Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Effects of spiral confinement to the bond behavior of deformed

reinforcement bars subjected to axial tension
Seyed Jamal Aldin Hosseini ⇑, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman
Department of Structures and Materials, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81300 Johor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: When grouted pipe splice connections are employed, the structural performance of the connected precast
Received 25 December 2013 concrete components is significantly influenced by the bond behavior between the main reinforcing bars
Revised 21 December 2015 and the surrounding grout. Owing to this important characteristic, the bond behavior, in particular the
Accepted 23 December 2015
local bond-stress slip relationship and the bond strength, of the main steel reinforcement bars embedded
Available online 18 January 2016
in grout needs to be investigated accordingly. This paper presents the bond behavior of main deformed
steel reinforcement bars confined by a grouted spiral connection. A total of 36 pullout specimens were
Keywords:
tested under increasing axial tensile load to investigate the effects of spiral confinement to the connected
Spiral confinement
Grouted splice connection
main steel bars. Parameters covered in this study were spiral diameter and spiral pitch distance. The
Bond stress experimental results showed that the spiral configurations influence the bond performance due to the
Slip effect of confinement generated by the spiral diameter and pitch distance. As compared to spiral pitch
distance, the spiral diameter provides more dominant confinement effect which subsequently increases
the bond strength significantly.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction essential to make the relevant information accessible, in particular

One of the major concerns that commonly arise with regard to
the use of prefabricated precast concrete components is the quality
of connections in joining the loose components together [1]. Many
designers prefer to have a precast connection that has the same
features of cast-in-place connection [2]. In this regard, the America
Concrete Institute (ACI) has published different connection details
to emulate equivalent cast-in-place rigid quality in the precast
concrete construction [3]. Apart from mechanical rebar splicing
systems such as Lenton and Erico, grouted splice vertical duct con-
nection is one of the precast connections that is able to provide full
continuity for continuous construction. On the other hand, still
there is not enough supplementary information in the ACI code
regarding the design of mechanical splice connections. Moreover,
according to the related literature, majority of technical details
are usually private and confidential except the basic feasibility
evaluation of splice connections that has been recently published
by Tokyo Steel Corp [4], Jansson [5], Coogler et al. [6] and Ling
et al. [7]. To develop new splice connections, it is very essential
to know the interactions and also internal stress distribution
among the splice bars and the surrounding materials. It is also
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Hosseini_s_jamal@yahoo.com (S.J.A. Hosseini).
the local bond stress–slip relationship which is considered as the
main objective of the study.
Grouted pipe splice connections are usually used in connecting
precast concrete components and usually the bond development
has strong effect on the interaction between the grout and splice
bars. In fact, the mechanism of load transfer between the precast
components depends on the quality of adequate bond between
the connected reinforcement bars in the grouted splice connec-
tions [8]. Fig. 1 shows a typical example of connecting precast wall
components using grouted splice connection. To avoid load eccen-
tricity in the splice joints, rebar lapping in the grouted connection
is avoided. Hence the rebars are connected using the end to end bar
splice connections, as shown in the figure.
Research on the factors that affect the bond has developed
greatly over the last 55 years, in which the detailed investigation
of bond started with the research works by Rehm [10] in 1961.
Experimental works by Goto [11], had demonstrated the bond
action between concrete and steel deformed bar, which provides
the understanding of the force transfer, the behavior of interlock-
ing mechanisms and cracks between the embedded reinforcement
bars and the grout. Other research studies on bond include the
works by Jorge et al. [12], Ogura et al. [13] and Haskett et al.
[14], Huanzi [15] and Azizinamini et al. [16]. As a result of
numerous research works, considerable modifications have been

