Webinar on

“DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

POST-INSTALLED REBARS IN
CONCRETE-TO-CONCRETE CONNECTION”

Dr. Daniel Looi

PhD (HKU) | BEng (Malaya) | CPEng MIEAust
Lecturer | Swinburne University of Technology (Sarawak Malaysia)
dlooi@swinburne.edu.my

24 June 2020

Content
1. Design philosophy of post-installed rebar (PIR)

2. Design provision for Rebar End Anchorage Theory in EN

1992-1-1 (2004)

3. Introduction to design provision for Bonded Anchor Theory in

EN 1992-4 (2018)

4. Strut-and-tie model

5. Introduction to a new connection design method TR 069 (2019)

6. Conclusion
2

1
 1. Design philosophy of post-installed rebar (PIR)

Prequalification: EOTA EAD 330087 EOTA EAD 330499 (2017)

(2018) (formerly ETAG 001,
part 5, 2006)

Design: Design as cast-in rebar end Design as bonded anchors

anchorage
Standards: EN 1992-1-1 (2004) or EN 1992-4 (2018)
locally MS EN 1992-1-1
(formerly EOTA TR 045,
(2010)
2013)
(commonly known as EC2) 3

Important abbreviations
 EOTA – European Organisation for Technical Approvals
 EAD - European Assessment Document by EOTA
(documentation of the methods and criteria accepted in EOTA
as being applicable for the assessment of the performance of
a construction product)
 ETA - European Technical Assessment by EOTA (a
document on the performance of the product agreed by the
manufacturer and the technical assessment body, on the
basis of an EAD)
 ETAG - European Technical Approval Guidelines (since 2014,
EOTA develops the ETAGs into EADs)
 TR – Technical Report
4

2
 Comparison of Rebar End Anchorage (REA)
theory and Bonded Anchor (BA) theory
Main difference REA theory BA theory
Equilibrium with local or
global concrete struts, may
Load transfer require the supplement of Utilisation of tensile concrete
mechanism transverse reinforcement in strength
lapping splices.

Comparison of Rebar End Anchorage (REA)

theory and Bonded Anchor (BA) theory – cont’d
Main
REA theory BA theory
difference
Tension: steel failure, concrete breakout (cone
failure), bond failure (pull-out failure), splitting
Tension: steel failure, pull-
Failure (near to the edge);
out, splitting (near to the
modes
edge)
Shear: steel failure, concrete breakout and concrete
pryout

See next slide for more information.

3
 Tensile failure modes
Rebars:

Anchors:

steel failure concrete pull-out combined concrete

cone failure* concrete
pull-out and splitting
failure blow-out
concrete cone failure failure*
failure
*Note that some failure modes for anchors are for mechanical anchors only 7

Comparison of Rebar End Anchorage (REA)

theory and Bonded Anchor (BA) theory – cont’d
Main difference REA theory BA theory
Provision to base
material Uncracked concrete Cracked and uncracked concrete

Reinforcement length Strength capacity

Design results

Allowable max {0.3 lb,rqd; 10ϕ; 100 mm} 6ϕ ≤ lb ≤ 20ϕ

embedment length ≤ lb ≤ 60ϕ (ϕ is the rebar diameter)
(lb) (ϕ is the rebar diameter)

4
 Research for European design codes

Research for US design code

10

10

5
 Content
1. Design philosophy of PIR

2. Design provision for Rebar End Anchorage Theory in EN

1992-1-1 (2004)

3. Introduction to design provision for Bonded Anchor Theory in

EN 1992-4 (2018)

4. Introduction to strut-and-tie model

5. Introduction to a new connection design method TR 069 (2019)

6. Conclusion
11

11

2. Design provision for Rebar End Anchorage

Theory in EN 1992-1-1 (2004)
 Longitudinal bar anchorage (Cl. 8.4)
Cl. 8.4.2 (2): Design value of ultimate bond stress, 𝒇𝒃𝒅 = 𝟐. 𝟐𝟓 𝜼𝟏 𝜼𝟐 𝒇𝒄𝒕𝒅
Where,
Concrete design tensile strength (fctd) = 5% fractile with consideration of
partial safety factor (fctd = fctk,0.05/γm);
η1 and η2 are to implicitly account for bond condition, position of rebar
and rebar diameter.
BS 8110, fbu = β√fcu
β = 0.5 tens; 0.63 comp for Type 2 deformed bar
Note that β includes γm = 1.4 12

