Pseudo Dyn Test

Pseudodynamic Testing of the SAFECAST
3-Storey Precast Concrete Building

ǡǡ Ǥ
ǡǡ

2 01 2
Report EUR 25496 EN

European Commission
Joint Research Centre
Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
Contact information
Paolo Negro
Address: Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 I spra (VA), Italy
E-mail: paolo.negro@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Tel.: +39 0332 78 5452
Fax: +39 0332 78 9049
http://elsa.jrc.ec.europa.eu
http://ipsc.jrc.ec.europa .eu/
http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Legal Notice
Neither the European Commission nor any person a cting on behalf of the Commission
is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/.
JRC73776
EUR 25496 EN
ISBN 978- 92-79-26274- 6
ISSN 1831- 9424
doi:10.2788/4793
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012
© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Italy
SUMMARY
In the framework of the SAFECAST Project, a full-scale three-storey precast building was subjected
to a series of pseudodynamic (PsD) tests in the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment
(ELSA) at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The mock-up was constructed
in such a way that four different structural configurations could be investigated experimentally.
Therefore, the behaviour of various parameters like the types of mechanical connections (traditional as
well as innovative) and the presence or absence of shear walls along with the framed structure were
investigated. The first PsD tests were conducted on a dual frame-wall precast system, where two
precast shear wall units were connected to the mock up. The first test structure sustained the
maximum earthquake for which it had been designed with small horizontal deformations. In the
second layout, the shear walls were disconnected from the structure, to test the building in its most
typical configuration, namely with hinged beam-column connections by means of dowel bars (shear
connectors). This configuration was quite flexible and suffered large deformations under the design level
earthquake. An innovative connection system, embedded in the precast elements, was then activated to
create emulative beam-column connections in the last two structural configurations. In particular, in
the third layout the connectors were restrained only at the top floor, whereas in the fourth layout the
connection system was activated in all beam-column joints. The PsD test results showed that, when
activated at all the floors, the proposed connection system is quite effective as a means of implementing
dry precast (quasi) emulative moment-resisting frames.
ͳ

CONTENTS
SUMMARY ________________________________________________________________1
CHAPTER 1 _______________________________________________________________ 2
Introduction and background ___________________________________________ 2
CHAPTER 2 _______________________________________________________________ 8
Design of the prototype ________________________________________________8
CHAPTER 3 _______________________________________________________________ 9
Test Structures _______________________________________________________ 9
3.1 The Mock-up ________________________________________________ 9
3.2 Description of the structural system- Investigated parameter __________ 15
3.3 Description of the floor diaphragms ______________________________ 17
3.4 Description of the mechanical connections ________________________ 19
CHAPTER 4 ______________________________________________________________ 24
Experimental Programme______________________________________________ 24
4.1 Pseudodynamic testing _______________________________________ 24
4.2 Input motion selection and test sequence _________________________ 27
CHAPTER 5 ______________________________________________________________ 29
Experimental results and discussion ____________________________________ 29
5.1 Global Response ____________________________________________ 29
5.2 Prototype 1-Structure with shear walls and hinged beam-to-column joints 31
5.3 Prototype 2- Structure with hinged beam-to-column joints ____________ 35
5.4 Prototype 3- Structure with emulative beam-to-column joints at the top __ 38
5.5 Prototype 4- Structure with emulative beam-to-column joints __________ 41
5.6 Prototype 4- Final Cyclic Test __________________________________ 43
CHAPTER 6 ______________________________________________________________ 49
Response of the connections and diaphragms ____________________________49
6.1 Response of the floor diaphragms _______________________________ 49
6.2 Response of the beam-column connections _______________________ 51
CHAPTER 7 ______________________________________________________________ 62
Modal decomposition of prototype’s response ____________________________62
CHAPTER 8 ______________________________________________________________ 67
Conclusions ________________________________________________________67
REFERENCES ____________________________________________________________ 71
APPENDIX _______________________________________________________________ 74
ʹ

Chapter
1
Introduction and background
A collaborative three-year research project called SAFECAST 1 (Grant agreement

no.218417-2) was undertaken by European national associations of precast concrete
producers, along with universities and research centres, to study the behavior of precast
concrete structures under earthquake loading. The main objective of the project was to fill
the gap in the knowledge of seismic behaviour of precast concrete structures, with
emphasis on the connections between precast members. A major part of the experimental
phase of this programme, consisted of the pseudodynamic tests on a full-scale 3-storey
precast concrete building, carried out at the European Laboratory for Structural
Assessment (ELSA2), Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission in Ispra.
Precast concrete construction represents a viable alternative to construction methods
utilizing cast-in-place concrete. Advantages related to the use of precast techniques
include higher quality control that can be obtained in the precast plants, speed of erection,
and freedom in the architectural shape of the members. Despite these well-recognized
advantages, the use and development of precast concrete structures in seismic areas have
been typically limited, by the lack of confidence and knowledge about their seismic
performance.

ͳǣȀȀǤǤȀ
ʹǣȀȀǤǤǤǤȀ
͵

ASSOBETON (the Italian association of precast producers) and the ELSA
Laboratory of the Joint Research Centre have a long tradition of scientific collaboration
on the subject of the seismic behaviour of precast structures. The two institutions have
been involved in the study of the seismic behaviour of precast structures elements since
1994 [1]. After the identification of the seismic behaviour of single elements, a research
programme aimed at demonstrating the equivalence between the behaviour factor of
precast and cast-in-situ single-storey industrial buildings was activated. This research
project, named “Seismic behaviour of precast R/C industrial buildings”, partially financed
within the European “Ecoleader” research programme was performed at the ELSA
Laboratory. The results of the tests demonstrated the excellent capacity of precast
buildings to withstand earthquakes without suffering important damage [2]. The data
obtained within the two mentioned research projects provided the starting point for the
PRECAST EC8 project [3]. This project was successfully carried out and concluded in
early 2007, after 4 years of activity. As a result of the project, a calibration of the global
behaviour factor (q factor) for precast frame structures was carried out with a combined
experimental and numerical approach. The research pointed out the very good behaviour
of precast structures under earthquake conditions and their substantial equality to
traditional cast-in-situ ones as for the safety under earthquake excitation, even without
monolithic joints.
The only, but crucial missing link in the modeling of such precast buildings, was the
adequate knowledge about the behaviour of connections. The empirical evidence from
the past earthquakes is sparse, incomplete, non-quantified and first of all controversial.
Some reports show excellent behaviour of precast systems and connections [4-6]. On the
other hand, the same documents report some catastrophic collapses. This is not
surprising, since seismic response clearly depends on the specific structural system, type of
connections and quality of the design and construction. Some collapses were also
reported during the 1977 Vrancea earthquake [7], the 1979 Montenegro earthquake [8] and
Ͷ

the Northridge earthquake [9]. Failures of welded and poorly constructed connections
were also the main cause of extensive collapses in Armenia [10] and during the 1976
Tangshan earthquake in China. These bad experiences have generated mistrust to precast
systems in general. In some countries this practically preclude the use of precast
structures and in many codes all precast systems were penalized with high seismic forces
related to the reduced competitiveness in the market.
The research on the seismic behaviour of precast concrete structures is very limited if
compared to traditional cast-in-situ frame reinforced concrete (RC) structures. In fact, in
spite of the overgrowing diffusion of this kind of structures, their peculiar characteristics
and, in particular, their response to seismic excitation, have not been so thoroughly
investigated and univocally determined at present. From a general point of view, there are
two alternatives to design precast structures. One choice is the use of precast concrete
elements interconnected predominantly by hinged connections, whereas the other
alternative is the emulation of monolithic RC construction. The emulation of the
behavior of monolithic RC constructions can be obtained using either “wet” or “strong”
(dry or partially dry) connections. A “wet” connection between precast members uses
cast-in-place concrete or grout to fill the splicing closure. Precast structural systems with
wet connections must then comply with all requirements applicable to monolithic RC
construction. A “strong” connection is a connection, not necessarily realized using cast-
in-situ concrete, that remains elastic while designated portions of structural members
undergo inelastic deformations under the design ground motion.
The state-of-the-art today on the seismic design of precast concrete building
structures comprises a limited number of scientific reports. The ATC-8 action– “Design of
prefabricated concrete buildings for earthquake loads”, in the proceedings of its workshop [11]
contain eighteen state-of-practice and research papers and six summary papers in
particular related to the precast systems in New Zealand, Japan, USA and Europe.
Simeonov et all. 1988 [12] addressed the seismic behaviour of specific joints used in large
ͷ

