Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Bond behavior of spirally confined splice of deformed bars in grout

Seyed Jamal Aldin Hosseini ⇑, Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman, Mohd Hanim Osman, Aziz Saim,
Azlan Adnan
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia

h i g h l i g h t s

 A spiral combined with splice bars as an alternative grouted connection.

 Significant increase in bond strength for rebars connected by the spiral connection.
 More effective confinement and higher bond strength with smaller spiral diameters.
 Similar trends of bond behavior observed in axial and flexural pull-out tests.
 Lower bond strength in flexural specimens compared to axial pull-out specimens.

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

Article history: This paper presents the bond behavior of deformed steel reinforcement bars connected by a grouted
Received 13 June 2014 spiral connection. The bond behavior investigated in this study comprised the mechanism of force trans-
Received in revised form 18 November 2014 fer, the bond-slip relationship due to the effects of spiral diameter and the comparison of bond stresses
Accepted 27 December 2014
between axial and flexural pull-out tests. A total of 36 pull-out specimens and 12 beam specimens were
tested until bond failure. The results show that the bond performance between rebars and grout
improved significantly due to the confinement provided by the spiral. Reducing the spiral diameter
Keywords:
increases the confinement effect and subsequently increases the bond strength. The results also show
Spiral confinement
Grouted splice
that the bond strengths obtained from the flexural tests are within the range of 0.74–0.79 times the bond
Bond stress strength of the axial pull-out tests. However, both test results show similar trend of bond behavior with
Slip respect to variation in spiral configurations.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The confinement of grout is proposed herein by providing clo-

There have been great developments in the factors affecting the
bond over the past 40 years and as a result, design clauses related
to bond in different worldwide design codes have been considerably
modified [1]. There are some complications in detailed bond strength
evaluation since the bond strength magnitude is affected by numer-
ous factors. For instance, no less than 10 parameters, which affect
anchorage, are included in the CEB-FIP Model Code 90 [2].
A governing issue known as confinement has significantly influ-
enced the anchorage bond and reduced the required connected
steel bars embedment length [3–6]. The confinement technique
has successfully control the development of splitting cracks either
by bridging or by the resistance provided by the expansion mate-
rials surrounding the steel bars.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Hosseini_s_jamal@yahoo.com (S.J.A. Hosseini).
sely spaced steel spirals as transverse reinforcement. The circular
spiral provides a continuous confining pressure, which approxi-
mates uniform lateral fluid pressure around the circumference
[7]. One benefit of such circular spirals is that they are widely
available.
Research on the spiral connection has also been carried out by
Housing and Development Board (HDB) of Singapore [8]. The spiral
connection system was developed to provide a safe, reliable, cost
effective connection system for splicing precast components. It
embraces the theory of ‘concrete confinement and shear action’
to generate the required strength for connecting reinforcement
bars efficiently. The connection system has undergone rigorous
tests by HDB to meet the high performance standards. This connec-
tion is used for connecting precast concrete components such as
wall-to-wall and column-to-column In this joint system, HDB has
adopted the use of reinforcement with enlarged ends. Fig. 1 shows
the spiral connection produced by HDB and its application in
joining precast concrete components [9].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.097
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194
Fig. 1. HDB spiral connection [8] and its application in precast concrete wall-to-wall and column-to-column connections [9].
The main objectives of this paper are:
(i) Understanding the mechanism of force transfer in the spiral
connection.
(ii) Understanding the behavior of bond stress–slip in the main
reinforcement bars due to the effects of passive confinement
provided by the spiral.
(iii) Investigating the performance of bond stresses between the
axial and flexural pull-out effects.
1.1. Research significance
In Malaysia, grouted sleeve connections are the most popular
method of connecting precast column-to-column or column-to-
Fig. 2. Grouted sleeve connection.
181
base. For example, the column-to-column or column-to-base con-
nection is carried out by inserting the sleeves available in the
upper column into the protruding starter bars of the lower column,
see Fig. 2. The sleeves and starter bars are then grouted. In this
joint, a long embedded length of about 40 times bar diameter
[10] is normally required for each protruding starter bar. As a
result of long embedded length, there is a possibility that the main
bar is not positioned exactly at the center of the sleeve and could
be in contact with the sleeve wall. As a result, the bar is not fully
grouted and this reduces the anchorage capacity and the full
strength of the main bar could not be exploited.
There is a growing need for short bar development length in lap
splices of deformed reinforcing bars in grout, because apart from
the problem of long embedded length of normal grouted sleeve
connections available mechanical splices are either expensive or
require special equipment and installation procedures.
The spiral connection is part of the proposed short splicing
method, where the confinement provided by the spiral increases
the bond strength very substantially. The spiral connection can
be used in Industrial Building Systems (IBS) as an alternative to
other types of mechanical splice connections.
In terms of cost, the spiral connection uses mild steel spiral that
is welded to Y10 high steel splice bars, which is considered inex-
pensive. The other advantage, the splice connection is not cast
together with the precast components in the factory. Only a cavity
or sleeve is required and formed in the precast component. To join
precast components on site, the spiral connection is inserted into
the cavity and then grouted with non-shrink grout.
As the success of the grouted connection rely heavily on the
performance of the reinforcement bond strength, this paper pre-
sents the effects of spiral connections to the behavior of bond-slip
relationship as obtained from axial pull-out tests and also flexural
pull-out tests which emulate the true behavior of the connection in
actual condition of flexural members.
1.2. Previous research
Confinement can improve the strength of concrete significantly.
The influence of confinement on the ductility and compressive
strength of concrete confined by transverse ties and spiral has been
reported by many researchers [11–15].
Pessiki and Pieroni [16] and Graybeal and Pessiki [17] con-
ducted studies on concrete confined by steel spirals. The speci-
mens were subjected to compression. Their findings showed
that the yield strain of the spiral confinement occured before
182 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194
the confined concrete reached its maximum compressive
strength. Furthermore, the ductility of the concrete compressive
strength increases with the increase of spiral yield strength and
the use of high strength spiral increases the lateral confinement
to the concrete. According to Untrauer and Henry [4], and
Moosavi et al. [5], the ultimate bond stress of embedded steel
bars increases due to the confinement which controls the
splitting expansion of the surrounding bonding material of the
steel bars.
Confinement can also improve the anchorage bond of steel bars.
In order to provide confinement, the bar anchorage region can also
be surrounded by various materials including transverse reinforce-
ments [18,19], spiral bars [20–23], aluminum tubes [24,25], cylin-
drical pipes [3,26–37], and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) [38–40].
For the purpose of controlling the propagation of splitting cracks,
transverse reinforcements and spiral bars are applied while the
splitting expansion of the surrounding bonding material of the
bar is resisted by the use of cylindrical pipes, aluminum tubes
and fiber reinforced polymers.
Many research works have been carried out to test the spiral
connection until the ultimate failure. The results show that it is
able to provide the full tensile strength of connected main rebars
with shorter embedded length of less than the 40 times bar diam-
eter, as required by the code [10].
Study on grouted spiral connections by Norliana [41], showed
that an embedded length of 15 times the main bar diameter com-
bined with grout strength of at least 60 N/mm2 was able to cause
the main bar fractured outside the sleeve. This indicates that even
with the short embedded length, the grouted splice connection is
able to provide the full tensile strength of the connected bar, due
to the confinement and interlocking mechanisms provided by the
spiral. This finding is also confirmed by Eimen et al. [42]. Subse-
quently, with a shorter embedded length of main bar and slightly
a larger spiral diameter can ease the grouting works and installa-
tion of precast components.
Amin Einea et a1. [42] conducted research on the lapping of
deformed steel bars confined by spiral splice connection subjected
to axial tension. The spiral was filled-in with high strength con-
crete of 60 Mpa. Their test results showed the lapped length of
the connected rebars can be reduced significantly with the present
of spiral confinement. The main contributing factor in obtaining
the full tensile strength of the splice connection with the short
embedded length is the performance of bond strength between
the reinforcement bars and the confined concrete.
Bond strength influences the embedded length of the con-
nected rebars. By knowing the bond strength, the required
embedded length to achieve the full tensile strength of the con-
nected main rebars can be designed accordingly. The bond
strength of the single deformed bars and its spiral confinement
effect were also investigated experimentally by Hoseeini and Rah-
man [43–47]. The provision of the confinement was done through
the use of spiral and steel pipe similar to that of proprietary grout
filled splice sleeves. In this regard, during the current study,
researchers attempt to continue the work of Hoseeini and Rah-
man [43–47]. The selection of the new connection geometry
was done in a practical and applicable way to be used in Indus-
trial Building Systems (IBS).
The research was carried out further on the steel spiral that was
combined with straight splice rebars. The radial confinement was
generated by the proposed spiral configuration for controlling the
splitting expansion of the surrounding grout and subsequently
improving the bond performance.
The spiral splice connection was tested under two loading con-
ditions namely axial and flexural pull-out to acquire the behavior
of the connection and to study the effects of spiral confinement
to the bond stress–slip response.
2. Specification of test specimens
2.1. Splice connection
A splice connection used in this study consisted of one R6
(6 mm diameter of smooth mild steel) spiral reinforcement welded
to 4Y10 (10 mm diameter of deformed high yield) straight splice
steel bars, see Fig. 3(a) and Table 1. The connection was then gro-
uted by using PVC mold to join two Y16 (16 mm diameter of
deformed high yield) steel discontinuous main bars, see Fig. 3(b).
The R6 spiral provides interlocking mechanism between the con-
nected main Y16 rebars with the high strength grout and also con-
finement to the grout. The straight 4Y10 bars act as the bridging
element to transfer tension force between the two main Y16 bars
through the grout medium. Two criteria were considered in
designing the test splice specimens: (1) the cross sectional area
of the splice bar was equal or greater than the area of the main
bar; (2) the splice bars covered the whole distance of spliced length
for developing the axial tension capacity of the main bar [42].
For the grouting of splice connection, Sika Grout-215, with the
specified strength of more than 60 N/mm2 at 28 days, was used
as the bonding material in the grouted splice connections (see
Fig. 3(c)). Sika GroutÒ-215 is non-shrinkage, cementations grout
with several advantages such as easy for mixing, non-corrosive,
dense and extended working time. It was prepared with mixing
ratio according to the proportions recommended by the manufac-
turer (25 kg of grout in 4 liter water).
The use of spirals for the anchorage of bars requires ducts for
grouting. In this study, the duct used was a 110 mm diameter
PVC pipe in which the size was larger as compared to the spiral.
The large size was chosen to accommodate different diameters of
spiral used in the study and also to ensure consistent external
grout diameter for all specimens. For economical use of grout,
the diameter of the duct can be just slightly larger than the exter-
nal diameter of the spiral, enough to accommodate the spiral and
internal grout.
The variable parameters of the splice connection were spiral
diameter, pitch distance and number of coil. Referring to Table 1,
control specimens S1-A, S2-A, S3-A, S1-F, S2-F and S3-F, as the
benchmark, were tested to measure the grouted spiral connection
performance under axial and flexural loads. The control specimens
had the spiral diameter fixed at 25 mm, and spiral pitch distance of
15 mm. In addition, series P15, P25 and P35 are associated with
spiral pitch distance of 15 mm, 25 mm, and 35 mm, respectively.
Then, for each spiral pitch distance, there were three different
spiral diameters namely 25 mm, 35 mm, and 45 mm respectively.
The spiral with closed and ground ends were used in this study,
see Fig. 4. As a result of maintaining the specimen length to
160 mm and the requirement of pitch distance, Ps of 15 mm,
25 mm and 35 mm has resulted in the end distance, Pe. The num-
ber of coil shown is 12, suitable for series P15.
The embedded length of the main bars was fixed at 75 mm
(about 4.7 times the main bar diameter) for all specimens in all ser-
ies. The short embedded length is chosen to ensure (i). That the
bond stress can be assumed uniform along the embedded length
of the main bar suitable for studying the bond behavior [19,48],
(ii). Pull-out failure in the elastic range and the yield point of steel
bar is not reached, so that complexity in the bond behavior in the
post yield range can be avoided. All related parameters of the gro-
uted splice connection are given in Fig. 4 and Table 1.
2.2. Beam specimen for flexural test
Splice connections with similar specification described in Sec-
tion 2.1 were cast in the reinforced concrete beams to join the
 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194 183

