WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

4. Post-installed Reinforcement ding on the design requirements related to the Eurocode

4.1. General EN 1992-1-1 and the European Assessment Document
(EAD) 330087-00-0601.
The following chapter explains the design theory behind
post-installed reinforcement bar (rebar) applications and Table 1 provides an overview of the specifications of our
is intended to provide the reader with a basic understan- WIT-Rebar systems:

Table 1: Specification overview of WIT-Rebar systems

WIT-PE 1000 WIT-UH 300 WIT-PE 510 WIT-VM 250
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

European Technical
ETA-19/0543 ETA-17/0036 ETA-20/1037 ETA-12/0166
Assessment
Two-component re- Two-component Two-component
Urethane vinyl
Material active resin mortar, reactive resin mor- reaction resin mor-
ester hybrid mortar
pure epoxy tar, pure epoxy tar, vinyl ester
REBAR diameter 8 – 40 mm 8 – 32 mm 8 – 40 mm 8 – 32 mm
Drill hole cleaning with
✔ ✔ ✔ X
hollow drill-bit system
Gelling- / working
30 min 3 min 30 min 6 min
time at 20°C
Minimum curing time
in dry concrete at 12 h 30 min 12 h 45 min
20°C
Minimum curing time
in wet concrete at 24 h 60 min 24 h 90 min
20°C
Maximum embedment
2000 mm 2000 mm 2000 mm 2000 mm
depth lv,max
Temperature of base
-40°C – +80°C -40°C – +80°C -40°C – +80°C -40°C – +80°C
material in-service
Temperature of base mate-
+5°C – +40°C -5°C – +40°C +5°C – +40°C -10°C – +40°C
rial at installation
Fire resistance /
✔/ ✔ /✔ ✔/ ✔ /✔ ✔/ X /X ✔/ X /X
Seismic / 100 years
Software / Eurocode ✔/ ✔ ✔/ ✔ ✔/ ✔ ✔/ ✔

36
4.2. Anchor Theory vs. Rebar Theory

Table 2 shows a comparison of potential failure modes for rebar used as anchor and post-installed rebar connection.

Table 2: Comparison of potential failure modes

Rebar used as Anchor (EN 1992-4) Post-installed Rebar Connection (EN 1992-1-1)
Failure modes in Tension Failure modes in Shear Failure modes in Tension Failure modes in Shear
Steel failure of fastener Steel failure of fastener without Steel failure of reinforcing bar
lever arm
Steel failure of fastener Bond failure
with lever arm
Pull-out failure of fastener Concrete pry-out failure Splitting failure
Combined pull-out and Concrete edge failure

POST -INSTALLED REBAR

concrete failure
Concrete cone failure
Splitting failure

4.2.1. Rebar used as Anchor distance and/or narrow spacing, splitting or spalling
forces become decisive due to the low tensile capacity of
Situations where the concrete needs to take up tension the concrete.
loads from the anchorage or where reinforcing bars are
designed to carry shear loads should be considered 4.3. Post-installed rebar anchorage - The
as “rebar used as anchors” and designed according to assessment criteria of EOTA-EAD 330087
anchor design method such as given e.g. in the guidelines
of EN 1992-4 or simplified in this Design Manual. Those The guideline specifies a number of tests in order to qua-
guidelines verify all possible failure loads in tension and lify products for post-installed rebar applications. These
shear. are the performance areas checked by the tests:

4.2.2. Post-installed Rebar Connection 1. Bond strength in different strengths of concrete

2. Substandard hole cleaning in dry and wet concrete
The design of the rebar anchorage is performed accor- 3. Influence of temperature
ding to structural concrete design codes, e.g. 4. Correct injection
EN 1992-1-1. With a given test regime and the assess- 5. Installation direction
ment criteria EAD 330087, it is proven that the load 6. Influence of sustained loads
transfer for post-installed reinforcing bars is similar to cast 7. Freeze-thaw conditions
in bars if the stiffness of the overall load transfer mecha- 8. High alkalinity and sulphurous atmosphere
nism is similar to the cast-in system. The efficiency depen- 9. Corrosion resistance
ds on the strength of the adhesive mortar against the 10. Resistance to fire
concentrated load close to the ribs and on the capacity of
load transfer at the interface of the drilled hole. If an adhesive meets all assessment criteria, rebar con-
nections carried out with this adhesive can be designed
In many cases the bond values of post-installed bars with the bond strength and minimum anchorage length
are higher compared to cast in bars due to better per- according to EN 1992-1-1 as given in the tables below for
formance of the adhesive mortar. But for small edge different Würth injection mortars.

