Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

An experimental comparison of RC beam-column joints incorporating

different splice methods in the beam
Hamed Dabiri a, *, Ali Kheyroddin b
a
School of Science and Technology, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reinforcement ratio and bar splice methods have an indubitable effect on the behavior of RC beam-column
RC beam-column joints joints. The present experimental study is focused on evaluating the influence of parameters including rein­
Splice methods forcement ratio of beams, method and number of splices on the performance of RC beam-column joints under
Threaded coupler
dynamic loads. To aim this goal, four RC beam-column joints with different numbers of forging (GPW) or me­
Forging (GPW)
Ductility
chanical splices (threaded couplers) in the longitudinal bars of beams were tested under cyclic and axial loads
Absorbed energy applied to beams and columns, respectively. Force-drift hysteresis curves are provided and seismic parameters
Stiffness including displacement ductility, absorbed energy and stiffness are investigated and discussed. More impor­
tantly, the results of this study are compared to the results of other specimens available in the literature with
similar splice methods but different reinforcement ratio examined under the same loads in order to figure out the
effect of reinforcement ratio on the performance of joints with bar splices. Results indicated that the joints
incorporating forging method exhibited more appropriate response in comparison to those with threaded cou­
plers by showing more ductility, absorbed energy and stiffness. Moreover, it was observed that reinforcement
ratio does not significantly affect stiffness of the specimens with different numbers and types of splices whereas
ductility and absorbed energy changes remarkably by changing types and numbers of spliced bars when rein­
forcement ratio alters.

