We use analytics cookies to understand how you use this site and improve our content. See our privacy policy and cookie policy for details.

Calcs.com
Australia

Hollowcore - anchors for services restraints and bracing

25 September 2025 · 12:00 AEST · 60 min

Watch recording
Kieran Bisacre-Peters

Kieran Bisacre-Peters

Business Development and Sales Engineer


Python Fixings logo60 min

About this event

Understand how to effectively design anchorages to hollowcore floor systems for seismic restraint of services, grounded in testing data and Australian design standards. Presented with PYTHON Fixings Australia, this session covers the structural characteristics of hollowcore, how anchors behave in the web vs flange, ICC evaluation criteria, and how to approach design where published data is limited.

In this webinar we covered

  • Structural characteristics of hollowcore slabs and their effect on anchorage
  • Anchor failure modes in hollowcore under seismic loading
  • Testing-based capacity data for anchors in hollowcore webs and flanges
  • ICC-ES AC01 and AC308 evaluation criteria for hollowcore anchors
  • Designing services restraints to AS 1170.4 demands
  • Documentation and certification for hollowcore anchor installations

Hollowcore floor systems: structural characteristics relevant to anchorage

Hollowcore slabs are precast, prestressed concrete elements manufactured by either extrusion or slip-forming. The process creates a series of longitudinal voids running the full length of the unit, separated by webs of concrete. The top and bottom flanges are thin relative to the overall depth, typically in the range of 30 to 50 mm, while the webs carry the majority of shear load between supports.

This geometry creates specific constraints for anchor installation. The flange sections offer limited concrete volume for anchor embedment, and the voids limit the available base material directly below a drilling location. Prestressing strands run longitudinally through the lower portion of the unit, and drilling that intersects a strand can compromise the structural integrity of the element in ways that are difficult to inspect or remedy after the fact.

Concrete compressive strength in hollowcore units is typically higher than in cast-in-place slabs, often in the range of 40 to 65 MPa, which is favourable for anchor capacity. However, the thin sections and void geometry mean that the failure modes governing anchor performance in hollowcore differ substantially from those in solid concrete, and strength alone cannot be used to extrapolate published solid-concrete data to hollowcore applications.

How anchors fail in hollowcore under seismic loading

In solid concrete, the dominant anchor failure modes under tension are concrete cone breakout, splitting, and pullout. In hollowcore, these modes are modified by the section geometry in ways that reduce capacity relative to what the same anchor would achieve in an equivalent solid section.

Flange breakout occurs when the flange section is too thin to develop a full cone failure. The available concrete above the anchor is limited, and breakout can occur at lower loads than the standard cone breakout formula would predict. Web splitting is governed by the limited width of the web between adjacent voids. An anchor installed in the web may induce splitting perpendicular to the web axis under tensile or shear load.

Pull-through can occur in thin-flanged sections where the anchor bearing surface is close to or at the bottom of the available concrete. Cyclic seismic loading introduces an additional factor: each load cycle can progressively damage the concrete around the anchor hole, reducing residual capacity below the value measured in monotonic pull-out testing. This is particularly relevant for services restraint applications, where the connection may be subjected to repeated low-level ground motion events over the building's life.

These characteristics mean that static test results from solid concrete cannot be applied to hollowcore, even with a conservative reduction factor applied informally.

ICC evaluation criteria and testing-based design

ICC-ES (International Code Council Evaluation Service) publishes acceptance criteria for post-installed anchors. AC01 covers expansion anchors and AC308 covers post-installed adhesive anchors. Both criteria include testing protocols specific to hollowcore substrates, requiring anchors to be tested in actual hollowcore units rather than in representative concrete blocks.

An ICC-ES Evaluation Report (ESR) for a product tested in hollowcore will specify the product, the installation method, the hollowcore units in which testing was conducted, and the characteristic capacities measured in tension and shear. This information allows the designer to select anchor capacities that are directly supported by test data for the actual substrate condition.

The key point for designers is that an ESR based on solid concrete testing does not cover hollowcore, even if the same product is being used. To rely on published capacity values, the ESR must include hollowcore-specific test data. Where no hollowcore ESR exists for a product, the designer must either use a product for which such data is available or commission project-specific testing.

Reading the capacity tables in an ESR requires attention to the conditions under which values apply: embedment depth, edge distance, spacing, and whether the tested hollowcore unit matches the geometry being used on the project.

Applying seismic demands from AS 1170.4 to services restraints

AS 1170.4 defines the seismic design demands on non-structural components through the part acceleration coefficient Cph and the component ductility factor. The lateral seismic force on a non-structural component is calculated as a function of the site hazard factor, the part response factor, and the height of the component within the building. Services restraints for mechanical and electrical equipment attached to hollowcore floors are non-structural components for the purposes of this calculation.

