Theory of post-installed reinforcement bars as a basis of

retrofit and rehabilitation

DR. E.K.R. WISSER, Hilti Corporate Research, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein,
and M.J. NASON, Hilti Australia

THE ENGINEERING CHALLENGE

The rise in traffic flows and dramatic increases in axle weights impose loading on many
bridges that are far in excess of the loads for which they were designed. In consequence
many of today's bridges are subjected to strengthening or land widening schemes. With the
resulting rehabilitation works comes the engineering challenge of providing monolithic
connection between the new and the existing reinforced concrete elements. For many years
the planting of post-installed bonded starter bars has solved this challenge.

Despite the critical nature of these structural connections there are no national or
international codes that regulate the design practise and many designers resort to the
application of anchor theory.

This paper lays out the design principles currently applied to the application of post-installed
reinforcement starter bars and identifies the key design considerations necessary for the
provision of structural continuity.

THEORY OF ADHESIVE BONDED ANCHORS

Since the advent of modern adhesive anchoring systems there have been many publications
pertaining to calculation methods for the prediction of tensile capacity of adhesive anchors.
Mainly relating to specific adhesive materials through supplier's product data, but few can be
applied to cover all parameters of materials and applications. To address this situation the
results and observations of 2900 tests were analysed and imported into an international
database (2).

bond failure adhesive/ steel

'0' P.

= fr h
steel failure

concrete failure bond failure concrete adhesive '0' P0

±Fm 4 FN

=k Fmq =;nDh„(f /f,„,)" Fom = fy A.

basic installation
30 90
development length depth

FIG. 1: Failure modes and design model for adhesive anchors

55
Regression analysis undertaken on the data resulted in the identification of formulae for the
prime modes of failure, namely Concrete cone failure, bond failure between adhesive and
concrete, bond failure between adhesive and steel and steel failure. The schematic
representation (fig.1) shows the interrelationship between the modes of failure and the
parameters of concrete grade and installation depth.

These formulae are only valid for single anchors in a solid block of uncracked concrete. For
anchor groups or anchors near the edge the Concrete Capacity Method (1) must be applied.
Since the applied loads are resisted by the tensile capacity of the concrete base material
sufficient base material must be available to distribute the applied load. The development
area needed for full tensile load is presented in (fig. 2). In the case where the full
development area is reduced by proximity to an edge or in the case where anchors are
closely spaced and adjacent development areas overlap, then the anchor loading must be
reduced accordingly.

Single anchor Anchor group

Area of influence
C I, C,
knit = S Critt * 5Cri1.1

Aim" = (MIN( c„ ; c„„, + MIN ( s„ ; ) + MIN (c25 ; *

(MIN(c,y ;cr,,,, }+MIN{sy ;s5,;,,,}+MINlc2y ;C5 < 4 A,,gk

Tensile failure load of a group of 4 anchors

Ft,u group = Fl,u single (4 * 0.7 + 0.3 * A group / Asingle

Fig 2: Design rules for anchor groups and anchors near the edge

DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN ANCHOR THEORY AND REBAR DESIGN

The application of anchor theory has the practical advantage of attaining appropriate load
capacity at minimal setting depths thus reducing drilling time and also reducing the risk of
hitting reinforcing steel, stressing tendons or other embedded items. This method of
calculation, however, requires the parameters of edge distance and anchor spacing to be
relatively large.

In practice these parameters can not be met since designs demand relatively close spacing
of starter bars at very close edge distances, namely concrete cover. In addition, further
assumptions are made in respect of axial loading of the reinforcement bar. Because of these
different presuppositions, combining theories is problematic and therefore it is necessary to
define clearly the limit between respective calculation methodology.

56
With axial loading of cast-in-place reinforcement bars, two failure modes of the concrete are
possible at small embedment length: concrete cone failure or pull out failure of the rebar.
From tests it has been found that the concrete cone has a diameter of three times the
embedment depth lb,inst and the tension stress fctk;o,5 is distributed parabolically (fig. 3), thus,
the characteristic failure load Fk = (1,5 lb,inst)2 rz fctk;o,o5 / 5 is obtained. Setting that equal to the
characteristic pull out load, which is derived by multiplying the bond stress fk = 0 it lb,inst 2,25
fclk,0,05 the limit depth lb = 5 0 is obtained, where concrete cone failure and pull out of the
reinforcement bar have the same probability of occurrence.

Failure mode - concrete cone Failure mode - pull out

"4

Tension Fk

Stress distribution

Parabolic distribution of tensile stress Bond stress at surface of Rebar

( -(x /1,5 l,, ) f.= 2,25 i,,,k,o.os

Fk = (1,5 Ib..t ) 2 • a • fames / 5 = * a * lb,Inst k 2,25 ictlq0,05

Limit of failure mode

< 5 41 concrete cone Ib e I > 5 0 pull out

Anchor design Reinforcement theory

code requirement 16 „„,. 10$

Fig 3: Differentiation between anchor design and reinforcement theory

If the embedment depth is smaller than five times the diameter of the rebar, concrete cone
failure will occur. However attention has to be paid to edge distance and spacing of rebar so
that the cones do not overlap, otherwise the loads have to be decreased. But if the installed
embedment depth is greater than five times the rebar diameter, the rebar will be pulled out,
because then the bond stress becomes decisive. All construction codes world-wide
prescribe a minimum anchorage length of lb,min = 10 0 for reinforcement bars. Thereby the
decisive mode of failure will not be concrete cone failure, so edge distance and spacing are
not crucial and the common rules of reinforced concrete can be used.

PROPERTIES OF MORTAR USED FOR POST-INSTALLED REBARS

Not all adhesive resins are suitable for even load distribution at moderate embedment
depths. Most are designed for introduction of tension load into concrete along a length as
short as possible via high bond properties. With such resins and short embedment depths
failure occurs suddenly by concrete cone failure. Tensile loading of concrete in this manner
clearly contradicts the basics of reinforced concrete design, where compression and shear
are assigned to concrete, and tension to the reinforcement steel. Mortar resins with high
compression strengths permit tension load in the reinforcement steel to be evenly distributed
into the concrete via compression struts generated by the ribs on the steel. This in turn
transmits the load to the adjacent reinforcement bar. The load introduction length required
for this mechanism is distinctly longer than that required in the anchor method.
57
The failure mode for mortar resin at moderately deeper embedment depths is invariably
pullout, signalled by visual deformation (Fig. 4).

Anchor Theory Reinforcement Design

Anchor design Cast-in rebar Post-installed rebar

,
In* 10*

Load introduction Load introduction Load introduction

by tensile stress by compression Struts by compression struts

Adhesive: Concrete: Mortar:

good bond properties good compression properties good compression properties
similar to concrete
e.g. HMI HIT RE 500 e.g. HIM HIT-HY 150
sudden cone failure forewarned pull out failure

Fig 4:Requirements of adhesives for anchors and mortars used for reinforcement bars

When used for the installation of Post installed reinforcement bars, resins with high bond
strengths, set at shallow embedment depths, do not necessarily yield higher load capacities
since it is the tensile capacity of the concrete that is decisive. Mortar resins with properties
similar to concrete will distribute loads uniformly and impart compressive forces via the
concrete to adjacent reinforcement bars, thus optimising the inherent properties of the base
material. It is important that the designer is aware of distinction between adhesives for anchor
applications and mortars when calculating for critical force flows

DESIGN RULES FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR CONNECTIONS

The following studies were undertaken on a material developed for use with post installed
reinforcement. The injection mortar Hilti HIT-HY 150 being a hybrid of organic components
with the benefit of high fluidity, fast curing and strong bond. In addition the inorganic
components displayed insensitivity to humidity, post-hardening, long term stability and heat
resistance. All design criteria are based on Eurocode 2 [3] and have been developed in
cooperation with Prof. P. Marti, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich [4].