12

6
 Basic derivation of anchorage length (lb)
𝐹 ≥𝐹
𝑓 𝐴, ≥𝑓 𝐴
𝜋𝜙
𝑓 (𝜋𝜙)𝑙 ≥ 𝑓
4
𝑓 𝜙
𝑙 ≥ Design yield
𝑓 4 strength of rebar
.
𝑙 ≥ (BS 8110) Design stress
in rebar
𝑙 , ≥ (EN 1992-1-1)
13

13

Further checking procedure on the

design anchorage length (lbd)
Bars form (for straight
Confinement
bars, 𝛼1 is 1.0)
effect
𝑙 =𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 𝑙 , ≥𝑙

 𝛼2 is a coefficient for the effect of concrete minimum cover to consider

splitting failure for straight bars.
.
0.7 ≤ 𝛼 = 1 − ≤ 1.0 (Tension)
𝛼 = 1.0 (Compression)
where cd = min {a/2, c1, c} for straight bars, s is the clear spacing
of bars, c1 is the side cover and c is the top or bottom cover.
a
c1
c 14

14

7
 Splitting failure and 2
 Splitting is the failure of the concrete surrounding the
anchorage because of excessive radial stresses.
Figure taken from:
Randl, N. and Kunz, J (2014), Post-installed
reinforcement connections at ultimate
and serviceability limit states, Structural
Concrete, 15(4), 563-574.

Splitting Spalling
between of cover
bars

15

15

Splitting failure and 2

 Since splitting is a pure concrete failure, the design of
post-installed bars should respect the same splitting
criteria as cast-in bars.
 As long as 𝛼2 ≥ 0.7 (correspond to cover cd ≤ 3ϕ),
splitting of concrete cover occurs.
 It should be noted that the case of 𝛼2 = 1.0
corresponds to a concrete cover cd of 1ϕ, which
present challenges in hole drilling – need to account
for possible deviation in drilling, hence a minimum
concrete cover cd of 2ϕ, corresponds to 𝛼2 = 0.85
should be taken. 16

16

8
 Splitting failure and 2
 𝛼2 < 0.7, sufficient concrete cover, with
confinement effects, rebar will be pulled-out
before splitting.
 This is true for EC2 cast-in bars and if bond
strength of PIR is the same as cast-in bars.
 Hence, precondition is the use of adhesive
with proven strength and stiffness
characteristic.
 Bond strength of adhesive agents is given in
ETAs of anchors.
17

17

What if the bond strength of PIR is proven

stronger than cast-in rebar? – an extension of EC2
 Extrapolate 𝛼2 linearly for cd ≥ 3 𝜙, following the
approach of Tepfers (1973), hence:
.
 𝛼 =1− in EC2 becomes

 𝛼 = ≥ 0.25
.

 δ is a factor calibrated by test, if linearly continues

with the same slope, δ = 0.15.
Tepfers, R. 1973. A Theory of Bond Applied to Overlapped Tensile Reinforcement for
Deformed Bars. Chalmers University, Göteborg. No 73/2.
18

18

9
 α2 pullout
EC2 limit
splitting

0.15 𝑐 − 𝜙
α2 '
𝛼 =1−
𝜙 Extended EC2 limit
1
𝛼 =
1 𝑐 − 3𝜙
+δ
0.7 𝜙

Maximum capacity as
per anchor approval

𝒇𝒃𝒅,𝑬𝑪𝟐
𝒇𝒃𝒅 =
𝛼 𝐨𝐫 𝛼 Maximum capacity as EC2

19

19

Minimum anchorage length (lb,min)

𝑙 , ≥ 𝛼lb max 0.3𝑙 , , 10𝜙, 100 mm (Tension)

𝑙 , ≥ 𝛼lb max 0.6𝑙 , , 10𝜙, 100 mm (Compression)

It should be noted that the minimum anchorage length (lb,min) shall be

multiplied by an amplification factor (𝛼lb) to account for the difference of
cast-in place and post-installed rebar in cracked concrete. In general, if
there is no test carried out to post-installed rebars in cracked concrete in
accordance to qualification document EOTA EAD 330087 (2018), 𝛼lb is
taken as 1.5.

