Post-Installed Rebars Design and Analysis: Singapore, 11.03.2016

Post-installed Rebars Design and Analysis
Singapore, 11.03.2016
www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 1

Agenda
1 Design of post-installed rebar connectors
1.a Regulatory framework

1.b HIT Rebar design Method
1.c BS8110 vs. EC2
2 Designing and Detailing the connection
2.a Design Anchorage Length
3 Things to Note in Manual calculation of anchor design

Agenda

1.c BS8110 vs. EC2
2 Designing and Detailing the connection
2.a Design Anchorage Length

Two different regulatory frameworks in EU for
rebars installed «a posteriori» with an adhesive
“Anchor theory” “Rebar theory”
“Design of rebar as an anchor” “Design of rebar as a rebar”
Static Seismic Fire Fatigue Static Fire Seismic Fatigue
Qualification ETAG 001 – ETAG 001 – EAD EOTA TR 023

(“testing”) Part 5 Annex E
xxx xxx EOTA TR 023
«Rebar Fire» ACI Anchors
xxx
Tech. Data ETA (for bonded anchor) ETA2) (for post-installed rebar)
DIBt Hilti doc. CSTB Hilti doc.
(“approval”) e.g. ETA 11/0493 e.g. ETA 15/0297
ETAG 001 - ENV 1992-2- EN 1992-1 EN 1992-1

EN 1998-1 ENV 1992-2-
Design Annex C EOTA TR 045 DIBt
2:1996 (Eurocode 2 - (Eurocode 2 - Part
(Eurocode 8) 2:1996
Part 1) 1.2)
• Rebar can be loaded in tension/shear. • Rebar can be loaded in tension only (i.e. shear is taken up by
• Approval gives tension/shear resistance values [N/mm²] the joint roughness).
(not affected by the concrete cover) for different failure • Approval gives bond strength values [N/mm²] according to
Features modes. the minimum concrete cover (EC2).
• Many different failure modes: concrete cone, splitting, • Brittle (splitting, pull out) /ductile (yielding of the rebar) failure
pull-out and steel failure. modes.
• Brittle / ductile failure modes. • Limited applications (simply supported beam/ slab, overlap
• «Unlimited» applications. joint, compressed columns).

Key topics where Rebar Theory differs from
Anchor Theory and some comments
Anchor theory Rebar theory Comments
Cracked/ When installed in a tension zone Even in tension zones in most of the
Lower bond strength has to be considered
uncracked the crack develops along the cases the crack develops perpendicular
in case of cracked concrete  lower
concrete rebar: cracked concrete to be to the rebar: usually only uncracked
capacity of the rebar.
considered concrete is considered.
The friction between the contact The rebar theory can be applied only to
Influence of Shear load is taken up by the surface enabling the shear concrete-to-concrete connections where the
joint rebar: the contact surface can transfer: the contact surface must contact surface is roughened acc. to EC2.
be smooth. be rough.
The concrete is unconfined. The The concrete is confined. The The rebar theory can be applied only if the
Confined/
failure modes are: concrete cone, failure modes are: splitting, pull concrete cone failure is prevented (i.e. with
unconfined
splitting, pull out, steel failure. out, steel failure. a compressive strut).
concrete
Min edge distance/spacing according to

Edge According to ETA (min. edge According to EC2 (min. edge EC2 is smaller than that according to ETA.
distance/ distance is 5 ϕ, depending on distance is 2.5 ϕ) Smaller edge distance/spacing leads to
spacing the rebar diameter) smaller loading capacity in both theories.
Shear, tension or combination of Only tension; shear load is carried by The strut and tie model helps the designer to
Loading/ both. Utilization of concrete the friction. Equilibrium with local or identify the tension-compression zones.
transfer tensile strength is needed. global concrete struts is needed. However, it requires higher structural design
knowledge.
Anchor theory design in most of the cases
Design Action  Resistance of the Action  area of reinforcement leads to brittle failure modes. The rebar
results rebar [kN]  anchorage length [mm] theory design in most of the cases leads to
ductile failure modes.