The concept of partial safety factors according to Eurocode 2

From tests, the mean value of the ultimate tensile load Rm,t is determined and divided by a
statistical factor y = 1,4 to obtain the characteristic value Rk,t (fig. 5). With a great number of
tests 95% of the test values are higher and only 5% are lower than Ro. The conformity to
reinforcement theory is gained by dividing that by a factor y = 1,4.

58
 Tensile load Partial safety factors
Rmt : Mean value of tests (Ultimate load) y =1.4 Statistical factor

Characteristic value of tests 5, .1.4 For lezi

resIstance
e.g.long.p

R5 :Characteristic value of resistance y..1.15 Steel

T.: y..1.5 Concrete 8, Workmanship

114 Design value of resistance R,> S, Resistance > Action

S, : Design value of action 1.35 Design Value dead load

15 =1.5 Design value live load

F. : Service load

Displacement

Fig 5: Concept of partial safety factors according to Eurocode 2

In accordance with reinforcement theory, the characteristic value Rk, is divided by ys = 1,15
partial safety factor for the steel bar. Again by yb = 1,5, partial safety factor for concrete, and
by yb = 1,5 in the mortar — these partial safety factors take into account the difference
between laboratory tests and real conditions on the job site. Thus one arrives at the design
value of resistance, Rd. This value has to be greater than or equal to the applied design load,
Sd, which is obtained by multiplying the service load Fs with the load factor yG = 1,35 for dead
loads and yo = 1,5 for live loads respectively.

The advantage of this concept is not only the international validity of Eurocode 2, but also the
possibility to gain the values for ultimate load and recommended load. Therefore it is simple
to reciprocate the values for National Standards such as AS, BS, ACI, JAS etc...

Partial safety factor for conformity to reinforcement theory

The factor yr = 1,4 above, ensures conformity with rebar theory, but is not explicitly shown in
Eurocode 2 nor in any other standard, but implicitly implied in the bond values. In reinforced
concrete the steel reinforcement is typically close to the surface. The axial load acting on the
connection rebar is introduced into the concrete over compression cones. Tension stresses
arise on the surface perpendicular to the bar and cause splitting of the concrete parallel to
the axis of the bar (fig. 6). Transverse reinforcement that lies external to the connection bars
does not prevent this, because it is loaded only after splitting. The factor yr = 1,4 ensures that
splitting does not become decisive and therefore accordance with the acceptable failure
modes and the safety level of cast-in reinforcement bar is achieved.

59
 Reinforcement bars are invariably near the surface
Applied load may cause excessive stress at the surface

splitting

safety factor according to rebar theory

for post installed reinforcement bars
y = 1.4 Partial safety factor
for action of surface stress

Fig 6 : Partial Safety factor according to reinforcement theory

Limits to utilization of post-installed reinforcement bars

For reinforcement post-installed with mortar there are three limits to utilisation that must be
distinguished, and to comply with National reinforced concrete design codes a minimum
embedment depth of 10 0 (fig. 7) must be applied:

Limit to rebar utilization

With a sufficient anchoring length steel failure will occur. The design value of the
reinforcement bar capacity is the product of the cross-sectional area and the characteristic
yield strength of the steel divided by the partial safety factor for reinforcement bars.

Limit to steel/mortar utilization

The formula for this failure mode has been determined from tests and is valid only for the
mortar Hilti HIT-HY 150. The design value does not increase linearly as with resins, but with
the square root of the rebar diameter. This behaviour is very similar to cast-in reinforcement
bars, where small diameter rebar show higher bond strength per surface area than bars of
greater diameter.

Limit to mortar / concrete bond utilization

The formula simulating this behaviour is derived from tests. The design value is dependent
upon the square root of the drill hole diameter, thus the effective transmission length for
greater diameter drill holes is greatly reduced.

The applicable design value of resistance for post-installed reinforcement bars is the
minimum of the design values from the three limits of utilization (fig. 7).