20

20

10
 Lapped splice (lo)

𝑙 =𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼 𝑙 , ≥𝑙 ,

Where, 𝛼6 is a coefficient of percentage of lapped

bar (p1) relative to total cross-section area within
0.65lo from the centre of the lap length
1.0 ≤ 𝛼 = (𝜌 /25) . ≤ 1.5

𝑙 , ≥ 𝛼lb max 0.3𝛼 𝑙 , , 15𝜙, 200 mm

21

21

Existing

Other rules Proposed new simply

supported RC beam
RC
column

Cl. 9.2.1.2(1) and Cl. 9.2.1.4(1):

Simply supported beam
 Values of 15% of maximum bending moment in the span and 25%
(National Annex dependent, in contrast, it is 50% in BS 8110) of
the steel area provided in the span is recommended for top and
bottom reinforcement, respectively, at the support of simply
supported beam.

 Both top and bottom steel are to be anchored with lbd, measured
from the face of support. It is interesting to note that Cl. 9.2.1.4(2)
allows a strut-and-tie equivalent model to calculate the axial forces
in the rebar, which appears to be more suitable for the design stress
(σsd) estimation in 𝑙 , ≥
22

22

11
 Other rules Post-installed simply supported RC slab
Cast
RC
wall

Cl. 9.3.1.2: Simply supported solid slab

 In simply supported slab, 15% (for end support) to 25%
(intermediate support) of maximum bending moment in the
span and 50% of the calculated span reinforcement should be
provided for the top and bottom bar at the support of solid
slab, respectively (as opposed to the 50% provision in BS
8110).
 Both top and bottom steel are anchored with lbd, measured
from the face of support. Similar for simply supported beam,
Cl. 9.2.1.4(2) of the strut-and-tie model is allowed.
23

23

Content
1. Design philosophy of PIR

2. Design provision for Rebar End Anchorage Theory in EN

1992-1-1 (2004)

3. Introduction to design provision for Bonded Anchor Theory in

EN 1992-4 (2018)

4. Introduction to strut-and-tie model

5. Introduction to a new connection design method TR 069 (2019)

6. Conclusion
24

24

12
 3. Introduction to BA Theory in EN 1992-4 (2018)
Steel failure
𝑁 , = 𝑓 𝐴 and 𝑁 , = 𝑓 𝐴 𝑁 ,
Concrete cone failure ;
γ
𝐴 , 𝑁 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , ;
𝐴 , γ
𝑁 ,
Splitting failure 𝑁 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ;
γ
𝐴 , 𝑁 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , ;
𝐴 , γ
𝑁 ,
Concrete cone and pullout failure
γ
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 , 25

25

Parameters in BA Theory for concrete

cone failure
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,
N0Rk,c is the characteristics resistance of a single anchor
placed in concrete without the influence of geometry or
load eccentricity
.
𝑁 , =𝑘 𝑓 ℎ
where k1 is taken as 7.7 for cracked concrete and 11.0 for
uncracked concrete for post-installed anchors (or refer
ETA).
fck is the characteristic cylinder strength of concrete.
hef is the embedment depth of the anchor. 26

26

13
 Parameters in BA Theory for concrete
cone failure – cont’d
𝐴,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑, 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴,
A0c,N is the theoretical influencing area, which can be
calculated as scr,N2, where scr,N is the characteristic spacing
of anchor and it is considered as 3hef.

Ac,N is the actual influencing area which can be calculated

for single reinforcement
𝐴 , = 𝑐 + 0.5𝑠 , 𝑐 + 0.5𝑠 ,

27

27

Parameters in BA Theory for concrete

cone failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

φs,N is the effect of distribution stress due to edge which

can be calculated using
𝑐
𝜑 , = 0.7 + 0.3 ≤1
𝑐 ,
where c is the smallest edge distance and ccr,N is the
characteristic edge distance and it is considered as 1.5hef.

28

28

14
 Parameters in BA Theory for concrete
cone failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

φre,N is the shell spalling factor for dense reinforcement with

hef < 100 mm. It can be calculated using
ℎ
𝜑 , = 0.5 + ≤1
200
φre,N shall be taken as 1 if the spacing of the reinforcement
provided is ≥ 150 mm for reinforcement size with any
diameter; or spacing of the reinforcement provided is ≥ 100
mm for reinforcement size with diameter of 10 mm or smaller.

