›
44 TheStructuralEngineer
September 2014
Evaluation of EC2 rules for
design of tension lap joints
J. Cairns BSc, PhD, CEng, MIStructE
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Dr. Ing. R. Eligehausen PhD
Em. Prof., University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Synopsis
This paper presents an evaluation of EC2
rules for the design of tension lapped
joints. The evaluation is conducted using
two alternative procedures based around
a large database of nearly 1000 individual
test results reported in the literature. In the
first approach, the characteristic value of lap
strength estimated by EC2 procedures is
compared directly with measured strengths.
In the other, the lap length required by EC2
to develop the design strength of a bar is
first calculated, and the strength of that lap
then estimated using three different semi-
empirical expressions derived from the
database. The evaluation is conducted on
laps in which individual bars are all lapped
at the same section — as the great majority
of test data relates to this situation. The
outcome suggests that EC2 procedures
for tension laps do not provide the margin
of safety expected, and proposals are
presented for their revision.
Introduction
Many sections of the European Standard
for design of concrete structures, EC21,
have been taken directly from the CEB-FIP
Model Code 90 (MC90)2. While the design
anchorage bond strength of MC90 was
unchanged in EC2, the factors by which
anchorage bond lengths were converted to
lap lengths, were reduced by around 25%
(Table 1). No explanation for this change
appears to be recorded. Bond strengths
given in EC2 are the same as those given
in the 1978 version of the CEB-FIP Model
Code3. At the time these strengths were
derived, reinforcing steels typically had a
characteristic strength of around 400MPa;
around 20% lower than the norm today.
Average bond strength in a lapped joint
tends to reduce with increasing lap length,
Research
Tension lap joints
• Figure 1
Cover dimensions (from Figure 8.3 of EC2)
hence there was concern that application of
bond strengths intended for weaker classes
of reinforcement than those currently in use,
would reduce margins of safety. For both
reasons it was considered desirable to verify
whether EC2 rules for design of lapped
joints provide the expected margin of safety.
The principle underpinning EC2 provisions
is that ultimate bond strength shall be
'sufficient to prevent bond failure'. There
are good reasons to ensure lapped joints
do not fail in bond. Bond action of ribbed
bars generates bursting forces which,
if cover or clear bar spacing is modest,
generate longitudinal cracks along the
lap length resulting in a splitting mode
of failure in which concrete cover to the
joint spalls. The splitting mode of failure
is invariably non-ductile, even when laps
are confined by substantial amounts of
transverse reinforcement, and the reduction
in strength immediately after peak load
could adversely affect structural robustness.
Thus, it is expected that lap joints should
be proportioned to ensure an adequate
probability that reinforcement would
yield prior to bond failure. The aim of this
evaluation is to assess whether EC2 rules
meet this expectation.
Comparison of EC2 rules with test data
In the design of laps to EC2, ultimate bond
strength and basic anchorage length are first
obtained from Equations 8.2 and 8.3. The
basic anchorage length is then modified by
coefficients related to:
• concrete cover
• confining reinforcement in excess of
respective minima
• the proportion of bars lapped at the
section
to obtain the design lap length in accordance
with Equation 8.10.
Design expressions given in EC2 must be
rearranged to enable an estimate of lap
strength to be made for individual test
specimens. The comparison presented
here is based on characteristic bond
strength. Therefore, in Equation 8.2
the design value of the tensile strength
of concrete fctd is substituted by the
characteristic tensile strength of concrete
fctk;0.05 (Equation 1). Characteristic tensile
strength of concrete is calculated from
compressive strength according to the
relationships given in Table 3.1 of EC2.
Characteristic compressive strength is
taken as the compressive strength reported
for each specimen minus 8MPa (although
this probably overestimates the difference
between mean and characteristic values
under laboratory conditions). Stress
developed in the bar ss may then be
determined by Equation 2, derived from
Equation 8.3 of EC2, with the substitution of
fbk from Eqn. 1 in place of the design ultimate
bond stress fbd and the incorporation of
the modification factors to account for the
influence of cover, confining reinforcement
and proportion of bars lapped.
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

45

fbk = 2.25h 1 h 2 fctk; 0.05 (1)

v s = 4fbk ^l 0 /z h / ^a 1 a 2 a 3 a 4 a 5 h (2)

where:

h1 is a coefficient related to the position of

the bar during concreting
•
Figure 2
Effectiveness factor K for confining reinforcement (from Figure 8.4 of EC2)

h2 is related to bar diameter: h2 = 1.0 for

≤ 32mm; h2 = (132 -f)/100 for f > 32mm
a2 represents the influence of concrete
cover to the lapped bars:

a 2 = 1 - 0.15 ^c d - z h /z, 0.7 1 a 2 1 1.0 (3)

where:

cd is shown in Figure 1, taken from Figure 8.3

of EC2
a3 represents the influence of confining
reinforcement to the lapped bars in excess
of a minimum area equal to that of the
lapped bar (Equation 4):

αa3 = 1-K (SAst – SAst,min)/ As, 0.7 < a3 < 1.0 (4)
• Figure 3
Comparison of measured lap strength with that estimated by EC2 (filtered results)

where:

SAst is the total area of transverse

reinforcement
Ast,min is the minimum area of transverse
reinforcement
As is the area of one lapped bar
K is an empirical coefficient depending
on the shape and location of confining
reinforcement as in Figure 8.4 in EC2
(reproduced here as Figure 2).

