Construction and Building

Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

A strut-and-tie model for ultimate loads of precast concrete joints with loop connections in tension
K.C.G. Ong *, J.B. Hao, P. Paramasivam
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, No. 1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576 Singapore Received 14 April 2004; received in revised form 12 September 2004; accepted 28 January 2005 Available online 8 March 2005

Abstract The authors propose a strut-and-tie model to calculate the ultimate tensile loads of precast concrete joints with two to one loop connections subjected to static uniaxial tensile loading. The width of the struts was derived iteratively by correlation with available test results that take into account the eects of the loop connection geometry and transverse cottering bars. The results showed that the predictions using the proposed model correlated well with the experimental data. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Loop connection; Strut-and-tie method; Precast joints

1. Introduction Ultimate tensile strength of precast concrete joints may be an important consideration in design. Codes such as Eurocode 2 [1], CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [2] and BS 8110: 1997 [3] allow the use of loop connections at cast in situ joints between precast concrete elements (hereinafter referred to as tensile in situ loop joints) which may be subjected to tension. Conventional computation approaches based on such codes may not accurately predict the tensile load capacity of such joints as the eects of loop overlapping are not taken into consideration. Traditional methods to estimate ultimate tensile load of tensile in situ loop joints may be categorized as: (i) radial force method considering the equilibrium of the curved portion as proposed by Bruggeling and Huyghe [4]; (ii) concrete tensile splitting within the plane of the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6874 1635; fax: +65 7751355. E-mail addresses: cveongkc@nus.edu.sg (K.C.G. Ong), engp7514@ nus.edu.sg (J.B. Hao), cveparam@nus.edu.sg (P. Paramasivam). 0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.018

loop as proposed by Mattock [5]; (iii) force superposition method by Zalesov et al. [6]; (iv) anchorage bond stress of an assumed distribution along the anchorage length [13]; (v) free body analysis of the section just before the formation of the splitting crack along the single loop for specimens with or without cottering bars (e.g., Tan [7], Yeo [8], Hon [9]) and (vi) a strut-and-tie model (STM) by Ng [10]. However, it was found that the proposed expressions obtained using free body analysis or force superposition method to compute the ultimate tensile loads were usually too elaborate and make use of many empirical coecients. As a result, correlation with their own experimental results may be very good but they tend not to correlate well with other available experimental results. On the other hand, the expressions to compute the ultimate tensile loads derived based on radial forces, tensile splitting or anchorage bond strength were usually too simple and take too few of the major inuencing parameters into account. In the present study, two to one tensile in situ loop joints will be considered. The test specimens included precast specimens comprising two precast segments joined with loop connections within an in situ joint

170

K.C.G. Ong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176

Nomenclature Acn As Astr D Fc Fs Pu fc fcn fcn h the area of the cross section of the strut through the nodal zone the area of the cross section of the single loop the area of the cross section of the transverse cottering bars the internal diameter of the mandrel the compressive force in the nodal zone the tensile force in the tension tie where the single loop is located the ultimate tensile load the cylinder compressive strength of concrete the eective compressive stress on a face of a nodal zone due to the strut-and-tie forces the eective compressive stress on a face of a nodal zone due to the strut-and-tie forces the depth of in situ joint within the specimens la lo s so wt / gtr the anchorage length of reinforcement loops the lap length of reinforcement loops the spacing between the double loops the spacing between the adjacent loops eective width of the inclined strut at the nodal zone the diameter of the loop bar a factor to allow for the eect of the absence of transverse cottering bars on tensile load, taken to be 0.8 for tensile in situ loop joints comprising loop connections without transverse reinforcement (Fig. 2) and 1.0 for tensile in situ loop joints comprising loop connections with transverse reinforcement (Fig. 1).