29

29

Parameters in BA Theory for concrete

cone failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

φec,N is the factor to cater for different tension loads applied

on the group anchors. It is taken as 1 if there is no
eccentricity of the loading, otherwise it shall be calculated
using
1
𝜑 , = ≤1
1 + 2 𝑒 /𝑠 ,
where eN is the eccentricity of resultant tension force of
tension anchors with respect to the centre of gravity of the
tensioned anchors.
30

30

15
 Parameters in BA Theory for concrete
cone failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,
φM,N is the factor to account for the effect of a compression
force between fixture and concrete in cases of bending
moments with or without axial force.

Typically taken as ≥ 1 – refer to Eq. (7.7) in EC2-4 (2018).

𝑧
𝜑 , =2− ≥1
1.5ℎ
Where z is the moment lever-arm.

31

31

Parameters in BA Theory for splitting

failure
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

N0Rk,sp = min {NRk,p ; N0Rk,c} in case of mechanical anchor, and

N0Rk,sp = min {N0Rk,p ; N0Rk,c} in case of bonded anchor. (or ETA)

Ac,N, A0c,N, φs,N, φre,N and φec,N shall be calculated according to

slides 28-31 as concrete cone failure, however the values ccr,N
and scr,N shall be replaced by ccr,sp and scr,sp. ccr,sp is depending
on type of anchor and scr,sp = 2 ccr,sp.
32

32

16
 Parameters in BA Theory for splitting
failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

φh,sp is the influence of the actual member thickness on the

splitting resistance which can be calculated using
/ /
ℎ ℎ + 1.5𝑐
𝜑 , = ≤ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 1 ; ≤2
ℎ ℎ
where hmin is the minimum allowed thickness of concrete
member.

33

33

Parameters in BA Theory for concrete

cone and pullout failure
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

N0Rk,p is the characteristics resistance of a single bonded

anchor without the influence of geometry or load eccentricity.
It can be calculated using
𝑁 , = 𝜋 𝐷 ℎ 𝜏 (𝜑 )
where D is the diameter of the anchor. τRk and φsus are
product dependent factors. τRk is the characteristic bond
strength in either uncracked or cracked concrete.
34

34

17
 Parameters in BA Theory for concrete
cone and pullout failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

φsus is the sustained load factor on bond strength using

𝜑 = 𝜑 +1−𝛼 ≤ 1
0
where φ sus can be taken from ETA or 0.6 as suggested in
Eurocode 2: Part 4 (2018) for design life of 50 years with long
term concrete temperature of 43˚C. αsus is the ratio between
sustained load and total load at ultimate limit state.

35

35

Parameters in BA Theory for concrete

cone and pullout failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

A0p,N, φs,Np, φre,Np and φec,Np shall be calculated according to

the slides 28-31 as concrete cone failure, however the values
ccr,N and scr,N shall be replaced by ccr,Np and scr,Np, where scr,Np
is calculated using
𝑠 , = 7.3(𝐷) 𝜑 ×𝜏 , ≤ 3ℎ

τRk,ucr is the characteristic bond strength in uncracked concrete

for C20/25.
36

36

18
 Parameters in BA Theory for concrete
cone and pullout failure – cont’d
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

φg,Np is a factor to account for the effect of closely packed

fasteners which can be obtained by using
.
𝑠
𝜑 , =𝜑 , − × 𝜑 , −1 ≥1
𝑠 ,
𝜏 .
𝜑 , = 𝑛− 𝑛−1 × ≥1
𝑘
𝜋𝐷 ℎ 𝑓
The n represents the number of bonded anchors. k3 is defined as
7.7 and 11.0 for cracked and uncracked concrete, respectively.
37

37

A computation example of BA theory

Mechanical anchor for 125 mm thick C30/37 concrete with

size of M8 and edge distance (c1 & c2) equals to ccr,N
38

38

19
 A global tensile failure modes of post-installed
bonded anchors
Ng LT, ESW Wong and DTW Looi (submitted 2020). Feasible Design Tensile
Capacity of Post-installed Anchors based on Eurocode 2: Part 4 (2018). Manuscript
submitted to 5th International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
Structures and Construction Materials (SCESCM2020), 17-19 Feb 2021.