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.038
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13
Fig. 1. Grouted splice sleeve connection in precast concrete wall panels [9].
introduced to bond clauses in design codes worldwide [17].
Detailed evaluation of bond strength and bond behavior is
complicated, as the magnitude of bond strength is influenced by
a wide range of factors. For example, the CEB-FIP Model Code 90
[18], includes not less than 10 parameters which influence the
anchorage bond behavior.
Confinement has been attributed as one of the governing
parameters that provide significant improvement in the anchorage
bond that could lead to a reduction in the required embedment
length of the connected steel bars [19–22]. To provide confinement
to the connected main bars, various methods such as transverse
reinforcements [23], spirals [24,25], cylindrical pipes [19,25–28],
square hollow sections [29] and wrapping of fiber reinforced poly-
mer (FRP) sheets [1] surrounding the anchorage bar zone have
been adopted. Confinement is known to control the spread of the
splitting cracks, either by bridging or by resisting the expansion
of materials surrounding the main steel bars. This effect increases
the bond strength between the deformed bars and the surrounding
grout and as a result a shorter embedded length for the main bars.
In Malaysia, the effect of spiral confinement on the bond
strength of deformed steel bars was experimentally investigated
by Hoseeini and Rahman [24,25]. The confinement was provided
by means of spiral, similar to the proprietary grout filled splice
sleeves that are widely used in precast concrete construction. In
Denmark and Sweden respectively, similar research works for
splicing tensile reinforcement bars using spiral sockets were car-
ried out by Efsen [30] and Tepfers [31–33]. Research results by
Efsen showed that spiral sockets were able to cause the spliced
reinforcement bars rupture outside the splice. Tepfers [32] investi-
gated the strength of tensile reinforcement splices confined by spi-
ral reinforcement where every overlap has a separate spiral. The
splices were tested in reinforced concrete beams and the results
showed that the confining spiral contributed to the increase in
splice strength significantly.
Grouted spiral connections can be used as the horizontal joint
for connecting precast concrete wall-to-wall, wall-to-base,
column-to-column and column-to-base. Higher bond strength pro-
vided by the spiral confinement has led to a reduction in the
embedded length of the connected main reinforcement bars.
Shorter embedded length facilitates the installation of precast con-
crete components and grouting of the connections. The proposed
grouted spiral connections can be adopted in Industrial Building
Systems (IBS) and can become a substitute to other types of
mechanical spliced connections.
Upper wall panel Reinforcement bar
of upper wall
Splice
Sleeves
Reinforcement bar
of lower wall
The objectives of this paper are:
1. To investigate the effects of spiral diameter and spiral
pitch distance in providing the confinement.
2. To investigate the effects of confinement contributed by
the steel spiral in improving the bond strength of
deformed steel bars in the grouted splice connection.
2. Descriptions of test specimens
A complete grouted spiral connection consists of spiral rein-
forcement cage, two main reinforcement bars and non-shrink
grout. Sections 2.1–2.4 discuss the components and material
involved in making the connection.
2.1. The spiral reinforcement cage
The fabrication of the spiral reinforcement cage involved a spi-
ral reinforcement that was welded to four (4) number of high yield
steel (Y) deformed bars in 10 mm diameter, denoted as 4Y10 (see
Fig. 2). The 4Y10 splice bars were welded to the external diameter
of the spiral to provide the tensile resistance mechanism within
the grouted connection.
2.2. Main reinforcement bar
The geometrical details of main reinforcement bar connected by
the grouted spiral connection are shown in Fig. 3. It is a deformed
bar and high yield (Y) steel with a diameter of 16 mm, denoted as
Y16. The details of the deformed shape are: rib height = 1 mm, rib
spacing, c = 10 mm and rib inclination, b = 63.5°.
2.3. Grouted spiral connection
Fig. 4(a) and Table 1 show the details and Fig. 4(b) shows the
preparation of the grouted splice connection in joining the two
main Y16 reinforcement bars. In this connection, the main rein-
forcement bars are inserted into the spiral and then grouted with
the aid of PVC pipe.
The grouted splice connections are categorized in three series
namely S25, S35, and S45, with the spiral diameter of 25 mm,
35 mm, and 45 mm respectively. Each group had three different
pitch distances that were 15 mm, 25 mm, and 35 mm.
 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13
Spiral
Splice bar
Fig. 2. Spiral reinforcement cage consisted of spiral and four splice bars.
c bond stress and allowing uniform slip distribution throughout the
β embedded length, in line with the suggestion made by Losberg
Fig. 3. Rib geometry of deformed bar.
2.4. Grout
The grout was Sika Grout-215 of non-shrinkage type. To deter-
mine the compressive strength, the grout was prepared with a
mix of 25 kg of grout in 4 liters of water and cast in
70.7
70.7
70.7 mm steel molds. Nine cubes were prepared for
each series of test specimens. For each Series A, B and C, three cubes
were tested at day 7 and another three cubes at day 14 to monitor
the development of grout compressive strength in order to have a
minimum strength of 60 N/mm2 at the day of the pullout tests.
The remaining 3 cubes were tested at the day of the pullout tests
and the average value from the 3 cubes was adopted as the com-
pressive strength. The results of grout compressive strength at the
day of the pullout tests were 62.4, 61.4 and 60 N/mm2 for Series
A, B and C respectively, see column 6 of Table 2 (also see Fig. 5,
for the grout cube samples and corresponding compressive test).
2.5. Specification of control specimens
Three control specimens S1, S2 and S3 were used as the bench-
mark to monitor the development of the grouted spiral connection
performance. The details of these specimens are shown in Fig. 6.
Specimen S1 was fabricated without any reinforcement cage,
whereas specimen S2 with spiral only and without any splice bars.
Meanwhile, specimen S3 was a complete set of the grouted spiral
connection consisted of spiral and 4Y10 splice bars.
3. Direct pullout test
In order to study the bond stress–slip evolution, the direct pull-
out test was adopted, see Fig. 7.
For each specimen, a strain gauge (SG) was installed on the
main bar extruding from the grouted sleeve, at the location of
one bar diameter from the surface-end of the grout.
3
All the specimens were tested under increasing tension by using
a hydraulic actuator at the rate of 0.5 kN/s. A computer-aided auto-
matic data acquisition system was used to monitor the increasing
applied load, slip and strain of the connected rebars until the fail-
ure of the specimen.
To measure the slip of the spliced main reinforcement bars, two
set of Linear Variable Data Transducers (LVDT) were placed at both
active and passive ends of the specimen (see Fig. 7(a) and (b)). The
active end was located at the top end specimen whereas the pas-
sive ends at the bottom. Due to short embedded length of
75 mm, the main bars slip from the surrounding grout as increas-
ing pull-out force was applied. With this arrangement, the LVDTs
would measure the slip as well as the elongation of the bar
between reference plate and end of grout. However, the slip due
to rebar elongation was neglected due to: (i). Short embedment
length of the rebar to the extent that the bar slips before any elon-
gation occurs, and (ii). The strain reading in the rebar shows that it
was still in the elastic condition, indicating there was no plastic
elongation or rebar. So, the net slip for an individual spliced bar
was estimated as the relative slip between rebar and grout end.
4. Pullout test results of grouted spiral connections
The embedded length, Le of 75 mm was adopted for all main
bars. This embedded length is short enough for developing uniform
[34]. Furthermore, this embedded length is long enough to reduce
the scatter of the test results [35,36]. Consequently, due to uniform
bond stress, the average bond strength can be defined as the shear
force along the embedded length per surface area of the rebar.
Therefore, the average bond stress ‘‘s” at any stage during loading
can be calculated as the pullout load, T divided by the nominal sur-
face area of the embedment length ‘‘Le” of the rebar [37,38]. For a
bar with diameter, u, the average bond stress, s is given by Eq. (1).
s ¼ T=ðp  u  Le Þ ð1Þ
Table 2 shows the results of the splice connections subjected to
increasing pullout. The table shows the failure load, bond strength,
slip between main bar and the grout and also the corresponding
compressive strength of grout for all the tested specimens. The
grout compressive strength is shown in column 6.
For each specimen type, three similar samples labeled as A, B, C
were tested to ensure the reliability of the data.
Referring to Table 2, columns 7, 8 and 9 represent the average
results of failure load, bond strength and slip respectively of the
three similar specimens. The discussion of results in the following
sections will be based on these average values.
4.1. Tensile performance of control specimens
4.1.1. Control specimen S1
Fig. 8(a) and (b) shows the failure mode and the load transfer
mechanism of the grouted specimen S1 without any reinforcement
cage. The tensile load in the connected Y16 main bar was resisted
by the anchorage bond between the bar and surrounding grout.
With this anchorage bond, the tensile load was then transferred
to the grout medium. However, since the grout was weak in ten-
sion, only a very small tensile force of 24.01 kN (see column 7 of
Table 2) was transferred between the two connected Y16 main
bars. At this load level, the grout failed in tension and fractured
in brittle manner.
Since the failure occurred at mid-section of the grout where no
reinforcement bars were present, then the strength of the connec-
tion relied on the tensile strength of the grout, calculated as the
4 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13

