MR32

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III
Testing Conducted by Project No. 06-436 October 29, 2007 MR 32

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III Page i
NCMA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY The National Concrete Masonry Association Research and Development Laboratory is devoted to the scientific research and testing of concrete masonry products and systems. The Laboratory is staffed by professional engineers and technicians with many years of experience in the concrete masonry industry. The Laboratory is equipped to perform nearly any physical research or testing of concrete masonry units and assemblages. The Laboratory performs research and development work for both the Association and individual companies. NCMA Research and Development Laboratory Staff Jeffrey S. Stein, P.E., Manager, Research and Development Laboratory Nicholas R. Lang, Research Engineer M. Douglas Luttrell, Senior Laboratory Technician Michael A. Maroney, Production Specialist Douglas H. Ross, Laboratory Supervisor Sumner W. Svensson, Materials Research Assistant NATIONAL CONCRETE MASONRY ASSOCIATION The National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support and advance the common interests of its members in the manufacture, marketing, research, and application of concrete masonry products. The Association is an industry leader in providing technical assistance and education, marketing, research and development, and product and system innovation to its members and to the industry. NCMA Technical Staff Robert D. Thomas, Vice President of Engineering Dennis W. Graber, P.E., Director of Technical Publications Rodger R. Prunty, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Jason J. Thompson, Director of Engineering Michael W. Werner, P.E., Engineering Projects Manager National Concrete Masonry Association Research and Development Laboratory 13750 Sunrise Valley Drive Herndon, Virginia 20171 (703) 713-1900 fax (703) 713-1910 www.ncma.org
This publication is intended for use by professional personnel competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided herein, and willing to accept total responsibility for the application of this information in specific instances. Results from tests may vary and the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) does not warrant the results contained herein for specific uses or purposes and the findings are not a substitute for sound engineering evaluations, judgment and opinions for specific projects or uses. The NCMA is not responsible for the use or application of the information contained in this publication and disclaims all responsibility therefore.
Page ii
Rachael Barbour Ron Benningfield Scot Brown Raymond A. Cantelli Garry L. Culton Canan D'Avela Terry Farner Donald H. Foster Edward Freyermuth Cheryl Gaw James Gulde Robert A. Harlem, Jr Thomas F. Herrell Thomas A. Holm
Masonry Technical Committee Neal Jablonski Peter Janopaul, Jr. Tina Sheffield Kuncaitis Paul LaVene Bruce Loris Andrew F. Mackie Anthony Mazza William McHugh Wade Medlar John M. Melander David Miller Karen Nelson Greg Page Craig P. Parrino
Rick Roach Donald C. Sheffield Jeffrey F. Speck Neal L. Spevack Kurt Trump Craig Walloch Billy J. Wauhop James L. Weber Billy Wehunt Paul Wienke Michael H. Yessin Thomas C. Young Daniel Zechmeister
Masonry Design and Construction Subcommittee Canan D'Avela John M. Melander Ken Sroka Terry Farner Greg Page Craig Walloch Steven R. Fizzano Craig P. Parrino Mark Wilhelms James Gulde Donald C. Sheffield Thomas C. Young Tina Sheffield Kuncaitis Jeffrey F. Speck Daniel Zechmeister Splice Confinement Research Task Group William McHugh Kurtis K. Siggard Darrell W. McMillian Thomas C. Young
Angel Abelleira Donald D. Littler
Page iii
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..v 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of Research................................................................................................. 1 2.0 MATERIALS .............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Concrete Masonry Units ....................................................................................... 3 2.2 Mortar ................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Grout ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Concrete Masonry Prisms ..................................................................................... 6 2.5 Reinforcing Steel .................................................................................................. 7 3.0 TEST SPECIMENS .................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Workmanship ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Specimen Variables .............................................................................................. 7 3.3 Specimen Construction ....................................................................................... 15 4.0 TEST PROCEDURES.............................................................................................. 17 4.1 Test Setup............................................................................................................ 17 4.2 Instrumentation ................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Testing Procedures.............................................................................................. 19 5.0 TEST RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 20 5.1 Typical Failure Modes ........................................................................................ 20 5.2 Test Observations................................................................................................ 23 5.3 Discussion of Test Observations......................................................................... 51 6.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION................................................................. 54 6.1 Lap Splice Criteria for Structural Masonry......................................................... 54 6.2 Regression Model for Splice Length .................................................................. 55 6.3 Update to Regression Equation........................................................................... 56 6.4 Application of Confining Reinforcement to Lap Splice Requirements.............. 57 6.5 Determination of Limits for Prediction Equation ............................................... 58 6.6 Final version of Prediction Equation .................................................................. 59 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 60 8.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX...................................................................................................................... 62 APPENDIX A.1 Summary of Test Results................................................ 63 APPENDIX A.2 Masonry Unit Test Results........................................... 147 APPENDIX A.3 Mortar Test Results ........................................................ 149 APPENDIX A.4 Grout Test Results .......................................................... 151 APPENDIX A.5 Prism Test Results .......................................................... 154 APPENDIX A.6 Reinforcing Steel Test Results .................................... 157
Page iv
EFFECTS OF CONFINEMENT REINFORCEMENT ON BAR SPLICE PERFORMANCE PHASE III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Research was conducted at the NCMA Research and Development Laboratory to further investigate the effects of confinement provided by lateral reinforcement on lap splice performance. This third phase of research focused on quantifying the influence that the relative location of the confining reinforcement has on lap splice performance. Eighty-four wall panels were constructed using 8 inch (203 mm) and 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units. There were 28 total sets of specimens, with three identical panels per set. In each wall panel, one set of lap spliced No. 8 (M#25) reinforcing bars were placed in each of two separate cells. Four lap splice lengths were investigated: 48 inch (1,219 mm), 40 inch (1,016 mm), 32 inch (813 mm), and 24 inch (610 mm). Varying sizes of reinforcing bars were used to provide lateral confinement at the top and bottom of each splice. The sizes used were No. 4 (M#13), No. 6 (M#19), and No. 8 (M#25) bars. Also evaluated for their impact on lap splice performance were No. 3 (M#10) deformed hoops in each course, and a bar positioner in each course. Two sets of specimens were constructed to determine the effects of structural fiber reinforcement in masonry grout. Four sets of panels were constructed using 12 inch (305 mm) masonry units to investigate the effects of positioning of the lateral reinforcement. The spliced bars confined by the transverse reinforcement were tested in direct tension to determine the strength and performance of the splice. As seen in previous research, the addition of lateral reinforcement increased the tensile strength of the lap splice. There was very little affect on strength when using the deformed hoops and the bar positioners. With the addition of structural fibers in the grout there was little increase in strength, but the fibers did reduce the amount of cracking on the post fracture surface of the masonry panels. Based on the data compiled during all three phases of this research, a revised equation for prediction of the strength of lap splices with confinement research has been developed. The following conclusions are based on this project: The use of continuous confining lateral reinforcement has a positive effect on the strength of lap splices when tested in direct tension. Discontinuous confinement, such as hoops and bar positioners, does not appear to have a significant influence on the performance or strength of lap splices in masonry. The placement of the confining reinforcement can have an effect on the strength and performance of the lap splice. Fiber reinforced grout did not have a significant effect on the strength of a lap splice, but the fiber reinforced grout did have a positive effect on the post fracture surface of the masonry. A higher dosage of the fibers may increase the splice strength further. Based on data presented in this report and in previous research, a new prediction equation for lap splice strength has been derived (Equation 6) as follows:
Page v
Predicted Strength = -18134 + 312ls + 24969db2 + 330(fmt)1/2 + 3391K + Astfy (Eqn. 6) where: ls db fmt K Ast fy Limitations: Ast 0.35 in2 ls 36 in = = = = = = lap length of straight reinforcement, in. (mm) nominal diameter of reinforcement, in. (mm) tested compressive strength of masonry, psi (MPa) the least of the masonry cover, the clear spacing between adjacent reinforcement, or five times db, in. (mm) area of horizontal confining reinforcement, in2 (mm2) yield strength of transverse confining reinforcement, psi (MPa)
Page vi
EFFECTS OF CONFINEMENT REINFORCEMENT ON BAR SPLICE PERFORMANCE PHASE III 1.0INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose The purpose of this research study is to further investigate the effects of confinement provided by lateral reinforcement on lap splice performance in concrete masonry construction. The first phase of research, as found in Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance (Ref. 1), was intended to establish if potential improvements in splice performance from confinement reinforcement exist and to provide guidance for any future research. The second phase of research, Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase II (Ref. 2) examined in more detail the effects of varying confinement schemes on splice performance. This third phase is intended to further examine the effects of varying confinement schemes, lap lengths, and confinement location on splice performance. Recognition of beneficial effects from lateral reinforcement by building codes may result in smaller required splice lengths and greater construction economy. 1.2 Scope of Research Eighty-four concrete masonry unit panels were constructed consisting of twenty eight sets of wall specimens, each with three identical panels. Seventy two of the panels were constructed using 8-inch (203 mm) concrete masonry units, and twelve specimens were constructed using 12-inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units. All specimens were solidly grouted. In each sample panel, one set of lap spliced No. 8 (M#25) reinforcing bars were placed in the center of two separate cells. The lap splice length and quantity of lateral confinement varied for each specimen set. To evaluate the effects of confinement reinforcement on splice behavior at various lap lengths and structural cover, twenty eight different arrangements of transverse reinforcement were considered. Table 1 shows the summary of test specimens investigated in this study.
Page 1
Specimen Set
3A-1 3A-2 3A-3 3A-4 3B-1 3B-2 3B-3 3B-4 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 3C-4 3D-1 3D-2 3E-1 3E-2 3F-1 3F-2 3G-1 3G-2 3H-1 3H-2 3H-3 3H-4 3I 3J
Table 1Confined Splice Phase III Test Matrix Splice Length Nominal Unit Confining Reinforcement No. 8 (M#25) Width Reinforcement
48 inch (1,219 mm) 40 inch (1,016 mm) 32 inch (813 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 40 inch (1,016 mm) 32 inch (813 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 40 inch (1,016 mm) 32 inch (813 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 40 inch (1,016 mm) 40 inch (1,016 mm) 40 inch (1,016 mm) 40 inch (1,016 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm) 24 inch (610 mm) 48 inch (1,219 mm)
8 inch (203 mm)
None
8 inch (203 mm)
One No. 4 (M#13) top and bottom course only Two No. 4 (M#13) top and bottom course only One No. 6 (M#19) top and bottom course only Two No. 6 (M#19) top and bottom course only One No. 8 (M#25) top and bottom course only Two No. 8 (M#25) top and bottom course only None Offset splice with one No. 4 (M#13) transverse bar near cover adjacent Offset splice with one No. 4 (M#13) transverse bar far cover adjacent Offset splice with one No. 4 (M#13) transverse bar offset No. 3 (M#10) deformed hoop each course Bar positioner each course Structural fiber reinforcement in grout
8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm)
12 inch (305 mm)
8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm)
Fiber-A Fiber-B
The 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length using No. 8 (M#25) lap spliced reinforcing bars was selected in part because previous research indicates a strong possibility of producing splitting in the masonry in those specimens without sufficient confinement reinforcement and due to the historical use of a 48db lap length, which for a No. 8 (M#25) bar yields 48 in. (1219 mm). The smaller lap lengths were chosen to allow for an analysis of the effect of lateral confinement on lap lengths with a potential to produce pullout failures of the splices. The ends of the transverse reinforcement were bent 90 degrees in the end cells to provide sufficient development length for the horizontal steel.
Page 2
Each panel included two sets of spliced bars to reduce eccentric moments induced when loading the spliced bars in tension. For each splice, one bar protruded from the top and the other from the bottom of the panel. Each bar was loaded in direct tension to determine the strength of the splice. The testing setup illustrated in Figure 1 shows a typical wall specimen in the loading frame used to apply direct tension in the reinforcing bars.
Test Panel
Spliced Reinforcement
Coupler (typ)
HighStrength Rod (typ)
Hydraulic Jacks
Transverse Reinforcement Splice Length Test Frame
Figure 1Typical Test Configuration
2.0MATERIALS
Additional tests were performed to document the properties of the materials used in the research as follows: concrete masonry unit compressive strength; mortar compressive strength; grout compressive strength; masonry prism compressive strength; and reinforcing bar tensile yield strength, ultimate strength, and elongation. Results for each of these tests are given in Appendices A.2 through A.6, respectively 2.1 Concrete Masonry Units All test specimens were constructed using 8 inch (203 mm) or 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units. All units had square cores and square corners to ensure consistent structural cover and ease of placing spliced and confinement reinforcement. All the units had a recessed web to facilitate the placement of the horizontal confining reinforcement. The 8 inch (203 mm) units were from the same lot with specified dimensions of 7.625 x 7.625 x 15.625 in. (194 x 194 x 397 mm) and nominal dimensions of 8 x 8 x 16 in. (203 x 203 x 406 mm). Similarly, the 12 inch (305 mm) units had specified dimensions of
Page 3
11.625 x 7.625 x 15.625 in. (295 x 194 x 397 mm) and nominal dimensions of 12 x 8 x 16 in. (305 x 203 x 406 mm). The masonry units were sampled and tested in accordance with ASTM C 140, Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units (Ref. 3a). Unit test results are summarized in Table 2. Detailed results from the unit tests are given in Appendix A.2.
Table 2Concrete Masonry Unit Properties Measured Value Unit Property 8 inch (203 mm) 12 inch (305 mm) Net Area Compressive Strength 3,850 psi (15.9 MPa) 2,220 psi (15.3 MPa) Oven-dry Density 124.1 pcf (1985.6 kg/m3) 116.9 pcf (1,870.4 kg/m3) Absorption 9.8 pcf (156.8 kg/m3) 12.6 pcf (201.6 kg/m3) Dimensions 11.65 in. (295.9 mm) 7.64 in. (194.1 mm) Width (W) 7.59 in. (192.8 mm) 7.58 in. (192.8 mm) Height (H) 15.62 in. (396.7 mm) 15.61 in. (396.5 mm) Length (L) 1.60 in. (40.6 mm) 1.28 in. (35.5 mm) Face shell thickness (tfs) 1.51 in. (38.4 mm) 1.38 in. (35.1 mm) Web thickness (tw) Percent Solid 54.4 % 49.6 %
These units complied with the applicable requirements of ASTM C 90, Specification for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units (Ref. 3b) for compressive strength, absorption, and dimensional requirements. 2.2 Mortar Type S masonry cement mortar was used to construct all panels and prisms. The mortar was mixed by volume in accordance with ASTM C 270, Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry (Ref. 3c). Mix proportions, as parts by volume, were one part masonry cement and three parts masonry sand. Type S masonry cement conforming to ASTM C 91, Specification for Masonry Cement (Ref. 3d) was purchased in bags from a local supplier. Masonry sand conforming to ASTM C 144, Specification for Aggregate in Masonry Mortar (Ref. 4e), was purchased in bulk quantities. Potable water was added to the mortar during mixing at the discretion of the mason to produce a workable consistency. All mortar was mechanically mixed for 3 to 10 minutes, and any mortar unused 1 hours after initial mixing was discarded. Retempering of the mortar was permitted once, but stiff or hard mortar due to hydration was not used. The average compressive strength of 2 in. (51 mm) mortar cubes was determined in accordance with ASTM C 780, Test Method for Preconstruction and Construction Evaluation of Mortars for Plain and Reinforced Unit Masonry (Ref. 3f). Mortar was evaluated in two batches. The first batch was used to construct the 8 inch masonry specimens and had an average measured compressive strength of 3,000 psi (20.7 MPa).
Page 4
The second batch was used to construct the 12 inch masonry specimens and had an average measured compressive strength of 1,750 psi (12.1 MPa). The differences in the measured compressive strengths of the mortar is attributed to the different times in which the mortar batches were mixed, which necessitated varying the volume of mixing water to achieve quality construction, rather than a real variation in the mortars constituent materials. The differences in the mortar compressive strength are not expected to have influenced the results or conclusions of this investigation. Detailed results from the mortar tests are given in Appendix A.3. 2.3 Grout A local ready-mix concrete and grout supplier furnished the coarse grout used in constructing the specimens of this study. Due to the total volume of grout necessary for this investigation the grout was provided in two truckloads. After grouting all test panels with the exception of those in Specimen Sets Fiber-A and Fiber-B, fibers were added to the grout left in the second truck. The fibers used were a Polypropylene/Polyethylene blend fiber. They were provided by Grace Construction Products, and have the brand name STRUX 90/40. Four bags, each weighing five pounds (2.27 kg) were added to the second truck with an estimated six cubic yards (4.6 m3) remaining. Five gallons (18.9 L) of water was added, and the grout was mixed for 10 additional minutes prior to placement in Specimen Sets Fiber-A and Fiber-B. The compressive strength for the grout was determined in accordance with ASTM C 1019, Test Method for Sampling and Testing Grout (Ref. 3g). The results of the grout strength testing are summarized in Table 3. The grout was tested at an age of 41 days, which coincided with the start of wall specimen testing. Table 3Grout Compressive Strength Results Truck 1 Truck 2 Truck 2 with fibers added 2,650 psi (18.3 MPa) 3,170 psi (21.9 MPa) 2,300 psi (15.9 MPa) The desire was to target a 3,000 psi (20.7 MPa) grout compressive strength for this project. While the grout from truck 1 was lower than the target, the resulting grout compressive strengths for each sample tested complied with the property requirements of ASTM C 476, Specification for Grout for Masonry (Ref. 3h). The decrease in strength after addition of the structural fibers is most likely due to the additional water added at the same time as the fibers. Table 4 shows the grout truckload that was used to grout the individual panels. Detailed results from the grout tests are given in Appendix A.4.
Page 5
3A-4A 3A-4B 3A-4C 3B-1A 3B-1B 3B-1C 3B-2A 3B-2B 3B-2C 3B-3A 3B-3B 3B-3C 3B-4A 3B-4B 3B-4C 3C-1A 3C-1B 3C-1C 3C-2A 3C-2B 3C-2C 3C-3A 3C-3B 3C-3C 3C-4A 3C-4B 3C-4C
Table 4Truckload used to Grout each Specimen Truck 1 Truck 2 Truck 2 with fibers 3D-1A 3A-1A Fiber-1A 3D-1B 3A-1B Fiber-2A 3D-1C 3A-1C Fiber-3A 3D-2B 3A-2A Fiber-1B 3D-2C 3A-2B Fiber-2B 3E-1A 3A-2C Fiber-3B 3E-1B 3A-3A 3E-1C 3A-3B 3E-2A 3A-3C 3E-2B 3D-2A 3E-2C 3F-1A 3F-1B 3F-1C 3F-2A 3F-2B 3H-1A 3F-2C 3H-1B 3G-1A 3H-1C 3G-1B 3H-2A 3G-1C 3H-2B 3G-2A 3H-2C 3G-2B 3H-3A 3G-2C 3H-3B 3H-4B 3H-3C 3I-1 3H-4A 3I-2 3H-4C 3I-3 3J-1 3J-2 3J-3
2.4 Concrete Masonry Prisms At the same time as the panels were constructed, half-length grouted masonry prisms were constructed in accordance with ASTM C 1314, Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms (Ref. 3i), using the 8 inch concrete masonry units. One set (three prisms) was constructed for each truckload of grout, and a third set after the addition of the fibers. Immediately following construction, the prisms were sealed within plastic bags. Approximately 48 hours prior to testing, the prisms were removed from the bags and allowed to equalize with the temperature and moisture conditions of the laboratory environment. Results from the prism compressive strength tests are summarized in Table 5. Detailed results from the prism tests are given in Appendix A.5. The prisms were tested at an age of 42 days, which was one day after the start of wall specimen testing.
Page 6
Table 5Masonry Prism Compressive Strength Results Truck 1 Truck 2 Truck 2 with fibers added 3,190 psi (22.0 MPa) 3,340 psi (23.0 MPa) 2,820 psi (19.4 MPa)
2.5 Reinforcing Steel Conventional Grade 60 (413.7 MPa), No. 8 (M#25) deformed bars were used for the spliced bars. The bars used for the splices contained special upset threads milled onto the ends to accommodate a threaded coupler to connect the spliced bars to the loading system. The use of the upset threads attempted to eliminated a weakened bar crosssection and reduce the possibility of bar failure in the threaded area. For lateral confinement, No. 4 (M#13), No. 6 (M#19), and No. 8 (M#25) conventional Grade 60 (413.7 MPa) deformed bars were used. Also used were No. 3 (M#10) Grade 60 deformed hoops welded closed, and 9 gauge steel bar positioners. Tension tests were performed on the No. 8 (M#25) splice bars by an independent laboratory in accordance with ASTM A 370, Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (Ref. 3j). The physical properties of the No. 8 (M#25) mild reinforcement met the requirements of ASTM A 615, Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (Ref. 3k). The average measured yield and ultimate strengths were 72,070 psi (497.0 MPa) and 108,000 psi (744.7 MPa), respectively. Detailed results from the bar tests are given in Appendix A.6
3.0 TEST SPECIMENS