BACK-UP
Concrete condition: uncracked vs. cracked

< “Design of rebar as an anchor” “Design of rebar as a rebar”
Crack Crack
Bonded anchor Post-installed rebar

Crack
Crack
Bar
Bar
Mortar
Mortar
Concrete
Concrete
• Cracks develop along the rebar and reduce

significantly the bond strength. • In general, cracks develop perpendicular to the rebar
• When rebars are installed in tension zone or when it and do not influence the bond strength.
can’t be verified otherwise, the concrete has to be • The concrete can be considered as «uncracked».
considered as «cracked».

BACK-UP
Influence of the joint: smooth vs. rough

concrete concrete
mortar mortar
rebar
rebar
interface
surface
interface
concrete surface
failure concrete
surface
Failure surface
• The anchor takes up the shear load. • The post-installed rebar clamps the two faces
together, enabling shear transfer through friction
• The roughness of the interface surface does not acting over the interface surface area. The
play any role. roughness of the interface surface is critical.
• The post installed rebar acts in tension only.
(Palieraki et al. 2014; EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004 (6.2.5))

BACK-UP
Effect of edge distance

10 Value given by Anchor approval. 10 Value given by Anchor approval. The steel
The influence of edge distance is element is far from the edge distance. The
not considered. full capacity of the connections is reached.
9 9 Value given by HRM. The
steel element is quite far
from the edge distance.
8 8 However, the full capacity
of the connection is not
7 7 reached.
Value given by EC2. The rebar is
6 far from the edge distance.
6
tRd [N/mm2]
fbd [N/mm2]
However, the bond strength is still
much lower than the pull out bond
5 Value given by ETAG. The influence of 5 strength derived from tests.
edge distance is considered. The bond
strength is reduced.
4 4
EC2 limit
3 3
2 2 Value given by Rebar approval.

Value given by ETAG. The influence of The influence of edge distance
edge distance is considered. The steel is considered.
1 element is very close to the edge. 1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
cd/f1) [-] cd/f1) [-]
1) cd is the minimum concrete cover according to EN 1992-1-1:2004 (8.4.4)

BACK-UP
Confined vs. unconfined concrete

F
F
Concrete cone failure can occur. Concrete cone failure is prevented.

BACK-UP
Design results

• Calculation of all characteristic • Calculation of required steel cross

capacities section of reinforcement
• Steel capacity NRd,s
• Concrete cone capacity NRd,c
• Bond capacity NRd,p • As = Fs/fy,d
• Splitting of concrete
• Determination of minimum capacity • Calculation of required anchorage

controlling failure anchorage length
• lb,rqd = (Φ/4) x (σsd/fbd)
NRd = min(NRd,y;NRd,c;NRd,p) • Calculation of the design anchorage length
lbd = α1 α2 α3 α4 α5 lb,rqd ≥ lb,min
ETAG 001 - Annex C (EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004 (8.4.4))

Summary key elements to keep in mind for
post-installed rebar design
• Main parameters: bond strength [N/mm²], anchorage length.
“Rebar • Failure mode: steel failure (ductile failure mode), splitting, pull out (brittle failure modes).
theory” • Reference approval: ETA for Rebar (TR 023).
• The requirements for rebar according to EC2 must be fulfilled.
• Experimental results show splitting as the main failure mode for post-installed rebars with smaller concrete
cover. As a result the rebar fails before the maximum load capacity is reached.  larger concrete cover is
recommended.
“Anchor • Main parameters: steel capacity, concrete cone capacity, bond capacity, splitting of concrete.
theory” • Failure mode: concrete cone, steel failure (ductile failure mode), pull out, splitting (brittle failure modes).
• Reference approval: ETA for Anchor (ETAG 001).
• More conservative than rebar theory because the concrete cone failure mode is taken into account.
• Data to design a rebar according to the “Anchor theory” cannot be used to design a rebar according
to the “Rebar theory” without numerical and experimental investigations (data cannot be mixed up
Rebar without a clear method and explanation!!!).
• In case of “Rebar theory” design the minimum concrete cover must fulfill the requirements by EC2.
Theory vs
• The minimum edge distance to avoid splitting in the installation phase (according to the anchor approval)
Anchor cannot be considered as the minimum edge distance to avoid splitting in the loading phase in case of “Rebar
Theory theory” design (EC2 approach).
• “Rebar theory” can be considered as a special case of “Anchor theory” where concrete cone failure is
excluded by struts.
• Data from the ICC approval cannot be used in the EC2 design approach.
EC2 vs. • The ICC approval takes into account the ACI design approach which is different from the EC2 design
ACI code approach (for instance the anchorage length according to the ACI is not direct function of the bond strength
(ACI 25.4.2.3a)).