Splice bar = 12 mm diameter, high yield steel deformed bar

Spiral = 6 mm diameter, mild steel with smooth surface
Main bar = 16 mm diameter, high yield steel deformed bar

(a) Details of specimen comprising main bars, spiral, and splice bars

(b) Preparation of grouted connections in the laboratory

Fig. 4. Grouted spiral connection.

Table 1
Dimensions of all series.

Series Specimen Number of Diameter of Spiral Pitch No. of Connection Main bar No. of
specimen cylindrical grout diameter distance coils (N) length Ls embedded splice bar
D (mm) Ds (mm) P (mm) (mm) length Le (mm)
Control specimen S1 3 110 No spiral No spiral No spiral 160 75 -
S2 3 110 25 15 12 160 75 -
S3 3 110 25 15 12 160 75 4
S25 P15 D25 3 110 25 15 12 160 75 4
P25 D25 3 110 25 25 8 160 75 4
P35 D25 3 110 25 35 6 160 75 4
S35 P15 D35 3 110 35 15 12 160 75 4
P25 D35 3 110 35 25 8 160 75 4
P35 D35 3 110 35 35 6 160 75 4
S45 P15 D45 3 110 45 15 12 160 75 4
P25 D45 3 110 45 25 8 160 75 4
P35 D45 3 110 45 35 6 160 75 4

tensile load over cross sectional area of the grout, rt = Tmax/A =
(24.01
103 N)/(p
10 mm)2/4) = 6.37 MPa. As this tensile resis-
tance was exceeded, the grout cracked and fractured, and the
remaining grout in contact with the bar tended to move as a unit
with the main reinforcement bar, in the direction of the pulling
force.
4.1.2. Control specimen S2
Specimen S2 consisted of grouted spiral without any
splice bars. The spiral size was 25 mm in diameter with 15 mm
pitch distance. The purpose of specimen S2 was to see the influ-
ence of spiral in contributing the tensile resistance of the
connection.
 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13 5

Table 2
Pullout test results of grouted splice connections.

Series Specimen Failure Bond Slip at Compressive Average Average Average Failure mode
load strength failure strength of failure bond slip at
Tmax (kN) smax (MPa) (mm) Sika grout load strength maximum
fc,g (MPa) Tmax (kN) smax (MPa) load (mm)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Control specimen S1 (A) 24.12 6.4a 4.02 62.4 24.01 6.37a 4.01 Grout tensile fracture
S1 (B) 23.6 6.26a 4 61.4
S1 (C) 24.32 6.45a 4.02 60
S2 (A) 24.64 6.54a 1.48 62.4 24.62 6.53a 1.48 Grout tensile fracture
S2 (B) 24.60 6.53a 1.5 61.4
S2 (C) 24.64 6.54a 1.48 60
S3 (A) 69.8 18.52 4.16 62.4 69.73 18.5 4.11 Bar bond slip
S3 (B) 69.9 18.54 4.05 61.4
S3 (C) 69.5 18.44 4.12 60
S25 P15 D25 (A) 70 18.57 4.16 62.4 69.5 18.42 4.11 Bar bond slip
P15 D25 (B) 69.5 18.44 4.12 61.4
P15 D25 (C) 69 18.30 4.05 60
P25 D25 (A) 68 18.04 3.9 62.4 67.5 17.92 3.87 Bar bond slip
P25 D25 (B) 67.5 17.9 3.88 61.4
P25 D25 (C) 67.2 17.83 3.85 60
P35 D25 (A) 66.5 17.64 4 62.4 66.3 17.5 3.99 Bar bond slip with radial cracks
P35 D25 (B) 66.4 17.61 4.05 61.4
P35 D25 (C) 66 17.51 3.94 60
S35 P15 D35 (A) 60.93 16.05 3.64 62.4 60.37 15.98 3.61 Bar bond slip
P15 D35 (B) 60.2 15.97 3.55 61.4
P15 D35 (C) 60 15.92 3.64 60
P25 D35 (A) 59 15.65 3.4 62.4 58.8 15.59 3.38 Bar bond slip with radial cracks
P25 D35 (B) 58.9 15.62 3.38 61.4
P25 D35 (C) 58.5 15.52 3.37 60
P35 D35 (A) 58 15.39 3.5 62.4 57.94 15.37 3.49 Bar bond slip with radial cracks
P35 D35 (B) 58 15.39 3.5 61.4
P35 D35 (C) 57.84 15.34 3.48 60
S45 P15 D45 (A) 52 13.79 3.12 62.4 51.56 13.67 3.09 Bar bond slip
P15 D45 (B) 51.2 13.58 3.1 61.4
P15 D45 (C) 51.5 13.66 3.05 60
P25 D45 (A) 50.7 13.45 3 62.4 50.4 13.37 2.97 Bar bond slip with radial cracks
P25 D45 (B) 50.5 13.40 2.98 61.4
P25 D45 (C) 50 13.26 2.95 60
P35 D45 (A) 49 13.00 3 62.4 49.31 13.1 2.99 Bar bond slip with radial cracks
P35 D45 (B) 49.47 13.12 2.99 61.4
P35 D45 (C) 49.47 13.12 2.99 60
a
Tensile strength of grout.

