ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 105-S46
Experimental Study of Offset Mechanical
Lap Splice Behavior
by Keith L. Coogler, Kent A. Harries, and Marcella Gallick
The behavior of offset mechanical splices is investigated in the
context of currently-prescribed acceptance test methods and
criteria. Two commercially available offset mechanical splice
systems were tested in direct tension with the splice both restrained
and unrestrained from rotating. In this series of tests, the
commonly held belief that the critical case is where the splice is
not restrained from rotating is shown to be incorrect. The splices
are additionally tested in air under prescribed fatigue loading
conditions. Finally, the splices are tested in place in 4.7 m (15 ft
5 in.) long concrete beams under both monotonic and fatigue
loading conditions and their behavior is assessed. Significant findings
include a classification of splice failure modes and characterization of
in-place splice behavior.
Keywords: acceptance test; reinforcement bar; splice.
INTRODUCTION
The behavior of offset mechanical splices is investigated
in the context of currently-prescribed acceptance test
methods and criteria. Two commercially available offset
mechanical splice systems were tested in direct tension with
the splice both restrained and unrestrained from rotating. In
this series of tests, the commonly held belief that the critical
case is where the splice is not restrained from rotating is
shown to be incorrect. The splices are additionally tested in
air under prescribed fatigue loading conditions. Finally, the
splices are tested in place in 4.7 m (15 ft 5 in.) long concrete
beams under both monotonic and fatigue loading conditions
and their behavior is assessed. Significant findings include a
classification of splice failure modes and characterization of
in-place splice behavior.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The objective of this work was to assess the applicability
of performance criteria by which mechanical splices are
assessed in the context of available offset mechanical splice
systems. It will be shown that conventional wisdom associated
with testing offset splices is apparently incorrect. The splice
system performance was also evaluated both in terms of
acceptance-type tests and in-place applications. Significant
findings include a classification of splice failure modes and
characterization of in-place splice behavior. The present
work is believed to be the only recent study of its kind.
REINFORCEMENT BAR SPLICES
Reinforcement bars are most often spliced in place using
lap splices. Lap splices place two bars adjacent to each other
over a sufficient length to affect full development of both
bars through stress transferred through the surrounding
concrete. The typical required length for a tension lap splice
is on the order of 50 to 70 times the diameter of the bars
being spliced (ACI Committee 318 2005). Lap splices are
478
TECHNICAL PAPER
not permitted for bars larger than No. 11 (ACI Committee
318 2005) and are often impractical, regardless of the bar
size, in many applications. Alternatives to lap splices include
welded connections or mechanical connections.
Mechanical connections are divided into two categories
based on the expected mechanical loading applied to the
splice (ACI Committee 439 2007). Type 1 splices are used
when there is no expectation of inelastic deformation or
elevated tensile stress due to seismic loading. Type 2 splices
are those that have been demonstrated through accepted
testing procedures to be able to develop the specified tensile
strength of the spliced reinforcing bars for resistance to
increased tensile forces that may be expected from seismic
loading. The use of Type 2 mechanical splices is referred to
only in the seismic provisions of ACI 318-05 (ACI
Committee 318 2005), whereas Type 1 mechanical splices
are addressed in the body of the Code. Proposed revisions of
ACI 439.3R (ACI Committee 439 2007) recommend the use
of Type 2 mechanical splices over conventional lap splices
where inelastic yielding may be experienced. This recommen-
dation is based on the observation that lap splices typically do
not perform well under inelastic yielding conditions.
There are many situations that require the use of mechanical
splices over the use of conventional lap splices. Mechanical
splices are an attractive alternative for providing continuity
and anchorage to hoop or continuous spiral reinforcement
used to provide confinement in columns. Other applications
include relieving congestion and reducing the reinforcement
ratio in splice regions and in splicing new reinforcing steel to
existing steel in patches, closure pours, and structural additions.
Current codes do not permit No. 14 or No. 18 bars to be
spliced using a lap splice, requiring mechanical splices for
these bar sizes. Other uses of mechanical splices are in
portions of a structure affected by seismic loads as recom-
mended by revisions to ACI 439.3R (ACI Committee 439
2007). Finally, in the case of epoxy-coated or lower tensile
strength reinforcing bars, mechanical splices may represent
a practical alternative to the relatively long lap splices
required in these cases.
There are many types of mechanical splicing products
available. In this discussion, they have been categorized as
1) in-line splices, in which the centerline of each spliced bar
coincides; and 2) offset splices (also referred to as an offset
mechanical splice or a mechanical lap splice), where the
centerlines have an eccentricity.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-August 2008.
MS No. S-2007-058 received February 7, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2008, 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 in the May-June 2009
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2009.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
 2005) is a new standard addressing testing of mechanical
Keith L. Coogler is a Structural Engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company,
Monroeville, PA. He received his MSCE from the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, splices. ASTM A1034 (ASTM International 2005) provides
PA, in 2006. only general testing methodologies and does not provide
specific parameters (such as the load at which to measure
Kent A. Harries, FACI, is the William Kepler Whiteford Faculty Fellow and an Assistant
Professor of structural engineering and mechanics at the University of Pittsburgh. He slip or the stresses appropriate for cyclic testing) and does
received his PhD from McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1995. He is not quantify any testing acceptance criteria. ASTM A1034
a member of ACI Committees 215, Fatigue of Concrete; 335, Composite and (ASTM International 2005) includes an additional parameter—
Hybrid Structures; 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement; 439, Steel
Reinforcement; 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and E803, Faculty low temperature testing—where any of the standard tests are
Network Coordinating Committee. additionally conducted at a reduced ambient temperature
Marcella Gallick is the Principal of Rhea Engineers and Consultants, Inc., Gibsonia
(not specified).