(Figs. 1 and 2). All the specimens had two-to-one loop connections, one part comprising one loop (single loop) and the counterpart comprising two loops or double loops, projecting from their hardened interface. The single loop was placed midway between the double loops at the region of splice. Two types of specimens were tested. One was reinforced with two 10 mm diameter ribbed transverse reinforcements tied to the apex of the curved part of the single loop and double loops respectively within the loop splicing region (Fig. 1). The other type was not reinforced with transverse links (Fig. 2). The

loop connection parameters of the specimens tested included the loop lap length and spacing between double loops. The test setup is shown in Fig. 3. Tests carried out at National University of Singapore (NUS) [7,8,11] showed that the ultimate tensile load capacity of such specimens, with two-to-one loop connections, depended on the loop lap length, the spacing between the double loops as well as the presence of the transverse cottering reinforcement. A strut-and-tie method was proposed to predict the ultimate tensile loads of such tensile in situ loop joints specimens (two to one loop

Fig. 1. Tensile in situ loop connections specimen with transverse bars (Tan [7]).

K.C.G. Ong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176

171

Fig. 2. Tensile in situ loop connections specimen without transverse bars (Tan [7]).

based on the experimental data obtained from about thirty-six tests on the in situ and monolithic specimens.

2. Strut-and-tie method Bruggeling and Huyghe [4] and El Debs [12] gave accounts of the use of the strut and tie method to determine the amount of the transverse reinforcement required for tensile concrete members with loop connections. In the strut and tie model proposed by Ng [10] to calculate the ultimate loads of the specimens with tensile in situ loop joints subjected to uniaxial tensile loading, it was assumed that the compressive strength of the strut is equal to the cube compressive strength fcu of concrete for the strut at failure. However, in most cases, the strut is actually a prism and its compressive strength should be smaller than its cube strength. Nevertheless, the width of the strut as expressed in terms of the overlapping length also seemed to be overgenerous. Thus, the direct force resisted by the strut seemed on average to be overestimated. From a plot of the ratio of the ultimate loads computed using Eq. (1) obtained from the direct strut-and-tie model to the experimental failure loads, it is clear that Ngs (2002) model very much overestimated the failure loads with a large scatter. In fact, the mean value of the ratio of the failure load values computed using Eq. (1) to that of the experimental values is 5.43 for the tensile in situ loop joint specimens without cottering bars and 2.82 for tensile in situ loop joint specimens with cottering bars. The ratio of the failure load values predicted using Eq. (1) to the experimental ones reached

Fig. 3. Test setup (Tan [7]).

connections). However, it very much overestimated the strength and the dimension of the strut and did not take into account the presence of transverse reinforcement. The aim of this paper is to review the tension test results of tensile in situ joints with two to one loop connections carried out at NUS [7,8,11] and assess the strutand-tie method for use to estimate the ultimate tensile load of the specimens tested. Expressions to calculate the ultimate tensile load of the in situ joints with twoto-one loop connections proposed in this paper are

172

K.C.G. Ong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176

as high as 13.8. To t the test data, the expression proposed by Ng [10] to calculate the ultimate tensile loads included an empirical coecient to allow for the variation in tensile load with the angle of inclination of the strut Pu 0:6f cu l3 h o s=2 l2 o
2

where Pu is the ultimate tensile load in N, lo is the longitudinal overlapping length of the reinforcement loops in mm, s is the spacing between double loops, h is the depth of the specimens and fcu is the cube compressive strength of the tensile in situ loop joint. A strut-and-tie model for the tensile in situ loop joint specimens with two to one loop connections and transverse cottering bars under uniaxial tension is proposed as shown in Fig. 4. A simple truss idealization of the ow of forces in the zone with compressive stresses is modelled as a compressive strut and the tension ties are used to model the tension reinforcement in the loop. The compressive strut may be idealized as straight uniform truss members following the centreline of the compressive strut. Considering equilibrium of forces in the tensile in situ loop joint (see Fig. 4), the ultimate tensile load, Pu, may be assumed to resisted directly by the tension tie at the interface with the single loop, as follows: P u F s; 2

Fig. 5. Resultant forces at nodal zone A.

