Você está na página 1de 11

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269064237

Use of Mechanical Couplers in Concrete Columns

Conference Paper · April 2013


DOI: 10.1061/9780784412909.070

CITATIONS READS
0 275

2 authors:

Don Phillippi G.A. Hegemier


Kansas State University University of California, San Diego
8 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   938 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TSWG research View project

Dumbarton View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Don Phillippi on 27 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


USE OF MECHANICAL COUPLERS IN CONCRETE COLUMNS
Donald J. Phillippi
dphillip@k-state.edu
Kansas State University
240 Seaton Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506
Gilbert A. Hegemier
ghegemier@ucsd.edu
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the seismic performance of a two-column bridge bent with a
primary focus on the mechanical couplers used to connect the reinforcement bars at the
base of the columns. Previous research has focused on the need to properly account for
at-yield and post-yield tensile behavior of these connections, but little has been done in
the area of research into the use and detailing of these couplers subjected to the
compressive forces in the region of plastic hinges. To study the behavior of the
mechanical couplers in compression, a two-column bridge bent was tested at the
University of California, San Diego. In the test, mechanical couplers were used to attach
the longitudinal reinforcement bars at staggered heights in the plastic hinge zone at the
base of the columns in a manner that was similar to a prototype. The results of the test
indicated that current design practices are inadequate to properly develop the necessary
compressive forces in the reinforcement bars in these types of connections. Moreover,
while the couplers in the test performed adequately, the compression region of the
column became unstable due to the buckling of the steel reinforcement around the
location of the couplers. This paper describes a shortcoming of the current methodology,
along with solutions to provide a plastic hinge capable of delivering additional ductility
during seismic events.

Keywords: bridge; column; ductility; earthquake-resistant; flexural strength.

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical couplers have been used to extend steel reinforcement in concrete columns
and beams for a long time. When installed correctly in seismic applications, couplers are
designed so that the steel reinforcement fails at the ultimate tensile load of an otherwise
bare bar and to prevent failure in the mechanical coupler. While the tensile testing of
mechanical couplers has been extensive, the testing of mechanical coupler installations
that may be in compression in plastic hinge regions of a column or beam is absent.


 
In a heavily reinforced column or beam, mechanical couplers are staggered to avoid or
reduce both stress concentrations and steel congestion as shown in Fig. 1.

Mechanical 
Coupler

Mechanical 
Coupler

 
Fig. 1: Reinforcement Cage with Mechanical Couplers

With this staggered condition in mind, consider the two sections of a column in Fig. 2,
wherein Section A has mechanical couplers and Section B does not have mechanical
couplers.

 
Fig. 2: Column Section With and Without Mechanical Couplers


 
Note that there is a gap between the transverse restraining reinforcement in Section A and
the longtitudinal reinforcement without couplers.

The design of the section makes it readily apparent that prior to yield and at low ductility
levels where the concrete is intact or has not spalled, that the buckling of the compression
reinforcement is not an issue. However, at higher levels of ductility wherein the concrete
cover has spalled, only a small portion of concrete between the the transverse restraining
reinforcement and the braced longitudinal reinforcement remains. If the small portion of
concrete is removed then the longitudinal reinforcement is unbraced over a much greater
length and buckling can and probably will occur.

In the case noted above, the use of staggered mechanical couplers may result in a reduced
ductility of the concrete member. Consider the following:

 Columns that are designed to current standards without mechanical couplers have
a very high ductility without the buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement.

 The longitudinal reinforcement did not buckle in regions where mechanical


couplers in the column were located outside the plastic hinge region.

 When mechanical couplers were located in the plastic hinge region, the
longitudinal reinforcement adjacent to the mechanical couplers buckled.

 The testing of additional support devices (such as additional support ties or


bracing mechanisms) for the bars adjacent to mechanical couplers in the plastic
hinge region has been overlooked.

To investigate the inclusion of mechanical couplers in columns, two columns were tested
simultaneously in a quasi-static test that indicated via strain gages that a supported corner
bar received more strain (and therefore more stress due to strain hardening) than an
unsupported interior bar.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Use of mechanical couplers in the plastic hinge region of a column or beam can result in
a reduced ductility of a concrete structure. In an experimental investigation, mechanical
couplers were installed on the longitudinal reinforcement of two columns. The typical
installation of the mechanical couplers in the plastic hinge region created a condition
wherein the adjacent compression reinforcement without couplers was effectively
“unsupported” since the bars were offset from the restraining transverse reinforcement by
the thickness of the shell of the coupler. The offsets between the unsupported bars and
transverse reinforcement were filled by a small amount of concrete when the columns
were poured. At higher levels of ductility, the offset allowed for a stability issue to arise
when the concrete that filled the offset deteriorated and spalled away. In both columns


 
tested, the compression reinforcement buckled at the same location of the mechanical
couplers even though transverse reinforcement had been installed to resist buckling.