Fig. 3. (a) Splice connection, each specimen consists of a spiral and four splice bars. (b) Preparation of specimens. (c) Grouting of splice connection.

Table 1
Dimensions of all series.

Series Specimen Quantity Spiral diameter Ds (mm) Pitch distance Ps (mm) Number of coils (Nc) Number of splice bar, n Type of test
Control specimen S1-A 3 No spiral No splice bar Axial
S2-A 3 25 15 12 No splice bar Axial
S3-A 3 25 15 12 4 Axial
S1-F 1 No spiral No splice bar Flexural
S2-F 1 25 15 12 No splice bar Flexural
S3-F 1 25 15 12 4 Flexural
P15 P15 D25-A 3 25 15 12 4 Axial
P15 D35-A 3 35 15 12 4 Axial
P15 D45-A 3 45 15 12 4 Axial
P15 D25-F 1 25 15 12 4 Flexural
P15 D35-F 1 35 15 12 4 Flexural
P15 D45-F 1 45 15 12 4 Flexural
P25 P25 D25-A 3 25 25 8 4 Axial
P25 D35-A 3 35 25 8 4 Axial
P25 D45-A 3 45 25 8 4 Axial
P25 D25-F 1 25 25 8 4 Flexural
P25 D35-F 1 35 25 8 4 Flexural
P25 D45-F 1 45 25 8 4 Flexural
P35 P35 D25-A 3 25 35 6 4 Axial
P35 D35-A 3 35 35 6 4 Axial
P35 D45-A 3 45 35 6 4 Axial
P35 D25-F 1 25 35 6 4 Flexural
P35 D35-F 1 35 35 6 4 Flexural
P35 D45-F 1 45 35 6 4 Flexural

For all specimens: diameter of cylindrical grout, D = 110 mm, connection length, Ls = 160 mm, embedded length, Le = 75 mm. Series notation, e.g. P35 D45- F: P – pitch
distance, D – diameter of spiral, A – axial pull-out test, F – flexural pull-out test.
184 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194

Details of rebar:
Splice bar = 10mm diameter, high yield steel deformed bar
Spiral = 6 mm diameter, mild steel smooth spiral
Main bar = 16 mm diameter, high yield steel deformed bar
Specimen length, Ls = 2 (Pe) + (Nc – 2) x Ps,
where Pe is the end distance. For series P15, Pe = 5 mm, for P25, Pe = 5 mm and for P35, Pe = 10 mm

Fig. 4. Details of grouted specimen comprising main bars, spiral, and splice bars.

