ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 112-S16
Behavior and Simplified Modeling of Mechanical
Reinforcing Bar Splices
by Zachary B. Haber, M. Saiid Saiidi, and David H. Sanders
Bridge seismic design codes do not allow mechanical reinforcing
bar splices in regions expected to undergo significant inelastic
deformations during earthquakes, thus severely limiting precast
and innovative bridge column construction that uses such splices.
The uniaxial behavior of two commercially available mechanical
splices under different loading conditions was investigated
experimentally in this study with emphasis on deformation
response. Tests were performed with static, dynamic, and cyclic
loading. The performance of the splices was satisfactory under
all loading conditions in that bar fracture occurred outside the
splice. Furthermore, the results revealed the effect of the relatively
high stiffness of mechanical couplers. The responses of individual
splices were used to interpret data from a series of cyclic tests on
half-scale bridge columns employing mechanical splices in plastic
hinge zones. Lastly, a simple method was proposed and validated
for modeling these devices in reinforced concrete members.
Keywords: accelerated bridge construction; acceptance criteria; coupler;
ductility; mechanical splice; repair; seismic; shape-memory alloy.
INTRODUCTION
Mechanical reinforcement splices have been used in cast-
in-place concrete construction when long, continuous bars
or reinforcement cages are required. Unlike lap splices,
which can require lengths greater than 30 bar diameters (db),
mechanical splices can be used to join bars at discrete locations.
Some of the mechanical reinforcing bar splices commercially
available in the United States1 are shown in Fig. 1. Bridge
and building design codes use acceptance criteria such
as International Code Council (ICC) AC1332 and ASTM
A1034/A1034M3 to quantify the ability of a splice to transfer
load, withstand load reversals, and resist slip. Furthermore,
some state departments of transportation (DOTs) have
developed their own acceptance criteria.4 After evaluation,
mechanical splices are given a performance classification
compatible with the corresponding code provision of interest,
which is used to restrict placement in a structural member
or limit stress/strain demands on spliced bars. In the United
States, there is one significant difference between bridge
and building code requirements for mechanical splices.
ACI 318-025 allows Type 2 mechanical splices, which must
be able to develop the full tensile strength of the spliced bars
to be placed at any location within a member regardless of
local inelastic demands. On the other hand, bridge design
codes such as the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications6
and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)7 prohibit
all mechanical splices from being placed in plastic hinge
regions, which are subjected to high inelastic demands. Such
provisions have prevented the use of mechanical splices in
plastic hinges of bridge columns and have been a barrier to
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
TECHNICAL PAPER
newer and more innovative bridge columns in earthquake-
prone areas.
Although previous studies have used mechanical splices
in plastic hinge zones,8 there is little information as to the
deformation characteristics of mechanical splices and their
effects on local and global member behavior. Researchers
have studied the uniaxial behavior of mechanically spliced
bar assemblies, but these studies have focused primarily on
how strength is affected by fatigue loading,9 bar diameter,9
and blast loading rates.10 It was suggested by Haber et al.8
that the length of a splice is a critical factor that affects the
post-yielding flexural behavior of a member. That is, splices
with smaller LSp/db ratios (<4) are less likely to change the
plastic hinging mechanism, where LSp is the length of the
mechanical splice, and splices with larger ratios (>14) may
adversely affect hinge formation and behavior. The objective
of this study was to evaluate the deformation characteristics
of two commercially available mechanical splices under
static, dynamic, and cyclic loading. The correlation between
component- and system-level behaviors was addressed
by comparing uniaxial test results with a series of half-
scale bridge column test results conducted by the authors.
Lastly, experimental test data is used as a foundation for a
simple method to incorporate mechanical splices in member
deformation and capacity calculations.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Previous studies have identified a number of applications
for mechanical reinforcing bar splices in plastic hinge
regions. However, there is little understanding as to the local
deformation response of these devices and how that response
can affect the global behavior of a ductile reinforced concrete
member. This paper provides much-needed data and
insight into the local deformation behavior of mechanical
reinforcing bar splices through a series of uniaxial tests.
Using test data, a simple method for analytical modeling of
mechanical splices in with concrete members is proposed
and validated with large-scale experimental test results.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Specimen details
Two of the commercially available mechanical reinforcing
bar splices, shown in Fig. 1, were investigated in this study:
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 2, March-April 2015.
MS No. S-2013-319.R3, doi: 10.14359/51687455, received June 11, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
179
Fig. 1—Mechanical reinforcing bar splice commercially available in the United States.
Fig. 2—Uniaxial test setup and instrumentation plans.
the upset headed coupler (HC) and grouted sleeve coupler
(GC). The HC splice consists of male and female threaded
steel collars that join bar segments with deformed heads,
which are created by heating the bar end and compressing
the heated end with specially designed hydraulic ram. The
force transferring mechanism for the HC splice consists of
compression being transmitted directly through deformed
heads and tension through the threaded collars. The GC
splice has been commonly used in conventional and precast
construction in East Asia11 and the United States.12 At the
precasting plant, reinforcing bars are inserted into the tapered
end of the sleeve and the device is then cast within the concrete
member. On site, the precast element is positioned such that
reinforcing bar dowels protruding from the adjacent member
enter the open sleeve ports. The connection is completed by
pumping a proprietary high-strength (>14 ksi [96.5 MPa])
cementitious grout into the sleeve. Force is transmitted
180
through formation of compression struts in the grout which
transfer force to the sleeve.
HC specimens were constructed using No. 8 (D25)
Grade 60 ASTM A706 bars having an average measured
yield stress, ultimate stress, and percent elongation at rupture
of 67.9 ksi (468 MPa), 95.1 ksi (655 MPa), and 18.2%,
respectively. Specimens were prepared with two 16 in.
(406 mm) headed bar segments joined using the threaded
steel collars described previously. The two collars were
initially tightened by hand followed by a pipe wrench to
the manufacturer’s minimum specified torque of 150 lbf-ft
(203 N-m).
GC specimens were constructed using No. 8 (D25)
Grade 60 ASTM A615 bars having an average measured
yield stress, ultimate stress, and percent elongation at
rupture of 66.8 ksi (460 MPa), 111.3 ksi (767 MPa), and
15.8%, respectively. To construct GC specimens, reinforcing
bars were first placed into the tapered end of the sleeves and
the assembly was tied to a support frame. The prepackaged
high-strength cementitious grout was mixed according to
manufacturer specifications and the sleeves were filled
approximately three-quarters full. The grout was rodded
with a smooth 0.25 in. (6.5 mm) diameter rod to ensure good
consolidation, and the second reinforcing bar was inserted
into the sleeve. The average 28-day compressive strength of
the grout was 15.7 ksi (108 MPa) according to ASTM C109/
C109M-02.
Test setup and loading protocols
All specimens were tested in the Large-Scale Structures
Laboratory (LSSL) at the University of Nevada, Reno
(UNR), using a servo-hydraulic loading frame. The test setup
was developed according to ASTM A1034/A1034M3 and
Caltrans Test Method CT6704 (Fig. 2). Strain was measured
directly from the reinforcing bars using foil-backed resistive
gauges (two on opposite sides per location), and over the
length of the splice using a digital extensometer. For GC test
specimens, a pair of strain gauges was also installed at the
midheight of the sleeve. The extensometer gauge lengths
over the coupler region LCR for HC and GC specimens were
6 and 18 in. (152 and 457 mm), respectively. The clear length
between load frame grips, LClear, was selected as the minimum
specified by CT670, which were 26.5 and 38 in. (673 and
965 mm) for the HC and GC specimens, respectively.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
Table 1—Summary of test results
Yield stress, ksi Ultimate stress, ksi Strain at rupture, %
Bar Coupler region
ID Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation
HC control bar 67.9 3.61 95.1 1.61 18.2 3.08 — —
HC-S 67.2 1.09 95.2 2.71 16.4 2.09 7.70 0.37
HC-D 71.9 0.42 98.1 0.31 15.5 1.09 8.46 0.27
HC-C1 68.5 — 93.3 — 16.9 — 7.80 —
HC-C2 67.7 — 94.6 — 12.6 — 8.48 —
GC control bar 66.8 3.69 111.3 1.61 15.8 0.44 — —
GC-S 66.3 0.66 108.6 1.08 15.9 1.19 5.61 0.35
GC-D 70.4 — 110.8 1.00 16.2 3.61 5.53 0.28
GC-C1 66.1 — 98.7 — 5.59 — 2.69 —
Note: 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa.

Five different loading protocols were used to evaluate
the uniaxial behavior of the spliced bars. Three specimens
per splice type were tested for each protocol with exception
of the cyclic loading tests. The loading protocols and
associated nomenclature were: monotonic static loading
until failure (S), monotonic dynamic loading until failure
(D), slow cyclic loading until failure (C), single-cycle elastic
slip (SCS) loading, and multi-cyclic elastic slip (MCS)
loading. Specimens are identified by splice and loading
type, respectively. For example, a grouted splice specimen
tested under monotonic dynamic loading would be identified
as “GC-D.”
Loading was displacement-controlled for monotonic
static and dynamic tests. The loading rates for monotonic
static tests were determined according to ASTM A370.13
For HC-S specimens, pre- and post-yield displacement
rates were 0.00625 and 0.05 in./s (0.159 and 1.27 mm/s,
respectively. For GC-S specimens, pre- and post-yield
displacement rates were 0.01875 and 0.15 in./s (0.476 and
3.81 mm/s), respectively. The dynamic loading protocol
was selected to subject specimens to strain rates in the range
of those imposed by an earthquake event.14 A target rate
of 0.07 in./in./s was selected knowing that achieved rates
would be approximately 80 to 120% of the target.15 The
corresponding displacement rates, which are based on LClear,
for HC-D and GC-D specimens were 1.575 and 1.75 in./s
(40 and 44.5 mm/s), respectively.