37
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

Adhesives (or in conjunction with a certain drilling proce-

dure) which do not fully comply with all assessment crite-
ria can still obtain an approval:
• If the bond strength obtained in tests does not fulfil
the specified requirements, then bond strengths
lower than those given by EN 1992-1-1 shall be
applied. These values are given in the respective
approval.
• If it cannot be shown that the bond strength of
reinforcing bars post-installed with a selected
product and cast-in reinforcing bars in cracked
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

concrete (w = 0.3 mm) is similar, then the minimum

Figure 2: Overlap joint in a foundation of a column or
anchorage length lb,min and the minimum overlap
wall where the rebars are stressed in tension
length l0,min shall be increased by a factor 1.5.

4.4. Rebar Applications

Products tested according to above guideline can

be used for applications in non-carbonated concrete
C12/15 to C50/60 (EN 206) only, which are also allo-
wed with straight deformed cast-in bars according to
(EN 1992), e.g. those in the following applications:

Note to the following figures: In the figures below,

no transverse reinforcement is plotted, the transverse rein-
forcement as required by EN 1992 shall be present. The
Figure 3: End anchoring of slabs or beams, designed as
shear transfer between old and new concrete shall be
simply supported
designed according to EN 1992.

Figure 1: Overlap joint in slabs and beams

Figure 4: Rebar connection of components stressed
primarily in compression. The rebars are stressed in com-
pression

38
 b) The ultimate bond strength shall be sufficient to
prevent bond failure.

4.5.1. The design value of the ultimate bond

stress

where:
• fck, 0.05 … is the 5% fractile charactersitic tensile
strength of concrete according to Table 3
Figure 5: Anchoring of reinforcement to cover the line of
• η1 … is a coefficient related to the quality of the bond
acting tensile force

POST -INSTALLED REBAR

condition and the position of the bar during
concreting (details see EN 1992-1-1):
4.5. Design of Anchorage of longitudinal
o η1 = 1.0 when good conditions are obtained and
reinforcement with EN 1992-1-1
o η1 = 0.7 for all other cases and for bars in
structural elements built with slip-forms, unless it
a) Reinforcing bars shall be so anchored that the bond
can be shown that good bond conditions exist
forces are safely transmitted to the concrete avoiding
• η2 … is related to the bar diameter:
longitudinal cracking or spalling. Transverse rein-
o η2 = 1.0 for ∅ ≤ 32 mm
forcement shall be provided if necessary.
o η2 = (132 - ∅)/100 for ∅ > 32 mm

Table 3: Strength characteristics for concrete

Compressive strength class C12/15 C16/20 C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C35/45 C40/50 C45/55 C50/60

fck [N/mm2] 12 16 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

fck,cube [N/mm2] 15 20 25 30 37 45 50 55 60

fcm [N/mm2] 20 24 28 33 38 43 48 53 58

fctm [N/mm2] 1.60 1.90 2.20 2.60 2.90 3.20 3.50 3.80 4.10

fctk, 0.05 [N/mm2] 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.50 2.70 2.90

fctk, 0.95 [N/mm ]

2
2.00 2.50 2.90 3.30 3.80 4.20 4.60 4.90 5.30

fbd Ø ≤ 32 [N/mm2] 1.65 1.95 2.25 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.75 4.05 4.35

fbd Ø ≤ 34 [N/mm2] 1.62 1.91 2.21 2.65 2.94 3.23 3.68 3.97 4.26

fbd Ø ≤ 36 [N/mm ]
2
1.58 1.87 2.16 2.59 2.88 3.17 3.60 3.89 4.18

fbd Ø ≤ 40 [N/mm2] 1.52 1.79 2.07 2.48 2.76 3.04 3.45 3.73 4.00

39
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

4.5.2. Development length

Development length is the shortest length needed for a

reinforcing bar so that the yield strength can be induced
in the bar.
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

Reinforced concrete members are often designed using

strut and tie models. The forces are represented by trus-
ses and the nodes of these trusses have to connect the
forces in such a way that they are in balance: The sum
of the concrete compression force, the support force and
the steel tensile force equals zero. The node can maintain
its function only when the bond between the reinforcing
bar and the surrounding concrete is activated and in
balance with the horizontal component of the concrete
compression strength. The node has to physically provide
a certain length over which the rebar can develop stress Figure 6: Node of trusses
on its left side. This extension on the left side is called
“development length” or “anchorage length”. The length
or the space on the left side depends on the method of
anchorage: bend, hook or straight.