COLUMNS WITHOUT COUPLERS

As noted in Priestley (1996), there are two possible modes of buckling for compression
reinforcement in the plastic hinge region. The first mode of buckling occurs when the
compression reinforcement buckles between the layers of tranverse reinforcement. In
order to avoid buckling between the layers, the longitudinal reinforcement must be of an
adequate diameter to provide the required strength to resist buckling. The first
antibuckling requirement for this type of buckling is given in ACI318-11 (2011) as:

s  6dbl

The second mode of buckling occurs when the longitudinal reinforcement buckles over
several layers of transverse reinforcement. The antibuckling requirement for the second
mode consists of transverse reinforcement capable of restraining longitudinal
compression reinforcement against buckling. In Priestley (1996), the area of transverse
reinforcement required to restrain the longitudinal bars is given as:

Atr 
As l fy
100dbl f yh

In ACI318-11 (2011), the area of transverse reinforcement for special moment frames is
given as:

 sbc f c'  Ag  
0.3    1
 f yt  Ach  
Ash  max 
 sbc f c'
 0.09
 f yt

Based on previous research, columns held to the above standards provide reasonable
protection and ductility to the plastic hinge regions of columns.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
In the experimental investigation performed at the University of California, San Diego,
two columns (North Column and South Column) were tested simultaneously in a quasi-
static test where two levels of mechanical couplers were installed as shown in Fig. 1. The
upper layer was installed thirty inches from the column/foundation joint and the lower
layer was installed six inches from the column/foundation joint. The lower layer of


 
mechanical couplers was located entirely inside the plastic hinges at the base of the
columns. Both columns were well instrumented with linear variable displacement
transformers and strain gages. The strain gages were installed in numerous locations on
the steel reinforcement inside each of the columns.

The two-column specimen was quasi-statically loaded through cycles in the both the push
and pull directions. For the data noted below, the push cycle represents compression in
the column noted, and the pull cycle represents tension.

To begin the test, the lateral force was increased from zero to 100 percent of the predicted
yield force (force control) in 25 percent increments. Later, once the yield force was
reached, the displacement was increased as an increment of the ideal yield displacement
(displacement control).

Mechanical Couplers Outside of the Plastic Hinge Region


A review of strain gages in the region above the plastic hinge indicated very low strains
in the transverse hoop reinforcement and the bar ties at the largest displacements of the
columns. Photographic observations from the test confirmed that the area outside the
plastic hinge did not have any spalling around the mechanical couplers and therefore the
inclusion of the mechanical couplers had virtually no effect on the performance of the
columns.

Mechanical Couplers Inside of the Plastic Hinge Region


For the mechanical couplers inside of the plastic hinge region, the testing of the columns
progressed: through initial cracking, to yielding of the tensile bars, to spalling of the
compression concrete cover, and to the final buckling of the compression reinforcement.
The testing was concluded when the resistive strength of the specimen fell below 80
percent of the ultimate strength. In the plastic hinge region, two longitudinal bars with
strain gages in the South Column, bars 4 and 5, (shown in Fig. 2) were used to obtain
data that is described below.

Evidence of buckling of the unstabilized bar 4 versus the stabilized bar 5:


1. Strain gage data for an unstabilized bar and a corner bar which is stabilized by
position are compared. In Fig. 3, the strain history of the two bars are shown
where a positive strain indicates that the bar was in tension and a negative strain
indicates the bar was in compression. What is apparent is that between the 6-inch
and 9-inch positive displacement compression cycles, that the concrete spalls at
the compression face resulting in a redistribution of the load from the concrete to
the steel reinforcement.

2. At the 12-inch positive displacement in Fig. 3, note that there is a large difference
between the strains in the response history of bars 4 and 5. As the redistribution
of the load from the concrete to the steel reinforcement continued, there was a
large increase in the strain of bar 5.


 
3. In the photo of the 12 inch positive displacement, Fig. 4, note how the expansion
of the concrete core has pushed the external concrete shell outward as a sheet of
concrete. This expansion in large part had been caused by the buckling of the
compression reinforcement. At the end of the test, the magnitude of the buckling
can easily be seen.