1. Introduction design, time and total cost of construction.

Seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) moment-resisting
frames is heavily dependent on the beam-column joints’ behavior such
that failure of joints could result in the structure collapse [1–5]. Various
factors affect failure mechanisms of beam-column joints such as shear
failure, beams’ aspect ratio, anchorage failure, inappropriate rein­
forcement detailing, splice failure, etc.[4,6–11]. This study focuses on
the influence of incorporating different splice methods in RC joints
which might affect joints’ response significantly.
1.1. Literature review
Importance of splice methods, which is an undeniable issue in RC
elements, has motivated researchers to investigate and propose different
splice methods. The introduced splice methods could be mainly cate­
gorized in three groups: lap splices, mechanical splices and welded
splices; each of which has its own benefits and drawbacks in terms of
The simplest, cheapest and most known method has been using in RC
elements is lap splice method which has been assessed by several re­
searchers in terms of splice length, stress distribution and resistance of
splice, bar contact type in splice, crack propagation of RC elements,
deformation capacity and other seismic parameters [12–17].
Several shortcomings of the lap splice method have raised re­
searchers’ concern about proposing alternative methods for splicing bars
[18,19].
One method which is used for joining reinforcement bars is me­
chanical splice which is introduced in different sub-methods such as
threaded, swaged, grouted and screwed couplers [18–20]. Above-
mentioned couplers have been assessed in various experimental and
numerical evaluations and several recommendations have been made in
order to enhance overall behavior of RC elements incorporating me­
chanical splices [21–24].
The bar splice sleeve systems proposed by Henin and Morcous found
to be economical, easy to produce and incorporate and capable of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hamed.dabiri@unicam.it (H. Dabiri), kheyroddin@semnan.ac.ir (A. Kheyroddin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.101
Received 22 June 2021; Received in revised form 14 July 2021; Accepted 26 August 2021
Available online 4 September 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin
developing 100% of the ultimate strength of the spliced bars when the
sleeve length is considered 16db (db is diameter of the bar) and is filled
by non-shrink high strength grout. They also recommended that 1/8′′
depth threads will be adequate to prevent grout-sleeve slippage [25].
Grouted sleeve splices could be used in moderate to high seismic regions
due to their acceptable drift capacity and displacement ductility when
they are incorporated in cap beam joints in precast elements [26]. Two
new grouted splice methods were introduced and investigated by Lu
et al. [27]. The novelty of their methods was using wedge with and
without thread which met the ACI 318 requirements. The length of
6–6.4db was recommended for anchorage length of spliced bars (sleeve)
and a slight decrease in tensile strength of spliced bars was reported in
comparison to non-spliced bars [27]. Grouted sleeve couplers are
accepted as a reliable method in terms of ductility and load-carrying
capacity of columns [28–30], however, reduction in absorbed energy
of columns incorporating grouted sleeve couplers is reported in exper­
imental studies [29,30].
Results of conducted studies showed that overall performance of RC
elements with spliced bars is greatly affected by parameters including
locations, length, rigidity, material, loading condition and thickness of
couplers [18,20,30–32]. As an example, rigid and long couplers located
at the column end might decrease displacement ductility up to 40%
[18–20]. As a result, coupler length is recommended to be limited to
15db to avoid their negative influence on column ductility [20]. Long
couplers might also lead to more rapid bar straining and earlier failure of
members. Moreover, increasing the coupler size decreases the cracked
stiffness of RC elements [18,19].
Using screw-threaded couplers in RC columns does not have negative
effects on the seismic performance in terms of stiffness and absorbed
energy while threaded couplers might result in reduction in the above-
mentioned parameters [30].
Using bar splices is not limited to RC columns and could be consid­
ered in other RC elements [33]. Using lap splices in one-way slabs is
recommended only by providing appropriate confinement in the lap
region [34]. T-type anchorage with short development length could be a
reliable method in RC beam-column joints not only to reduce congestion
but also to enhance their seismic performance [35]. Lu et al. developed a
precast beam-column joint connected by double grouted sleeves with
acceptable performance under static and cyclic loads. Yield load and
load-carrying capacity of pre-fabricated joints incorporated grouted
sleeves was the same as conventional joints while their absorbed energy
were less than that of the conventional RC joints [36].
Using forging splices (GPW) in RC members has also been investi­
gated and discussed. The results of an experimental assessment
demonstrated that beams incorporating forging splices for their longi­
tudinal bars depicted higher ductility, energy absorption and flexural
capacity in comparison to the beams with non-spliced bars [37].
Enhancement in displacement ductility, absorbed energy, stiffness and
curvature ductility of RC columns with forging splices in longitudinal
reinforcement bars in comparison to the columns with lap-spliced or
non-spliced bars was also proved experimentally [38]. It should be taken
into account that the number of spliced bars in an element affects its
overall behavior considerably. As an instance, splicing all of beams’
longitudinal bars might increase absorbed energy whereas splicing half
of them could lead to reduction in absorbed energy. It is noteworthy that
forging splice method leads to more appropriate and reliable results
compared to mechanical splice when incorporated in RC joints [19].
1.2. Research significance and objective
A review on the studies carried out on different splice methods
incorporated in RC members proves that they are focused mostly on
using mechanical and lap splice methods in RC columns while no spe­
cific detailing, recommendations or limitations regarding splice
methods in RC beam-column joints could be found due to lack of related
research. As a result, it is attempted to fill this gap by investigating the
1604
Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613
effect of using threaded couplers and forging splices in longitudinal
reinforcement bars of beams in beam-column joints. An experimental
test setup was developed to compare performance of joints with
different numbers and types of splices. The joints were examined under
transverse cyclic load (applied to the beam) and quasi-static axial load
(applied to the column) and the results are presented and discussed in
terms of hysteresis curves, displacement ductility, absorbed energy and
stiffness.
More importantly, the test outputs are compared to the results of a
similar study [19], with different reinforcement ratio (or bar size)
considered for the beams, available in the literature to assess the rela­
tionship between splice methods and reinforcement ratio of the beams.
Otherwise stated, the performance of forging or threaded couplers when
applied to different bar sizes is discussed in this research. Therefore, the
variable parameters are number and type of splices and reinforcement
ratio of beams.
1.3. Forging (GPW) method
Gas pressure welding (GPW) or forging method was firstly proposed
in the USA and Japan in the 1930s. It has been using in other countries
for splicing pipes, rails and reinforcement bars since then [39]. Rein­
forcement bars could be spliced through this method by (a) cutting,
cleaning and smoothing the end face of bars, (b) holding the bars’ end
face by pressure and (c) Heating the joint region by a multi-hole burner
with combination of oxygen and acetylene gases. It should be noted that
heating (1200-1500◦ C) and pressuring (3–5 kgf/mm2) should be done
at the same time. Fig. 1 illustrates the forging process in the lab and
schematically [39].
It should be taken into consideration that the quality of this method
is heavily dependent on the operators’ skills. However, it can be
inspected by different tests including visual, ultrasonic and tensile tests.
The main assets of this method are: (a) creating a splice with excel­
lent dynamic properties, (b) simple operation, (c) inexpensive opera­
tion, (d) reduction in waste bars be rejoining them and (e) being less
time-consuming compared to other mechanical methods [39,40].
2. Description of experimental program
2.1. Dimensions and reinforcement detailing of the specimens
A series of four beam-column connections with the same dimensions
and reinforcement ratio but different numbers and methods of splices
were tested by applying cyclic and axial loads on the beams and col­
umns, respectively. Dimensions and details of the connections consid­
ered in this study are depicted in Fig. 2(a). It should be explained that all
of the joints consist of a 1000 mm height column with 500×500 mm2
rectangle cross section and a 1100 mm length beam with 350×350 mm2
cross section. The joints are designed according to the criteria for joints
in intermediate moment resisting frames of [41]. Based on the design
results, 4 Φ 20 were considered for longitudinal reinforcement of col­
umns and 6 Φ 16 were used for beams. Φ 10@100 mm was considered as
transverse reinforcement for both beams and columns. The concrete
cover, the distance between the surface of embedded reinforcement and
the outer surface of the concrete, was considered 40 mm in all of the
specimens.
The results of the above-mentioned specimens are going to be
compared with the results of the joints available in the literature, [19],
with the same boundary conditions and test setup but different di­
mensions and reinforcement ratios. The characteristics of these joints
are illustrated in Fig. 2(b) and Table 1. Briefly stated, dimensions of
beams and columns are respectively 300×300×1100 mm3 (4 Φ 20 for
longitudinal and Φ 10@50 mm for transverse reinforcement) and
300×500×1000 mm3 (8 Φ 25 for longitudinal and Φ 10@50 for trans­
verse reinforcement). Fig. 3 depicts the reinforcement bars of the spec­
imen F-2-20 before being positioned in the steel frameworks (Fig. 3(a))
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613

Fig. 1. Process of splicing bars using forging method (a) schematic illustration, (b) lab photo.

Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement detailing of (a) the specimens tested in this study and (b) the specimens tested in the previous study [19].

Table 1
Characteristics of the specimens.
Beam dimensions Beam reinforcements ρbeam Column dimensions Column reinforcements ρcolumn
(mm) (mm)

The present study 350×350×1100 longitudinal:6Φ16, Transverse: 0.0098 500×500×1000 longitudinal:8 Φ 20, Transverse: 0.010
ɸ10@100 mm ɸ10@100 mm
The previous study 300×300×1100 longitudinal:4 Φ 20, Transverse: 0.0140 500×300×1000 longitudinal:8 Φ 25, Transverse: 0.0262
[19] ɸ10@50 mm ɸ10@50 mm

*ρ is the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement which is calculated as As/Ag, where As is the area of longitudinal bars and Ag is the gross area of elements’ section.

and after concrete pouring (Fig. 3(b)), as an example of the experimental
joints. Spliced bars of the specimens are also illustrated in Fig. 3(c–i). It
should be explained that Fig. 3(d, e and j) show the splices at the end of
the experiment and after removing concrete.
2.2. Splice methods and properties
The two splice methods used in this study and the previous study are
illustrated in Fig. 4. Table 2 provides name, number and type of splice
methods of the joints investigated in this study. It should be explained
that in the specimens’ naming process, C and F refer to the specimens
with respectively coupling and forging splices in the longitudinal re­
inforcements of beams while the first and second number account for the
number of splices and bar diameters, respectively. For instance, F-2-20 is
the joint with Φ20 for longitudinal bars in the beam and two of which
are spliced using forging method.
It should be noted that the couplers are made of 1191 steel (DIN
CK45). Material properties, length (L) and outer diameter (OD) of cou­
plers reported by the manufacturer is provided in Table 3. It should be
stated that elasticity of DIN CK45 depends heavily on temperature and it
is reported around 210 GPa in the normal temperature of 25 ◦ C [42,43].
It is worth recalling that the main difference between the joints of

1605
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613

Fig. 3. Reinforcement (a) and concrete pouring (b) of specimen F-2-20; bar splice layout of (c) F-6-16, (d) F-4-16, (e) C-6-16, (f) C-4-16, (g) F-4-20, (h) F-2-20, (i) C-
4-20 and (i) C-2-20.

Fig. 4. The splice methods used in the longitudinal reinforcement of beams; (a) couplers in the present study: Φ16, (b) couplers in the previous study: Φ20 and (c)
Forging splice.

this study and those in the previous study is the dimensions of beams,
Table 2
columns and reinforcement ratio. In order to make the comparison more
Splice characteristics and name of the specimens.
accurate, this difference is considered as the ratio of longitudinal rein­
Specimen Splice Number of Splice location forcement or ρ (as also provided in Table 1).
Name method splices
In order to compare the type and number of splices in the specimens
The present F-6-16 Forging 6 (all) 60 mm above the clearer, they are demonstrated schematically in Fig. 5.
study F-4-16 Forging 4 beam-column
C-6-16 Coupler 6 (all) interface
C-4-16 Coupler 4
The previous F-4-20 Forging 4 (all)
2.3. Concrete properties
study[19] F-2-20 Forging 2
C-4-20 Coupler 4 (all) The average target compressive strength of concrete used for fabri­
C-2-20 Coupler 2 cating the specimens was 25.23 MPa. It is noteworthy that three cubic
samples were tested by a concrete compressive test machine according
to the provisions of ACI 318 [41] and the obtained results are presented
in Table 4. As also explained in the note under Table 4, the coefficient of
0.8 was used to obtain equivalent cylindrical compressive strength as

1606
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613

Table 3
Material and geometric properties of couplers used in the present and previous studies.
Bar size Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Density (g/cm3) Tensile strength (MPa) Yield strength (MPa) Elongation Length (mm) OD (mm)
3
Φ20 120–210×10 7.84 655 585 12% 50 30
Φ16 90 23

Fig. 5. Schematic demonstration of type, number and location of splices incorporated in the specimens in this study: (a) F-6-16, (b) F-4-16, (c) C-6-16, (d) C-4-16 and
the previous study: (e) F-4-20, (f) F-2-20, (g) C-4-20 and (h) C-2-20.

strain values, a non-spliced, a coupler spliced and a forging spliced bar

Table 4
(all Φ16 mm) were examined using displacement control process ac­
Properties of concrete.
cording to ASTM E8 [45]. This test could be conducted by (a) marking
Compressive Cylindrical Strain at Ultimate two points of bars for measuring the final elongation, (b) positioning the
strength (MPa) compressive peak stress strain (%)
bar in the machine, (c) applying incremental displacement control load
strength* (MPa) (%)
by starting the machine and (d) continuing until the sample fails. The
Cubic 1 31.42 25.14 0.20 0.35
tensile test machine, failed samples and obtained curves are shown in
Cubic 2 31.38 25.1 0.24 0.35
Cubic 3 31.82 25.46 0.21 0.33 Fig. 6. Tensile test results of the splices used in this study and the pre­
Average 31.54 25.23 0.22 0.34 vious study are presented in Table 5.
values