In this comparison, measured values have

been used in place of design values for the
calculation of SAst,min (Equation 5):

SAst,min = 1.0As.(ss,m/fy) (5)

• Figure 4
Variation in measured/estimated ratio with lap length (filtered results)

where:

ss,m is the strength of the lap joint measured

in the test
fy is the measured yield strength of the
reinforcement
a6 is a coefficient representing the
proportion of longitudinal bars lapped at the
section (Table 1).
l0 and f are lap length and diameter of the
lapped bar, respectively.

Coefficients a1 and a5 of EC2 represent

the contribution of a bend or hook at the
end of the bar and of transverse pressure
respectively, and both equal 1.0 for the
circumstances considered here. This • Figure 5
Variation in ratio of measured to estimated bond strength with concrete strength (filtered results)
 ›
46 TheStructuralEngineer Research
September 2014 Tension lap joints

evaluation is based on bars cast near the

bottom of a pour in a ‘good’ casting position,
for which h1 = 1.0. All reinforcement was
lapped at the same section in all tests
recorded in the main database, and factor a6
is consequently taken as 1.5.
Lap strengths calculated by Eqn. 2 are
compared with results from physical tests
in the database compiled by ACI Committee
4084 and supplemented by additional data
by fib TG 4.55. However, a number of the
results in the database do not represent
current construction practice, and have
therefore been omitted. Results where
concrete class was either below C20/25,
minimum cover was less than one bar
diameter, or clear spacing between laps
was less than two bar diameters have been
filtered out of the original database. In
addition, the stress calculated by Eqn. 2 has

• Figure 6
Variation in ratio of measured to
estimated bond strength with transverse
been limited to a maximum of 1.2 times the
actual yield strength of the reinforcement;
reinforcement (filtered results) which affects a small number of relatively
long lap lengths. Combined, this removes
around 25% of results from the database.
Lap strengths calculated by Eqn. 2 are
compared with results from physical tests
in the filtered database (Figure 3) and a
statistical summary is presented in Table 2.
The 5% characteristic ratio is calculated as
1.64 standard deviations below the mean
ratio. Results for laps with no confining
reinforcement and for laps in which
confining reinforcement was provided, are
presented separately.
Table 2 shows a marked difference
between laps with and without transverse
reinforcement; with mean and 5%
characteristic ratios of measured to
calculated strength markedly lower in the
• Figure 7
Variation in ratio of measured to estimated bond
strength with bar diameter (filtered results)
absence of transverse reinforcement, and a
corresponding increase in the proportion of
(* with h2 extrapolated to bar diameters below 32mm) tests in which measured strength fell below
the characteristic strength determined using
Eqn. 2. While specimens without transverse
reinforcement do not comply with minimum
EC2 requirements, the observation does
serve to demonstrate the importance of
providing transverse reinforcement at laps.
Some further selection has been made,
with the aim of ensuring that this evaluation
is based on the most appropriate results
Metelli et al.6 in the database. Various investigations
Cairns7 have established that, for equivalent cover/
spacing etc., smaller bars develop a higher
bond strength than larger diameters.
Although EC2 includes a reduction factor
for bars in excess of 32mm, it neglects the
increase in bond with smaller diameters for
convenience and simplicity in the detailing
process. Around 25% of the remaining

• Figure 8
Variation in ratio of measured to
calculated bond strength with proportion of
specimens in the filtered database used
bars of less than 20mm diameter, and to
bars lapped at section neglect this factor could increase both

