I am currently reviewing ESR-3814 and ELC-3814 and have observed significant differences in the required embedment lengths for rebar between Table 31 in ESR-3814 and Tables 10 and 11 in ELC-3814.
I’d appreciate it if you could clarify the reason for these differences. Specifically, I am looking to understand:
1. Why the embedment lengths vary between these two reports, and whether different design criteria or testing standards were applied.
2. If there are particular conditions or assumptions in each document that influence the embedment requirements differently.
3. Any guidance on when to apply each report's recommendations in cases where both are relevant.
Having a clearer understanding of these variations would help ensure we’re meeting the necessary requirements accurately.
Hi Rich,
Table 31 of ESR-3814 references development lengths for reinforcing bar from ACI, while Tables 10 and 11 of ELC-3814 reference anchoring-to-concrete provisions from CSA. Anchoring-to-concrete provisions are limited to shallower embedment depths compared to development lengths for reinforcing bar. This is likely where the difference in embedment depth is coming from.
Additional information on rebar development theory can be found in Hilti’s Post-Installed Reinforcing Bar Guide and information on anchoring-to-concrete provisions can be found in the PROFIS Engineering Design Guide.
Finally, for assistance in designing your connections, engineers typically utilize Hilti’s PROFIS Engineering Software. Within the software, you can design both with anchoring-to-concrete provisions and rebar development length provisions. Information on this software can be found here on Hilti’s website.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please reach out to our technical service team at hnatechnicalservices@hilti.com.
Regards,
Ashley