Table 2 3.1. Axial pull-out test

Mix proportion of concrete grade G4028 for beam specimens.

Material Proportions (kg/m3) Fig. 5 shows the setup of the axial pull-out test for the purpose
Course aggregates 1035 of studying the bond stress–slip of the grouted the spiral connec-
Fine aggregates 755 tion under increasing axial tension.
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 375 The tests were performed under increasing axial tension-pull-
Water 180 out load by using a hydraulic actuator with a pace rate of 0.5 kN/
s. In order to monitor and acquire the increasing load, slip and strain
of the main bars until the failure of the specimen, a computer-aided
Table 3 automatic data acquisition system was incorporated. The data
Description of concrete grade G4028 for beam specimens. acquisition system is able to acquire the reading of total deforma-
Particular Descriptions tion of the splice which includes bar slippage and bar elongation.
Specified strength G40 MPa @ 28 days
To monitor the strain in the main bar, a strain gauge (SG) was
Design strength G40 MPa @ 28 days installed, at the location of one bar diameter from the surface-
Slump require 75 ± 25 mm end of the grout. If the strain in the main rebar remains elastic that
Maximum size coarse aggregate 20 mm graded (crushed) would indicate that the slip is mainly due to pull-out and not influ-
Cement Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
enced by the plastic elongation due to yielding of the rebar.
S.G. of C. Agg (SSD) 2.61
S.G. of F. Agg (SSD) 2.61 To study the slip behavior of the spliced bar in this experimental
S.G. of Cement 3.15 program, two set of Linear Variable Data Transducers (LVDT) have
Estimated w/c to achieve design strength 0.48% been placed on both active and passive ends of the specimens to
Estimated sand to total aggregate (s/a) 0.42% record the slip values (see Fig. 4). A reference plate was attached
to the steel bar. As the pull-out of main bars from the surrounding
grout occured, the LVDTs measured the slip as well as the elongation
of the bar between reference plate and end of grout. A correction for
Y16 main bars. For casting the beam specimens, ready-mix con-
the elongation of the bar was made assuming uniform strain along
crete Grade 40, with the slump of 50 mm to 100 mm, was
the critical section and adherence to the usual pre-yielding linear
employed. Tables 2 and 3 list the mix proportions and descriptions
stress–strain relationship of steel. However, this correction was only
of the ready-mix concrete respectively. The specification of splice
accounted for stresses below the steel yielding point.
connection employed in the beam specimen is similar to the axial
Test results indicated that the strain in the steel bar was in elas-
pull out specimens discussed in Section 2.1.
tic condition hence the elongation recorded the slip component
over the spliced region and did not include elastic or plastic defor-
mation of the reinforcement bar. So, the net slip for an individual
3. Test setups
spliced bar is estimated according to the relative slip of both pas-
sive and the active end.
Several methods are available in investigating the bond strength
and the behavior of bond-slip relationship, see Cairns and Plizzari
[1]. In this study, two experimental test setup were adopted: (i). 3.2. Flexural test
Axial pull-out tests based on Tastani and Pantazopulou [49] or Pour
Identifier l’Adhérence et le Frottement test (F.A.F) [50] and (ii). Fex- It is widely accepted that a more realistic simulation of the
ural bond tests based on the RILEM beam test [51]. stress conditions of elements subjected to bending is given through
The axial pull-out setup is relatively simple but does not repre- beam tests [1]. In order to investigate the behavior and perfor-
sent realistic conditions when the splice is subjected to bending mance of the spiral connection under bending, in particular the
when used in beam-to-beam or column-to-column connections. bond stress–slip response, rectangular reinforced concrete beams
On the contrary, more realistic conditions can be simulated were used. The dimensions and reinforcement details of the half-
through the use of flexural pull-out tests [1]. In this study, both test beam is shown in Fig. 6. Plain mild steel bars were used in each
setup are adopted and the results between the two tests are beam as longitudinal and transverse reinforcements in confor-
compared. mance with RILEM [51] specifications with some modifications.
 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194
Fig. 5. Axial pull-out test setup.
Fig. 6. Schematic descriptions of the half-beam.
The modifications are: (i). the transverse reinforcement bars in the
beam were reduced from 22 to 20 number and (ii) the beam size
was modified from 150  240 mm as suggested by RILEM to
285  350 mm to allow the splice connection to be placed inside
the beam.
The concrete beam specimens were cast in flat position using
molds. The demounting of the beams was done three days after
casting and air curing. A total of twelve half-beam specimens were
prepared.
Fig. 7(a) shows the schematic diagram of the two half-beams
joined by the two main Y16 reinforcement bars that are spliced
by the spiral connection at segment BC.
Regarding the left side of the beam, the rebars in segments AB
and CD were unbonded, whereas in segment BC the main rebars
were spliced by using the grouted spiral connection. The purpose
of unbonded bar in segments AB and CD was to prevent conical
failure inline with suggestion proposed by ACI 408 [52] and fur-
thermore to ensure that the bond strength in the main rebars is
mainly contributed by the splice connection. Only in segment BC,
the steel bar was in contact with the grout and subsequently with
the concrete. The anchorage of the main rebars in the left beam
relied on segment BC. Other segments AB and CD were unbonded.
On the other hand, the longitudinal steel bar for beam on the right
side was fully cast and anchored in concrete.
Fig 7(b) shows the actual flexural test conducted in the labora-
tory. The beam was loaded with increasing two equal point loads,
P applied symmetrically on each side of the ball joint. The
185
compression side of the two-half beam was connected and resisted
by a steel hinge and the tension side was resisted by the main steel
bars connected by the spiral connection.
The strain measurement in the reinforcement was done
through the application of a strain gauge glued to the surface of
the main bar extruding from the grouted sleeve, at one bar diam-
eter from the surface-end of the grout, see Fig. 7(a). After each load
increment, the slip measurement of the rebar was obtained from
the Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs), see Fig. 7(b).
4. Test results and discussion
In order to study the behavior and performance of the bond
strength due to the effects of spiral confinement, an experimental
study based on the axial and flexural pull-out tests was performed.
Assuming that the bond stress is uniform, the average bond
stress ‘‘s’’ at any stage during loading [10,53] is given by Eq. (1),
where the division of the applied pull-out load on the rebar ‘‘T’’
divided by the nominal surface area of the embedment length
‘‘Le’’ of the rebar yields
s ¼ T=ðp:db :Le Þ ð1Þ
The tensile load, T acting on the reinforcement in the beam of
flexural tests as a result of pure bending moment is calculated
using Eq. (2) [51].
T ¼ P:a=j ð2Þ
186 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. Flexural pull-out experimental setup; (a) beam details showing the spiral connection, unbonded length of rebar, loads and LVDTs positions, (b) actual beam tested in
the laboratory.
where: T, tensile load in the reinforcement, N; db, diameter of main
bar in mm; Le, embedded length in mm; P, applied load per jack in
N; a, shear span in mm; and j, distance between the resultant ten-
sile and compressive loads in mm.
The average bond strength, s over the embedment length, Le is cal-
culated by using Eq. (1) and presented in Table 4. The responses of the
splice connections were obtained from the axial and flexural pull-out
tests. The table shows the load capacity, bond strength, slip and also
compressive strength of grout for all tested specimen. The load capac-
ity is the maximum load at the beginning of the bar pull-out.
For axial pull-out tests, the results shown in Table 4 are based
on the average of three similar specimens to ensure data reliability.
4.1. Mechanism of force transfer in the spiral connection
This section discusses the mechanism of force transfer in the
spiral connection as supported by experimental results. Specimens
S1-A and S1-F were controlled specimens without any spiral or
splice bar tested under axial and flexural pull-out tests respec-
tively. The purpose of having control specimen was to demonstrate
the role of spiral and splice bars, in transferring the tension force
within the connected Y16 bars through the grout medium.
Referring to Table 2, the first control specimen, S1-A and S1-F
consisted of grout only and without any spiral or splice bars, Spec-
imen S1-A failed at 24.01 kN due to the tensile cracking of the
grout at the mid-section in between the Y16 main bars, see
Fig. 8(a). The corresponding tensile strength of the grout at failure
was, rt ¼ P u =ðpD2 =4Þ ¼ 24010 N=ðp  1102 mm2 =4Þ ¼ 2:52 MPa.
The second control specimens namely S2-A and S2-F consisted
of spiral without any splice bars. The spiral was 25 mm in diameter
with the pitch distance of 15 mm. Similar to the first control spec-
imens without spiral (S1-A and S1-F), the specimens with spiral
S2-A and S2-F failed at 24.62 kN and 16 kN respectively, by the
cracking of the grout located at mid-section in between the main
bars. The corresponding tensile strength of 2.59 MPa was sustained
by specimen S2-A as compared to 2.52 MPa in specimen S1-A (see
Table 4). Likewise, the flexural specimen S2-F failed at 1.68 MPa
close to the flexural strength of specimen S1-F at 1.59 MPa. The
tensile and flexural strength values in both axial and flexural
pull-out tests respectively, indicate that the spiral did not improve
the maximum tensile strength of the grout. At failure load, the
spiral at the cracked section of specimen S2-A elongated easily
without any tensile resistance, see Fig. 8(b). Hence, the spiral did
not play important role in transmitting tensile load between the
main rebars through the grout medium. On the other hand, a
reduction in the slip at failure load was observed as a result of
using spiral confinement in specimen S2-A and S2-F.
Furthermore, the grout key failure in beam specimens S1-F and
S2-F had caused the bar to slip and then initiated the collapse of
beam specimen. This failure could be due to the grout fracture in
between the main bars. As a result the tensile strength in the main
bar depended on the short 75 mm anchorage length, see Fig. 9.
Eventually, when the pull-out load exceeded the bond strength
of the short anchorage length, the loss of bond was triggered,
resulting in the bar slippage followed by the collapse of beam spec-
imen, see Fig. 14(c).
In the third control specimens of S3-A and S3-F; four Y10 splice
bars were welded to the spiral. The test results show that by
attaching the four splice bars to the spiral, the bond strength of
specimen S3-A had increased dramatically to 18.5 MPa as com-
pared to 6.53 MPa in specimen S2-A, i.e. 2.83 times larger. For
the flexural specimen, the bond strength of specimen S3-F had
increased to 15 MPa as compared to 5.1 MPa in specimen S2-F,
i.e. 2.9 times larger (see Fig. 10).
 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194 187

