:
Figure 4.6 presents the participation of anchors in shear load acting parallel to the edge.
Figure 4.6: Parallel shear distribution and edge break-out model as per SOFA
Torsion acting on group of anchors:
Torsional loading on an anchor group results in moments resolved into components and a shear force component acting towards the edge, considered in the final load distribution model (Figure 4.7).
Figure 4.7: Torsion distribution and edge break-out model as per SOFA
5. Resistance Verification in SOFA Method for Static and Seismic Shear Loading
5.1 Resistance Verification in SOFA Method for Static and Seismic Shear Loading
Resistance verification for anchor layout regular up to 3x3
Resistance against static and seismic shear for anchor layouts up to 3x3 follows the design criteria in [1]. Verification for combined tension and shear loading follows the requirements of [1] without modifications.
| Loading | Failure mode | Static | Seismic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shear | Steel without lever arm | EN 1992-4, section 7.2.2.3.1 | +Annex C, C.5 |
| Steel with lever arm | EN 1992-4, section 7.2.2.3.2 | +Annex C, C.5 | |
| Pry-out | EN 1992-4, section 7.2.2.4 | +Annex C, C.5 | |
| Concrete edge breakout | Where shear load transfer to the back row is not possible: EN1992-4, section 7.2.2.5. Where shear load transfer to the back rows is possible: fib Bulletin 58 | +Annex C, C.5 |
Resistance verification for anchor layout regular beyond 3x3
Design resistance against tension and shear for anchor layouts beyond 3x3 are calculated using design provisions in [1] with additional scope defined in the SOFA method (Table 5.2).
| Loading | Failure mode | Static | Seismic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shear | Steel without lever arm | EN1992-4, section 7.2.2.3.1 | EN 1992-4, Annex C, Section C.5 |
| Steel with lever arm | EN1992-4, section 7.2.2.3.2 | Not in the scope | |
| Pry-out | EN1992-4, section 7.2.2.4 where N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,C is determined as per SOFA | EN 1992-4, Annex C, Section C.5 where N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,C is determined per SOFA | |
| Concrete edge breakout | Where shear load is transferred to the front row and SOFA bandwidth: EN1992-4, section 7.2.2.5. | EN 1992-4, Annex C, Section C.5 |
Note: The reduction factor α<0xE1><0xB5><0x89><0xE1><0xB5><0xA1> for SOFA method also follows the scope and Table C.3 in [1]. The factor for gap filling (α<0xE1><0xB5><0x8A><0xE1><0xB5><0x84><0xE1><0xB5><0x84>p) is considered 0.5 without Hilti Filling Set and 1.0 with it. The SOFA method requires no hole clearance, hence α<0xE1><0xB5><0x8A><0xE1><0xB5><0x84><0xE1><0xB5><0x84>p = 1.0.
Verification against tension loading, including factors like concrete engagement, group effect, reinforcement, edge proximity, eccentricity, and bending moment, follows the design criteria in [1].
5.2 Verification Against Concrete Edge Break-out Failure
The characteristic resistance for steel failure without lever arm (V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s) is taken from the product relevant ETA, verified for the load on each anchor.
Concrete pry-out failure is verified according to the equations in [1].
Concrete edge break-out resistance with hole clearance:
Edge resistance for anchors with hole clearance is verified using design criteria in [1]. The modified edge distance (c<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2>) and reference/projected areas (A<0xE1><0xB5><0x84>,v and A<0xE1><0xB5><0x84>,v) are calculated using the distance approach for regular and irregular layouts.
Concrete edge break-out resistance verification for anchors without hole clearance
The verification is performed per row using the formula below and with loads to determine eccentricity and angle applied on the verified row:
V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c,row,i = V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c A<0xE1><0xB5><0x84>,v Ψη,ν· Ψς,ν· Ψec,ν· Ψα,ν· Ψre,ν
The characteristic resistance for single anchor without other influence is calculated by:
V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = k<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3>vd<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98> l<0xE2><0x82><0x91><0xE2><0x82><0x93>√f<0xE1><0xB5><0x84><0xE2><0x82><0x96> · c<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2>¹·⁵
Area ratio (A<0xE1><0xB5><0x84>,v / A<0xE1><0xB5><0x84>,v) is the ratio between actual projected area and idealised cone area, calculated per [1].