panel precast systems of the Balkan region. Another major project, called PRESSS
(PREcast Seismic Structural Systems), was made in the 1990s. Specific structural systems
with ductile dissipative connections using unbonded PT tendons were addressed by the
US and Japanese researchers [13-15]. A relatively recent state-of-art report was published
by the fib-Task group 7.3 [16] reporting on (at that time) latest developments on the
seismic design of precast concrete building structures in New Zealand, Mexico, Indonesia,
Chile, USA, Slovenia, Japan and Italy. In other related documents [15, 17-18] special
attention is given to the seismic behaviour and analytical modeling of the connections.
However, although these are the most comprehensive existing documents, they cover only
some specific precast structural systems and connections. The Balkan project was strongly
oriented to large panel systems, which were extensively used in Eastern Europe but are
nowadays outdated. Most other works are limited to moment resisting precast frames
based on the emulation of the monolithic structural systems.
The present research is focused on the categories of dry connections, consisting of
mechanical devices, which are the most common type in modern precast buildings in
Europe. The advantages of dry connections, in terms of quick erection, maintenance, re-
use, make them even more appealing in an environmentally friendly, life-cycle
performance oriented perspective. Figure 1 illustrates each category of connection
between the different structural elements creating the structural body of a precast building.
The first category of connections is that between adjacent floor or roof elements. These
connections are those affecting the diaphragm action of the roofing of precast structures.
The second category refers to connections between floor or roof panels and supporting
beams. These connections enforce and guarantee the perimetral restraints of the
diaphragm made of the panels in its in-plane behaviour. The third category refers to
connections between columns and beams. The beam-to-column joints shall ensure the
required degree of restraint in the frame system. The fourth category of connections used to
join columns and foundations is typically realized by positioning the precast columns into
͸

pocket foundations. Finally, the fifth category comprises connections between wall (or
cladding panels) and slab elements .
The seismic behaviour of the first four categories of connections was investigated in
the frameworks of the SAFECAST project. This report investigates the seismic behaviour
of mechanical beam-column connections, as well as the response of floor diaphragms
through reference pseudodynamic (PsD) tests on a full-scale 3-storey precast concrete
building, carried out at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) of the
European Commission in Ispra.
Figure 1.1 Categories of connections between the different structural elements of a

precast concrete building.
͹

Chapter
2
Design of the prototype
The prototype was designed with the aim of providing experimental validation about the
seismic behaviour of multi-storey precast concrete buildings, through large-scale reference
testing. The aim of this campaign is to provide proper experimental evidences about the
seismic behaviour of precast multi-storey buildings with both hinged or moment-resisting
beam-to-column connections. The building is representative of a large-scale three-storey
building with a 7 m by 7 m structural grid with and without structural walls. Its portion
that was (initially) selected to be tested had 2 by 3 spans/bays (14 by 21 m). However, the
dynamic non linear analyses conducted [19 and 20] revealed the possible effects of the
higher vibration modes on this type of relatively-“flexible”-structure. In particular, the
storey forces obtained from these analyses exceeded the force capacity of the available
actuators in some of the floors. Thus, the prototype that was finally decided to be
constructed and tested comprised a 2 by 2 spans/bays structure as presented in next
section.
ͺ

Chapter
3
Test structures
3.1 The Mock-up
The specimen structure was a three-storey full-scale precast residential building, with two
7m bays in each horizontal direction as shown in Fig. 3.1a. The structure was 15 × 16.25
m in plan and has a height of 10.9 m (9.9 m above the foundation level) with floor-to-
floor heights equal to 3.5 m, 3.2 m and 3.2 m for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd level, respectively.
The floor systems which were of high interest in this research, were carefully selected
to gather the largest possible useful information. To accomplish this, three different
pretopped floor systems were adopted. As shown in Fig. 3.1 (b and c), the 1st floor at 3.5
m was constructed with box-type elements put side by side and welded to each other;
similarly the 2nd floor at 6.7 m comprised double-tee elements put side by side welded to
each other; and finally the 3rd floor at 9.9 m was realized with the same box slab elements
of the 1st floor, but spaced to simulate diaphragms with openings. Detailed description of
the three floor systems and their connections is given in Bournas et al. 2012 [21].
ͻ

15 m 10.9m
16.25 m
(a)

(b) (c)
Figure 3.1 (a) Three-dimensional representation of the test structure (Dimensions in m).
Section view of the test structure: (b) In the loading direction. (c) In the
transverse to the loading direction. (Dimensions in cm)
The precast three-storey columns had a cross-section of 0.5 x 0.5 m (Fig. 3.2a) which
was kept constant along their height and were embedded by 0.75 m into 1-m-deep 1.3 ×
1.3 m in plan, pocket foundations (Fig. 3.2b). All the columns were constructed with wide
capitals at the level of each floor, with widths of 0.90 m and 2.25 m in the loading and
ͳͲ

transverse direction, respectively (Fig. 3.2c), in order to allow the mechanical beam-to-
column connection, the details of which are presented in a companion paper. The capitals
of the columns were designed as cantilevers fixed at the axis of the columns with flexure
and shear reinforcement. Figure 3.2d illustrates the erection phase of a column with
capitals before its positioning into the pocket foundation.
150 150
300
1300
600
700
750
500
1000
300
1300 1300
(a) (b)
900
200 200
400
(c) (d)
Figure 3.2 (a) Cross section of columns. (b) Pocket foundation. (c) A three storey
column with its capitals. (d) Erection of a column with capitals. (Dimensions in mm).
ͳͳ

The longitudinal beams connected to the columns’ capitals were precast box-type
hollow core elements, with a cross-section 0.4 x 2.25 m and a length of 6.38 m. The cross
section and dimensions of a typical beam spanning in the direction of loading is illustrated
in Fig. 3.3. Such type of beam has similar weight with respect to its equivalent inverted T
or I-shaped beam in terms of stiffness but with clear economical advantages over it
associated with the increase in the floor area.
40
21
20 20 20 20
638
9 9
22.5
10
20
92.5 92.5
225
140
20 185
22.5
10
142.33 80 153.33 80 142.33
Figure 3.3 (a) Cross section and dimensions of the main beams. (Dimensions in cm).
As it can be seen in Fig. 3.1b, two 4.05-m-long x 9.6-m-tall x 0.25-m-thick (4.05 m x

