International Workshop on Advanced Materials and

Innovative Systems in Structural Engineering:

Seismic Practices

Shear behaviour of interfaces within repaired/strengthened RC

elements subjected to cyclic actions

Elizabeth Vintzileou1, Vasiliki Palieraki1, Giovacchino Genesio2, Roberto Piccinin2

1
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
2
Hilti Corporation, Schaan, Liechtenstein

ABSTRACT: In this paper, the efficiency of the fib Model Code 2010 (MC10) formula in
predicting the shear resistance of RC interfaces within repaired/strengthened elements is
checked against experimental results. The shortcomings of the formula are identified and
adequate modifications are proposed to account for the specific characteristics of interfaces
reinforced using post-installed reinforcement. The improved efficiency of the modified formula
is proven through comparison to both published and recently obtained experimental data.
Furthermore, based on recent results, additional checks are provided to cover adverse failure
modes that may occur, in case of reinforcement of limited embedment length, typical for
interventions to existing reinforced concrete (RC) structures. Thus, a set of equations is
proposed, adequate for safe prediction of the shear resistance of interfaces within
repaired/strengthened elements (i.e. between existing and added concrete) crossed by post-
installed reinforcement.

1 INTRODUCTION
Interventions to existing RC structures is a field of growing significance worldwide: the decay
and ageing of the building stock, the need to make existing buildings compliant to current
Design Codes or adequate for new use, as well as damages due to natural hazards lead to
increasing need for design guidelines able to provide a basis for rational, safe, and economic
interventions. Furthermore, the international economical environment makes the option of
intervening on existing structures more attractive than that of demolition and re-building. Thus,
increasing effort (both in research and in Code-making) is dedicated to repair and strengthening
of existing RC structures.
The behaviour of interfaces between existing and added concrete, crossed by post-installed
reinforcement (re-bars or industrial anchors) and, indeed, their design are of major significance
for the efficiency of numerous intervention techniques. Actually, strengthened elements (e.g.
jacketed RC columns, spans of existing RC frames filled with RC walls, etc.) are assumed to
behave monolithically. Such a monolithic behaviour being to be ensured by adequately designed
interfaces, one would expect current Codes [e.g. EN 1998-3 (2005)] to provide relevant design
models. It seems though that this is not the case, for the time being.
On the other hand, Design Codes [such as fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 (2013)
and ACI 318-14 (2014)] do include formulae for the calculation of the shear resistance of
interfaces within RC elements. In an effort to check the efficiency of Code formulae, as well as
of formulae proposed by several investigators, the selected equations were applied to the
database (including the worldwide published results of more than 600 tests on interfaces),
created at NTUA, Palieraki (2014). That work is presented in detail in Palieraki et al. (2014).

89
The present paper concentrates on the fib MC10 formula. Its efficiency is checked against
results obtained from testing concrete interfaces crossed by post-installed reinforcement
(reinforcing bars). After having identified the shortcomings of the Code formula, the authors of
this paper suggest adequate modifications. The improved performance of the modified formula
is confirmed by recent test results obtained by the authors and presented herein.