*Equivalent compressive strength of the cylinder is calculated according to BS
1881: Part 1201 1983: strength of cylindrical sample≈0.8× stremgth of cubic
sample.
suggested by BS 1881: Part 1201 1983 [44].
2.4. Steel properties
The reinforcement bars used in this study are produced by Kavir Steel
Complex (kavirsteel.ir) which are categorized in 0.43% carbon steel
bars. In order to obtain yield and ultimate strength and corresponding
2.5. Test setup and loading procedure
Each specimen was tested inside a strong steel frame as shown in
Fig. 7(a). In order to apply the load more accurately; the joints were
rotated such that the columns were positioned horizontally while the
beams were positioned vertically as shown in Fig. 7. An axial load of
10% of column axial capacity was applied to the end of column by a
hydraulic jack whereas the other end was fixed by a strong steel holder.
It should be also mentioned that the columns were fixed to the strong
steel frame by two holders.
Taking the beams into consideration, a cyclic load shown in Fig. 8
was applied to the beam end. It should be stated that the cyclic load was

Fig. 6. (a) Tensile test of the coupler-spliced bar, (b) failure of the coupler-spliced bar, (c) stress-strain behavior of non-spliced, coupler spliced and forging-
spliced bars.

1607
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613

Table 5
Mechanical properties of reinforcement bars.
Bar number Splice method Yield stress (MPa) Yield strain (%) Ultimate stress (MPa) Ultimate strain (%) Maximum strain (%)

The present study 16 mm non-spliced 445 0.22 593 26.34 32.95

16 mm Forging-spliced 460 0.22 605 27.63 33.15
16 mm Coupler-spliced 465 2.73 600 19.61 22.4

The previous study[19] 20 mm non-spliced 441 0.22 712 14.3 18.3

20 mm Forging-spliced 450 0.22 723 14.51 18.45
20 mm Coupler-spliced 438 0.29 681 10.5 18.45

Fig. 7. (a) schematic demonstration of test setup, (b) test setup in the lab.

corresponding to negative and positive directions reported in Table 6

Fig. 8. Cyclic loading history.
based on ACI 374.1-05 which requires that the amplitude in each cycle
should not be less than 1 ¼ or more than 1 ½ of that of the previous cycle
[46]. It should be noted that the cyclic load was applied to the joints
until they failed completely.
3. Results
Load-drift hysteresis behavior of the joints are depicted in Fig. 9.
Envelope curves of the hysteresis diagrams of the present and previous
study, [19], are also compared together in Fig. 10. The quantified
comparison of the specimens is provided in Table 6 by giving measured
maximum load, Pmax, and yield load, Py. It should be clarified that Pmax
refers to the maximum load which the joints experienced during cyclic
loading (peak point in envelop force-displacement curves) and Δu is the
displacement corresponding to15% drop of Pmax (see Fig. 11). Py is also
the load at which the first yield is observed in the reinforcement bars.
The most significant point which could be found from Fig. 10(a) is
that the specimen F-4-16 exhibited the highest maximum load, Pmax,
yield load, Py, and ultimate displacement, Δu (the average values
and 7 are considered) which shows its appropriate performance relative
to other joints. On the other hand, C-4-16 and F-6-16 had the lowest Δu
and Pmax, respectively. According to Fig. 10(b), splicing half of rein­
forcement bars by forging method led also to the highest average of Pmax
in the previous study [19], while the joint C-4-20 had the largest Δu.
Taking the maximum load of the joints with GPW splices into ac­
count (Table 6), in both studies the maximum load of the specimens with
some of the bars spliced was slightly larger than the joints with all the
bars spliced. The main reason for these observations could be the change
in material and cross-section of bars (due to heat and pressure needed for
GPW method) which could consequently alter the stress-strain behavior
of bars. Otherwise noted, although the bar spliced by GPW showed
approximately the same tensile behavior as the non-spliced bar (see
Fig. 6c), the joints incorporating GPW splices might demonstrate
different response under cyclic loading in comparison to those with non-
spliced bars. As a result, the joints with some of bars spliced by GPW
could exhibit better cyclic performance rather than the joints with all
bars spliced.
Overall, it could be claimed that splicing some bars by GPW resulted
in the higher lateral load capacity compared to other specimens with all
bars spliced by GPW regardless of the reinforcement ratio of beams or
columns. The lateral displacement capacity of the joints with couplers,
however, is heavily dependent on the reinforcement ratio of the
specimens.
4. Discussions
4.1. Displacement ductility
Ductility which is the ability of undergoing large deformation
without notable strength decrease has been assessed and discussed in
many researches due to its critical influence on performance of struc­
tures [4,47–49]. Displacement ductility is known as the ratio of ultimate
displacement to yield displacement as given in Eq. (1):

1608
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613

Fig. 9. Load-drift hysteresis response of the specimens.