Different set of ETAs for Anchor and Rebar
Connections

Agenda

1.c BS8110 vs. EC2
2 Designing and
Competitive Detailing
analysis the connection
of slow cure products in Singapore
2.a Design Anchorage

Performance – Current situation
tablesLength

Applications

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.
Design solution
T M Moment connection: solution possible with Hilti
design method (based on Hilti own testing).

Design bond strength according to the EC2
approach
fbd,EC2 [N/mm²]
12
10
4 Effective limit on bond for EC2

Pull out acc. to EC2
2 (HIT-RE 500, C20/C25 and ϕ=20mm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
cd/ϕ [-]
• fbd = bond strength
• α2 = coefficient for the
fbd,EC2 = fbd/α2 effect of concrete minimum
cover
• cd = concrete minimum
cover
• Φ = rebar diemater [EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004]

Design bond strength according to the
Hilti HIT Rebar design Method (HRM)
Pull out bond strength
fbd [N/mm²] based on bond strength from anchor
8 approval (product dependent)
Extension for post-installed rebars with large
7
concrete cover (product dependent) limited Pull out acc. to HRM (for HIT-RE 500,
C20/C25 and ϕ=20mm)
6
by the bond strength of adhesive. Based on
Hilti own testing.
5
4
EC2 Effective limit on bond for EC2
3 Pull out acc. to EC2
(HIT-RE 500, C20/C25 and ϕ=20mm)
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
cd/ϕ [-]
fbd,EC2 = fbd/α2 fbd,Hilti = fbd/α’2 Product δ
α2= 1-0.15(cd-ϕ)/ϕ 1 HIT-RE-500 0,306

α2’=
1 +δ·cd−3ϕ
≥ 0.7 ϕ
0.7
≤ 1.0

Design anchorage length according to the
Hilti HIT Rebar design Method (HRM)
lbd [mm]
1000
lbd,EC2=(ϕ/4)(fyd/fbd,EC2)
900
800
700 Pull out acc. to EC2 (HIT-RE 500, C20/C25 and ϕ=20mm)
600 Effective limit on bond for EC2
500
400 Extension for post-installed rebars with
large concrete cover (product dependent) lbd,HRM=(ϕ/4)(fyd/fbd,Hilti)
300
limited by the bond strength of adhesive.
200 Based on Hilti own testing.
Pull out acc. to HRM
100 (HIT-RE 500, C20/C25 and ϕ=20mm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
cd/ϕ [-]

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)
θ > 30°

The HIT Rebar design Method (HRM) extends
the range of applications to fixed nodes
Post-installed rebars according to EC2 Post-installed rebars according to HRM
• Bent rebars are not

• Bent rebars are required according to
required HRM.
according to • The system connection
EC2. guarantees the bending
moment transfer between
the column and the slab
 fixed node
• Strut and tie model

according to HRM for
• Strut and tie straight rebars
model according
to EC2 for bent
rebars.
θFn
lbd