2 THE MAXIMUM RESISTANCE OF RC INTERFACES

Although several relationships were proposed by investigators [e.g. Loov et al. (1994), Mattock
(2001), Tassios et al. (2003), Mansur et al. (2008), Harries et al. (2012)] or were included in
current Codes [e.g. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 (2013) and ACI 318-14
(2014)] for the calculation of the maximum shear resistance of concrete interfaces crossed by
reinforcement, most of them are not adequate for interfaces between old and new concrete in
repaired/strengthened elements because of the specific characteristics of the latter: the quality
and the strength of the new and the old concretes may differ significantly, the surface of the old
concrete may be smooth or artificially roughened, the reinforcement crossing the interface may
be anchored to the old concrete by means of resins or by mechanical means while in the new
concrete the anchorage of the reinforcement is achieved by bond, the dimensions of both the
existing and the added portion of concrete may be limited, not allowing for full anchorage of the
reinforcement or/and for sufficient edge distance of the reinforcement crossing the interface.
Among the available equations, the one included in fib Model Code for Concrete Structures
2010 (2013), is selected for further investigation (§7.3.3.6 “Shear at the interface between
concrete cast at different times”), as this formula is assumed to be adequate for interfaces within
repaired/strengthened RC elements as well. The design shear resistance, τRdi, of an interface
intersected either by reinforcing bars or by post-installed reinforcement is calculated as follows:
W Rdi cr ˜ f ck1/ 3  P ˜ V n  k1 ˜ U ˜ f yd ( P ˜ sin a  cos a )  k2 ˜ U ˜ f yd ˜ f cd d E c ˜ v ˜ f cd (1)
2
where, strength values are in N/mm and:
cr is the coefficient for aggregate interlock effects at rough interfaces;
k1 is the interaction coefficient for tensile force activated in the reinforcement or the dowels;
k2 is the interaction coefficient for flexural resistance;
μ is the friction coefficient;
ρ is the reinforcement ratio of the reinforcing steel crossing the interface, having a yield strength
equal to fyd;
σn is the (lowest expected) compressive stress resulting from an eventual normal force acting on
the interface;
fck and fcd is the compressive strength of concrete (characteristic and design value, respectively);
a is the inclination of the reinforcement crossing the interface;
bc is the coefficient for the strength of the compression strut; and
1/ 3
§ 30 ·
Q 0.55¨¨ ¸
¸  0.55
© f ck ¹
The values of coefficients (depending on the roughness of interfaces reinforced with dowels or
re-bars) are listed in Table 1. The roughness of a concrete surface can be measured in various
ways. According to the Model Code 2010 (2013), an appropriate way is the sand patch method,
as described by Kaufmann (1971). It is noted, that under fatigue or dynamic loads, the values
for τRdi according to Equation (1) are reduced to 40%.
In Figure 1a, the values of maximum shear resistance, calculated on the basis of Equation (1)
and Table 1, are compared to experimental values. For the comparison between calculated and
experimental values to be possible, mean values of the mechanical properties of concrete and
steel (as measured by the respective researchers) are inserted in Equation (1). The data plotted in
Figure 1a show that the fib MC10 formula largely underestimates most of the experimental

90
results, with the exception though of the recent experimental results presented in this paper. This
discrepancy will be discussed upon in Section 3.

Table 1: Factors for the calculation of the interface resistance, according to the interface roughness (CEB-
fib Model Code 10, 2013).

Surface Roughness cr k1 k2 βc μ
fck≥20 fck≥35
Very rough, Rt≥3.0mm 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.0
(valid also for shear keys)
Rough, Rt≥1.5mm 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.7
Smooth 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.6
Very smooth 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.5

τu,calc,fib/τu,exp =0.55 τu,calc,modif/τu,exp =0.89

coef. var.=43% coef. var.=37%

Figure 1. Interfaces crossed by post-installed re-bars or anchors; Comparison between experimental shear
resistance and values calculated based on (a) the fib Model Code formula and (b) the modified formula.

Although an alternative relationship, developed by Palieraki (2014), proves to be quite accurate

in predicting the shear resistance of interfaces, an effort is made to adequately modify the fib
formula and to set minimum requirements with the purpose of improving its performance and
covering in an adequate way interfaces crossed by post-installed reinforcement:

W Rdi P ˜ V n  k1 ˜ U ˜ V s ˜ ( P ˜ sin a  cos a)  k2 ˜ U ˜ f yd ˜ fcd d Ec ˜ v ˜ fcd (2)

The modifications, based on the Mechanics of interfaces, are described herein:

(a) The first term of Equation (1) is referred to in two locations within the fib MC10: In
Equation 7.3-51, where it is attributed to aggregate interlock and in Equation 6.3-8, where it is
attributed to adhesion along the interface. The second definition is adopted, as aggregate
interlock and friction are terms referring to the same mechanism (according to the international
Literature), whereas, in Equation (1), there is already a term calculating the contribution of
friction. If this is so, it is reasonable to neglect adhesion, since this mechanism (of chemical
nature) is mobilized under practically zero slip along the interface, whereas the mobilization of
friction and dowel action necessitates the occurrence of slip. This is more so, in case of
interfaces under cyclic actions. Furthermore,