Considering equilibrium of forces at the nodal zone A (Fig. 5), the tensile force in the tension tie where the single loop is located may be given as: F s 2F c cos h; 3 where Fs is the tensile force in the single loop, Fc is the compressive force in the nodal zone and h is the angle between the loops and the concrete compressive strut. It gives lo cos h q ; 2 lo s 2 o 4

where Pu is the ultimate tensile load; and Fs is the tensile force in the tension tie where the single loop is located.

where lo is the longitudinal overlapping length of the reinforcement loops, so is the spacing between adjacent loops, taken as half of the spacing between the double loops, i.e.

Fig. 4. Strut and tie model for tensile in situ loop connections in tension.

K.C.G. Ong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176

173

s so ; 2 where s is the spacing between double loops.

3. Compressive strength of the strut The nominal compressive strength Fc in the nodal zone depends on the strut compressive strength at the nodal zone and its dimensions. According to ACI 445R-99 [13], the nominal compression strength Fc of a nodal zone may be estimated using: F c Acn fcn ; 6
Fig. 6. Resultant forces at nodal zones B and C.

where Acn is the area of the cross section of the strut through the nodal zone; and fcn is the eective compressive stress on the face of a nodal zone due to the strutand-tie forces. The area of the cross section of the strut through the nodal zone Acn may be given as: Acn hwt ; 7 where h is the depth of the specimens tested and wt is eective width of the inclined strut at the nodal zone.

where fc is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete.

5. Eective width of the strut in nodal zone The eective width wt of the inclined strut at the nodal zones A, B or C in Eq. (7) depends normally on the node size. If the node was conned by bearing plates, and the bearing plate sizes are known, wt may be easily determined (Figs. 5 and 6). However, for the nodal zones near nodes A, B or C in the loop connections of the tensile in situ loop joints tested, no bearing plates were used. Thus, wt may be determined by an iterative procedure considering nodal equilibrium of forces. From Eqs. (3), (6), (7) and (8), wt Pu : 2h0:51f c cos h 9

4. Eective stress level of the strut in nodal zone The eective stress in the compressive strut in the nodal zone depends on the following [14]: (i) The concrete compressive strength: concrete become brittle as its compressive strength increase. (ii) The cracking direction, whether parallel to the strut or at angle to it. (iii) The tension strain in the concrete transverse to the strut resulting from the forces in the reinforcement crossing the cracks. It may be seen from Fig. 5 that the nodal zone near node A may be assumed to be bounded by two compressive struts and the need to anchor the tension ties in three directions. Thus, the nodal zone near node A may be considered as CCTTT node. Similarly, the zones near nodal zones B and C (see Fig. 6) may be assumed to be bounded each by a compressive strut and the need to anchor tension ties in two directions. The nodal zone near nodes B and C may be considered as CTT nodes. As both nodal zones A and B (or C) are anchored with more than one tension ties, the eective compressive stress on one face of a nodal zone due to the strut-and-tie forces fcn in Eq. (6) may be assumed in accordance with ACI 318-02/318R-02[15]. The eective compressive stress fcn in Eq. (6) may be taken as: fcn 0:51f c ; 8

Substituting the cylinder compressive strength fc, the depth of the specimen h and the experimental ultimate tensile load Pu, the width of the strut at the nodal zone, wt may be estimated. The value of fc in Eq. (9) may be computed from the cube compressive strength, fcu, using Eq. (10) [2] fc 0:8f cu : 10 The value of wt is calibrated using the test data of the fteen tensile in situ specimens with cottering bars. It is found that wt depends predominantly on the cylinder compressive strength fc, irrespective of the overlapping length, spacing between double loops and angle of inclination of the strut. By plotting a curve of the computed eective width wt using Eq. (9) against the cylinder compressive strength fc estimated using Eq. (10), as shown in Fig. 7, it seems that the variation of the computed wt with fc may be assumed to follow a power law. Correlation with the test data as shown in Fig. 7 yields: wt 265fc0:79 mm; 11

174

K.C.G. Ong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176

Effective width of strut in nodal zone wt (mm)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 The cylinder compressive strength of in situ concrete fc (N/mm2)

Pu

270gtr hlo fc0:21 q N; l2 s 2 o o

13

wt = 265fc-0.79

where gtr is a factor to allow for the absence of transverse cottering bars in the joint, taken to be 0.8 for tensile in situ loop joints comprising two to one loop connections without transverse reinforcement (Fig. 2) and 1.0 if cottering bars are present (Fig. 1). All the other parameters are as dened in Eq. (12). Use of the equations proposed may be limited to tensile in situ loop joints comprising two to one loop connections with or without transverse cottering bars, meeting the following conditions (Figs. 1 and 2) la = 6.5/33/, lo = 031/, s = 10/ to 20/, Astr 6 As, smin = 4.5/ to 9.5/, fcu = 33.672.4 N/mm2, D = 8/, / = 10 mm, where la is the anchorage length in mm, / is the loop bar diameter in mm, lo is the lap length in mm, s is the spacing between double loops in mm, Astr is the total cross sectional area of the transverse reinforcement in mm2, As is the total cross sectional area of the single loop at the critical interface in mm2, smin is the minimum lateral concrete cover to double loops in mm, fcu is the cube compressive strength of in situ concrete in N/mm2 and D is internal diameter of the mandrel used. These conditions apply for the specimens used for correlation with regards to the geometrical and reinforcement details of the specimens and test setup used.

Fig. 7. Eective width of the strut at the nodal zone, wt, vs. the cylinder compressive strength fc. curve.

where fc is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete in N/mm2. 6. Specimen with transverse reinforcement Substituting the values from Eqs. (6) to (11) into Eq. (3), the ultimate tensile strength of the tensile in situ loop joint specimens with cottering bars, Pu in N, may be given: 270hlo fc0:21 P u q N; l2 s 2 o o 12

where h is the depth of the specimens tested in mm, lo is the longitudinal overlapping length of the reinforcement loops in mm, so is the spacing between adjacent loops in mm, and fc is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete in N/mm2. Eq. (12) may be used in the case of tensile in situ loop joints comprising two to one loop connections with transverse cottering bars placed as shown in Fig. 1. 7. Specimens without transverse reinforcement It was observed that the ultimate tensile load of the tensile in situ loop joints comprising two to one loop connections with cottering bars was higher than that of similar specimens without cottering bars. To extend Eq. (12) for application to tensile in situ loop joints without cottering bars as shown in Fig. 2, an empirical coecient gtr is proposed. Correlation with the test data, yields gtr = 0.80 for tensile in situ loop joints comprising two to one loop connection without cottering bars. The general expression to estimate the ultimate tensile load of the tensile in situ loop joint with two to one loop connections may be given as follows:

8. Comparison The model is used to obtain values for comparison with available test data of ultimate uniaxial tensile strength of two to one loop connections in in situ loop joints. A comparison is also made with other available models. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. As seen in Table 1, the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using Eq. (12) to the experimental values is 1.0 with a standard deviation of 0.1 and a coecient of deviation of only 0.1. However, the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using expressions proposed by Tan [7] is 1.13 with a standard deviation of 0.38 and a coecient of deviation of 0.34; the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using expressions proposed by Yeo [8] is 1.30 with a standard deviation of 0.49 and a coecient of deviation of 0.38; the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using

K.C.G. Ong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176 Table 1 Ultimate loads of tensile in situ loop connections with transverse reinforcement Investigator Tan [7] Specimen 07 08 16 17 06 07 08 09 10 11 14 15 16 C1 C2 Experimental tensile load (kN) (1) 65 50 68 43 84 65 48 50 54 67 49.5 68 56 59.23 71.00 Mean l Standard deviation r Coecient of deviation r/l Analytical tensile load using Eq. (13) (kN) (2) 63.11 55.43 68.13 36.60 78.11 69.12 42.27 51.95 63.00 69.02 51.48 54.47 54.47 57.73 78.53
2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1

175

6 1

0.97 1.11 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.06 0.88 1.04 1.17 1.03 1.04 0.80 0.97 0.97 1.11 1.00 0.10 0.10