PA. She received her MSCE from the University of Pittsburgh. Before the ASTM A1034 (ASTM International 2005) spec-
ification was released in late 2004, the CT670 (Caltrans 2004)
Test Method was the only specification to specifically address
MECHANICAL LAP SPLICE PRODUCTS
Currently, there are two mechanical lap-splicing products the testing of mechanical splices. The CT670 (Caltrans 2004)
available: test methods are outlined in Table 1 along with the acceptance
1. Product A, shown in Fig. 1(a), is a sleeve that allows criteria typically associated with each test. Manufacturers of
two bars to be placed side by side. Allowing a length of bar offset mechanical lap splice Types A and B report having
of at least one bar diameter to protrude from each end, the conducted direct tension testing of their product in the manner
hardened, pointed set screws are tightened through the top of directed by CT670 (Caltrans 2004). Both products are
the sleeve securing the bars in place. The connection is a approved for use by Caltrans for Type 1 splices only.
combination of mechanical (screws penetrating into reinforcing Direct tension testing of offset spliced bar systems results
bar) and friction (far side of bar bearing against sleeve). in a moment being generated at the mechanical splice
When tightened to an appropriate torque, the screw head will resulting from the eccentricity of the bars. This moment will
shear off, indicating uniform tightening of all screws. This place complex stresses on the coupler and result in the
splice is designed to carry tension and compressive forces reinforcing steel kinking at or near the coupler face as the
but is currently only recommended for tension use. A unique applied tension loads try to align. This effect is shown
aspect of this system is that it may be used to splice bars of schematically in Fig. 2.
different sizes provided the bars are only one standard size
removed (No. 3/No. 4, No. 4/No. 5, No.5/No. 6, and No. 6/ REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
No. 7); and The body of work addressing mechanical lap splices is
2. Product B, shown in Fig. 1(b), is an oval-shaped sleeve very limited with the only published work conducted by
with a wedge-shaped pin inserted into it. The reinforcing
bars to be spliced are positioned inside the sleeve and the
wedge is inserted using a proprietary hydraulic pin driver.
The wedge drives the bars against the outer walls of the
sleeve affecting a friction connection to hold the bars in
place. Additionally, the hardened wedge deforms the bar as
it is driven resulting in a further mechanical connection. This
splice is currently only recommended for tension use.
The splicing sleeve, in each case, is sized according to the
bar size to be spliced. The physical size of the body of both
mechanical lap splice types result in reduced concrete cover.
In the case of Product A, the clear cover to the splice is 20 mm
(0.79 in.) less than that to the spliced bar. The smaller
Product B results in a 6 to 9 mm (0.24 to 0.35 in.) reduction
in clear cover to the spliced bar.
Fig. 1—Offset mechanical reinforcing bar splice systems.
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
The performance of mechanical splice systems is evaluated
with different testing procedures and requirements varying
by specifying agency. Typical requirements are listed in
Table 1. Some jurisdictions have other related requirements;
for example, Oregon requires a completed mechanical splice
to achieve a tensile capacity of 1.35fy rather than the typical
1.25fy required by others. It is noted that California Test
CT670 (Caltrans 2004) is a test method and does not specifically
recommend acceptance criteria. The performance criteria
associated with CT670 (Caltrans 2004) are those applied by
Caltrans.

Test methods for mechanical splices

Assessing the performance of mechanical bar splices is
difficult and only recently has there been a uniform specification
governing these tests. ASTM A1034 (ASTM International Fig. 2—Effects of direct tension loading on mechanical splice.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008 479

Paulson and Hanson (1989 and 1991). Paulson and Hanson tension tests conducted on a No. 5 Type B splice. The ultimate
(1989) provided a summary and review of fatigue data of stress values observed are reported as 438 and 614 MPa (63.5
welded and mechanically spliced reinforcing bars. This and 89 ksi). The reinforcing bar fracture of the first specimen
survey of existing research focused solely on fatigue data. It occurred inside the splice at the wedge, the second specimen
was noted that, at the time, there was no specification that fractured just outside the splice. The first specimen did not
contained provisions for the evaluation of fatigue of reinforcing achieve an ultimate capacity of 1.25fy, failing Criteria I of
bar splices. Comparisons were made with AASHTO LRFD Table 1. The authors state that due to the offset of the spliced
(2004) design specifications for fatigue of straight unspliced reinforcing bars, axial open air tension tests may not reflect the
bars. Paulson and Hanson (1991) showed that mechanically behavior of the splice embedded in concrete.
spliced reinforcing bars may have a shorter fatigue life, Open air fatigue tests were only conducted on in-line
although the fatigue life varies greatly based on the type of spliced bars. Fatigue tests of Type B offset splices were
splice considered. Nonetheless, Paulson and Hanson performed on bars embedded in concrete beams. The beams
(1991) concluded that for the splice systems tested, a fatigue were 2133 mm (84 in.) long, 152 mm (6 in.) wide, and 203 mm
fracture would occur in the bar near the spliced region, not in (8 in.) deep with a nominal effective depth d of 152 mm
the splice itself. Thus, the splicing hardware was sufficiently (6 in.). Each beam had a single No. 5 bar as the primary flexural
strong although it affected the spliced bars in a manner reinforcement and each specimen was tested in third-point
flexure. There was heavy shear reinforcement located in the
affecting fatigue resistance.
shear span but none in the constant moment region where the
Paulson and Hanson (1991) report an extensive study of the splice was located. The beams also included crack formers to
fatigue behavior of welded and mechanical splices. This study induce flexural cracking at each end of the coupler. Five of
tested mechanical lap splices using in-place beam tests and the nine reported fatigue-induced reinforcing bar ruptures
open air axial tension tests. The authors report two open air initiated at the junction of the splice wedge and the bar; the
remaining four occurred immediately outside the splice.
Table 1—Mechanical reinforcing bar splice Stress versus number of cycles to failure (S-N) behavior of
performance criteria the specimens having spliced bars was notably degraded as
Standard compared with the bare bars tested in direct tension fatigue
1 2 3 4 5 Criteria Descriptor Performance (Paulson and Hanson 1991).
Criteria I: tensile strength of Paulson and Hanson (1991) attempted to establish limits for
• • • • •* > 1.25fy
mechanical coupler design stress ranges appropriate for different classes of
Criteria II: allowable slip resulting splices. The AASHTO (2004) specified limit for the fatigue
from applied stress of 0.50fy then 0.25 mm
• • • <
(0.01 in.) stress range on straight reinforcing bars for service loads was
relaxed to 0.05fy
138 MPa (20 ksi). The authors classified mechanical connec-
Criteria III: tensile strength of 0.90fu tions into three categories assigning maximum allowable
• >
mechanical coupler
stress ranges of 28, 83, and 124 MPa (4, 12, and 18 ksi) as indi-
Criteria IV: allowable slip resulting cated in Table 2. All coupling methods were assumed to
1.25 mm
• from +172 MPa to –172 MPa <
(0.05 in.) reduce the fatigue limit of the reinforcing bars to some degree.
(±25 ksi) for 10,000 cycles
Criteria V: allowable slip resulting Based on the limited testing, Type B offset mechanical
from cycling between 0.90fy and 1.25 mm couplers were assigned the same category as swaged and
• <
(0.05 in.)
0.05fy for 100 cycles threaded in-line couplers, having a maximum allowable
*
Tensile strength of mechanical coupler > 1.20fy . fatigue stress range of 83 MPa (12 ksi). Couplers in this group
Notes: Standards cited: ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318 2005), AASHTO LRFD are characterized as causing a reduction in area of the spliced
(2004), AASHTO ASD (1996), CT 670 (Caltrans 2004), and CSA S6-00 (CSA
International 2000). bar as results from machining threads, swaging the bar or
installing the wedge. The results obtained by Paulson and
Table 2—Splice categories according to Paulson Hanson (1991), although limited, point to a significant
and Hanson (1991) difference in behavior between offset mechanical couplers
tested in air and those tested in place in concrete beams.
Maximum 28 MPa 83 MPa 124 MPa 138 MPa
stress level (4 ksi) (12 ksi) (18 ksi) (20 ksi)
Cold swaged steel coupling Grout- and
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
All Straight The two commercially-available offset mechanical splice
Splice type welded sleeves; taper- and straight- steel-filled
threaded steel couplers; steel cou- coupling bar (no systems, previously designated Types A and B, were evaluated
splices splice)
pling sleeve with wedge (Type B) sleeves
in four series of tests. In each series (except the beam tests),
at least five samples of each bar size (No. 4, No. 5, and
Table 3—Reinforcing bar material properties No. 6) were tested. The performance of each specimen
Nominal was evaluated in accordance with Criteria I-IV given in
value* No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 Table 1. The experimentally determined material properties
414 MPa 448 MPa 414 MPa 414 MPa for the reinforcing steel used in all tests in this study are
Yield strength fy
(60 ksi) (65 ksi) (60 ksi) (60 ksi) listed in Table 3. The tests conducted on each splice system
Yield strain εy 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.0035 are shown schematically in Fig. 3 and described as follows.
Tensile strength fu 621 MPa 717 MPa 690 MPa 662 MPa
(90 ksi) (104 ksi) (100 ksi) (96 ksi) Direct tension
Elongation at rupture 11%† 19%‡ 19%‡ 23%‡ Direct tension (DT) tested the reinforcement bar splice in
*AASHTO M31 (1996).
open-air direct tension and allowed the splice to freely rotate
†
Elongation calculated over 203 mm (8 in.). (Fig. 2). Each specimen was instrumented to record the slip
‡
Elongation calculated over 76 mm (3 in.). component over the spliced region. The specimens were

480 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008

loaded monotonically at a rate of approximately 900 N/second
(200 lb/second) until rupture of the bar occurred or the
recorded slip exceeded 25.4 mm (1 in.).
Restrained tension
Restrained tension (RT) tested the reinforcement bar splice
in a manner similar to a pullout test that inhibited the splice
from rotating. In these tests, only one spliced bar was subject
to tension with the reaction being provided by the coupler
itself. The uniform reaction between the coupler and loading
plate effectively restrained the tendency of the coupler to
rotate. To ensure that the coupler was correctly engaged, a
dummy bar was provided to mimic the bar engaged in the
untested side of the splice. Each of the specimens was loaded
monotonically to failure similar to the DT tests and the slip of
the loaded bar through the splice was measured.
Fatigue tests
Fatigue (F) tests were modeled after the CT670 (Caltrans
2004) test method, which requires cycling the specimen
through a 345 MPa (50 ksi) stress range. The minimum
required fatigue life of 10,000 cycles could not be attained
under the specified test stress range for these specimen types.
The stress range was reduced to 138 MPa (20 ksi) and the
load was cycled from 69 MPa (10 ksi) compression to 69 MPa
(10 ksi) tension for 10,000 cycles. The test setup was the
same as the DT tests and thus the splice was free to rotate, as
shown schematically in Fig. 2. Slip through the splice was
recorded following cycling.
was allowed to progress until the resulting slip exceeded
25 mm (1 in.).
Slip measurements
To assess bar slip Criteria II and IV (Table 1) in this test
program, the slip was measured using displacement transducers
installed on the unloaded projection of the spliced bar (as shown
in Fig. 3). In this manner, the recorded displacement
included only the slip component over the spliced region and
did not include elastic or inelastic deformation in the bar.
The total slip for an individual specimen was the sum of the
slip of each bar. In this work, the slip reported in subsequent
sections and in Table 4 is calculated as twice the maximum
single bar slip observed in each specimen. This case is an
upper bound, where both bars experience the same
maximum slip. Reporting in this manner also permits direct
comparison between the DT and F tests and the RT tests.