91
(b) The friction coefficient, μ, is not expressed by a constant value. Actually, it is well known
that the friction coefficient is a function of the ratio between the normal stress on the interface
and the compressive strength of the weaker concrete. Thus, the following Equation (3) applies:
2
§ fc ·
P 0.33 ˜ 3 ¨¨ ¸¸ (3)
(V
© c  V )
n ¹

(c) Another modification is related to the factors expressing the contribution of each mechanism
to the shear resistance of the interface, k1 and k2. On the basis of the evaluation of the NTUA
database, the values included in the following Tables 2 and 3 (valid both for cast-in and post-
installed reinforcement) should apply. The different contribution factor values for cyclic actions
are justified by the effect of the magnitude of the imposed cyclic shear slip, as well as by the
effect of cycling on the mobilized shear resistance of the interface.

Table 2: Interfaces between old and new concrete – cast-in/post-installed re-bars: contribution factors for
the friction mechanism (k1).

Interface Characteristics k1
Monotonic Cyclic Loading, Maximum
Loading Resistance
lemb>12d 6d<lemb≤12d lemb≤6d
Mechanically roughened (1/4-in. amplitude), 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.20
normal strength concrete
Mechanically roughened (1/4-in. amplitude), 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20
lightweight concrete or high strength concrete
(> C50/60)
Smooth Interface 0.40 N/A 0.20 0.20
Very Smooth Interface, steel formed 0.20 N/A N/A N/A
Smooth Interface, lightweight concrete 0.20 N/A N/A N/A
Smooth Interface, no cohesion 0.10 N/A N/A N/A
Rough Interface, external compressive stress 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
Smooth Interface, external compressive stress 0.50 N/A 0.50 N/A
Interface with Shear Keys 0.80 0.40 N/A N/A
N/A applies for cases in which no experimental results are available.

Table 3: Interfaces between old and new concrete – cast-in/post-installed re-bars: contribution factors for
dowel action.

Normalized embedment depth k2

lemb/d > 8 0.70

6 ≤ lemb/d ≤ 8 0.525=0.70*0.75

(d) The validity of Equation (2) depends on the anchorage conditions of the reinforcement
crossing the interface, on the basis of the available data, some minimum requirements are set, as
follows:

92
(i) When a bar is anchored to the concrete by bond (usually in the new concrete) and its
embedment length, lemb, is smaller than the required for full anchorage, the maximum tensile
stress, σs, to be developed (obviously, smaller than the yield strength of the bar) can be
calculated and translated into compressive stress on the concrete, σc. The following Equation (4)
applies:
l emb f y As
Vc U ˜V s (N, mm) (4)
Ac 0.80lb
where, lb denotes the anchorage length, according to EN 1992 (2009): lb=(fydΦ)/4WRd (N,
mm). As the majority of the available experimental results have shown [tests at NTUA-
Vintzileou and Palieraki (2007), Palieraki and Vintzileou (2009), Palieraki et al. (2012)-and
database evaluated in Palieraki (2014)], the embedment length needed for the bars to develop
their yield strength is equal to 0.80lb. Thus, the tensile stress, σs, of the bars (to be inserted in
Equation (4)) is calculated as σs=4WRd lemb/0.8Φ (N, mm).
(ii) In case of post-installed reinforcement, the value of WRd (bond strength) provided by the
manufacturer (for the resin used for the installation of the reinforcement) is applied. The state of
concrete (uncracked and cracked) as well the loading type (static or seismic) should be taken
into account while choosing the value WRd of a specific resin to be used in the design.
(e) Interfaces reinforced with (bonded by means of resins) post-installed reinforcing bars,
embedded in the old concrete to a limited depth (6 to 8 times the bar diameter), exhibited quite
frequently brittle failures, namely, concrete cone breakout and pry-out failure [Bass et al.
(1989), Randl (1997), Valluvan et al. (1999), Hattori et al. (2007)]. Thus, to predict the
(reduced) bearing capacity of interfaces crossed by short post-installed bars (embedment length
between 6d and 8d), an additional check (on top of Equation (2)) of the verification of concrete
cone breakout capacity seems to be generally required (according to EN/TS 1992-4-5 (2009) or
ETA: Design of Bonded Anchors, TR 029 (2010)).
The modified fib Model Code 2010 (2013) formula [Equation (2)], along with the additional
limitations and verifications (§§ (a) to (e)) were applied to interfaces reinforced with post-
installed re-bars. As in the case of application of Equation (1), Figure 1a, mean values of
mechanical properties were taken into account. As shown in Figure 1b, the performance of the
modified formula is significantly improved. The average value of the calculated values divided
by the experimental ones is improved, while also the coefficient of variation is smaller in the
case of the modified formula.