39

39

Content
1. Design philosophy of PIR

2. Design provision for Rebar End Anchorage Theory in EN

1992-1-1 (2004)

3. Introduction to design provision for Bonded Anchor Theory in

EN 1992-4 (2018)

4. Introduction to strut-and-tie model

5. Introduction to a new connection design method TR 069 (2019)

6. Conclusion
40

40

20
 4. Introduction to Strut-and-Tie Method (STM)
The D-region in STM

Load

D-region B-region D-region B-region D-region

H

H H H H
Where D = Disturbed or Discontinued (complex stress field); B
= Bernoulli (linear strain, plane section remains plane)
Brief history and background:
 Schlaich et al. (1987), Collins and Mitchell (1991), MacGregor (1992), Foster and
Gilbert (1996), Tjhin and Kuchma (2002)
 Lower bound plastic theory (equilibrium and yield criteria for rigid perfectly
plastic) – modified with efficiency factor v, and crushing of concrete does not
happen prior to yield of rebars 41

41

St. Venant principle

 The localized effects caused by any load acting on the

body will dissipate or smooth out within regions that
are sufficiently away from the location of the stress
concentration

42

42

21
 The “strut” Load
nodes

nodes tie

43
Classification by Foster and Gilbert (1996)

43

Experiment on strength of strut

R.K.L. Su and D.T.W Looi (2016), Revisiting
the unreinforced strut efficiency factor, ACI
Structural Journal, 113(2), pp 301-312.

 Varying strut angles (30°, 45° & 60°) OR a/d (1.73, 1.0, 0.5)
 Varying concrete strength (30 MPa, 60 MPa and 90 MPa)
44

44

22
 Experiment matrix

45

45

Typical failure mode of strut

46

46

23
 Failure of strut

47

47

Strut strength
 The strut efficiency factor is found to be 0.6.

48

48

24
 Strut strength in EN 1992-1-1 (2004)

 σRd,max = 0.6 ν′ fcd

 Recommended strut efficiency factor in EC2 is

ν′ = 1 - fck /250

 Compared to Su and Looi (2015), ν′ = 0.6

49

49

The “ties”

 Design strength of steel ties, fyd = fyk/1.15

 Reinforcement should be anchored into nodes

 The anchorage may start as the bar enters the

strut

50

50

25
 The “nodes”

 Nodes are the connections of struts and ties in

truss models

51

51

Equilibrium of nodes

52

52

26
 Node strength in EN 1992-1-1 (2004)

 CCC: σRd,max = k1 ν′ fcd, k1 = 1.0 by NA

 CCT: σRd,max = k2 ν′ fcd, k2 = 0.85 by NA
 CTT: σRd,max = k3 ν′ fcd, k3 = 0.75 by NA

53

53

Relevance of STM to PIR in simply supported

structural application

1. D.T.W Looi, A.Y.F. Lee, R.K.L.

Su, and Y.L. Zhang (2020), Design
and installation of post-installed
reinforcements: A state-of-the-art
review, HKIE Transactions, 27(2),
pp.65-76.

2. R.K.L. Su, D.T.W Looi and Y.L.

Zhang (in press, 2020), Guide for
Design, Installation and Assessment
of Post-installed Reinforcements,
HKU Press, Hong Kong.

54

54

27
 Proof of concept for simply supported
structural application
Instead of using σsd = 0.87 fy,k,
use a realistic estimation of STM,
where shear (VEd) will induce a
direct tension via a strut of 45-
degrees to the bottom bar.
Hence σsd = VEd/As

𝜎 𝜙 Use a lower σsd and

𝑙 , ≥ higher fbd with α2’, yields
𝑓 4
a shorter lb,rqd.

Note: Cone failure is precluded because of the strut 55

55

Relevance of STM to PIR in moment joint

application (frame-node method)
Anchor theory was
used to check for
cone failure

A.Y.F. Lee, R.K.L. Su and Ricky W.K.

Chan (2019). Structural behaviour of
post-installed reinforcement bars in
moment connections of wall-slabs,
Engineering Structures, 195, 536-550.