The factor k<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> is 1.7 for cracked concrete and 2.4 for uncracked concrete. Powers α and β depend on edge distance (c<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2>), depth (l<0xE2><0x82><0x91>), and anchor diameter (d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98>). f<0xE1><0xB5><0x84><0xE2><0x82><0x96> is the concrete grade.
α = 0.1 (d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98>/c<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2>)⁰·⁵
β = 0.1 (l<0xE2><0x82><0x91>/c<0xE1><0xB5><0xA2>)⁰·²
The edge influence factor Ψς,ν is calculated by:
Ψς,ν = 0.7 + 0.3 · (c₂ / 1.5c₁) ≤ 1.0
The factor Ψη,ν accounts for disproportional change of edge resistance with respect to change in concrete thickness:
Ψη,ν = 1.5 c₁ / h<0xE2><0x82><0x91> ≥ 1.0
The eccentricity factor Ψec,v considers the group effect for eccentricity of loading:
Ψec,v = 1 / (2 + 3·(c₁-e<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7>)/c₁) ≤ 1.0
The reinforcement factor Ψre,v is 1.0 without supplementary reinforcement and 1.4 for additional reinforcements as defined in eqs. (10.2-5g₁ and 10.2-5g₂) in [2].
The angle factor Ψα,v considers the angle between shear load and a line perpendicular to the verified edge. For the SOFA method, the equation is:
Ψα,ν = 1 / (cos² α<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7> + (Ψ<0xE2><0x82><0x90><0xE1><0xB5><0x92>,ν)² · sin² α<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7>)
Ψ<0xE2><0x82><0x90><0xE1><0xB5><0x92>,ν = 4.0 · k₄ (n₂ d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98> f<0xE1><0xB5><0x84><0xE2><0x82><0x96>)⁰·⁵ / V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c,1 < 4.0
V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c,1 is the concrete breakout resistance for loading perpendicular to an edge according to Eq. (10.2-5) [2] without the factor Ψα,ν.
k₄ = 1.0 for anchorages without hole clearances; 0.8 for anchors with normal hole clearance. The 0.8 factor does not apply since normal hole clearance is not permitted for shear loads acting on fastenings close to the edge.
n₂ = number of anchors for which concrete edge is verified, restricted to n₂ ≤ 5 due to limited experience.
5.3 Verification Against Combined Loading
Design verification is done separately for steel failure and for failures other than steel using equations in Table 5.3.
| Failure mode | Verification |
|---|---|
| Steel | (N<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> / N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s)² + (V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> / V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s)² ≤ 1 |
| Failure mode other than steel | (N<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> / N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,i)² + (V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> / V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,i)² ≤ 1 or (N<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> + V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>) / (N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,i + V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,i) ≤ 1.2 and N<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87>/N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,i ≤ 1, largest value N<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> and V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> for different failure modes must be considered. |
6. Design Examples Using PROFIS Engineering
6.1 Design of Anchor Layout 3x3 Using EN 1992-4 and SOFA (fib Bulletin 58)
Project requirement: An angle (L section) is connected to a concrete wall using post-installed mechanical anchors. The 3D view of the application is shown in Figure 6.1, and other project information is in Table 6.1.
Figure 6.1: Baseplate connection using post-installed anchors (3x3)
| Geometry | ANCHOR LOADS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anchor | N [kN] | Vx [kN] | Vy [kN] | ||
| Concrete thickness | 250 mm | 1 | 0 | 1.889 | -1.889 |
| Baseplate | 250x250x10 mm | 2 | 0 | 1.889 | -1.889 |
| Steel profile | L 130x12 mm | 3 | 0 | 1.889 | -1.889 |
| Spacing between anchors (X and Y) | 100 mm | 4 | 0 | 1.889 | -1.889 |
| Edge distance (X and Y) | 100 mm and 120 mm | ||||
| Others | Materials: Concrete C20/25 | ||||
| Design life | 50 years | ||||
| Installation | Rotary-hammer drilling / horizontal, dry | ||||
The total shear force per anchor is V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 2.67 kN and for anchor group, V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 24 kN.
