The Effect of Elevated Temperature and different Splices Diameter on Mechanical

Properties of Steel Reinforcement Incorporating Threaded Mechanical Couplers

Abstract

The deterioration of the mechanical properties of yield strength and modulus of

elasticity is considered as the primary element affecting the performance of steel
structures under fire. In this study, hot-rolled deformed SD40 reinforcement steel
rebars were subjected to high temperatures to investigate the fire performance of
these materials. It is aimed to determine the remaining mechanical properties of steel
rebars after elevated temperatures. Splices with diameters 16, 20 and 25 mm, were
subjected to 25, 500, 700 and 900◦C temperatures for 2 hours and tensile tests were
carried out. Effect of temperature on mechanical behavior of SD40 were determined.
All mechanical properties were reduced due to the temperature increase of the
parallel thread. It is seen that mechanical properties of SD40 steel were influenced
less for diameter 25 mm at elevated temperatures.

1. Introduction

Splicing of reinforcing bars is inevitable in reinforced concrete structures due to bar

length limitations. The conventional method of splicing, lap splicing, is done by
placing a sufficient length of connecting bars side-by-side and usually tying them
with steel wires. An alternative method is to use mechanical devices, which are
commonly referred to as ‘‘mechanical bar splices” or ‘‘bar couplers”. Lap splicing
has historically been the most common splice type. Nevertheless, the use of bar
couplers is increasing since they reduce bar congestion and may result in a cost-
competitive construction.
ACI 318 [1] classifies bar couplers as either Type 1 or Type 2. This classification is
based on the strength that a coupler can develop. For example, a coupler that
withstands more than 1.25 times the yield strength of the splicing bar is Type 1.
Caltrans SDC [2] allows ‘‘Service” and ‘‘Ultimate” couplers, which are classified
based on their strain capacity. AASHTO LRFD [3] only allows couplers that can
develop a minimum strength of 1.25 times the yield strength of the bar. Even though
couplers ae generally allowed, current bridge and building design codes prohibit the
use of mechanical bar splices in the plastic hinge regions of ductile members in high
seismic zones [e.g.1–4].

The structural response of buildings to fire conditions has been the focus of intensive
research activity in recent years. For composite steel/concrete buildings, this has
been driven by the motivation to achieve more cost-effective designs and, more
generally, by the need to attain a greater understanding of the underlying behavioral
mechanisms that occur in fire. As a result, there has been an increasing recognition
of the benefits of employing performance- based fire design, in comparison with
prescriptive approaches which are based on unrealistic idealizations.

The fire tests carried out on the full-scale eight-story composite steel/concrete
building at Cardington [5,6] generated significant research interest and provided
considerable insights into the actual response characteristics under fire conditions.
The experimental findings were also complemented by numerical simulations and
analytical investigations [e.g. 7–10], which provided additional understanding of the
main behavioral characteristics. Importantly, the significant role played by the
composite floor slab under fire conditions was demonstrated. It was shown that the
floor slab continues to support gravity loading through membrane action, even after
the loss of the deck and secondary steel beams. This enables alternative load paths
and redistributions to develop after conventional strength limits have been reached.
Reliance on the secondary load-carrying mechanisms in slabs needs to be supported
by detailed assessment of the limiting failure criteria. Apart from compressive
mechanisms that may occur in the slab, a key failure condition is related to fracture
of the steel reinforcement in tension. Reliance on the secondary load-carrying
mechanisms in slabs needs to be supported by detailed assessment of the limiting
failure criteria. Apart from compressive mechanisms that may occur in the slab, a
key failure condition is related to fracture of the steel reinforcement in tension.
However, assessment of the failure mechanisms associated with reinforcement
fracture under these conditions is a complex issue that is influenced by a number of
inter-related material and geometric parameters.
To this end, fundamental analytical approaches have recently been proposed which
predict the level of deformation and load corresponding to failure by reinforcement
fracture at elevated temperature [11–14].
Nevertheless, the reliability of these approaches is directly dependent on the
availability of studies that provide the necessary information about the
characteristics of key material properties at expected levels of elevated temperature.
Whilst ample data is available in the literature on the influence of elevated
temperature on the main properties of concrete and steel materials, there is a relative
lack of information on the ductility of steel reinforcement. Accordingly, this paper
presents the results and observations from an experimental investigation into the
effect of elevated temperature on reinforcing bars tested to fracture. The test series
has been completed as part of a wider study dealing with the ultimate behavior of
floor slabs under idealized fire conditions. The paper examines the behavior of both
ribbed and plain reinforcing bars of relatively small diameter at elevated temperature
as well as in terms of post-fire residual properties. After providing a brief
background on the typical characteristics of steel reinforcement at elevated
temperature, a description of the experimental set-up and instrumentation is given.
This is followed by a discussion of the main results and observations from the tests,
including comparisons with information available from current design guidelines,
where appropriate.