3.1 Workmanship An NCMA staff journeyman mason with over 20 years experience in masonry constructed the test specimens using construction techniques in accordance with Specification for Masonry Structures, ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602 (Ref. 4). 3.2 Specimen Variables Eighty four panel specimens were constructed and tested for this study, comprised of twenty eight sets, each with three identical specimens. Table 1 provides a summary of the test specimens. Figures 2 through 29 show a detail of the panel configuration and confinement scheme for each specimen set.
Page 7
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
48 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)
No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell 3.8125 in.
Figure 2Specimen Set 3A-1 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU No confining reinforcement
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell

3.8125 in.
Page 8
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
3.5625 in.
3.5625 in.
14 in.
14 in.
14 in.
14 in.
3.5625 in.
3.5625 in. No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell 3.8125 in. 3.0625 in.
No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell 3.8125 in. 3.0625 in.
Figure 6Specimen Set 3B-1 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU One No. 4 (M#13) bar top and bottom course only
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
14 in.
3.5625 in.
3.5625 in.
14 in. 14 in.
14 in.
3.5625 in. No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell
3.8125 in.
3.0625 in.
Page 9
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
3.5625 in.
3.5625 in.
14 in. 48 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)
14 in.
14 in.
14 in.
3.5625 in.
3.5625 in. 3.0625 in. No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell 3.0625 in.
3.0625 in.
3.8125 in.
3.8125 in.
Figure 10Specimen Set 3C-1 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Two No. 4 (M#13) bars top and bottom course only
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

3.5625 in.
14 in.
3.5625 in.
14 in. 14 in.
14 in.
3.8125 in.
3.8125 in.
Page 10
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

3.4375 in.
3.4375 in.
14 in. 14 in.
14 in.
3.8125 in.
2.9375 in.
Figure 15Specimen Set 3D-2 24 in. (610 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU One No. 6 (M#19) bar top and bottom course only
Figure 14Specimen Set 3D-1 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU One No. 6 (M#19) bar top and bottom course only
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
3.4375 in.
3.4375 in.
14 in. 14 in.
3.4375 in. 2.9375 in. No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell
14 in.
3.8125 in. 2.9375 in.
Figure 17Specimen Set 3E-2 24 in. (610 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Two No. 6 (M#19) bars top and bottom course only
3.8125 in. 2.9375 in.
Figure 16Specimen Set 3E-1 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Two No. 6 (M#19) bars top and bottom course only
Page 11
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
3.3125 in.
24 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual) 3.3125 in.
14 in. 14 in.
14 in.
3.8125 in.
2.8125 in.
Figure 19Specimen Set 3E-2 24 in. (610 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU One No. 8 (M#25) bar top and bottom course only
Figure 18Specimen Set 3F-1 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU One No. 8 (M#25) bar top and bottom course only
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

3.3125 in.
3.3125 in.
14 in. 14 in.
14 in.
3.8125 in.
2.8125 in.
Figure 21Specimen Set 3G-2 24 in. (610 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Two No. 8 (M#25) bars top and bottom course only
3.8125 in. 2.8125 in.
Figure 20Specimen Set 3G-1 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Two No. 8 (M#25) bars top and bottom course only
Page 12
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
3.5625 in.
14 in.
14 in.
3.5625 in.
No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Offset in Cell 3.8125 in.