RESULTS OF TENSION TESTS
A summary of the results of DT, RT, and F tests is
provided in Table 4. In this table, average values associated

Flexural beam tests

Flexural beam (B) tests were conducted with the reinforcement
bar splice embedded in concrete. Eight reinforced concrete
beams were cast for this testing phase. Each specimen was
254 mm (10 in.) deep, 305 mm (12 in.) wide, and 4743 mm
(187 in.) long. Each beam had a single No. 4 reinforcement
bar as the primary flexural reinforcement. All beams
(monotonic and fatigue) were loaded in four-point flexure
over a 4540 mm (179 in.) simple span. The reinforcing bar
splice was located in the center of the constant moment
region. One beam of each pair was tested monotonically to
failure. The second beam of each pair was subjected to
10,000 cycles of repeated loading intended to result in an
applied stress range in the No. 4 flexural reinforcement bar
of 138 MPa (20 ksi), similar to the FT tests. Companion tests Fig. 3—Schematic illustrations and photographs of test setups
of unspliced straight bars and conventional lapped bar splices used. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
were included in this series as described in the following.

FAILURE MODES
For consistency in reporting, four failure modes were identi-
fied and denoted A through D, as shown in Fig. 4. These
failure modes were only recorded in the DT and RT tests.
Failure Mode A was a rupture of the reinforcing bar at a signif-
icant distance from, and apparently unaffected by, the splice,
similar to a straight bar test. Failure Mode B was a rupture of
the reinforcing bar at the wedge or first bolt; this failure
resulted from the stress raiser induced by the wedge or bolt.
Failure Mode C was a rupture of the reinforcing bar
located just outside of splice caused by the kinking of the bar
at this location. Failure Mode D did not result in a ruptured
bar but rather the bar slipping through the splice a distance
greater than one rib spacing. This failure mode resulted in a
gouge on the spliced bar resulting from the bolts or wedge as Fig. 4—Failure modes of offset mechanical splices tested in
shown in Fig. 4. In the experimental program, Failure Mode D direct or restrained tension.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008 481

with the splice assessment Criteria I through IV (Table 1) are
presented. Additionally, the number of tests passing the
criteria and the failure modes are indicated.
Fig. 5—Representative results for direct tension tests of
No. 4 bars. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
DT behavior—Representative stress-versus-bar-strain
results for the DT tests with No. 4 bars are shown in Fig. 5(a).
The strains were recorded from electrical resistance strain
gauges mounted approximately 50 mm (2 in.) from the splice
location. The stress-strain relationship had an initial linear
elastic portion, which is predictable and repeatable at low
stress ranges. At an applied stress of 138 to 207 MPa (20 to
30 ksi) for each specimen, there tends to be softening of the
system indicated by a decrease in the slope of the
stress-strain curve. This apparent change in stiffness is
caused by the rotation of the splice—the system sustains
increasing loads but the reinforcing bar is no longer only in
axial tension. Similarly, stress-versus-slip relationships
(Fig. 5(b)) are also predictable and repeatable. The
stress-slip relationship is generally linear until yield of the
reinforcing bar, near 414 MPa (60 ksi). Following yield, the
slip begins to increase greatly, often to more than 6 mm
(0.24 in.) before eventual bar rupture.
As indicated in Table 4, although all but one specimen
passed both Criteria I and II, the capacity of the splices (as
measured by bar stress developed) is diminished as the bar
size increases. The Type A splices exhibited superior
capacity, satisfactory slip values, and significantly lower
variance as compared with Type B splices. Failure Mode C
was dominant and resulted from the kinking of the bar and
the eventual bearing of the kinked bar against the mechanical
splice. This was more pronounced in smaller bar sizes
because the flexural stiffness of the bar (and thus resistance
to kinking) is reduced.
RT behavior—There is an apparent consensus among
manufacturers and users of mechanical splices that due to the
kinking of the bar, the results of DT tests are conservative;
that is, if a splice passes a DT test, it will perform better in
place where rotation may be restrained (Coogler et al. 2006).
The RT series of tests was formulated to test this hypothesis.
As indicated in the results presented in Table 4, the capacity
measured using an RT test is lower than a comparable DT

Table 4—Average performance of offset mechanical splice systems tested in air

Splice Type A Splice Type B
Test Performance criteria No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6
Ultimate stress fu ,exp, MPa Average 704.7 681.2 641.2 669.5 622.6 602.6
Criteria I and II: Standard deviation 0.5% 2% 1% 6% 5% 5%
fu > 1.25fy = 518 MPa
fu > 0.90fu = 559 MPa Samples passing 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5

DT Slip at 200 MPa, mm Average 0.060 0.096 0.112 0.046 0.026 0.050
Criteria II: Standard deviation 58% 58% 78% 133% 60% 40%
Slip < 0.25 mm
Samples passing 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 4/5
Observed failure modes
B/C/D 0/5/0 2/2/1 1/4/0 0/5/0 2/3/0 2/3/0
(number of specimens)
Ultimate stress fu ,exp, MPa Average 670.2 650.2 628.1 537.1 625.4 510.9
Criteria I and III: Standard deviation 5% 2% 3% 11% 10% 3%
fu > 1.25fy = 518 MPa 0.9fu: 1/5 0.9fu: 0/5
fu > 0.90fu = 559 MPa Samples passing 5/5 5/5 5/5 1.25fy: 3/5
6/6
1.25fy: 2/5
RT
Average 0.026 0.040 0.030 0.010 0.020 0.036
Slip at 200 MPa, mm
Criteria II: Standard deviation 60% 88% 150% 50% 50% 43%
Slip < 0.25 mm
Samples passing 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 6/6 5/5
Observed failure modes A/D 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/5 1/4 0/5
Average 0.406 0.812 1.220 0.508 1.016 2.286
Slip following 10,000 cycles, mm
F Criteria IV: Standard deviation 63% 69% 121% 90% 100% 40%
Slip < 1.25 mm
Samples passing 5/5 4/5 4/5 5/5 3/5 1/5
Notes: Bold entries indicate average value did not pass criteria. 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

482 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008

test. The increased DT test capacity is attributed to the
kinked bar bearing against the splice and engaging additional
friction forces not present in the RT test. Slip values
reported in the RT tests are reduced and the variance of
both capacity and slip values are similar to that found in
the DT tests. The failure mode for the RT tests is almost exclu-
sively Mode D, which is a behavior dominated by the
nature of the mechanical connection.
