Skip to main content
Understanding Clariti’s results helps you make confident design decisions. This guide explains how to read and interpret the verification output.

​
Results Overview

Clariti presents results at three levels:
  1. Summary — Pass/fail with key metrics
  2. Mode breakdown — Each failure mode’s utilization
  3. Detailed calculation — Full equations and values

​
Summary Panel

​
Overall Status

The primary indicator:
StatusMeaningAction
✓ PassAll checks satisfiedProceed to specification
✗ FailOne or more checks exceededRedesign required

​
Utilization Indicator

The utilization bar shows:
  • Percentage of capacity used
  • Color coding (green/yellow/red)
  • Governing mode highlighted

​
Key Metrics

MetricWhat It Shows
Overall utilizationHighest individual mode
Governing modeWhich failure type controls
Combined utilizationInteraction check result

​
Mode Breakdown

​
Tension Modes

ModeWhat FailsKey Factors
Steel failureAnchor/channel steelSteel grade, cross-section
Concrete coneConcrete breakouthef, fck, edges
PulloutAnchor bearingProduct-specific, fck
SplittingConcrete splittingThickness, edges, spacing

​
Shear Modes

ModeWhat FailsKey Factors
Steel failureShear of steelSteel grade, diameter
Concrete edgeBreakout to edgeEdge distance, direction
PryoutBack-face breakoutEmbedment depth

​
Combined Check

Interaction between tension and shear demands.

​
Reading Utilization Values

​
Interpreting Percentages

UtilizationInterpretation
0-50%Significant reserve capacity
50-70%Good design margin
70-85%Efficient design
85-95%Limited margin, verify carefully
95-100%At limit, consider alternatives
> 100%Fails — redesign required

​
Comparing Modes

Look at the spread between modes: Example A — Balanced Design: 
Steel tension:    45%
Concrete cone:    68%  ← Governing
Pullout:          52%
Splitting:        61%
All modes similar — well-balanced design. Example B — Single Mode Governing: 
Steel tension:    30%
Concrete cone:    92%  ← Governing
Pullout:          35%
Splitting:        55%
One mode much higher — design limited by concrete. Consider:
  • Larger embedment depth
  • Supplementary reinforcement
  • Higher concrete strength
When one mode dominates, address that specific limitation rather than simply selecting a larger channel.

​
Warnings and Alerts

​
Edge Distance Warnings

WarningMeaningAction
c < ccrEdge causes reductionAccept or increase c
c < cminBelow minimumMust increase c

​
Spacing Warnings

WarningMeaningAction
s < scrSpacing causes reductionAccept or increase s
s < sminBelow minimumMust increase s

​
Member Thickness Warnings

WarningMeaningAction
h < hminSplitting riskIncrease h or verify

​
Detailed Calculation View

Click any mode to expand the full calculation.

​
Calculation Structure

1. Reference clause (EN 1992-4 section)
2. Design equation
3. Input values
   - Geometry
   - Material properties
   - Product data
4. Reduction factors (ψ values)
   - Each factor with its calculation
   - Source of each value
5. Characteristic resistance (Rk)
6. Partial factor (γM)
7. Design resistance (Rd)
8. Utilization (Ed/Rd)

​
Tracing Values

Every value shows its source:
  • [Input] — Your entered value
  • [ETA] — Product data from approval
  • [EN 1992-4] — Standard reference
  • [Calculated] — Derived from other values

​
Understanding Factor Reductions

​
Area Ratios (Ac,N/A°c,N)

Reduced from 1.0 when:
  • Edges are close (cone truncated)
  • Multiple anchors (overlapping cones)
  • Shallow members (depth limited)

​
ψ Factors

FactorReduces for
ψs,NClose edges
ψre,NNo supplementary reinforcement
ψec,NEccentric loading
ψh,VShallow members (shear)
ψα,VLoad angle to edge

​
Cumulative Effect

Multiple factors multiply together: 
NRd,c = N°Rk,c × (Ac,N/A°c,N) × ψs,N × ψre,N × ψec,N / γMc
If several factors are low, combined reduction is severe.

​
Common Result Patterns

​
Pattern 1: Edge-Limited Design

Symptoms:
  • Concrete cone or edge failure governs
  • Low ψs values
  • Warning about edge distances
Solutions:
  • Increase edge distance if possible
  • Add edge reinforcement
  • Select deeper embedment channel

​
Pattern 2: Steel-Limited Design

Symptoms:
  • Steel failure governs
  • High utilization on steel modes
  • Concrete modes have large margin
Solutions:
  • Select higher strength channel
  • Use larger profile
  • Consider multiple T-bolts

​
Pattern 3: Interaction-Limited Design

Symptoms:
  • Individual modes OK
  • Combined check fails
  • Moderate tension + moderate shear
Solutions:
  • Distribute loads (multiple T-bolts)
  • Select larger channel
  • Reduce combined loading

​
Pattern 4: Splitting-Limited Design

Symptoms:
  • Splitting governs
  • Thin member warning
  • Edge or spacing issues
Solutions:
  • Increase member thickness
  • Select shallower channel
  • Increase edge distances

​
Acting on Results

​
When Design Passes

  1. Review governing mode — understand the limitation
  2. Check margin — is there room for variation?
  3. Consider warnings — any coordination needed?
  4. Document — export calculation report

​
When Design Fails

  1. Identify failing mode(s)
  2. Understand the cause (geometry, loads, product)
  3. Consider options:
    • Different product
    • Geometry adjustment
    • Load redistribution
    • Multiple fixings
  4. Re-run verification
  5. Iterate until satisfactory
Don’t just select larger products blindly. Understanding why a design fails helps you find efficient solutions.

​
Comparing Load Cases

When multiple load cases are defined:

​
Results Table

Load CaseGoverning ModeUtilizationStatus
LC1Concrete cone75%✓
LC2Combined92%✓
LC3Pryout45%✓

​
Identifying Critical Case

  • Different cases may govern different modes
  • Overall governing case has highest utilization
  • Design must satisfy ALL cases

​
Case-Specific Issues

If only one case fails:
  • Can that load case be revised?
  • Is a local strengthening more efficient?
  • Should the design accommodate all cases equally?