mean and scatter of the measured/
calculated strength ratio. Subset A
has been obtained by selecting only
those specimens in which lapped
bars were of size 20 or greater, thus
eliminating small diameters which might
distort the comparison. Secondly, in
most investigations, specimens were
designed to fail in bond prior to yielding
of reinforcement, and lap lengths are
therefore shorter than required, in
order to develop the yield or even the
design strength of a bar. The variation
in the ratio of measured lap strength,
to the strength calculated by Eqn. 2
with lap length, is shown in Figure 4,
and demonstrates that a higher ratio is
measured in short lap lengths. Subset B
has been obtained by extracting results
from subset A in which measured lap
strength ss,m reached at least 435MPa
— the design strength of Class 500
reinforcement. A statistical summary of
these comparisons is presented in Table
3. These selection procedures result in
only modest changes to mean and 5%
characteristic ratios with respect to the
filtered results in Table 2 for specimens
with transverse reinforcement, but there
is some reduction in the mean ratio and a
reduction in scatter for specimens without
transverse reinforcement.
Influencing parameters
This section reviews the influence of each
of the various parameters in Eqns 1–4 on
lap strength, based on the filtered set of
results from the fib TG 4.5 dataset.
Concrete strength
The database includes specimens
with cylinder compression strengths in
excess of 100MPa. EC2 advises that
fctk,0,05 should be limited to the value for
C60/75 when evaluating ultimate bond
strength, 'unless it can be verified that the
average bond strength increases above
this limit'. Figure 5 shows that where
transverse reinforcement is present, the
ratio of lap strength determined from
tests to that estimated by Eqn. 2, is
broadly constant throughout the range
of concrete strengths in the filtered
database (although considerable scatter
is evident). Without this limitation, a
distinct downward trend in strength ratio
of laps is apparent at higher concrete
strengths. This demonstrates that the
limitation imposed by EC2 on the concrete
compressive strength to be used when
determining bond strength is reasonable.
Fig. 5 also suggests a general
reduction in strength ratio for laps without
transverse reinforcement, with increasing
concrete strength throughout the range
of test data. The reduction appears to be
attributable to a cross-correlation between
concrete strength and lap length, and is not
evident in subset B which considers only
laps which were able to develop the design
strength of Class 500 bars.
Confinement from cover and secondary
reinforcement: coefficients a2 and a3
Analysis shows coefficient a3 does not
exert any marked influence on the ratio
of measured to calculated bond strength
(Figure 6), although there is considerable
scatter in the values for individual specimens.
There is a small negative correlation
between cover ratio cd/f for specimens
with transverse reinforcement which is
insufficient to merit a change in coefficient a2
given the wide scatter.
Bar diameter: coefficient h2
The filtered database includes bars to a
maximum diameter of 35mm. Coefficient
h2 only affects bars exceeding 32mm in
diameter, and thus the database provides
a very narrow spread. It is recognised,
however, that the effect of bar size is not
limited to large diameter bars as in EC2, but
extends throughout the production range.
This is confirmed by Figure 7 which plots
the influence of bar size on the ratio of
measured to calculated lap strength. The
dashed line shows the overall trend in test
data, and is nearly parallel to the dotted line
showing the variation in h2 if the limitation h2
≥ 1.0 is ignored. Thus, although the range of
test data does not allow the EC2 expression
for h2 to be validated for large bars, the
correlation for smaller sizes suggests it
provides a reasonable representation.
Proportion lapped: a6 coefficient
The preceding sections have considered
only lapped joints in which all bars were
lapped at the same section. The a6
coefficient (Table 1) permits shorter lap
lengths when laps are staggered. The main
database does not contain any tests in which
laps were staggered, and reference has to
be made to recent investigations by Metelli
et al.6 and by Cairns7, who have conducted
tests in which either only a portion of the
bars in the section were lapped or laps were
Table 1: EC2 and MC90 coefficient a6
Percentage of lapped bars relative
to the total cross-section area
EC2 value for a6
MC90 value for a6
www.thestructuralengineer.org
47
staggered. All but one specimen reported in
these investigations passes the filter criteria
for the main database. The ratio of measured
to characteristic lap strength estimated by
Eqn. 2, taking account of the appropriate a6
coefficient, is plotted in Figure 8. The mean
value for the 100% lapped specimens is 1.35;
slightly less than that shown in Table 2. This
is probably reflective of the higher lap length
ratios in these tests, but the coefficient of
variation is lower, as might be expected
from a smaller number of investigations.
Both investigations show that measured/
estimated ratio of lap strengths reduce with
the proportion of bars lapped — with the
average ratio for 25% lapped dropping to
below 1.0. The reduction is attributed to the
difference in stiffness between lapped and
continuous bars, which leads to lapped bars
taking a disproportionately greater share
of the tension force in reinforcement and
to differences in the distribution of bond
stresses through the lap length7.
Laps of bars within a bundle
EC2 states that laps of individual bars
within a bundle are to be designed on the
same basis as laps of individual bars. The
approach in EC2 contrasts with that in ACI
3188, where markedly longer lap lengths
are required for bundled bars. Tests by
Bashandy9 and by Cairns10 show bars lapped
within a bundle are able to develop the
same strength as individually lapped bars.
However, a reduction in strength was noted
where laps within a bundle are staggered, as
described in the preceding section.
Strength of EC2 design lap lengths