3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1 Introduction
Although the international Literature is rich in results of testing plain or reinforced concrete
interfaces, simulating construction joints, connections between precast elements, natural cracks,
etc., the data on the behaviour of reinforced interfaces simulating the interfaces between old and
new concrete in repaired/strengthened elements subjected to cyclic shear slip are still limited in
number. The experimental results presented herein are part of the research in-progress at
NTUA, aiming at providing reliable information on the cyclic behaviour of interfaces between
old and new concrete in repaired or strengthened elements as well as focusing the behavior of
the connectors in the case of short embedment.
The geometry of the specimens, the test setup and the testing procedure valid for previous tests
performed at NTUA were selected, to ensure direct comparison with available experimental
results. Due to space limitations, only the absolutely necessary information is provided herein.
For detailed description of the test setup and procedure, the Reader may refer to Palieraki et al.
(2012).

93
3.2 Specimens, Test set-up and Testing procedures
The geometry of the specimens, designed to allow for cyclically imposed shear slips without
any eccentricity, is shown in Figure 2a. The dimensions of the interface are equal to 500x200
[mm]. The interface is crossed by three reinforcing bars, 16mm in diameter.
The specimens were constructed in two phases. The first portion, simulating the existing
concrete (mean compressive strength, between 24MPa and 38MPa at the age of testing) was
cast first. The reinforcing bars were installed at mid-width of the section, after the artificial
roughening of the interface using a pickaxe (Figure 2b). Their bond with the existing concrete
was ensured using a Hilti post-installed injection system, whereas the installation instructions
and setting operations, specified by the Manufacturer were followed. The post-installed
reinforcing bars were protruding to sufficient length (350mm and with a hook at their far end) to
ensure their full anchorage to the portion of the specimen simulating the new added concrete
(mean compressive strength, 31 MPa to 41MPa at the age of testing), cast approximately one
month after the portion simulating the existing concrete. Thus, the behaviour of the interface is
governed by the part of the bars that is installed in the existing concrete. The mean yield stress
of the re-bars is equal to 550MPa, whereas their ultimate stress is equal to 627-693MPa.

Section A-A

16mm bars
Section B-B

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) Geometry of the specimens, (b) The surface of the part simulating the old concrete, after its
artificial roughening.

Among the available data, the results of six tests are presented herein. The investigated parameter is
the embedment length of the post-installed portion of the reinforcing bars, equal to 6d, 8d or 10d (d
being the diameter of the bars). The embedment length values are smaller than prescribed by HILTI
for seismic applications (min.lemb=12d) [Hilti Post-Installed rebar guide (2015)]. However, those
values were selected as representative of strengthening applications, where the available thickness
of the RC elements may be limited. In one specimen, an external compressive stress, equal to
0.50MPa was imposed to the interface. Three more specimens, not included in this paper, were
tested monotonically to failure.
The test setup [Figure 3 and Palieraki et al. (2012)] is designed to allow for application of shear
along the interface, under zero eccentricity. The tests are performed under displacement-controlled
conditions, using an actuator of max. capacity +/-500kN. The imposed shear slip and the opening of
the crack along the interface were measured using eight (8) LVDTs, whereas strain gauges were

94
positioned on the bars, close to the interface, to measure their strains.
The loading history consists in sets of three full displacement reversals at gradually increasing
maximum displacement along the interface. The first set of cycles was ±0.10mm or ±0.20mm. Each
test was completed after significant force-response degradation or after the occurrence of cracks
away of the interface, as explained in the following Section 4.

(a) (b)
(a) Movable (old concrete)
(b) Immovable (new concrete)

Figure 3. Test setup and instrumentation (the axis of the actuator coincides with interface).