Due to elevated temperatures in fire, the strength and stiffness of steel decreases
rapidly, and the stress- strain-relationship becomes distinctly nonlinear.
Furthermore, compatibility stresses caused by constrained thermal expansion can
have a strong influence on the stability behaviour of steel members. During a fire,
thin webs heat up faster than flanges of common I-shaped steel cross-sections, which
lead to compressive stresses in the web. These compressive stresses can aggregate
or even cause shear buckling. Additionally, steel plate girders, which develop local
flange buckling due to bending moments at ambient temperature may fail due to
shear web buckling under fire conditions [15,16]. Outinen et al. [17], Poh [18],
Schneider [19] and Qiang et al. [20,21] investigated the mechanical properties of hot
rolled steel plates with grades not greater than S460 at elevated temperatures. Cold-
formed steels were studied by Outinen et al. [17], Chen and Young [22], and fire
resistant steel by Kelly and Sha [23]. Kirby [24] and Li et al. [25] tested high strength
bolts at elevated temperatures to gain further knowledge on bolted joints in fire. Hu
et al. [26] and Sadeghian et al. [27] studied the microstructures of high tensile steels
at elevated temperatures. Chen and Young [28], Qiang et al. [29] and Chiew et al.
[30] carried out some tests on high tensile steels at elevated temperatures.
 2. Experimental investigations
2.1. The test device

In the elevated temperature test and tensile tests were conducted on servo-hydraulic
universal testing machine with maximum pulling capacity of 2000 KN at 1000 °C.
The heating device attached to the tensile test machine is a split tube furnace that
can heat the specimen at a rate of 20 °C/min up to 1000 °C. In addition, a
thermocouple was attached to the specimen directly to measure its real time
temperature profile. As for strain measurement, a high temperature extensometer
with gauge length of 25 mm with the displacement rate of 4mm/mins until failure
was used to capture the load–strain relationships.
The configuration of the setup is shown in Fig. 1. In order to ensure consistence in
specimen dimension and test environment, in the post-fire residual strength test, the
post-fire specimens were tested in the same tensile test machine with the furnace
turned off. The laboratory heating furnace with a maximum heating capacity of 1000
°C and robust refractory bricks inside was employed to simulate the heating and
cooling in fire condition. The furnace’s outer part has a dimension of 530x 530x
300mm (width x length x height) while the furnace’s inner part has a dimension of
200 x 200 x 200mm with a top and bottom hole which has a diameter of 50mm as
seen in Figure 2. As the thermal inertia of these specimens is very small compared
with that of the furnace and they are located so as not to impede the air flow, a
homogenous atmosphere has been achieved.

Figure 1: Monotonic tensile strength testing.

 Figure 2: The experimental furnace.

2.2. Specimens Details

Experimental studies were carried out on reinforced steel samples or deformed rebar
with parallel threaded mechanical connection with diameters of 16, 20, and 25 mm
and lengths of 1000 mm are shown in Fig.1. Test specimens were subjected to 500,
700, and 900◦C temperatures in a high furnace for 2 hours, respectively. At the end
of the curing process, steels were cooled naturally to room temperature.
Subsequently, tensile tests were applied to steel reinforcement rebars, and the tensile
strength and yield strength of the steel rebars were determined for elevated
temperatures

Figure 3: Various dimension of splices (a:16mm, b:20 mm and c:25mm)

3. Non-spliced specimens
The mechanical properties of SD40 non-spliced bar at room temperature measured
and can be seen in Table 1. The properties of bars with diameters 16, 20 and 25
mm in room temperature were measured and shown. Three samples were used for
each measurement and the mean value is written in the table.
Table 1 Characteristic strengths of SD40 at room temperature (MPa).
Samples Temp Elastic Modulus Yield Strength Tensile %
No. (T, ๐C) (Es, GPa) (fy, MPa) Strength Elongation

DB16 RT 207 563 655 20.7

DB20 RT 201 515 674 21.5

DB25 RT 203 483 616 20.7

3.1. Stress-strain relations

The values of stress-strain relationship for specimens that were exposed to various
temperatures are given in Figures 1 comparing to the reinforce steel DB25 with no
splices model proposed by Tao et. al. (2015). The curves in Figure 1 were drawn
with the average test results of 16, 20 and 25 mm in diameter steel specimens. The
test conditions were meant to simulate a building that had a fire so the changes in
the mechanical properties of reinforcing steels used in structures exposed to high
temperature could be determined. As seen from Figure 1, temperatures below 500◦
C have no significant effect on mechanical properties of preheated and cooled SD40
steel rebars. The yield strength and splitting tensile strengths of SD40 steels were
similar up to this temperature.
 Figure 3: Stress–strain response of prestressing bar at elevated temperatures of
SD40, D16, D20 and D25.

3.2. Yield strength

The yield strength of steel rebar was affected by high exposure temperature. From
Figure 3, it can be concluded that there is no change in the yield strength of steels
up to 300°C. Steel bars already experience strain hardening for this temperature,
there is no reduction in yield strength before 400◦C, but after this temperature a
significant reduction in yield strength occurs. Quantification of the effect of
temperature on the yield stress of the SD40 bars D16, D20 and D25 has been done
in terms of the parameter fyT/ fy,RT (where fyT is the measured yield stress at
temperature T and room temperature states RT and the results are presented in Figs
8 for the D16, D20 and D25 bars respectively. The residual mechanical properties
were seen to be significantly affected only at exposure temperatures of 700 °C and
900 °C, with the effect being more pronounced at the later temperature. The level of
pre-damage had a practically insignificant effect on the measured residual strength
properties of the SD40 bars. Besides yield strength, the ductility of the SD40 rebars
was most significantly affected by exposure temperature with lowest yield strengths
and highest ductility values being obtained at the peak exposure temperature of 500
°C. Compared to the rebars in room temperature, exposure temperature had a smaller
effect of the yield strength as well as the ultimate strains of the SD40 bars.

Figure 4: Trends in normalized yield stress for the SD40 rebars D16, D20 and D25
versus Tao et. al. (2015).

3.3. Ultimate strength

The tensile strength variation of steel reinforcement rebars with different diameters,
D16, D20 and D25 exposed to elevated temperatures is given in Figure 5. On the
light of these results, there was no significance reducing of tensile strength for all
diameters of steel rebars up to 500◦C temperature. The tensile strength losses of
specimens with D16, D20 and D25 at 700 ◦C were 27%, 22% and 16% respectively.
In addition, the tensile strength losses of specimens with D16, D20 and D25 at 900
◦C were 31%, 27% and 21% respectively. According to these results, the D16
remaining tensile strength of SD40 steel reinforcing rebar is higher than the other
specimens at 700 ◦C temperature exposure. However, the D16 reduction tensile
strength of SD40 steel reinforcing rebar is higher than the other specimens at 900 ◦
C temperature exposure.
Figure 5: Comparison of ultimate strength of D16, D20 and D25 versus Tao et. al.
(2015).

3.4. Elongation
The relation between high temperature and elongation ratio can be seen in Table 2.
The elongation ratios were slightly increased up to 300◦C, however, above this
temperature material becomes brittle with an increase in the elongation values. The
elongation increases of D20 and D25 against temperatures can be seen in Table2.
On the other hand, D16 shows the loss of elongation at 700◦C. The behavior of
normalized elongation against temperature for different diameters is shown in figure
6.

Table 2 Elongation ratios of steel rebars against temperature

Specimens

Temperature
500◦C 700◦C 900◦C

D16 24.48 21.86 25.33

D20 19.98 24.52 27.25
D25 24.82 25.45 26.82
 Figure 6: Elongation ratios of steel rebars against temperature.

3.5. Elastic Modulus

It is shown that the reduction factors of elastic modulus obtained from steady-state
tests. The reduction factors of elastic modulus of the specimens with different radius
are compared with Tao et. al. (2015) and presented in Fig.7. There is a trend toward
a slight decline in EsT when T is greater than 500°C. The graph indicates a linear
relationship in this case. As shown, there is no obvious difference in the decrease of
moduli of elasticity between Tao model and D16 specimen.

Figure 7: Comparison of elastic modulus of D16, D20 and D25 against

temperature.
 4. Specimens with threaded mechanical coupler

This experiment employed a parallel thread mechanical splicing (PTC) with a

diameter of 39mm and a length of 66mm. for a spliced with a deformed bar with a
diameter of 16, 20 and 25mm, quality class of SD40, tensile yield strength specified
of 4,000 kg/cm2 (TIS., 2016) as shown in Figure 1. The design and manufacture are
approved by the national standard ISO 9001 and follows the requirement of ACI
318, IBC 2006, BS 8110, Eurocode 2, DIN 1045, CalTrans, ASME sec lll Div2
which classify as the mechanical coupler division 2 (Dextra Group-Bartec, 2017).
The experimental testing is performed separately with the considered temperature of
room temperature, 500°C, 700°C and 900°C. This experiment utilized 3 samples for
each temperature, over all of 12 samples with the sample length of 1 meter.