1 1.03 0.76 0.94 1.34 1.2 1.03 1.22 1.21 1.02 1.17 1.02 1.23 0.48 2.29 1.13 0.38 0.34

1.03 1.22 0.84 1.18 1.11 1.2 1.29 1.5 1.45 1.17 1.44 1.25 1.53 0.49 2.78 1.30 0.49 0.38

0.81 0.83 0.48 0.77 0.96 0.89 0.82 0.98 0.88 0.74 0.91 0.8 0.95 0.29 1.72 0.86 0.3 0.35

0.92 0.85 0.76 0.70 1.00 0.79 0.87 0.70 1.02 0.65 0.81 0.83 0.48 0.77 0.69 0.91 0.27 0.3

Yeo [8]

Lok [11]

Notes. (i) (3) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Tan [7]; (ii) (4) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Yeo [8]; (iii) (5) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Hon [9]; and (iv) (6) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Ng [10].

Table 2 Ultimate loads of tensile in situ loop connections without transverse reinforcement Investigator Tan [7] Specimen 04 10 15 01 02 03 05 06 09 11 01 02 03 04 05 A3 A4 A5 B1 A1 A2 Experimental tensile load (kN) (1) 65 50 68 43 84 65 48 50 54 67 49.5 68 56 59.23 71.00 48.00 47.50 49.00 56.00 84.00 65.00 Mean l Standard deviation r Coecient of deviation r/l Analytical tensile load using Eq. (13) (kN) (2) 45.98 56.10 43.79 57.03 57.20 64.88 46.22 58.32 52.90 52.85 33.57 44.31 47.68 53.66 59.79 28.81 41.89 65.20 52.90 NA NA
2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1

0.85 1.44 1.09 1.15 1.06 1.05 0.94 1.21 1.13 1.32 0.73 0.92 1.00 1.10 1.07 0.60 0.88 0.81 0.99 NA NA 1.02 0.20 0.20

0.97 1.28 0.94 1.36 1.26 1.35 1.31 1.31 1.25 1.46 0.9 0.99 1.1 1.15 1.11 0.07 0.2 3.71 0.32 NA NA 1.05 0.78 0.74

1.07 1.25 1.01 1.25 1.15 1.15 1.36 1.14 1.17 1.37 1.12 1.11 1.23 1.22 1.09 0.19 0.34 1.93 0.45 0.95 0.8 1.06 0.38 0.35

0.7 0.7 0.65 0.92 0.85 0.76 1 0.79 0.87 1.02 0.69 0.69 0.73 0.7 0.58 0.12 0.2 0.9 0.3 NA NA 0.63 0.31 0.50

1.22 1.57 1.03 1.11 1.04 1.13 1.04 0.98 0.96 1.13 0.81 1.19 1.42 1.57 1.52 0.56 0.79 0.94 0.93 NA NA 1.00 0.42 0.42

Yeo [8]

Lok [11]

Notes. (i) (3) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Tan [7]; (ii) (4) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Yeo [8]; (iii) (5) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Hon [9]; and (iv) (6) is the computed ultimate tensile load in kN using expressions proposed by Ng [10].

expressions by Hon [9] is 0.86 with a standard deviation of 0.30 and a coecient of deviation of 0.35; the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using expressions by Ng [10] is 0.91 with a standard deviation of

0.27 and a coecient of deviation of 0.30. Thus, the proposed model showed on average good agreement with the experimental data when compared to the other models proposed earlier.