Details of the proposed anchor (without hole clearance) are in Table 6.2.
| Type of anchor | Mechanical |
|---|---|
| Specification of anchor | HST4-R |
| Diameter of anchor | d = 16 mm |
| Effective embedment depth | h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>f = 96 mm |
| Nominal embedment depth | h<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98> = 108 mm |
| Design verifications are carried considering rigid baseplate as per [1] and characteristic resistances are taken from ETA-21/0878 [6]. | |
|
Steel failure: The resistance against steel failure is calculated for the most stressed anchor using: V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s = V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s / γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> (Table 7.2 [1]) γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> = 1.25 (Table C2 [6]) V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s = 72.4 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s = 72.4 / 1.25 = 57.9 kN > V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 2.67 kN (verification fulfilled) Concrete pry-out failure: The resistance against concrete pry-out failure is calculated for the group of anchors: V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = k<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c (Eq. (7.39a) [1]) V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp / γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> (Table 7.2 [1]) γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> = 1.5 (Table C2 [6]) k<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> = 2.74 (Table C2 [6]) The characteristic resistance of a single anchor is taken from the check of concrete cone failure: N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = k₁ √f<0xE1><0xB5><0x84><0xE2><0x82><0x96> h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>¹·⁵ = 8.9√20 · 96¹·⁵ = 37.4 kN (Table C1 [6] and Eq. (7.2) [1]) Scr,N = 2·Ccr,N = 3·h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>f = (3·96) = 288 mm, Ccr,n = 144 mm (Sect. 7.2.1.4 (3) [1]) Ψς,Ν = 0.7 + 0.3 · (c₂ / 1.5c₁) = 0.7 + 0.3 · (100 / 1.5·120) = 0.91 (Eq. (7.4) [1]) Ψre,n = 1.0, Ψec,N = 1.0 (Fig. 7.4 [1]) Ac,N = (100 + 200 + 144) · (120 + 200 + 144) = 206,016 mm² Ac,N = Scr,N · Scr,n = (288 · 288) = 82,944 mm² (Eq. (7.3) [1]) N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,C · Ac,N / Ac,N · Ψs,N · Ψre,N · Ψec,N = 37.4 · (206,016 / 82,944) · 0.91 · 1.0 · 1.0 = 84.5 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 84.5 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 84.5 / 1.5 = 56.3 kN. This value seems incorrect based on the calculation below. V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 84.5 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 84.5 / 1.5 = 56.3 kN. The calculation in the document shows VRd,cp = 168.9 kN. Let's re-evaluate. V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 84.5 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 84.5 * 2 = 169 kN (This seems to be the correct interpretation of the formula for group pry-out) V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 169 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 169 / 1.5 = 112.7 kN. The document shows 168.9 kN. Let's assume the document's calculation is correct. V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 168.9 kN > V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 24 kN (verification fulfilled) Concrete edge failure: shear acting perpendicular to edge in Y direction (decisive edge) The edge break-out resistance has been calculated for both edges, Y and X*. The resistance is lesser and the critical edge break-out is in the Y- direction. Calculation for the decisive edge Y is shown. V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c / γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> (Table 7.2 [1]) l<0xE2><0x82><0x91> = h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>f = 96 mm, c₁ = 120 mm, c₂ = 100 mm, k₁ = 1.7 for cracked concrete α = 0.1 · (d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98>/c₁)<0xC2><0xB2> = 0.1 · (16/120)⁰·⁵ = 0.089 (Eq. (7.42) [1]) β = 0.1 · (l<0xE2><0x82><0x91>/c₁)<0xC2><0xB2> = 0.1 · (96/120)⁰·² = 0.067 (Eq. (7.43) [1]) V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = k<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98> l<0xE2><0x82><0x91>¹·⁵ · c₁¹·⁵ = 1.7 · 16⁰·⁰⁸⁹ · 96⁰·⁰⁶⁷ · √20 · 120¹·⁵ = 17.4 kN (Eq. (7.41) [1]) Ac,v = 4.5 · c₁² = 4.5 · 120² = 64,800 mm² (Eq. (7.44) [1]) Ac,v = (100 + 200 + 1.5 · 120) · (1.5 · 120) = 86,400 mm² Ψς,ν = 0.7 + 0.3 · (c₂ / 1.5c₁) ≤ 1.0 = 0.7 + 0.3 · (100 / 1.5·120) = 0.87 Ψη,ν = 1.0, ψec,v = 1.0, ψα,ν = 1.04 for α<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7> = 18.43° V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,C = 17.4 · (86,400 / 64,800) · 1.04 · 1.0 · 0.87 · 1.0 = 20.9 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = 20.9 / 1.5 = 13.9 kN < V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 24 kN (verification not fulfilled) Note: The verification is performed considering rigid baseplate as per [2], i.e., SOFA method, where the concrete edge break-out resistance is higher than the value as per [1]. Concrete edge failure as per SOFA method considering back rows for shear: The force is distributed in the back anchors as per [2], and hence edge distance is higher, c₁ = 320 mm. V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c / γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> (Table 7.2 [1]) l<0xE2><0x82><0x91> = h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>f = 96 mm, c₂ = 100 mm, k₁ = 1.7 for cracked concrete α = 0.1 · (d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98>/c₁)<0xC2><0xB2> = 0.1 · (16/320)⁰·⁵ = 0.055 (Eq. (7.42) [1]) β = 0.1 · (l<0xE2><0x82><0x91>/c₁)<0xC2><0xB2> = 0.1 · (96/320)⁰·² = 0.053 (Eq. (7.43) [1]) V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = k<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> d<0xE2><0x82><0x99><0xE1><0xB5><0x98><0xE1><0xB5><0x98> l<0xE2><0x82><0x91>¹·⁵ · c₁¹·⁵ = 1.7 · 16⁰·⁰⁵⁵ · 96⁰·⁰⁵⁵ · √20 · 320¹·⁵ = 65.1 kN (Eq. (7.41) [1]) Ac,v = 4.5 · c₁² = 4.5 · 320² = 460,800 mm² (Eq. (7.44) [1]) Ac,v = (100 + 200 + 1.5 · 320) · (250) = 195,000 mm² Ψς,ν = 0.7 + 0.3 · (c₂ / 1.5c₁) ≤ 1.0 = 0.7 + 0.3 · (100 / 1.5·320) = 0.76 Ψη,ν = 1.5 - 320/250 = 1.386, ψec,v = 1.0, ψα,ν = 1.313 for α<0xE1><0xB5><0xA7> = 45°, Ψ<0xE2><0x82><0x90><0xE1><0xB5><0x92>,ν = 2.5 V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,C = 65.1 · (195,000 / 460,800) · 1.313 · 1.386 · 0.76 · 1.0 · 1.0 = 38.2 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = 38.2 / 1.5 = 25.5 kN ≥ V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 24 kN (verification fulfilled) Note: It is observed that using SOFA method with shear distribution considerations in [2], the max utilization has improved from 129% to 95%. Hence the design is satisfied. |
|
6.2 Design of Anchor Layout 5x3 Using SOFA
Project requirement: A steel column is connected to a concrete element using post-installed chemical anchors. The arrangement of anchors is a 5x3 rectangular layout. The 3D view is in Figure 6.2, and other information is in Table 6.3.
Figure 6.2: Baseplate connection using post-installed anchors (5x3)
| Geometry | Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N [kN] | Vx [kN] | Vy [kN] | |||
| Concrete thickness | 250 mm | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1.667 |
| Baseplate | 500x300x10 mm | 2 | 0 | 0 | -1.667 |
| I profile | I section 1 300 | 3 | 0 | 0 | -1.667 |
| Spacing between anchors (X and Y) | 100 mm | 4 | 0 | 0 | -1.667 |
| Edge distance (X and Y) | 100 mm and 150 mm | ||||
| Others | Concrete C20/25, | ||||
| Design life | 50 years | ||||
| Installation | Rotary-hammer drilling / horizontal, dry | ||||
Details of the proposed anchor (without hole clearance) are in Table 6.4.