Table 4
Test results of grouted splice connection (average of three specimens for axial pull-out).

Series Specimen Compressive strength Load capacity Pu (kN) Bond strength smax (MPa) unless specified Slip (mm) Failure mode
of grout fc,g (Mpa)
⁄
Control specimen Series S1-A 61.2 24.01 rt = 2.52 4.01 Grout fracture
⁄
S2-A 61.2 24.62 rt = 2.59 1.48 Grout fracture
S3-A 61.2 69.73 18.5 4.11 Bar pull-out
⁄
S1-F 62 15.1 rf = 1.59 3.5 Grout fracture
⁄
S2-F 62 16 rf = 1.68 0.5 Grout fracture
S3-F 62 47 15 2.3 Bar pull-out
Series P15 P15 D25-A 61.2 69.5 18.42 4.11 Bar pull-out
P15 D35-A 61.2 60.37 15.98 3.61 Bar pull-out
P15 D45-A 61.2 51.56 13.67 3.09 Bar pull-out
P15 D25-F 62 55.4 14.7 2.2 Bar pull-out
P15 D35-F 62 45 11.94 1.6 Bar pull-out
P15 D45-F 62 39.4 10.45 1.3 Bar pull-out
Series P25 P25 D25-A 61.2 67.5 17.92 3.87 Bar pull-out
P25 D35-A 61.2 58.8 15.59 3.38 Bar pull-out
P25 D45-A 61.2 50.4 13.37 2.97 Bar pull-out
P25 D25-F 62 53.5 14.19 2.01 Bar pull-out
P25 D35-F 62 43.9 11.64 1.5 Bar pull-out
P25 D45-F 62 38.2 10.13 1.2 Bar pull-out
Series P45 P35 D25-A 61.2 66.3 17.5 3.99 Bar pull-out
P35 D35-A 61.2 57.94 15.37 3.49 Bar pull-out
P35 D45-A 61.2 49.31 13.1 2.99 Bar pull-out
P35 D25-F 62 52.1 13.82 2 Bar pull-out
P35 D35-F 62 43 11.41 1.55 Bar pull-out
P35 D45-F 62 37.2 9.87 1.35 Bar pull-out

Note: ⁄Grout tensile strength, rt and flexural strength, rf.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Failure mode of (a) Specimen S1-A without spiral and splice bar failed at 24.01 kN. (b) Specimen S2-A with spiral but without splice failed at 24.62 kN.

