Skip to main content
Log in

Experimental investigation on the deformation capacity of lap splices under cyclic loading

  • S.I.: Nonlinear Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Correct detailing and positioning of lap splices is essential in order to prevent premature failure of reinforced concrete structural members. Especially before the introduction of capacity design guidelines, lap splices were often placed in member regions that undergo inelastic deformations under earthquake loading. When assessing the seismic performance of such members, not only the lap splice strength, which was assessed in previous studies, but also information on the deformation capacity of lap splices is required. This paper analyses the results of a recently concluded experimental programme on spliced RC wall boundary elements tested under uniaxial tension–compression cyclic loading. The study aimed at investigating the influence of lap splice length, confining reinforcement and loading history on the deformation capacity of lap splices. The latter is defined as the average strain, at the onset of splice failure, ascribed to deformations originating from the lap splice zone. Analysis of the test results showed that the deformation capacity of lap splices: (1) increases with lap splice length; (2) increases with confining reinforcement but the effectiveness of the confining reinforcement is dependent on the lap splice length; (3) decreases with larger imposed compression levels; (4) is larger for bottom-casted with respect to top-casted lap splices. Finally, an empirical model is proposed to estimate the strain capacity of lap splices, which provides a good fit with the experimental results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaleti S, Brueggen BL, Johnson B, French CE, Sritharan S (2013) Cyclic response of reinforced concrete walls with different anchorage details: experimental investigation. J Struct Eng 139(July):1181–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aboutaha RS, Engelhardt MU, Jirsa JO, Kreger MF (1996) Retrofit of concrete columns with inadequate lap splices by the use of rectangular steel jackets. Earthq Spectra 12:693–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida J, Prodan O, Rosso A, Beyer K (2017a) Tests on thin reinforced concrete walls subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane cyclic loading. Earthq Spectra 33(1):323–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida JP, Prodan O, Tarquini D, Beyer K (2017b) Influence of lap-splices on the cyclic inelastic response of reinforced concrete walls. I: Database assembly, recent experimental data, and findings for model development. J Struct Eng. 143(12)

  • Aristizabal-Ochoa JD (1983) Earthquake resistant tensile lap splices. J Struct Eng 109(4):843–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askar HS (2016) An experimental investigation on contact compression lap splice in circular columns. HBRC J 12(2):137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizinamini A, Chisala M, Ghosh SK (1995) Tension development length of reinforcing bars embedded in high-strength concrete. Eng Struct 17(7):512–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bimschas M (2010) Displacement based seismic assessment of existing bridges in regions of moderate seismicity. Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zurich (18849)

  • Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2010) Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 11(2):93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J (1985) Strength of compression splices: a reevaluation of test data. ACI J 82(4):510–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J, Arthur PD (1979) Strength of lapped splices in reinforced concrete columns. ACI J Proc 76(2):277–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai YH, Priestley MJN, Seible F (1991) Seismic retrofit of circular bridge columns for enhanced flexural performance. ACI Struct J 88(88):572–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin SJ (1958) Spacing of spliced bars in beams. ACI J Proc 54(2):689–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn J, Ferguson PM, Thompson JN (1955) Lapped splices in reinforced concrete beams. ACI J 52(10):201–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi C, Hadje-Ghaffari H, Darwin D, Mccabe SL (1992) Bond of epoxy-coated reinforcement: bar parameters. ACI Mater J 88(2):207–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun S, Lee S, Oh B (2010) Compression lap splice in unconfined concrete of 40 and 60 MPa (5800 and 8700 psi) compressive strengths. ACI J Proc 107(2):170–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun S, Lee S, Oh B (2011) Compression splices in high-strength concrete of 100 MPa (14, 500 psi) and less. ACI Struct J 108(6):715–724

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary DB, Ramirez JA (1992) Bond strength of epoxy-coated reinforcement. ACI Mater J 88(2):146–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin D, Tholen ML, Idun EK, Zuo J (1996) Splice strength of high relative rib area reinforcing bars. ACI Struct J 93:95–107

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVries RA, Moehle JP, Hester W (1991) Lap splice of plain and epoxy-coated reinforcements: an experimental study considering concrete strength, casting position, and anti-bleeding additives. Report No. UCB/SEMM-91/02 Structural Engineering Mechanics and Materials, University of California, Berkeley, California, 86

