Materials and Structures

, Volume 48, Issue 9, pp 2983–2996 | Cite as

The influence of percentage of bars lapped on performance of splices

  • Giovanni MetelliEmail author
  • John Cairns
  • Giovanni Plizzari
Original Article


Most design codes encourage the staggering of lapped splices in a section, such that a portion of the bars in the cross section remains continuous throughout the lap zone. A penalty on lap length may be imposed if all bars are lapped at one section. In the literature, however, almost all tested specimens have had all reinforcement lapped at the same section. This paper presents results of tests carried out to shed some new light on the behaviour of lap splices where only a portion of bars is lapped. To this end, four point bending tests were carried out on 24 full-scale beams with all or part of the longitudinal reinforcement lap spliced at mid-span. The beams were reinforced with either 16 or 20 mm diameter rebars, included two grades of concrete and various lap splices configurations, all confined by links. All the beams were designed with the same concrete cover and with the minimum amount of transverse reinforcement permitted by MC2010, equal to 50 % of the area of the lapped bars. The resistance and the residual strength of the splices were measured and compared with the results of specimens with continuous bars and with all bars lapped. The results show that lapping only a portion of bars at a section impairs splice strength, although some post-peak strength is maintained by the continuous bars. These outcomes raise questions over the validity of EC2 and ACI 318-11 provisions which allow a reduction in lap-length when splices are staggered.


Concrete Reinforcement Bond Lap splices Splitting Tests fib-Model Code 2010 



The Authors are grateful to engineers R. A. Kirk, R. Stretti, S. Bolzacchini, A. Sfreddo and M. Zanoni for their assistance in carrying out the tests within their thesis work. The know-how and expertness of the technicians of the Laboratory P. Pisa of the University of Brescia are also gratefully acknowledged. The support Alfacciai Group, who provided the steel bars, is gratefully acknowledged as is the expertise of eng. A. Milini of Scuola Edile Bresciana, who manufactured the beams.


  1. 1.
    Metelli G, Cairns J, Plizzari G (2010) Influence of bar continuity on behaviour of lapped splices. In: Proceedings of the 2010 fib congress and PCI convention bridge conference, Washington, June 2010, pp 2904–2915Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cairns J (2013) Lap slices of bars in bundles. ACI Struct J 110(2):183–191. doi: 10.14359/51684399 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ACI Committee 318 (2011) building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., pp 505Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darwin D (2005) Tension development length and lap splice for reinforced concrete members. Program Struct Eng Mater 7(210):225Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ENV 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—part 1-1: general rules, and rules for buildings, European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Comité Euro-International du béton (1993) CEB-FIP model code 1990-design code. Thomas Telford, London, p 437, ISBN 0 7277 1696 4Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magnusson J (2000) Bond and anchorage of ribbed bars in high-strength concrete. PhD thesis, Chalmers University, Göteborg, Sweden, pp 234Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cairns J (2014) Staggered lap joints of tension reinforcement. Struct Concr 15(1):45–54. doi: 10.1002/suco.201300041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    fib—International Federation for Structural Concrete (2013) Model Code for concrete structures 2010. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, pp 434, ISBN 978-3-433-03061-5Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cairns J, Jones K (1995) The splitting forces generated by bond. Mag Concr Res 47(171):153–165. doi: 10.1680/macr.1995.47.171.153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Metelli G, Plizzari G (2014) Influence of the relative rib area on bond behaviour. Mag Concr Res 66(6):277–294. doi: 10.1680/macr.13.00198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tepfers R (1973) A theory of bond applied to overlapped tensile reinforcement splices for deformed bars. Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Publ. 73/2, p 328Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giuriani E, Plizzari GA, Schumm C (1991) Role of stirrups and residual tensile strength of cracker concrete on bond. J Struct Eng ASCE 117(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gambarova PG, Rosati GP (1997) Bond and splitting in bar pull-out: behavioral laws and concrete-cover role. Mag Concr Res 49(179):99–110. doi: 10.1680/macr.1997.49.179.99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Plizzari GA, Deldossi MA, Massimo S (1998) Transverse reinforcement effects on anchored deformed bars. Mag Concr Res 50(2):161–177. doi: 10.1680/macr.1998.50.2.161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    EN 10080:2005. Steel for reinforcement of concrete—weldable reinforcing steel—general. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    EN 12350-2:2001. Testing fresh concrete—slump test. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    EN 15630-1:2010. Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete. Test methods-part 1: reinforcing bars, wire rod and wire. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Metelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • John Cairns
    • 2
  • Giovanni Plizzari
    • 1
  1. 1.DICATAMUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  2. 2.School of the Built EnvironmentHeriot Watt UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations