lap splicing Lapping of reinforcing bars has long been considered an effective, economical splicing method, but todays more demanding concrete designs are forcing builders to consider alternatives BY M.K. HURD
n almost all reinforced-concrete
I structures, some reinforcing bars
must be spliced. The required length of a bar may be longer than the stock length of steel, or the bar may be too long to be shipped conveniently. In either case, rebar installers end up with two or more pieces of steel that must be
All photos courtesy of Erico Inc.
spliced together. Lap splicing, which requires the overlapping of two parallel bars, has long been accepted as an effective, economical splicing method. Lap splices usually are in contact, but in flexural members the bars can be separated by as much as 6 inches. A sea of #18 rebar fills the base slab of this lock and dam being constructed near Olmstead, Ill., by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Each bar is made up of five Bond between steel and concrete pieces, ranging from 49 to 60 feet long, connected end to end using taper- transfers the load in one bar to the threaded mechanical splices. Using a specially designed bar driver powered by an concrete and then from the concrete air drill, workers were able to simultaneously tighten couplers on all five bars at to the other (continuing) rebar. This once. Taper threads helped in alignment of the splices, with per-bar splice time re- transfer of load is influenced by the duced from five or six minutes to as little as two minutes. The Corps requires deformations, or ribs, on the rebar. these couplings to develop 90% of the bars ultimate strength81 ksi, a more In projects with small bar sizes stringent requirement than the building code standard of 125% of yield strength such as #6 or #8, relatively low yield for mechanical splices. stress in steel and building heights of 15 stories or less, lap splices have building frames are being pushed to susceptible to splitting failures, rais- performed well over the long run. In 100 stories and more. Current de- ing questions about the adequacy recent years, however, there has sign practice for structural framing and reliability of lap splices. been a shift. Continuing research, uses bar sizes from #8 to #11 with more demanding designs in con- yields of 60 or 75 ksi. And concrete Code limits on lap splicing crete, new materials and the devel- strengths of 8000 to 12,000 psi are Research work on reinforcing steel opment of hybrid concrete/struc- accepted by code and increasingly long ago convinced the American tural steel designs have forced used. Use of higher-strength con- Concrete Institute to prohibit lap designers to consider alternatives to cretes allows for shorter lap lengths. splices for #14 and #18 bars because lap splicing. Structural concrete However, these concretes are more bar forces are so large they can split the concrete and destroy the effec- force directly from tiveness of the lap splice. ACI 318- one bar to another. 95, Building Code Requirements for The connection of Reinforced Concrete (Ref. 1), now sleeve to bar is also forbids lap splices in tension tie made by threading, members (section 12.15.5) and in swaging or filling plastic hinge regions (section the annular space 21.3.2). between the bar The model code bodies (BOCA, and the sleeve with ICBO and SBCCI) adhere to the a molten metal. same limitations. According to Ca- Building codes re- gley and Apple (Ref. 2), these deci- quire mechanical sions by responsible code bodies connections to bring into question the lap splice carry 125% of the principle, which calls for concrete to specified yield transfer loads in tension and shear. strength of the bar. Concrete is notably poor in both of these properties. Benefits of mechanical Alternatives to lap splicing butt splices One alternative to lapping is to Mechanical butt splice bars by butting and welding, splices offer following American Welding Society builders the follow- procedures (ACI 318-95, section ing 12.14.3.2). Welding is generally benefits. more expensive and is reliable only Improved struc- Rebar couplers can be spun onto bars that cant be rotated, when weldability of the rebar is en- tural integrity. Me- such as the hooked bars in this column. sured by supplementary specifica- chanical butt tions for the chemistry of the rebar splices maintain steel. load path continuity of the rein- elastic range. Bars also can be butt-spliced by a forcement, independent of the con- Lap splices often infringe into the variety of mechanical connections dition or existence of the concrete. plastic hinge region, in violation of (ACI 318-95, section 12.14.3). Most Since these splices in tension regions code limitations. Mechanical splices of these connections are proprietary must develop 125% of the bars yield can more easily be located outside and consist of a sleeve to align the strength, performance is assured well these high-stress regions. bars and hold them in position. For into the strain-hardening region. In No reliance on concrete for load tension connections and some com- seismic applications, mechanical transfer. In freeze-thaw and coastal pression connections, the sleeve splices maintain structural integrity regions, rebar corrosion can produce transfers the tension or compression when bars are stressed into the in- concrete delamination and spalling. Since lap splices transfer load Lap splices Mechanical splices through the surrounding concrete, when the concrete is gone, the lap Mechanical coupler splice in effect has failed. Mech- Column Beam reinforcing Beam Column anical splices do not rely on the con- reinforcing reinforcing reinforcing Lap bar crete for load transfer. Elimination of lap-splice calcu- lations. Mechanical splicing does away with the tedious calculations needed to determine proper lap lengths and the potential calculation errors. Reduced material costs. Because Plan view Plan view mechanical