3.8125 in.
No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Offset in Cell 3.0625 in.
Figure 22Specimen Set 3H-1 40 in. (1016 mm) lap length, 12 in. (305 mm) CMU No confining reinforcement
Figure 23Specimen Set 3H-2 40 in. (1016 mm) lap length, 12 in. (305 mm) CMU Offset splice with one near cover adjacent No. 4 (M#13)
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
3.5625 in.
3.5625 in.
14 in.
14 in.
14 in.
14 in.
3.5625 in.
3.5625 in.
No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Offset in Cell 3.8125 in. 4.5625 in.
3.0625 in.
No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Offset in Cell
3.8125 in.
Figure 24Specimen Set 3H-3 40 in. (1016 mm) lap length, 12 in. (305 mm) CMU Offset splice with one far cover adjacent No. 4 (M#13)
Figure 25Specimen Set 3H-4 40 in. (1016 mm) lap length, 12 in. (305 mm) CMU Offset splice with one offset No. 4 (M#13)
Page 13
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
No. 3 Deformed Hoop Per Detail
Bar Positioner
3.8125 in.
3.8125 in.
Figure 26Specimen Set 3I 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU No. 3 (M#10) deformed hoop each course
Figure 27Specimen Set 3J 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Bar positioner each course
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.
Figure 28: Specimen Set Fiber-A 24 in. (610 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Structural fiber reinforcement in grout
3.8125 in.
Figure 29Specimen Set Fiber - B 48 in. (1219 mm) lap length, 8 in. (203 mm) CMU Structural fiber reinforcement in grout
Page 14
3.3 Specimen Construction The masonry panels were constructed on a dry-stacked course of concrete masonry units for easy removal of any mortar that dropped into the cores as the construction of the panels progressed. No initial leveling bed of mortar was used. The 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units were manually cut on the webs to create knockout bond beam units for easy placement of reinforcing steel. The 8 inch (203 mm) masonry units did not need to be cut as they were manufactured in a knockout bond beam configuration. For both configurations of units, all webs, except those on the edges of the wall panels, were removed to half height to create a consistent wall cross section regardless of the presence of confining reinforcement. The panels were laid in a running bond configuration using face shell bedding except at the ends of the panels where the end webs were mortared. Mortar joint thickness was 3/8 1/8 in. (9.5 3.2 mm). Mortar joints at the faces of the panels were struck and tooled with a concave jointer after they became thumbprint hard. Joints at the ends of the panel were struck flush. When feasible, mortar that protruded into the cores of the units more than 1/2 in. (13 mm) was removed with a hand trowel as the construction of the panels progressed. Hardened mortar that protruded more than 1/2 in. (13 mm) into the grout space was removed by rodding prior to placing the grout. Each panel was constructed to the length of the lap splice to be contained in the specimen. For example, the sets with 48 inch (1219 mm) splice length were built six courses high, while the sets with a 24 inch (610 mm) splice length were built three courses high. Approximately one week after construction, each panel was rigged and carefully hoisted off the dry-stack course using an overhead crane. The bottom course was cleared of any debris or obstructions resulting from the construction process, and each panel were then placed onto a wood board, which served as formwork on the bottom of the panels during grouting. Two circular holes, slightly larger than the spliced reinforcing bars, were drilled in the wooden platform to ensure proper placement of the reinforcing steel. As each wall was constructed, the confining reinforcement, confinement hoops, or bar positioners were placed in the appropriate courses and tied in place using small-gage wire. The steel was not rusted and was in excellent condition at the time of installation. Before placement in the completed wall panels, the No. 8 (M#25) spliced bars were lapped to the proper length using contact splices and tied together using small-gage wire. The lapped bars were placed into the wall panels following panel construction. They were held in position on the bottom by being inserted in the formwork board and on top by a segment of 1 x 3 inch (25.4 x 76.2 mm) furring strip, which the bar could pass through. These were placed on the top of each splice bar and fixed in the proper location on the top of each wall panel. The ready-mix grout was pumped into the wall panels from a small truck mounted pump. The grout was placed in the panels in a single lift. The grout in each specimen was mechanically consolidated once using a -in. (19 mm) diameter vibrator, with additional grout being added as necessary to compensate for the reduction in volume occurring due to water from the grout being absorbed by the masonry. The panels were cured under ambient conditions. Testing was started when the panels were 41 days of age, and
Page 15
continued for 70 total days. Prior to testing, all formwork was removed and the panels were cleaned and prepared for testing. Figures 30 through 33 illustrate the grouting process. The photos include the specimens prior to grouting, method for placing of the coarse grout into the wall panels, consolidation of grout through vibration, and the finished specimens.
Figure 30Samples prior to grouting
Figure 31Method for placement of coarse grout.
Page 16
Figure 32Consolidation of grout.
Figure 33Finished test specimens
4.0TEST PROCEDURES
4.1 Test Setup A testing frame used for previous splice testing was adapted for use in this research. The frame was constructed of four structural steel members bolted together to form a rectangular perimeter around the test panel as illustrated in Figures 1 and 34. To alleviate the need for bracing or shoring of the testing equipment or test specimens, the structural frame was placed horizontally on the laboratory floor for testing. Each panel was lowered in the horizontal position into the testing frame onto two steel pipes. The pipes supported the panels in position while allowing panel movement during testing. Once a panel was positioned in the frame, high-strength steel couplers were attached to each of the four reinforcing bars protruding from the panel. On the other end of the coupler, another reinforcing bar, threaded on both ends and having a diameter greater than the spliced bars, was attached. These connector bars extended through the holes in the steel frame and were anchored with steel washers and threaded nuts. At the other end, the connector bars passed through two center-hole hydraulic rams before being anchored. Figure 35 shows the configuration of rams, spacers, and load cells.
Page 17
Figure 34Typical test setup
Figure 35Setup of hydraulic rams, spacers, and load cells.
Page 18
A hydraulic pump was used to supply pressure to the rams. The hydraulic hoses to the rams were connected in parallel through a manifold resulting in approximately equal pressure to each ram. The rams, hoses, and hydraulic pump were provided by a rental company. 4.2 Instrumentation Force applied by each of the hydraulic rams to the splice bars was measured using 100kip (445 kN) capacity load cells, as seen in Figure 35. Displacement potentiometers were attached to one of the splice bars and the measuring string connected to the mating splice bar at the other end of the panel, thereby providing a rough measure of bar extension and/or slip during testing. The placement of these gages can be seen in Figure 34. Data was collected using a DASYLab computerized data acquisition system that recorded load and displacement for each splice being tested. These load-deflection plots for each wall panel specimen are located in Appendix A.1. 4.3 Testing Procedures Load was applied to the specimens at a constant rate until failure occurred, defined by rupture of the reinforcing steel, longitudinal splitting of the masonry, or pullout of the reinforcement, at which time testing was stopped. Early during the testing, fracture of the steel rebar was seen in the upset thread portion of the bar on some specimens. This occurred below the ultimate strength of the bar as tested. It was determined that the upset threaded portion of the spliced reinforcing were not able to carry the applied tension loads. The fractured piece of rebar is shown in Figures 36 and 37. A new high strength steel coupler was designed, and these couplers were fabricated by a local machine shop. Figure 37 shows the design of the coupler. After these couplers were put into use, this failure mode was not seen again during testing.
Figures 36 and 37Fractured rebar
Page 19
Section A-A
1/2 in. 13UNC Tapped Thread (8 Total)
A 3.25 in. 1-1/4 in. Smooth Bore A
2.0 in.
1-1/8 in. 8UN Coarse Thread
2.0 in.
1-7/16 in. 8UN Coarse Thread
2.25 in.
Figure 38Detail design of new high strength steel couplers
Once the panels were placed in the testing frame and ready, the data acquisition system was initiated and loading of the sample began. Once the specimen failed the load was released and the failure mode was documented. Photographs and videos were taken during testing. Panel distress in the form of cracking in the bed joints and masonry units or yielding of the splice reinforcement was monitored and recorded, if applicable.
5.0TEST RESULTS
This section presents the results of the testing. A discussion of generalized failure modes is presented first, followed by a detailed description of each test set. Additional results from the tests on the individual panels are found in Appendices A1.1 through A1.28 for Specimen Sets 3A-1 through Fiber-B, respectively. 5.1 Typical Failure Modes Failure mechanisms and cracking patterns, along with the extent of cracking, varied as a function of confinement method and type. Generalized failure and cracking descriptions are provided here with specific detail provided in each panel sets description. There were two different general cracking patterns observed. They were: Panel tension cracking cracking along bed joints perpendicular to the spliced bars, indicating that the spliced reinforcement reached large yield strains but were still able to carry load. Panel longitudinal splitting splitting of the masonry where cracks run approximately parallel to the spliced bars. Longitudinal splitting of the panels also defines one of the two primary failure modes observed in this investigation.
Page 20
There were two different primary failure modes observed, which are summarized as follows: Bar fracture in threads reinforcement breaks in the threaded portion, probably due to deficient rebar materials. Longitudinal splitting extensive cracking of the masonry resulting in the release of the lap spliced reinforcement. There were two other possible modes of failure that were not observed in this study: Bar tension rupture reinforcement breaks in tension. Bar pullout (bond failure) slippage of bar without significant initial cracking of the masonry. In addition to these failure modes, slight spalling of grout cover off of the end of the spliced bars was commonly observed. The end of the vertical steel bars protruded from the ends of the wall panel by approximately 1.5 to 2 inches (37 to 49 mm). With bar slippage, the grout cover typically remained stuck to the bar as it was pulled out of the panel sections. This occurred in the majority of the specimens and will not be noted each time in this description. This conical breakout is not felt to have any impact on the resulting splice performance. A significant number of specimens with lap lengths of 48 inch (1219 mm) and 40 inch (1016 mm) exhibited necking of the protruding spliced steel bars. Due to the configuration of the connection mechanism for the displacement measuring devices, this necking caused slips and jumps in the displacement measurements. While observed necking is noted in this description, each occurrence of slippage in displacement measurements is not. See Appendix A1 for detailed load-displacement curves. On these curves, this slippage is shown as a large increase or decrease in the measured displacement with no appreciable change in load. Due to the problematic nature of obtaining reliable displacement measurements of the test specimens, the displacement measurements were not used to draw conclusions, but instead to verify observations. Additionally, after the specimens had failed, the grout inside of the walls was visually examined. This was done to determine if the grout and the consolidation had any affect on the results obtained. For two of the specimens, 3A-1C and 3B-2B, were observed to have poor consolidation, evident by air voids and some segregation of the aggregates in the grout. Figure 39 shows an example of properly consolidated grout, and Figure 40 shows grout with poor consolidation. These two specimens demonstrated strengths 25% lower than the others in their respective set. As a result of the poor consolidation and associated reduction in strength, these results were culled from the data set for analysis and discussion.
Page 21
Figure 39Grout with Proper Consolidation
Figure 40Grout with Poor Consolidation
Page 22
5.2 Test Observations Specimen Set 3A-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3A-1 were constructed with a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length without confinement reinforcement. A variety of cracking was seen, with both longitudinal cracking parallel to reinforcement splices and panel tension rupture as either cracking along bed joints or diagonal splitting cracks crossing the spliced bars. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 41. Specimen 3A-1C failed well below the other specimens in this set. The grout in this specimen was observed to have significant air voids and poor consolidation. As discussed above, the low strength of this specimen is attributed to these grout problems, and was subsequently culled from the data set for the analysis portion of this investigation. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3A-1 was 61,550 lb (273.8 kN), excluding Specimen 3A-1C. The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 41Specimen Set 3A-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 6Specimen Set 3A-1 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3A-1A 62,830 (279.5) 0.19 (4.8) Longitudinal Splitting 3A-1B 60,270 (268.1) 0.09 (2.3) Longitudinal Splitting A 3A-1C 44,630 (198.5) 0.07 (1.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 61,550 (273.8) 0.14 (3.6) A Specimen not included in analysis due to poor quality grout. Specimen Designation
Page 23
Specimen Set 3A-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3A-2 were constructed with a 40 inch (1016 mm) lap length and without confinement reinforcement. A variety of cracking was seen, with both longitudinal cracking parallel to reinforcement splices and panel tension rupture as either cracking along bed joints or diagonal splitting cracks crossing the spliced bars. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 42. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3A-2 was 59,080 lb (262.8 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 7Specimen Set 3A-2 Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3A-2A 54,350 (241.8) 0.12 (3.0) Longitudinal Splitting 3A-2B 61,240 (272.4) 0.06 (1.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3A-2C 61,640 (274.2) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 59,080 (262.8) 0.07 (1.8)
Page 24
Specimen Set 3A-3: The panels of Specimen Set 3A-3 were constructed using a 32 inch (813 mm) lap length without confinement reinforcement. Limited panel tension cracking was seen prior to failure. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 43. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3A-3 was 50,170 lb (223.2 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 8Specimen Set 3A-3 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3A-3A 52,090 (231.7) 0.02 (0.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3A-3B 50,530 (224.8) 0.02 (0.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3A-3C 47,900 (213.1) 0.02 (0.5) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 50,170 (223.2) 0.02 (0.5) Specimen Designation
Page 25
Specimen Set 3A-4: The panels of Specimen Set 3A-4 were constructed without confinement reinforcement and a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length. There was no observed panel cracking prior to failure of the specimens. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 44. Specimen 3A-4A failed at a load well below the other specimens of this set. Limited bar pullout was seen in this specimen. This most likely facilitated early splitting in the masonry, and caused a low load failure. The load-displacement curve for this specimen can be found in Annex A1.4. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3A4 was 32,590 lb (145.0 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 9Specimen Set 3A-4 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3A-4A 21,520 (95.7) 0.04 (1.0) Longitudinal Splitting 3A-4B 40,220 (178.9) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting 3A-4C 36,030 (160.3) 0.01 (0.3) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 32,590 (145.0) 0.03 (0.8) Specimen Designation
Page 26