40
 Table 4: Design loads for good bond conditions

Design load for good bond condition, C20/25

Bar size
Cross sectional area of
reinforcement
Characteristic yield strength
Partial factor for reinforcing
steel
Design resistance of rein-
forcement bar
Design Bond stress
Development length
Minimum anchorage length
Ø As fyk NRd,s fbd lbd lb,min Nb,d
[mm] [mm2] [N/mm2] [kN] [N/mm2] [mm] [kN]
ȣs

8 50.3 500 1.15 21.9 2.25 386 116 7 7 8 8 11 14 17 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 78.5 500 1.15 34.1 2.25 483 145 - - - 11 14 18 21 25 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12 113.1 500 1.15 49.2 2.25 580 174 - - - - 17 21 25 30 34 42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14 153.9 500 1.15 66.9 2.25 676 203 - - - - - 25 30 35 40 49 59 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16 201.1 500 1.15 87.4 2.25 773 232 - - - - - 28 34 40 45 57 68 79 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 314.2 500 1.15 136.6 2.25 966 290 - - - - - - 42 49 57 71 85 99 113 127 - - - - - - - - - - - -
25 490.9 500 1.15 213.4 2.25 1208 362 - - - - - - - - 71 88 106 124 141 159 177 194 212 - - - - - - - - -
28 615.8 500 1.15 267.7 2.25 1353 406 - - - - - - - - - 99 119 139 158 178 198 218 238 257 - - - - - - - -
32 804.2 500 1.15 349.7 2.25 1546 464 - - - - - - - - - 113 136 158 181 204 226 249 271 294 317 339 - - - - - -
34 907.9 500 1.15 394.7 2.21 1676 503 - - - - - - - - - - 141 165 188 212 236 259 283 306 330 353 377 - - - - -
36 1017.9 500 1.15 442.6 2.16 1812 543 - - - - - - - - - - 147 171 195 220 244 269 293 318 342 366 391 415 440 - - -
40 1256.6 500 1.15 546.4 2.07 2100 630 - - - - - - - - - - 182 208 234 260 286 312 338 364 390 416 442 468 494 520 546
Anchorage length [mm] 120 130 140 150 200 250 300 350 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100

41
POST -INSTALLED REBAR
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

4.5.3. Basic anchorage length

The calculation of the required anchorage length shall

take into consideration the type of steel and bond pro-
perties of the bars. The basic required anchorage length
lb,rqd for anchoring the force As.σsd in a bar assuming con-
stant bond stress equal to fbd follows from:
Fig. 1: Values for straight bars in beams and slabs
(EN 1992-1-1) Note: cd = min (a/2, c1, c)
• α1 = 1.0 for anchorage of straight bars
• α2: 0.7 ≤ 1 - 0.15 (cd - ∅)/∅ ≤ 1.0 for reinforcement
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

bar in tension or a2 = 1.0 for reinforcement bar in

4.5.4. Design anchorage length
compression
According to EN 1992-1-1, the design anchorage length, • α3 = 1.0 no transverse reinforcement
lbd is • α4 = 1.0 no welded transverse reinforcement
• α5: 0.7 ≤ 1 - 0.04ρ ≤ 1.0 for confinement by
transverse pressure ρ [MPa] at ultimate limit state
along lbd
The factors a1 to a5 subscripts take into account the form ➢ The product of (α2α3α5) should be ≥ 0.7.
of the bars, concrete cover, confinement by transverse lb,min is the minimum anchorage length if no other limitati-
reinforcement, the influence of welded transverse bars on is applied:
along the design anchorage length and the effect of the • lb,min ≥max (0.3 ∙ lb,rqd; 10∅;100 mm)
pressure transverse to the plane of splitting along the for anchorages in tension
design anchorage length. • lb,min≥ max (0.6 ∙ lb,rqd; 10∅;100 mm)
for anchorages in compression
In case of a post-installed rebar application, only straight
bars are possible. The minimum anchorage length shall be multiplied by the
amplification factor αlb according Table 5 below:

Table 5: Amplification factor alb related to drilling method for concrete class C12/15 to C50/60
Amplification
Injection mortar Drilling method Bar size
factor alb
WIT-PE 1000 All drilling methods 8 mm to 40 mm 1.0
Hammer drilling (HD)
WIT-UH 300 Hollowing drill bit system (HDB) 8 mm to 32 mm 1.0
Compressed air drilling (CD)
Hammer drilling (HD)
WIT-PE 510 Hollowing drill bit system (HDB) 8 mm to 40 mm 1.0
Compressed air drilling (CD)
Diamond coring (DD) 8 mm to 40 mm 1.5
Hammer drilling (HD)
WIT-VM 250
Hollowing drill bit system (HDB) 8 mm to 32 mm 1.0
Compressed air drilling (CD)

42
4.5.5. Lap or splice length • α3 = 1.0 no transverse reinforcement
• α5: 0.7 ≤ 1 - 0.04ρ ≤ 1.0 for
According to EN 1992-1-1, the design lap length is confinement by transverse pressure ρ [MPa]
l0 = α1 ∙ α 2 ∙ α 3 ∙ α 5 ∙ α6 ∙ lb,rqd ≥ l0,min along lbd
• α6: 1.0 ≤ α6 ≤ 1.5 for influence of percentage of
• α1 = 1.0 for anchorage of straight bars lapped bars relative to the total cross-section area
• α2 = 1.0 for reinforcement bar in compression according to the following table:
• α2: 0.7 ≤ 1 - 0.15 (cd - ∅)/∅ ≤ 1.0 for
reinforcement bar in tension