The significant improvement in the bond performance is due to
the adhesion, interlocking and confinement mechanisms that have
work effectively after incorporating the splice bars. The interlock-
ing mechanism is provided by the bearing resistance between
the bar ribs and confined grout. The interlocking mechanism is
enhanced further by the confinement stresses generated by the
spiral and splice bars. With the presence of splice bars, the mode
of failure is no longer the grout fracture. This shows that the tensile
force in one of the connected main rebar has been successfully
transferred to the other main rebar through the grout and splice
bars.
To describe the interlocking and confinement mechanisms,
refer Fig. 11. As the bar is pulled out from the grout, the reaction
forces in the deformed bar can be resolved into normal and longi-
tudinal force components [54,55]. Normal componential stress will
be exerted to the surface of spiral and splice bars generating reac-
tion of radial confinement stress that confines the grout, see
Fig. 12(a) and (b). Subsequently, this radial confinement stress gen-
erates a region of compressive field in the grout surrounding the
main steel bars, see Fig. 12(c). At increasing pull-out load, this
compressed grout is able to resist or delay the propagation of ten-
sile splitting cracks. Meanwhile the longitudinal componential
stress, that is parallel to the main rebar axis, is exerted to the grout
shear key generating the reaction bearing stress in front of each rib.
The grout shear key interlocks the rib from moving horizontally
[56]. This mechanism combined with adhesion between grout
and the main rebar enhances the frictional resistance or bond
strength between the main bar and the compressed grout.
As the axial load on the main rebar increases, the wedging
action by the rebar ribs increases [56]. Once the wedging action
exceeds the bond strength, the grout shear key between ribs
crushed and the bar pull-out occurred. The tensile load at the onset
of pull-out is the maximum load, T of the embedded main rebar.
Then, the bond strength, s can be calculated by using Eq. (1).
4.2. Behavior of grouted spiral connection
This section discusses the development of bond stress distribu-
tion along the embedded length of the main bar under increasing
pull-out load, based on the principles proposed by Ferguson [57].
Fig. 13(a)–(c) shows the development of small, medium and large
bond stress distributions at different pull-out load levels. Initially,
under small load, bond stress concentrated at ends of the main
rebars (see Fig. 13(a)). At this stage, the main rebars endured minor
slip due to the breakdown of regional adhesion between rebar and
grout [57].
188 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194
Fig. 9. Grout fracture initiating the bar pull-out.
25
Direct pull-out Flexural pull-out
20 S3-A, 18.5
Bond strength (MPa)
S3-F, 15
15
10
S2-A, 6.53
S2-F, 5.1
5 enced more stiffness degradation as compared to the axial pull-
0
Fig. 10. Comparison of bond strength between specimens S3 and S2.
Then, under medium load, the peak bond stress developed fur-
ther into the non stressed anchorage length, engaging additional
ribs along the rebar to resist the tensile load (see Fig. 13(b)). At that
moment, minor inclined cracks were propagated and rebar ribs
started to crush a portion of the grout keys.
Finally, as the peak bond stress reached the end of the rebar, all
the ribs were used to interlock with the grout keys. At this stage,
the bond capacity of the grouted splice was achieved, and further
increment of tensile load would increase the peak bond stress
starting from the grouted sleeve ends (see Fig. 13(c)). As a result,
the grout keys at the ends of the grouted sleeve crushed or failed
in shear. These grout keys were overloaded first, and followed by
the other grout keys along the rebars. This progressive failure of
the grout keys occurred drastically in a short period of time before
all the grout keys failed. Consequently, the entire rebar slipped out
of the grouted sleeve. Fig. 13(d) shows the bond stress at the onset
of pull-out, that is 18.42 MPa for specimens P15D25-A and
Fig. 11. Bond stresses generated in the main bar and the corresponding reaction stresses.
14.7 MPa for specimen P15D25-F as obtained from axial and flex-
ural pull-out tests respectively. Fig. 14 and Table 4 show the rebar
pull-out failure modes in axial and flexural specimens.
All the rebar pull-out failures occurred when the strain readings
were still in the elastic range due to the short embedded length,
see Fig. 15(a) and (b), indicating that the slippage reading is not
influenced by the plastic deformation of the Y16 main steel rebar.
Furthermore, the slope of the stress–strain curves shown in
Fig. 15(a) and (b) represents the modulus elasticity of the steel
rebars. For clarity, an additional stress–strain curve of a continuous
Y16 steel bar is plotted within the strain range of other spiral spec-
imens for comparison. The results show that the values of modulus
elasticity of the rebar connected by the spiral specimens are only
170 GPa (i.e. 170 Mpa/1000  106) and 151 GPa respectively, less
than the normal modulus elasticity of 209 GPa (refer the Y16
stress–strain curve in Fig. 15(a) and (b)).
The full 209 Gpa modulus elasticity of the steel could not be
achieved due to the early rebar slippage at lower load levels as evi-
dent from the bond-slip response shown in Fig. 18(a) and (b). The
early slippage was associated with the loss of bond in the main
rebar. In addition, comparison between Fig. 15(a) and (b) shows
that the slope of stress–strain curve of P15D25-F is more gradual
than P15D25-A indicating that the main bar connected by the gro-
uted spiral connection in the flexural pull-out specimen experi-
out specimen. Larger bond degradation associated with larger slip
in specimen P15D25-F resulted in the lower bond strength of
14.7 MPa, see Table 4. In the case of the axial pull-out, specimen
P15D25-A experienced less bond degradation, hence a larger bond
strength of 18.42 MPa was attained.
4.3. Effect of spiral diameter
The effect of spiral diameter on the bond strength values under
axial and flexural pull-out forces is shown in Tables 5 and 6 respec-
tively. The corresponding trend response with respect to diameter
is shown in Fig. 16(a) and (b). In the case of axial pull-out and
referring to Table 5 and Fig. 16(a), it is seen that for any pitch dis-
tance of 15 mm, 25 mm or 35 mm, there is an increase of bond
strength, smax between 34–34.5%, when the spiral diameter
decreases from 45 mm to 15 mm. Similar trend is observed from
the flexural pull-out, as can be seen from results in Table 6 and
Fig. 16(b). For any pitch distance, there is an increase of bond
strength, smax of 40% when the spiral diameter decreases from
45 mm to 15 mm.
It can be concluded, the smaller the diameter of the spiral the
more effective is the confinement effect in increasing the bond
 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194 189

(a). Radial confinement stresses generated by the splice bars and tensile stresses generated in the splice bars

(b). Radial confinement stresses generated by the spiral

(c) Radial confinement stresses generated by the splice bars and spiral

Fig. 12. Distribution of confinement stress.

Fig. 13. Bond stress distribution along the embedded length at different load levels based on Ferguson model [57].