The part response factor accounts for the amplification of ground motion through the structure. Components at higher levels in a building experience greater acceleration demands than components at ground level, which AS 1170.4 captures through the height interpolation in the part acceleration coefficient expression.

Once the design force on the restrained component is determined, that force is distributed to the anchor connections as a tension or shear demand depending on the restraint geometry. This demand is then compared against the anchor capacities from the product ESR, applying the appropriate capacity reduction factors from AS 3600 or the ESR itself.

Documentation for an engineered services restraint installation should include the design force calculation, the selected anchor product and its ESR reference, the installation specification (embedment depth, edge distance, torque), and confirmation that the installation location falls within the scope of the tested hollowcore geometry. A proprietary restraint system may be appropriate where standard geometry fits the application, but a custom-engineered solution is required where load demands or geometric constraints fall outside the system's validated range.

Q&A

Why can't C2 capacities from solid concrete testing be applied directly to hollowcore slabs?
The basis of a C2 capacity is the cracking behavior of reinforced concrete. Prestressed concrete behaves differently: the prestressing strands impose a compression field across the section, so the slab does not crack in the same way. Because the large reduction factors built into C2 ratings are driven by crack-cycling behavior, and hollowcore slabs do not crack the same way as reinforced concrete, C2 capacities carry significant built-in redundancy when applied to prestressed hollowcore. In practice, a designer using a C2 value for a hollowcore connection can often design to close to 100 percent utilization and still be in a conservative position.
What is the recommended approach when the topping thickness of an existing hollowcore slab is unknown?
Kieran recommended verifying topping thickness early in the project using GPR scanning, which is inexpensive and straightforward to arrange. Across numerous Australian and New Zealand projects, Python found that around 30 percent of historical multi-storey hollowcore buildings do not have the nominal 65 mm topping shown on drawings. Pre-camber is the typical cause: the topping is correct at the edges but can drop to around 50 mm at mid-span. Anchors drilled through the cores from below without confirming topping depth can blow through the floor surface above.
For a post-installed anchor loaded in shear in a hollowcore slab, does the shear capacity need to be rated to C2?
No. When a post-installed anchor spanning through the core is loaded in shear, the resistance comes from bearing between the steel shank and the concrete at the bottom flange of the unit, not from the post-installed bond or thread engagement. Because it is a bearing connection, C2 shear capacity is not required. The appropriate standard is the ASTM E488 monotonic shear capacity in uncracked concrete. The exception is short stub anchors fixed only into the bottom flange: these rely on the post-installed connection for both tension and shear and do require C2 ratings for both.
What are the risks of using short stub anchors into the bottom flange only?
Bottom flange thickness is typically only around 30 mm. Drilling into high-strength concrete with a heavy hammer drill at that depth frequently causes variable blowout on the far face, sometimes consuming 10 to 15 mm of the available embedment. Kieran strongly recommended that where any meaningful structural load is present, the anchor should pass up through the core and embed into the topping slab, giving a bearing-governed shear mechanism and a well-anchored tension connection into a much greater volume of concrete.
How has the C2 rating standard evolved, and where is it heading in Australia?
C2 seismic anchor testing originated after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The US introduced a seismic testing protocol via ACI 355 in 2001. Europe formalized C1 and C2 in ETAG 001 in 2013, and Australia followed with SATS 101 in 2015 and AS 5216 in 2018. AS 5216 was revised in 2021 with Appendix F directly referencing TR 49 and TR 45 for C1 and C2. The trend is toward C2 becoming the baseline: the ACI 355 committee passed a 2023 revision removing C1 entirely for seismic connections into cracked concrete in the US, and that requirement is being built into the 2026 design code.

Speakers

Kieran Bisacre-Peters, Business Development and Sales Engineer at PYTHON Fixings Australia

Kieran Bisacre-Peters

Business Development and Sales Engineer · PYTHON Fixings Australia

Kieran Bisacre-Peters is a structural engineer specialising in the assessment and strengthening of existing structures. Kieran is actively involved in PYTHON's research and development, the creation of new products and systems, and the delivery of retrofit technologies on live Tier 1 projects in Australia, bringing up-to-date knowledge in the evolving field of retrofit and remediation.

Python Fixings logo

Python Fixings supplies specialist masonry anchor and tie systems for new construction, retrofit, and heritage remediation projects across Australia.

https://www.pythonfixings.com.au

Standards referenced

AS 1170.4AS 3600

Make decisions you can defend at review time

Share a calculation with the basis of design attached - inputs, formulas, and code references alongside the result.