Table 6: Values of the coefficient

Percentage of lapped bars relative to the total cross-section area < 25% 33% 50% >50%
a6 1.00 1.15 1.40 1.50

POST -INSTALLED REBAR

Note: Intermediate values may be determined by interpolation

➢ The product of (α2α3α5) should be ≥ 0.7. The minimum concrete cover cmin is to ensure safe trans-
mission of bond forces and protection against steel and
l0,min is the minimum lap length: fire is defined according to the following equation:

l0,min ≥ max (0.3 ∙ α6 ∙ lb,rqd; 15∅; 200 mm) cmin = max (cmin,b;cmin,dur;10 mm)

The minimum lap length shall be multiplied by the amplifi- where

cation factor αlb according Table 5. • cmin,b = minimum cover due to bond requirement
• cmin,dur = minimum cover due to environmental
4.5.6. Concrete cover conditions

Concrete cover is defined as the minimum distance a) cmin,b is equivalent to the diameter of the reinforcing
between the outer surface of the concrete element and bar.
the surface of the embedded reinforcement. The nominal
concrete cover is defined as a minimum cover plus a b) cmin,dur can be obtained from Table 8:
deviation allowance △cdev. The recommended value for
△cdev = 10 mm.
cnom= cmin + △cdev

Table 8: Values of minimum cover cmin,dur requirements with regard to durability for reinforcement steel
Exposure Class
X0 XC1 XC2/XC3 XC4 XD1/XS1 XD2/XS2 XD3/XS3
S1 10 10 10 15 20 25 30
S2 10 10 15 20 25 30 35
Structural Class

S3 10 10 20 25 30 35 40
S4 10 15 25 30 35 40 45
S5 15 20 30 35 40 45 50
S6 20 25 35 40 45 50 55

43
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

According to the exposure class in a given situation, the table below from EN 1992-1-1 further provides the engineer with
the indicative minimum concrete strength class for each exposure class:

Table 9: Indicative minimum strength class

Corrosion
Chloride-induced
Chloride-induced
Carbonation-induced corrosion corrosion from
corrosion
sea-water
XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4 XD1 XD2 XD3 XS1 XS2 XS3
Indicative
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

minimum
C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37 C35/45 C30/37 C35/45
strength
class
Damage to Concrete
No risk Freeze/Thaw Attack Chemical Attack
X0 XF1 XF2 XF3 XA1 XA2 XA3
Indicative
minimum
C12/15 C30/37 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37 C35/45
strength
class

For our WIT-Rebar systems, the concrete cover shall be defined as

minc = max (cnom;cmin,inst)

The minimum cover of post-installed reinforcing bars cmin,inst depends on the drilling method:

Table 10: Minimum cover related to drilling method

Rebar diameter Without
Drilling method With drilling aid
(∅) drilling aid

Hammer drilling (HD) < 25 mm 30 mm + 0.06 lv ≥ 2∅ 30 mm + 0.02 lv ≥ 2 ∅

Hollow drill bit system (HDB)
≥ 25 mm 40 mm + 0.06 lv ≥ 2∅ 40 mm + 0.02 lv ≥ 2 ∅
< 25 mm 30 mm + 0.02 lv ≥ 2 ∅
Diamond drilling (DD) Drill rig used as drilling aid
≥ 25 mm 40 mm + 0.02 lv ≥ 2 ∅
< 25 mm 50 mm + 0.08 lv 50 mm + 0.02 lv
Compressed air drilling
≥ 25 mm 60 mm + 0.08 lv 60 mm + 0.02 lv
Comment: The minimum concrete cover acc. EN 1992-1-1:2004+AC:2010 must be observed

44
4.5.7. Spacing of bars and laps
The spacing between post-installed reinforcing bars shall
The spacing of bars shall be such that the concrete can be greater max (5∅; 50 mm).
be placed and compacted satisfactorily for the develop-
ment of adequate bond. The clear distance (horizontal 4.5.8. Embedment depth
and vertical) between individual parallel bars or hori-
zontal layers of parallel bars should be not less than the Embedment depth for overlap joints
max(∅; (dg + 5 mm) or 20 mm) where dg is the maximum For calculation of the effective embedment depth of
size of aggregate (8.2; EN 1992-1-1:2011-01). overlap joints the concrete cover at end-face of bonded-in
rebar c1 shall be considered:
l v ≥ l 0 + c1

If the clear distance between the overlapping rebar is

POST -INSTALLED REBAR

greater than 4 Ø the lap length shall be enlarged by the
difference between the clear distance and 4 Ø.