splices do not overlap, less rebar is used, reducing some of Mechanical butt splices help reduce rebar congestion and improve steel-to-concrete ra- the material costs. This cost savings tios. By using mechanical splices in a beam-column intersection, the designer has the can be particularly significant for option of using larger-diameter bars in a smaller column. jobs requiring expensive epoxy- coated bars, since building codes re- quire up to 50% longer splice laps Headed anchor replaces hook at end of rebar for these bars than for standard rebar. The standard hooks required at Reduced rebar congestion. A the ends of reinforcing bars often common complaint of concrete produce steel congestion, making placing crews is that they cant get concrete placement difficult. In the concrete through rebar cages. addition, space limitations may Laps effectively double the steel-to- prevent the use of larger rebar be- concrete ratio, and the resulting cause there simply isnt enough congestion can restrict the flow and room for the long hook exten- distribution of larger aggregate parti- sions and large bend diameters cles and limit the effectiveness of vi- that codes require for these bars. bration. Although ACI 318-95 stipu- Mechanical anchors like the lates a steel-to-concrete ratio less taper-threaded anchor shown than 8%, its difficult to follow this here form heads for the rebar that regulation and achieve a balanced This taper-threaded anchor forms design because of the extra rebar in in many cases can replace the a head at the end of rebar that can the lap zone. Mechanical butt splices standard hook, simplifying fabri- replace the standard hook. significantly reduce this congestion. cation, construction and concrete placement (Ref. 3). When future extension or con- Cost considerations The anchor shown, manufac- struction modifications are antic- Although the advantages of me- tured by Erico Inc., Solon, Ohio, is ipated, the anchor is threaded at chanical butt splices are well recog- like a mechanical coupler made both ends, and one end is nized, a major concern has been oversize to provide the necessary plugged with a plastic thread their high cost for applications anchorage. Designed for use on protector before concrete is where the codes permit the use of ASTM A 615 Grade 60 or ASTM A placed. The concrete can be lap splices. But is the perception that 706 rebar in sizes #4 through broken away later to expose the mechanical butt splices cost more #18, the device does not require anchor and splice in new bars than lap splices a reality? And if so, specially trained installers. for the expansion. how much is the cost premium? To answer these questions Cagley and Associates, structural engineers, recently studied two structures parking garage in Harrisburg, Pa. The lap splicing there would have under design in their Rockville, Md., other was a three-story chemistry lab pushed the steel-concrete ratio office (Ref. 2). Each project required for the National Institute of Stan- above the 8% code limit in the splice approximately 10,000 cubic yards of dards and Technology. Lap splices zone. Since the NIST structures concrete, and both were designed were used on the parking garage, beams did not require splicing, a based on requirements of ACI 318- and mechanical butt splices were cost analysis was made only for col- 95. One structure was a 12-story used for the NIST building because umn steel (see table).
Cost of threaded mechanical butt splices as a percent of total structure cost
Structure Cost Cost Extra Total Premium for Total for lap for butt cost project mechanical weight splice splice of butt cost splice as of laps, splicing percent of lbs project cost Garage $139,653 $158,583* $18,930 $8,500,000 0.223 165,610 (USED) NIST Chemistry Lab $155,719* $221,092 $65,373 $52,000,000 0.126 89,394 (USED)
*Costs are based on a consensus of five rebar installation contractors.
To determine labor costs, five mechanical splices give the struc- References rebar installation contractors were tures added toughness and load path 1. ACI 318-95, Building Code Require- questioned on comparative costs of continuity that laps cannot offer. ments for Reinforced Concrete, Amer- installing lap splices and mechanical The authors recommend additional ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995. threaded butt splices. The consensus research on the performance of lap was that the installation costs were splices with high-strength materials. 2. James R. Cagley and Richard Apple, Economic Analysis: Mechanical Butt equal. Had the beams been consid- Splices vs. Lap Splicing in Reinforced ered (normally they have longer lap Concrete Construction, a study by Ca- lengths) lap-splice costs would have For more information on mechani- gley and Associates, Rockville, Md., for been higher than reported in the cal splices from manufacturers, visit Erico Inc., 1997. table. The results show that the costs the Buyers Guide area of the Con- 3. John W. Wallace, Headed Rein- of upgrading a structure by using struction SuperNetwork forcement a Viable Option, Concrete mechanical butt splices are less than (www.askmac.com), and type rein- International, ACI, December 1997. 0.2% of the total cost of the struc- forcement splices in the product 4. Russell S. Fling, Practical Design of Reinforced Concrete, John Wiley & ture. Had it included beam splices, search field. Sons, New York, 1987. the comparison would have been even more favorable to the mechani- M.K. Hurd is an engineer and writer cal splices. specializing in concrete building The Cagley report concludes that methods. She is a former editor of the added structural and economic Concrete Construction magazine advantages of mechanical splices and author of Formwork for Con- over laps make the benefit-to-cost crete, published by the American Publication #C980683 ratio extremely attractive because Concrete Institute. Copyright 1998, The Aberdeen Group All rights reserved