The results are published in scientific journals
and conferences
Kupfer, H., Münger, F., Kunz, J., Jähring, A. : Kunz, J., Münger, F., : Bonded-in
Nachträglich verankerte gerade reinforcement for frame node connections.
Bewehrungsstäbe bei Rahmenknoten. International conference on Bond in
Bauingenieur, Band 78, Januar 2003 concrete – from research to standards,
Januar 2002
Randl, N., Kunz, J., : Post-installed

reinforcement connections at ultimate and
serviceability limit states. Technical paper,
DOI: 10.1002 / suco.201300094, Januar
2002
Hamad, B.S., Al-Hammoud, R., Kunz, J.:
Evaluation of Bond Strength of Bonded-
In or Post-Installed Reinforcement. ACI
Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 2, March–
April 2006.
Kunz, J., Münger, F., : Splitting and bond

failure of post-installed rebar splices and
anchorings. International conference on
Bond in concrete – from research to
standards, Januar 2002

Agenda

1.c BS8110 vs. EC2
2 Designing and

tablesLength

Applications

EC2 vs. CP 65 / BS 8110
Application BS 8110 EC2 Hit Rebar Method

The anchorage length is not
function of the bond strength, but it
is function of the bar diameter and
the geometrical characteristics
(BS 8110 3.12.9.4): The anchorage length is function The anchorage length is function
of: of:
lbd = 12·Φ + d/2 • bond strength: • bond strength:
(where d is the effective depth of lb,rqd = (Φ/4)(σsd/fbd) lb,rqd = (Φ/4)(σsd/fbd)

member) • additional factors included • additional factors included
Drawbacks: the failure mode minimum concrete cover: minimum concrete cover:
cannot be controlled; the
anchorage length cannot be lbd = α1 α2 α3 α4 α5 lb,rqd lbd = α1 α’2 α3 α4 α5 lb,rqd
reduced or increased according to
the bond strength. Advantages: the failure mode is Advantages: the failure mode is
controlled; the anchorage length controlled; the anchorage length
is reduced or increased is reduced or increased
The anchorage length is function of according to the concrete class according to the bond strength of
the bond strength but it is not and the geometrical conditions. the product and the geometrical
affected by any additional factor, conditions (minimum concrete
as concrete cover cover Cd/Ø >3).
(BS 8110 3.12.8.3):
lbd = (Φ/4)(σsd/fbd)

EC2 vs. CP 65 / BS 8110
Application BS 8110 EC2 Hit Rebar Method
• Hilti developed a strut and tie

model and therefore a frame
node concept design.
Not allowed
Not allowed • In addition the anchorage
length can be reduced by
applying the Hit Rebar Method
design which uses the full
bond strength.
Note:
The effect of the concrete cover (edge distance and spacing) is not taken into account in the BS 8110.
The consequence could be a splitting failure mode before the design loading capacity is reached.

Agenda

1.c BS8110 vs. EC2
2 Designing and

tablesLength

Applications

Ultimate Bond Stress (EC2: Cl. 8.4.2)
The design value of the ultimate bond stress, fbd = 2.25 ƞ1 ƞ2 fctd
where fctd should be limited to C50/60.
ƞ1 = 1 for ‘good’ and 0.7 for ‘poor’ bond conditions
ƞ2 = 1 for Ø ≤ 32, otherwise (132 – Ø)/100
The design bond resistance values can be found in ETA and are
strictly acording to EC2!
For ETA qualified mortars used as post-installed
rebar the embedment is calculated as cast-in (1/7)
• The basic embedment as per Eurocode 2 (EN 1992) is defined
according to the following expression.
• Constant bond stress is assumed for cast-in but 𝜎𝑠𝑑

must be confirmed for post-installed (ETA).
∅ 𝜎𝑠𝑑
𝑙𝑏,𝑟𝑞𝑑 = ∙
4 𝑓𝑏𝑑
𝑓𝑏𝑑 ∅
Concrete “bond” that can
be developed in the bar
@ closest edge distance
Note: this expression is easily validated by the equilibrium between action and the reaction

• Basic embedment still needs to be corrected based on the following
a-correction factors:
As post-installed = 1.0 As post-installed = 1.0