Figure 7: Adjacent laps

4.5.9. Maximum embedment depth

Table 11: Maximum approved embedment depth for WIT-Rebar systems

Bar size, ∅ [mm] 8 10 12 14 16 20 25 28 32 34 36 40
Drilling
Mortar Maximum permissible embedment depth, lmax [mm]
Method *
HD / CD / DD 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
WIT-PE 1000
HDB 800 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 - - -
WIT-UH 300 All methods 1000 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000 2000 2000 2000 - - -
HD / CD / DD 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
WIT-PE 510
HDB 800 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 - - -
WIT-VM 250 All methods 1000 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000 2000 1000 1000 - - -
* HD = Hammer drilling, CD = Compressed air drilling, HDB = Hollow drill bit system, DD = Diamond drilling

45
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

4.5.10. Transverse reinforcement splitting and spalling as a function of concrete cover and
bar spacing.
The requirements of transverse reinforcement in the area
of the post-installed rebar connection shall comply with If α2 is less than 0.7, corresponding to cover dimensions
EN 1992-1-1, Section 8.7.4. of cd/∅ > 3 or spacing of a/∅ > 6, the cover or spacing
is large enough so that splitting cannot occur anymore
4.5.11. Connection joint and pull-out will control.

The transfer of shear forces between new concrete 4.6. Fire load case
and existing structure shall be designed according to
EN 1992-1-1, Section 6.2.5 “Shear at the interface 4.6.1. General information
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

between concrete cast at different times”. The joints for

concreting must be roughened to at least such an extent The load-bearing capacity in case of fire corresponds to
that aggregate protrude. In case of a carbonated surface the performance characteristic R according to DIN EN
of the existing concrete structure the carbonated layer 13501-2. A classification of performance characteristics
shall be removed in the area of the post-installed rebar in case of fire according to DIN EN 13501-2 requires a
connection with a diameter of (Ø + 60 mm) prior to the time-dependent fire stress according to the unit tempera-
installation of the new rebar. The depth of concrete to ture time curve (ETK), which is defined in DIN EN 13631.
be removed shall correspond to at least the minimum The National Annex to DIN EN 1991-1-2 also requires
concrete cover for the respective environmental conditions the application of standard time/temperature curve
in accordance with EN 1992-1-1. The foregoing may be at any point of the structure for structural elements in
neglected if building components are new and not carbo- building construction. If a sufficient load-bearing capacity
nated and if building components are in dry conditions. under ETK load has been verified, this verification applies
irrespective of the later use.
4.5.12. Failure modes and anchorage length

In most cases the reinforcement bars are placed close

to the surface of the concrete member to achieve good
crack distribution and economical bending capacity.
For splices at wide spacing, the bearing capacity of the
concrete depends only on the thickness of the concrete
cover. At narrow spacing the bearing capacity depends
on the spacing and on the thickness of the cover. In the
design codes the reduction of bearing capacity of the
cover is taken into account by means of multiplying
factors for the splice length. Splitting failure is decisive Figure 8: Standard time/temperature curve ISO 834
if the radial cracks propagate through the entire cover.
Bond failure is caused by pull-out of the bar if the 4.6.2. Application cases
confinement (concrete cover, transverse reinforcement)
is sufficient to prevent splitting of the concrete cover. EN To determine the load-bearing capacity of reinforcement
1992-1-1 controls the failure modes by limiting the α2 connections in the event of fire, a basic distinction must
value to α2 ≥ 0.7. The spalling of the concrete cover or be made between two applications. In application A, the
splitting between bars will be the controlling mode of thermally stressed surface shows the same direction as the
failure. The value α2 gives an explicit consideration for reinforcement, which leads to a locally constant but time-
varying temperature along the anchorage length lbd.
46
 in the relative ETA. According to DIN EN 1992-1-1, Table
2.1N in accordance with the corresponding national
annex for the permanent and temporary design situation,
the following applies to the partial safety factor of concre-
te in cold conditions
γc = 1.5
In case of fire, the following applies according to DIN EN
1992-1-2, chapter 2.3 in accordance with the corres-
Figure 9: Fire load case - Application A ponding national appendix for the partial safety factor of
concrete
Alternatively for application B, the post-installed rebar is γM,fi = 1.0
perpendicular to the thermally stressed surface, which The design values fbd of the composite stress in cold case
results in a temporally and spatially variable temperature are shown in Table 3. The values are applicable for all

POST -INSTALLED REBAR

profile along the anchorage length lbd. drilling methods, but they depend on the reinforcement
bar diameter and are valid for good bond conditions
according to DIN EN 1992-1-1, chapter 8.4.2. In case
of other bond conditions, the specified values have to be
multiplied by a factor of 0.7.