56

56

28
 How about a direct estimation of fbd with
proper account of bond and splitting across lb?
cd is controlled 𝛼 =1−
0.15 𝑐 − 𝜙
using α2’ 𝜙
1
𝛼 =
1 𝑐 − 3𝜙
+δ
0.7 𝜙

σsd is decreasing, using STM

57

57

Content
1. Design philosophy of PIR

2. Design provision for Rebar End Anchorage Theory in EN

1992-1-1 (2004)

3. Introduction to design provision for Bonded Anchor Theory in

EN 1992-4 (2018)

4. Introduction to strut-and-tie model

5. Introduction to a new connection design method TR 069 (2019)

6. Conclusion
58

58

29
 5. Introduction to a new connection design
method TR 069 (2019)

 Based on a new EAD 332402 (2019) - Post-Installed

Reinforcing Bar (Rebar) Connections with Improved
Bond-Splitting Behaviour Under Static Loading.
New concrete

Existing concrete
59

59

5. Introduction to a new connection design method

TR 069 (2019)
Steel yielding failure 𝑁 ,
;
𝑁 , = 𝑓 𝐴 γ
Concrete cone failure 𝑁 ,
𝑁 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ;
𝐴 γ
,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝑁 ,
𝐴 ,
γ
Bond-Splitting failure
𝑁 , = 𝜋 𝐷 𝑙 𝜏 ,

Note: the combined pull-out and concrete cone resistance as per EC2-4 is replaced by
the bond-splitting resistance to allow geometric parameters i.e. small edge distances
and/or spacing between rebars as well as anchorage length higher than 20 D
60

60

30
 The analogy of EC2-4 and TR 069
EC2-4: Concrete cone and pullout failure
𝐴 ,
𝑁 , =𝑁 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 , 𝜑 ,
𝐴 ,

𝑁 , = 𝜋 𝐷 ℎ 𝜏 (𝜑 )
where τRk is product dependent.

Concrete
TR 069: Bond-splitting failure strength

𝑁 = 𝜋 𝐷 𝑙 𝜏 Rebar
, , Edge distance
Transverse size
reinforcement
Where 𝜏 , = 𝜂 𝐴 × +

Anchorage
𝑘 𝐾 × (Ω , ) length 61

61

Parameters for bond-splitting failure

𝑓 25 𝑐 𝑐 7𝐷
𝜏 , = 𝜂 𝐴 × + 𝑘 𝐾 × Ω ,
25 𝐷 𝐷 𝑐 𝑙
≤𝜏 , × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 7𝐷 ≤ 𝑙 ≤ 20𝐷

≤𝜏 , × × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 𝑙 ≥ 20𝐷

Where η1 is a coefficient for bond condition and rebar position, = 1 for good and = 0.7
for other cases

D should be taken as 12.

Ak, sp1, sp2, sp3 , sp4 and lb1 are fitting factors, shall refer to ETA.

Ωcr factor to account for the effects of cracking shall refer to ETA.
62

62

31
 Parameters for bond-splitting failure – cont’d

𝑓 25 𝑐 𝑐 7𝐷
𝜏 , = 𝜂 𝐴 × + 𝑘 𝐾 × Ω ,
25 𝐷 𝐷 𝑐 𝑙
≤𝜏 , × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 7𝐷 ≤ 𝑙 ≤ 20𝐷

≤𝜏 , × × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 𝑙 ≥ 20𝐷

Where cd = min {cs/2; cx; cy} and cmax = max {cs/2; cx}
and ≤ 3.5

63

63

Parameters for bond-splitting failure – cont’d

𝑓 25 𝑐 𝑐 7𝐷
𝜏 , = 𝜂 𝐴 × + 𝑘 𝐾 × Ω ,
25 𝐷 𝐷 𝑐 𝑙
≤𝜏 , × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 7𝐷 ≤ 𝑙 ≤ 20𝐷

≤𝜏 , × × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 𝑙 ≥ 20𝐷

Where km is the factor for the effectiveness of transverse reinforcement defined

according to fib Model Code 2010 and fib Bulletin 72.

64

64

32
 Parameters for bond-splitting failure – cont’d

𝑓 25 𝑐 𝑐 7𝐷
𝜏 , = 𝜂 𝐴 × + 𝑘 𝐾 × Ω ,
25 𝐷 𝐷 𝑐 𝑙
≤𝜏 , × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 7𝐷 ≤ 𝑙 ≤ 20𝐷

≤𝜏 , × × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 𝑙 ≥ 20𝐷

Where Ktr is normalized ratio to consider the amount of transverse reinforcement

crossing a potential splitting surface defined and calculated according to fib Model
Code 2010.
𝑛 𝐴
𝐾 = ≤ 0.05
𝑛 𝐷𝑠
Where nt = number of stirrups legs (confinement) crossing potential splitting surface
Ast = cross-sectional area of stirrup
nb = number of anchored or lapper bars in the potential splitting surface
sb = spacing between the stirrups (confinement) 65