9.6 m x 250 mm) precast concrete walls were connected to the mock-up in order to
compose with the columns a dual frame-wall precast system. Each wall comprised 3 wall
hollow-core precast elements 3.2-m-tall (Fig. 3.4a) which were joined among themselves
by means of vertical reinforcement crossing their gaps at the level of each floor. Concrete
was cast only at the two edge cores of the section, where the wall vertical reinforcement
ͳʹ

was concentrated in “boundary elements”. The confinement of the concrete was also
limited there (Fig. 3.4 b and c). Thus, the wall’s moment resistance is assigned to the
“flanges” at the edges of its section and its shear resistance to the “web” in-between them.
The longitudinal reinforcement was lap-spliced at the mid-height of the second floor.
Similarly to the columns, the walls-to-foundation connection was realized through two
pocket foundations in which the walls’ longitudinal reinforcement was anchored (Fig.
3.4d).
(a) (b)
Pocket foundations
of the wall
(c) (d)
Figure 3.4 (a) View of a hollow-core precast wall element. (b) Cross section of precast
wall’s end cores and flange. (c) Assembling phase of the precast wall elements.
(d) Pocket foundations used for the precast wall elements. (Dimensions in cm).
ͳ͵

All precast elements (columns, walls, beams, slabs) were cast using the same concrete
class, namely C45/55, which turned out to have a 28-day strength, measured on 150 x150
mm cubes, equal to 64.5 MPa. The corresponding compressive strength of the concrete
cast in the boundary elements of the walls was equal to 61 MPa. The steel reinforcement
cast into the members had a yield stress of 527 MPa, a tensile strength of 673 MPa, and an
ultimate strain equal to 10 %. Table 3.1 summarizes the dimensions and percentages of
steel reinforcement of all prefabricated structural bearing elements used for the
construction of the mock-up.
Table 3.1. Dimensions and percentages of steel reinforcement

of all prefabricated bearing elements
Dimensions Geometrical
Concrete Amount of
Type of the of the ratio of
strength longitudinal
Precast element cross- cross- longitudinal
f c, reinforcement
section section reinforcement
MPa (mm2)
(m) s , %
Column 64.5 Solid 0.5 x 0.5 2513 1.00
Beams of the Hollow-
64.5 0.4 x 2.25 1810 0.35
1st floor core
64.5 0.4 x 2.25 1609 0.32
2nd floor core
64.5 0.4 x 2.25 1473 0.29
3rd floor core
Hollow-
Wall 64.5 2.4 x 0.25 8952 1.30
core
Wall end 61 Solid 0.8 x 0.25 2767 1.38
Hollow-
Wall web 64.5 2.45 x .25 3418 1.20
core
It is worth mentioning that the mock-up which weighed approximately 450 t,

represents the biggest precast structure ever tested and with a floor area of 244 m2
(15x16.25 m in plan) is possibly also the biggest in plan specimen tested ever under
seismic conditions worldwide.
ͳͶ

3.2 Description of the structural system- Investigated parameters
The mock-up was constructed in such a way that the effectiveness of four different
structural precast systems could be investigated experimentally. Therefore, the behaviour
of a series of parameters, including several types of mechanical connections (traditional as
well as innovative) and the presence or absence of shear walls along with the framed
structure, could be assessed.
The first layout (prototype 1) comprised a dual frame-wall precast system, where the
two precast shear wall units were connected to the mock-up (Fig. 3.5a). In this structural
configuration, the effectiveness of precast shear walls in terms of increasing the stiffness
of a relatively flexible three-storey precast building with hinged beam-to column joints was
examined.
In the second layout (prototype 2-Fig. 3.5b), the shear walls were disconnected from
the structure, to test the building in its most typical configuration, namely with hinged
beam-column connections by means of dowel bars (shear connectors). This
configuration, which represents the most common connection system in the construction
practice in the European countries, had been tested only for industrial typically single-
storey precast structures [3]. Thus, the second layout investigated for the first time
experimentally, the seismic behavior of a flexible multi (three)-storey precast building with
hinged beam-to-column connections, where the columns are expected to work principally
as cantilevers.
Afterwards, the possibility of achieving emulative moment resisting frames by means
of a new connection system with dry connections was investigated in the third and fourth
structural configurations. With the target of providing continuity to the longitudinal
reinforcement crossing the joint, an innovative connection system, embedded in the
precast elements, was then activated by means of bolts connecting the steel devices in the
columns and beams. A special mortar was placed to fill the small gaps between beams and
ͳͷ

columns. In particular, the first solution examined was oriented to reduce the flexibility of
such structures with hinged beam-to-column joints by restraining just the last floor of
multi-storey buildings; and thus, in the third layout (prototype 3 - Fig. 3.5c) the connectors
were restrained only at the third floor. Finally, in the last fourth layout, the connection
system was activated in all beam-column joints (prototype 4 - Fig. 3.5d). A summary of all
structural systems and the investigated parameters is presented in Table 3.2.
(a: prototype 1) (b: prototype 2)
(c: prototype 3) (d: prototype 4)
Figure 3.5 Structural configuration of the prototype with: (a) Shear walls and hinged
beam-column joints. (b) Hinged beam-column joints. (c) Hinged beam-column
joints at the 1st and 2nd floor and emulative at the 3rd. (d) Emulative beam-
column joints.
ͳ͸

Table 3.2. Experimental parameters
Type of Type of
Peak ground Existence of
Specimen beam–to-column beam–to-column
acceleration structural
notation connection in the connection in the
(g) walls
1st and 2nd floor 3rd floor
Prot1_0.15g 0.15 Yes Hinged Hinged
Prot1_0.30g 0.30 Yes Hinged Hinged
Prot2_0.15g 0.15 No Hinged Hinged
Prot2_0.30g 0.30 No Hinged Hinged
Prot3_0.30g 0.30 No Hinged Emulative
Prot4_0.30g 0.30 No Emulative Emulative
Prot4_0.45g 0.45 No Emulative Emulative
Prot4_Cyc Cyclic test No Emulative Emulative
3.3 Description of the floor diaphragms
The floor systems which were of high interest in this research, were carefully selected to
gather the largest possible useful information. To accomplish this, three different
pretopped floor diaphragms were incorporated among the floors. The first-floor level
incorporated box type elements (TS00X) with a cross-section 0.4 x 2.33 m and a length of
5.13 m. The cross section and dimensions of a typical first floor’s slab element spanning
in the transverse (to the loading) direction is illustrated in Fig. 3.6. A pretopped double-
tee diaphragm was located at the second floor of the specimen. The 2.33-m-wide units
were 5.13 m long with a 50 mm- thick flange and a total section height of 0.4 m (TT00X),
as shown in Fig. 3.7. The pretopped slab elements of the first and second floor, were put
side by side and welded to each other by 6 LǦshape welded elements. Figure 3.8 illustrates
these slab-to-slab welded connections. Finally, the 3rd floor at 9.9 m was realized with the
same box slab elements of the 1st floor (Fig. 3.6), but not connected between them. This
last floor system with spaced slab elements was selected to simulate the diaphragms with
openings which for architectural reasons are sometimes the method of choice in the
construction practice. To secure the transmission of the in-plane seismic storey forces
from the diaphragms to the vertical elements of the lateral resisting system, overdesigned
ͳ͹

slab-beam connections were realized in all three diaphragms as described in the following
section.
40
20 20
513
27.7
48.7
9
232.8
135.4
80
2+2 Ø70
48.7
27.7
5 60 60 223 60 60 5
Figure 3.6 Cross section and dimensions of the box-type slab elements used in the
diaphragms of the first and third floor. (Dimensions in cm).
40
20
513
9
37.6
225.8
150.6
2+2 Ø70
37.6
25 60 60 223 60 60 25
Figure 3.7 Cross section and dimensions of the double-tee slab elements used in the
diaphragm second floor. (Dimensions in cm).
ͳͺ