For WIT-PE 1000, the factor kb can be found in

ETA19/0543 in Table C2.
kb = 1.0
and thus for all cases
Figure 10: Fire load case - Application B fbd,PI = fbd
The temperature-dependent reduction factor kb,fi(Θ) is (de-
The distinction between application cases A and B is pending on the ETA) to be considered. The graph below
made exclusively according to the orientation of the shows reduction factors kb,fi(Θ) for all WIT-Rebar systems
flame-exposed surfaces in relation to the direction of the for 8 mm ≤ dfactor≤k32
Reduction mm. systems under good bond conditions for 8 mm ≤ d ≤ 32
for WIT--REBAR b,fi
mm
post-installed rebar and is not the same as the distinction 1,20

between end anchoring and lap joint. 1,00

0,80

4.6.3. Load-bearing capacity

Reduction factor kb,fi

WIT-PE 1000
0,60
WIT-VM 250
WIT-UH 300

The load-bearing capacity of post-installed rebar 0,40

WIT-PE 510

connections in case of fire is significantly affected by the 0,20

temperature-dependent bond stress fbd,fi (Θ) with 0,00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Temperature (°C)

Figure 11: Reduction factor for WIT-Rebar systems

(drilling methods HD/HBD/CD) for 8 mm ≤ d ≤ 32 mm
which is determined by experimental techniques. The
reduction factor kfi (Θ) under fire stress, the design value When designing post-installed rebar connections in case
fbd of the bond stress in cold case according to DIN EN of fire, a distinction must be made between pull-out failure
1992-1-1, which depends on the concrete strength class, and steel failure, in addition to the distinction between
and the reduction factor kb with fbd,PIR = kb. fbd are specified application cases A and B.

47
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

4.6.4. Application case A the reinforcement of statically determinate reinforced

concrete structures may be verified in case of fire by
If the rebar connection in application A is in the same means of a temperature criterion. The critical temperature
direction as the flamed surface, the function of the unit is Θcrit = 500°C. The proof for steel failure is therefore
time-temperature curve results in a temperature along provided if the following applies to the most unfavorable
the rebar connection that varies over time but is locally (i.e. warmest) point of the rebar in the post-installed rebar
constant. The time-dependent reinforcement temperature connection.
in case of fire is only dependent on the geometry of the
existing component and the design in case of fire can be
carried out using the time-dependent reinforcement tempe- Alternatively, the verification of the reinforcing bar for
rature Θ(t) and the time-dependent bond stress fbd,fi (Θ(t)). steel failure in case of fire can be done by comparing the
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

acting and the bond (tensile) force.

4.6.4.1. Pull-out

If the stresses acting on a rebar connection are greater with Nfi,Ed: Stress on the bar at the beginning of the
than the bond force that can be absorbed, failure occurs anchorage length in the ultimate limit state in case of
due to pull-out. The proof for the failure mode pull-out is an extraordinary design situation according to DIN EN
performed in application A by determining the anchorage 1990. The force that can be sustained in case of fire
length lb,rqd,fi (t) required in case of fire. The value lb,rqd,fi (t) must be determined taking into account the temperature-
describes the basic value of the anchorage length in dependent decrease of the yield strength according to
case of fire and is to be determined according to DIN EN 1992-1-2, Table 3.2a.
DIN EN 1992-1-1, equation (8.3) under consideration of
the time- and temperature-dependent bond stress.
You get the bond tensile force in case of fire as:

with
• ∅ = diameter of the reinforcement bar In case of fire, the following applies in accordance with
• σsd,fi = existing steel stress of the bar at the DIN EN 1992-1-2, Chapter 2.3 in accordance with the
beginning of the anchorage length corresponding National Annex for the partial safety
in the ultimate limit state under factor of reinforcing steel
extraordinary design situation
according to DIN EN 1990 γM.fi = 1.0

The design value lbd,fi (t) of the anchorage length in case

of fire is obtained analogously to the check under normal
temperature according to DIN EN 19921-1, chapter
8.4.4.

