Precast concrete lifting anchor system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these
issues on the talk page.
This article reads like a term paper and may require cleanup. Please help to imp
rove this article to make it neutral in tone and meet Wikipedia's quality standa
rds.
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its
subject. (June 2014)
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Australia and d
o not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (June 2014)
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, b
ut its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (June 2014)
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce lin
ks to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (
September 2010)
This information sets out some of the basic considerations taken into account by
the lifting design engineer.
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6

Compliance
Basic principles
Examples
Anchor interactions
Conclusion
References

Compliance
Statements like those in AS3850, Because of the mode in which failure can occur,
it may be necessary to test complete systems and not calculate values obtained f
rom a group of components that make up the system. The mode of failure of an ind
ividual component does not necessarily reflect the mode of failure of the system
. But the standard does not continue to further the understanding required regard
ing test methods, the components that should be deemed as part of the system, th
e various modes of failure, and the interpretation of test results for each fail
ure mode. And further in AS3850, The strength limit state capacity shall be deter
mined by a statistical analysis from the test results in accordance with Paragra
ph A4.5. and assuming the test data is taken from a statistically valid test meth
od, the data is to be determined via statistical means to derive the Load resist
ance model, for the anchor. There are adequate load case coefficients available
to estimate sling angle load amplification, suction from the casting bed, and va
rious dynamic transportation load estimates. Load resistance factors of safety,
FOS, set out in the Australian Code would typically denote a FOS of 5.0 for re-u
sable lifting equipment and an FOS of 2.5 for a lifting anchors.
Fig 1: Load resistance elements of an anchor system in a wall panel
Fig 2: Lifting system model for a thin section wall panel
The rigging arrangements can influence the applied anchor load, where statically
indeterminate systems are not necessarily a design consideration, but can be us
ed in practice. The determination of the loads through the rigging system must b
e a consideration whilst calculating the load resistant model, refer to the exam
ples shown in Figure 3.
Basic principles

Even though years of experience accounts for a good gauge for the appropriate li
fting anchor to be used, it should not be left to the reinforcement fabricators
and precast factory personnel to select the lifting anchor. The design engineer
should specifically account for the applied loads expected during the lifting, t
ransport and placement (or re-usability requirements) of the element. Flexure, c
asting bed suction, load direction (axial tensile , angular sling , transverse shear ) ar
e also load considerations to be accounted for in the lifting design of the elem
ent. The anchor selection, together with additional reinforcement, and rigging a
rrangements is influenced by: - The dead weight of the element - The number of a
nchors in the element and the configuration of the anchor - Capacity of the anch
or at the specific concrete compressive strengths at time of lift - The dynamic
loads applied during lifting (suction to the casting bed, or crane dynamics) - T
he rigging configuration All of the above factors must be taken into considerati
on during the lifting design phase of the element. The weight of the element can
be determined by the calculated volume, and using the specific gravity (normal
weight reinforced concrete is approximately 24 kN/m3). Establishing the lifting
anchor positions will influence the rigging arrangements used and therefore the
static analysis of the rigging should be determined. Particular rigging configur
ations may be more suitable for particular job sites or lifting in place conside
rations, and the lifting design should denote the assumptions accordingly. For e
xample, the statically determined systems, shown in Figure 3, where the determin
ation of the loads is not always possible.
Fig 3: Rigging configurations determining load sharing per anchor
Dynamic loads considered in lifting design are accounted for in two stages; suct
ion to the casting bed on the initial lift and then the dynamic loads induced fr
om crane vibration. These crane impact loads must be accounted for during transp
ortation in the yard and on-site, and the coefficient increases from an overhead
gantry crane through to a crane moving over rough terrain. Consideration for th
e entire transportation loads must be taken into account during the lifting desi
gn. Anchor capacity, or load resistance, should be considered for tensile loads
(axial), sling angle (angular) and shear loads (transverse). Consideration of di
fferent load combinations may result in wide variations required from the liftin
g insert. The load directions during production, transport and placement should
be considered carefully. Depending on the planned load direction, either a diffe
rent anchor may be included in the lifting design, alternatively, reinforcement
may be included to reduce the possibility of element flexure crack damage. The c
onfiguration (size, position and quantity) of this reinforcement should be suppl
emented to the element reinforcement design to ensure for adequate capacity of t
he lifting design. Lifting design is influenced by the steel / concrete interact
ion of the specific anchor selected. Different load cases are considered by the
lifting design engineer, such as anchor susceptibility to edge distance, placeme
nt sensitivity, and anchor capacity at the specific concrete strength at time of
lift. For example, a footed pin head style anchor maybe more susceptible to edg
e distance than a hairpin style anchor. Or a splayed anchor does not have the sa
me tensile/axial capacity with the equivalent anchor length (effective embedment
is greater on a footed anchor than a splayed anchor of equivalent overall lengt
h, see figure 4).
Fig 4: These 2 anchors may have the same overall length, but very different
Effective Embedment Depths, hef
Fig 5: These 2 anchors have different concrete load interactions, where the
footed anchor is more susceptible to side blow-out in thin wall sections
Examples
Practical application must consider that the Load Resistance = Applied Load