(always straight bars) (transverse welded bars impossible)
𝑙𝑏𝑑 = 𝑙𝑏,𝑟𝑞𝑑 ∙ 𝛼1 ∙ 𝛼2 ∙ 𝛼3 ∙ 𝛼4 ∙ 𝛼5 Positive effect of compression

through all embedment
Positive effect of existing

Positive effect of more edge distance
transverse reinforcement
and/or spacing until concrete bond
through all embedment
cd = min(cx,cy,s/2)
𝛼2 = 1 − 0.15 𝑐𝑑 − ∅ ∅
cx s
cy 𝛼2 ≥ 0.7 𝑙𝑏,min = max (0.3 𝑙𝑏,rqd ; 10Ø, 100mm)

EC2: Table 8.2

Alpha Values (EC2: Table 8.2)
Table requires values for:

Cd Value depends on cover and bar spacing, see Figure 8.3
K Factor depends on position of confinement reinforcement, see
Figure 8.4
ʎ = (ΣAst – ΣAst,min)/As, where Ast is the area of transverse
reinforcement.

EC2: Figure 8.3
EC2: Figure 8.4

• Basic embedment still needs to be corrected based on the following
a-correction factors:
𝑙𝑜 = 𝑙𝑏,𝑟𝑞𝑑 ∙ 𝛼1 ∙ 𝛼2 ∙ 𝛼3 ∙ 𝛼4 ∙ 𝛼5 ∙ 𝛼6
𝛼6 = (ρ1/25)0.5 but between 1.0 and
1.5, where ρ1 is the % of
reinforcement lapped within 0.65𝑙𝑜
from the center of the lap.
𝑙o,min = max (0.3 𝛼6 𝑙𝑏,rqd ; 15Ø; 200mm)

• Arrangement of Laps (EC2: Cl. 8.7.3, Figure 8.8)
Example: Bars II and III are outside the section being considered: % = 50
and α6 = 1.4
Figure 8.8: Percentage of lapped bars in one lapped section

Slab to wall: simply supported connection
case
simply supported
Modeling in Profis Rebar

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

Slab extension
case
Overlap joint

Slab to slab
Anchorage length
EC2 HRM
Product HIT-RE 500
Φ [mm] 12 12
s [mm] 300 300
lbd,bottom [mm] 140 140
lbd,top [mm] 520 520
80 kNm No reduction with HRM due to the bond strength of the

50 kN cast-in rebars, but the stiffness of the mortar is a key
factor in this application! Tests have shown that where
the stiffness of the mortar is not similar to the stiffness of
the concrete, large cracks can develop.
Hilti products have similar stiffness of cast-in!

Wall on slab: fixed connection
case
Moment/fixed connection

wall on slab
110 kN
Anchorage length
EC2 HRM
Product HIT-RE 500
Φ [mm] - 16
lbd,top [mm] - 360
lbd,bottom [mm] - 227
55 kN
The EC2 does not allow for a solution.
HRM is the only way to find a solution!!!

Example of Anchorage shear load (Tension in bar)
• Slab to Wall connection,

simply supported
=> Anchorage
• T20 at 100mm spacing for
top and bottom rebars
• Concrete G30
• Unknown reinforcement
within wall
• Taking up shear load
500kN/m
• Yield strength of rebars
assumed to be 460 N/mm2

Example of Anchorage (Tension – full yield)
Calculation for Tension:

Assume design to yield,
Lb,rqd = (Ø/4) x (fyd/fbd) = 741mm
where
Ø = 20
fyd = 0.87 x 460 = 400.2 (yield stress)
fbd = 2.7 (TR023 Table 3.1)
Lbd = α1 x α2 x α3 x α4 x α5 x Lb,rqd
= 630mm
where
α1 = 1 (for all straight bars)
α2 = 0.85
α3 = 1
α4 = 1 (conservative assumption)
α5 = 1