strength between the main rebar and grout. It can be inferred that pull-out load, the resultant stress acting perpendicularly on the
an increase in the confinement effect could occur due to the stress ribs of the main bar generates splitting stress that acts outward
absorption properties of grout. The stress absorption property of of the bar [58,59] (see Figs. 11 and 12(a) and (c). Meanwhile, the
the grout influences the confinement response of the spiral. Under transverse tensile resistance of the spiral resists the splitting
190 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194
Fig. 14. Failure mode; (a) axial pull-out, (b) flexural pull-out with the grouted connection inside the left beam, (c) pull-out of the main rebar.
expansion of the grout caused by the splitting stress (see
Fig. 12(b)). This causes the confined grout surrounded by the main
spiral to undergo compression by the confinement or hoop stress.
Within the smaller confinement, the grout around the main bar is
compressed more effectively and there is less chance for the grout
to expand radially. This delays the bond failure and increases bond
strength. Hence, the confinement response of the spiral with smal-
ler diameter is more sensitive compared to the spiral with larger
diameter, see Fig. 16(a) and (b).
To describe further the confinement effect, Fig. 17(a) and (b)
shows the plot of bond stress versus slip for specimens with differ-
ent diameters under axial and flexural pull-out loads respectively.
The area under the bond stress–slip is defined as the bond energy
[58]. In the case of axial pull-out, Fig. 17(a) shows that the smaller
the spiral diameter, the higher is the bond energy given by the gro-
uted spiral connection as depicted by the larger area under the
bond stress–slip. Similar trend is observed in the case of flexural
pull-out shown in Fig. 17(b), for example specimen P25D25 with
the smallest spiral diameter exhibits the highest bond energy as
depicted from the largest area under the curve. Therefore, with
smaller spiral diameters, the confinement is more effective in pro-
viding higher bond energy and subsequently higher bond strength
to the main rebars.
5. Analysis of bond–slip relationship
The relationship between bond stress and slip of the grouted
splice connection is discussed in this section. Fig. 18(a) and (b)
shows the curve fitting of the experimental data which results in
the analytical expression of Eq. (3). Based on the polynomial
regression method, Eq. (3) expresses the best fit trend line of bond
stress–slip of the grouted splice connection relationship under
axial pull-out. Using similar approach, Eq. (4) expresses the
bond–slip relationship under flexural pull-out. Then the proposed
formula based on Eqs. (3) and (4) are used to plot the bond
stress–slip of selected specimens P25 D35-A, P35 D25-A and P15
D25-A. These plots are then compared with the experimental
results, see Fig. 19(a)–(c). The proposed equations are limited to
the main bar diameter of 16 mm and grout strength of 60 N/mm2.
s ¼ 0:0962s3 þ 0:6883s2 þ 3:2832s ð3Þ
s ¼ 1:01s3  4:5s2 þ 11:98s ð4Þ
where s = slip in mm.
For the purpose of obtaining the response of bond stress with
respect to variation of spiral diameter, Ds, pitch distance, Ps and
the number of coil, Nc, the bond stress per square root of grout
 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194 191

on the statistical approach-logarithmic regression method. These

(a) Direct axial load
400 equations are limited for main steel bar of 16 mm diameter.
350
pffiffiffi
smax = f c;g ¼ 0:9786LnðDs :Nc :Ps Þ þ 10:62 ð5Þ
300
Stress (MPa)

250 1000, 209

pffiffiffi
200
P15 D25- A (I) smax = f c;g ¼ 0:8637LnðDs :Nc :Ps Þ þ 9:1322 ð6Þ
1000, 170 P15 D25 -A (II)
150
P15 D25 -A (III)
100
Y16 6. Comparison of bond strength between axial and flexural pull-
50
out test
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Strain x 10-6 mm/mm Previous research works suggest that simulation of the stress
conditions of elements subjected to bending is more realistic by
means of beam tests [1,60,61].
(b) Flexural pullout test As has been discussed in Section 4.3, there are similarities in the
400 trend of bond stress response of the grouted splice connection
350 between the flexural and tensile pull-out tests with respect to var-
300 ious spiral properties such as diameter, pitch distance and number
Stress (MPa)

250 1000, 209 of coil. However, the bond stresses obtained from the flexural tests
200 are seen to be lower than the axial pull-out tests. Therefore, this
P15 D25- F
150 1000, 151 section discusses the comparison of bond stresses between the
Y16
100 axial pull-out and flexural test results.
50 The above mentioned test setups used in this study, namely axial
0 and flexural pull-out, have their own advantages and disadvantages
0 500 1000 1500 2000
as mentioned in previous sections. Therefore, it would be beneficial
Strain x 10-6 mm/mm
if a correlation could be found between the results of the two test
Fig. 15. Stress–strain in the main steel bar. types. The ratios between bond strength obtained in the two type
of test, smax,FL/smax,A, could be plotted as a result of having equal
compressive strengths for grouts in both types of tests.
p
strength, smax/ fc,g values are plotted against Ln(Ds.Nc.Ps) as shown In fact, the existence of such ratio would depend on the test
in Fig. 20(a) and (b), from which Eqs. (5) and (6) are obtained based parameters including the pitch distance, spiral diameter and num-

Table 5
Bond strength with respect to different spiral diameters in axial pull-out test (Mpa).

Axial pull-out Spiral diameter of Spiral diameter of Spiral diameter % Increment of bond strength
45 mm (A) (Mpa) 35 mm (B) (Mpa) of 25 mm (C) (Mpa) from (A) to (C)
Pitch distance of 15 mm 13.6 16.02 18.44 34.5
Pitch distance of 25 mm 13.37 15.60 17.92 34
Pitch distance of 35 mm 13.08 15.37 17.59 34.5

Table 6
Bond strength with respect to different spiral diameters flexural pull-out test (Mpa).

Flexural pull-out Spiral diameter Spiral diameter Spiral diameter % Increment of bond
of 45 mm (A) (Mpa) of 35 mm (B) (Mpa) of 25 mm (C) (Mpa) strength from (A) to (C) (%)
Pitch distance of 15 mm 10.45 11.94 14.7 40
Pitch distance of 25 mm 10.13 11.64 14.19 40
Pitch distance of 35 mm 9.87 11.41 13.82 40

(a) (b)
Direct axial pull-out Flexural pull-out
20 16

19 15
Bond Strength (MPa)
Bond Strength (MPa)

18 14

17 13

16 12

15 Pitch Distance of 15 11 Pitch Distance of 15 mm

mm
14 10
Pitch Distance of 25 Pitch Distance of 25 mm
13 mm 9
Pitch Distance of 35 mm
12 8
20 25 30 35 40 45 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Spiral Diameter (mm) Spiral Diameter (mm)

Fig. 16. Bond strength versus spiral diameter.

192 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194

(a) Direct axial pullout (b)

Flexural pullout
20 16
18 14

Bond strength (MPa)

Bond strength (MPa)

16
12
14
12 10
10 8
8 P25 D25- A (I) 6 P25 D25- F
6
P25 D35-A (I) 4 P25 D35-F
4
P25 D45-A(I) 2 P25 D45-F
2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Slip (mm) Slip (mm)

Fig. 17. Behaviour of bond-slip.

(a)
Direct Axial load (a)
20
18 y = -0.0962x3 + 0.6883x2 + 3.2832x P25 D35-A (I)
R² = 0.9992 20
16
Bond Stres (MPa)

Proposed equation

Bond Stress (MPa)

14
15
12
10
10
8
6 Experimental results
5
4 Proposed equation
2
0 0
0 5 10 15
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip (mm)
Slip (mm)
(b) (b)
Flexural pullout P35 D25-A (II)
20
16 Proposed equation
y = 1.0142x3 - 4.542x2 + 11.988x
Bond Stress (MPa)

14 R² = 0.9982 15
Bond Stres (MPa)

12
10 10

8
5
6
Experimental results
4
Proposed equation 0
2 0 5 10 15

0 Slip (mm)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fig. 19. Comparison between predicted bond stress–slip relationships with exper-
Slip (mm) imental results of axial pull-out: (a) P25 D35-A, (b) P35 D25-A, and P15 D25-A.

Fig. 18. Curve fitting of experimental behavior of grouted spiral connection.