60
 Grade of concrete fck ifek,cube
limit to bond steel / mortar

Rb

C30/37
limit for rebar
25 N/mm2 Rba = 25 * It * I,„,t *40/2 /y b
C25/30 limit to mortar / concrete
concrete cone
bond Rs
failure

k I 4.,„ia = 4,5 an a ,,,*(f,„,*D)../y, t 11,d=1/4•C*p•to/y,

4-9 • 10 $ basic anchorage length I installed length r:„,

. Theory of anchors Theory of reinforcement bars
Where
Design load Rd = MIN (1k, ;R„ ;R„) > Su
Utilisation limit of Hilti HIT-HY 150 Rbd = R„ = 26 [N/mm21
Basic anchorage length 1,, Roi = Rcd and ft,d = Rba
Therefore
mAxi 4)3'2 *10 *Yb/ (100* Y ); 02 *ck * /118*(fa *E0)112* y,
Fig 7: Schematic presentation of utilization limits for post installed Rebar

Performance limitations of the mortar with respect to grade of concrete

The limits depicted in fig. 7 show where the mortar or concrete capacity is decisive, and is
obtained by setting the equation for the design value, of bond between the steel and mortar,
equal to that of the bond between the mortar and concrete. On the assumption that the drill
hole is 20% greater than the nominal diameter of reinforcement bar, the limit lies at the
characteristic compressive cylinder strength of fck = 26 N/mm2.

Therefore, the grade of concrete is critical, up to, and including grade C25/30 and, from
grade C30/37, the strength of the mortar is critical. The hybrid mortar Hilti HIT-HY 150 is
formulated for optimum performance in the most common concrete grades used on
construction sites.

Basic anchorage length

If a certain anchorage length is exceeded (see fig. 7) the steel is fully utilized. This length is
termed the basic anchorage length in construction codes, e.g. Eurocode 2, and is obtained
from equating the design values of the rebar, to those of mortar / concrete bond ,together
with the design values of the rebar to the bond of the steel / mortar. The basic anchorage
length is the maximum of both of the limiting anchorage lengths. Going beyond this basic
anchorage length achieves no increase in load, because steel failure will govern.

61
 C20 / 25 FY 500 basic anchorage length
Hilti Eurocode British German Swiss Austria American
Manual EC2 Standard code code ONORM Code
HIT-HY150 ENV 1992 BS 8110 DIN 1045 SIA 162 B 4200 ACI 318
08 15 cm 38 cm 34 cm 33 cm 48 cm 20 cm 30 cm
010 22 cm 47 cm 43 cm 41 cm 60 cm 23 cm 30 cm
4)12 29 cm 56 cm 52 cm 49 cm 72 cm 28 cm 30 cm
014 37 cm 66 cm 60 cm 57 cm 84 cm 32 cm 33 cm
016 44 cm 75 cm 69 cm 66 cm 96 cm 39 cm 43 cm
4)20 61 cm 94 cm 86 cm 82 cm 120 cm 53 cm 67 cm
026 94 cm 122 cm 112 cm 107 cm 156 cm 77 cm 113 cm
4)30 118 cm 141 cm 129 cm 123 cm 180 cm 96 cm 150 cm
036 158 cm 176 cm 155 cm 148 cm 127 cm
040 187 cm 204 cm 172 cm 150 cm
lap length of reinforcement bars at the bottom of a beam
08 30 cm 75 cm 69 cm 52 cm 48 cm 37 cm 30 cm
4)10 44 cm 94 cm 86 cm 66 cm 60 cm 46 cm 30 cm
012 58 cm 113 cm 103 cm 79 cm 72 cm 55 cm 44 cm
014 74 cm 132 cm 120 cm 92 cm 84 cm 65 cm 59 cm
4)16 88 cm 150 cm 138 cm 144 cm 96 cm 78 cm 78 cm
020 122 cm 180 cm 172 cm 180 cm 120 cm 106 cm 121 cm
026 188 cm 244 cm 224 cm 235 cm 156 cm 155 cm 205 cm
030 236 cm 282 cm 258 cm 271 cm 180 cm 192 cm 272 cm
036 316 cm 353 cm 310 cm 325 cm 255 cm
040 374 cm 409 cm 344 cm 301 cm