4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

4.1 General observations

In all specimens a crack opened along the interface between the two concrete blocks and it was
visible even for an imposed shear slip as small as 0.10mm. In case of specimens with shallow
bars (lemb=6d), a second crack, almost parallel to the interface occurred at a distance practically
equal to the embedment length of the post-installed bars. This second crack, that occurred at a
shear slip value approximately equal to 0.20mm, increased in width during testing and, finally,
led to the failure of the specimen (Figure 4). It is interesting to observe that, in the specimen
subjected to an external compressive stress (Table 4), the opening of the crack was significantly
delayed. Similar cracks occurred to the specimens where larger embedment lengths were
provided to the bars (8d or 10d). However, those cracks occurred at significantly larger shear
slip values (Table 4). It seems, therefore, that for small embedment lengths, a concrete cone
failure may be imminent or it may not be excluded.

Figure 4. Formation of a second crack, parallel to the interface. The crack occurs close to the back end of
the (short) reinforcing bars. Observe the formation of concrete cones.

95
4.2 Hysteresis loops and maximum shear resistance
The hysteresis loops for the six specimens, presented in Figure 5, show typical shear sensitive
behaviour, namely, pinching effect and, hence, limited area of the loops and force-response
degradation due to cycling. Those characteristics are more pronounced for smaller re-bar
embedment lengths. In general, limited asymmetry of the loops in the two loading directions is
observed. As shown in Table 4, the maximum shear resistance increases with increasing
embedment length of the bars, whereas the positive effect of the normal compressive stress on
the interface is also evident. The shear slip values corresponding to the maximum resistance are
rather scattered, with the larger values recorded for the longer embedment lengths, as well as in
the specimen subjected to external compressive stress.

Figure 5. Hysteresis loops for specimens reinforced with 6d, 8d and 10d embedment length of the bars.

Figure 6. Hysteresis loop envelopes, first loading cycle

96
The effect of the embedment length on the shear behaviour of the interfaces is apparent in the
hysteresis loops envelopes (Figure 6): As the embedment length increases, the resistance
increases, the interface may sustain larger displacements, whereas its behaviour is more stable,
after the attainment of the maximum resistance.
The values of maximum resistance obtained from testing the specimens subjected to cyclic
shear, as well as those for the three reference tests (monotonically tested) are included in
Figure 1. It is clear that the fib MC10 (2013) formula overestimates the shear resistance of the
specimens (see tests “NTUA current research”, black stars in the diagrams). The overestimation
of the resistance is more significant, in case the failure is due to the failure of concrete and not
the yielding of the connector. On the contrary, the formula modified according to Section 2 of
the present paper, is able to predict quite accurately the shear capacity measured experimentally.
This is a further confirmation of the validity of the proposed modifications.

Table 4: Summary of experimental results

Specimen Reinforcement/ τmax Crack Parallel to Slip at maximum
Embedment length (MPa) the interface, at s resistance (mm)
(mm)
Re-34/C/6/0.1 3Φ16/6d 1.27 0.20 0.20/-0.20
Re-34/C/6/0.2 3Φ16/6d 1.78 0.20 0.70/-0.60
NRe-38/C/6/0.1 3Φ16/6d/N 4.09 0.40 1.00/-1.20
Re-32/C/8/0.1 3Φ16/8d 3.09 0.50 0.80/-0.80
Re-37/C/10/0.1 3Φ16/10d 4.06 0.60 1.20/-1.20
Re2-37/C/10/0.1 3Φ16/10d 4.34 0.50 1.20/-1.20
Re: anchorage by means of epoxy resins, N: Normal force on the interface (compressive stress
=0.50 MPa).
The first number indicates the compressive strength of the weaker concrete (in MPa).
C: Three bars, 16 mm in diameter.
The second number indicates the embedment depth normalized to the bar diameter.
The third number indicates the maximum slip for the first set of cycles (in mm).