From Table 7, it can summarized that the range of smax,FL/smax,A

ber of coils which is a function of pitch distance, represented by Gb
in Eq. (7). Hence, according to empirical relations between Gb and
smax in axial and flexural pull-out, the ratio smax,FL/smax,A can be
calculated by using Eq. (8).
To estimate the relationship between variables involving diam-
eter of spiral, number of coil and pitch distance, a regression anal-
ysis approach is adopted. Based on the approach used by Avraham
et al. [62] the parameter, Gb given in Eq. (7) is adopted to represent
the influence of spiral diameter, number of coil and pitch distance.
Gb ¼ LnðDs  Nc  P s Þ
Since the grout compressive strength, fc,g in axial pull-out and
flexural pull-out specimens are similar, then Eq. (5) divided by
Eq. (6) gives the following relationship
smax;FL ¼ 0:8637Gb þ 9:1322
a¼ ¼ ð8Þ
smax;A 0:9786Gb þ 10:62
is between 0.74 and 0.79, which means the bond strength of the
flexural pull-out specimen is between 0.74 and 0.79 times the
bond strength of the axial pull out specimen. In other words,
the bond strength obtained from the flexural specimen is lower
by about 21–26% compared to the bond strength obtained from
the axial pull-out specimen.
The flexural pull-out test results give more realistic bond
strength in actual structures. Therefore, in designing the anchor-
age length of the connected main rebar, the bond strength
ð7Þ obtained from the flexural pull-out test should be considered.
This is in-line with the ACI Committee 408 that does not recom-
mend the use of pull-out results as the sole basis for determining
the development length [53]. However the pull-out test results
still can be used for studying the trend behavior with respect to
variation in the spiral configurations as discussed in Section 4.3
of this paper.
 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194 193

Direct pull-out
(a) 2.5

τmax//√fc,g
2
τmax/√fc,g = -0.9786Ln (Ds.Nc.Ps) +10.62
R2 = 0.98
1.5

1
0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025

1/(Ds.Nc.Ps)

Flexural pull-out
(b) 2
1.8
1.6
τmax//√fc,g

1.4
τmax/√fc,g = -0.8637Ln (Ds.Nc.Ps) +9.1322
1.2 R2 = 0.98
1
0.8
0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025
1/(Ds.Nc.Ps)

Fig. 20. Statistical approach-logarithmic regression method for predicting parametric response.

Table 7
Comparison of bond strength between axial and flexural pull-out tests.

Specimen 1/(Ds.Nc.Ps) Gb Bond strength, smax,FL (MPa) Bond strength, smax,A (MPa) a based on test result
P15 D25 0.000222 8.41183 14.7 18.42 0.79
P15 D35 0.000200 8.51719 11.94 15.98 0.74
P15 D45 0.000190 8.56598 10.45 13.67 0.76
P25 D25 0.000159 8.7483 14.19 17.92 0.79
P25 D35 0.000143 8.85367 11.64 15.59 0.74
P25 D45 0.000136 8.90246 10.13 13.37 0.75
P35 D25 0.000123 8.99962 13.82 17.5 0.78
P35 D35 0.000111 9.10498 11.41 15.37 0.74
P35 D45 0.000106 9.15377 9.87 13.1 0.75

7. Conclusion
In this research, an experimental investigation on the pull-out
behavior of reinforcing bars in grouted spiral connection was per-
formed. Based on the axial and flexural pull-out tests results, the
following conclusions have been drawn:
(4) The axial pull-out test results can be used for studying the
trend of the bond behavior due to variation in spiral config-
urations. However, for designing the anchorage length of the
connected main rebar in real structural members, the use of
bond strength obtained from the flexural pull-out test
results is more appropriate.