65

Parameters for bond-splitting failure – cont’d

𝑓 25 𝑐 𝑐 7𝐷
𝜏 , = 𝜂 𝐴 × + 𝑘 𝐾 × Ω ,
25 𝐷 𝐷 𝑐 𝑙
≤𝜏 , × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 7𝐷 ≤ 𝑙 ≤ 20𝐷

≤𝜏 , × × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 𝑙 ≥ 20𝐷

Ω , is prescribed in FIB MC 2010 to account for transverse pressure (ptr):

.
Ω , = 1.0 − for 0 ≤ ptr ≤ fctm (tension)
.
Ω , = 1.0 − 𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ for 0 ≤ ptr ≤ fctm (compression)
.
Where fcm and fctm should refer to EC2 Table 3.1
ptr is calculated as mean stress in the concrete (orthogonal to the bar axis)
averaged over a volume around the bar with a diameter of 3D) 66

66

33
 Parameters for bond-splitting failure – cont’d

𝑓 25 𝑐 𝑐 7𝐷
𝜏 , = 𝜂 𝐴 × + 𝑘 𝐾 × Ω ,
25 𝐷 𝐷 𝑐 𝑙
≤𝜏 , × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 7𝐷 ≤ 𝑙 ≤ 20𝐷

≤𝜏 , × × Ω |Ω , ×𝜑 for 𝑙 ≥ 20𝐷

Note: This is the same as Slide 37.

φsus is the sustained load factor on bond strength using
𝜑 = 𝜑 +1−𝛼 ≤ 1
where φ0sus can be taken from ETA or 0.6 as suggested in Eurocode 2: Part 4 (2018)
for design life of 50 years with long term concrete temperature of 43˚C. αsus is the
ratio between sustained load and total load at ultimate limit state.

67

67

Content
1. Design philosophy of PIR

2. Design provision for Rebar End Anchorage Theory in EN

1992-1-1 (2004)

3. Introduction to design provision for Bonded Anchor Theory in

EN 1992-4 (2018)

4. Introduction to strut-and-tie model

5. Introduction to a new connection design method TR 069 (2019)

6. Conclusion
68

68

34
 Conclusion
 The design philosophy of PIR was introduced
1) REA – Rebar End Anchorage as per EC2-1-1 (2004)
2) BA – Bonded Anchor as per EC2-4 (2018)
3) STM – Strut-and-Tie Model
4) TR069 - Realistic bond-splitting behaviour
 In REA, splitting failure was elaborated with an α2′ method extended
from EC2 for higher bond strength of adhesive.
 In BA, the complex formulation as per EC2-4 (2018) was introduced.
 In STM, definition of strut, tie and nodes were introduced with
reference to the authors’ ACI paper (2015) and EC2-1-1 (2004)
 TR069 (2019) is to harmonise the rebar anchorage design method
and anchor theory, considering the realistic bond-splitting behaviour
of a PIR system under static loading (assessed in accordance with the
EAD 332402, 2019) 69

69

Latest design philosophy of post-installed rebar (PIR)

Prequalification: EAD 330087 EAD 332402 EAD 330499

(2018) (2019) (2017)

Design as cast-in Design for Design as

Design: rebar end moment bonded anchors
anchorage for connection
simple connection
Standards: EN 1992-1-1 TR 069 (2019) EN 1992-4
(2004) (2018)

Strut-and-tie method is generic and can be used across all methods.

70

70

35
 Acknowledgement

The figures and

computations of the
BA theory was a joint
work of a conference
publication sent in for
SCESCM 2020.

71

71

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Dr. Giovacchino
Genesio for providing useful information on
TR069 and EAD332402.

The author is grateful for the funding provided

by Hilti Malaysia in related research.

72

72

36
 End of Presentation on

Webinar on
“DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
POST-INSTALLED REBARS IN
CONCRETE-TO-CONCRETE CONNECTION”

Dr. Daniel Looi

PhD (HKU) | BEng (Malaya) | CPEng MIEAust
Lecturer | Swinburne University of Technology (Sarawak Malaysia)
dlooi@swinburne.edu.my

73

37