Figure 8: Parallel thread mechanical splicing

4.1. Yield strength

According to Figure 1, the reinforced steel or deformed bar samples DB25 with
parallel thread mechanical splicing after heated at room temperature, 500°C, 700°C
and 900°C. The mean value of tensile yield strength result is shown in the table3. is
increases by 25.4%, decreases by 24.6% at 700°C and suddenly decreases to 35.3%
at 900°C.
 Figure 9: Yield strength of D16, D20 and D25 mm against temperature.

1. Table 3 Yield strength of Specimens with threaded mechanical coupler against temperature

Specimens

Temperature 25◦C 500◦C 700◦C 900◦C

D16 556.4 557.9 493.4 348.9

D20 530.5 532 435.7 348.4
D25 543.5 508.7 461.6 327.2

4.2. Ultimate strength with threaded mechanical coupler

The experimental values of fuT are plotted in Figs. 10 for SD40, D16, D20 and D25
respectively, where fu is the ultimate strength at room temperature. As shown,
ultimate strength is not affected by heating when T is below 500°C, but after that, a
clear strength loss is observed. It is shown that D16 had significant decreasing in
comparison with other specimens at 900◦C.
 Figure 10: Ultimate strength of D16, D20 and D25.

4.3. Elongation of specimens with threaded mechanical coupler

The relation between high temperature and elongation ratio can be seen in Fig. 11.
The elongation ratios were shown different behavior before 500◦C. On the other
hand, all specimens decreased up to 500◦C. However, above this temperature
increasing of elongation ratio can be observe clearly, which this phenomenon related
to become brittle material. The elongation increases of D16 was more than other
diameters.

Figure 11: Elongation strength of D16, D20 and D25.

 4.4. Texture and failure

The characteristics of the samples surface of a reinforced steel or deformed bar

samples D20 with parallel thread mechanical splicing after heated at room
temperature, 500°C, 700°C and 900°C are shown in Figure 12. Since the sample is
heated at 500°C, a slightly change can be observed for the reinforce steel while the
darker surface can be observed for the mechanical coupler. However, the
characteristics of the samples' surface have not changed much once the dark skin
was peeled off. For the cases of heated at 700°C, the darker surface can be observed
for the the reinforce steel while an umber color embed in the mechanical coupler
surface is founded. For the temperature of 900°C, it clearly found that the reinforced
steel and the mechanical coupler are burnt and a white flaky peeling can be observed.
Furthermore, the failure mechanism under tension at the temperature of 500°C and
900°C, an outer part failure of the mechanical coupler is observed. Whereas, the
middle part failure of the mechanical coupler is founded at the temperature of 700°C
as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: The reinforced steel with parallel thread mechanical splicing D20
with various temperature before and after failure.

5. CONCLUSIONS

As described in the previous studies, specimens with threaded mechanical coupler

loose strength under elevated temperatures. In this study, the mechanical properties
of steel rebars were investigated which exposed to high temperatures and cooled to
room temperature. According to test results, the most common reinforcing steel
rebar SD40 showed a brittle fracture mechanism under elevated temperatures.
Splitting yield strength, tensile strength and elongation values were low for SD40
steel. These results demonstrate that D16 type of steel rebar is less affected than the
other specimens under elevated temperatures.
In addition, the tensile yield strength the reinforce steel samples DB25 with parallel
thread mechanical splicing ( PTC) initially vary after heated at the temperature of
500๐C. The tensile yield strength starts to increased and decreased at the temperature
of 700๐ C and 900๐ C. In contrast, the ultimate tensile strength decreases as the
temperature increased.