With the presence of spiral, specimen S2 could only sustained
the tensile load up to 24.62 kN as compared to 24.01 kN in speci-
men S1 (see Table 2). Fig. 9(a) shows that specimen S2 failed due
to grout fractured at mid-length, similar to specimen S1. The corre-
sponding bond strength of specimen S2 was 6.53 MPa, close to the
bond strength of specimen S1, i.e. 6.37 MPa.
When the grout cracked and split at mid-length, the exposed
spiral at mid-length elongated and could not sustain increasing
tensile loads. This gives an indication that the splice connection
failure was governed by the maximum tensile strength of the grout
and the spiral had no role in providing tensile resistance (see Fig. 9
(b)). On the other hand, one important observation shows that the
slip at failure load was reduced by 63% from 4.01 mm to 1.48 mm
in specimen S2. This indicates that the spiral had considerably
improved the performance of connection in terms of reducing
the slip of the specimen. In other words, the spiral had the poten-
tial to restrain the slip movement as compared to specimen S1
without spiral.
4.1.3. Control specimen S3
As can be seen from specimen S2, the spiral had the advantage
of reducing the slip but still not able to transmit the tensile load
between the main rebars. To improve the tensile resistance, 4Y10
high yield steel splice bars were welded at equal spacing around
the external spiral. Then, the connection with this improvement
was tested in specimen S3.
Table 2 shows the tensile test results including the failure load,
bond strength and slip between the main reinforcement bars and
surrounding grout. As compared to specimen S2, it can be seen that
by adding the 4Y10 splice bars, the bond strength of main rebars in
specimen S3 had increased substantially by 2.8 times, from
6.53 MPa to 18.5 MPa. The failure mode was no longer grout frac-
ture at mid-length. This shows that the 4Y10 splice bars and the
spiral managed to bridge the tensile force in the connected main
rebars. The tensile force from one of the Y16 main rebar was able
to be transferred to the grout, then from the grout to the 4Y10
splice bars, then from 4Y10 splice bars to the grout, and finally
from the grout to the other Y16 main rebar, see Fig. 10(a).
This internal componential interactions of force transfer among
main rebars, grout, spiral and 4Y10 splice bars relies mainly on
bond mechanism. These bonds rely on chemical adhesion, interface
friction and also mechanical interlocking between bar ribs and
grout keys [3,20,39]. However, according to Rehm [10], the
mechanical interlocking around a bar lug contributes the most in
bond resistance. This paper demonstrates that the mechanical
interlocking in the grouted connection is enhanced by the confine-
ment effects contributed by the spiral and splice bars. By having
good mechanical interlocking due to good confinement, the bond
strength increases very significantly.
6 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13

(a) Grout cubes (b) Compressive test of

grout cube
Fig. 5. Cube samples to determine grout compressive strength.

(a) No spiral (b) With spiral only (c) With spiral and
splice bars
Fig. 6. Details of the control specimens.

The failure mode of specimen S3 was bar pullout, see Fig. 10(b).
This bar pullout occurred because of the 75 mm embedded length
of the main bar that was short and not enough to generate an
anchorage force higher than the yield strength of the main bar.
The 75 mm embedded length, suggested by Eligehausen et al.
[35], Soroushian and Choi [36] and Losberg [34], was used in these
tests to ensure uniform bond stress along the embedded main bar
suitable for studying the bond behavior.
Fig. 10(b) also shows that the bar pullout failure was accompa-
nied by radial cracks of the grout. These radial cracks, which were
also observed by Jorge [12], occurred due to grout tension failure.
The radial cracks had developed immediately before the sample
reached the failure load. This suggests that the crack opening had
contributed to the loss of bond between the grout and the main
bar that eventually allowed the bar to slip.
On the other hand, from strain data shown in Fig. 11, it was
observed that all specimens had their tensile stresses below the
specified yield stress of 500 MPa, indicating that the main bar did
not yield during the test due to the short bar embedded length
of 75 mm. Due to the limited embedded length, these grouted
splice connections cannot achieve the full capacity of the main
reinforcement bars as bar pull out failure occurred below the the-
oretical yielding strain of 2300
106 mm/mm. The results of
other series are similar in which all the main bars remained elastic.
5. Analysis of results
Section 4 has discussed the development of load transfer in the
grouted spiral connection. Results of specimen S3 showed that the
complete configuration of the connection consisting the spiral and
splice bars was able to transmit the tensile load between the con-
nected main rebars. Due to this success, more specimens similar to
specimen S3 were tested to investigate the effects of connection
parameters to the bond stress behavior. The results of other spec-
imens are shown in Table 2.
The results shown in Table 2 are related to the effects of pitch
distance and spiral diameter to the failure loads, bond strength
and slip of the connected main bars. Further discussions on the
effects of spiral diameter and pitch distance to the bond energy
that provides the confinement to the connected main bars, are
given in Sections 5.1–5.3.
The higher bond strength of the grouted connection, shown in
specimen series S25, S35 and S45, is associated with confinement
and mechanical interlocking between the main rebars and the sur-
rounding grout. Fig. 12(a) and (b) shows the forces, in particular
the confinement stresses that enhance the bond resistance.
When the pullout load is applied to the specimen, the ribs bear-
ing action against the grout occurred, see Fig. 12(a). This rib bear-
ing actions are horizontal bearing stresses and normal stresses. The
normal stresses that can cause radial cracks in the grout has been
confined effectively by the steel spiral and splice bars, see Fig. 12
(c). The magnitude of confinement can be measured by using the
bond energy approach, discussed in Section 5.3.
The spiral and four splice bars had enhanced the property of
bonding by confining the grout and subsequently gripping the
main reinforcement bars firmly, Thus, providing resistance of ten-
sile load in ensuring the continuity of jointed main reinforcement
bars.
 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13 7

(a) Actual specimen (b) Slip measurement using LVDT

Fig. 7. Tensile test setup.

Fig. 9. Specimen S2: (a) Failure mode. (b) Force transfer mechanism.

15 mm, it can be seen that as the spiral diameter, Ds, decreased

Fig. 8. Specimen S1: (a) Grout fracture failure mode. (b) Force transfer mechanism.
5.1. Effect of spiral diameter
Table 3 presents the effect of spiral diameter on the bond
strength. Referring to the connection with pitch distance of
from 45 mm to 25 mm, the bond strength, smax, increases by
34.5%, i.e. from 13.67 MPa to 18.44 MPa.
To see the effects graphically, Fig. 13 shows the responses of
connections with all pitch distances of 15, 25 and 35 mm. The
results show that the effect of reducing spiral diameter in improv-
ing the bond strength is very significant as can be seen from the
steep slopes of all the three curves U, V and W. For example, in
the case of connection with pitch distance of 15 mm, it is seen that
8 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13

(a) Load transfer mechanism

(b) Bar pullout

Fig. 10. Failure mode of specimen S3.

(a) Longitudinal cross section

Fig. 11. Stress–strain in the main steel bar of P15 D25.

by reducing the spiral diameter from 45 mm to 25 mm, the bond

strength managed to increase dramatically from 13.67 MPa to
18.42 MPa. The results also show that the spiral diameter of
25 mm gives the highest bond strength. In brief, it can be seen that
decreasing the spiral diameter increases the bond strength
significantly.
The main reason that supports the increase in bond strength is
the confined cross sectional area of grout shown in shaded area in (b) Transverse cross section
Fig. 14. By decreasing the spiral diameter, the confined cross sec-
tional area of grout which is a function of width (ds–db), decreases.
The width (ds–db) is the width for potential splitting such as radial
cracks. So, this width of confined grout inside the spiral is sus-
pected to be the main factor that contributes to the confinement
which subsequently increases the bond strength. This finding
was also observed by Einea et al. [40].
The effect of bond strength increment in smaller spiral diame-
ters is due to the decrease in the stress absorption of grout as lim-
(c) Grouted spiral connection
ited grout deformation is allowed by the thin layer of grout Fig. 12. Force transfer mechanism and confinement in grouted spiral connection.
 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13 9

Table 3
Bond strength with respect to different spiral diameters (MPa).

Spiral diameter Spiral diameter Spiral diameter % increment of bond

of 45 mm (X) of 35 mm (Y) of 25 mm (Z) strength from (X) to (Z)
Pitch distance of 15 mm (U) 13.67 (MPa) 16.02 (MPa) 18.42 (MPa) 34.5
Pitch distance of 25 mm (V) 13.37 (MPa) 15.60 (MPa) 17.92 (MPa) 34
Pitch distance of 35 mm (W) 13.1 (MPa) 15.37 (MPa) 17.5 (MPa) 34.5

20
with different pitch distances of 15, 25 and 35 mm. Referring to
Pitch distance of 15 mm, U
19 Fig. 15(a), the smaller pitch distance is able to increase the bond
Pitch distance of 25 mm, V strength but at very moderate rate as can be seen from the moder-
18 ate slope of the curves.
Pitch distance of 35 mm, W Regardless of spiral diameters, the test results indicate that by
Bond strength (MPa)

17
having a smaller pitch distance leads to higher bond strength. How-
16 ever the influence of reducing spiral pitch distance in increasing the
bond strength is not that significant as can be seen from the gradual
15 slopes of all the three curves X, Y and Z. For example, by reducing
the spiral pitch distance from 35 mm to 15 mm, the bond strength
14 managed to increase slightly from 17.59 MPa to 18.44 MPa.
Another important observation can be obtained by comparing
13
Figs. 12 and 15(a). It can be seen that the effect of the spiral diam-
12 eter is more dominant in increasing the bond strength as compared
20 25 30 35 40 45 to the effect of pitch distance. The evident is based on the steep
Spiral Diameter (mm) slope of curves U, V and W in Fig. 12 as compared to gradual slope
of curves X, Y, Z in Fig. 15(a). To compare the incremental percent-
Fig. 13. Bond stress versus spiral diameter. age, refer Tables 3 and 4. It can be seen that, as the spiral diameter
decreased from 45 mm to 25 mm, the bond strength increased by
34%, however, when the pitch distance decreased from 35 mm to
surrounding the connected main rebars. With the smaller width of 15 mm, the bond strength increased by 4.8% only.
confined grout, the splitting expansion of grout can be delayed and
the early loss of bond can be prevented.
5.3. Bond energy
For other cases of the connections with different pitch distances
of 25 and 35 mm, the results show similar trend of significant bond
As discussed earlier, the effect of spiral diameter is the domi-
strength improvement, such that significant increase in bond
nant factor in the confinement properties. So, to describe further
strength when spiral diameter decreases.
the confinement effect on the bond stress–slip, Fig. 16 shows the
plot of bond stress versus slip for specimens with different
5.2. Effect of pitch distance diameters.
According to Alavi-Fard and Marzouk [41], the bond energy is
Table 4 and Fig. 15(a) show the response on bond strength with recommended to be used to evaluate the bond behavior. The area
respect to spiral pitch distance, while Fig. 15(b) shows the spirals under the bond stress–slip is defined as the bond energy [41].

Fig. 14. Confined cross sectional areas of grout with different spiral diameters.

Table 4
Bond strength with respect to different pitch distance.

Pitch distance Pitch distance Pitch distance % Increment of bond

of 35 mm (U) of 25 mm (V) of 15 mm (W) strength from (U) to (W)
Spiral diameter of 25 mm (X) 17.59 MPa 17.92 MPa 18.44 MPa 4.8
Spiral diameter of 35 mm (Y) 15.37 MPa 15.60 MPa 16.02 MPa 4.2
Spiral diameter of 45 mm (Z) 13.08 MPa 13.37 MPa 13.6 MPa 4
10 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13

20
Spiral diameter of 25 mm, X
19

Bond strength (MPa)

18 Spiral diameter of 35 mm, Y
17
16 Spiral diameter of 45 mm, Z
15
14
13
12
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pitch distance (mm)
(a)

(b)
Fig. 15. (a) Response of bond strength versus pitch distance. (b) Connections with different pitch distances.

effective confinement and subsequently provide higher bond

energy and hence higher bond strength.

6. Estimating the embedment length of main bar

In design, to avoid main bar slippage and to ensure the grouted

connection has similar tensile strength of the connected main bars,
the embedment length inside the spiral connection must be ade-
quate. The bond strength is an important value required to calcu-
late this embedment length. In the first attempt, the bond
strength from the experiments is used directly to estimate the
embedded length required for the grouted connection to achieve
the full tensile strength of the connected main reinforcement bars.
However, by using the experimental bond strength, the bond
strength is assumed uniform along the short embedded length of
75 mm. Based on this assumption, the required embedment length,
lb is calculated using Eq. (2).

T max
lb ¼ ð2Þ
p  db smax
where
Maximum fracture failure load of the main bar,
pðd2 Þ
T max ¼ As f t ¼ 4 b
f t ¼ 114:5 kN.
Main bar diameter, db = 16 mm.
Tensile strength of Y16 main bar, f t = 570 N/mm2.
smax is the bond strength between the main bar and the sur-
rounding grout obtained from experiments.

Test results show that grouted connections with different spiral

Fig. 16. Comparison of bond energy between (a) P15 D25 (A) and (b) P15 D45 (A).
Fig. 16(a) and (b) shows the comparison of bond energy
between connections P15 D25 and P15 D45 respectively. It can
be seen that the smaller spiral diameter of 25 mm in connection
P15 D25, see Fig. 16(a), exhibits higher bond energy of 37.7 N/mm
as depicted from the larger area under the curve as compared.
Meanwhile connection P15 D45 with larger diameter 45 mm
exhibits lower bond energy at failure of 20.4 N/mm.
Table 5 shows the bond energy of all connections tested in this
study. The results show that smaller spiral diameters provide more
diameters have different bond strength values. Fig. 17 shows the
bond strength versus spiral diameter for main bar embedment
length of 75 mm and grout compressive strength of more than
60 MPa. To determine the bond strength for estimating the embed-
ded length, three values of bond strength from series S25, S35 and
S45 are selected. The bond strength, smax of the connections are
17.5 MPa, 15 MPa and 13 MPa taken as the lowest bond strength
of specimens in series S25, S35 and S45 respectively.
Then, using Eq. (2), the required embedment length for the con-
nection to achieve the full tensile strength of the connected main
reinforcement bars under increasing axial tension is calculated
and given in Table 6. The table shows that the grouted spiral con-
nections require longer bar embedded length as the spiral diame-
ter increases. For instance, the specimen with 25 mm spiral
 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13 11

Table 5 Table 6
Bond energy at failure of grouted spiral connections. Embedded length of main bar.

Series Specimen Bond energy at failure Average bond Spiral diameter, Proposed bond Required embedded
N/mm2
mm = N/mm energy N/mm Ds (mm) strength, smax (MPa) length, lb (mm)
S25 P15 D25 (A) 37.7 36.8 Ds 6 25 17.5 lb1 ¼ p114:510
3

16ð17:5Þ ¼ 130 mm
P15 D25 (B) 37.3
25 < Ds 6 35 15 lb2 ¼ 114:510
3

P15 D25 (C) 35.8 p16ð15Þ ¼ 150 mm

35 < Ds 6 45 13 lb3 ¼ 114:510
3

p16ð13Þ ¼ 175 mm
P25 D25 (A) 33.9 33.1
P25 D25 (B) 33
P25 D25 (C) 32.4
P35 D25 (A) 34.6 35
P35 D25 (B) 34.9
P35 D25 (C) 35.5
Table 7
S35 P15 D35 (A) 28.3 28
Ultimate tensile test by Norliana [42].
P15 D35 (B) 27.2
P15 D35 (C) 28.5 Specimen Grout Spiral Embedded Failure Failure
P25 D35 (A) 25.4 25 strength diameter, Ds length, lb load mode
P25 D35 (B) 25 (MPa) (mm) (mm) (kN)
P25 D35 (C) 24.6
P35 D35 (A) 26 25.9 D2 66.95 33 180 109.44 Bar slippage
P35 D35 (B) 26 E2 200 110.06 Bar
P35 D35 (C) 25.7 fractured

S45 P15 D45 (A) 20.4 20.1

P15 D45 (B) 20.1
P15 D45 (C) 19.7
P25 D45 (A) 19 18.7 a minimum of 200 mm embedment length is required to cause
P25 D45 (B) 18.7 the bar fractured failure. Therefore, the proposed values in Table 6
P25 D45 (C) 18.3 overestimate the bond strength for design and eventually underes-
P35 D45 (A) 18.6 18.5
P35 D45 (B) 18.5
timate the embedment length. This is because bond strength in
P35 D45 (C) 18.5 Table 6 is assumed to be uniform and only applicable for short
embedment length of 75 mm. For longer embedment length, the
bond resistance decreases due to uneven bond stress distribution
and the failure becomes progressive starting a place it reaches
diameter requires only 130 mm, but as the spiral diameter the maximal bond strength.
increases to 45 mm, the required embedded length increases to Therefore, in the second attempt, the proposed bond strength in
175 mm. Table 6 (referring to case 25 < Ds 6 35) has to be reduced
To ensure the validity of the proposed bond strength and the for estimating the embedded length of the main bar to achieve
corresponding embedment length shown in Table 2, the experi- its full tensile strength under increasing axial tension, say
mental results of Norliana [42] are compared. Norliana conducted 0.7
15 N/mm2 = 10.5 N/mm2. This gives the embedded length
ultimate tensile tests on 30 splice spiral connectors with different of, lb = 214.3 mm, more than 200 mm and therefore able to cause
embedded lengths between 130 mm and 200 mm combined with the bar fracture outside the connection.
different infill materials. Two of the results that are relevant to this This is in line with ACI Committee 408 guideline that does not
study, in which the connection details are similar, are shown in recommend the use of pullout results as the sole basis for deter-
Table 7. The results show that Specimen D2 with embedment mining the embedded length for actual structures, particular when
length of 180 mm failed by bar slippage at 109.44 kN, see Fig. 18, the structures are subjected to bending [43]. This recommendation
and Specimen E2 with embedment length of 200 mm failed by of bond strength for estimating embedded length of main bar in
bar fracture at 110.06 kN, see Fig. 19. grouted spiral connection is limited to the main bar with 16 mm
Referring to Table 6, the proposed bond strength of 15 N/mm2 diameter connected using grout of more than 60 N/mm2 compres-
gives embedment length of 150 mm, whereas Table 7 shows that sive strength.

19 Pitch distance of 15 mm
18
Pitch distance of 25 mm
17
Pitch distance of 35 mm
Bond Strength (MPa)

16

15 τmax=13 MPa for 45 mm

spiral diameter
14 τmax= 15 MPa for 35 mm
spiral diameter
13
τmax= 17.5 MPa for 25 mm
12 spiral diameter

11

10
20 30 40 50
Spiral Diameter (mm)