Δu the force-displacement envelope curve) [4,50,51]. Δy could be obtained

μ=
Δy by drawing the idealized lines which lead to equal areas of hatched
zones reflecting equal dissipated energy [19,52].
The method used for determining Δu and Δy is presented in Fig. 11.
Table 7 provides Δu and Δy calculated using the above-mentioned
Briefly explained, Δu is the displacement corresponding to the P =
method and μ obtained by Eq. (1). The results of the previous study
0.15Pmax where Pmax is the maximum force reported during the test (in

1609
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613

Fig. 10. Envelope curves of hysteresis diagrams (a) the present study, (b) the previous study [19].

with all bar spliced which means that when all of the bars are spliced by
Table 6
forging method, the uniform performance of bars lead to higher ductility
Ultimate and yield load of the specimens.
value. On the contrary, the joints with couplers in all bars exhibited
Specimen name Ultimate load, Pmax, (kN) Py (kN) lower ductility in comparison to the specimen with only four spliced
(+) (− ) Ave. bars.
The present study F-6-16 66.44 61.98 64.21 55.20 By comparing the results of this study with the results of the previous
F-4-16 81.83 85.74 83.78 66.30 study, [19], it can be concluded that in both studies, the joints with
C-6-16 76.84 73.27 75.05 59.90 forging splices in all reinforcement bars had the highest ductility. The
C-4-16 84.00 74.24 79.12 55.62 ductility enhancement in the RC members with forging splices is also
The previous study [19] F-4-20 67.36 65.72 66.54 56.17 reported in the relevant studies [37,38] which proves the acceptancy of
F-2-20 80.42 65.73 73.08 57.00 forging method. In addition, splicing some of reinforcement bars by
C-4-20 81.55 56.58 69.06 49.26
couplers resulted in higher ductility rather than the specimens with all
C-2-20 68.20 68.00 68.10 61.10
bars spliced by coupler. This could be probably due to unequal sliding of
(+): positive direction, (− ): negative direction. rebars in the couplers which might cause non-uniform strain-stress
behavior at the splice zone. Consequently, splicing all the bars in one
section is expected to decrease ductility ratio.
As a result, it could be concluded that, independent of the rein­
forcement ratio of elements, forging splices could enhance the response
of RC joints by increasing their ductility. It is worth mentioning that the
higher ductility observed in the specimens with GPW splices could be
due to the higher deformability of the bars spliced by forging method.
The results of tensile test on non-spliced and spliced bars demonstrated
in Fig. 6 proves the higher deformability capacity of GPW method in
comparison to coupler splice. The application of couplers, on the other
hand, resulted in lower ductility values in comparison to the beams with
forging splices in both groups.

4.2. Absorbed energy

Fig. 11. Using force-displacement envelope curve for obtaining Δu and Δy.

Another seismic parameter significantly affecting the structures’

are also included.
behavior is absorbed energy which is mainly due to crack propagations
Tacking the specimens of this study into consideration, the specimen
and friction between crack surfaces in RC structures and members [4].
with six bars spliced by forging method possesses the highest ductility.
Absorbed energy is defined as the area enclosed to one hysteresis loop in
Displacement ductility of the specimen F-4-16 with 4 out of the 6 bars
one cycle while cumulative absorbed energy in each cycle is the sum of
spliced by forging method is approximately 61.2% of that of the joint
all loops’ area before that cycle. This parameter is used for describing

Table 7
Yield displacement, ultimate displacement and ductility of the specimens.
Specimen name Yield displacement, Δy, (mm) Ultimate displacement, Δu (mm) Displacement ductility, μ

(+) (− ) Ave. (+) (− ) Ave. (+) (− ) Ave.

The present study F-6-16 15.5 4.069 9.7845 39.11 38.51 38.81 2.52 9.46 5.99
F-4-16 12.3 10.66 11.48 40.02 44.64 42.33 3.25 4.19 3.72
C-6-16 12.55 12.84 12.695 39.26 38.1 38.68 3.13 2.97 3.05
C-4-16 11.92 7.01 9.465 37.05 37.21 37.13 3.11 5.31 4.21

The previous study [19] F-4-20 11.37 12.52 11.95 85.00 80.30 82.65 7.47 6.41 6.94
F-2-20 11.76 14.39 13.08 64.27 83.00 73.64 5.47 5.77 5.62
C-4-20 15.16 17.89 16.53 57.46 81.84 69.65 3.79 4.57 4.18
C-2-20 11.43 12.90 12.17 82.75 79.51 81.13 7.24 6.16 6.70

(+): positive direction, (− ): negative direction.