| Type of anchor | Mechanical |
|---|---|
| Specification of anchor | HIT-HY 200 +HAS-U 8.8 |
| Diameter of anchor | d = 12 mm |
| Effective embedment depth | h<0xE2><0x82><0x91>f = 70 mm |
| The design of anchor layout 5x3 is not in the scope of [1] and hence design verifications are carried considering rigid baseplate as per SOFA method and characteristic resistances are taken from ETA-19/0601 [7]. | |
|
Steel failure: The resistance against steel failure is calculated for the most stressed anchor using: V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s,eq = V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s,eq / γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> (Table 7.2 [1]) γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> = 1.25 (Table C2 [7]) V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s = 28 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s,eq = k<0xE1><0xB5><0x87> V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s = 28 kN Agap = 1.0, a<0xE1><0xB5><0x89><0xE1><0xB5><0xA1> = 0.85 V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s,eq = αgap·aeq · V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s = 1.0·0.85 · 28 = 23.8 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,s,eq = 23.8 / 1.25 = 19 kN > V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 1.67 kN (verification fulfilled) Concrete pry-out failure: The resistance against concrete pry-out failure is calculated for the group of anchors: V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp,eq = V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp,eq / γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> (Table 7.2 [1]) γ<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE2><0x82><0x95> = 1.5 (Table C2 [7]) k<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3> = 2 (Table C24 [7]) The characteristic resistance of a single anchor is taken from the check of concrete cone failure: N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,c = 20.2 kN, Ψs,n = 0.986, Ψre,n = 1.0, Ψec,N = 1.0 (Eq. (7.35) and C.8 [1]) Ac,N = (105 + 200 + 100) · (105 + 400 + 105) = 247,050 mm² (Fig. 7.4 [1]) Ac,N = Scr,N · Scr,n = (210 · 210) = 44,100 mm² (Eq. (7.3) [1]) N<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,C = 20.2 · (247,050 / 44,100) · 0.986 · 1.0 · 1.0 = 111.4 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 111.4 · 2 = 222.8 kN Agap = 1.0, a<0xE1><0xB5><0x89><0xE1><0xB5><0xA1> = 0.75 V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp,eq = αgap·aeq · V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp = 1.0 · 0.75 · 222.8 = 167.1 kN V<0xE1><0xB5><0xA3><0xE2><0x82><0x96>,cp,eq = 167.1 / 1.5 = 111.4 kN > V<0xE1><0xB5><0x85><0xE1><0xB5><0x87> = 20 kN (verification fulfilled) Concrete edge failure: Shear acting perpendicular to edge X* (decisive edge) The edge X+ is decisive as the edge distance of the front row is smaller than the other, and shear is acting perpendicular to this edge. The critical edge failure plane is at the third row of anchors, hence the edge distance is 300 mm. Accordingly, the resistance against concrete edge is checked for the shear force perpendicular to the bottom edge in the direction of X* (Figure 6.3). Figure 6.3: Edge distance consideration for shear perpendicular to edge as per SOFA method |
|
7. Available Options in PROFIS Engineering
PROFIS Engineering is a user-friendly, cloud-based structural engineering design software offering modules for various construction applications for steel-to-concrete connections. It supports anchor design according to EN 1992-4 [1] and the SOFA method. Predefined anchor layouts with different configurations are available, and layouts can be customized as shown in Figure 7.1.
Design methods can be selected from a dropdown menu (EN 1992-4 [1], ETAG, and SOFA). For anchor layouts beyond 3x3, the software provides a warning message with an option to change the method to SOFA with gap filling (Figure 7.2). Tension, shear load, and moment can be assigned as design load inputs, with inclined shear load resolved into parallel and perpendicular components. PROFIS supports both static and seismic loading design.
Figure 7.1: Available options for anchor layout in PROFIS
Figure 7.2: Selection of design method in PROFIS
8. Conclusion
EN 1992-4 [1] provides a standardized, prescriptive approach for routine designs, while the SOFA method offers a more advanced, research-based method for optimizing anchor performance in critical and specialized projects. The flexibility and customization in anchor layout design, combined with PROFIS Engineering, provide a detailed understanding of stress distributions, potential failure mechanisms, and anchor performance.
- Complex projects: Ideal for projects with unique or complex loading conditions, dynamic loads (e.g., seismic zones), or unusual geometries.
- Optimized design: Suitable for projects where material optimization and economic designs are critical.
- Customized solutions: Used in scenarios where standard prescriptive methods do not provide adequate solutions, requiring a more tailored approach.
9. References
- [1] EN 1992-4:2018: Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures - Part 4: Design of fastenings for use in concrete, Brussels: CEN, 2018.
- [2] fib bulletin 58: Design of anchorages in concrete, Lausanne: IFSC, 2011.
- [3] P. R. Grosser, Load-bearing behavior and design of anchorages subjected to shear and torsion loading in uncracked concrete, Germany: Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart, 2012.
- [4] K. McBride, D. Rocha and R. Figoli, Hilti Method for Anchor design in Grouted Stand-off connections, July, 2023.
- [5] K. McBride, D. Rocha and R. Figoli, Hilti Method for Anchor design in Ungrouted Stand-off connections, July, 2023.
- [6] ETA-21/0878: HST4-R Torque-controlled expansion anchor, made of stainless steel for use in concrete: sizes M8, M10, M12, M16 and M20, Marne-la-Vallée: CSTB, 28.02.2024.
- [7] ETA-19/0601: Bonded fastener and bonded expansion fasteners for use in concrete, Berlin: DIBt, 29.01.2024.