(1) The grouted connection using a spiral combined with four

splice bars successfully managed to improve the bond
strength of the connected main bars significantly. The load
transfer within the connected main rebars is dependent on
the mechanical interlocking mechanism enhanced by the
spiral confinement and the tensile resistance provided by
the splice bars.
(2) The bond strength of the grouted splice connection is
affected by the configuration of spiral. A higher bond
strength is attained from the use of smaller spiral diameter,
due to the provision of better confinement that enhances the
mechanical interlocking mechanism between the deformed
main bars and the surrounding confined grout.
(3) The bond strengths obtained from the flexural pull-out tests
are within the range of 0.74–0.79 times the bond strengths
of the axial pull-out tests. However, even when the spiral
diameters are varied, both the axial and flexural pull-out
specimens show similar trend of bond behavior.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM) for the financial support offered in conducting this
experimental study.
References
[1] Cairns J, Plizzari GA. Towards a harmonised European bond test. Mater Struct
2003;36:498–506.
[2] CEB-FIP. Model Code 1990. Thomas Telford, London, 1993, 437 pp, ISBN 0 7277
1696.
[3] Einea A, Yamane T, Tadros MK. Grout-filled pipe splices for precast concrete
construction. Precast/Prestr Concr Inst J 1995;40(1):82–93.
[4] Untrauer RE, Henry RL. Influence of normal pressure on bond strength. ACI J
1965;65(5):577–85.
[5] Robins PJ, Standish IG. The influence of lateral pressure upon anchorage bond.
Mag Concr Res 1984;36(129):195–202.
[6] Moosavi M, Jafari A, Khosravi A. Bond of cement grouted reinforcing bars under
constant radial pressure. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(11):103–9.
194 S.J.A. Hosseini et al. / Construction and Building Materials 80 (2015) 180–194
[7] Robert Park, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structure. Textbook, ISBN 0-471-
65917-7; 1975.
[8] Lau Joo Ming, Johnny Wong Liang Heng. Blueprints for Successful Public
Housing Development, Singapore Concrete Institute, in Chapter 10, Innovation
and the New Focus; 2006, HDB, www.bri.sg.
[9] Spiral Connector Product Guide, Housing & Development Board and BRC Asia
Limited.
[10] British Standard Institution. Structural use of concrete BS8110: Part 1; 1997.
[11] Pfister JF, Mattock AH. High-strength bars as concrete reinforcement Part 5:
lapped splices in concentrically loaded columns, Portland Cement Association,
Research and Development Laboratories, D63; 1963.
[12] Pfister JF. Influence of ties on the behavior of reinforced concrete columns,
Portland Cement Association, Research and Development Laboratories, D77;
1964.
[13] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[14] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Observed stress–strain behavior of confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1827–49.
[15] Orangun CO, Jirsa JO, Breen JE. A re-evaluation of test data on development
length and splices. ACI J Proc 1977;74(3):114–27.
[16] Pessiki S, Pieroni AM. Axial load behavior of large-scale spirally-reinforced
high-strength concrete columns. ACI Struct J 1997;94(3):304–14.
[17] Graybeal B, Pessiki S. Confinement effectiveness of high-strength spiral
reinforcement in prestressed concrete piles. Lehigh University, ATLLSS
Report No. 98-01; 1998.
[18] Soroushian P, Choi K-B, Park G-H, et al. Bond of deformed bars to concrete
effects of confinement and strength of concrete. ACI Mater J 1991:227–32.
[19] Soroushian P, Choi Ki-Bong. Local bond of deformed bars with different
diameters in confined concrete. ACI Struct J 1989;86(2):217–22.
[20] Lim CT. The effect of pitch distance of steel spiral reinforcement to the
performance of grouted sleeve connector under direct tensile load [Bsc.
Thesis]. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2010.
[21] Lee GS. Parametric studies of sleeve connector using steel pipe with spiral steel
for precast concrete connection [Bsc. Thesis]. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia;
2009.
[22] Mahyar Mahdinezhad. Bond stress in precast concrete spiral connectors
[MSc.]. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2011.
[23] Ichinose T, Kanayama Y, Inoue Y, Bolander Jr JE. Size effect on bond strength of
deformed bars. Constr Build Mater 2004;33:549–58.
[24] Ling JH, Abd. Rahman AB, Abd. Hamid Z. Failure modes of aluminium sleeve
under direct tensile load. In: 3rd International conference on postgraduate
education (ICPE-3). Malaysia: Penang; 2008.
[25] Loo GK. Parametric study of grout-filled splice sleeve integarated with flexible
aluminium tube for precast concrete connection [Bsc. Thesis]. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia; 2009.
[26] Loh HY. Development of grouted splice sleeve and its performance under axial
tension [Msc.] Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2008.
[27] Ling JH, Abd. Rahman AB, Izni Syahrizal Ibrahim, Zuhairi Abdul Hamid.
Behaviour of grouted pipe splice under incremental tensile load. Construction
and Building Materials Journal. 33, 2012, 90–98.
[28] Ling JH. Behaviour of grouted splice connections in precast concrete wall
subjected to tensile, shear and flexural loads [Phd.] Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia; 2011.
[29] Kim H. Confining effect of mortar-filled steel pipe splice, architectural
research, Architectural Institute of Korea, vol. 10, No. 2, December 2008; pp.
27–35.
[30] Hayashi Y, Shimizu R, Nakatsuka T, Suzuki K. Bond stress–slip characteristics
of reinforcing bars in grout-filled coupling steel sleeves. J Struct Constr Eng
1994;462:131–9 [Architectural Institute of Japan (in Japanese)].
[31] Kim H, Ahn B. Bond strength of grout-filled splice sleeve considering effects of
confinement. J Korea Concr Ins 2003;15(4):615–22 [in Korean].
[32] Hayashi Y, Nakatsuka T, Miwake I, Suzuki K. Mechanical performance of grout-
filled coupling steel sleeves under cyclic loads. J Struct Constr Eng
1997;496:91–8 [Architectural Institute of Japan (in Japanese)].
[33] Lee L, Yi W, Lee Y. Study on bar connection with high strength mortar grout-
filled steel pipe. J Archit Inst Korea 1997;13(8):147–54 [in Korean].
[34] Lee Y, Yi W. Experimental study of reinforcement bar connection using steel
pipe sleeve. J Archit Inst Korea 2004;20(9):29–36 [in Korean].
[35] Architectural Institute of Japan. Data for ultimate strength design of reinforced
concrete structures, Architectural Institute of Japan, March 1990; p. 34–5. [in
Japanese].
[36] Untrauer RE, Henry RL. Influence of normal pressure on bond strength. ACI J
1965:577–85.
[37] Ahn B, Kim H, Park B. Confining effect of mortar grouted splice sleeve on
reinforcing bar. J Korea Concr Inst 2003;15(1):102–9 [in Korean].
[38] Tibbetts AJ, Oliva MG, Bank LC. Durable fiber reinforced polymer bar splice
connections for precast concrete structures. Composites and Ploycon 2009.
Tampa, FL USA: American Composites Manufacturers Association. 15–17 Jan;
2009.
[39] Kiarash Koushfar. Development of durable fiber reinforced polymer grouted
splice connection [MSc.]. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2011.
[40] Kiarash Koushfar, Abd Rahman AB, Yusof Ahmad, Mohd Hanim Osman. Bond
behavior of the reinforcement bar in glass fiber-reinforced polymer connector.
GRAÐEVINAR. 2013; 66, 6, 1–10.
[41] Norlia M. The behavior of sleeve connection with spiral reinforcement and
additional longitudinal bar under direct tensile load [Msc. Thesis]. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia; 2009.
[42] Einea A, Yehia S, Tadros MK. Lap splices in confined concrete. ACI Struct J.
1999;96(6):937–46.
[43] Hosseini SJA, Effect of spiral on the bond stress–slip relationship in the splice
sleeve connector [Msc. Thesis], Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2011.
[44] Hosseini SJA, Abd Rahman AB. Effects of spiral diameter on the bond stress–
slip relationship in grouted sleeve connector. Malaysian J Civil Eng 2013;12(1).
[45] Hosseini SJA, Abd Rahman AB. Analysis of spiral reinforcement in grouted pipe
splices connectors. GRAÐEVINAR 2013;65(6).
[46] Hosseini SJA, Koushfar Kiarash, Abd Rahman AB, Razavi Meysam. The bond
behaviour in reinforced concrete, state of the art, Part 1. Cement-Wapno-
Beton. 2014; No. 2, p. 93–105.
[47] Hosseini SJA, Koushfar Kiarash, Abd Rahman AB, Razavi Meysam. The bond
behaviour in reinforced concrete, state of the art, Part 2. Cement-Wapno-
Beton. 2014; No. 6, p. 384-95 .
[48] 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, CA; 1983.
[49] Tastani RP, Pantazopulou SJ. Experimental evaluation of the direct tension-
pullout bond test. Bond in Concrete – from research to standards, Budapest;
2002.
[50] Tran BH, Berthaud Y, Ragueneau F. Essai, P.I.A.F.: Pour Identifier l’Adhérence et
le Frottement. AUGC XXVIIème Rencontres Universitaires de Génie Civil; 2009.
[51] Rilem/CEB/FIP. Bond test for reinforcing steel: 1. Beam test. Mater Struct.
1970; 3(15) p. 169–74.
[52] ACI Committee 408. (2003), ‘‘Bond and development of straight reinforcing
bars in tension (ACI 408-03) ‘‘. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 49 pp.
[53] ACI-116. Cement and Concrete Terminology ACI 116R-00; 2000.
[54] Brenes FJ, Wood SL, Kreger ME, Anchorage requirements for grouted vertical-
duct connectors in precast bent cap systems; 2006.
[55] Thompson MK, Jirsa JO, Breen JE, et al. Anchorage behaviour of headed
reinforcement: literature review; 2002.
[56] Gracia-Taengua E, Marti-Vargas JR, Serna P. Splitting of concrete cover in steel
fiber reinforced concrete: semi-empirical modelling and minimum
confinement reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 2014;66:743–51.
[57] Ferguson PM, Breen JE, Jirsa JO. Reinforced Concrete Fundamentals. 5th
ed. New York: NY. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1988.
[58] Alavi-Fard M, Marzouk H. Bond of high-strength concrete under monotonic
pull-out loading. Mag Concr Res 2004;56(9):545–57.
[59] Gambarova PG, Rosati GP. Bond and splitting in bar pull-out: behavioural law
and concrete cover role. Mag Concr Res 1997;49(179):99–110.
[60] Hamza AM, Naaman AZ. Bond strength of reinforcing bars in SIFCON.
Mechanics Computing in 1990; pp. 1071–75.
[61] De Larrard F, Schaller I, Fuches J. Effect of bar diameter on the bond strength of
passive reinforcement in high-performance concrete. ACI Mater J
1993;90(4):333–9.
[62] Dancygier Avraham N, Katz Amnon, Wexler Uri. Bond between deformed
reinforcement and normal and high-strength concrete with and without
fibers. RILEM – Mater Struct 2010;43:839–56.