Representative stress-versus-slip results for the RT tests
with No. 4 bars are shown in Fig. 6. The stress-slip relationship
is predictable and repeatable. The stress-slip relationship is
generally linear until yield of the reinforcing bar (414 MPa
[60 ksi]). Following yield, the slip begins to increase greatly,
often to more than 38 mm (1.5 in.). In each of the tests, the
specimen reaches an ultimate stress, the load begins to
decrease as the reinforcing bar begins to be pulled through
the splice, indicating a Failure Mode D. After a given
displacement, the load increases and then decreases again.
This effect was more pronounced for the Type B specimens
but was evident in nearly all of the RT tests. It was determined
that the reinforcing bar ribs contributed to this apparent
increase in load-carrying capacity: as the bar slipped, the bolt
or wedge engaged subsequent reinforcing bar ribs, increasing
the pullout force. This conclusion is confirmed by the Type B
results where the spacing, in terms of slip measurements, of
the load increases corresponded to the bar rib spacing. Such
behavior was less evident in the Type A splice as the multiple
bolts gouged into the bar as the bar slipped (Fig. 4).
Similar to the DT tests, an increase in bar size resulted in a
decrease in performance in the performance Criteria I and III
(Table 1) for the Type A splice specimens as shown in Table
4. The Type B specimens did not follow this trend and
performed marginally overall with respect to Criteria I and III.
The RT test setup used considered only pullout from one side
of the splice. While not reflecting in-place conditions, this setup
overcame the need for large restraining forces and resulted in
accurate pullout capacities not affected by the kinking of the bar
or the binding of the bar along the edge of the splice thought to
affect the DT tests. Thus, for the purposes of product evaluation,
it is felt that this simple test is appropriate.
F test protocol and behavior—Performance Criteria IV
(Table 1) requires cycling through a stress ranging from
172 MPa (25 ksi) in compression to 172 MPa (25 ksi) in
tension, a 345 MPa (50 ksi) stress range S for 10,000 cycles (N =
10,000). Due to the stress raisers induced by the mechanical
splices, the bolts, wedges, and the bar kinking at the coupler
face, this stress range was unachievable if 10,000 cycles of
loading were required. Initial tests conducted at this stress
range resulted in fatigue-induced reinforcing bar rupture
occurring at between 70 and 320 cycles for No. 4 and No. 5
specimens of both splice Type A and B (Coogler et al. 2006).
Commonly accepted S-N relationships for straight,
unspliced reinforcing steel (Helgason and Hanson 1974)
predict a fatigue life of approximately N = 100,000 cycles
corresponding to a stress range of 345 MPa (50 ksi). It is
expected that mechanically-spliced bars having inherent stress
raisers should have significantly reduced fatigue lives, espe-
cially at higher stress ranges. A number of variations in the
fatigue setup were attempted, including varying bar lengths
and stress ranges. Ultimately, the bar lengths had to be much
shorter than DT and RT tests to avoid buckling failures and the
additional stresses induced by buckling. Additionally, the
stress range had to be reduced. The stress range selected for
fatigue testing was 138 MPa (20 ksi), ranging from 69 MPa
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
(10 ksi) in compression to 69 MPa (10 ksi) in tension. This
stress range: a) permitted 10,000 cycles to be achieved while
maintaining a through-zero fatigue protocol felt to be critical
in assessing the behavior of the splices considered; b) exceeds
the AASHTO-permitted stress range for mechanical couplers;
c) is equal to the AASHTO-permitted stress range for unspliced
reinforcing bars (and thus provides a point of comparison);
and d) results in a similar stress range as that considered for the
flexural beam (B) tests reported in the following.
Similar to the DT and RT tests, an increase in bar size resulted
in a decrease in performance. For the Type A specimens, only
two specimens exhibiting a larger-than-allowable slip. The
Type B specimens performed generally less well, exhibiting
more scatter with great variability in the results; six Type B
specimens experienced slip values greater than allowable.
Flexural beam (B) tests
To assess the in-place performance of offset mechanical
splices, the splices of No. 4 bars were embedded in concrete
beams and the beams were tested in two ways: 1) under
monotonically increasing load to failure; and 2) subject to
fatigue-conditioning followed by a monotonically increasing
load to failure. The behavior of the splice was assessed and
compared with the behavior of a straight unspliced No. 4 bar
and a standard 305 mm (12 in.) long lap splice.
Eight reinforced concrete beams were cast for this test
program. Each specimen was 254 mm (10 in.) deep, 305 mm
(12 in.) wide, and was simply supported over a 4540 mm
(179 in.) span as shown in Fig. 3(d). Each beam had a single
No. 4 reinforcing bar as the primary flexural reinforcement
and two No. 3 bars in the compression zone. The beams were
cast in pairs, two specimens each having: a) straight,
unspliced bar (designated: C); b) standard 305 mm (12 in.)
long conventional lapped bar splices (L) (compliant with
ACI 318-05 [ACI Committee 318 2005] and AASHTO
[2004] ; c) Type A mechanical splices (A); and d) Type B
mechanical splices (B). One beam of each pair was tested
monotonically to failure (designated as indicated previously:
C, L, A, and B). The second beam of each pair was subject
to 10,000 cycles of repeated loading intended to result in an
applied stress range in the No. 4 bar of 138 MPa (20 ksi) as
measured in the first cycle of load, N = 1. The latter specimens
are referred to as fatigue conditioned and are designated with a
trailing F (that is, CF, LF, AF, and BF). Following fatigue
conditioning, the specimens were loaded monotonically to
failure. The same No. 4 reinforcing steel used for open air
Fig. 6—Restrained tension stress-slip results for No. 4 bars.
(Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
483
tests was used in this test series. The 28-day concrete
compressive strength was 41.6 MPa (6030 psi) and all beams
were tested at ages from 86 to 121 days.
All beams were loaded in four-point flexure with a 910 mm
(36 in.) constant moment region located in the center of a
4540 mm (179 in.) simple span. The reinforcing bar splice
was located in the center of the constant moment region. The
setup is shown in Fig. 3(d). Fatigue conditioning was applied
to the F beams in load control with the total applied load
(actuator load) ranging from 3.6 to 9.8 kN (800 to 2200 lb)
in a sinusoidal waveform having a frequency of 1.0 Hz. The
load range was selected based on the measured reinforcing
bar strains from the monotonic test series. The 3.6 kN (800 lb)
lower limit was selected to represent an applied dead load; the
9.8 kN (2200 lb) upper limit was selected to develop the
desired strain and, therefore, stress levels in the No. 4 rein-
forcing bar and across the splice. The target stress level was
138 MPa (20 ksi), corresponding to the F tests described
previously. All data were reported in terms of total actuator
applied load P. Thus, the resulting moment in the constant
moment region was 0.91P (kN-m) (2.98P [lb-ft]). Similarly, the
maximum shear in the beam was 0.5P (kN or lb).
The monotonic tests and final cycle to failure for the
fatigue tests were conducted in displacement control at a rate
of 7.3 mm/minute (0.29 in./minute). Due to the stroke limitations
of the actuator and the ductility of the under-reinforced beams,
additional spacers were required to test the beam specimens
to failure. In each monotonic test, the beams were loaded to
a deflection of 75 mm (3 in.), unloaded, and the resulting
permanent deflection was made up with spacer plates
between the actuator and spreader beam. The test was
continued to a deflection of approximately 127 mm (5 in.)
where the beam came into contact with the test frame.
Although not tested to their ultimate failure, the final deflections
were all on the order of L/32 and thus may be reasonably
assumed to have exceeded the beams’ ultimate limit states
demands. This load history described results in the loop at a
displacement of 75 mm (3 in.) evident in the presented load-
deflection plots. During monotonic testing, the displacements
were held constant at specified load intervals to document
cracking and investigate the specimens’ behavior. The tests
were paused less than 10 minutes in each case and the entire
testing time (to failure) was kept under 2 hours. It was determined
that these pauses did not affect the behavior of the specimen.
Each beam was instrumented with electrical resistance
strain gauges on the No. 4 flexural reinforcement. Gauges
were located 305 mm (12 in.) on each side of midspan and
thus fell in the constant moment region. Vertical displacements
were recorded using draw wire transducers (DWT) located
Table 5—Flexural beam test results
at given displacements
Column 1 2 3
Load at 50.8 mm Strain at 50.8 mm Load at 127 mm
Specimen displacement, kN (lb) displacement, με displacement, kN (lb)
C 15.1 (3390) 2217 19.0 (4270)
CF 15.2 (3420) 2262 18.1 (4070)
L 12.8 (2880) 2094 16.3 (3660)
LF 13.3 (2990) 9133 16.5 (3710)
A 15.0 (3370) 1282 11.3 (2540)
AF 13.9 (3120) 9015 17.5 (3930)
B 13.8 (3100) 1349 14.2 (3190)
BF 14.3 (3210) 2149 17.3 (3890)
484
under each load point (Fig. 3(d)). The hydraulic actuator was
equipped with an internal load cell.
Flexural beam test results
The load-versus-displacement results of each beam are
shown in Fig. 7. The behavior of the load-deflection plots
show the ductility of each under-reinforced beam and indicate
evidence of slip in the splicing methods or rotation of the
splice within the concrete as described further in the
following. The jagged behavior of these plots reflect the
relaxation that occurred when the loads were held to assess
cracking behavior. The displacement limitations of the
testing frame prevented testing of the specimens to their
ultimate load-carrying capacity; thus, ultimate load cannot
be a basis of comparison between the different specimens.
Therefore, applied load resulting in a specified deflection is
used as a means of comparison. To compare the stiffness for
each specimen, the load and strain were recorded at specified
displacements and are presented in Table 5.
In Column 1 of Table 5, it is evident there was little
degradation of load-carrying behavior caused by the
fatigue conditioning of each specimen type. Additionally,
the control series (C and CF) exhibited the stiffest behavior,
whereas the lap splice (L and LF) was the least stiff of all
specimens. There was little difference in stiffness between
the A (and AF) and B (and BF) specimens, although both
were marginally less stiff than the control beams having a
continuous reinforcing bar. The behavior described indicates
a marginal reduction in capacity associated with each splice,
which may be attributed to nominal slip or relative movement of
the splice. Column 2 of Table 5 presents the strain values at
a displacement of 50.8 mm (2 in.). From these values, it is
evident there was some accumulated damage due to fatigue
conditioning in all cases because the monotonic strain is less
than the fatigue strain. The very large strains for the LF and
AF specimens are likely caused by the presence of a flexural
crack very near the gauge location.
Column 3 provides the applied load at a displacement of
127 mm (5 in.) (near the maximum test setup deflection for
all specimens). The fatigue conditioned control (CF) and the
lap splice specimens (L and LF) performed in a similar
manner as the monotonic control Specimen C. For the Type A
specimens, the fatigue conditioned specimen (AF) had a
higher load than the monotonic loaded specimen (A). This
is explained by the fact that the monotonic Specimen A
clearly exhibited slip of the splice and began to shed load
as a result (described in detail in the following). The B and
BF specimens performed similar to the A-series with the
fatigue conditioned specimen achieving higher loads than
the monotonic specimen. Again, marginal slip of the splice
during the monotonic tests is believed to account for this as
discussed in the following. The following discusses the
behavior of each test specimen.