  • El-azab A, Mohamed HM (2014) Effect of tension lap splice on the behavior of high strength concrete (HSC) beams. HBRC J 10(3):287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elnady EMM (2008) Seismic rehabilitation of RC structural walls. Ph.D. Thesis, McMaster University

  • Elsouri AM, Harajli MH (2011) Seismic repair and strengthening of lap splices in RC columns: carbon fiber—reinforced polymer versus steel confinement. J Compos Construct 15(5):721–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EN1998-3 (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Doc CEN/TC250/SC8/N306. European Committee for Standardization

  • Ferguson PM, Breen JE (1965) Lapped splices for high strength reinforcing bars. ACI J Proc 62(9):1063–1068

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson PM, Briceno EA (1969) Tensile lap splices Part I: retaining wall type, varying moment zone. The Texas Highway Department, Research report No. 113-2

  • Ferguson PM, Krishnaswamy CN (1971) Tensile lap splices, Part II: Design recommendations for retaining wall, Splices and large bar splices. The Texas Highway Department in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Report 113-2 Cont., Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Public Roads

  • Gergely P, White R (1980) Seismic design of lapped splices in reinforced concrete. In: Proceedings of the 7th world conference on earthquake engineering, Istanbul, vol 4, pp 281–288

  • Goksu C, Yilmaz H, Chowdhury SR, Orakcal K, Ilki A (2014) The effect of lap splice length on the cyclic lateral load behavior of RC members with low-strength concrete and plain bars. Adv Struct Eng 17:639–658. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.17.5.639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamad BS, Itani MS (1999) Bond strength of reinforcement in high-performance concrete : the role of silica fume, casting position, and superplasticizer dosage. ACI Mater J 95(5):499–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamad BS, Machaka MF (1999) Effect of transverse reinforcement on bond strength of reinforcing bars in silica fume concrete. Mater Struct 32:468–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamad BS, Mansour M (1997) Bond strength of noncontact tension lap splices. ACI Struct J 93(3):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamad BS, Harajli MH, Jumaa G (2001) Effect of fiber reinforcement on bond strength of tension lap splices in high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J 98(5):638–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannewald P (2013) Seismic behavior of poorly detailed RC bridge piers. Ph.D. Thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

  • Hannewald P, Bimschas M, Dazio A (2013) Quasi-static cyclic tests on RC bridge piers with detailing deficiencies. Institut fur Baustatik und Konstruktion, Bericht Nr. 352, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

  • Harajli MH, Salloukh KA (1998) Effect of fibers on development/splice strength of reinforcing bars in tension. ACI Mater J 94(4):317–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries KA, Ricles JR, Pessiki S, Sause R (2006) Seismic retrofit of lap splices in nonductile square columns using carbon fiber-reinforced jackets. ACI Struct J 103(6):874–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan MN, Feldman LR (2012) Behavior of lap-spliced plain steel bars. ACI Struct J 109(109):235–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester CJ, Salamizavaregh S, Darwin D, McCabe SL (1993) Bond of epoxy-coated reinforcement: splices. ACI Struct J 90(1):89–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang S, Lee Y, Lee C (1995) Effect of silica fume on the splice strength of deformed bars of high-performance concrete. ACI Struct J 91(3):294–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Ichinose T, Kanayama Y, Inoue Y, Bolander JE (2004) Size effect on bond strength of deformed bars. Constr Build Mater 18(7):549–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juntanalikit P, Jirawattanasomkul T, Pimanmas A (2016) Experimental and numerical study of strengthening non-ductile RC columns with and without lap splice by carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) jacketing. Eng Struct 125:400–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadoriku (1994) Study on behavior of lap splices in high-strength reinforced concrete members. Doctorate Thesis, Kobe University, Japan

  • Lagier F, Massicotte B, Charron J (2015) Bond strength of tension lap splice specimens in UHPFRC. Construct Build Mater 93:84–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layssi H, Mitchell D (2012) Experiments on seismic retrofit and repair of reinforced concrete shear walls. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on FRP composites in civil engineering-CICE, Rome, Italy, June 13–15, pp 1–8

  • Lowes LN, Lehman DE, Birely AC, Kuchma DA, Marley KP, Hart CR (2012) Earthquake response of slender planar concrete walls with modern detailing. Eng Struct 43:31–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luke JJ, Hamad BS, Jirsa JO, Breen JE (1981) The influence of casting position on development and splice length of reinforcing bars. Research report 242-1, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin

  • Lukose K, Gergely P, White R (1982) Behavior of reinforced concrete lapped splices for inelastic cyclic loading. ACI J Proc 79(5):355–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn AC, Moehle JP, Mahin SA, Holmes WT (1996) Seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete building columns. Earthq Spectra 12(4):715–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti P, Alvarez M, Kaufmann W, Sigrist V (1998) Tension chord model for structural concrete. Struct Eng Int 8(4):287–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melek M, Wallace J, Conte J (2003) Experimental assessment of columns with short lap-splice subjected to cyclic loads. PEER Report 2003/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, CA

  • Orangun CO, Jirsa JO, Breen JE (1977) A reevaluation of test data on development length and splices. ACI J 74(3):114–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Panahshahi N, White RN, Gergely P (1992) Reinforced concrete compression lap splices under inelastic cyclic loading. ACI Struct J 89(2):164–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson J, Mitchell D (2003) Seismic retrofit of shear walls with headed bars and carbon fiber wrap. J Struct Eng 129:606–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulay T (1982) Lapped splices in earthquake-resisting columns. ACI J 79(6):458–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister JF, Mattock AH (1963) High strength bars as concrete reinforcement, part 5. Lapped splices in concentrically loaded columns. J PCA Res Dev Lab 5(2):27–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rezansoff T, Zacaruk JA, Topping R (1988) Tensile lap splices in reinforced concrete beams under inelastic cyclic loading. ACI Struct J 85(1):46–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezansoff T, Konkankar US, Fu C (1991) Confinement limits for tension lap slices under static loading. Can J Civ Eng 19(3):447–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezansoff T, Akanni A, Sparling B (1993) Tensile lap splices under static loading: a review of the proposed ACI 318 code provisions. ACI Struct J 90(4):374–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagan VE, Gergely P, White RN (1988) The behaviour and design of noncontact lap splices subjected to repeated inelastic tensile loading. Technical report NCEER-88-0033, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

  • Sakurada T, Morohashi N, Tanaka R (1993) Effect of transverse reinforcement on bond splitting strength of lap splices. Trans Jpn Conc Inst 15:573–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Sezen H, Setzler EJ (2008) Reinforcement slip in reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J 105(3):280–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparling B, Rezansoff T (1986) The effect of confinement on lap splices in reversed cyclic loading. Can J Civ Eng 13(6):681–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarquini D, Almeida JP, Beyer K (2017) Influence of lap-splices on the cyclic inelastic response of reinforced concrete walls. II: Shell element simulation and equivalent uniaxial model. ASCE J Struct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarquini D, Almeida JP, Beyer K (2019) Uniaxial cyclic tests on reinforced concrete members with lap splices. Earthq Spectra 35(2):1023–1043. https://doi.org/10.1193/041418EQS091DP

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tastani SP, Brokalaki E, Pantazopoulou SJ, Asce M (2015) State of bond along lap splices. J Struct Eng 141(10):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepfers R (1973) A theory of bond applied to overlapped tensile reinforcement splices for deformed bars. Calmers University of Technology, Goteborg

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson MA, Jirsa JO, Breen JE, Meinheit DF (1975) The behavior of multiple lap splices in wide sections. Research report 154-1, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin

  • Treece RA, Jirsa J (1990) Bond strength of epoxy-coated reinforcing bars. ACI Mater J 86(2):167–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Valluvan R, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO (1993) Strengthening of column splices for seismic retrofit of nonductile reinforced concrete frames. ACI Struct J 90(4):432–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2008a) Seismic response of R. C. columns with smooth reinforcement. Part I: monotonic tests. Eng Struct 30:2277–2288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G (2008b) Seismic response of R. C. columns with smooth reinforcement. Part II: cyclic tests. Eng Struct 30:2289–2300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villalobos E, Escolano-Margarit D, Ramìrez-Màrquez AL, Pujol S (2017) Seismic response of reinforced concrete walls with lap splices. Bull Earthq Eng 15(5):2079–2100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao Y, Ma R (1997) Seismic retrofit of RC circular columns using prefabricated composite jacketing. J Struct Eng 123(10):1357–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuo J, Darwin D (2000) Splice strength of conventional and high relative rib area bars in normal and high-strength concrete. ACI Struct J 97(4):630–641