(a) (b)
Figure 3.8 Slab-to-slab welded connections applied at the: (a) First and third floor. (b)
Second floor.
3.4 Description of the mechanical connections
Two different types of beam-to-column connection were used in the test structures. The
first type, which corresponds to the most popular connection system in the construction
practice in the European countries, comprised hinged beam-column connections by
means of dowel bars (shear connectors). This type of connection is able to transfer shear
and axial forces both for the gravity and seismic forces and possible uplifting forces due to
overturning. By definition, they cannot transfer moment and torsion, although in reality
they do transfer a small amount of moment. The horizontal connection between the
beam and the column was established by means of two vertical steel dowels which were
protruding from the column into the special beam sleeves. This pinned beamǦcolumn
connections were constructed by seating the beams on the column capitals and by holding
ͳͻ

the beam ends in place by the use of the two vertical steel dowels, as shown in Fig. 3.8a.
The dowels were anchored into the capital. The sleeves were filled with a fine non-
shrinking grout, while a steel pad 1.0 cm thick was placed between the column and the
beam in order to enable the relative rotations between the elements. A photo of a typical
(central) beam-column joint of the first storey is presented in Fig. 3.8b. The detail of this
pinned beam-to-column connection is presented in Fig. 3.8c.
(a) (b)
Beam
Column
(c) (d)
Figure 3.9 (a) Seating of a secondary beam on the column capital. (b) A central beam-
column joint. (c) Detail of a pinned beam-column joint connection. (d) Special
dowels with increased diameter at the critical section.
ʹͲ

The large storey forces which were calculated through non-linear dynamic analyses for
the hinged three-storey structure (due to the higher modes effect-[19-20]), resulted also in
large actions on the connections. This force demand in the connections increased further
when relative capacity design rules were applied. Thus, it turned out that the required
diameters for the dowels were quite large for each storey. In order to have such big
diameter at the critical sections, a new dowel was specially developed and used within
SAFECAST. This special device has a co-axial tube that increases the resisting area (the
diameter) in the critical section, namely in the vicinity of the beam-column shear interface
(Figs. 3.8c and d). These dowels work also as shear reinforcement in the case of the
structure with fixed joints (prototype 4). Actually, as the joints were not cast in situ, it
would not have been possible to place shear reinforcement to the sections where the beam
connects to the column.
The same dowels with increased diameter at the critical section were also used for the
connection between slab and beam elements. Each slab element seating on beam capitals’
was connected through four dowels, namely two on each edge of the slab. Identically, two
dowels provided the necessary shear reinforcement area in beam-column connection (Fig.
3.8b). Table 3.3 summarizes the diameters and the mechanical properties of the steel
dowels (Fe430B) used in all pinned beam-column and slab-beam connections.
Table 3.3. Mechanical properties and diameters of steel dowel and emulative connectors
Connection Type
Hinged (Beam-Column & Slab-Beam) Emulative (Beam-Column)

Floor First Second Third First Second Third
Dowel diameter
24.4 (40) 24.4 (40) 24.4 (52) -- -- --
(at the critical section) (mm)
Rebar diameter
-- -- -- 25(4) 16(8) 20(4)
(no. of rebars in the joint) (mm)
Yield stress, fy (MPa) 265 265 265 417 528 422
Tensile strength, fu (MPa) 410 410 410 620 634 622
Ultimate strain, u (%) 20.0 20.0 20.0 N/A 10.5 25.2
ʹͳ

The second beam-column connection type, which emulates fixed beam-column joints
by means of dry mechanical connections, was investigated in the third and fourth
structural configurations (prototypes 3 and 4) with the aim of achieving emulative moment
resisting frames. Thus, in order to provide continuity to the longitudinal reinforcement
crossing the joint, an innovative ductile connection system, embedded in the precast
elements, was activated. This connection system comprises four steel rebars slightly
enlarged at their ends, two thick steel plates and a bolt that connects the two steel plates,
as shown in Fig. 3.10a. Figure 3.10b illustrates the test set-up adopted by POLIMI [22] to
assess the tensile capacity of the bare connection system without concrete. The results
demonstrated a ductile behaviour. When the first rebar started yielding, initiated
elongating and thus transferring force to the other, until both reached yielding. It is
important to remark that the rupture mechanism involved exclusively the rebars, with a
typical ductile rupture, while the other components of the connection (the two thick plates
and the linking bolt) remained intact (Fig 3.10c). Table 3.3 illustrates the results of these
(bare) connection systems used in the joints of each floor for creating a moment resisting
beam-column connection.
Figure 3.10 (a) Connector used to realize dry emulative beam-column joints . (b) Test set-
up adopted to assess the tensile capacity of the connection system. (c) Ductile
rupture of the longitudinal rebars.
ʹʹ

Regarding the realization of this connection system into the mock-up, the bolts that
were initially loosen into the joint of prototypes 1 and 2 were properly screwed (Fig 3.11a)
and activated (Fig 3.11b) to connect the steel devices in the columns and beams. Then,
the small (approximately 10-15 mm) gaps between beams and columns were filled by
placing a special mortar as shown in Fig. 3.11c. The average flexural and compressive
strength of this mortar were 7.2 MPa and 46.5 MPa, respectively. Figure 3.11d illustrates
an isometric view of the mechanical connector in a beam-column joint.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 3.11 (a) Loosen and activated connection system in its bare configuration.
(b) Activation of the loosen bolts to provide continuity to the longitudinal bars
crossing the beam-column joint. (c) Filling the gaps in the joints with mortar.
(d) Isometric view of the mechanical connector in a central beam-column joint.
ʹ͵

Chapter
4
Experimental program
4.1 Pseudodynamic testing
The continuous PsD method developed at the ELSA laboratory of the European
Commission JRC [23] was used for testing the mock-up. The PsD method couples the
properties of the structure into a physical quasistatic model tested in the laboratory and a
computer model representing inertia. The equation of motion for such an idealized model
can be expressed in terms of a second-order ordinary differential equation:
(1)
This implies that the structure can be analyzed as if it was supported on a fixed foundation
and subjected to an effective force vector Peff(t)= MIag(t), where I is a vector of zeros and
ones and ag(t) is the ground acceleration time history. The mass matrix, M, the viscous
damping matrix, C (typically null according to [24]), and the excitation force vector, Peff(t),
ʹͶ

are all numerically specified. The restoring force vector, R(t), which is, in principle,
nonlinear with respect to the displacement vector, d(t), is measured experimentally. At
each time instant, t, the equation is numerically solved (in this case, through the Explicit
Newmark method) to obtain the displacement, d(t + t), velocity, v(t + t), and
acceleration response, a(t + t), at the next time step, from the restoring forces, R(t),
measured at time t by the actuator load cells. The computed displacements at time instant
t + t are then imposed on the structure via actuators which load cells, at the end of the
step, provide the (measured) restoring forces, R(t + t), to be used subsequently for the
calculation of the response at the next time step. In the present tests the equation of
motion, Equation (1), was formulated in terms of three degrees of freedom (DOFs),
namely one per floor with the floor displacement x parallel to the direction of the
excitation at the storey centre of mass. Each floor had two HEIDENHAIN high-
resolution (2 m) optical encoder displacement transducers, mounted on two reference
frames (Fig. 4.1), and serving each one as feedback for the proportional-integral-derivative
(PID) controller of one actuator.
Translational masses of 186 857 kg at the first floor, 168 404 kg at the second floor
and 132 316 kg at the top floor, were numerically represented in the PsD test of prototype
1. The corresponding masses for the layouts without shear walls (prototype 2,3 and 4)
were considered equal to 170 948 kg, 157 978 kg and 127 013 kg, for the first, second and
third floor, respectively. The above simulated masses in the PsD tests are larger than the
actual masses of the specimen in order to reproduce the effect of additional loads beyond
self-weights. In the PsD test method it is not necessary to have the additional masses on
the test structure physically present, but only in the numerical model. Note that the
possibility of applying additional masses was rejected from the beginning of the project
due to technical reasons. This restriction resulted into a slightly lower magnitude of the
axial force in the columns. The average axial load ratios, N/Ac fc, resulting for the
columns of the ground floor are 0.0029 or 0.027, for the prototype with or without shear
ʹͷ

walls, respectively. The corresponding axial load ratios, if the additional masses had been
physically applied, would have been 0.034 and 0.032, respectively. No viscous damping,
Cv(t), is included in the equation of motion of the PsD test algorithm, Equation (1),
because in RC buildings most of the dissipation is hysteretic and is thus reflected by the
relationship of the (measured) restoring forces, R(t), to the imposed displacement vector,
d(t).

