Embedded Plate In Concrete Wall?

I think you mean PCI and not PCA Manual. I had to check a lot of these types of connections a while back for a building that used ICF forms. I remember talking to Simpson back then about that same distance throwing off the calcs, but this was several years ago. I would personally take this plate and run it through Hilti and Simpson and see what I got based on the latest ACI and use a more reasonable de if it is still influencing the equations abnormally. Around 2 to 2.5 ft max for the de influence would seem more reasonable based on the 8" anchors or else I would revise the connection. I would also be using 4 ksi min for the wall. It also doesn't look like your calc takes any eccentricity into account nor axial load if the clip doesn't have horiz slots. I would use slots.

You are correct, PCI not PCA

I ran it through Hilti and can't quite get it to work due to edge breakout failure.

I understand where ACI is coming from, but I just take a little bit of issue with ACI in this instance. This pier is going to have a cage of 8-#6 bars running vertically with #3 ties wrapping the bars every 8" o.c. So it is quite heavily reinforced (which ACI seems to only partially account for). Then there is the matter of the fact that the load is applied in the direction opposite the free edge.... but yet the free edge influences the design of the anchor.

I understand the concern regarding eccentricity. I was planning on accounting for eccentricity in the connection in order to reduce the demand on the embedded plate to shear only.

Axial load is non existent.

In the end, I will probably just bite the bullet and put the beam in a pocket.

If you keep this connection, I would still use horiz slots to avoid applied moment to the connection if you don't have slots detailed.

SteelPE,
I ran a quick analysis on this and only got a capacity of about 9 kips. I think you should be designing this per ACI 318 and not the PCI manual that you're using, which I assume is out of date.

In any case, I think the big discrepancy here is in the value you refer to as de and which ACI refers to as ca1. You use a value of 156" in your calculation, but ACI 318, Section 17.5.2.4 limits this value to the maximum of:
[ol a]
[li]edge distance divided by 1.5[/li]
[li]concrete thickness divided by 1.5[/li]
[li]max. anchor spacing perp. to load divided by 3[/li]
[/ol]

In your case, this comes down to concrete thickness divided by 1.5 or, 24"/1.5 = 16".

Just for the sake of discussion, using this value of de=16" in your calculation results in a capacity of 37.2 kips. That value is still way off, though, from the calculations per ACI. Your calculation is most likely assuming that the anchor is located in a long section of wall where it's nowhere close to the edge of the concrete.

Per ACI 318, there are some other factors in the calculation which might be beneficial, such as the psi_cV factor which could give an increase of 40 percent for certain reinforcement between the anchor and the edge. Overall, though, I doubt you'll be able to get much more than 15 kips out of this based on the concrete breakout failure.

ACI 318 also gives the option to design the connection using reinforcement developed around the anchor or through the failure surface. I'm not sure if that can provide a solution to support the 40 kip load.

I prefer this...



-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik