General Hilti Theory

POST-INSTALLED REBAR
DESIGN
Stella Nerbano
May, 2017
CONTENTS
• 1.0 Main differences: Rebar theory vs. Anchor theory
• 2.0 Static design of p.i. rebar: HIT Rebar Design Method
• 3.0 Fire design of p.i. rebar
• 4.0 PROFIS Rebar
Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 2

REBAR APPLICATIONS VS. ANCHOR APPLICATIONS
New concrete Rebar Anchor
Post-installed rebar
Steel plate
HIT-RE500 V3 HIT-RE 500 V3
Concrete
Old concrete
Anchor
Existing
reinforcement

REBAR THEORY VS. ANCHOR THEORY: MAIN DIFFERENCES
“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Post-installed rebar Bonded anchor
Load on the bar Tension (roughness of joint critical for the Tension, shear, combination of both
shear transfer)
Load transfer mechanism Equilibrium with local Utilization of concrete
or global concrete struts tensile strength
Failure modes Steel yielding, pull out, splitting Steel failure, concrete cone failure, pull out,
splitting
Design steps 1. Calculation of steel reinforcement 1. Calculation of all characteristic capacities
2. Calculation of required anchorage length 2. Determination of minimum capacity
controlling failure anchorage
‘‘Result of theory application’’ Anchorage length (lbd) Capacity of the anchor (NRk)
Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

(min (spacing; edge distance))
Allowable anchorage length lb,min ≥ max(0.3lbrqd,fyd; 10ϕ; 100mm) 4ϕ ≤ lb,min ≤ 20ϕ
Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

INFLUENCE OF THE JOINT: SMOOTH VS. ROUGH

“Design of rebar as a rebar” “Design of rebar as an anchor”
• The post-installed rebar clamps the two faces together, enabling

• The anchor takes up the shear load.
shear transfer through friction acting over the interface surface
area. The roughness of the interface surface is critical.
• The roughness of the interface surface does not
• The post installed rebar acts in tension only.
play any role.
• Carbonated layer should be removed
(Palieraki et al. 2014; EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004 (6.2.5))


shear transfer)
splitting


CONFINED VS. UNCONFINED CONCRETE

F
F


shear transfer)
splitting



Splitting Steel failure Splitting Steel failure
Pull out Pull out Concrete cone
The
compression
strut prevents
the concrete
cone failure


shear transfer)
splitting



shear transfer)
splitting



shear transfer)
splitting



shear transfer)
splitting



shear transfer)
splitting


CONCRETE CONDITIONS: UNCRACKED VS. CRACKED

Crack Crack

Crack
Crack
Bar
Bar
Mortar
Mortar
Concrete
Concrete

EUROPEAN REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR POST-
INSTALLED REBAR

Static Fire Seismic Static Fire Seismic
Product ETAG 001 –

EAD x x TR 049
Qualification part 5
CSTB regional CSTB/DIBt

Technical data ETA ETA ETA
approval regional approval
TR 029 TR 045
Design method EC2 EC2 based Local regulations
(EN 1992-4) (EN 1992-4)

CONTENTS

EUROPEAN REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR POST-
INSTALLED REBAR

Static Fire Seismic Static Fire Seismic
Product ETAG 001 –

EAD x x TR 049
Qualification part 5
CSTB regional CSTB/DIBt

Technical data ETA ETA ETA
approval regional approval
TR 029 TR 045
Design method EC2 EC2 based Local regulations
(EN 1992-4) (EN 1992-4)

EAD 330087-00-0601 INCLUDES THE ASSESSMENT OF
STATIC AND FIRE PERFORMANCE OF P.I. REBAR

EAD RESTRICTS THE RANGE OF P.I. REBAR APPLICATIONS
TO CASES WHERE CONCRETE CONE IS PREVENTED

BASED ON THE EAD P.I. REBAR AND CAST-IN HAVE THE
SAME BEHAVIOR

TWO MAIN PROBLEMS: RIGID CONNECTIONS CANNOT BE
DESIGNED AND SOLUTIONS CAN BE UNFEASIBLE

HILTI DEVELOPED A UNIQUE HIT REBAR METHOD THAT
EXTENDS EC2 DESIGN AND COVERS MORE APPLICATIONS
HIT Rebar design Method is based on Rebar theory but extends the range of EC2 applications, based on Hilti own testing:
1. Allows reduction of anchorage lengths for some applications considered in EOTA TR 023
2. Provides a Hilti own design method for moment resisting connections (frame node).
Reduction of
anchorage length
Reduction of anchorage length is possible when edge distance and spacing are large enough based on Hilti own
testing. The anchorage length is reduced up to 70% compare to the EC2 design.
Moment connection: solution possible with Hilti design method (based on Hilti
Design solution T M own testing).
Not coverd by EC2/TR023 cause concret cone failure is assumed.

HILTI HIT REBAR DESIGN METHOD

Reduction of
anchorage length

HIT REBAR DESIGN METHOD 1ST PILLAR: REDUCTION OF
THE ANCHORAGE LENGTH
SOLUTION
PROBLEM
Feasible solution
Unfeasible solution

BOND STRENGTH OF P.I. REBAR IS LIMITED TO THAT OF
CAST-IN REBAR
Splitting domain Pull-out domain

Bond strength, fbd,EC2 [N/mm²]
Effective limit on bond for EC2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
cd/ϕ [-]
fbd,EC2 = fbd/α2 [EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004]

Α2 TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER
CD
Cast in rebars Post-installed rebars
Bent or hooked bars Straight bars
a
a
c1
c1
c
cd = min (a/2, c1) cd = min (a/2, c1, c)
0.7 ≤ α2 ≤ 1 0.7 ≤ α2 ≤ 1
(EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004 (8.4.4)

EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR IN A CONFINED TEST SET UP OF
A P.I. REBAR INSTALLED WITH HILTI’S MORTARS
Post-installed rebar with large

concrete cover
Cast-in rebar with large concrete

Bond strength [N/mm2]
cover
Post-installed rebar with small Cast-in rebar with small concrete

concrete cover cover
Displacement [mm]

EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR IN A CONFINED TEST SET UP OF
P.I. REBAR AND CAST-IN
20
18
16
14
Tests Hilti HIT RE 500
bond [N/mm2]
12
Tests Hiliti HIT HY 150
Tests cast-in
10
design value EC 2
8 design value extended EC 2
characteristic ext EC 2
6
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
concrete cover dimension c d/f [-]

THE HIT REBAR DESIGN METHOD RESULTS FROM
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
Extension for post-installed rebars with large concrete

Bond strength, fbd,EC2 fbd,Hilti [N/mm²]
cover (product dependent) limited by the bond strength of

adhesive. Based on Hilti own testing.
Pull out bond strength
based on bond strength from anchor approval
(product dependent)*

EC2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
cd/ϕ [-]
fbd,EC2 = fbd/α2 *: bond strength for cracked concrete: cracks parallel to the rebar; bond
strength for uncracked concrete: cracks perpendicular to the rebar
1
fbd,Hilti = fbd/α’2 α 2’ =
1 +δ·cd−3ϕ
0.7 ϕ

THE PULL-OUT BOND STRESS COMES FROM THE ANCHOR
APPROVAL
Uncracked concrete (RE500V3) Cracked concrete (RE500V3)
PROFIS

HIGHER BOND STRENGTH WITH HIT REBAR METHOD:
REDUCTION OF THE ANCHORAGE LENGTH
Anchorage length, lbd,EC2 lbd,HRM [mm]
Pull out acc. to EC2 (HIT-RE 500, C20/C25 and ϕ=20mm)

Extension for post-installed rebars with large concrete cover

(product dependent) limited by the bond strength of
adhesive. Based on Hilti own testing.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
cd/ϕ [-]
lbd,EC2=(ϕ/4)(fyd/fbd,EC2)
lbd,HRM=(ϕ/4)(fyd/fbd,Hilti)

DESIGN A POST-INSTALLED REBAR ACCORDING TO HIT
REBAR DESIGN METHOD FOLLOWING THE EC2 DESIGN
EC2 restricts the use of bond strength to

that of cast-in.
HIT Rebar Method through Hilti’s extensive in-

house research provided benefit for cd/ϕ > 3.
It allows higher bond strength thus reducing

embedment depths.