Specimen Set 3B-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3B-1 were constructed with one No. 4 (M#13) bar at each end of the splice and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 8.25% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, some necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than those units without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 45. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3B-1 was 66,630 lb (296.4 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 45Specimen Set 3B-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 10Specimen Set 3B-1 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3B-1A 67,430 (299.9) 0.16 (4.1) Longitudinal Splitting 3B-1B 66,450 (295.6) 0.16 (4.1) Longitudinal Splitting 3B-1C 66,010 (293.6) 0.06 (1.5) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 66,630 (296.4) 0.12 (3.0) Specimen Designation
Page 27
Specimen Set 3B-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3B-2 were constructed with one No. 4 (M#13) bar at each end of the splice and a 40 inch (1016 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-2, this set showed an average increase of 11.98% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with limited panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than those units without confining reinforcement. Additionally, some necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 46. Specimen 3B-2B had erratic load and displacement readings. One of the two load cells reached 34,000 lb (151.2 kN) and did not increase beyond that point. At the same time, the displacement reading increased. This is a typical reading for bar pullout failure. However, the loads were well below that necessary for bond failure between the rebar and grout. This failure was most likely due to poor consolidation of the grout on one side of this specimen, and was subsequently culled from the data set for the analysis portion of this investigation. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3B-2 was 66,650 lb (296.1 kN), excluding Specimen 3B2B. The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 11Specimen Set 3B-2 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3B-2A 66,450 (295.6) 0.09 (2.3) Longitudinal Splitting 3B-2BA 49,740 (221.3) 0.06 (1.5) Pullout 3B-2C 66,670 (296.6) 0.17 (4.3) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 66,560 (296.1) 0.11 (2.8) A Specimen not included in analysis due to poor quality grout. Specimen Designation
Page 28
Specimen Set 3B-3: The panels of Specimen Set 3B-3 were constructed with one No. 4 (M#13) bar at each end of the splice and a 32 inch (813 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-3, this set showed an average increase of 9.17% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had limited panel tension cracking along the entire panel. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than those units without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 47. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3B-3 was 54,770 lb (243.6 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 12Specimen Set 3B-3 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3B-3A 51,940 (231.0) 0.33 (8.4) Longitudinal Splitting 3B-3B 54,760 (243.6) 0.24 (6.1) Longitudinal Splitting 3B-3C 57,610 (256.3) 0.15 (3.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 54,770 (243.6) 0.24 (6.1) Specimen Designation
Page 29
Specimen Set 3B-4: The panels of Specimen Set 3B-4 were constructed with one No. 4 (M#13) bar at each end of the splice and a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-4, this set showed an average increase of 35.69% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens exhibited no cracking prior to failure. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 48. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3B-4 was 44,220 lb (196.7 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 13Specimen Set 3B-4 Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3B-4A 41,000 (182.4) 0.02 (0.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3B-4B 47,230 (210.2) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting 3B-4C 44,440 (197.7) 0.01 (0.3) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 44,220 (196.7) 0.02 (0.5)
Page 30
Specimen Set 3C-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3C-1 were constructed with two No. 4 (M#13) bars at each end of the splice and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 16.57% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 49. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3C-1 was 71,760 lb (319.2 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 49Specimen Set 3C-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 14Specimen Set 3C-1 Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3C-1A 73,790 (328.2) 0.16 (4.1) Longitudinal Splitting 3C-1B 72,040 (320.4) 0.16 (4.1) Longitudinal Splitting 3C-1C 69,440 (308.9) 0.34 (8.6) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 71,760 (319.2) 0.22 (5.6)
Page 31
Specimen Set 3C-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3C-2 were constructed with two No. 4 (M#13) bars at each end of the splice and a 40 inch (1016 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-2, this set showed an average increase of 18.97% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 50. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3C-2 was 70,290 lb (312.7 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Page 32
Specimen Set 3C-3: The panels of Specimen Set 3C-3 were constructed with two No. 4 (M#13) bars at each end of the splice and a 32 inch (813 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-3, this set showed an average increase of 13.53% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had limited panel tension cracking along the entire panel. Additionally, some necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 51. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3C-3 was 56,970 lb (253.4 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Page 33
Specimen Set 3C-4: The panels of Specimen Set 3C-4 were constructed with two No. 4 (M#13) bars at each end of the splice and a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-4, this set showed an average increase of 42.68% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens did not exhibit any cracking prior to failure. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 52. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3C-4 was 46,500 lb (206.8 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 17Specimen Set 3C-4 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3C-4A 42,160 (187.5) 0.01 (0.3) Longitudinal Splitting 3C-4B 50,370 (224.1) 0.04 (1.0) Longitudinal Splitting 3C-4C 46,980 (209.0) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 46,500 (206.8) 0.03 (0.8) Specimen Designation
Page 34
Specimen Set 3D-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3D-1 were constructed with one No. 6 (M#19) bar at each end of the splice and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 16.28% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. Specimen 3D-1A had a failure due to fracture of the rebar in the upset thread section. This occurred well below the load required to fracture the bar as determined by testing of the rebar (see Section 4.3). It was determined that the upset portion of the bar was defective. In addition, a malfunction in the measurement equipment led to data not being collected for this specimen. For this reason, data from Specimen 3D-1A is not available. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 53. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3D-1 was 71,570 lb (318.4 kN). The failure modes for the panels of this specimen set were longitudinal splitting and rebar failure in the threads.
Figure 53Specimen Set 3D-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 18Specimen Set 3D-1 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) A 3D-1A Rebar Thread Failure 3D-1B 71,300 (317.2) 0.08 (2.0) Longitudinal Splitting 3D-1C 71,830 (319.5) 0.35 (8.9) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 71,570 (318.4) 0.14 (3.6) A Data for Specimen 3D-1A not available due to equipment malfunction Specimen Designation
Page 35
Specimen Set 3D-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3D-2 were constructed with one No. 6 (M#19) bar at each end of the splice and a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-4, this set showed an average increase of 32.59% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens did not exhibit any cracking prior to failure. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 54. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3D-2 was 43,210 lb (192.2 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 54Specimen Set 3D-2 Typical Failure Mode
Table 19Specimen Set 3D-2 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3D-2A 44,650 (198.6) 0.01 (0.3) Longitudinal Splitting 3D-2B 41,200 (183.3) 0.04 (1.0) Longitudinal Splitting 3D-2C 43,780 (194.7) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 43,210 (192.2) 0.03 (0.8) Specimen Designation
Page 36
Specimen Set 3E-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3E-1 were constructed with two No. 6 (M#19) bars at each end of the splice and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 19.98% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. Specimen 3E-1C failed prematurely at the threaded connection. This occurred well below the load to fracture the bar as determined by testing of the rebar (see Section 4.3). It was determined that the upset portion of the bar was defective, and the data has been subsequently culled from the data set for the analysis portion of the investigation. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 55. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3E-1 was 71,830 lb (319.6 kN), excluding Specimen 3E-1C. The failure modes for the panels of this specimen set were longitudinal splitting and rebar failure in the threads.
Figure 55Specimen Set 3E-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 20Specimen Set 3E-1 Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3E-1A 74,350 (330.7) 0.21 (5.3) Longitudinal Splitting 3E-1B 73,360 (326.3) 0.10 (2.5) Longitudinal Splitting A 3E-1C 67,780 (301.5) 0.06 (1.5) Rebar Thread Failure Set Average 73,850 (328.5) 0.16 (4.1) A Results for Specimen 3E-1C not included in calculations and data analysis due to premature failure of threaded coupler.
Page 37
Specimen Set 3E-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3E-2 were constructed with two No. 6 (M#19) bars at each end of the splice and a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-4, this set showed an average increase of 44.34% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens did not exhibit any cracking prior to failure. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 56. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3E-2 was 47,040 lb (209.2 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 56Specimen Set 3E-2 Typical Failure Mode
Table 21Specimen Set 3E-2 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3E-2A 48,790 (217.0) 0.01 (0.3) Longitudinal Splitting 3E-2B 47,870 (212.9) 0.02 (0.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3E-2C 44,450 (197.7) 0.02 (0.5) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 47,040 (209.2) 0.01 (0.3) Specimen Designation
Page 38
Specimen Set 3F-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3F-1 were constructed with one No. 8 (M#25) bar at each end of the splice and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 21.06% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. Specimen 3F-1B had a failure due to fracture of the rebar in the upset thread section. This occurred well below the load to fracture the bar as determined by testing of the rebar (see Section 4.3). It was determined that the upset portion of the bar was defective, and was subsequently culled from the data set for the analysis portion of this investigation. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 57. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3F-1 was 74,520 lb (331.5 kN), excluding Specimen 3F-1B. The failure modes for the panels of this specimen set were longitudinal splitting and rebar failure in the threads.
Figure 57Specimen Set 3F-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 22Specimen Set 3F-1 Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3F-1A 75,300 (335.0) 0.84 (21.3) Longitudinal Splitting A 3F-1B 70,290 (312.7) 0.25 (6.4) Rebar Thread Failure 3F-1C 73,740 (328.0) 0.39 (9.9) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 74,520 (331.5) 0.62 (15.6) A Results for Specimen 3F-1B not included in calculations and data analysis due to premature failure of threaded coupler.
Page 39
Specimen Set 3F-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3F-2 were constructed with one No. 8 (M#25) bar at each end of the splice and a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-4, this set showed an average increase of 38.91% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens did not exhibit any cracking prior to failure. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 58. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3F-2 was 45,270 lb (201.4 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 58Specimen Set 3F-2 Typical Failure Mode
Table 23Specimen Set 3F-2 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3F-2A 42,230 (187.8) 0.06 (1.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3F-2B 45,570 (202.7) 0.06 (1.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3F-2C 48,010 (213.6) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 45,270 (201.4) 0.05 (1.3) Specimen Designation
Page 40
Specimen Set 3G-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3G-1 were constructed with two No. 8 (M#25) bars at each end of the splice and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 25.90% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. This specimen set had the highest average maximum load of the specimens in this project. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 59. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3G-1 was 77,500 lb (344.7 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 59Specimen Set 3G-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 24Specimen Set 3G-1 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3G-1A 76,140 (338.7) 0.72 (18.3) Longitudinal Splitting 3G-1B 80,490 (358.0) 0.60 (15.2) Longitudinal Splitting 3G-1C 75,860 (337.4) 0.18 (4.6) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 77,500 (344.7) 0.50 (12.7) Specimen Designation
Page 41
Specimen Set 3G-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3G-2 were constructed with two No. 8 (M#25) bars at each end of the splice and a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-4, this set showed an average increase of 69.32% in the strength of the lap splice. Specimens 3G-2A and 3G-2B exhibited some panel tension cracking, while Specimen 3G-2C did not exhibit any cracking prior to failure. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 60. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3G-2 was 55,180 lb (245.5 kN). The failure mode for each panel of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 60Specimen Set 3G-2 Typical Failure Mode
Table 25Specimen Set 3G-2 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3G-2A 57,030 (253.7) 0.07 (1.8) Longitudinal Splitting 3G-2B 50,460 (224.5) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting 3G-2C 58,060 (258.6) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 55,180 (245.5) 0.04 (1.0) Specimen Designation
Page 42
Specimen Set 3H-1: The panels of Specimen Set 3H-1 were constructed with 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units, no confining reinforcement, and a 40 inch (1016 mm) splice length offset to one side to produce a cover distance equal to that of the 8 inch (203 mm) specimens. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, and necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 61. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3H-1 was 64,940 lb (288.9 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 61Specimen Set 3H-1 Typical Failure Mode
Table 26Specimen Set 3H-1 Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3H-1A 63,480 (282.4) 0.66 (16.8) Longitudinal Splitting 3H-1B 70,870 (315.2) 0.30 (7.6) Longitudinal Splitting 3H-1C 60,480 (269.0) 0.16 (4.1) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 64,940 (288.9) 0.37 (9.4)
Page 43
Specimen Set 3H-2: The panels of Specimen Set 3H-2 were constructed with 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units, a 40 inch (1016 mm) splice length offset to one side to produce a cover distance equal to that of the 8 inch (203 mm) specimens, and one No. 4 (M#13) horizontal reinforcing bar located on the smaller cover side of the spliced reinforcement. Compared to Specimen Set 3H-1, this set showed an average increase of 30.64% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than those units without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 62. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3H-2 was 71,850 lb (319.6 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Table 27Specimen Set 3H-2 Summary of Observations Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3H-2A 71,890 (319.8) 0.10 (2.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3H-2B 72,560 (322.8) 0.06 (1.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3H-2C 71,100 (316.4) 0.16 (4.1) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 71,850 (319.6) 0.11 (2.8) Specimen Designation