The effect of tension-compression load reversals was
studied by applying cyclic loads. Although the widely used
ICC AC332 test criteria requires cyclic testing, spliced bars
are only subjected to reversals up to five times the specified
yield strain of the bar (5ey). Testing in this study subjected
splices to load reversals beyond this level and was continued
until failure. Cyclic tests were conducted in load control
mode at rates of 1 kip/s (4.45 kN/s) during tensile loading and
at 0.5 kip/s (2.22 kN/s) during compression loading, which
correspond to stress rates of 1.27 and 0.635 ksi/s (8.72 and
4.36 MPa) for tension and compression, respectively. Each
cycle of loading consisted of a single tensile and compression
cycle. For each cycle, the peak tensile load was increased by
increments of 0.2fy from 0.5fy to 1.1fy followed by increments
of 0.1fy thereafter. After the target tension was reached, the
load was reversed until the specimen reached a compression
stress of 20.7 MPa (10.5 kN). Both specimen types had long
unsupported lengths. Thus, a low compression stress target
was selected to prevent buckling.
Elastic slip tests were conducted in accordance with
Caltrans and AASHTO methods, which are used to determine
the permanent relative deformation between the reinforcing
bar and mechanical splice. In single cycle slip tests (SCS),
samples were loaded to an initial stress of 3 ksi (20.7 MPa)
and the elongation over the sample measurement gauge
length (DInitial) was measured. Samples were then stressed
to 30 ksi (207 MPa), held for 30 seconds, and subsequently
destressed to 3 ksi (20.7 MPa). Upon distressing, a final
elongation measurement (DFinal) was recorded. The resulting
slip, DSlip, is defined as the difference between final and initial
elongation measurements. After completing the single cycle
test, samples were subjects to three to five additional cycles
to determine if slip increased with additional loading. This
sequence is referred to as the multi-cycle slip test (MCS).
The maximum permitted elastic slip for splices with No. 8
(D25) bars according to Caltrans and AASHTO are 0.028
and 0.01 in. (0.71 and 0.25 mm), respectively.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A summary of test results is provided in Table 1, along with
the measured material properties for unspliced reinforcing
bars. On the day of testing, the average measured grout
strength for GC specimens was 18.5 ksi (128 MPa).
Monotonic static tests (S)
As would be expected, the average elongation over LCR
(otherwise referred to as the coupler region) was reduced
due to the presence of the threaded steel collars joining the
deformed heads. The average elongation at failure over
the coupler region was 7.70%, which was 53% less than
that of the reinforcing bar. Figure 3 shows representative
constitutive relationships for HC-S tests. The stress-strain
curve for the coupler region exhibited a stiff initial slope
up to approximately 10 ksi (69 MPa), which subsequently
softened and remained linear up to yielding of steel. Softening
occurs as the precompressive force on the deformed heads,
which is a result of the initial torque on the threaded collars,

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015 181


Fig. 3—Stress-strain curves from monotonic tests on
HC device (static tests are solid lines; dynamic tests are
dashed lines).
Fig. 4—Stress-strain curves from monotonic tests on
GC device (static tests are solid lines; dynamic tests are
dashed lines.)
Fig. 5—Evidence of strain penetration into grouted sleeve.
is overcome and the heads separate. Head separation is
only evident up to yielding of steel. However, the heads
continue to separate afterward, but the deformation over
the coupler region is controlled by nonlinear deformation
of the reinforcing bars. Each HC-S specimen failed due to
182
Table 2—Average measured strain rates during
dynamic tests (unit: strain/s)
HC-D GC-D
Standard Standard
Stress range Average deviation Average deviation
0 to yield 0.0175 0.0121 0.0781 0.0073
Yield to ultimate 0.0908 0.0178 0.0924 0.0041
Ultimate to failure 0.0633 0.0200 0.1060 0.0770
ductile reinforcing bar rupture, which occurred away from
and without damage to the splice.
In GC-S tests, the response of the spliced reinforcing
bars was similar to that of the control bars (Fig. 4). The
deformation capacity over the coupler region was reduced
by 65% compared with strain measurements taken from
spliced reinforcing bars due to the presence of the grout-
filled cast-iron sleeve. Unlike the coupler region response in
HC-S specimens, the initial branch of the stress-strain curve
for GC-S specimens was similar to that of the reinforcing bar.
This indicates that the elastic stiffness of the GC assembly is
similar to that of mild steel bars. Similar to the HC-S tests, each
GC-S specimen failed by reinforcing bar rupture away from
and without damage to the splice. Strain measurements from
the midheight of the sleeves indicated that the average strain
in the sleeve at failure was 0.7%, which was three times the
average measured yield strain of steel. Strain measurements
from the sleeve also indicated that the sleeves undergo
nonlinear deformations once the stress in the reinforcing bars
reach approximately 70 ksi (482 MPa).
Axially loaded reinforcing bars that are well-anchored in
cementitious materials undergo localized deformations from
the anchoring material as a result of strain penetration,16
which is typically referred to as “bond-slip.” Although
not explicitly measured, Fig. 5 shows a grout cone failure
surface indicating that strain penetration occurs within the
grouted coupler assembly during loading. It was shown
by Haber et al.17 that bond slip can account for up to 40%
of the deformation over the coupler region (LCR). None of
the GC tests conducted in this study exhibited bar pullout
failure, but other studies have shown this can occur.10 Such a
failure mode would be caused by insufficient grout strength
or improper installation.