An alternative (and arguably more valid)
approach to assess the safety of EC2
rules, is to determine the stress which a
lap length, calculated in accordance with
EC2 for the full design strength of a bar,
would develop. This avoids uncertainties
associated with testing of relatively short
laps and small bar diameters, and allows
confining reinforcement to be represented
in strict accordance with provisions of EC2.
Three independent semi-empirical ‘best
fit’ expressions for lap strength have been
used for this purpose, namely that of the fib
Model Code 201011, given here as Equation 6,
and those proposed by Zuo & Darwin12 and
≤20% <25% 33% 50% >50%
1.0 1.0 1.15 1.4 1.5
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
 ›
48 TheStructuralEngineer Research
September 2014 Tension lap joints
• Figure 9
Cover dimensions (Eqn. 6) • Figure 10
Effectiveness of links (Eqn. 6)
Canbay & Frosch13. Eqn. 6 is a modification expression, and in the process of calibration.
of the approach proposed by Lettow14 All three consider lap strength to be related
which is based on both Eligehausen15 and to the sum of contributions to splitting
Burkhardt16: resistance from the tensile strength of the
concrete cover and the passive confinement
provided by secondary reinforcement
fstm = 54 a 25 k c m c o m
fcm 0.25 25 0.2 l 0.55 — and thus differ from EC2 where the
z z
contributions of cover and transverse
a c d k ` ccmax j + k m K trE # fy, # 10 fc l o
;
0.25 0.1
z (6) reinforcement are combined factorially. All
z min
three expressions represent bar stress as
dependent on the fourth root of concrete
where: compressive strength, in contrast to EC2
in which, for concretes up to C50/60, bond
fcm is the mean cylinder concrete strength is taken as proportional to fck0.67.
compressive strength (MPa) Unlike EC2, no upper limitation is placed on
cmin and cmax are cover/spacing dimensions the concrete strength that may be used in
(Figure 9). 0.5 ≤ cmin/ f ≤ 3.5, cmax/cmin ≤ 5 the calculation of bond resistance. Zuo &
km represents the efficiency of confinement Darwin’s expression includes size effect and
by transverse reinforcement (Figure 10) relative rib area as parameters, but these
Ktr= nt Ast/(nb f st) ≤ 0.05 affect only the contribution from confining
nt is the number of legs of confining reinforcement, and therefore have no
reinforcement crossing a potential splitting influence where no confining reinforcement
failure surface at a section is provided. A value of relative rib area
Ast is the cross sectional area of one leg of a equal to 0.056 (the minimum specified for
confining bar geometric classification as a ribbed bar in
st is the longitudinal spacing of confining EC2 for f >12mm) is used here. Canbay &
reinforcement Frosch’s expression is the only one which
nb is the number of anchored bars or pairs of does not include a size effect. Both Zuo &
lapped bars in the potential splitting surface. Darwin and Canbay & Frosch first derived a
fit for bars without confining reinforcement,
The coefficient of 54 in Eqn. 6 has units of and subsequently added a supplement for
MPa. Figure 11 illustrates two examples of the contribution of confining reinforcement
potential splitting failure surfaces and the based on the difference between measured
corresponding values for nt and nb. bond strength of bars confined by links and
The three expressions previously referred strength predicted in their absence, whereas
to, differ both in the form of expression Eqn. 6 was calibrated taking account of
used, in the parameters used within the confining reinforcement from the outset.
Despite these differing forms of expression,
Table 2: Ratio of measured strength to however, all three expressions provide a
that estimated by EC2 (filtered results) broadly similar fit to test data (Table 4). The
scatters in the estimates, as indicated by the
Transverse No transverse
reinforcement reinforcement coefficients of variation, are markedly lower
Total results 221 224
than those shown in Table 2 for EC2 rules.
The reduction in scatter is due in part to
Mean 1.59 1.40
EC2 ignoring, for convenience and simplicity
Std. deviation 0.39 0.51 in design, the non-linear variation in lap
Coeff. of variation 0.25 0.36 strength with lap length (Fig. 4).
Minimum 0.75 0.60 To obtain the lower 5% characteristic
strength of a lap, the semi-empirical
5% characteristic 0.95 0.57
expressions of Eqn. 6 and of Zuo & Darwin
% <1.0 5.9% 24.1%
and Canbay & Frosch are multiplied by
the corresponding characteristic strength
ratio given in Table 4. Thus in Eqn. 6, for
example, the coefficient for mean strength
of 54MPa reduces to 54 x 0.76 = 41MPa for
characteristic strength.
A parametric analysis has been conducted
to evaluate the strength of lapped joints
designed in accordance with EC2 (Equations
7 and 8). The design lap length determined
from these equations, along with the
corresponding concrete strength and
confinement parameters, is then inserted
into each of the three semi-empirical
characteristic strength expressions.
fbd = 2.25h 1 h 2 fctd (7)
l0 v sd
z = 4fbd a1 a2 a3 a5 a6 (8)
where:
fctd is the design tensile strength of the
concrete (from Table 3.1 of EC2).
Comparisons are based on Class 500
reinforcement, for which the design stress
ssd is taken as equal to 435MPa and the
specified characteristic yield strength of
500MPa is divided by the partial safety
factor of 1.15 recommended by EC2.
Mean concrete strength fcm is taken as
characteristic strength fck;0.05 + 8MPa. It is
assumed that bars are in a ‘good’ casting
position and that minimum transverse
reinforcement is provided; hence h1 and
a3 are set equal to 1.0. As all three semi-
empirical expressions have been calibrated
from tests in which all bars were lapped
at the same section, a6 is set equal to 1.5.
Coefficients h2, a1, a2, and α a5 remain as
defined in Eqn. 2.
The comparison is based on the beam
section shown in Figure 12. Benchmark
values for the analysis are set equal to the
mean values in the database: f = 25mm,
cmin/f = 1.4, fck= 45MPa, and cmax is taken
equal to cmin. Each input parameter has then
been systematically varied while others
remain at the benchmark value. Figure 13
plots the variation in the characteristic

