Post installed connection on concrete with variable width

[brTCP]

Would you design the connection below assuming the concrete member width is b1, b2, b3 or something else (see figure below for explanation)? I couldn't find a direct reference in the codes about this situation. I am assuming b1 is overly conservative, considering that the concrete cones can develop over a wider area, but I am not sure how to account for this in a rigorous manner.

 

[driftLimiter]

I think b1 makes sense to me here. If it is proportionally drawn to. Other idea would be to truncate the whole thing horizontally at B2 and account for wider surface with less embedment.

 

[Eng16080]

I agree with driftLimiter.

 

[Tomfh]

I agree. One of these two:

 

[brTCP]

Thank you for your answers! I forgot to mention in my original post that these are bonded post-installed anchors. Do you think using option "b2" is still valid for bonded anchors? I am thinking of leaving a portion of the anchor unbonded near the plate, but then I am afraid the code provisions are not valid for this case. I am using Eurocode 2 - 4. What do you think?

 

[HTURKAK]

Pls look EN 1992-4 Eurocode 2art 4: Design of Fastenings for use in concrete.

You are expected to draw 35 degr. lines to get failure cone surface .

I will suggest you to look BetonKalender Design of Fastenings for Use
in Concrete ( Rainer Mall
ee, Werner Fuchs, Rolf Eligehausen )



He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock..

Luke 6:48