Monotonic dynamic tests (D)
Representative stress-strain curves from monotonic
dynamic loading are shown along with the static curves in
Fig. 3 and 4 for HC-D and GC-D tests, respectively. The
average measured strain-rates are listed in Table 2 according
to stress range. Previous tests on mild steel reinforcing bars
loaded at strain-rates similar to those shown in Table 2 have
exhibited increased yield and ultimate stresses by as much
as 30%18; Zadeh and Saiidi15 provide detailed discussion
regarding the behavior of axially loaded reinforcing bars
under high strain-rate loading. Thus, it is not unexpected
that in both HC-D and GC-D tests that the yield and ultimate
stresses were slightly larger than corresponding static tests.
Slight variations among the initial slopes of stress-strain
curves can be observed between static and dynamic tests,
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
Fig. 6—Cyclic test results: HC results (a) through (c); GC results (d) through (f).
which are expected due to differences in clamping forces at
the grips. Previous studies have shown that dynamic loading
does not have a significant effect on the elastic modulus of
mild steel reinforcing bars.19
In HC-D tests, the average yield and ultimate stresses
increased 6% and 3%, respectively, compared with HC-S test
results. In GC-D tests, the average yield and ultimate stresses
increased 6% and 2%, respectively, compared with GC-S
test results. Similar to the static tests, both HC-D and GC-D
specimens exhibited reduced elongation over the coupler
region compared with measurements from the spliced
reinforcing bars. The average elongation at failure over the
coupler region was 45% and 66% lower in HC-D and GC-D
specimens, respectively. All HC-D and GC-D specimens
failed due to ductile reinforcing bar fracture away from and
without damage to the splices. This indicates that increased
yield and ultimate stresses caused by dynamic loading were
sustained by both splice types without an adverse effect on
the failure mode. Similar the GC-S tests, GC-D specimens
were inspected after testing and evidence of strain penetration
into the grouted sleeves was found in all specimens. Lastly,
dynamic loading did not affect the stress-strain curves in the
coupler regions of HC-D and GC-D specimens.
Slip tests
The maximum slip recorded for HC-SCS and GC-SCS
samples were 0.007 and 0.0175 in. (0.178 and 0.044 mm),
respectively. The multi-cycle slip tests for each splice
type did not indicate cumulative slippage with application
of three or more cycles. Both HC and GC splices passed
single- and multi-cycles slip tests according to both Caltrans
and AASHTO maximum slip criteria, which are 0.028 and
0.01 in. (0.71 and 0.25 mm), respectively.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
Cyclic loading tests
Two HC-C specimens were tested, one with the
manufacturer’s minimum specified torque applied to the
threaded collars, denoted as “HC-C1,” and a second with
collars hand-tight, denoted as “HC-C2.” The measured yield
and ultimate stresses of both specimens were within 2% of
those tested under monotonic static loading. Furthermore,
the elongation over the coupler region was also comparable
with static tests. The cyclic stress-strain response for the
coupler region and the bar assembly of HC-C2 is shown in
Fig. 6(a) and (b), respectively, which indicate that the stress-
strain backbones for both the coupler region and reinforcing
bar are nearly identical to those from monotonic static tests.
Both HC-C specimens failed due to ductile reinforcing bar
rupture away from and without damage to the splice.
Once each peak stress level was reached, the load was
reversed to a target compressive stress of –3 ksi (–20.7 MPa).
During unloading, the slope of the stress-strain curves for the
coupler region and the reinforcing bar were approximately the
same, indicating the reinforcing bars control the unloading
stiffness of the device. Once the load in the bar approached
zero, a distinct, instantaneous deformation occurred. It was
hypothesized that separation of the deformed heads (otherwise
referred to as gap opening) within the steel collars occurred
once precompression from the applied torque was overcome.
Cyclic loading confirms this behavior and a relationship
between peak stress and gap length can be established. The
gap length, Dgap, was defined as the deformation during the
transition between tensile and compressive force within the bar.
There was an approximately linear relationship between the
peak stress in the bar and the gap length between the deformed
heads. The peak stress versus gap length plot (Fig. 6(c)) also
indicates elastic slip limits allowed by Caltrans and AASHTO.
It can be observed that these limits are significantly exceeded
even before yielding of the reinforcing bar. Further discussion
of this behavior is provided in subsequent sections.
183
 affect the characteristic behavior or failure modes of the
splice assembly. However, higher strain rates, such as those
expected in a blast, reduce the ultimate strength and ductility
of mechanically spliced bars.14
The SR plot indicates that the deformation response of
some splices could be as little as 25% (SR = 0.25) of that
of the reinforcing bar throughout the loading history, which
can be observed in test data from the GC device. The HC
splice did not exhibit as large of stiffness increase as the GC
splice. However, the gap-opening behavior is clearly visible
in Fig. 7, which allows the HC splice to deform significantly
compared to the reinforcing bars over a short part of the
loading history. Prior to a strain of 0.02, the majority of
deformation occurred within the coupler region, which is
indicated by a slope exceeding 1:1 (SR = 1) (Fig. 7).