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The financial support by the Swiss Federal Roads Office (FEDRO) to the Project Number AGB 2015/002, under which the present study is carried out, is acknowledged. Moreover, the authors would like to thank Tiago Nico Pereira and Maria Katsidoniotaki for the precious help in the laboratory.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danilo Tarquini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Mechanical interpretation and calibration of the parameters α

Appendix: Mechanical interpretation and calibration of the parameters α

The discussion of the calibration process for the parameters α1 and α2 requires some considerations based on the observed pre-failure cracking behaviour of the test units:

(1) In the TUs with continuous reinforcement, the width of the cracks located at the foundation and top-beam interfaces is approximately equal. However, a similar width is also observed for cracks located along the member, as illustrated in Fig. 2d. This implies that the contribution to the crack width due to anchorage strain penetration (wanc) is, for the current test units, approximately equal to the one given by the steel–concrete slip accumulated along half of the average crack spacing distance. Note that, considering a reference TU as a tension chord (Marti et al. 1998), the width of a crack along the column height can be expressed as:

$$w = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - \frac{srm}{2}}}^{{\frac{srm}{2}}} \left( {\varepsilon_{s} - \varepsilon_{c} } \right) dx$$
(13)

where srm represents the average crack spacing, and εs and εc are the steel and concrete strains. On the other hand, the width of a top beam or foundation interface crack in the unit with continuous reinforcement (denoted respectively by wTBI and wFI) is the sum of two contributions:

$$w_{TBI} = \mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{l_{anc} }} \varepsilon_{s} dx + \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - \frac{srm}{2}}}^{0} \left( {\varepsilon_{s} - \varepsilon_{c} } \right)dx$$
(14)
$$w_{FI} = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - l_{anc} }}^{0} \varepsilon_{s} dx + \mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{\frac{srm}{2}}} \left( {\varepsilon_{s} - \varepsilon_{c} } \right) dx$$
(15)

where lanc is the anchorage length. The first integral term for each crack refers to the anchorage strain penetration (the concrete is assumed to be unstrained), while the second term refers to the steel–concrete slip in the column. When the anchored rebar is bent inside the foundation (such as in the current TUs), lanc can be estimated as lanc = l0 + 5Øl, where l0 is the straight anchored length (Sezen and Setzler 2008). From the two equations above, and building on the observation that w ≈ wTBI ≈ wFI the following Eq. (16) can be derived:

$$\mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{l_{anc} }} \varepsilon_{s} dx = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - l_{anc} }}^{0} \varepsilon_{s} dx \approx \mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{\frac{srm}{2}}} \left( {\varepsilon_{s} - \varepsilon_{c} } \right)dx = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - \frac{srm}{2}}}^{0} \left( {\varepsilon_{s} - \varepsilon_{c} } \right) dx$$
(16)

It is underlined that the approximation above is not valid in general for other configurations of rebar diameters (which is the quantity that mainly governs srm) and/or anchorage configurations.

(2) In the TUs with lap splices, up until lap splice failure and independently of the lapped length or the confining reinforcement content, the top and bottom splice-end cracks showed a comparable width (i.e. wTOP ≈ wBOT), which was also similar to cracks located outside the lapped zone (e.g. see Fig. 2b). While the latter width can be expressed through Eq. (13), wTOP and wBOT are described by the following Eqs. (17) and (18).

$$w_{TOP} = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - \frac{{srm^{ls} }}{2}}}^{0} \left( {\varepsilon_{s}^{ls} - \varepsilon_{c}^{ls} } \right) dx + \mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{\frac{srm}{2}}} \left( {\varepsilon_{s} - \varepsilon_{c} } \right) dx$$
(17)
$$w_{BOT} = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - l_{anc} }}^{0} \varepsilon_{s} dx + \mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{\frac{{srm^{ls} }}{2}}} \left( {\varepsilon_{s}^{ls} - \varepsilon_{c}^{ls} } \right) dx$$
(18)

where the appendix ls indicates that the quantity refers to the lap splice region. The observation above (wTOP ≈ wBOT ≈ w) implies that the contribution to wTOP and wBOT coming from the lap splice zone (wls) is approximately equal to the one due to deformations occurring above (wTOP,out) or below (wBOT,out) the lapped region:

$$w_{ls} = \mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{\frac{{srm^{ls} }}{2}}} \left( {\varepsilon_{s}^{ls} - \varepsilon_{c}^{ls} } \right)dx = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{ - \frac{{srm^{ls} }}{2}}}^{0} \left( {\varepsilon_{s}^{ls} - \varepsilon_{c}^{ls} } \right)dx \approx w_{{TOP},{out}}= \mathop \smallint \limits_{0}^{{\frac{srm}{2}}} \left( {\varepsilon_{s} - \varepsilon_{c} } \right) dx \approx w_{{BOT},{out}} = \mathop \smallint \limits_{{l_{anc} }}^{0} \varepsilon_{s} dx$$
(19)

It can be noted that, given a similar crack spacing within and outside the lap-splice region (srmls ≈ srm), Eq. (18) turns into Eq. (15). In other words, for the current test units and at the same level of applied axial force, the rebar steel strain integral (slip) of the splice loaded-end contributing to the end crack width (wls) is similar to the one provided by a continuous bar (wTOP,out). This fact (wls ≈ wTOP,out) is not surprising since at a lap splice end the entire load is carried by a single bar while the contiguous cut-off rebar is unloaded.

(3) Within the lapped region, horizontal cracks cross the spliced rebars that do not share the same amount of stress. In each pair, one bar is more stressed than the other; from equilibrium considerations, the stress sum has to equal the input stress at each rebar loaded end. If bond is degraded by the more stressed bar (with eventual stress loss), causing slip and crack opening, the less stressed rebar is forced to accommodate the increased crack width (Tastani et al. 2015) and take over the eventual stress shed by the companion bar. The crack width, which results from the slip accumulation over both crack edges, is thus governed by the more stressed bar of the pair.

From the considerations above, a relation α1 ≈ α2 ≈ 0.5 can be expected for the present TUs. A validation was performed by comparing Δproc, as computed according to the procedure of Sect. 4.1, with the displacement Δint obtained by integrating, along the lap splice length, the envelope of the top and bottom anchored rebar strains (i.e. equation (20) for the case depicted in Fig. 4c).

$$\Delta_{int} = \varepsilon_{TE} \cdot l_{E} + \varepsilon_{AB}^{TA} \cdot l_{0,AB} + \varepsilon_{BC}^{TA} \cdot l_{0,BC} + \varepsilon_{CD}^{TA} \cdot l_{0,CD} + \varepsilon_{DE}^{BA} \cdot l_{0,DE} + \varepsilon_{EF}^{BA} \cdot l_{0,EF} + \varepsilon_{BE} \cdot l_{E}$$
(20)

The strain envelope (black thick line in Fig. 4c) is used in view of consideration (3) and it is computed by means of the optical markers directly glued on the spliced rebars, which are represented in Fig. 4b and c. The displacement Δint includes contributions from the splice-end strains (εBE and εTE), which, due to the unavailability of a measurement point, were retrieved from the experimental (monotonic) steel stress–strain law. The input quantity to the constitutive law was the bar-loaded-end stress, derived from the global imposed axial force N (Fig. 4c). A simplified constant integration weight lE = 12.5 mm was associated to both strains εBE and εTE, roughly corresponding to half the distance between the closest LED and the end crack. It is noted that since the largest deformations occurred at the lap-ends, neglecting the contribution due to εBE and εTE would result in a non-negligible underestimation of Δint, especially for imposed displacement demands beyond yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. Although from a theoretical viewpoint Δint is the measure best representing the pure lap splice deformation, it was comparatively more difficult to obtain than Δproc because: (1) the detachment of one or more markers glued on the spliced rebars was more likely than the detachment of those glued on the concrete; and (2) after the failure of the first lap splice the calculation of the steel stresses at the lap loaded end was highly unreliable. In fact, they depended on the unknown residual force carried by the failed lap splices as well as on the force redistribution between the still-holding splices. Note that, after rebar yielding, any miscalculation of the rebar stress would yield big differences in the estimated strain. For the cases in which the calculation of Δint was indeed possible, the validation of the assumption α1 ≈ α2 ≈ 0.5 was carried out and is depicted in Fig. 4d.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tarquini, D., de Almeida, J.P. & Beyer, K. Experimental investigation on the deformation capacity of lap splices under cyclic loading. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 6645–6670 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00692-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00692-3

Keywords

Navigation