1.

Tension loads safety checkings and reference codes

Actually Idea Statica Connection considers ETAG 001 (edition 1997), Annex C, as reference code to
calculate metal anchors. ETAG 001 contents have been updated by EOTA TR 029 (edition June 2007,
amended September 2010).

ETAG 001, Annex C consider following safety checkings for tension loads:

Idea Statica does not perform pull-out failure safety verification: this safety checking is needed to complete
anchor verification tools. We suggest to improve it.

EOTA TR 029 sider following safety checkings for tension loads:

Pull-out failure safety verification of ETAG 001 has been substituted by combined pull-out and cone failure
safety verification of TR 029.

Nowadays it is common practice to perform safety verifications according to EOTA TR 029 so we

suggest to add to Idea Statica option to use EOTA TR 029 instead of ETAG001 code to calculate anchors,
including combined pull-out and cone failure safety verification too.
 2. Concrete cone failure and eN eccentricity

Both ETAG and TR 029 calculates concrete cone failure strength using same following equation:

ETAG 001:

TR 029:

In case of group anchors with different levels of tension forces both reference codes state:

with:
Eccentricity eN will be reflected in concrete cone failure strength by ec,N factor.

Only ETAG 001 introduces a simplified approach that brings to too conservative results (since it is referred
to a single anchor and not to a group of anchors):

It seems that Idea Statica Connection applies n factor to Ac,N and not to NRk,c; this brings to same results but
it is not formally correct and user cannot easily understand why actual area of group of anchors Ac,N could
be smaller than area of concrete of an individual anchor A0c,N. We suggest to declare number of tensioned
anchors and to explicitly write calculation in report, it ETAG 001 simplify approach has been used.

ETAG 001 simplified approach above reported (eq. 5.2f) has been disappeared in EOTA TR 029 since
brings to results that are too conservative. We suggest to add explicit ec,N factor calculation option; this
guaranties more accurate results and connection optimization, that is an Idea Statica Connection
peculiarity.

To give a numerical idea of too conservative results that ETAG 001 approach produces, please refer to
attached files and results related to same structure with same that I summarize (note that Fischer, Bossong
and Hilti softwares consider base plate as infinity stiff so thickness definition does not affect numerical
results). Fischer, Bossong, and Hilti softwares adopt as EOTA TR 029 reference code and explicitly calculates
ec,N factor.
Values of  N:

 Idea static: 169%

 Hilti software: 99%
 Fischer software: 94.6%
 Bossong software: 80%

Lower value of N calculate by Idea Statica Connection is coherent with ETAG 001 approach and it is
referred to single anchor and not to group of anchors:

As already written ETAG 001 simplified approach is very conservative: we suggest to add explicit ec,N
factor calculation option.

Best regards,

Stefano Tortella.