5 CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the work presented in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The shear resistance of interfaces within repaired/strengthened RC elements subjected
to cyclic actions cannot be accurately predicted by the fib MC10 (2013) formula.
Several modifications are needed to account for the specific characteristics of those
interfaces.
2. The modifications proposed in this paper proved to improve the accuracy of the Code
formula. Actually, the modified formula is able to predict quite accurately the shear
resistance even in the case of post-installed reinforcing bars embedded to a small depth
in the existing RC element. This is mainly attributed to the fact that, a small embedment
length may cause a concrete cone failure and, hence, lead to reduced shear capacity.
3. This feature is confirmed by the tests presented in this paper: An embedment length
equal to six times the bar diameter (6d), is acceptable for interfaces under static
conditions; it seems though that it may not be acceptable for interfaces subjected to
seismic actions, as a premature concrete cone failure occurs at small imposed shear slip.
4. The check of the validity of the modified formula is herein limited to the tested post-
installed rebar system. A re-evaluation of the available results of cyclic tests on
interfaces is in course, along with further experimental work, with the purpose to set a
safe minimum value for the embedment length of post-installed reinforcing bars. The

97
 limited number of tests presented in this paper show that an embedment length equal to
10d leads to significantly improved behaviour. Nonetheless, the occurrence of
secondary cracks at the far end of the embedded bars cannot be excluded and the
verification of the resistance of the connectors is crucial in the overall design of the
interface.

AKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by Hilti Corporation. The support of this
organization is gratefully acknowledged. Findings, opinions, and conclusions are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsoring organization.

REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318. 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and
Commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. 519 pp.
Bass, R.A., Carraquillo, R.L., and Jirsa, J.O. 1989. Shear Transfer across New and Existing Concrete
Interfaces, ACI Structural Journal, 86(4): 383-393.
EN 1992-1. 2009. Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures, Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization.
EN 1992-4-5. 2009. Eurocode 2. Design of fastenings for use in concrete - Part 4-5: Post-installed
fasteners - Chemical systems, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
EN 1998-3. 2005. Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and
retrofitting of buildings, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
EOTA Technical Report TR 29. 2010. Design of bonded anchors, European Organisation for Technical
Assessment.
fib Bulletin No. 65. 2013. Model Code 2010. Final draft, Vol. 1, International Federation for Structural
Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland, 350 pp.
Harries, K.A., Zeno, G., and Shahrooz, B. 2012. Toward an Improved Understanding of Shear-Friction
Behavior, ACI Structural Journal, 109(6): 835-844.
Hattori, Y. and Yamamoto, Y. 2007. Shear Transfer Mechanism to bonded Anchors for Exterior Seismic
Retrofitting, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Connections between Steel and
Concrete, Stuttgart, Germany, Vol. 2: 759-769.
Hilti AG. 2015. Post-installed reinforcing bar Guide, 69 pp.
Kaufmann, N. 1971. Das Sandflächenverfahren, Strassenbautechnik, 24(3): 131-135.
Loov, R.E., and Patnaik, A.K. 1994. Horizontal Shear Strength of Composite Concrete Beams with a
Rough Interface, PCI Journal, 39(1): 48-69.
Mansur, M.A., Vinayagam, T., and Tan, K.W. 2008. Shear Transfer across a Crack in Reinforced High-
Strength Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 20(4): 294-302.
Mattock, A.H. 2001. Shear Friction and High-Strength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, 98(S5): 50-59.
Noguchi, H., Ochiai, M., Izhuka, S. 1984. Sliding Shear in Cracked Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Shear, Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, California, Vol. 6: 331-338.
Palieraki, V. 2014. Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Interfaces in Repaired/ Strengthened Reinforced
Concrete Elements. Ph.D. Thesis, National Technical University of Athens, Greece, 578 pp (in Greek).
Palieraki, V., and Vintzileou, E. 2009. Cyclic Behaviour of Interfaces in Repaired/Strengthened RC
Elements, "Architecture - Civil Engineering - Environment ACEE" Journal, 2: 97-108.
Palieraki, V., Vintzileou, E., and Trezos K., 2014, Shear Transfer along Interfaces: Constitutive Laws,
Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Istanbul, Turkey (electronic source).
Palieraki, V., Vintzileou, E., and Zeris, Ch. 2012. Behaviour of interfaces in repaired/strengthened RC
elements subjected to cyclic actions: Experiments and Modelling, Proceedings 3rd International
Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering (IALCCE 2012), Vienna, Austria (electronic source).
Randl, N. 1997. Untersuchungen zur Kraftübertragung zwischen Alt- und Neubeton bei unterschiedlichen
Fugenrauhigkeiten, Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Innsbruck, Austria, 379 pp (in German).

98