1610
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin
load-carrying history and the maximum displacement of members
[36,53].
Cumulative absorbed energy of the specimens is depicted in Fig. 12
(a). To compare cumulative absorbed energy of the joints in this study
with those of the previous study, Fig. 10(b) is presented.
According to the curves shown in Fig. 12(a), it could be stated that up
to a drift ratio of 2%, all the joints depicted almost the same perfor­
mance. At larger drifts, however, absorbed energy of the specimen F-4-
16 was the highest among other joints. Specimens F-6-16 and C-6-16,
with almost similar performance, had the lowest absorbed energy.
Therefore, splicing some reinforcement bars by either forging or coupler
led to higher absorbed energy compared to when all the bars are spliced.
The comparison made in Fig. 12 reveals that in the three compared
pair joints (F-4-16 and C-4-16, F-4-20 and C-40-20, F-2-20 and C-2-20),
the joints with forging splices showed higher absorbed energy compared
to those with couplers. F-6-16 and C-6-16 with almost the same per­
formance possessed the lowest absorbed energy in the present study.
Furthermore, in both studies the joint with couplers in all reinforcement
bars had the lowest absorbed energy in all drift ratios. This could be due
to poor performance of couplers specifically when they are used for
splicing all the bars at the same location.
Considering all of the above-mentioned points, it could be stated that
splicing all of the beam reinforcement bars by couplers in one location is
not recommended while splicing some of them by forging method could
result in more appropriate results. The absorbed energy improvement in
the RC columns [38] and RC beams [19] with forging splices in different
locations of longitudinal reinforcement bars was also concluded
previously.
4.3. Stiffness
The last parameter evaluated in this research is stiffness degradation
which reflects the cumulative damage of structural members under
seismic loads [29]. This parameter is described as the slope of a line
connecting the points corresponding to the maximum loads of negative
and positive directions in one load cycle [50,54]. The stiffness curves of
the joints (both studies) are exhibited in Fig. 13.
As also could be observed in Fig. 13(a), although specimen C-4-16
had the highest stiffness at the first stages of loading (up to 1.25% drift
ratio), at larger displacements (greater than 1.25% drift ratio) specimen
F-4-16 exhibited the highest capability of resisting deformation (or
stiffness). It is also worth mentioning that under relatively large
displacement (≥2.5% drift ratio) all the specimens depicted almost the
same response. However, it could be observed that splicing four rein­
forcement bars by forging method led to more reliable results compared
to other joints.
Based on the curves depicted in Fig. 13, it could be concluded that in
both studies the joints with two or four bars (not all the bars) spliced by
forging method had the highest stiffness under high drift ratios (higher
than 1.5%). Therefore, beam reinforcement ratio does not affect stiffness
Fig. 12. Cumulative absorbed energy of the joints: (a) the present study, (b) the previous study.
1611
Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613
of joints with splices significantly.
In spite of insignificant influence of beam reinforcement ratio on
stiffness, type and number of splices affected the results remarkably. It
could be claimed that the stiffness improvement reported in the studies
conducted on RC elements with forging splices [38] is also observed in
the results of this research and splicing some bars by forging method led
to more appropriate results.
5. Summary and conclusions
The main objective of this research was to compare the cyclic per­
formance of joints with different numbers and splice methods in the
beam longitudinal bars. Therefore, four RC beam-column joints with
different numbers of mechanical and forging (GPW) splices were
examined under cyclic and constant axial loads. Hysteresis curves were
obtained and seismic parameters including ductility, absorbed energy
and stiffness were assessed and discussed. The effect of beam and col­
umn dimensions and reinforcement bar size (or reinforcement ratio) on
the performance of joints incorporating coupler and forging splices was
also evaluated by comparing the results of this study to the results of a
similar study [19] evaluating the joints with different element di­
mensions and reinforcement ratio but the same boundary conditions,
loads and splice methods. Based on the results, following conclusions
could be made:
• In terms of ductility, the joint with all the bars spliced by forging
method showed a higher ductility in comparison to the joint with
four out of six bars spliced. In the joints with couplers, on the con­
trary, the specimen with four out of six bars spliced was more ductile
than the one with all bars spliced.
• Considering splice method effect on absorbed energy, it was resulted
that in the joints with the same number of spliced bars, the specimens
with forging splices possessed either almost similar or higher
absorbed energy in comparison to the joints with couplers.
• According to the absorbed energy values of the two series of joints
with different ρbeam, (a) GPW method: in the beams with ρbeam =
0.98%, splicing some of bars resulted in higher absorbed energy
compared to the beams with all bars spliced while in the beams with
ρbeam = 1.40%, splicing all the bars increased absorbed energy; (b)
couplers: regardless to ρbeam, the specimens with all bars spliced had
lower absorbed energy than those with some bars spliced.
• As far as stiffness is concerned, under high cyclic loads, regardless of
the beam reinforcement ratio, the joints with bars spliced by forging
method demonstrated either similar or more appropriate outcomes