176

K.C.G. Ong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 169176

As seen in Table 2, the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using Eq. (13) to the experimental values is 1.02 with a standard deviation of 0.2 and a coefcient of deviation of only 0.2. However, the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using expressions proposed by Tan [7] is 1.05 with a standard deviation of 0.78 and a coecient of deviation of 0.74; the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using expressions proposed by Yeo [8] is 1.06 with a standard deviation of 0.38 and a coecient of deviation of 0.35; the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using expressions proposed by Hon [9] is 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.31 and a coecient of deviation of 0.50; the mean value of the ratio of the computed values using expressions proposed by Ng [10] is 1.0 with a standard deviation of 0.42 and a coecient of deviation of 0.42. Although there is as expected, scatter in the computed values using Eq. (13) with a maximum ratio of 1.44 (the specimen failed without diagonal cracking) and minimum ratio of 0.60 (the specimen with an overlapping length of only 45 mm), the proposed model for specimens with transverse reinforcement tend to show better agreement with the experimental data when compared to the other models proposed. Thus, the expression proposed to predict the ultimate strength of tensile in situ loop joints comprising two to one loop connections with or without transverse reinforcement gives good agreement with the available test data.

ranging from 10 to 20 times the reinforcement loop diameter and with a lap length of not more than 38 times the reinforcement loop bar diameter. (vi) The overlapping length and spacing between double loops, which may aect the ultimate uniaxial tensile strength of the loop connections, are included in the proposed model.

Acknowledgements The authors express their gratitude and sincere appreciation to the Prefabrication Technology Centre, Housing Development Board, Singapore for partially nancing this research work.

References
[1] Comite Euro-International Du Beton. CEB-FIP model code 1990: Design Code. London: Thomas Telford Services Ltd; 1993. [2] BSI. DD ENV 1992-1-3. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1.3: General rules precast concrete elements and structures. London: British Standards Institution; 1996. [3] BSI. BS8110: 1997. Structural use of concrete. Part I: Code of practice for design and construction. London: British Standards Institution; 1997. [4] Bruggeling ASG, Huyghe GF. Prefabrication with concrete. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1991. p. 469. [5] Mattock AH. Eectiveness of loop anchorage for reinforcement in precast concrete members. PCI J 1994;39(6):5668. [6] Zalesov AS, Kirillov AP, Rubin OD, Sleznev SV. Calculation of the strength and design of weldless loop and linear anchor joints in combined precast-in situ reinforced concrete members. Hydrotechn Construct [A translation of Gidroteckhnicheskoe Strotelstvo] 1989;23(2):1208. [7] Tan CK. Loop connections for precast components. Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Dissertation, National University of Singapore; May 1998. [8] Yeo SA. Loop connections for precast components. Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Dissertation, National University of Singapore; May 1999. [9] Hon C. Loop connections for precast components. Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Dissertation, National University of Singapore; May 2001. [10] Ng CS. Loop connections for precast components. Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Dissertation, National University of Singapore; May 2002. [11] Lok PK. Loop connections for precast components. Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Dissertation, National University of Singapore; May 2000. [12] El Debs, MK. Concreto fundamentos pr_ moldado: e Aplicacoes. e Sao Carlos SP; 2000. p. 1216. [13] ACI. Recent Applications to shear design of structural concrete (ACI 445R-99). American Concrete Institute, P.O. Box 9094, Farmington Hills, MI 48333, Nov, 1999. p. 412. [14] MacGregor JG, Efdsd H. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design. 3rd ed... USA: Prentice Hall International Series, International Edition; 1997. p. 28090. [15] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 31802) and commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, P.O. Box 9094, Farmington Hills, MI 48333; 2002. p. 3834.

9. Summary and conclusions From the study presented herein, the following conclusions may be obtained: (i) A direct strut and tie model to estimate the ultimate tensile load of tensile in situ loop joints with two to one loop connections is proposed. It is applicable to such specimens, with and without transverse cottering bars. (ii) The width of the inclined strut at the nodal zone, wt, is determined by calibration with available test data and found to be aected signicantly by the compressive strength fc, irrespective of the lap length lo, double loops spacing s and inclination angle of the strut h. (iii) A rational eective compressive stress on a face of a nodal zone due to the strut-and-tie forces may be proposed. (iv) The absence of transverse cottering bars was observed to contribute to a decrease in the ultimate uniaxial tensile strength. (v) The proposed expression may be applied to tensile in situ loop joints comprising two to one loop connections with the spacing between double loops