4.6.4.2 Steel failure

The temperature-dependent load capacity of the rebar

itself is limited by the load capacity of the steel cross-
section. According to DIN EN 1992-1-2, Chapter 5.2(4),

48
 Table 12: Temperature for different fire durations vs. Table 13: Bond strength for different fire durations
concrete cover fbd,fi [N/mm2] for member thickness = 30 cm
T [°C] with member thickness = 30 cm Good bond conditions, C20/25
c Fire duration [min] 8 mm ≤ d ≤ 32 mm
[cm] 30 60 90 120 180 240 WIT-PE 1000 WIT-UH 300
2 348 516 614 684 783 853 Fire duration [min]
c [cm]
3 242 399 496 566 667 740 30 60 90 120 180 240 30 60 90 120
4 167 311 403 471 571 644 2 - - - - - - 0.23 - - -
5 117 241 328 394 491 564 3 0.25 - - - - - 0.74 - - -
6 88 187 268 330 424 495 4 0.46 - - - - - 1.69 0.35 - -
7 68 144 218 277 367 435 5 0.80 0.25 - - - - 2.91 0.74 0.29 -
8 53 114 177 232 318 384 6 1.26 0.38 0.22 - - - 3.45 1.36 0.56 0.28
9 42 93 143 193 275 339 7 1.93 0.58 0.30 0.20 - - 3.45 2.17 0.96 0.50
10 34 77 118 161 238 299 8 2.89 0.84 0.42 0.27 - - 3.45 3.03 1.52 0.83
11 29 64 100 135 205 264 9 3.45 1.16 0.58 0.36 0.21 - 3.45 3.45 2.19 1.26
12 26 54 85 115 177 233 10 3.45 1.57 0.80 0.48 0.26 - 3.45 3.45 2.89 1.80
13 24 46 73 99 153 205 11 3.45 2.11 1.04 0.64 0.33 0.22 3.45 3.45 3.45 2.40
14 22 39 63 87 132 180 12 3.45 2.80 1.34 0.84 0.42 0.27 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.00
15 21 34 55 76 116 159 13 3.45 3.45 1.71 1.05 0.53 0.33 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
16 21 30 48 67 103 140 14 3.45 3.45 2.17 1.30 0.66 0.40 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
17 20 27 42 59 92 125 15 3.45 3.45 2.73 1.61 0.82 0.50 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
18 20 25 37 52 83 112 16 3.45 3.45 3.40 1.98 0.99 0.61 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
19 20 24 33 46 75 102 17 3.45 3.45 3.45 2.43 1.18 0.73 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
20 20 23 30 42 67 93 18 3.45 3.45 3.45 2.95 1.40 0.87 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
21 20 22 28 38 61 85 19 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 1.66 1.01 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
22 20 21 26 34 55 79 20 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 1.95 1.17 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
23 20 21 25 31 51 72 21 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 2.29 1.34 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
24 20 21 23 29 47 67 22 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 2.66 1.53 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
25 20 20 23 27 43 63 23 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.07 1.74 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
24 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 1.96 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
25 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 2.19 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45

49
POST -INSTALLED REBAR
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR

4.6.5. Application case B The bond force Nbd,fi,Rd (t) in the composite joint is
obtained by integrating the temperature-dependent
If the rebar connection in application B is perpendicular composite stress fbd,fi (Θ(t)) via the load-transmitting surface
to the direction of the flamed surface, the temperature of the rebar
along the rebar connection changes over time and place
- the temperature decreases with increasing distance from
the flamed surface. with lv : Development depth. The bond and acting forces
are identical:
4.6.5.1. Pull out
A design in case of fire for the failure type pull-out in the
form of the determination of a single time-dependent The development depth lv for a defined time t corresponds
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

composite stress fbd,fi (Θ(t)) is not sufficient for application to the required anchorage length lb,rqd,fi (t) according to the
B because this stress is variable along the reinforcement corresponding ETA and DIN EN 1992-1-1, Equation (8.3).
connection. A procedure analogous to application A Analogous to the application case A and the cold case,
would therefore result in an additional required anchoring the design value lbd,fi (t) of the anchorage length in case of
length lb,rqd,fi (t) at each point of the rebar. fire shall be determined according to DIN EN 1992-1-1,
chapter 8.4.4.
On the safe side, it is of course conceivable and permis-
sible to determine the required anchorage length lb,rqd,fi (t) 4.6.5.2. Steel failure
analogous to application A, taking into account the most
unfavorable (i.e. highest) temperature of the rebar in the In contrast to the failure due to pull-out, the check for steel
existing component. However, the results obtained in this failure must be performed at the most unfavorable check
way can be considered as extremely conservative with section, i.e. taking into account the maximum tempera-
increasing anchorage length. ture occurring along the reinforcement bars at a given
time t. The verification can be performed analogous to
A more economical approach, which makes use of the application A by means of the temperature criterion or by
actual load-bearing capacity of the bonded joint, is to comparing the acting and the absorbing force.
prove pull-out failure in application B by comparing the
acting and the absorbing forces