CORRELATION BETWEEN UNIAXIAL AND

BRIDGE COLUMN TESTS
A series of half-scale reinforced concrete bridge column
Fig. 7—Relationships between strain in reinforcing bar and tests were conducted by the authors to investigate the
strain over splice. seismic performance of precast column-footing joints
with mechanical reinforcing bar splices.8 Two connection
One GC specimen (GC-C1) was tested under cyclic
configurations were studied: one employing two layers of HC
loading. The average yield stress was found to be
splices, referred to as “HCNP,” and the second using single-
comparable to static results, but the average ultimate stress
layer GC splices, referred to as “GCNP.” The reinforcement
and elongation of the reinforcing bar at rupture were 9% and
details and model geometry were designed assuming the
65% lower than static tests, respectively (Fig. 6(d) through
behavior would be similar to a conventional cast-in-place
(f)). The discrepancies between static and cyclic tests on
(CIP) benchmark column; this is otherwise referred to
the GC device were not caused by premature failure of
as “emulative” design. That is, a conventional column
the splice. In both cases failure was a result of reinforcing
model was designed for a target displacement ductility
bar rupture away from the splice. However, in GC-C1, the
capacity of µC = 7.0 (ultimate displacement/effective yield
reinforcing bar did not exhibit ductile behavior—that is,
displacement) according to Caltrans SDC, and the details
necking of the bar at the point of fracture did not occur rather
of the plastic hinge region were modified to incorporate the
the fracture surface was flat. This may have been caused by
mechanically spliced connections. The column models had
a low-cycle fatigue-type effect, but such failures typically
24 in. (610 mm) diameter cross sections, an aspect ratio of
require significantly larger strain reversals.20 There was also
4.5, and longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios
a slight difference between the static and cyclic stress-strain
of 1.9% and 1.0%, respectively. The ratio of axial load to
backbone curves for the coupler region. The slope of the
the product of the gross column cross-sectional area and
unloading curves for both the coupler region and reinforcing
the specified concrete compressive strength was 0.1. Along
bar were similar indicating the reinforcing bars control
with the precast models, a CIP benchmark model was also
the unloading stiffness. Unlike HC-C tests, there was not
constructed and tested for comparison. Each column was
a visible instantaneous deformation during the transition
tested in a cantilever configuration and subjected to slow
between tensile and compressive loads. The average stress-
cyclic loading at increasing drift levels. Figure 8(a) shows
strain history from the midheight of the cast-iron sleeve
the pertinent plastic hinge connection details of these three
indicates low strains and slight nonlinearity.
half-scale column models. A detailed discussion of these
tests can be found in Haber et al.8
Comparison and discussion
Figures 8(b) and (c) show the moment-rotation
It was observed that the presence of the mechanical splice
relationships for columns with HC and GC splices,
reduced the deformation capacity over the coupler regions for
respectively, measured near the base of the column (shown
both devices. Figure 7 presents representative relationships
in Fig. 8(a)). The data, which is only shown up to 5% due to
between the strain over LCR and the estimated strain over
localized bar buckling thereafter, captures the influence of
LSp in terms of the average reinforcing bar strain obtained
the mechanical splices on the hinge rotations. The effect of
from strain gauge measurements. The slope of the curves is
gap closure can be clearly observed in the moment-rotation
referred to as the splice-bar strain ratio (SR) and indicates
response of HCNP in the form of a slight pinch in the
the relative stiffness of the splice to the reinforcing bar. As
unloading branches. The pinch, however, is small and stable
mentioned previously, there was little difference between the
and does not lengthen as deformations increase. Except for
static and dynamic behavior of the coupler regions, which
the pinch, the loops are similar in shape and magnitude to
can be seen in Fig. 7. This indicates that strain rates similar
those of the CIP column. This is not surprising given the
to those expected from an earthquake would not adversely
relatively short length of the HC device. On the other hand,

184 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015

Fig. 8—Behavior of RC members with mechanical splices: (a) general column details; (b) moment-rotation relationships for
HCNP; (c) moment-rotation relations for GCNP; and (d) force-drift behavior.
the moment-rotation behavior of the GC column section
differs significantly from that of CIP. The maximum rotation
in the GC section is approximately one-third the maximum
rotation of CIP, and very little plastic rotation is achieved.
This is consistent with observations from uniaxial tests,
which indicated that the deformation capacity of the GC
splice could be as little as 25% of the reinforcing bar.
Although individual characteristics of the mechanical
splices can be observed locally within each column,
the global force-displacement relationships are not as
significantly affected in this case. However, the influence
of the mechanical splices could become more apparent
in the global force-deformation response with different
column geometries and/or reinforcement details. As shown
in Fig. 8(d), the hysteresis loops for three columns are
comparable. GCNP had slightly higher peak loads after
2% drift due presence of GC splices. HCNP also exhibited
slightly higher peak load, but was a result of cementitious
grout present within the hinge zone that was approximately
twice as strong as the concrete for CIP. Furthermore,
the slight pinch observed at the local level can be seen in
global response, but is not significant. It should be noted
that although force-displacement relationships were similar
among the three columns, the presence of the GC splices in
GCNP ultimately shifted plastic hinging to the footing and
above the couplers. This shifted hinge mechanism eventually
caused longitudinal bars to rupture in the footing at 6% drift
due to strain concentrations and numerous load reversals. As
a result, the drift capacity of GCNP was significantly less
than the drift at failure in CIP and HCNP, which was 10%.