•
Figure 11
Splitting failure patterns
•
Figure 12
Beam section at lap joint, parametric
analysis (100% lapped)
strength of the lapped joint with concrete
compressive strength. All three expressions
show a similar variation, with calculated lap
strength ranging from a minimum of 402–
432MPa for a concrete strength of 50MPa,
but with higher steel stress at lap failure with
both weaker and stronger concretes. The
higher lap strengths for stronger concretes
are associated with the upper bound of
C60/75 on concrete strength for the
calculation of bond strength in EC2.
According to Eqn. 6, the influence of
minimum cover/bar diameter ratio cmin/f on
lap strength is neutral between 1.4 and 3.0
(Figure 14), and despite a slight reduction at
lower values, it can be concluded that the
strength increase estimated by Eqn. 6 for
higher cover ratios, balances the reduction
in lap length permitted by EC2. The other
two expressions show a greater sensitivity to
cover ratio, probably reflecting the different
emphasis placed on the contribution of
confining reinforcement between them and
Eqn. 6.
According to Eqn. 6, the stress
developed by a lap designed to develop
the design strength of Class 500 bars is
independent of bar diameters 25–50mm,
but increases at smaller diameters (Figure
15). This demonstrates that the EC2
coefficient h2 for bar size is consistent
with the trend predicted by Eqn. 6 for
larger diameters. The difference at smaller
diameters is believed to be attributable
to EC2 having chosen to neglect the
influence of bar size with medium and
small diameters, rather than to any
significant difference. The Canbay &
Frosch expression suggests the opposite
trend, due to the omission of any size
Table 3: Ratio of measured strength to that
estimated by EC2 (selected results)
Transverse No transverse
reinforcement reinforcement
Subset A B A B
Total results 177 120 147
Mean 1.59 1.61 1.20
Std. deviation 0.41 0.44 0.42
Coeff. of variation 0.26 0.28 0.35
Minimum 0.75 0.80 0.60
5% characteristic 0.92 0.88 0.52
% <1.0 7.3% 9.2% 34.7%
effect coefficient in its derivation.
While Class 500 remains the norm for
reinforcement in Europe, there are also
Technical Approvals for reinforcing steel
with higher yield strengths, and Standards
exist in North America for reinforcement
with a characteristic yield strength of
830MPa. In Figure 16 the strength of
laps designed to EC2 calculated by the
three semi-empirical expressions is
plotted against characteristic strength
of reinforcement by dotted/dashed lines.
The solid line represents the design
strength of the steel, i.e. the characteristic
strength divided by a partial safety factor
of 1.15. The semi-empirical expressions
all represent the non-linear variation of
lap strength with lap length, unlike EC2
bond strengths which are independent
of steel class. For the benchmark lapped
joint of Fig. 12, strengths estimated by
the semi-empirical expressions exceed
design strength of reinforcement up to a
characteristic steel strength of 490MPa,
according to Eqn. 6, with the other two
expressions lying to either side. At higher
reinforcement, class strengths estimated
by the semi-empirical expressions fail to
reach the design strength of the steel.
Thus, if the same bond strength were to be
used with higher class of reinforcement,
the safety margin provided by EC2 lap
lengths would be eroded.
www.thestructuralengineer.org
49
Discussion
The suitability of EC2 rules may be assessed
against three criteria for safety:
• the 5% characteristic value of the ratio of
measured to estimated strength, determined
statistically as 1.64 standard deviations
below the mean ratio, should not be less
than 1.0
• the proportion of results where the ratio of
measured to estimated strength is less than
1.0 should not exceed 5%
• no individual ratio should fall below 0.7, as
lower values would not be covered by the
partial safety factor on actions
None of the values in Table 2 satisfy the
criteria for these safety margins. Table
52
3 shows that the subset of specimens
1.06 reinforced with size 20 and larger diameter
0.24 bars (and which also developed a stress in
0.23 excess of 435MPa) meet the criterion for
0.74
minimum individual ratio, but not those for
5% characteristic ratio or the proportion
0.67
with a ratio less than 1.0. Results of the
44.2% parametric analysis (Figs 13–15) suggest
that for Class 500 reinforcement, design
procedures of EC2 could result in lapped
joints with a characteristic strength 10%
below the design strength of the bar.
It is worth emphasising that a partial
safety factor gc of 1.5 is included in the
calculation of EC2 design lap length. These
observations suggest that for certain details,
more than 5% of laps designed to EC2
would not be capable of developing the
design strength of Class 500 reinforcement.
For large diameter bars with minimum cover
the proportion is probably greater. Fig. 8
also suggests a lesser margin of safety for
staggered laps. The conclusion is based
on Class 500 reinforcement, and safety
margins would be further reduced if existing
bond strengths are used for higher class
reinforcement.
The parametric analysis suggests that
the various a coefficients in EC2 reflect
test data reasonably well (Figs 13–15). The
higher ratio found at smaller bar diameters
is a consequence of the Code choosing to
neglect the influence of bar diameter for
small size bars for simplicity, rather than an
error in the trend represented by coefficient
h2. The overestimation of lap strength by
EC2 therefore appears to be general and not
associated with any particular parameter.
Two factors which may have contributed
to this shortfall were mentioned in the
Introduction. Firstly, the change in the values
of coefficient a6 between MC90 and EC2
(Table 1) would have reduced safety margins
by an average of around 25%. Secondly, if