Page 44
Specimen Set 3H-3: The panels of Specimen Set 3H-3 were constructed with 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units, a 40 inch (1016 mm) splice length offset to one side to produce a cover distance equal to that of the 8 inch (203 mm) specimens, and one No. 4 (M#13) horizontal reinforcing bar located on the larger cover side of the spliced reinforcement. Compared to Specimen Set 3H-1, this set showed an average increase of 4.97% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 63. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3H-3 was 68,170 lb (303.2 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Page 45
Specimen Set 3H-4: The panels of Specimen Set 3H-4 were constructed with 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units, a 40 inch (1016 mm) splice length offset to one side to produce a cover distance equal to that of the 8 inch (203 mm) specimens, and one No. 4 (M#13) horizontal reinforcing bar located on the opposite side of the spliced reinforcement. Compared to Specimen Set 3H-1, this set showed an average increase of 2.33% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of the masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 64. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3H-4 was 66,450 lb (295.6 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Page 46
Specimen Set 3I: The panels of Specimen Set 3I were constructed with one No. 3 (M#10) deformed confinement hoop in each course, and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 0.73% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. Additionally, necking of the spliced bars was observed prior to fracture. During testing, Specimen 3I-B had a malfunction in one displacement potentiometer, so the average displacement for that specimen in based on one displacement reading only. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 65. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3I was 62,000 lb (275.8 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 65Specimen Set 3I Typical Failure Mode
Table 30Specimen Set 3I Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3I-A 62,760 (279.2) 0.62 (15.7) Longitudinal Splitting A 3I-B 62,720 (279.0) 0.14 (3.6) Longitudinal Splitting 3I-C 60,530 (269.3) 0.28 (7.1) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 62,000 (275.0) 0.35 (8.9) A Average displacement for Specimen 3I-B based on one measurement due to equipment malfunction
Page 47
Specimen Set 3J: The panels of Specimen Set 3J were constructed with one bar positioner in each course and a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average decrease of 5.96% in strength of the lap splice. These specimens had panel tension cracking along the entire panel, along with panel longitudinal splitting of masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. The bar positioners appear to have no effect on the masonry cracking of the post fracture surface when compared to specimens with no confinement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 66. The average maximum load of Specimen Set 3J was 57,890 lb (257.5 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 66Specimen Set 3J Typical Failure Mode
Table 31Specimen Set 3J Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) 3J-A 57,290 (254.9) 0.12 (3.0) Longitudinal Splitting 3J-B 56,800 (252.7) 0.65 (16.5) Longitudinal Splitting 3J-C 59,570 (265.0) 0.03 (0.8) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 57,890 (257.5) 0.26 (6.6)
Page 48
Specimen Set Fiber-A: The panels of Specimen Set Fiber-A were constructed with a 24 inch (610 mm) lap length and structural fiber reinforcement in the grout. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-4, this set showed an average increase of 14.48% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had some panel longitudinal splitting of masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. The structural fiber reinforcement appeared to have a significant effect on the amount of masonry cracking in these units. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 67. The average maximum load of Specimen Set Fiber-A was 37,320 lb (166.0 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 67Specimen Set Fiber-A Typical Failure Mode
Table 32Specimen Set Fiber-A Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) Fiber-A1 38,380 (170.7) 0.01 (0.3) Longitudinal Splitting Fiber-A2 35,520 (158.0) 0.02 (0.5) Longitudinal Splitting Fiber-A3 38,050 (169.3) 0.01 (0.3) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 37,320 (166.0) 0.01 (0.3)
Page 49
Specimen Set Fiber-B: The panels of Specimen Set Fiber-B were constructed with a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length and structural fiber reinforcement in the grout. Compared with Specimen Set 3A-1, this set showed an average increase of 3.33% in the strength of the lap splice. These specimens had some panel longitudinal splitting of masonry near the ends of the splices at loads close to the maximum for each panel. The structural fiber reinforcement appeared to have a significant effect on the amount of masonry cracking in these units. The post fracture surface of the specimens exhibited a lesser degree of masonry cracking than similarly configured specimens without confining reinforcement. A typical panel failure is shown in Figure 68. The average maximum load of Specimen Set Fiber-B was 63,610 lb (283.0 kN). The failure mode for the panels of this specimen set was longitudinal splitting.
Figure 68Specimen Set Fiber-B Typical Failure Mode
Table 33Specimen Set Fiber-B Summary of Observations Specimen Average Maximum Average Displacement Failure Mode Designation Load, lb (kN) at Maximum Load, in. (mm) Fiber-B1 62,890 (279.7) 0.16 (4.1) Longitudinal Splitting Fiber-B2 65,460 (291.2) 0.13 (3.3) Longitudinal Splitting Fiber-B3 62,470 (277.9) 1.18 (30.0) Longitudinal Splitting Set Average 63,610 (283.0) 0.49 (12.4)
Page 50
5.3 Discussion of Test Observations The data obtained by this research is summarized below. Tables 34 to 38 provide a summary of the research observations recorded during this study. The data is separated by concrete masonry unit size and splice length. In each table, the data is listed by sample set showing the average maximum measured failure load for each panel set, calculated bar stress, and ratios of tested stress in the spliced reinforcement to the nominal yield stress, measured yield stress, and measured ultimate stress. Also provided is the standard deviation of the maximum load for each specimen set. Averages and calculations do not include the specimens noted in the previous section that have been removed from the analysis.
Table 34Summary of Testing Observations 8 in. (203 mm) CMU, 48 in. (1219 mm) splice length Specimen Average Standard Change Average Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Designation Maximum Deviation, from Set Stress at Failure Failure Failure Load, lb lb (kN) 3A-1, % Failure, Stress to Stress to Stress to (kN) psii Nominal Measured Measured (MPa) Yield Yield Ultimate Stress Stress Stress 3A-1 61,550 1,817 (8.1) N/A 77,910 1.30 1.08 0.72 (273.8) (537.2) 3B-1 66,630 727 (3.2) 8.25 84,340 1.41 1.17 0.78 (296.4) (581.5) 3C-1 71,760 2,189 (9.7) 16.59 90,840 1.51 1.26 0.84 (319.2) (626.2) 3D-1 71,570 375 (1.7) 16.28 90,590 1.51 1.26 0.84 (318.4) (624.6) 3E-1 73,850 707 (3.1) 19.98 93,480 1.56 1.30 0.87 (328.5) (644.5) 3F-1 74,520 1,103 (4.9) 21.07 94,330 1.57 1.31 0.87 (331.4) (650.4) 3G-1 77,500 2,596 25.91 98,100 1.64 1.36 0.91 (344.7) (11.5) (676.4) 3I 62,000 1,276 (5.7) 0.73 78,480 1.31 1.09 0.73 (275.8) (541.1) 3J 57,890 1,478 (6.6) -5.95 73,280 1.22 1.02 0.68 (257.5) (505.3) Fiber-B 63,600 1,624 (7.2) 3.33 80,510 1.34 1.12 0.75 (283.0) (555.1) Table 35Summary of Testing Observations 8 in. (203 mm) CMU, 40 in. (1016 mm) splice length Specimen Average Standard Change Average Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Designation Maximum Deviation, from Set Stress at Failure Failure Failure Load, lb lb (kN) 3A-2, % Failure, Stress to Stress to Stress to (kN) psi Nominal Measured Measured (MPa) Yield Yield Ultimate Stress Stress Stress 3A-2 59,080 4,098 N/A 74,780 1.25 1.04 0.69 (262.8) (18.2) (515.6) 3B-2 66,560 148 (0.7) 12.66 84,250 1.40 1.17 0.78 (296.1) (580.9) 3C-2 70,290 3,515 18.97 88,970 1.48 1.23 0.82 (312.7) (15.6) (613.4)
Page 51
Table 36Summary of Testing Observations 8 in. (203 mm) CMU, 32 in. (813 mm) splice length Specimen Average Standard Change Average Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Designation Maximum Deviation, from Set Stress at Failure Failure Failure Load, lb lb (kN) 3A-3, % Failure, Stress to Stress to Stress to (kN) psi Nominal Measured Measured (MPa) Yield Yield Ultimate Stress Stress Stress 3A-3 50,170 2,118 (9.4) N/A 63,510 1.06 0.88 0.59 (223.2) (437.9) 3B-3 54,770 2,835 9.17 69,330 1.16 0.96 0.64 (243.6) (12.6) (478.0) 3C-3 56,970 3,599 13.53 72,100 1.20 1.00 0.67 (253.4) (16.0) (497.1) Table 37Summary of Testing Observations 8 in. (203 mm) CMU, 24 in. (610 mm) splice length Specimen Average Standard Change Average Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Designation Maximum Deviation, from Set Stress at Failure Failure Failure Load, lb lb (kN) 3A-4, % Failure, Stress to Stress to Stress to (kN) psi Nominal Measured Measured (MPa) Yield Yield Ultimate Stress Stress Stress 3A-4 32,590 9,813 N/A 41,250 0.69 0.57 0.38 (145.0) (43.7) (284.4) 3B-4 44,220 3,121 35.69 55,970 0.93 0.78 0.52 (196.7) (13.9) (385.9) 3C-4 46,500 4,126 42.68 58,860 0.98 0.82 0.55 (206.8) (18.4) (405.8) 3D-2 43,210 1,790 (8.0) 32.59 54,700 0.91 0.76 0.51 (192.2) (377.2) 3E-2 47,040 2,287 44.34 59,540 0.99 0.83 0.55 (209.2) (10.2) (410.5) 3F-2 45,270 2,902 38.91 57,300 0.96 0.80 0.53 (201.4) (12.9) (395.1) 3G-2 55,180 4,123 69.32 69,850 1.16 0.97 0.65 (245.5) (18.3) (481.6) Fiber-A 37,320 1,565 (7.0) 14.51 47,240 0.79 0.66 0.44 (166.0) (325.7) Table 38Summary of Testing Observations 12 in. (305 mm) CMU, 40 in. (1016 mm) lap length Specimen Average Standard Change Average Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Designation Maximum Deviation, from Set Stress at Failure Failure Failure Load, lb lb (kN) 3H-1, % Failure, Stress to Stress to Stress to (kN) psi Nominal Measured Measured (MPa) Yield Yield Ultimate Stress Stress Stress 3H-1 64,940 5,347 N/A 82,200 1.37 1.14 0.76 (288.9) (23.8) (566.8) 3H-2 71,850 731 (3.3) 10.64 90,950 1.52 1.26 0.84 (319.6) (627.1) 3H-3 68,170 2,502 4.97 86,290 1.44 1.20 0.80 (303.2) (11.1) (595.0) 3H-4 66,450 1,273 (5.7) 2.33 84,110 1.40 1.17 0.78 (295.6) (579.9)
Page 52
Figure 69 shows the average failure stress as a function of the area of confining steel for Specimen Sets 3A through 3G.
120000
100000
Average Failure Stress
80000
60000
40000
20000
48 inch splice length 40 inch splice length 32 inch splice length 24 inch splice length
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Area of Confining Steel
Figure 69Average Failure Stress vs. Area of Confining Steel
Evident in Figure 69 is that splice strength decreases as the splice length decreases. Splices of 48 inch (1219 mm) and 40 inch (1016 mm) were similar, but the stress at failure was much lower for splices of 32 inch (813 mm) and 24 inch (610 mm). This shows that while confining reinforcement has a beneficial effect on splice strength, there is a minimum lap length necessary to develop sufficient strength. The data for Specimen Sets 3H-1, 3H-2, 3H-3, and 3H-4 are not included in Figure 69. These specimens were constructed with 12 inch (305 mm) concrete masonry units. These units show that the placement of the confining reinforcement relative to the spliced reinforcement has a significant effect on splice strength. Specimen Set 3H-2, with an offset splice and one near cover No. 4 (M#13 bar) had the largest increase from the set without confining reinforcement. Sets 3H-3 and 3H-4 had a far cover No 4 (M#13) bar and an offset No. 4 (M#13) bar, respectively. This shows that lateral reinforcement placed a significant distance away from of the splice has a diminishing effect in controlling the cracking in the panels. The near cover confining reinforcement, however, has a significant effect on controlling crack propagation, thereby causing an increase on splice strength.
Page 53
The primary purpose of Specimen Sets 3H-1 through 3H-4 was to quantify whether the relative placement of the horizontal confining reinforcement influenced the strength or performance of the lap splice. As reported in the first two phases of confined splice research (References 1 and 2), changing the placement of the horizontal reinforcement transversely relative to the lap splice as well as longitudinally along the length of the lap affected both the lap strength and performance. It was also noted in these earlier investigations that providing horizontal confinement on both sides of the lap splice increased the splice strength compared to similar specimens with only one horizontal reinforcing bar, but the increase was not linearly proportional to the area of confining reinforcement. The nominally small difference in the performance of the hoop-confined specimens relative to the unconfined specimens is attributed to the insufficient projection of the confinement perpendicular to the lap length, which allows the longitudinal split to bypass the confinement without engaging it. The continuous nature of the bond beam transverse reinforcement did not present such performance. Specimen Set 3I had a single No. 3 (M#10) deformed hoop in every course that enclosed the lap splice. These hoops had little effect on splice strength. Specimen Set 3J had bar positioners in every course. These positioners slightly decreased the strength of the splice. Also, both these confinement options had little effect on the post fracture surface of the masonry. While the confinement bars in the other sets helped to contain masonry cracking, the hoops and bar positioners did not appear to have a major effect in reducing the masonry cracking. Specimen Sets Fiber-A and Fiber-B had structural fiber reinforcement in the grout. These fibers had little effect on the lap strength for Set Fiber-B, the set with a 48 inch (1219 mm) lap length. These specimens are not included in Figure 69. Set Fiber-A showed a larger percentage increase in strength. The fibers did have a positive effect on the post fracture surface of the masonry. The fibers seem to have a positive effect on controlling crack propagation, and kept the specimens from breaking into pieces, a common occurrence with the sets without confinement. It is postulated that a higher dosage of the structural fibers would increase the strength of the lap by inhibiting the growth and propagation of tensile splitting cracks.
6.0DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Lap Splice Criteria for Structural Masonry Design requirements of the MSJC Code (Ref. 3) for lap spliced reinforcement are shown in Equation 1. This requirement applies to masonry designed by either the allowable stress or strength design provisions under the 2005 Code. The minimum length of lap for reinforcing bars in tension or compression is not to be less than 12 in. (305 mm). 2 0.13db f y (Eqn. 1) ld = K fm
Page 54
The metric form of Equation 1 is: ld = 1.5db 2 f y K fm
where: ld = lap length of straight reinforcement, in. (mm) db = nominal diameter of reinforcement, in. (mm) fy = specified yield strength of reinforcement, psi (MPa) fm = specified compressive strength of masonry, psi (MPa) K = the least of the masonry cover, the clear spacing between adjacent reinforcement, or five times db, in. (mm) = reinforcement size factor: taken equal to 1.0 for No. 3 (M#10) through No. 5 (M#16) bars; 1.3 for No. 6 (M#19) through No. 7 (M#22) bars; and 1.5 for No. 8 (M#25) through No. 11 (M#36) bars. Equation 1 is calibrated to a masonry splitting limit state based upon developing no less than 125 percent of the nominal yield strength of the spliced reinforcement, with a prescriptive minimum lap length and maximum cover to prevent bond failure and pullout of the reinforcement. A splice requirement of 125 percent of the nominal yield strength is used due to historical precedent, and to match the requirements for welded or mechanical splices (See Ref. 3). For a more detailed discussion of the MSJC Code requirements and historical lap splice requirements, see Evaluation of Minimum Reinforcing Bar Splice Criteria for Hollow Clay Brick and Hollow Concrete Block Masonry (Ref. 6).
6.2 Regression Model for Splice Length
Based upon the compilation of several independent research results investigating the performance of lap splices in masonry (Ref 6), multiple linear regression analyses were conducted on splice length variables and a regression equation was developed for predicted strength. This equation is shown in Equation 2. Predicted Strength = -17624.0 + 305.3ls + 25204.3db2 + 321.7(fmt)1/2 + 3331K (Eqn. 2) where: ls = lap length of straight reinforcement, in. (mm) db = nominal diameter of reinforcement, in. (mm) fmt = tested compressive strength of masonry, psi (MPa) K = the least of the masonry cover, the clear spacing between adjacent reinforcement, or five times db, in. (mm) By replacing the predicted tensile strength of the splice with 1.25(Asfy), which imposes the same requirements as mechanical and welded splices (Ref. 3), and solving for the resulting splice length produces Equation 3.
Page 55
ld =
3331.7 K 1.25 As f y + 17624.0 25204.3db 321.7 f m