Fig. 17. Experimental bond strength for different series for embedment length 75 mm and grout compressive strength of about 60 MPa.
12 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13
Fig. 18. Specimen D2, bar slippage failure at 109.44 kN with main bar embedded length of 180 mm [42].
Bar fractured outside the grouted connection
Fig. 19. Specimen E2, bar fractured failure at 110.06 kN with main bar embedded length of 200 mm [42].
7. Conclusion
The effect of confinement on the behavior of the grouted splice
connection was investigated. An empirical model for predicting the
local bond stress–slip relationship of two steel main bars con-
nected by the grouted spiral connection under increasing tensile
load was developed.
It is concluded that:
1. The use of splice bars and spiral in the grouted connection
increased the bond strength of the connected main bars by
2.8 times. The spiral acts as the main shear keys to resist
shear force, while the splice bars act as the main bridging
mechanism to transmit tension force.
2. The use of smaller spiral diameter results in higher bond
energy and better confinement that delays the radial crack
propagation. This characteristic increases the bond strength
of the connected main rebars.
3. Reducing the pitch distance of the spiral, only increases the
bond strength slightly.
4. The influence of spiral diameter is more significant in
improving the confinement effects as compared to the
influence of pitch distance.
5. The splice sleeve connection with pitch distance of 25 mm
reached the bond strength with lower slip. This means that
the pitch distance of 25 mm provides the most optimum
pitch distance in controlling the slip in comparison with
other pitch distances.
6. The bond strength increases almost proportionally with the
increment of grout compressive strength.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi Malay-
sia (UTM) – Malaysia for the financial support offered in conduct-
ing this experimental study.
Slip
References
[1] Tibbetts AJ, Oliva MG, Bank LC. Durable fiber reinforced polymer bar splice
connections for precast concrete structures. Composites Ploycon. Tampa, FL
USA: American Composites Manufacturers Association; 2009 [January 15–17,
2009].
[2] ACI Committee 550R. Design Recommendations for precast concrete
structures. Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 550; 1996.
[3] ACI Committee 550. Emulating Cast-in-Place Detailing in precast Concrete
Structures. ACI 550.1R-01. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute;
2009.
[4] Tokyo Steel Corp. Tokyo Steel Corp. BCJ-C1659; 1994.
[5] Jansson PO. Evaluation of grout-filled mechanical splices for precast concrete.
Construction and technology division report 07 TI-2094; 2008.
[6] Coogler KL, Harries KA, Gallick M. Experimental study of offset mechanical lap
splice behavior. J ACI Struct 2008;105(4):478–87.
[7] Ling Jen Hua, Rahman Ahmad Baharuddin Abd, Ibrahim Izni Syahrizal, Hamid
Zuhairi Abdul. Behaviour of grouted pipe splice under incremental tensile load.
Construct Build Mater J 2012;33:90–8.
[8] Pecce M, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R, Cosenza E. Experimental and analytical
evaluation of bond properties. J Mater Civil Eng 2001;3(4).
[9] Loh HY. Development of grouted splice sleeve and its performance under axial
tension. Msc. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2008.
[10] Rehm G. The basic principles of the bond between steel and concrete. Cement
and Concrete Association, A translation from Ueber die Grundlagen des
Verbundes zwischen Stahl und Beton, Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton,
Berlin, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn; 1961.
[11] Goto Y. Cracks formed in concrete around deformed tension bars. ACI-J
1971:244–51 (Detroit).
[12] Jorge S, Dias-da-Costa D, Júlio ENBS. Influence of anti-corrosive coatings on the
bond of steel rebars to repair mortars. Eng Struct 2012;36:372–8.
[13] Ogura Noriyuki, Bolander John E, Ichinose Toshikatsu. Analysis of bond
splitting failure of deformed bars within structural concrete. Eng Struct
2008;30:428–35.
[14] Haskett Matthew, Oehlers Deric John, Mohamed Ali MS. Local and global bond
characteristics of steel reinforcing bars. Eng Struct 2008;30:376–83.
[15] Wang Huanzi. An analytical study of bond strength associated with splitting of
concrete cover. Eng Struct 2009;31:968–75.
[16] Azizinamini A, Chisala M, Ghosh SK. Tension development length of
reinforcing bars embedded in high-strength concrete. Eng Struct 1995;17
(7):512–22.
[17] Cairns J, Plizzari GA. Towards a harmonised European bond test. Mater Struct
2003;36(October):498–506.
[18] CEB-FIP. Model Code 1990. Thomas Telford, London; 1993. p. 437 [ISBN 0 7277
1696].
[19] Einea A, Yamane T, Tadros MK. Grout-filled pipe splices for precast concrete
construction. Precast/Prestr Concrete I J 1995;40(1):82–93.
[20] Untrauer RE, Henry RL. Influence of normal pressure on bond strength. ACI J
1965;65(5):577–85.
 S.J.A. Hosseini, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman / Engineering Structures 112 (2016) 1–13
[21] Robins PJ, Standish IG. The influence of lateral pressure upon anchorage bond.
Mag Concr Res 1984;36(129).
[22] Moosavi M, Jafari A, Khosravi A. Bond of cement grouted reinforcing bars
under constant radial pressure. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(11):103–9.
[23] Soroushian P, Choi Ki-Bong, Park Gill-Hyun, Aslani Farhang. Bond of deformed
bars to concrete: effects of confinement and strength of concrete. ACI Mater J
1991;88(3):227–32.
[24] Hosseini SJA, Rahman AB Abd. Effects of spiral diameter on the bond stress–
slip relationship in grouted sleeve connector. Malay J Civil Eng 2013;12(1).
[25] Hosseini SJA, Rahman AB Abd. Analysis of spiral reinforcement in grouted pipe
splice connectors. Gradevinar 2013(65):1–10.
[26] Ling JH, Rahman AB Abd, Hamad Z Abd, et al. Structural performance of splice
connector for precast concrete structures. In: Joint conference 7th Asia Pacific
structural engineering & construction conference (APSEC 2009) & 2nd
European Asian Civil Engineering Forum (EACEF 2009). Pulau Langkawi,
Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Universitas Pelita Harapan
(UPH); 2009.
[27] Enin E, Morcous G. Non-proprietary bar splice sleeve for precast concrete
construction. Eng Struct 2015;83:154–62.
[28] Sayadi Ali A, Rahman Ahmad Baharuddin Abd, Jumaat Mohd Zamin Bin,
Johnson Alengaram U, Ahmad Sayadi. The relationship between interlocking
mechanism and bond strength in elastic and inelastic segment of splice sleeve.
Constr Build Mater 2014;55:227–37.
[29] Ling JH, Rahman AB Abd, Ibrahim IS, et al. Tensile performance of ribbed
hollow section splice sleeve connector under direct tensile load. In: 2nd
construction industry research achievement international conference (CIRAIC
2009). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Construction Research Institute of Malaysia
(CREAM), Construction industry development board (CIDB); 2009.
[30] Efsen A. Spiral socket splices for deformed bars. Laboratoriet for
Bygningsteknik, Danmarks Tekniske Höjskole, Meddelelse Copenhagen 1957;
Nr. 8; 1957. p. 13.
[31] Tepfers R. Cracking of concrete cover along anchored deformed reinforcing
bars. Mag Concr Res 1979;31(106):3–12.
13
[32] Tepfers, R. A theory of bond applied to overlapped tensile reinforcement
splices for deformed bars. Publication 73:2. Division of concrete structures,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg; 1973 May. p. 328.
[33] Tepfers R. Overlap splices for ribbed bars for free use in a concrete structure.
Nordic Concrete Research Publication No 7. Nordic Concrete Federation, Oslo;
1988. p. 273–83.
[34] Losberg A. Sprickbildning i kontinuerliga betongbeläggningar och andra
betongkonstruktioner, låsta mot rörelser av temperatur och krympning.
(Cracks in continuous concrete road slabs and other concrete structures
locked against movements from temperature and shrinkage). Chalmers
University of Technology, Department of Building Technology No. 607; 1962.
p. 45.
[35] Eligehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Local bond stress–slip relationships of
deformed bars under generalized excitations. Rep. No. 83/23, Earthquake
Engrg. Res. Ctr. (EERC), Univ. of California, Berkeley, California; 1983.
[36] Soroushian P, Choi Ki-Bong. Local bond of deformed bars with different
diameters in confined concrete. ACI Struct J 1989;86(2):217–22.
[37] ACI-116. Cement and concrete terminology ACI 116R-00; 2000.
[38] British Standards BSI. Structural use of concrete – Part 1: code of practice for
design and construction; 1997.
[39] Thompson MK, Jirsa James O, Breen JE, Klingner RE. Anchorage behaviour of
headed reinforcement. Literature review; 2002.
[40] Einea A, Yehia S, Tadros MK. Lap splices in confined concrete. ACI Struct J
1999;96(6):937–46.
[41] Alavi-Fard M, Marzouk H. Bond of high-strength concrete under monotonic
pullout loading. Mag Concr Res 2004;56(9):545–57.
[42] Norliana M. The behavior of sleeve connection with spiral reinforcement and
additional longitudinal bar under direct tensile load. Msc. Thesis, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia; 2009.
[43] ACI Committee 408, A.C.I., Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars
in tension; 2003.