References

[1] ACI 318-14. Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, Reported by American Concrete Institute Committee; 2014.
[2] Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). Ver. 1.7. Sacramento, CA, California
Department of Transportation; 2013.
[3] AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; 2014.
[4] NZS 3101-1. Concrete Structures Standard - The Design of Concrete Structures.
Standards, New Zealand; 2006. 600 pp.
[5] B.R.Kirby, British steel technical European fire test program-design,
construction and results, G.Armer, T.O’Neill(Eds.), Fire, Staticand Dynamic Tests
of Building Structures, Spon, London, 1997.
[6] M.A.O’Connor, D.M.Martin, Behaviour of multi-storey steel framed buildings
subjected to fire attack, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 46 (1–3) (1998)
(Paperno.169).
[7] Y.C.Wang, T.Lennon, D.B.Moore, The behavior of steel frames subject to fire,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 35 (1995) 291-322.
[8] Z.Huang, I.W.Burgess, R.J.Plank, Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
slabs subjectedtofire, American Concrete Institute Structural Journal 96(1) (1999)
127–135.
[9] A.Y.Elghazouli, B.A.Izzuddin, Analytical assessment of the structural
performance of composite floors subject to compartment fires, Fire Safety Journal
36(2001)769–793.
[10] M.Gillie, A.S.Usmani, J.M.Rotter, A structural analysis of the first Cardington
test, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57(2001)581–601.
[11] B.A.Izzuddin, A.Y.Elghazouli, Failure of lightly reinforced concrete members
under fire.I:analytical modelling, Journal of Structural Engineering130(1) (2004)3–
17.
[12] A.Y.Elghazouli, B.A.Izzuddin, Failure of lightly reinforced concrete members
under fire. II:parametric studies and design considerations, Journal of Structural
Engineering130(1)(2004)18–31.
[13] E.Omer, B.A.Izzuddin, A.Y.Elghazouli, Failure assessment of simply
supported floors labs under elevated temperature, Structural Engineering
International 16(2)(2006)148–155.
[14] E.Omer, B.A.Izzuddin,A.Y.Elghazouli, Simplified method for failure
assessment of composites labs subject to fire, IABSE Symposium on Structures and
Extreme Events,Lisbon,Portugal,IABSE,2005,pp.278–279.

[15] Scandella C. (2013). Numerische Untersuchungen zum Schubbeulverhalten im

Brandfall. Master Thesis. Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich
(unpublished)
[16] Knobloch M. (2001). Theoretische Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten von
dünnwandigen I-Profilen bei erhöhten Temperaturen. Diploma Thesis. Institute of
Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich (unpublished)
[17] Outinen J, Kaitila O, Mäkeläinen P. High-temperature testing of structural steel
and modeling of structures at !re temperatures. Research report No. TKK-TER 23.
Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory of Steel
Structures; 2001.
[18] Poh KW. Stress–strain-temperature relationships for structural steel. J Mater
Civ Eng 2001;13(5):371–9.
[19] Schneider R. Constitutive equations and empirical creep law of structural steel
S460 at high temperatures. In: Structures in fire-Proceedings of the sixth
international conference, SiF'10; 2010. p. 703–10.
[20] Qiang XH, Bijlaard FSK, Kolstein H. Deterioration of mechanical properties of
high strength structural steel S460N under steady state fire condition. Mater Design
2012;36:438–42.
[21] Qiang XH, Bijlaard FSK, Kolstein H. Deterioration of mechanical properties of
high strength structural steel S460N under transient state fire condition. Mater
Design 2012;40:521–7.
[22] Chen J, Young B. Experimental investigation of cold-formed steel material at
elevated temperatures. Thin Wall Struct 2007;45:96–110.
[23] Kelly FS, Sha W. A comparison of the mechanical properties of fire-resistant
and S275 structural steels. J Constr Steel Res 1999;50:223–33.
[24] Kirby BR. The behavior of high-strength grade 8.8 bolts in fire. J Constr Steel
Res 1995;33:3–38.
[25] Li GQ, Yin YZ, Li MF. Experimental studies on the material properties of high-
strength bolt connection at elevated temperatures. Steel Compos Struct
2002;2(4):247–58.
[26] Hu J, Du LX, Xie H, Dong FT, Misra RDK. Effect of weld peak temperature
on the microstructure, hardness, and transformation kinetics of simulated heat
affected zone of hot rolled ultra-low carbon high strength Ti–Mo ferritic steel. Mater
Design 2014;60:302–9.
[27] Sadeghian M, Shamanian M, Shafyei A. Effect of heat input on microstructure
and mechanical properties of dissimilar joints between super duplex stainless steel
and high strength low alloy steel. Mater Design 2014;60:678–84.
[28] Chen J, Young B, Uy B. Behavior of high strength structural steel at elevated
temperatures. J Struct Eng 2006;132(12):1948–54.
[29] Qiang XH, Bijlaard F, Kolstein H. Dependence of mechanical properties of high
strength steel S690 on elevated temperatures. Constr Build Mater 2012;30:73–9.
[30] Chiew SP, Zhao MS, Lee CK. Mechanical properties of heat-treated high
strength steel under fire/post-fire conditions. J Constr Steel Res 2014;98:12–9.