50 TheStructuralEngineer
September 2014
average bond strength were independent
of lap length, an increase in characteristic
strength of reinforcement from 400MPa to
500MPa would require an increase in lap
length of 25%. According to Eqn. 6, however,
the ratio of the lengths should be
(500/400)(1/0.55) = 1.50; an increase of 50%.
Together, these two factors suggest that lap
lengths in EC2 are 62.5% of those required
to maintain the level of safety established in
MC783.
Despite this, there are very few failures
of lap joints in practice, and there are a
number of ‘hidden’ factors which markedly
lessen the probability of failure. It is of course
good practice to position laps at locations
where stress in reinforcement is low; for
example near points of contraflexure in
continuous beams, or locations where bars
will never be required to develop anything
approaching their full design strength under
normal conditions of service. Such laps do
not pose a threat to structural safety under
design loads even if, as suggested here,
EC2 design lap lengths do not provide the
expected margin of safety against lap failure.
The area of reinforcement required by
calculation has generally to be rounded up
to give a whole number of bars in beams or
a convenient spacing in slabs, but in practice
the lap length for the full design strength
of the reinforcement is detailed, even if
• Figure 13
Influence of concrete strength on stress
developed by lap designed to EC2
›
Research
Tension lap joints
the cross sectional area of reinforcement
provided exceeds that required by design.
The evaluation here is based on a minimum
cover equal to the bar diameter, but minimum
cover will often be greater to satisfy durability
or fire resistance. EC2 detailing requirements
permit bars to be closely spaced, but it is
recognised that laps are stronger when the
bars are widely spaced. The splitting crack
forms on a plane through the bar axes if bars
are closely spaced, and in a ‘V’ shape if widely
spaced (Fig. 11). Confinement from concrete
cover to resist the bursting forces generated
by bond action is clearly greater in the latter
case. Eqn. 6 includes a factor cmax/cmin which
represents the increase in lap strength when
bars are more widely spaced, and estimates
that lap strength would be increased by up
to 17% if bars were spaced in this way. The
laboratory tests performed to formulate the
expressions for lap strength used in this
study are typically reinforced with a small
number of bars. The overwhelming majority
contain either two or three laps, and only one
specimen in the entire database has more
than six. It might be expected that in a slab
with many longitudinal bars, statistical scatter
would be reduced.
These factors suggest why few lap failures
have been recorded in practice. The authors
are not aware of any failure of a correctly
designed and detailed lap, but one failure in
• Figure 14
Influence of minimum cover on stress
developed by lap designed to EC2
a bridge deck in which laps of longitudinal
reinforcement were designed incorrectly may
be highly significant because the laps were
located where reinforcement was relatively
highly stressed†. While there are uncertainties
in some aspects of the sequence of events
leading to the failure, it occurred under the
deck's self weight which formed a high
proportion of its full design loading. The
stress in reinforcement at failure is estimated
at around 370MPa; close to the value
calculated by Eqn. 6 for the detail used.
Nonetheless, it is strongly recommended
that EC2 rules for lap length be modified to
cover situations where such ‘uncalculated
margins’ are not present. Table 3 shows that
based on characteristic bond strengths in
EC2, lap lengths confined by links should
be increased by about 12% to satisfy the
strength criteria set out at the beginning of
this section. This would also be sufficient to
raise the characteristic strength of an EC2
design lap length to the design strength of
Class 500 reinforcement (Fig. 13). To provide
the expected reliability for a brittle concrete
mode of failure and for consistency with
other sections of EC2, a partial safety factor
of 1.5 should be applied to characteristic
strengths. This corresponds to an a6 value of
2.5 in Eqn. 2. Note that this value lies close to
that required to maintain the level of safety
established in MC78 — when the expressions
for bond strength and lap length which form
the basis of EC2 rules were first established.
This increase might, on the evidence
presented in Table 3, be considered
insufficient for laps not confined by
secondary reinforcement. There are,
however, certain factors which might mean
no further increase would be necessary. A
minimum reinforcement for shear is required
unless members are of minor structural
importance (in which case the span would
be short enough for laps to be unnecessary)
or in elements such as slabs where some
transverse redistribution of load is possible
and a greater clear spacing between bars
provides additional confinement — an effect
recognised in Eqn. 6 and in the expressions
derived by both Zuo & Darwin and Canbay &
Frosch.
Fig. 8 demonstrates that the a6 coefficients
of EC2 shown in Table 1 become increasingly
unconservative where only a proportion of
the bars in a section are lapped. The rationale
for the a6 values in MC90, the source of EC2
rules, does not appear to be recorded, and
a thorough search of the literature could
not find convincing supporting evidence
published prior to EC2. Coefficients for
lapped joints where 50% or less of bars are
†Private communication, SWKP
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