Figure 4.1 General view of the experimental set-up.
An overview of the experimental set up adopted is shown in Fig. 4.1. The horizontal
displacements were applied on the mid axis of the two transversal bays by two hydraulic
actuators with a capacity of 1000 kN at the 2nd and 3rd floor levels, while at the 1st floor
level (due to the availabilities of these devices in the laboratory), four actuators with
capacity of 500 kN were used (two of which controlled in force). Steel beams were placed
ʹ͸

along the two actuator axes to connect all the floor elements and distribute the applied
forces. An instrumentation network of 175 channels was used to measure:
1. The vertical deformation and curvature of the column sections at the base (bottom)
of all columns of the ground storey.
2. Absolute rotations within the plane of testing of all ground storey columns, 300 mm
above their bottom.
3. The horizontal displacements of the three frames of the structure (two externals and
one central) at the level of each storey
4. Absolute rotations within the plane of testing for the beams and columns in the
vicinity of all beam-column joints of the central frame and one of the external frames.
5. The beam-to-column joint shear displacement measured in selected beam-to-column
joints.
6. The decomposition of the wall lateral displacement at the first storey.
An overview of the instrumentation set up adopted is presented in the Appendix.
4.2 Input motion selection and test sequence
The reference input motion used in the PsD tests is a unidirectional 12 s-long time history,
shown in Fig. 4.2a for a PGA of 1.0g. The selected seismic action is represented by a real
accelerogram (Tolmezzo 1976) modified to fit the Eurocode 8 (EC8) [25] response
spectrum type B all over the considered frequency interval. Figure 7b illustrates the
spectra of the modified EW component of Tolmezzo record. The accelerogram was
scaled to the chosen peak ground accelerations of 0.15g for the serviceability limit state,
and 0.30g for the no-collapse limit state. Two pseudodynamic tests at a PGAs of 0.15g
(Prot1_0.15g) and 0.30g (Prot1_0.30g) were initially conducted on prototype 1, namely the
dual frame-wall precast system. After the walls were disconnected from the structure, the
ʹ͹

same excitation sequence was repeated for prototype 2 (Prot2_0.15g and Prot2_0.30g)
which had hinged beam-column connections in all joints. Prototype 3 which had
emulative beam-column connections only at the top floor was subjected only to the higher
intensity earthquake of 0.30g (Prot3_0.30g), whereas prototype 4 which had emulative
connections in all beam-column joints was tested pseudodynamically at the PGAs of 0.30g
(Prot4_0.30g) and 0.45g (Prot4_0.45g). A zero-acceleration signal was added after the end
of the record, to allow for a free vibration of the test structures, giving total durations
ranging between 15s to 19 s for the applied record. To approach the ultimate capacity of
the structure, a final “funeral” sequence of cyclic tests was performed, controlling the top
displacement of the structure and constraining the floor forces to an inverted triangular
distribution, which is consistent with the assumptions of most seismic codes including
EC8.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.2 (a) Input motion, scaled to PGA of 1g. (b) Spectra of the modified EW
component of the Tolmezzo record.
ʹͺ

Chapter
5
Experimental results and discussion
5.1 Global response
Detailed results about the global PsD response of the four prototypes are given in [26].
The global response of all prototypes tested under the PGA of 0.30g is summarized in Fig.
5.1 in the form of base shear force versus roof displacement hysteresis loops. A summary
of the global response of all prototypes tested is also given in Table 5.1. It includes: (a)
The fundamental natural vibration period. (b) The maximum base shear in the two
directions of loading. (c) The peak roof displacement. (d) The maximum interstorey drift
of each floor. (e) The peak pseudo-acceleration at the roof. (f) The curvature ductility
factor, which is defined as PI Imax / I y , where I y and Imax are the mean curvatures of the
column at yield (calculated with cross-section analysis), and the maximum curvature
measured during the tests, respectively. The experimental curvature was derived from the
relative rotation measured over the lower 300 mm of the column above the base, including
the rotation of the column section at the face of the footing and the effect of bar pull-out
from the base.
ʹͻ

Figure 5.1 Base shear versus roof displacement response of the four structural systems at
PGA of 0.30g.
Table 5.1. Summary of test results

Fundamental Maximum Peak roof Maximum interstory drift of Peak roof
natural base shear displacement each floor acceleration
Specimen
vibration (kN) (mm) (%) (g)
notation
period Pull Push
Pull Push Pull Push Pull Push
(sec) 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
Prot1_0.15g 0.30 1340 -1457 21.9 -16.8 0.12 0.24 0.31 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.44 -0.58
Prot1_0.30g 0.46 1780 -2146 48.2 -60.3 0.42 0.71 0.72 0.30 0.54 0.63 1.07 -0.91
Prot2_0.15g 1.09 500 -442 97.4 -86.6 0.58 1.12 1.28 0.57 0.99 1.08 0.31 -0.33
Prot2_0.30g 1.41 882 -895 208.2 -172.9 1.39 2.36 2.63 1.19 1.99 2.10 0.59 -0.64
Prot3_0.30g 1.08 889 -859 198.7 -148.4 1.74 2.54 1.77 1.37 1.91 1.23 0.50 -0.55
Prot4_0.30g 0.66 1715 -1454 132.5 -121.2 1.38 1.59 1.15 1.32 1.43 0.95 0.64 -0.88
Prot4_0.45g 1.25 1846 -1902 189.3 -206.5 1.96 2.37 1.77 2.46 2.37 1.45 0.98 -1.31
Cyclic Test -- 2237 -2031 388.1 -415.6 6.01 4.63 1.96 5.93 5.05 2.01 -- --
͵Ͳ

5.2 Prototype 1- Structure with shear walls and hinged beam-to-column
joints
Prototype 1 (Fig. 3.5a) was tested under two input motions scaled to a PGA of 0.15g and
0.30g. The time histories of floor displacements and restoring forces measured in these
two PsD tests are shown in Fig. 5.2. As expected, this dual wall-frame precast system was
stiff with an (experimental) fundamental natural vibration period of T= 0.30 sec for the
0.15g PGA. The same fundamental period was obtained from a 0.03g identification PsD
test at the beginning of the test program. These period estimations, as for all the tests,
were obtained from the measured response by means of identification of equivalent linear
models [27]. Note that the theoretical fundamental period obtained from a three-
dimensional model of the building using fully cracked walls (Icr = 0.33 Ig, where Ig is the
stiffness for the gross section) was slightly lower, namely T= 0.28 sec. At the higher intensity
earthquake, namely 0.30g PGA, the response curves were characterised by lower
frequencies (natural vibration period shifted to T= 0.46 sec) due to the partial loss of
tension stiffening in the vertical precast elements caused by the 0.15g test. As can be
observed in Fig. 5.2, the floor displacements and restoring forces are in phase between
them for both earthquake intensities, a fact which clearly indicates that the first vibration
mode dominates the PsD response of this structural configuration.
The global base shear force versus roof (3rd floor) lateral displacement hysteretic
response is plotted in Fig. 5.3 for 0.15g and 0.30g tests. At the 0.15g PsD test,
corresponding to the serviceability limit state (SLS) earthquake, the response remained
practically within the elastic range as it is illustrated in Fig. 5.3a. This PsD 0.15g test
deformed the building to a maximum roof displacement equal to 21.9 mm, while the
maximum base shear force was 1457 kN. The maximum recorded interstorey drift ratio
was recorded at the third floor equal to 0.31%. Figure 5.3b plots the base shear versus
roof displacement hysteretic curves for the 0.30g test. At this higher intensity earthquake
corresponding to the no-collapse design limit state, the response of the dual wall-frame
͵ͳ