2
305.3
(Eqn. 3)
Equation 3 was reduced to a best fit equation as shown in Equation 1. For a more detailed discussion on derivation of current code equations and the regression analysis used, see Reference 6.
6.3 Update to Regression Equation
For the analysis below, only specimens that were constructed with 8 inch (203 mm) nominal width concrete masonry units were considered. In addition, only those specimens that failed due to longitudinal splitting were used in the data analysis. At 125 percent of the nominal yield strength of the reinforcement, longitudinal splitting is expected as the mode of failure. Specimens referenced in Section 5 that were culled for specified reasons are not included in the following analysis. Equation 2 does not take into account the additional data acquired during the NCMA research on splice confinement. The data from the unconfined specimens from phases I, II, and, III of the confined splice investigations, were added to the data used previously to update the regression equation. This new regression equation is shown in Equation 4. Predicted Strength = -18134 + 312ls + 24969.2db2 + 330(fmt)1/2 + 3391K (Eqn. 4) Using Equation 4 to plot predicted lap strength versus measured lap strength is shown in Figure 70. This plot shows all unconfined specimens from previous research (Ref. 1, 2, and 6) as well as the data from this project. This plot shows that Equation 4 provides a relatively accurate predictor of splice strength (R2 = 0.91).
100,000 90,000 80,000
Measured Strength (lb)
70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
Predicted Strength (lb)
Figure 70Predicted Strength vs. Actual Strength using Equation 4.
Page 56
6.4 Application of Confining Reinforcement to Lap Splice Requirements
Equation 4 does not account for any confining reinforcement used in conjunction with lap splices. As shown in previous (Ref 1, 2) and this project, lateral reinforcement used with lap splices can provide additional strength and have the ability to reduce lap lengths while still providing an acceptable level of performance. To apply the benefits of confinement reinforcement to masonry design, equations must be developed to take into account the lateral reinforcement used. The current variables considered when determining tensile strength of a lap splice are lap length, size of reinforcing bars, specified yield strength of the reinforcement, specified compressive strength of masonry, and cover distance. To determine the effects of confinement on lap splice strength, the variables that affect that strength need to be identified. Equation 5 is the proposed equation for prediction of lap splice tensile strength with horizontal reinforcement. Predicted Strength = -18134 + 312ls + 24969db2 + 330(fmt)1/2 + 3391K + Astfy (Eqn. 5) where: Ast = area of transverse confining steel, in2 (mm2) fy = yield strength of transverse confining reinforcement, psi (MPa)
Equation 5 adds the product of the area of confining steel (Ast) and the nominal yield strength of the reinforcement (fy) to the regression equation. For an unconfined lap splice, Ast is zero, and the additional argument drops out. For a confined splice, Equation 5 will increase the predicted strength based on the area of the horizontal steel. Figure 71 shows the plot of predicted versus actual strength for the specimens with confining reinforcement using Equation 5.
90,000 80,000 Actual Strength, (lb) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 Predicted Strength, (lb)
Figure 71Predicted Strength vs. Actual Strength using Equation 5
Page 57
As seen in Figure 71 and Tables 34-37, the contribution of the confining reinforcement is not directly proportional to the area of transverse confining reinforcement and as a result significantly over-predicts the strength of the splice, particularly for larger areas of confining reinforcement. As such, there is a limit on the contribution the confining reinforcement has on the measured strength of a lap splice.
6.5 Determination of Limits for Prediction Equation
Figure 72 shows a plot of area of confining steel versus the ratio of predicted strength determined by Equation 5 to measured lap splice strength. As can be seen graphically, as well as derived mathematically from the test results, when the area of the transverse confining reinforcement exceeds 0.35 in.2 (8.9 mm2), Equation 5 over predicts the lap splice strength. As such, based upon the results available, a design limit on the confining reinforcement of 0.35 in.2 (8.9 mm2) would seem prudent. A physically larger area of confining reinforcement could be provided, but in terms of application to Equation 5, the contribution of the transverse reinforcement to increasing lap splice strength should be appropriately limited.
2.50 Ratio of Predicted to Measured Splice Strength
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
2
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
Area of Confining Steel, (in )
Figure 72Limiting Contribution of Confining Reinforcement
A similar analysis was conducted to determine a lower bound on the minimum lap length permitted for use with Equation 5. Comparing the predicted versus measured lap splice strength for each specimen set, as shown briefly in Table 39, Equation 5 is conservative when the lap length is 36 inch (914 mm) or greater, but over predicts the lap splice strength at lower lap lengths. Given that current U.S. codes stipulate a minimum required lap splice length to preclude possible pullout failures, a similar lower limit on the lap length when incorporating transverse confining reinforcement also seems appropriate.
Page 58
Specimen 3B-2A 3B-2B 3B-2C 3B-3A 3B-3B 3B-3C
Table 39Specimen Sets 3B-2 and 3B-3 with Ratio of Strength Lap Length, Ratio of Predicted Strength to Actual Strength inch (mm) 40 (1016) .9215 40 (1016) .9367 40 (1016) .9184 32 (813) 1.1308 32 (813) 1.0725 32 (813) 1.0195
6.6 Final version of Prediction Equation
With the addition of the constraints established above, the lap splice tensile strength equation has the following form: Predicted Strength = -18134 + 312ls + 24969db2 + 330(fmt)1/2 + 3391K + Astfy (Eqn. 6) where: Ast 0.35 inch2 (8.9 mm2) and ls 36 inch (914 mm) Also, as discussed in Phase II of this research (Ref. 2) the horizontal confining steel must be placed within 8 in. (203 mm) of the end of the splice. Figure 73 shows the plot of predicted strength using Equation 6 for all phases of confinement research that meet the conditions of Equation 6. This figure shows that all the data, even those with confinement, are accurately predicted by Equation 6. As previously reported (Ref. 6), Equation 3 can be solved for the lap splice length and the resulting expression used in design application, or a simpler equation fitted to the resulting regression equation.
Page 59
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000 Measured Strength, (lb)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000 Specimens without Confinement Specimens With Confinement 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Predicted Strength, (lb)
10,000
Figure 73Predicted Splice Strength using Equation 6 vs. Measured Splice Strength
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The use of continuous confining lateral reinforcement has a positive effect on the strength of lap splices when tested in direct tension. Discontinuous confinement, such as hoops and bar positioners, does not appear to have a significant influence on the performance or strength of lap splices in masonry. The placement of the confining reinforcement can have an effect on the strength and performance of the lap splice. Fiber reinforced grout did not have a significant effect on the strength of a lap splice, but the fiber reinforced grout did have a positive effect on the post fracture surface of the masonry. A higher dosage of the fibers may increase the splice strength further. Based on data presented in this report and in previous research, a new prediction equation for lap splice strength has been derived (Equation 6) as follows:
Predicted Strength = -18134 + 312ls + 24969db2 + 330(fmt)1/2 + 3391K + Astfy (Eqn. 6) where: Ast 0.35 inch2 (8.9 mm2) and ls 36 inch (914 mm)
Page 60
8.0 REFERENCES
1. Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance, Research Report MR 26, National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA, 2004. 2. Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase II, Research Report MR 27, National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA, 2004. 3. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402), Reported by the Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Boulder, CO, 2005. 4. 2004 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volumes 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 4.07. 4a. ASTM C 140, Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units 4b. ASTM C 90, Specification for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units 4c. ASTM C 270, Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry 4d. ASTM C 91, Specification for Masonry Cement 4e. ASTM C 144, Specification for Aggregate in Masonry Mortar 4f. ASTM C 780, Test Method for Preconstruction and Construction Evaluation of Mortars for Plain and Reinforced Unit Masonry 4g. ASTM C 1019, Test Method for Sampling and Testing Grout 4h. ASTM C 476, Specification for Grout for Masonry 4i. ASTM C 1314, Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms 4j. ASTM A 370, Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products 4k. ASTM A 615, Specification for Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement 5. Specification for Masonry Structures (ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602), Reported by the Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Boulder, CO, 2005. 6. Evaluation of Minimum Reinforcing Bar Splice Criteria for Hollow Clay Brick and Hollow Concrete Block Masonry, Research Report MR 12, National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA, 1999.
Page 61
APPENDIX APPENDIX A.1 Summary of Test Results . A1.1 Specimen Set 3A-1 ... A1.2 Specimen Set 3A-2 ... A1.3 Specimen Set 3A-3 ... A1.4 Specimen Set 3A-4 ........... A1.5 Specimen Set 3B-1 ... A1.6 Specimen Set 3B-2 ... A1.7 Specimen Set 3B-3 ... A1.8 Specimen Set 3B-4 ... A1.9 Specimen Set 3C-1 ... A1.10 Specimen Set 3C-2 . A1.11 Specimen Set 3C-3 . A1.12 Specimen Set 3C-4 . A1.13 Specimen Set 3D-1 . A1.14 Specimen Set 3D-2 . A1.15 Specimen Set 3E-1 . A1.16 Specimen Set 3E-2 . A1.17 Specimen Set 3F-1 . A1.18 Specimen Set 3F-2 . A1.19 Specimen Set 3G-1 . A1.20 Specimen Set 3G-2 . A1.21 Specimen Set 3H-1 . A1.22 Specimen Set 3H-2 . A1.23 Specimen Set 3H-3 . A1.24 Specimen Set 3H-4 . A1.25 Specimen Set 3I .. A1.26 Specimen Set 3J . A1.27 Specimen Set Fiber-A .... A1.28 Specimen Set Fiber-B .... APPENDIX A.2 Masonry Unit Test Results . APPENDIX A.3 Mortar Test Results APPENDIX A.4 Grout Test Results APPENDIX A.5 Prism Test Results APPENDIX A.6 Reinforcing Steel Test Results . 63 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 149 151 154 157
Page 62
APPENDIX A.1 Summary of Test Results