SLAB TO WALL: SIMPLY SUPPORTED CONNECTION: HIT
REBAR DESIGN METHOD BENEFITS
case
simply supported
Modeling in Profis Rebar

Simply supported wall/slab
Anchorage length
EC2 HRM
Product HIT-RE 500 V3
Φ [mm] 12 12
lbd,bottom [mm] 269 170
lbd,top [mm] 170 170
Average saving [%] 18.5
100 kN

Reduction of
anchorage length

TR023 LIMITS THE APPLICATIONS TO CASES WHERE THE
CONCRETE CONE FAILURE IS PREVENTED
V
M
N
Overlap joint for rebar connections Overlap joint at a foundation of a Anchoring of reinforcement to
of slabs and beams column or wall cover the line of acting tensile
force
N
End anchoring of slabs or beams Components stressed primarily in Components subjected to

(simply supported) compression bending moment

TO OVERCOME THE DESIGN LIMITATIONS BY EC2, HILTI
DEVELOPED A SOLUTION FOR FRAME NODES
Numerical analysis Strut and tie model
The force flow in the frame node is assessed by means The strut and tie model is developed for straight bars
of Finite Element Analysis (Hilti research). (Hilti research)

THE HIT REBAR DESIGN METHOD (HRM) IS BASED ON THE
STRUT AND TIE MODEL FOR CAST-IN CONNECTIONS
N1
N1 1 Moment Load M1
V1
M1
2 Left Bar in Tension
V1
C
3 Right Bar – in Compression
θ
30 – 60 degree range for anchorage
length to be in compression zone
Tension in the
5 concrete
4 Compression Diagonal Strut
forms in existing concrete
6 Anchorage should in the

region of compression

STRESS IN THE NODE IS AFFECTED BY THE STRUT ANGLE
Strut and tie model Stress to be checked in the design
1. Anchorage post-installed
reinforcement
2. Compressive strut in node
3. Splitting force in transition area
4. Tension reinforcement in node

THE FRAME NODE ANGLE IS REDUCED: REINFORCEMENT
REQUIRED IN THE EXISTING SLAB INCREASES
Design example Design parameters
Frame node angle 60°

Drilled hole length 366 mm
Compression in strut direction 411 kN/m
Splitting stress 0,208 N/mm2
Additional tensile force 105 kN/m
Frame node angle 45°

Drilled hole length 284 mm
Compression in strut direction 503 kN/m
Splitting stress 0,291 N/mm2
Additional tensile force 256 kN/m

CONTENTS

THANK YOU

General Hilti Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

General Hilti Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

General Hilti Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POST-INSTALLED REBAR

• 1.0 Main differences: Rebar theory vs. Anchor theory

• 2.0 Static design of p.i. rebar: HIT Rebar Design Method

• 3.0 Fire design of p.i. rebar

• 4.0 PROFIS Rebar

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 2

New concrete Rebar Anchor

HIT-RE500 V3 HIT-RE 500 V3

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 3

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 4

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

• The post-installed rebar clamps the two faces together, enabling

(Palieraki et al. 2014; EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004 (6.2.5))

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 5

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 6

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 7

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 8

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Splitting Steel failure Splitting Steel failure

Pull out Pull out Concrete cone

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 9

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 10

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 11

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 12

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 13

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Minimum concrete cover According to EC2 According to ETA

Concrete Uncracked/craked Cracked/uncraked

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 14

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Post-installed rebar Bonded anchor

Seismic design of rebar as anchor and rebar as rebar 15

“Rebar theory” “Anchor theory”

Static Fire Seismic Static Fire Seismic

Product ETAG 001 –

CSTB regional CSTB/DIBt