compared to the specimens with couplers.
• Tacking the number of spliced bars into account, it was generally
observed that under high drift ratios the joints with some of bars
spliced, independent of splice type, had higher stiffness in compari­
son to the joints with all bars spliced.
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin
Fig. 13. Secant stiffness curves of test specimens: (a) the present study, (b) the previous study.
6. Recommendations and future works
This study focuses on comparing the behavior of joints incorporating
forging or coupler splices. The effect of beam reinforcement ratio was
also considered by comparing the results of this study to those of a
previous study. According to the conclusions of this study and other
similar studies [19,37,38] following recommendation could be made:
• Incorporating forging method is preferred to threaded couplers
because of the more acceptable performance of beams with forging
splices compared to those with threaded couplers.
• In the case of threaded couplers, splicing all the reinforcement bars
in a region is not recommended since it can decrease parameters such
as ductility, absorbed energy and stiffness.
It should be taken into consideration that the effect of other pa­
rameters such as length, thickness and material properties of couplers,
changing axial load and confinement of longitudinal bars at the region of
splices is not considered in this study which could be investigated either
numerically or experimentally in the further studies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Road, Housing & Urban
Development Research Center of Iran for making contribution to
conduct this research.
References
[1] Li B, Kai Q, Xue W. Effects of eccentricity on the seismic rehabilitation performance
of nonseismically detailed interior beamwide column joints. J Compos Constr
2012;16(5):507–19.
[2] Lu X, Urukap TH, Li S, Lin F. Seismic behavior of interior RC beam-column joints
with additional bars under cyclic loading. Earthquake and Structures 2012;3(1):
37–57.
[3] Rajagopal S, Prabavathy S. Seismic behavior of exterior beam-column joint using
mechanical anchorage under reversal loading: An experimental study. Iranian
Journal of Science and Technology. Transactions of. Civ Eng 2014;38(C2):345.
[4] Akhlaghi, A. and D. Mostofinejad. Experimental and analytical assessment of
different anchorage systems used for CFRP flexurally retrofitted exterior RC beam-
column connections. In Structures. 2020. Elsevier.
[5] Arshadi, H., et al. Study on The Damage Indices of Concrete Members Reinforced
with High-Strength Steel (HSS). Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
Structures and Buildings. 2020. 1-35.
[6] Dabiri H, Kaviani A, Kheyroddin A. Influence of reinforcement on the performance
of non-seismically detailed RC beam-column joints. Journal of Building.
Engineering 2020;31:101333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101333.
1612
Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613
[7] Dabiri H, Kheyroddin A, Kaviani A. A numerical study on the seismic response of
RC wide column–beam joints. International Journal of Civil Engineering 2019;17
(3):377–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0364-2.
[8] Braga F, Gigliotti R, Laterza M, D’Amato M, Kunnath S. Modified steel bar model
incorporating bond-slip for seismic assessment of concrete structures. J Struct Eng
2012;138(11):1342–50.
[9] Kaviani A, Dabiri H, Kheyroddin A. Effect of beam and column dimensions on the
behavior of RC beam-column joints. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 2021;22(5):
941–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-021-00356-1.
[10] Arshadi, H., A. Kheyroddin, and H. Naderpour, High-strength reinforcement effects
on the seismic behaviour of beam–column joints. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings. 2020. 1-12.
[11] Arshadi, H., et al. Experimental investigation into the failure process of exterior
beam-column joints with high-strength reinforcements. in IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering. 2020. IOP Publishing.
[12] Najafgholipour, M., et al. The performance of lap splices in RC beams under
inelastic reversed cyclic loading. in Structures. 2018. Elsevier.
[13] Masud M, et al. Performance of non-contact lap splices in geometrically dissimilar
bridge column to drilled shaft connections. Eng Struct 2020;209:110000.
[14] Tarquini D, de Almeida JP, Beyer K. Experimental investigation on the deformation
capacity of lap splices under cyclic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 2019;17(12):6645–70.
[15] Zanuy C, Díaz IM. Stress distribution and resistance of lap splices under fatigue
loading. Eng Struct 2018;175:700–10.
[16] Alyousef R, Topper T, Al-Mayah A. Crack growth modeling of tension lap spliced
reinforced concrete beams strengthened with fibre reinforced polymer wrapping
under fatigue loading. Constr Build Mater 2018;166:345–55.
[17] Fawzy, T., et al., Experimental and analytical study on tension lap splices in
nonconventional concrete using different techniques. Structural Concrete.
[18] Bompa, D. and A. Elghazouli. Monotonic and cyclic performance of threaded
reinforcement splices. in Structures. 2018. Elsevier.
[19] Kheyroddin A, Dabiri H. Cyclic performance of RC beam-column joints with
mechanical or forging (GPW) splices; an experimental study. Structures. 2020;28:
2562–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.10.071.
[20] Tazarv M, Saiidi MS. Seismic design of bridge columns incorporating mechanical
bar splices in plastic hinge regions. Eng Struct 2016;124:507–20.
[21] Bompa, D. and A. Elghazouli. Ductility considerations for mechanical
reinforcement couplers. in Structures. 2017. Elsevier.
[22] Haber ZB, Saiidi MS, Sanders DH. Seismic performance of precast columns with
mechanically spliced column-footing connections. ACI Struct J 2014;111(3):