Example of Anchorage (Design stress)
Calculation for Tension design stress:
Fed = Ved * a1 / z
Where a1 = d, z=0.9d
Fed = Ved / 0.9 = 555kN/m / 10 nos of
bar = 56kN
σsd = Fed /As = 56/314 = 176.9N/mm2
Assume design to yield,
Lb,rqd = (Ø/4) x (σsd/fbd) = 327mm
where
Ø = 20
fbd = 2.7 (TR023 Table 3.1)
Lbd = α1 x α2 x α3 x α4 x α5 x Lb,rqd
= 278mm
where
α1 = 1 (for all straight bars)
α2 = 0.85
α3 = 1
α4 = 1 (conservative assumption)
α5 = 1
To ensure an accurate specification of post-
installed rebars, PROFIS Rebar is available
• PROFIS Anchor is exclusively valid for the design of anchors since
both approvals and design method are not valid for rebar
• PROFIS Rebar was created to ensure a comprehensive and easy

design of post-installed rebars
This software ensures:
- Design per EC 2
- Design per HIT Rebar design
method (embedment reduction)
- Moment transfer complex
applications, “frame node”
- Report with all calculation
reports and installation aids

Agenda

1.c BS8110 vs. EC2
2 Designing and

tablesLength

Applications

Hilti Anchor Fastening Technology Manual (FTM)
ETAG 001
Annex C
5.2.2
ETAG 001
Annex C
5.2.3

Influence of Edge Distance
F1,N(c1) = 0.7 + (0.3 *C1 / Ccr,N )
F1,N(c2) = 0.7 + (0.3 *C2 / Ccr,N )

C2
F1,N = F1,N(c1) * F1,N(c2)

C1

Influence of Spacing
F3,N(s1) = 0.5 * (1+ S1 / Scr,N )
S1
F3,N(s2) = 0.5 * (1+ S2 / Scr,N ) S2
F3,N = F3,N(s1) * F3,N(s2)

Influence of anchor spacing and edge distance
for concrete edge resistance f4

Post-Installed Rebars Design and Analysis: Singapore, 11.03.2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Post-Installed Rebars Design and Analysis: Singapore, 11.03.2016

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

Post-Installed Rebars Design and Analysis: Singapore, 11.03.2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post-installed Rebars Design and Analysis

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 1

1 Design of post-installed rebar connectors

1.a Regulatory framework

2 Designing and Detailing the connection

2.a Design Anchorage Length

3 Things to Note in Manual calculation of anchor design

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 2

1 Design of post-installed rebar connectors

1.a Regulatory framework

2 Designing and Detailing the connection

2.a Design Anchorage Length

3 Things to Note in Manual calculation of anchor design

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 3

Static Seismic Fire Fatigue Static Fire Seismic Fatigue

Qualification ETAG 001 – ETAG 001 – EAD EOTA TR 023

ETAG 001 - ENV 1992-2- EN 1992-1 EN 1992-1

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 4

Min edge distance/spacing according to

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 5

“Anchor theory” “Rebar theory”

Bonded anchor Post-installed rebar

• Cracks develop along the rebar and reduce

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 6

“Anchor theory” “Rebar theory”

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

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 7

“Anchor theory” “Rebar theory”

2 2 Value given by Rebar approval.

1) cd is the minimum concrete cover according to EN 1992-1-1:2004 (8.4.4)

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 8

“Anchor theory” “Rebar theory”

Concrete cone failure can occur. Concrete cone failure is prevented.

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 9

“Anchor theory” “Rebar theory”

• Calculation of all characteristic • Calculation of required steel cross

• Determination of minimum capacity • Calculation of required anchorage

ETAG 001 - Annex C (EC2:EN1992-1-1:2004 (8.4.4))

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 13

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 14

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 15

1 Design of post-installed rebar connectors

1.a Regulatory framework

2.a Design Anchorage

3 Things to Note in Manual calculation of anchor design

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 16

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 17

4 Effective limit on bond for EC2

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 18

fbd,EC2 = fbd/α2 fbd,Hilti = fbd/α’2 Product δ

α2= 1-0.15(cd-ϕ)/ϕ 1 HIT-RE-500 0,306

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 19

600 Effective limit on bond for EC2

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 20

www.hilti.com Post-installed rebar design and analysis I 2016 21

• Bent rebars are not

• Strut and tie model