 
Fig. 3: Comparison of Strain in Bars 4 and 5 versus Drift

4. In the post-test inspection of the concrete core (shown in Fig. 5) where all the
loose shell concrete had been removed, note how the unsupported compression
reinforcement bars, which started out aligned with the supported mechanical
coupler bars, bowed outward to be in contact with the transverse reinforcement.
This movement was because the concrete, which at one time was between the
unsupported longitudinal reinforcement and the transverse reinforcement, had
been dislodged during the loading cycles.

Options for Mechanical Couplers Inside of the Plastic Hinge Region


A way to possibly prevent ductility loss due to unsupported bars may be the addition of
metal spacers that attach the longitudinal reinforcement to the transverse reinforcement in
order to fill the offset gap. However, this solution has not been tested and other problems
related to stress concentrations may occur since the steel reinforcements just outside of
the mechanical couplers would be much less stiff than the couplers. An example of a
stress concentration can be seen in a photograph of the North Column, Fig. 6, where the
steel reinforcement fractured just outside of the mechanical coupler.


 
Another way to possibly prevent ductility loss may be the addition of cross-ties that
specifically anchor the unsupported longitudinal reinforcement. However, this solution
may lead to steel congestion in addition to the stress concentrations that may occur.
 

 
Fig. 4: South Column at 12-Inch Positive Displacement
 
Buckled Corner Bar 5  Buckled Interior Bar 4 

Other Unsupported Bars 
 
Fig. 5: South Column - Buckled Compression Bars
 

CONCLUSION

It is not necessary to locate mechanical couplers in the plastic hinge region of columns
and beams in a typical installation, however the extension of the reinforcement beyond
the plastic hinge region may be inconvenient. And while the findings provided in this


 
paper are related to only one test specimen with two columns, it should not be assumed
that the condition is isolated.

Fractured Bar Adjacent 
to Mechanical Coupler

 
Fig. 6: North Column - Fractured Longitudinal Bar

Note that the experimental investigation did not include the total amount of transverse
reinforcement as required by current standards, however the gap between the transverse
reinforcement and the longitudinal reinforcement is still problematic and the stress
concentration that is created by the mechanical couplers should not be overlooked.

In the case of this investigation, the mechanical couplers were staggered as required by
the local authority to reduce steel congestion in the plastic hinge. However, it is often the
case that steel congestion is not an issue and all mechanical couplers in these relatively
lightly reinforced columns or beams are installed at one level. This condition is not
addressed in this paper.

Note also, that the mechanical couplers that were installed on the longitudinal
reinforcement worked as designed so that the steel reinforcement failed prior to any
observed damage to the coupler.

Based on the experimental investigation it is concluded that:

 Due to lower compression stresses and the lack of spalling, the longitudinal
reinforcement did not buckle in regions where mechanical couplers in the column
were located outside the plastic hinge region.

 It may be problematic to locate mechanical couplers in columns and beams in the


plastic hinge region, where those couplers are staggered.


 
FUTURE RESEARCH

Further research in the use of mechanical couplers in plastic hinge regions is required.
Mechanical couplers that were located outside of the plastic hinge performed well, while
those in the plastic hinge region were indirectly responsible for the buckling of adjacent
non-coupled reinforcement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The experimental research described in this paper was carried out at the Charles Lee
Powell Structural Systems Research Laboratory at the University of California at San
Diego. The research project was funded by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) under contract No.59A0651. Conclusions and recommendations in this paper
are those of the authors and should not be construed to imply endorsement by Caltrans.

NOTATION

Ach = cross-sectional area of the structural member core as measured to the outside
edges of the transverse reinforcement, in2.
Ag = gross area of concrete section, in2.
Al = area of longitudinal reinforcement, in2.
Ash = total cross-section area of transverse reinforcement, in2.
Atr = area of transverse reinforcement to restrain longitudinal reinforcement, in2.
bc = cross-sectional dimension of the structural member core as measured to the
outside edges of the transverse reinforcement composing Ach , in2.
dbl = diameter of longitudinal reinforcement, in.
f c' = ultimate compressive stress of the concrete, ksi
fy = yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement, ksi
f yh = yield stress of transverse hoop reinforcement (equals f yt ), ksi
f yt = yield stress of transverse tie reinforcement, ksi
dbl = diameter of longitudinal reinforcement, in.
s = center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement, in.

REFERENCES

ACI318-11 (2011) “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and


Commentary”, American Concrete Institute, 503 pp.


 
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M., (1996, “Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges.”, John Wiley & Sons Inc. Publisher, New York, 686 pp.

10 
 

View publication stats

Você também pode gostar