Specimens C and CF
Specimen C had the highest recorded applied load of the
beam tests, which was a result of this specimen having a
higher post-yield stiffness than the other specimens. The
peak load was near 20 kN (4500 lb), although this specimen
was loaded to a deflection closer to 152 mm (6 in.). During
testing of the other specimens, the tests were stopped at
deflections of approximately 140 mm (5.5 in.); the load in
Specimen C at this deflection value was 19 kN (4270 lb).
Specimen CF showed little degradation from the fatigue
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
 Fig. 7—Beam test load-deflection results. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.039 in.)
conditioning, performing similar to Specimen C throughout
most of the test history. Some degradation in the behavior of
Specimen CF was evident at the end of the test at displacements
exceeding 127 mm (5 in.), although this behavior cannot
necessarily be attributed to the effects of fatigue conditioning.
Specimens L and LF
Specimens L and LF performed similarly with little difference
in stiffness due to the fatigue conditioning. This series had a
lower stiffness than the other specimens and a peak load of
only 16.7 kN (3750 lb).
The apparent degradation of behavior of the L specimens
as compared with the C specimens may be attributed to the
softer expected response of the lap splice as compared with
the continuous bar. In a conventional lap splice, relative slip
of the bars, in addition to steel strain, contribute to the
measured elongation across the splice. The slip initiates
immediately and increases until the bond stress is exhausted
at which point the lap splice can carry no additional load and
eventually fails, shedding its load carrying capacity. The cyclic
loading response of lap splices was observed to be significantly
inferior to the monotonic loading response. The bond stresses
developed in lap splices subject to cyclic loading histories were
observed to deteriorate more rapidly than bond stresses under
monotonic loading (Viwathanatepa et al. 1979). Additionally,
there is a general consensus (Viwathanatepa et al. 1979; Lukose
et al. 1982; and MacKay et al. 1988) that for cyclic loading
conditions, the effects of confinement reinforcement are
insignificant, although recent work by Harajli (2007)
contradicts this. For the tests conducted in this study, no
transverse confinement was provided and thus the deterioration
due to cycling (or rather the beneficial effects of confinement
under monotonic conditions) was not evident.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
Fig. 8—Longitudinal cracking of beam soffits due to coupler
rotation.
Specimens A and AF
Specimen A performed well initially, reaching a peak load
of 15.6 kN (3510 lb). Upon reloading following holding at
this peak (to record cracking), however, the specimen never
regained its previous capacity, achieving a capacity of only
14.2 kN (3190 lb) before the load began to decrease as the
deflection continued to increase, indicating a failure of the
specimen. Following testing, the splice was recovered and
inspected. The splice exhibited clear signs of slip: one bar
slipped approximately 13 mm (0.5 in.) through the splice.
Specimen AF showed little sign of degradation resulting
from fatigue conditioning and achieved a higher load than
the monotonic test, reaching an ultimate load of 17.8 kN
(4000 lb) at a deflection of 133 mm (5.24 in.).
In Specimens A and AF, the concrete was unable to properly
confine the splice and there was cracking evident on the soffit of
the specimen caused by the rotation of the splice or slip of
the bars through the splice. This cracking demonstrated a
particular problem with offset splices: the cracking of the
cover concrete may have caused particular problems in
structural elements exposed to the environment, and especially
deicing salts. This cracking is shown on Specimen A in
Fig. 8(a) at a load of 15.6 kN (3510 lb).
485
Specimens B and BF
Specimen B performed in a similar manner as Specimen A.
During the initial loading, the specimen had a reasonable
stiffness. At the peak load of the initial loading step, the
splice began to rotate and the cover concrete began to spall.
Figure 8(b) shows the effect of the splice rotation on the
cover concrete. The cracking was first documented at 13.8 kN
(3100 lb), and the cracking in Fig. 8(b) is shown at a load of
15.1 kN (3390 lb) at the peak of the initial loading cycle.
During reloading, the specimen’s performance deteriorated
and was unable to achieve higher loads as the deflections
continued to increase. Slip failure similar to that observed in
Specimen A was suspected. Upon post-test inspection,
however, there was no noticeable slip, although a great deal
of rotation occurred, which would also result in an increase in
deflection without an increase in load. Similar to Specimens A
and AF, the concrete cover was unable to restrain the
splice from rotating.
Splice-induced damage to concrete
Splice-induced damage was only significant following
yield of the beams. At service load levels, through all fatigue
conditioning, and prior to yield, no splice-induced damage to
the concrete was apparent. As deformations increased into the
post-yield region, however, significant damage to the concrete
cover was evident. Figure 9 shows images of the beam soffits
following testing. Figure 9(a) and (b) shows the expected
flexure-induced transverse cracking evident for Specimens C
and L. No other damage is apparent, including longitudinal
cracking in Specimen L, which may indicate lap splice slip.
The rotation and resulting loss of cover associated with each
mechanical splice is clearly shown in Fig. 9(c) though (f).
Fig. 9—Soffit of each specimen following testing.
486
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Two commercially available offset mechanical splice
systems, designated in this paper as splice Types A and B,
were evaluated in four series of tests: DT, RT, F, and B tests.
The performance of each specimen was evaluated in accordance
with a number of performance criteria indicated in Table 1.