The following sections summarize the observations recorded during this research investigation. For each test specimen a generalized description of performance is provided along with a post-failure photograph and the load-displacement curve.
A.1.1 Specimen Set 3A-1 Specimen 3A-1A: Average failure load 62,830 lbs (279.5 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.1 Photo of Specimen 3A-1A After Testing

Specimen 3A-1A
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 63,010 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 62,650 lb Average = 62,830 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.19 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.19 in. Average = 0.19 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting 40000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.2 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3A-1A
Page 63
Specimen 3A-1B:
Average failure load 60,270 lbs (268.1 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.3 Photo of Specimen 3A-1B After Testing

Specimen 3A-1B
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.4 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3A-1B
Page 64
Specimen 3A-1C:
Average failure load 44,630 lbs (198.5 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, little cracking
Figure A.5 Photo of Specimen 3A-1C After Testing

Specimen 3A-1C
45000 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 44,870 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 44,390 lb Average = 44,630 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.00 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.13 in. Average = 0.07 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.6 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3A-1C
Page 65
A.1.2 Specimen Set 3A-2 Specimen 3A-2A: Average failure load 54,350 lbs (241.8 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Specimen 3A-2A
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 66
Specimen 3A-2B:

Specimen 3A-2B
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 67
Specimen 3A-2C:
Average failure load 61,640 lbs (274.2 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, little cracking

Specimen 3A-2C
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 68
A.1.3 Specimen Set 3A-3 Specimen 3A-3A: Average failure load 52,090 lbs (231.7 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting

Specimen 3A-3A
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 53,050 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 51,120 lb Average = 52,090 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.02 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.02 in. Average = 0.02 in. 40000 Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 69
Specimen 3A-3B:
Average failure load 50,530 lbs (224.8 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting

Specimen 3A-3B
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 70
Specimen 3A-3C:

Specimen 3A-3C
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 71
A.1.4 Specimen Set 3A-4 Specimen 3A-4A: Average failure load 21,520 lbs (95.7 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting

Specimen 3A-4A
25000 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 21,770 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 21,260 lb Average = 21,520 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.07 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.01 in. Average = 0.04 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting 15000
20000
Load (lb)
10000 5000 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 72
Specimen 3A-4B:

Specimen 3A-4B
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 73
Specimen 3A-4C:
Specimen 3A-4C
35000
30000
Load (lb)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 74
A.1.5 Specimen Set 3B-1 Specimen 3B-1A: Average failure load 67,430 lbs (299.9 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.25 Photo of Specimen 3B-1A After Testing

Specimen 3B-1A
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.26 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3B-1A
Page 75
Specimen 3B-1B:
Figure A.27 Photo of Specimen 3B-1B After Testing

Specimen 3B-1B
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.28 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3B-1B
Page 76
Specimen 3B-1C:
Figure A.29 Photo of Specimen 3B-1C After Testing

Specimen 3B-1C
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.30 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3B-1C
Page 77

Specimen 3B-2A
70000 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 65,820lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 67,080 lb Average = 66,450 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.13 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.05 in. Average = 0.09 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 78
Specimen 3B-2B:
Average failure load 49,740 lbs (221.3 kN) Failure description bar pullout, then longitudinal splitting
Specimen 3B-2B
70000 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 34,100 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 65,370 lb Average = 49,740 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.07 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.10 in. Average = 0.06 in. Failure Mode: Bar Pullout
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 79
Specimen 3B-2C:

Specimen 3B-2C
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 80

Specimen 3B-3A
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 53,510 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 50,370 lb Average = 51,940 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.03 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.63 in. Average = 0..33 in. 40000 Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 81
Specimen 3B-3B:
Average failure load 54,760 lbs (243.6 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, some cracking

Specimen 3B-3B
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 82
Specimen 3B-3C:
Average failure load 57,610 lbs (256.3 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, some cracking
Specimen 3B-3C
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 83
A.1.8 Specimen Set 3B-4 Specimen 3B-4A: Average failure load 41,000 lbs (182.4 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting

Specimen 3B-4A
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 84
Specimen 3B-4B:

Specimen 3B-4B
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 85
Specimen 3B-4C:

Specimen 3B-4C
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 86
A.1.9 Specimen Set 3C-1 Specimen 3C-1A: Average failure load 73,790 lbs (328.2 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.49 Photo of Specimen 3C-1A After Testing

Specimen 3C-1A
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 74,200 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 73,370 lb Average = 73,790 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.28 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.03 in. Average = 0.16 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.50 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3C-1A
Page 87
Specimen 3C-1B:
Figure A.51 Photo of Specimen 3C-1B After Testing

Specimen 3C-1B
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.52 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3C-1B
Page 88
Specimen 3C-1C:
Figure A.53 Photo of Specimen 3C-1C After Testing
Specimen 3C-1C
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.54 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3C-1C
Page 89
A.1.10 Specimen Set 3C-2 Specimen 3C-2A: Average failure load 66,560 lbs (296.1 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking

Specimen 3C-2A
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 90
Specimen 3C-2B:

Specimen 3C-2B
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 70,070 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 71,480 lb Average = 70,780 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.66 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.14in. Average = 0.40 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 91
Specimen 3C-2C:

Specimen 3C-2C
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 92
A.1.11 Specimen Set 3C-3 Specimen 3C-3A: Average failure load 59,770 lbs (265.9 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting
Specimen 3C-3A
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 62,480 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 57,060 lb Average = 59,770 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.08 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.25 in. Average = 0.17 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal splitting 40000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 93
Specimen 3C-3B:

Specimen 3C-3B
60000 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 57,220 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 59,230 lb Average = 58,230 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.07 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.50 in. Average = 0.29 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal splitting
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 94
Specimen 3C-3C:

Specimen 3C-3C
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 53,020 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 52,790 lb Average = 52,910 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.10 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.27 in. Average = 0.19 in. 40000 Failure Mode: Longitudinal splitting
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 95
A.1.12 Specimen Set 3C-4 Specimen 3C-4A: Average failure load 42,160 lbs (187.5 kN) Failure description longitudinal splitting

Specimen 3C-4A
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 96
Specimen 3C-4B:

Specimen 3C-4B
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 48,940 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 51,800 lb Average = 50,370 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.07 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.01 in. Average = 0.04 in. 40000 Failure Mode: Longitudinal splitting
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 97
Specimen 3C-4C:

Specimen 3C-4C
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Page 98
A.1.13 Specimen Set 3D-1 Specimen 3D-1A: Average failure load Not available Failure description Bar fracture in threads
Figure A.73 Photo of Specimen 3D-1A After Testing
NOTE: No load or displacement data available for Specimen 3D-1A due to equipment problems.
Page 99
Specimen 3D-1B:
Average failure load 71,300 lbs (317.2 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.74 Photo of Specimen 3D-1B After Testing
Specimen 3D-1B
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 69,730 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 72,870 lb Average = 71,300 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.02 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.13 in. Average = 0.08 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal splitting
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.75 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3D-1B
Page 100
Specimen 3D-1C:
Figure A.76 Photo of Specimen 3D-1C After Testing

Specimen 3D-1C
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.77 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3D-1C
Page 101
A.1.14 Specimen Set 3D-2 Specimen 3D-2A: Average failure load 44,650 lbs (198.6 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting
Figure A.78 Photo of Specimen 3D-2A After Testing

Specimen 3D-2A
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.79 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3D-2A
Page 102
Specimen 3D-2B:
Average failure load 41,200 lbs (183.3 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting
Figure A.80 Photo of Specimen 3D-2B After Testing

Specimen 3D-2B
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.81 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3D-2B
Page 103
Specimen 3D-2C:
Figure A.82 Photo of Specimen 3D-2C After Testing

Specimen 3D-2C
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.83 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3D-2C
Page 104
A.1.15 Specimen Set 3E-1 Specimen 3E-1A: Average failure load 74,350 lbs (330.7 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, some cracking
Figure A.84 Photo of Specimen 3E-1A After Testing

Specimen 3E-1A
70000
60000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.85 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3E-1A
Page 105
Specimen 3E-1B:
Figure A.86 Photo of Specimen 3E-1B After Testing
Specimen 3E-1B
70000
60000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.87 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3E-1B
Page 106
Specimen 3E-1C:
Average failure load 67,780 lbs (301.5 kN) Failure description Rebar fracture in threads
Figure A.88 Photo of Specimen 3E-1C After Testing

Specimen 3E-1C
70000 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 67,780 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 67,780 lb Average = 67,780 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.01 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.11 in. Average = 0.06 in. Failure Mode: Rebar fracture (thread)
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.89 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3E-1C
Page 107
A.1.16 Specimen Set 3E-2 Specimen 3E-2A: Average failure load 48,790 lbs (217.0 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting
Figure A.90 Photo of Specimen 3E-2A After Testing

Specimen 3E-2A
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.91 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3E-2A
Page 108
Specimen 3E-2B:
Figure A.92 Photo of Specimen 3E-2B After Testing

Specimen 3E-2B
50000 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 49,090 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 46,650 lb Average = 47,870 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.01 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.03 in. Average = 0.02 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal spliting
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.93 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3E-2B
Page 109
Specimen 3E-2C:
Figure A.94 Photo of Specimen 3E-2C After Testing

Specimen 3E-2C
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.95 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3E-2C
Page 110
A.1.17 Specimen Set 3F-1 Specimen 3F-1A: Average failure load 75,300 lbs (335.0 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.96 Photo of Specimen 3F-1A After Testing

Specimen 3F-1A
70000
60000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.97 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3F-1A
Page 111
Specimen 3F-1B:
Average failure load 70,290 lbs (312.7 kN) Failure description Bar fracture in threads
Figure A.98 Photo of Specimen 3F-1B After Testing

Specimen 3F-1B
Splice 1 Maximum Load = 69,830 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 70,750 lb Average = 70,290 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.29 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.20 in. Average = 0.25 in. Failure Mode: Bar fracture in threads
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.99 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3F-1B
Page 112
Specimen 3F-1C:
Average failure load 73,740 lbs (328.0 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, some cracking
Figure A.100 Photo of Specimen 3F-1C After Testing

Specimen 3F-1C
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.101 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3F-1C
Page 113
A.1.18 Specimen Set 3F-2 Specimen 3F-2A: Average failure load 42,230 lbs (187.8 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting
Figure A.102 Photo of Specimen 3F-2A After Testing

Specimen 3F-2A
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.103 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3F-2A
Page 114
Specimen 3F-2B:
Figure A.104 Photo of Specimen 3F-2B After Testing

Specimen 3F-2B
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.105 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3F-2B
Page 115
Specimen 3F-2C:
Figure A.106 Photo of Specimen 3F-2C After Testing

Specimen 3F-2C
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.107 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3F-2C
Page 116
A.1.19 Specimen Set 3G-1 Specimen 3G-1A: Average failure load 76,140 lbs (338.7 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.108 Photo of Specimen 3G-1A After Testing

Specimen 3G-1A
70000
60000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.109 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3G-1A
Page 117
Specimen 3G-1B:
Figure A.110 Photo of Specimen 3G-1B After Testing

Specimen 3G-1B
80000
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.111 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3G-1B
Page 118
Specimen 3G-1C:
Figure A.112 Photo of Specimen 3G-1C After Testing

Specimen 3G-1C
70000
60000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.113 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3G-1C
Page 119
A.1.20 Specimen Set 3G-2 Specimen 3G-2A: Average failure load 57,030 lbs (253.7 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, some cracking
Figure A.114 Photo of Specimen 3G-2A After Testing

Specimen 3G-2A
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.115 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3G-2A
Page 120
Specimen 3G-2B:
Figure A.116 Photo of Specimen 3G-2B After Testing

Specimen 3G-2B
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.117 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3G-2B
Page 121
Specimen 3G-2C:
Figure A.118 Photo of Specimen 3G-2C After Testing

Specimen 3G-2C
60000.00 Splice 1 Maximum Load = 59,380 lb Splice 2 Maximum Load = 56,730 lb Average = 58,060 lb Displacement 1 at Max Load = 0.03 in. Displacement 2 at Max Load = 0.03 in. Average = 0.03 in. Failure Mode: Longitudinal Splitting
50000.00
40000.00
Load (lb)
30000.00
20000.00
10000.00
0.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.119 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3G-2C
Page 122
A.1.21 Specimen Set 3H-1 Specimen 3H-1A: Average failure load 63,480 lbs (282.4 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.120 Photo of Specimen 3H-1A After Testing

Specimen 3H-1A
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.121 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3H-1A
Page 123
Specimen 3H-1B:
Figure A.122 Photo of Specimen 3H-1B After Testing

Specimen 3H-1B
70000
60000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.123 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3H-1B
Page 124
Specimen 3H-1C:
Figure A.124 Photo of Specimen 3H-1C After Testing

Specimen 3H-1C
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.125 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3H-1C
Page 125

Specimen 3H-2A
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 126
Specimen 3H-2B:

Specimen 3H-2B
70000.00
60000.00
50000.00
Load (lb)
40000.00
30000.00
20000.00
10000.00
0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 127
Specimen 3H-2C:

Specimen 3H-2C
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 128

Specimen 3H-3A
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 129
Specimen 3H-3B:

Specimen 3H-3B
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 130
Specimen 3H-3C:

Specimen 3H-3C
70000
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 131

Specimen 3H-4A
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 132
Specimen 3H-4B:

Specimen 3H-4B
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 133
Specimen 3H-4C:

Specimen 3H-4C
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 134
A.1.25 Specimen Set 3I Specimen 3I-A: Average failure load 62,760 lbs (279.2 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.144 Photo of Specimen 3I-A After Testing

Specimen 3I-A
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.145 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3I-A
Page 135
Specimen 3I-B
Figure A.146 Photo of Specimen 3I-B After Testing

Specimen 3I-B
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.147 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3I-B
Page 136
Specimen 3I-C:
Figure A.148 Photo of Specimen 3I-C After Testing
Specimen 3I-C
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.149 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3I-C
Page 137
A.1.26 Specimen Set 3J Specimen 3J-A: Average failure load 57,290 lbs (254.8 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.150 Photo of Specimen 3J-A After Testing

Specimen 3J-A
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.151 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3J-A
Page 138
Specimen 3J-B:
Figure A.152 Photo of Specimen 3J-B After Testing

Specimen 3J-B
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.153 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3J-B
Page 139
Specimen 3J-C:
Figure A.154 Photo of Specimen 3J-C After Testing

Specimen 3J-C
50000
40000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.155 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen 3J-C
Page 140
A.1.27 Specimen Set Fiber-A Specimen Fiber-A1: Average failure load 38,380 lbs (107.7 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, some cracking
Figure A.156 Photo of Specimen Fiber-A1 After Testing

Specimen Fiber-A1
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.157 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen Fiber-A1
Page 141
Specimen Fiber-A2:

Specimen Fiber-A2
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 142
Specimen Fiber-A3:

Specimen Fiber-A3
40000
35000
30000
Load (lb)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 143
A.1.28 Specimen Set Fiber-B Specimen Fiber-B1: Average failure load 62,890 lbs (279.7 kN) Failure description Longitudinal splitting, extensive cracking
Figure A.162 Photo of Specimen Fiber-B1 After Testing

Specimen Fiber-B1
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Figure A.163 Load-Displacement Plot for Specimen Fiber-B1
Page 144
Specimen Fiber-B2:

Specimen Fiber-B2
60000
50000
Load (lb)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 145
Specimen Fiber-B3:

Specimen Fiber-B3
60000
50000
Load (lb)
30000
20000
10000
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Displacement (in.)
Page 146
APPENDIX A.2 Masonry Unit Test Results
Page 147
Page 148
APPENDIX A.3 Mortar Test Results
Page 149
Page 150
APPENDIX A.4 Grout Test Results
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
APPENDIX A.5 Prism Test Results
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
APPENDIX A.6 Reinforcing Steel Test Results
Page 157

MR32

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MR32

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Testing Conducted by Project No. 06-436 October 29, 2007 MR 32

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Angel Abelleira Donald D. Littler

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

EFFECTS OF CONFINEMENT REINFORCEMENT ON BAR SPLICE PERFORMANCE PHASE III 1.0INTRODUCTION

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

8 inch (203 mm)

8 inch (203 mm)

12 inch (305 mm)

8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm) 8 inch (203 mm)

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

HighStrength Rod (typ)

Transverse Reinforcement Splice Length Test Frame

Figure 1Typical Test Configuration

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

3.0 TEST SPECIMENS

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

48 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

40 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell 3.8125 in.

No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell 3.8125 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

32 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

24 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

48 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

32 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

24 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

3.5625 in. No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

40 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

14 in. 48 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell 3.0625 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

32 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

24 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

Effects of Confinement Reinforcement on Bar Splice Performance Phase III

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

14 in. 48 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

24 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

3.4375 in. No. 8 Vertical Spliced Reinforcement Centered in Cell

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

39.625 in. 27.4688 in. 11.4688 in.

14 in. 48 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)

24 in. Specimen Height and Lap Length (Actual)