51

lapped, should be raised to a proportionately

greater degree than that for 100% lapped.
The values proposed in Table 5 are based
on the increases in lap strength estimated by
Eqn. 6 — as clear spacing between adjacent
laps increases when laps are staggered
and provides a consistent margin of safety
independent of the proportion of bars lapped.
No further allowance should therefore be
made for clear spacing between lapped pairs
in excess of the minimum, as in Eqn. 6, as to
do so would double count the contribution of
the spacing parameter cmax/cmin.
Figure 16 demonstrates that lap strength
does not increase in direct proportion to lap • Figure 15
Influence of bar diameter on stress
developed by lap designed to EC2
• Figure 16
Influence of reinforcement class on
stress developed by lap designed to EC2
length. A new coefficient h4, related to the
characteristic yield strength of reinforcement,
should be introduced into Eqn. 1 (Equation
8.2 of EC2) to allow for the reduction in
average bond strength with increasing lap
length, mirroring the coefficient that has
been introduced in fib Model Code 201011.
According to Eqn. 6, lap length should be
proportional to fyk1/0.55 = fyk1.82, whereas EC2
rules require an increase proportional only
to fyk. Taking fyk = 500MPa as a datum value,
lap length should increase at a rate (fyk/500)
(1.82-1.0)
times faster than indicated by EC2.
Average bond strength is then proportional
to (500/fyk)0.82. Values of h4 are presented in
Table 6.
The authors recognise that the proposed be highly stressed only under accidental
Table 5: Proposed revisions to coefficient
increases in lap length could impose loading, for which a lower partial safety factor
a6 (laps confined by transverse
additional costs and constraints on concrete on materials strength would be appropriate.
reinforcement)
construction that may be considered However, a ductile failure of a lap joint
Percentage of lapped
unwarranted in the light of the extremely can only be achieved if the lap has sufficient bars relative to the total <33% 50% >50%
low failure rate of lapped joints in service. capacity for reinforcement to yield. Failure cross-section area
Earlier discussion has demonstrated that of a lapped joint is invariably brittle. The Proposed values for a6 2.3 2.5
2.1
the low failure rate is probably attributable rationale for a6 presented here, targets
to ‘uncalculated margins’ in design. It is a lap developing the design strength of
suggested that codification of circumstances reinforcement, not the reinforcement in part, as a consequence of the increases in
in which substantial ‘uncalculated margins’ attaining yield. Laps should therefore always strength of reinforcement over the past four
are present, might allow shorter laps than be located away from potential plastic hinge decades, but is also due to the reduction in
would result from the increased values of locations and from yield lines. The typically the lap length factors given in EC2 (where a6
a6 recommended here. An example is the brittle nature of lap failure, particularly where takes a maximum value of 1.5) with respect to
reduction in lap length permitted in both large bars are lapped, may have implications those in CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (a6 ≤ 2.0)
fib Model Code 2010 and in ACI 318; when for structural robustness, and it would from which rules for laps in EC2 were derived.
laps are located where bar stress does not appear advisable that a reliability analysis It is conceded that there are very few
exceed 50% of the design strength under be undertaken on structural members in recorded failures of lap joints. In those failures
normal conditions of service. Such laps would which reinforcement is lapped, to establish of which the authors are aware, errors in
whether the probability of sudden collapse is design or construction have invariably been
sufficiently low. The reliability analysis should present. Good design practice places laps
Table 4: Summary statistics for various
include ‘uncalculated margin’ factors as well away from regions in which bars are highly
semi-empirical expressions for laps
as laboratory test data. Alternative means stressed, and this contributes to the absence
confined by transverse reinforcement
of joining reinforcement might have to be of lap failures. A further contributory factor
Equation Zuo and Canbay and
611 Darwin12 Frosch13
considered where robustness is critical. could be that EC2 does not consider the
beneficial influence of the wide spacing of
Mean 0.99 0.960 0.977
Conclusions laps. Nonetheless, it is strongly recommended
Std. deviation 0.14 0.125 0.149 This investigation provides evidence that the that EC2 rules for lap length be modified to
Coeff. of 0.142 0.130 0.153 margin of safety against bond failure of lapped cater for situations where these ‘uncalculated
variation
joints designed and detailed exactly according margins’ are not present.
5% characteristic
0.76 0.76 0.73 to the provisions of EC2 is below the level It is proposed that the design rules for
expected. It is probable that this has arisen, tension lapped joints in EC2 be modified as