Fig. 8: Basic anchorage length and splice lengths from National Design codes

For rebar diameter 08 mm through 040 mm, concrete grade C20/25 and steel grade FY
500, the basic anchorage length according to the recommendation for Hilti HIT-HY 150 and
the codes
♦ Eurocode 2 British Standard BS 8110
♦ German code DIN 1045 Swiss code SIA 612
♦ Austrian code ONORM 84200 American code ACI 318

Is presented in fig. 8. The values for Hilti HIT-HY 150 are within the range of those codes,
which more precisely record the basic anchorage length.

Simplified formulae with linear dependence on the rebar diameter prescribe greater
anchorage lengths for bars from 08 mm to 022 mm. For cast-in rebar using the simplified
formulae there is no consequence to costs, but for post-installed rebar it is important if, e.g.
for rebar 016 mm only a 44 cm length has to be drilled instead of the 75 cm recommended,
for example, by Eurocode 2. The test results and subsequent research support application of
the lower values of anchorage length.

62
Principles of design

Based on more than 500 tests at German, Austrian, Swiss, American and Korean institutes
the behaviour of rebar cast-in and post-installed with Hilti HIT-HY 150 mortar has been
proven to be similar. The basic anchorage length, derived from the formulae in fig. 7,
corresponds to those of Eurocode 2 §5.2.2.3 and with other national codes. These values,
for Hilti HIT-HY 150, can be applied with all construction codes on the provision that the
respective rules, applicable to that code, as e.g. in Eurocode 2, are adhered to. Also the
shapes and placement of the reinforcement bars should be detailed following the same rules
as with cast-in place rebar.

CONSTRUCTION RULES FOR REBAR CONNECTIONS

Shown in fig. 9 are examples of construction rules in Eurocode 2 for anchorage and splice
lengths of reinforcement bars. Dependent upon the percentage of spliced rebar, spacing and
edge distance, certain multiplication factors are prescribed. The highest value occurs in
cases where beams have closely spaced rebar and small edge distances. The splice lengths
of different codes, and that for rebar mortared in with Hilti HIT-HY 150, have been plotted in
fig. 8. Also displayed are the values recommended by Hilti, which lie within the range of the
codes. The differences in values are the result of simplifications made in some codes. For
example, the Swiss code SIA 162 is the most obvious, as there is no apparent distinction
between anchorage length and splice, which leads to much greater anchorage lengths than
other codes.

Anchorage of reinforcement bars Splice of reinforcement bars

Ft

e 54$ j—Y41)
lb ( or 1,,,n,„ +e ' 44)

Anchorage length Lap length

a • 0.3 I,
0.3 I, in tension 1505, = MAX 15
0.6 I, in compression 200 mm
1„„„ = MAX 104 a = 1.0 bars spliced < 30% ; a a 10, ; b a 54
100 mm a = 1.4 other cases
= 1.0 bars spliced a 30% ; a < 100 ; b < so

lb,mln 5 lb,Inst lb * lerin (Ft) • lb

Fig 9: Design Rules in Eurocode 2

BEAM TESTS

To confirm the practical application of the post installed reinforcement theory, using the
injection mortar Hilti HIT-HY 150 a full size test was commissioned. The test involved a
concrete beam of 3.15 m length, 40 cm width, 25 cm height, with 2 020 mm bottom face
bars, 2 012 mm top face bars and shear stirrups, 08 mm, at 25 cm centres (fig. 10).