Typically, designers do not account for the presence
of mechanical splices in design calculations for ductile
reinforced concrete members. This is primarily because
splices are not typically placed in locations expected to
undergo significant nonlinear deformations. Other reasons
may include that designers assume splice behavior is
approximately the same as the spliced reinforcing bar or that
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
a proven method to model these devices does not exist. Data
provided in this paper indicate that the deformation response
of mechanical splices indeed is different from that of the
reinforcing bar. Furthermore, it was evident that the presence
of the GC splices slightly increased the lateral load capacity
of GCNP and affected the local moment-rotation behavior.
Similar effects could occur using other devices with large
LSp:bd ratios. Thus, modeling techniques are required for
incorporating these devices in analysis procedures. Haber
et al.21 described a method for modeling columns with GC
splices, but required detailed methods and specific material
and geometric properties of the mechanical splice. The
following sections provide a simple method for modeling
mechanical splices and validation with the previously
described column test data.
SIMPLIFIED MODELING OF MECHANICAL
SPLICES IN BRIDGE COLUMNS
Proposed method
It is proposed that mechanical splices can be modeled in
a simplified manner by defining an effective uniaxial stress-
strain relationship for spliced longitudinal reinforcement that
can be employed in fiber section analysis. This model may
be used in most commercially available structural analysis
programs that have moment curvature, lumped-plasticity
frame element, or distributed plasticity frame element
analysis capabilities. Distinct points on the effective stress-
strain curve can be calibrated to match test results in specific
cases or may be based on the relative stiffness between the
splice assembly and the reinforcing bar in a more generalized
approach. The strain component of the effective stress-strain
relation is defined by strains occurring over LSp, which can
be determined from measurements over LCR. This method is
advantageous because it does not require direct knowledge
of material and geometric properties of mechanical splice
assembly, which may be proprietary. That is, the intrinsic
deformation characteristics of the device are captured using
185
Fig. 9—Stress-strain model for reinforcing steel and
proposed splice model.
standard evaluation and acceptance criteria tensile test data.
With respect to the GC device, these include influence of
the cast-iron sleeve on splice stiffness, deformation caused
by unsupported reinforcing bar length, and deformation
resulting from bond slip within the sleeve.
It was observed in Fig. 7 that the GC device exhibited
an approximately linear SR relationship, where the strain
over LSp was approximately 0.25 times that in the bar. Using
this information, an effective stress-strain relationship can
be created by scaling a constitutive stress-strain model for
reinforcing steel to produce a similar SR relationship between
the two stress-strain models. The effective stress-strain
model can be applied in an individual nonlinear uniaxial fiber
with the same cross-sectional area as the spliced reinforcing
bars. Figure 9 presents a typical stress-strain curve for mild
steel reinforcing bars (solid line), which has an initial linear-
elastic branch with slope Es, a yield plateau beginning at the
yield strain ey, a nonlinear strain-hardening branch with a
slope Esh beginning at esh, and a plateau at the ultimate stress
fu and corresponding strain eu. The stress-strain model for
the splice, otherwise referred to as the “Proposed Model”,
is defined using the same constitutive model as the mild
reinforcing steel, but the characteristic parameters are
scaled to achieve the desired SR response. The proposed
curve representing the spliced region LSp is shown with a
dashed line and its parameters are identified with a “*”. The
parameters for the proposed curve are defined according to
Eq. (1) and (2), which correspond to the elastic and plastic
portions of the stress-strain curve, respectively. Once tensile
testing has been performed, and the SR relationship has been
identified, the user can select appropriate elastic SRE and
plastic SRI strain ratios for scaling the stress-strain curve for
the splice model. Equation (3) must be used if the reinforcing
steel model includes a yield plateau to prevent calculation
errors as the stress state approaches yield.
e*y
Es
= = SRE (1)
ey Es*
186
Fig. 10—Analytical model for bridge column with grouted
sleeve column-footing connection.
e*u e*sh Esh
= = = SRI (2)
e u e sh Esh*
SRI ey
≥ (3)
SRE e sh
Validation with half-scale column test results
The proposed model was validated using column model
test results discussed previously for GCNP. Figure 10 shows
the general details of the half-scale test model along with
the key components of the analytical model. The analytical
model was developed in OpenSEES using force-based
distributed plasticity frame-elements with fiber sections at
each integration point. Because of the importance of bond-slip
deformations, the method described by Haber et al.17 was used
to incorporate the influence of the GC splice by including a
rotational spring at the column-footing interface. Two different
fiber-section assignments were used. Section “S1” was used in
the frame element representing the shaft of the column above
the region with GC splices, and Section “S2” was used in the
region with the GC splices. For both sections, constitutive
relationships for unconfined and confined concrete, and
reinforcing bars were defined using available models from
OpenSEES; namely “Concrete01,” “Concrete04,” and
“ReinforcingSteel,” respectively. Each constitutive model
was calibrated using average measured materials properties.
The measured compressive strength of concrete on the day of
test was 4.7 ksi (32 MPa), and the average yield and ultimate
stress of longitudinal steel were 67 and 111 ksi (461 and
765 MPa), respectively. Confined concrete properties were
determined according to Mander’s model.21
GC splices were defined in S2 as single fibers with the same
cross-sectional area as the No. 8 reinforcing bars. The actual
diameter of GC device was approximately 2db – 2.5db, which
corresponds to an area footprint of 4 to 6.25 times the bar
area. Therefore, at each splice location, an equal-area segment
of confined concrete fibers were removed to account for the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
Fig. 11—Comparison of measured and calculated SR
relationships.
presence of the splice. The constitutive relationship for the GC
fibers was based on the previously described method of scaling
the reinforcing steel stress-strain properties. For this study,
SRE and SRI were selected to be 1.0 and 0.26, respectively.