system was characterized by some non linear effects with noticeably wider force-
displacement loops. The peak roof displacement and maximum base shear force
measured in this test were 60.3 mm and 2146 kN, respectively. The maximum interstorey
drift ratios recorded at the first, second and third floor kept at low levels, namely equal to
0.42%, 0.71% and 0.72%, respectively.
0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA
Figure 5.2 Time histories of floor displacements and restoring forces of prototype 1 at
PGAs of 0.15g and 0.30g.
0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA
Figure 5.3 Base shear versus roof displacement response of prototype 1 at PGAs of: (a)
0.15g and (b) 0.30g.
͵ʹ

At the base of the ground level columns, moderate yielding occurred only in one of
the loading directions for two columns, which reached a tensile strain (measured over the
lower 300 mm of the column above the base and including the effect of bar pull-out from
the base) of 0.29% and 0.31%, respectively, while the average tensile strain of all columns
in both directions of loading was 0.22%. The average concrete compressive strain
measured near the extreme compressive fiber, at the base of the 9 columns, remained in
low levels in the 0.30g test of prototype 1, namely 0.10%. The corresponding average
tensile and compressive strains measured at the base of the two end sections (concealed
columns) of the 2 walls, were 0.18% and 0.035%, respectively. These relatively low values
of tensile and compressive strains, measured at the base of the walls, could be attributed to
the fact that the contribution of flexural deformations comprises a small portion of their
overall deformation, as explained in the next section.
The wall cracking pattern at the first floor after the 0.30g PsD test is illustrated in Fig.
5.4a. Longitudinal and horizontal tensile cracks were developed close to the wall end
sections of maximum moment; these cracks were more evident over the lower 1m from
the wall base. Shear cracks were formed on the hollow “web” of the wall with an angle to
the vertical direction approximately equal to 45 degrees (Fig. 5.4a). The shear cracking
initiated from the first seconds of the PsD test, whereas their number and length was
increasing as the acceleration amplitudes was approaching the PGA of 0.30g.
Despite the extensive cracking occurred on both shear walls, they did not reach
significant level of damage their selves since the weak link in this layout was finally the
wall-to-beam joint in each floor. In particular, the six beams connecting the 2 walls with
the diaphragms failed in each floor due to diagonal compression (or shear) as shown in
Fig. 5.4b. It should be pointed out here that the connection of the bracing walls with only
two beams per floor was sort of compromise arisen from the design of the testing
programme, where (as mentioned above) the basic concept was to provide the capability
of easily disconnecting the wall from the rest of the structure. To effectively transfer the
͵͵

shear forces from the floors into the walls, vertical shear connectors should be capacity
designed and placed along the wall-to-floor interface. However, in spite of the fact that
the walls did not reach their ultimate capacity, the main objectives of prototype 1, namely
to reduce the flexibility of a multi-storey systems with hinged beam-column joints and to
transfer high shear forces among slab-to slab and beam-to-column joints, were
successfully met.
(a) (b)
Figure 5.4 (a) Cracking pattern of the wall at the 1st floor after the PGA 0.30g. (b)
Diagonal compression failure of the connection beams.
5.2.1 Decomposition of the wall lateral displacement
The overall wall drift is composed by various deformation mechanisms, namely

deformations due to flexure, shear distortion, shear slip and fixed end rotation. In this
section, an attempt is made to decompose the total wall displacement applied at the first
floor into the above mentioned relative displacements by using the data recorded from the
displacement transducers mounted on various cross sections of the walls. Figure 5.5
illustrates the cumulative first floor drift (average values in both directions of loading)
attributed to individual deformation mechanisms during the 0.30g PsD test of prototype 1.
͵Ͷ

In brief, based on this decomposition of the wall lateral drift at the first floor, it can be
concluded that at the peak (0.45% drift) the shear distortion, shear slip, fixed-end rotation
and the flexural contributions were equal to 25%, 17%, 41 and 17% of the total drift,
respectively.
0.5 Total
Shear
Shear slip
0.4 Fixed end rotation
Flexure
Drift ratio (%)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
Figure 5.5 Cumulative drift attributed to individual deformation mechanisms versus the
total imposed drift for the first floor of the wall at PGA 0.30g.
5.3 Prototype 2- Structure with hinged beam-to-column joints
Prototype 2 (Fig. 3.5b), which represents the most common connection system in the
European construction practice with hinged beam-to-column connections, was PsD tested
under the 0.15g and 0.30g earthquakes. The time histories of floor displacements and
restoring forces measured in these two PsD tests are shown in Fig. 5.6. The fundamental
vibration period of this flexible structural system was T= 1.10 sec for the 0.15g PGA,
whereas at the 0.30g PGA, the response curves were characterized by lower frequencies
(natural vibration period shifted to T= 1.40 sec). The seismic response of prototype 2 was
͵ͷ

much influenced by the effect of higher modes. As can be observed in Fig. 5.6, the floor
displacements and restoring forces are out of phase for both earthquake intensities at
some moments. In addition, from the shape of the base shear force - top displacement
curves, illustrated in Fig. 5.7, it is evident that the higher modes significantly influenced the
values of storey forces, for both 0.15g and 0.30g earthquakes. Moreover, there seems to
be no upper limit for the storey forces when the structure enters into the nonlinear regime,
an effect which was anticipated in the preliminary nonlinear calculations [19]. This effect,
which is a direct consequence of the large higher modes contribution, results into large
force demands in the connections.
0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA
To further evaluate the influence of the higher modes a modal decomposition is

executed in the companion paper. It should be also pointed out here that, although the
peaks of the input ground acceleration occurred during the first 7 seconds of the
͵͸

accelerogram (Fig. 4.2a), the corresponding peak floor displacements were recorded in its
last four seconds, where the seismic excitation was considerably reduced. For this reason
a zero-acceleration signal was added after the end of the record, to allow for a free
vibration of the test structure, giving a total duration close to 19 s for the applied record.
0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA
Figure 5.7 Base shear versus roof displacement response of prototype 2 at PGAs of: (a)
0.15g and (b) 0.30g.
At the 0.15g PsD test, corresponding to the frequent (serviceability) seismic action,
the overall response of prototype 2 remained practically within the elastic range as it is
illustrated in Fig. 5.7a. However, the EC8 damage limitation requirement for buildings,
which is simply expressed by an upper limit on the interstorey drift ratio, equal to 1% for
the serviceability limit state was exceeded in the second and third floor. In particular, the
maximum interstorey drifts were equal to 0.57%, 1.06%, and 1.18%, at the first, second
and third storey, respectively. Thus, to meet the requirements imposed by EC8 a multi-
storey hinged frame structure would require larger cross-sections of the columns. Figure
5.7b plots the base shear versus roof displacement hysteretic curves for the 0.30g test. At
this higher intensity earthquake corresponding to the no-collapse design limit state, the
response of this precast system with hinged beam-to-column joints was characterized by
excessive deformability. The peak roof displacement and maximum base shear force
measured in this test were 208 mm and 895 kN, respectively. Maximum interstorey drift
͵͹