Table 1: Casting bed suction coefficients [3]

Table 2: Lifting equipment dynamic coefficients [3]
Table 3: Rigging equipment sling angle coefficients [3]
Applied load To determine the required anchor, the manufacturing plant handling
and the site handling should be considered separately. Example: A thin walled re
ctangular section, 6.0 m long, 3.0 m wide and 150 mm thick is being considered t
o be edge lifted from a horizontal steel bed using an overhead gantry crane, and
then lifted on-site using a tower crane. No panel rotation is being considered.
Panel
Volume: V = w x h x d = 6.0 m x 3.0 m x 0.15 m = 2.7 m
Weight: W = V x concrete specific gravity = 2.7 m x 24 kN/m = 64.8 kN
Calculated casting bed suction
Suction area: A = w x h = 6.0 m x 3.0 m = 18 m
Assuming 1.0 kN/m is applied for oiled steel formwork
Suction force: S = A x 1.0 kN/m = 18 x 1.0 = 18 kN
Applied loads at element lifting (sling angle and lateral tension)
F = W x Ksl x Ks x 0.5 = 64.8 x 1.16 x 1.2 x 0.5 = 45.1 kN
Anchor capacity for initial lift
F/n = 23 kN per anchor during initial lift (n = 2 lifting anchors)
Transport loads in the yard and on-site
Suction due to casting bed adhesion is not considered, as the calculatio
n takes into account the lifting device dynamic coefficient.
S = (W x Ksl x Kd) / n = (64.8 x 1.16 x 1.2) / 2 = 45.1 kN load resistan
ce required per anchor
Anchor capacity for site lift
F/n = 23 kN per anchor during site lifting (n = 2 lifting anchors)
Reference to the load capacity tables provided by the anchor manufacture
r is required to make an anchor selection for the specific concrete strengths at
the time of lifting. Hence the great of the two calculated anchor capacities re
quired at the concrete strength of the initial lift is normally selected.
Anchor interactions
When selecting an anchor, consider the element formwork and the ease of placemen
t and securing of the anchor prior and during the pouring of the concrete. For e
xample, the some of the anchors shown in figures 4-6, can be placed into thin wa
ll elements as the anchor chair maintains the position relative to the element t
hickness. As the orientation of the void determines the lift position of the lif
ting clutch, the wire chair can be secured against the element reinforcement to
maintain this orientation during the concrete pour and set. When an anchors load
resistance must consider load reduction factors, this would imply that the part
icular selected anchor will form a different failure crack zone. For example, th
e anchors depicted in figure 5, a footed anchor has the tendency to overload the
concrete cover in thin wall panels, hence is more susceptible to side blow-out
failure than a hairpin style anchor, depicted in figure 8.
Fig 6: Typical Tilt-up facelift systems
ments required to be face lifted
Figure 7: Typical general element systems
n general precast elements

thin wall panels or thin section ele

facelift anchors normally placed i

Figure 8: Typical edgelift systems

ifting

used for the majority of wall panel edgel

Conclusion
Lifting design if done correctly will consider many aspects which should be cons
idered through the transportation load cycle of the concrete element. The consid
erations should cover the lifting system model and load resistance model. Using
suitably qualified and experienced engineers is certainly recommended as the con
sequences of getting the lifting design incorrect can be fatal. Efficiencies can
be gained from getting the lifting design correct, by optimizing the number of
anchors, correct reinforcement detail of the element, the correct selection of t
he anchor type and the minimizing the complexities of the rigging configurations
.
References
[1] Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). PCI design handbook. 6th edition C
hicago (IL): Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute; 2004.
[2] Australian Standards 3600 (AS). Concrete Structures (AS3600-2009), Sydne
y Australia, Standards Australia; 2009
[3] Australian Standards 3850 (AS). Tilt-up concrete construction (AS3850-20
03), Sydney Australia, Standards Australia; 2003
Categories:
Concrete