Strain data from the GCNP column test indicated that yielding
of longitudinal reinforcement first occurred at the column-
footing interface. In this model, the fibers at the column-
footing interface employ effective properties, and therefore
strains in the reinforcing bars cannot be calculated explicitly.
However, by setting SRE = 1.0, the first yield of longitudinal
steel can be approximated. This is a reasonable selection
because GC-S tests indicated that the strain over the splice
was approximately 75% of that from the reinforcing bar prior
to yielding of steel. The ability to reasonably approximate the
yield displacement of the column is critical for displacement-
based designed methods, which require displacement ductility
calculations. Figure 11 shows a comparison between the
measured SR response and that calculated using the proposed
method with SRE = 1.0 and SRI = 0.26.
Comparison with experimental results and
discussion
The frame element model shown in Fig. 12 was subjected
to monotonic lateral displacement twice, once in each
direction because the column reinforcing pattern was not
symmetric. Pushover analysis was conducted with and
without the presence of bond slip due to strain penetration
into the footing. The resulting pushover curves were
compared with the measured hysteretic response. The
calculated initial stiffness with bond-slip included was
approximately the same as the measured stiffness. When
bond slip was excluded, the calculated initial stiffness was
slightly higher than the measured result, which is to be
expected. Nonetheless, the calculated and measured results
were still comparable and the analytical model would be
adequate for design purposes. Circular markers identify the
measured and calculated first yield points of the longitudinal
steel. In the positive direction, there was very little
difference between the measured and calculated results. In
the negative direction, the results were comparable with a
6% and 17% difference in the measured and calculated yield
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015
Fig. 12—Comparison between measured and calculated
force-displacement response.
displacement and lateral load, respectively. After 1.0% drift,
the measured data indicated initiation of strain hardening.
There was very good correlation between the post-yielding
parts of the calculated backbone curves and the measured
curve. The calculated response including bond slip deviated
slightly from the measured curved after 3.0% with the
maximum difference between the measured and calculated
lateral loads being 5.5% at 6% drift in the negative direction.
When bond slip was excluded, the maximum difference was
8.6%, which is still reasonable.
In general, the calculated force-displacement response
of the column showed good correlation with the measured
result using an effective constitutive relationship for GC
splices. In this study, a force-based distributed-plasticity
frame element model was used to validate the effective
material method for incorporating mechanical reinforcing
bar splices within a ductile member. However, the proposed
modeling method could also be used in moment curvature or
fiber section lumped plasticity analysis and can be applied to
other constitutive relationships for reinforcing steel using an
approach similar to that described in this paper.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Two commercially available mechanical reinforcing bar
splices, namely an upset headed (HC) splice and a grout-filled
ductile cast-iron sleeve (GC) splice, where evaluated under
uniaxial monotonic static and dynamic loading until failure,
slow reversed cyclic loading until failure, and a series of
elastic slip tests. Analysis of results focused on characterizing
the force-deformation characteristics of each device. Key
observations from uniaxial tests were then correlated with
a series of half-scale bridge column models employing
mechanical splices in flexural plastic hinge zones. Local
moment-rotation and global force-displacement relationships
were presented for columns HCNP and GCNP, containing
mechanical splices and for a conventional cast-in-place
column. Based on observations from uniaxial tests, a simple
method for determining an effective stress-strain model was
proposed for mechanical splices. As an example, effective
uniaxial properties were established for the GC splice
187
using the measured coupler behavior. Effective properties
were implemented in a nonlinear frame-element model for
GCNP, and pushover analysis results were compared with the
measured force-displacement response. Based on the results
of this study, the following conclusions can be made:
Mechanical splices can significantly reduce the
deformation capacity of spliced reinforcing bars by as much
as 75%, which can have a noticeable effect on the local
moment-rotation behavior of a ductile reinforced concrete
member depending on the size and stiffness of the splice
relative to the reinforcing bar.
The characteristic stress-strain behavior for HC and GC
splices is not significantly affected by strain rates expected
during earthquakes. These devices were able to sustain the
higher ultimate stress demands associated with the strain
rate effect on mild steel reinforcing bars without adverse
effect on failure modes.
The gap formation between the heads of the HC splice,
which significantly exceeded the elastic slip limits for
AASHTO and Caltrans bridge design codes, does not have
an adverse effect on the force-displacement behavior of
members containing these splices in plastic hinge zones.
The procedure proposed for determining the effective
stress-strain properties for a mechanical splice can be
employed using test results from standard test methods
and acceptance criteria. Thus, proprietary geometric
specifications and material properties for a mechanical
splice are not required.
The calculated member response using the proposed
model showed very good correlation with the measured
test results with and without incorporation of bond-slip
deformation. The calculate column load and displacement at
first yield of longitudinal bars also were in close agreement
with the measured data.
The proposed effective strain-strain model for mechanical
splices can be easily implemented in available software
packages.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Zachary B. Haber is a Bridge Research Engineer with
Professional Service Industries (PSI) at the Federal Highway Administration
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, VA. He received
his BS and MS in civil engineering from the University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL, and received his PhD in civil engineering from the University
of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV. His research interests include large-scale
testing, advanced materials in civil engineering, and bridge engineering.