639–50.
[23] Ingham JM, Bai ASH. Seismic performance of mechanically coupled reinforcing
bars. Mag Concr Res 2009;61(7):529–37.
[24] Do-Kyu H, et al. Assessing the Seismic Performance of Threaded Rebar Coupler
System. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International
Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural.
Engineering 2015;9(10).
[25] Henin E, Morcous G. Non-proprietary bar splice sleeve for precast concrete
construction. Eng Struct 2015;83:154–62.
[26] Ameli MJ, Parks JE, Brown DN, Pantelides CP. Seismic evaluation of grouted splice
sleeve connections for reinforced precast concrete column-to-cap beam joints in
accelerated bridge construction. PCI journal 2015;60(2):80–103.
[27] Lu Z, Huang J, Li Y, Dai S, Peng Z, Liu X, et al. Mechanical behaviour of grouted
sleeve splice under uniaxial tensile loading. Eng Struct 2019;186:421–35.
[28] Xu Li, Pan J, Cai J. Seismic performance of precast RC and RC/ECC composite
columns with grouted sleeve connections. Eng Struct 2019;188:104–10.
[29] Fan J-J, et al. Experimental study of prefabricated RC column-foundation
assemblies with two different connection methods and using large-diameter
reinforcing bars. Eng Struct 2020;205:110075.
[30] Kheyroddin A, Mohammadkhah A, Dabiri H, Kaviani A. Experimental investigation
of using mechanical splices on the cyclic performance of RC columns. Structures.
2020;24:717–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.01.043.
[31] Karabinis AI. Reinforced concrete beam-column joints with lap splices under cyclic
loading. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2002;14(6):649–60.
[32] Han W, Zhao Z, Qian J, Cui Y, Liu S. Seismic behavior of precast columns with
large-spacing and high-strength longitudinal rebars spliced by epoxy mortar-filled
threaded couplers. Eng Struct 2018;176:349–60.
H. Dabiri and A. Kheyroddin
[33] Castro, J.J. and H. Imai. Structural performance of exterior beam column joints
with mechanical anchorage at main bars. in 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper. 2004.
[34] Tarabia AM, Mahmoud ZI, Shoukry MS, Abudina AA. Performance of RC slabs with
lap splices using headed bars. Alexandria Engineering Journal 2016;55(3):
2729–40.
[35] Pawar VR, Patil Y, Patil H. Cyclic loading of Exterior Beam-Column Joint with
Threaded Headed Reinforcement. International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research 2017;12(17):6377–83.
[36] Lu Z, et al. Experimental study on a precast beam-column joint with double
grouted splice sleeves. Eng Struct 2019;199:109589.
[37] Sharbatdar MK, Jafari OM, Karimi MS. Experimental evaluation of splicing of
longitudinal bars with forging welding in flexural reinforced concrete beams.
Advances in concrete construction 2018;6(5):509.
[38] Kheyroddin A, Rouhi S, Dabiri H. An experimental study on the influence of
incorporating lap or forging (GPW) splices on the cyclic performance of RC
columns. Eng Struct 2021;241:112434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2021.112434.
[39] Saito T, Yabe Y, Fujimori T. An ultrasonic testing method for gas pressure welded
joints of reinforcing steel bars. Ultrasonics 1985;23(3):119–27.
[40] YAMAMOTO R-I, FUKADA Y, TATSUMI M, UEYAMA K. New quality inspection
method for gas pressure welds. Quarterly Report of RTRI 2002;43(1):7–12.
[41] ACI318-14, ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete : (ACI 318-14) ; and Commentary (ACI 318R-14). 2014: Farmington Hills,
MI :American Concrete Institute.
[42] Gür CH, Tekkaya AE. Numerical investigation of non-homogeneous plastic
deformation in quenching process. Mater Sci Eng, A 2001;319-321:164–9.
[43] Shariati, M. and H. Mehrabi, Energy-Based Prediction of Low-Cycle Fatigue Life of
CK45 Steel and SS316 Stainless Steel. 2014.
[44] BS-1881:120. (1983). Testing concrete part 120. Method for determination of the
compressive strength of concrete cores. London: British Standard Institution.
1613
Structures 34 (2021) 1603–1613
[45] ASTM-E8, ASTM, E8, in 16a Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic
Materials. 2018: West Conshohocken: ASTM International.
[46] ACI374.1-05, ACI Committee 374, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based
on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05). 2005: Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
[47] Dabiri H, Kheyroddin A. An analytical study into the seismic behavior of RC pier
with elastomeric materials. ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BHRC)
2017;18(7):1183–93.
[48] Tahnat YBA, et al. Simple equations for predicting the rotational ductility of fiber-
reinforced-polymer strengthened reinforced concrete joints. Structures. Elsevier;
2020.
[49] Santos, J. and A.A. Henriques, Span-to-depth ratio limits for RC continuous beams
and slabs based on MC2010 and EC2 ductility and deflection requirements.
Engineering Structures. 228: p. 111565.
[50] Li Bo, Lam Eddie Siu-shu, Wu Bo, Wang Ya-yong. Experimental investigation on
reinforced concrete interior beam–column joints rehabilitated by ferrocement
jackets. Eng Struct 2013;56:897–909.
[51] Wang Yanlei, Cai Gaochuang, Li Yunyu, Waldmann Danièle, Si Larbi Amir,
Tsavdaridis Konstantinos Daniel. Behavior of circular fiber-reinforced
polymer–steel-confined concrete columns subjected to reversed cyclic loads:
experimental studies and finite-element analysis. J Struct Eng 2019;145(9):
04019085. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002373.
[52] Priestley M, Park R. Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under
seismic loading. Structural Journal 1987;84(1):61–76.
[53] Germano Federica, Tiberti Giuseppe, Plizzari Giovanni. Experimental behavior of
SFRC columns under uniaxial and biaxial cyclic loads. Compos B Eng 2016;85:
76–92.
[54] Sucuoglu Haluk. Effect of connection rigidity on seismic response of precast
concrete frames. PCI journal 1995;40(1):94–103.