ratios recorded at the first, second and third floor were 1.29%, 2.18% and 2.37%,
respectively.
During the 0.30g seismic excitation, yielding occurred at the base of the all ground
level columns of prototype 2, which on average reached a tensile strain of 0.92%. The
average concrete compressive strain measured near the extreme compressive fiber at the
base of the 9 columns was 0.32%.
The behavior of this structural configuration with hinged beam-to-column
connections was in general satisfactory. Despite the limited stiffness of this structural
configuration and the fact that the maximum interstorey drifts were above the limits
imposed by EC 8, prototype 2 did not suffer significant damage in its structural members
during the 0.30g PsD test. A visual inspection made at the end of the design level
earthquake revealed only damages around the welding of the slab-to-slab connections of
the first floor which are presented in the companion paper.
5.4 Prototype 3- Structure with emulative beam-to-column joints at the top
In the third structural configuration, the mechanical connection system embedded in the
beam-column joints was activated to create moment-resisting connections only at the top
floor and then prototype 3 (Fig. 3.5c) was subjected to the higher intensity earthquake of
0.30g. The time histories of floor displacements and restoring forces measured in this
PsD test are shown in Fig. 5.8. The fundamental vibration period of the structural system
was reduced by 23% in comparison with its counterpart with hinged beam-column
connections (T= 1.08 sec, as opposed to T= 1.40 sec in prototype 2). However, it turned
out that the concept of emulative beam-column joints at the top floor only was not quite
effective as a means of reducing interstorey drifts and the overall displacements of the
structure. In fact, as illustrated in Fig. 5.8, the floor displacements and restoring forces are
͵ͺ

still out of phase for the design level earthquake a fact which, as in the case of prototype 2,
corresponds to a seismic response considerably influenced by the effects of higher modes.
As for prototype 2, the peak displacement response arose during the time interval 9.5-10.3
sec, when the seismic input acceleration was marginal. Similarly to prototype 2, a zero-
acceleration signal was added after the end of the record, to allow for a free vibration of
the test structure, giving a total duration close to 19 s for the applied record.
PGA of 0.30g.
Figure 5.9 plots the base shear versus roof displacement hysteretic curves for the
0.30g test. The peak roof displacement and maximum base shear force measured in this
test were 199 mm and 889 kN, respectively. The maximum interstorey drifts were equal
to 1.56%, 2.23%, and 1.50%, at the first, second and third storey, respectively. Comparing
the above values to the corresponding maximum interstorey drifts marked in prot2_0.30g,
(namely 1.29%, 2.18% and 2.37%), it is evident that by constraining the beam-column
͵ͻ

joints of the top floor, the problem of large interstorey drifts was moved from the third to
the second and first floors. Therefore, it appears that the damage limitation requirement
for the serviceability limit state imposed by EC8, would not be met for the columns of
lower stories, by restraining only the top joints of a precast system with hinged beam-
column connections.
Figure 5.9 Base shear versus roof displacement response of prototype 3 at PGA of 0.30g.
Due to the restraining of the beam-column joints in the top floor, the seismic
excitation of 0.30g resulted in slightly higher stresses at the base of the ground floor
columns. The average concrete tensile and compressive strain measured close to the
extreme tension and compression fiber at the base of the 9 columns, were 1.22% and
0.39%, respectively. A visual inspection made at the end of the 0.30g at prototype 3 did
not reveal any new damages to the specimen.
ͶͲ

5.5 Prototype 4- Structure with emulative beam-to-column joints
In the fourth and last layout, the mechanical connection system was activated in all beam-
column joints with the aim of fully creating emulative moment-resisting frames. Prototype
4 (Fig. 3.5d) was tested under two input motions scaled to 0.30g and 0.45g. Figure 5.10
illustrates the time histories of floor displacements and restoring forces measured during
these two PsD test. The natural vibration period of Prototype 4 was 0.66 sec,
approximately half than the period measured in its counterpart with hinged beam-column
joints (prot2_0.30g). This stiffer precast system led as a consequence to higher inertia
forces and lower storey drifts. Moreover, its vibration for 0.30g PGA was not affected by
the higher modes to the same extent, as was the case in the prototypes with hinged beam-
to-column joints. This can be clearly noticed in Fig. 5.10, where the restoring forces at the
three floors are in phase with the applied horizontal floor displacements. At the
maximum considered earthquake, namely 0.45g PGA, though, the response curves were
characterized by much lower frequencies (natural vibration period shifted to T= 1.25 sec)
due to the crack opening of the beam-column joints, caused by the previous 0.30g test.
Figure 5.11 presents the base shear versus roof displacement loops of prototype 4 for
both 0.30g and 0.45g earthquakes. In the ultimate limit state seismic excitation of 0.30g,
the response of prototype 4 underwent reduced non linear effects (Fig. 5.11a). The 0.30g
PsD test deformed the building to a maximum roof displacement of 132.5 mm, while the
maximum base shear force was 1454 kN. The maximum interstorey drifts were
significantly lower than the corresponding ones in prototypes 2 and 3, namely they were
equal to 1.35%, 1.51%, and 1.05%, at the first, second and third storey, respectively. The
average concrete tensile and compressive strain measured close to the extreme tension and
compression fiber at the base of the 9 columns, were 1.34 % and 0.43 %, respectively. A
visual inspection made at the end of the 0.30g at prototype 3 did not reveal any new
damages to the specimen. Since prototype 4 survived the design level earthquake (0.30g
Ͷͳ

PGA) without significant damages, it was decided to proceed with the more intense
seismic excitation of 0.45g, which might be regarded as representative of the maximum
considered earthquake.
0.30g PGA 0.45g PGA
0.30g PGA 0.45g PGA
Figure 5.11 Base shear versus roof displacement response of prototype 4 at PGAs of:
0.30g and 0.45g.
Ͷʹ

The peak roof displacement and maximum base shear force measured in this test were
206.5 mm and 1902 kN, respectively. Under the 0.45g excitation, the maximum
interstorey drifts were increased to 2.21%, 2.37%, and 1.61%, at the first, second and third
storey, respectively. A visual inspection of the structure after the 0.45g PsD test revealed
dense flexural cracking at the base of the ground floor columns, but without considerable
damage. The average concrete tensile and compressive strain measured (near the extreme
tension compression fiber) at the base of the 9 columns were 2.61 % and 0.60 %,
respectively. Additionally, the flexural cracking detected at the bottom of beams, in the
vicinity of the beam-column joints of the first and second floor, indicated evidence of
yielding at those cross-sections. The width of the permanent cracks measured at the end
of 0.45g test at the base of ground floor columns and at the bottom of beams in the first
and second floor, were approximately 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm, respectively.
In summary, the pseudodynamic test results show that, when activated at all the
floors, the proposed connection system is quite effective as a means of implementing dry
precast (quasi) emulative moment-resisting frames especially when all beam-column joints
are made rigid.
5.6 Prototype 4- Final Cyclic Test
Peak ground accelerations of 0.30g or 0.45g could be assumed to be the intensities for the
no-collapse limit state for a zone with high seismicity, however, the pseudodynamic tests
did not lead prototype 4 to heavy damages. To approach the ultimate capacity of the
structure, a final “funeral” sequence of cyclic tests has been performed, controlling the top
displacement of the structure and constraining the floor forces to an inverted triangular
distribution. The starting displacement amplitude was selected to approximately coincide
with the maximum displacement recorded during the PsD tests, while the successive
Ͷ͵