M. Saiid Saiidi, FACI, is a Professor of civil and environmental engineering
and the Co-Director of USDOT University Transportation Center on
Accelerated Bridge Construction-Seismic at the University of Nevada, Reno.
He is the Founding and former Chair and a current member of ACI Committee
341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges, and a member of Joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete
Structures. He is also a member of ACI Subcommittee 318-D, Subcommittee
on Flexure and Axial Loads (Structural Concrete Building Code).
David H. Sanders, FACI, is a Professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. He
received his BS from Iowa State University, Ames, IA, and his MS and PhD from
the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. He a member of the ACI Board
of Direction and former Chair of the ACI Technical Activities Committee; ACI
Committee 341, Earthquake Resistant Concrete Bridges; and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. His research interests include concrete
structures with an emphasis on seismic performance of bridges.
188
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this document was funded by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under contracts No. 65A0372
and 65A0425. The support and advice of M. Mahan, R. Bromenschenkel,
M. Keever, and T. Ostrom of Caltrans are appreciated. The authors would like
to thank Headed Reinforcement Corp. (HRC), Splice Sleeve Japan, and Splice
Sleeve North America for donating splices and bars used in this study. Special
thanks are expressed to R. Nelson and C. Lyttle for their help with testing.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 439, “Types of Mechanical Splices for Reinforcing
Bars (ACI 439.3R-07),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2007, 20 pp.
2. ICC-ES AC133, “Acceptance Criteria for Mechanical Connector
Systems for Steel Reinforcing Bars,” International Code Council Evalua-
tion Service, Whittier, CA, 2010, 9 pp.
3. ASTM A1034/A1034M-10, “Standard Test Methods for Testing
Mechanical Splices for Steel Reinforcing Bars,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2010, 5 pp.
4. CT670, “Method of Tests for Mechanical and Welded Reinforcing
Steel Splices,” California Department of Transportation, Division of Engi-
neering Services, Sacramento, CA, 2011, 11 pp.
5. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp.
6. American Assiciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), “AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design,” second edition, Washington, DC, 2011, 301 pp.
7. California Department of Transportation, “Seismic Design Criteria
(SDC) Version 1.7,” Division of Engineering Services, Sacramento, CA,
2013, 180 pp.
8. Haber, Z. B.; Saiidi, M.; and Sanders, D. H., “Seismic Performance of
Precast Columns with Mechanically Spliced Column-Footing Connection,”
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 111, No. 3, May-June 2014, pp. 639-650.
9. Paulson, C., and Hanson, J. M., “Fatigue Behavior of Welded and
Mechanical Splices in Reinforcing Steel,” NCHRP Report 10-35, Dec.
1991, 158 pp.
10. Rowell, S. P.; Grey, C. E.; Woodson, S. C.; and Hager, K. P., “High
Strain-Rate Testing of Mechanical Couplers,” Report ERDC TR-09-8, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Sept. 2009, 74 pp.
11. Aida, H.; Tanimura, Y.; Tadokoro, T.; and Takimoto, K., “Cyclic
Loading Experiment of Precast Columns of Railway Rigid-Frame Viaduct
Installed with NMB Splice Sleeves,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete
Institute, V. 27, No. 2, 2005, pp. 613-618.
12. Culmo, M. P., “Connection Details for Prefabricated Bridge Elements
and Systems,” Report FHWA-IF-09-010, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, Mar. 2009, 568 pp.
13. ASTM A370-03a, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2003, 49 pp.
14. Motaref, S.; Saiidi, M. S.; and Sanders, D. H., “Seismic Response
of Precast Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Joints,” Report No.
CCEER-11-01, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering. University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 2011.
15. Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M., and Saiid Saiidi, M., “Effect of Strain Rate
on Stress-Strain Properties and Yield Propagation in Steel Reinforcing
Bars,” Report No. CCEER-07-02, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering. University of Nevada, Reno,
Reno, NV, 2007.
16. Otani, S., and Sozen, M. A., “Behavior of Multistory Reinforced
Concrete Frames during Earthquakes,” Structural Research Series No. 392,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1972, 551 pp.
17. Haber, Z. B.; Saiidi, M.; Ou, Y. C.; and Sanders, D. H., “A Method for
Calculating the Seismic Response of Bridge Columns with Grouted Sleeve
Column-Footing Connections,” Proceedings, Seventh National Seismic
Conference on Bridges & Highways, Oakland, CA., May 20-22, 2013.
18. Malvar, L. J, “Review of Static and Dynamic Properties of Steel
Reinforcing Bars” ACI Materials Journal, V. 95, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.1998,
pp. 609-614.
19. Fu, H. C.; Erki, M. A.; and Seckin, M., “Review of Effects of Loading
Rate on Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 117, No. 12, Dec. 1991, pp. 3660-3679.
20. Mander, J. B.; Panthaki, F. D.; Kasalanati, A. “Low-Cycle Fatigue
Behavior of Reinforcing Steel,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, V. 6, No. 4, 1994, pp. 453-468.
21. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, 1988, pp. 1808-1826.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2015