63
Subsequently the beam was extended to a length of 4,8 m, by employing post-installed
reinforcement techniques. Prior to casting the extension segment, 2 020 mm bars were
mortared into the bottom face with a length of 2 * 60 = 120 cm, in accordance with Eurocode
2, and 2 012 mm top face bars with lengths of 30 cm. After curing of the new concrete, the
beam was supported with a 4,5 m span. Test load was applied at the two third-points. One
point load at the construction joint and the other within the original beam. During testing the
bending deformation was observed to be the same at the spliced location as at the non
spliced point. Failure occurred within the original beam, via steel failure through breakage.
The splice displayed monolithic reaction. The test was deemed to be a practical
demonstration that performance of post-installed rebar, with Hilti HIT-HY 150, is similar to
cast-in rebar.
A second beam test with a splice length less than prescribed in of Eurocode 2 showed the
same ultima' ' " e bars.
F/2 F/2
1.50 m 1.50 m 1.50 m 2012
201 Ib = 300

220 Ij, = 1200 2$20

4,
Joint at 1/3 of span S joint S centre S 25 cm
80 kN
_, -...=-.-S.:;:„ S centre
70 kN J. 4'
...* ''' ,.. ... Z....... Z
60 kN .. ,
S joint `.- / ......
50 kN #
1 # S
40 kN
i
t
30 kN r•
elr
20 kN
10 kN
deflection (min)
Il
20 40 60
Concrete beam: 40 cm / 25 cm / 480 cm

Fig 10: Beam test for post installed reinforcement bars

INTRODUCTION OF SHEAR LOADS

In retrofit and rehabilitation, the new concrete elements are often connected perpendicular to
the existing building resulting in high shear forces. Such is the case with cantilevers,
extended bridge parapets or new slabs cast between existing walls. In the most codes the
truss model is used for the design. Although if there are cracks or joints perpendicular to the
tension bar, inclined compression struts will be developed. The concrete takes shear loads,
as long as they are below the admissible values according to Eurocode 2, §4.3.2 e.g. If they
are greater, the exceeding shear load has to be taken by the newly installed reinforcement
bars. The joint has to be roughened with care as is usual with rebar connections.

In the codes NZS 3101 of New Zealand and ACI 318 of USA the shear friction model is used.
It takes into account, that reinforcement transversal to a joint, or crack, hinders the movement
in the joint. This dowel effect is considered through an artificial friction coefficient. Therefore
this model is very useful for any type of connection of new and old concrete.

64
To confirm the practical application of the post installed reinforcement theory, using the
injection mortar Hilti HIT-HY 150 full size tests were commissioned. The tests involved both
long span and a short-span slabs cast between supports. (fig. 11). One side had
reinforcement post-installed only at the bottom face, on the other side post installed
reinforcement was installed in both the bottom and on the upper faces. The installed
embedment length was the shortest of the German, Swiss, European and American codes.
Nevertheless more than four times the service load was achieved. The deformations
exceeded the limits of the test machine hydraulic stroke.

The tests demonstrated that the rules of the codes adequately cover the connection of new
and old concrete, for both cast in place and post installed post-installed reinforcement.

Long-span plate
175 150cm 175

150 200cm 150

Short-span plate
150cm

200cm

Fig 11: Shear test with post- installed reinforcement bars

CONCLUSION

Intensive research over 6 years combined with experience drawn from many international
construction projects has been drawn upon in the composition of this paper. Resulting in a
set of practicable formulae that support the engineer when designing the rehabilitation of
reinforced concrete bridges and structures. With the application of the contents, design of
post installed reinforcement can be undertaken with the same level of confidence that has
been enjoyed when detailing cast in bars to which ever codes are applicable e.g. Eurocode2,
or ACI 318 and BS 8110.

References

[1] Fuchs, Eligehausen, Breen: Concrete Capacity Design Approach for Fastening in Concrete, ACI Structural
Journal No. 1, 1995
[2] Cook, Kunz, Fuchs, Kontz: Behaviour and Design of Single Adhesive Anchors under Tensile Load in
Uncracked Concrete, ACI Structural Journal No. 1, 1988
[3] CEN: European Committee for Standardisation, ENV 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures
— Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings, 1991
[4] Hilti Corp.: Fastening Technology Manual: Rebar Fastening Guide B2.2., 1993

65
66