52 TheStructuralEngineer
September 2014
Table 6: Proposed values of coefficient h4
to be included in Equation 8.2 of EC2
Reinforcement class (MPa) 400 500 600 700
Coefficient h4 1.20 1.00 0.86 0.76
follows to satisfy the suitability criteria set out
at the start of Section 5:
• the coefficient a6 for 100% bars lapped at a
section should be increased from 1.5 to 2.5
• the range of variation in coefficient a6 when
laps are staggered should be reduced, as
proposed in Table 5. These values for a6 make
allowance for the wider spacing between
pairs of lapped bars when the proportion of
bars lapped at a section is less than 100%. No
further allowance should be made for wide
spacing
• a new coefficient h4 related to the
characteristic yield strength of reinforcement
should be introduced, as proposed in Table 6
• a requirement to consider the potential
impact of lap failure on structural robustness
in the event of accidental damage should be
introduced. Further research in this area is
desirable
• circumstances in which significant
‘uncalculated margins’ are present should be
codified to allow shorter lap lengths where this
can be demonstrated to be safe
It has been observed elsewhere that the same
expression for strength of lapped joints is
equally applicable to anchorages. EC2 and
many other Codes permit shorter anchorage
lengths than bond lengths for similar section
dimensions and material properties. Further
work to evaluate the safety of EC2 rules
for anchorages is therefore recommended,
taking account of differences in detailing
arrangements.
References
•1 British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN 1992-1-
1:2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures.
General rules and rules for buildings, London: BSI
•2 Fédération internationale du béton (1993) CEB-FIP
Model Code 90, Lausanne: fib
•3 Fédération internationale du béton (1978) CEB-FIP
Model Code 78, Lausanne: fib
•4 Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408 (2014) Bond and
Development of Steel Reinforcement [Online]
Available at: www.concrete.org/?TabID=282&committee_
code=0000408-00 (Accessed: August 2014)
›
Research
Tension lap joints
•5 Fédération internationale du béton (2014) fib Task
Group 4.5 "Bond Models" [Online] Available at: http://
fibtg45.dii.unile.it/About%20fib%20TG4.5.htm
(Accessed: August 2014)
•6 Metelli G., Cairns J. and Plizzari G. (2014) ‘The influence
of percentage of bars lapped on performance of
splices’, Materials and Structures, DOI 10.1617/s11527-
014-0371-y
•7 Cairns J. (2014) 'Staggered lap joints of tension
reinforcement', Structural Concrete, 15 (1), pp. 45–54
•8 American Concrete Institute (2011) ACI 318-11:
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary, Michigan, USA: ACI
•9 Bashandy T. R. (2009) 'Evaluation of bundled bar lap
splices', ACI Structural Journal, 106 (2), pp. 215–221
• 10 Cairns J. (2013) 'Lap splices of bars in bundles', ACI
Structural Journal, 110 (2), pp. 183–192
• 11 Fédération internationale du béton (2013) Model
Code 2010 [Online] Available at: www.fib-international.
org/131126_MC2010_download.pdf (Accessed: August
2014)
• 12 Zuo J. and Darwin D. (2000) 'Splice strength of
conventional and high relative rib area bars in normal
and high-strength concrete', ACI Structural Journal,
97 (4), pp. 630–641
• 13 Canbay E. and Frosch R. J. (2005) 'Bond strength of
lap-spliced bars', ACI Structural Journal, 102 (4), pp.
605–614
• 14 Lettow S. (2006) 'Ein Verbundelement für nichtlineare
Finite Element Analysen – Anwendung auf
Übergreifungsstöße' (Bond element for nonlinear finite
element analysis — application to lapped splices).
Dissertation, University of Stuttgart (in German)
• 15 Eligehausen R. (1979) 'Übergreifungsstöße
zugbeanspruchter Rippenstäbe mit geraden
Stabenden' (Lapped splices of tensioned deformed
bars with straight ends). Deutscher Ausschuss für
Stahlbeton, 301, Berlin: Ernst & Sohn (in German)
• 16 Burkhardt C. J. (2000) 'Zum Tragverhalten von
Übergreifungsstößen in hochfestem Beton' (Behavior
of lapped splices in high strength concrete).
Dissertation, RWTH Aachen (in German)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions made by
others within fib Task Group 4.5 "Bond Models" to this work and
particularly to Stefan Lettow from the University of Stuttgart, for
his contribution to the development of Equation 6.