50
Table 14: Tension load for different fire duration
Nbd,fi [kN] d = 16 mm
Good bond conditions, C20/25
WIT-PE 1000 WIT-UH 300
lv Fire duration [min]
[cm] 30 60 90 120 180 240 30 60 90 120
16 20.1 13.6 8.4 4.8 2.2 1.2 24.8 20.0 16.4 13.4
18 23.5 17.1 12.2 7.7 3.5 2.0 28.3 23.5 19.9 16.9
20 27.0 20.5 15.7 11.5 5.3 3.0 31.7 26.9 23.3 20.4
22 30.5 24.0 19.1 15.1 7.9 4.5 35.2 30.4 26.8 23.9
24 33.9 27.5 22.7 18.6 11.4 6.4 38.7 33.9 30.3 27.3
25 35.7 29.3 24.3 20.3 13.4 7.7 40.4 35.6 32.0 29.1
26 37.4 30.9 26.1 22.1 15.2 9.1 42.1 37.4 33.7 30.8
28 40.9 34.4 29.5 25.6 18.8 12.6 45.6 40.8 37.2 34.3

POST -INSTALLED REBAR

30 44.3 37.9 33.0 29.1 22.4 16.5 49.1 44.3 40.7 37.8
32 47.8 41.4 36.5 32.5 25.8 20.1 52.5 47.8 44.2 41.2
34 51.3 44.8 39.9 36.0 29.3 23.7 56.0 51.2 47.6 44.7
36 54.7 48.3 43.4 39.5 32.8 27.2 59.5 54.7 51.1 48.2
38 58.2 51.8 46.9 42.9 36.2 30.7 62.9 58.2 54.6 51.7
40 61.7 55.3 50.3 46.4 39.7 34.2 66.4 61.6 58.0 55.1
45 70.3 63.9 59.0 55.1 48.4 42.8 75.1 70.3 66.7 63.8
50 79.0 72.5 67.7 63.7 57.1 51.5 83.7 79.0 75.4 72.4
55 87.7 81.2 76.4 72.4 65.7 60.2 92.4 87.6 84.0 81.1
60 96.4 89.9 85.1 81.1 74.4 68.8 101.1 96.3 92.7 89.8
65 105.0 98.6 93.7 89.7 83.0 77.5 109.8 105.0 101.4 98.5
70 113.7 107.3 102.4 98.4 91.7 86.2 118.4 113.7 110.1 107.1
75 122.4 115.9 111.1 107.1 100.4 94.8 127.1 122.3 118.7 115.8
80 131.0 124.6 119.7 115.7 109.1 103.5 135.8 131.0 127.4 124.4
85 139.7 133.3 128.4 124.4 117.7 112.2 144.4 139.7 136.1 133.1
90 148.4 141.9 137.1 133.1 126.4 120.9 153.1 148.3 144.7 141.8
95 157.1 150.6 145.8 141.8 135.1 129.5 161.8 157.0 153.4 150.5
100 165.7 159.3 154.4 150.4 143.8 138.2 170.5 165.7 162.1 159.1
110 183.1 176.6 171.8 167.8 161.1 155.5 187.8 183.0 179.4 176.5
120 200.4 193.9 189.1 185.1 178.5 172.9 205.1 200.4 196.8 193.8
130 217.7 211.3 206.5 202.5 195.8 190.2 222.5 217.7 214.1 211.2
140 235.1 228.6 223.8 219.8 213.1 207.6 239.8 235.0 231.4 228.5
150 252.4 246.0 241.1 237.1 230.5 224.9 257.2 252.4 248.8 245.8
160 269.8 263.3 258.5 254.5 247.8 242.3 274.5 269.7 266.1 263.2
*For other diameters and concrete strengths, please contact Würth technical support

51
 WIT FOR POST-INSTALLED REBAR
POST -INSTALLED REBAR

52
Bibliography

European Committee for Standardization “EN 206

Concrete - Specification, performance, production and
conformity”, 2006.

European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 0:

Basis of structural design, EN 1990:2002+A1”, 2010.
European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densi-
ties, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings, EN 1991-1-
1”, 2002.

European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 2:

Design of concrete structures — Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings, EN 1992-1-1”, 2004.

European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 2:

Design of concrete structures - Part 1-2: General rules -
Structural fire design, EN 1992-1-2”, 2004.

European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 2:

Design of concrete structures - Part 4: Design of fasten-
ings for use in concrete; EN 1992-4”, 2018.

European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 3:

Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings, EN 1993-1-1”, 2005.

European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 8:

Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings; EN
1998-1:2004”.

DIN EN 13501-2: Fire Classification of Construction Pro-

ducts and Building Elements - Part 2: Classification Using
Data From Fire Resistance Tests, Excluding Ventilation
Services: 2016.

Reichel, D.-E. (2020, October). Tragverhalten Nachträg-

licher Bewehrungsanschlüsse im Brandfall am Beispiel
des Würth Injektionssystems WIT-PE 1000 (Load Beha-
vior of Post-installed Reinforcement in the Event of Fire
with the Example of the Würth Injection System WIT-PE
1000). ql^2/8, pp. 16-25.

53