The following conclusions are drawn from this work:
1. An increase in reinforcement bar diameter from No. 4 to
No. 6 resulted in a decrease in performance for each of
the criteria considered, although most specimens still
passed the criteria;
2. Generally, Type A splices outperformed Type B splices;
3. Contrary to manufacturers’ assumptions, the DT test was
not necessarily conservative; the splice capacity determined by
the DT test was greater than that determined by the RT test
presumably due to friction between the kinked bar and coupler;
4. Failure Mode C: The rupture of the bar at the stress
raiser associated with contact between the kinked bar and
coupler was the most commonly observed failure mode in
DT tests;
5. Failure Mode D: A pullout failure was the most
common failure mode observed for the RT tests. This mode
of failure results in a decrease in apparent ultimate stress for
the system because of the inability to develop the full
strength of the cross section;
6. A 345 MPa (50 ksi) stress range for F testing results in
fatigue-induced reinforcing bar rupture at a very low number
of cycles. A more reasonable stress range of 138 MPa (20 ksi) is
suggested for assessing the performance of this type of splice;
7. There was no noticeable degradation of the in-place
splice behavior resulting from fatigue conditioning at a stress
range of 138 MPa (50 ksi) applied for 10,000 cycles; and
8. For all in-place testing, concrete was unable to properly
confine the offset splice near ultimate load levels.
QUALITATIVE OBSERVATIONS
All mechanical splices were installed at the University of
Pittsburgh’s structural research laboratory following the
manufacturer’s guidelines and specifications. As noted, the
Type B product requires the use of a proprietary hydraulic
wedge driver and the Type A product can be installed using
a hand-held ratchet or torque wrench. The Type A product
presents more options if there are clearance issues when
installing; for example, a simple ratchet could be used to
install the splice. The wedge driver requires time-consuming
adjustments to the driver tool to splice different size bars,
whereas the Type A product simply adds to the number of
screws that need to be tightened—the screw head size
remains constant.
A concern with both of the mechanical splices considered
herein are the dimensions of the product. The Type B splice
is much smaller and encroaches less on the amount of cover
present when the splice is embedded in concrete. Nonetheless,
little difference in concrete behavior was evident.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There is a limited body of knowledge on the testing and
use of offset mechanical splices. There needs to be further
work conducted in this area before the use of these splices
can be widely accepted. Some recommendations resulting
from this study are:
1. Offset mechanical splices are not recommended for use
with bar sizes greater than No. 5 unless they can be shown to
satisfy the performance criteria;
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
 2. Offset mechanical splices should not be used in
applications subject to seismic load reversals;
3. Offset mechanical splices should be included in the second
category of mechanical splices (having a fatigue limit of 83 MPa
[12 ksi]) in AASHTO LRFD (2004), Table 5.5.3.4-1;
4. When used, offset mechanical splices must be designed
to transfer 100% of the expected splice forces. They must not
be used to augment the capacity of traditional embedment
laps splices;
5. The presence of confinement is expected to improve
behavior of these types of splices; a study of this effect is
required. Modifications may need to be made to current
codes to address the amount of confinement required to allow the
splice to properly function embedded in concrete; and
6. Coogler et al. (2006) have provided recommended revisions
to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation specifications
and ASTM A1034-05b (ASTM International 2005) to allow
the inclusion of offset mechanical splices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The test program described in this paper was sponsored by the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation through Contract #2006-033-040110. The
in-kind support of BarSplice Products Inc. and Erico International Inc. is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors wish to acknowledge their discussions
with C. Paulson, Chair of ACI Committee 439, Steel Reinforcement; G. Weldon
of Caltrans; and S. Holdsworth of BarSplice.
REFERENCES
AASHTO ASD, 1996, “ASD Bridge Design Specifications,” seventeenth
edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO LFRD, 2004, “Bridge Design Specifications,” third edition,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, 1522 pp.
AASHTO M31, 1996, “Deformed and Plan Billet-Steel Bars for
Concrete Reinforcement, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 11 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2005, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 430 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008
ACI Committee 439, 2007, “Types of Mechanical Splices for Reinforcing
Bars (ACI 439.3R-07),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 20 pp.
ASTM A1034-05b, 2005, “Standard Test Methods for Testing
Mechanical Splices for Steel Reinforcing Bars,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 6 pp.
Caltrans, 2004, California Test 670 Method of Tests for Mechanical and
Welded Reinforcing Steel Splices, California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA, 8 pp.
Coogler, K. L.; Harries, K. A.; and Gallick, M., 2006, “Evaluation of
Offset Mechanical Reinforcing Bar Splice Systems,” FHWA Report
No. FHWA-PA-2006-033-040110, and University of Pittsburgh Report
No. CE/ST-35, 91 pp.
CSA International, 2000, “Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,”
CAN/CSA-S6-00, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Harajli, M., 2007, “Cyclic Response of Concrete Members with
Bond-Damaged Zones Repaired using Concrete Confinement,” Materials
and Structures, V. 21, pp. 937-951.
Helgason, T., and Hanson, J. M., 1974, “Investigation of Design Factors
Affecting Fatigue Strength of Reinforcing Bars—Statistical Analysis,”
Abeles Symposium on Fatigue of Concrete, SP-41 American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 107-138.
Lukose, K.; Gergely, P.; and White, R. N., 1982, “Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Lapped Spliced under Inelastic Cyclic Loading,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 75, No. 5, July-Aug., pp. 355-365.
MacKay, B.; Schmidt, D.; and Rezansoff, T., 1988, “Effectiveness of
Concrete Confinement on Lap-Splice Perfomance in Concrete Beams
under Reversed Inelastic Loading,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
V. 16, No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Paulson, C., and Hanson, J. M., 1989, “A Summary and Review of
Fatigue Data for Mechanical and Welded Splices in Reinforcing Bars,
Structural Materials,” Proceedings of the Sessions Related to Structural
Materials at Structures Congress’89, American Society of Civil Engineers,
pp. 382-391.
Paulson, C., and Hanson, J. M., 1991, “Fatigue Behavior of Welded and
Mechanical Splices in Reinforcing Steel,” Final Report, Project 10-35,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
Viwathanatepa, S.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., 1979, “Effects of
Generalized Loadings on Bond of Reinforcing Bars Embedded in Confined
Concrete Blocks,” UCB/EERC-79/22, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 316 pp.
487