cycle(s) progressively increasing by 90 mm corresponded roughly to 1% interstorey drift
increases. Two cycles were repeated at increasing amplitudes of ±210 mm and ±300 mm.
During the reverse cycle of the larger amplitude (300 mm), the fastenings of one of the
distribution beams were detached at the third floor. For this reason the final loading cycle
of the test was performed by applying the actions only at the first and second floors
controlling the displacement at the second floor at ±360 mm amplitude. The fact that the
actuators of the third floor were disconnected during the last cycle, therefore applying
zero force, did not much affect the building’s maximum base shear force, nor its
“collapse” mechanism, since the damage concentration and interstorey drifts measured
during the two cycles (amplitudes of ±210 mm and ±300 mm), were already substantially
higher in the 1st and 2nd than in the 3rd floor.
Figures 5.12 illustrates the time histories of floor displacements and restoring forces
measured during the cyclic test in prototype 4. The maximum interstorey drifts were
considerably high, namely equal to 5.97%, 4.84%, and 1.99%, at the first, second and third
storey, respectively. Figure 5.13 presents the base shear versus roof displacement
hysteretic curves recorded for the cyclic test. The peak roof displacement and maximum
base shear force measured in the cyclic test were 415.6 mm (4.2% global drift) and 2237
kN, respectively. During the cyclic test, the response of prototype 4 underwent extensive
damages and most possibly approached the non-collapse limit state with very wide force-
drift cycles. Nevertheless, even under the very high horizontal displacements that
prototype 4 was subjected to, its peak recorded strength was not reduced considerably in
any of the loading directions and thus the building’s failure as it is conventionally defined
(20% drop in peak strength) was not reached. The cyclic test was terminated when the
stroke of the actuators in the first floor was about to be exhausted.
ͶͶ

Third floor
(zero force)
Figure 5.12 Time histories of floor displacements and restoring forces of prototype 4
during the cyclic test.
Figure 5.13 Base shear versus roof displacement response of prototype 4 during the cyclic
test.
Ͷͷ

The damage pattern and the distribution of plastic hinge formation detected in each
frame of prototype 4 after the cyclic test is summarised in Fig. 5.14. The major part of
inelasticity and damage was concentrated at the base of all ground floor columns, namely
at the cross-sections of maximum moment. There, the concrete cover and part of the
core over the lower 300 mm of the columns disintegrated and bar buckling initiated after
the concrete cover spalled off, as shown in Fig. 5.15a. Excessive were the average
maximum concrete tensile and compressive strain (for the 9 columns) at those sections,
which were measured equal to 7.61 % and 3.24 %, respectively. The ground floor
columns attained a drift ratio of about 6 % (Fig. 5.15b), while their mean curvature
ductility factor PI (as defined previously) was rather high, in the order of 22.
Figure 5.14 Typical damage pattern and plastic hinging formation after the cyclic test.
The plastic hinge formation was then successively diffused at the joints of the first
and second storey. It appears that at the first floor level, the capacity design requirements
were not met in all beam-column joints. In particular, for the external joints, where the
column is framing into only one beam it seems that the plastic hinge was formed in the
beams (primarily) but also in the columns. The cracking at these joints started in the
vicinity of the mechanical connections, possibly due to debonding forces, and propagated
Ͷ͸

to the adjacent beam and column, as illustrated in Fig. 5.16a. On the other hand, at the 3
central joints, where two beams are connected to each column, the plastic hinge was
clearly developed in the columns and the beams remained essentially intact (Fig. 5.16b).
The damage pattern was identical in the joints of the second floor, even though the
damage accumulation was clearly inferior there.

(a) (b)
Figure 5.15 (a) Disintegration of concrete and bar buckling. (b) View of the first floor’s
columns (approximately) maximum horizontal displacement during the cyclic
test.
Ͷ͹

(a)
(b)
Figure 5.16 (a) Cracking in the vicinity of an external first floor’s (emulative) beam-column
joint. (b) Plastic hinging at the top of the first floors’ columns in a central
beam-column joint.
Ͷͺ

Chapter
6
Response of the connections and diaphragms
6.1 Response of the floor diaphragms
Figure 6.1 presents the displacement histories of the three frames (two externals and one
central) at the floor levels for prototype 1 subjected to the 0.30g seismic excitation. As it
can be observed, in the first and second floor the displacement of each frame was
practically the same, a fact which indicates that the in-plane rigidity of the diaphragms was
not impaired by their connection with stiff RC walls. In the third floor, however, the
maximum displacement of the middle frame was 20% higher than the corresponding
displacements of the two external frames. The openings in the diaphragm of the third
floor reduced its in-plane stiffness and consequently the two external frames connected to
the shear walls were stiffer in respect to the central frame.
The absolute horizontal displacement calculated through the PsD algorithm (by
considering rigid in their planes diaphragms) and applied to the third floor, was
approximately equal to the average of the displacement measured in the external and
central frames. In fact, the absolute third floor’s horizontal displacement was 9.1% lower
Ͷͻ

than the corresponding displacement of the central frame and 9.3% higher than the
average displacement of the two external frames. It is important to note here that
according to EC8, a diaphragm is taken as being rigid, if, when it is modeled with its actual
in-plane flexibility, its horizontal displacements nowhere exceed those resulting from the
rigid diaphragm assumption by more than 10%. Consequently, this condition of EC8, for
assuming rigid in their planes floor diaphragms, was (hardly) met herein even for the case
of the diaphragm with openings, connected to stiff precast RC walls and subjected to the
0.30g earthquake. This seismic intensity corresponds to the ultimate limit state.
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Frame displacement (mm)
-60 Third floor

45
Time (sec)
30
15
0
-15
-30 Second floor
15
Data point numners
10
5
0
-5
-10 First floor
-15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (sec)
Figure 6.1 Frame displacement histories of prototype 1 at PGA 0.30g.
Table 6.1 summarizes the maximum frame and absolute displacements of the third floor
measured experimentally in all prototypes and tests performed. Clearly, once the shear
ͷͲ

walls were disconnected from the mock-up, the diaphragm action was substantially
improved in the rest prototypes 2, 3 and 4. In the latter case, the horizontal displacement
in the three frames was practically the same since the seismic storey forces were
transmitted from the diaphragm to the beams and finally to the columns (more)
uniformly.
Table 6.1. Frame and absolute displacements in the third floor

Third floor
Maximun difference in
horizontal displacement
the ratio of displacements
(Diaphragm with openings)
Specimen (%)
(mm)
notation
Central to Absolute Absolute to
South Central North Absolute
external to central external
Frame Frame Frame
frame frame frame
Prot1_0.15g 19.4 21.9 18.2 19.4 20.3 -8.80 6.60
Prot1_0.30g 50.2 59.8 49.7 54.3 20.3 -9.10 9.25
Prot2_0.15g 104.3 105.4 104.5 106.7 1.01 1.23 2.30
Prot2_0.30g 188.1 189.8 189.9 190.5 1.00 0.35 1.28
Prot3_0.30g 173.9 175.9 173.8 173.6 1.21 -1.31 -0.11
Prot4_0.30g 125.9 129.1 126.0 126.9 2.54 -1.70 0.80
Prot4_0.45g 195.6 201.0 195.9 197.9 2.80 -1.54 1.12
Cyclic Test 403.5 404.0 402.5 401.2 0.37 -0.69 -0.57
6.2 Response of the beam-column connections
6.2.1 Hysteretic behaviour of the joint
As resulting from the in-plane rigid floor assumption, which was confirmed experimentally
here for all floors of the prototypes 2, 3 and 4 (Table 6.1), the seismic loading is uniformly
distributed. Thus, based on the large inǦplane stiffness of the floor (rigid diaphragm) and
the elastic response of the connections (as explained below), the storey forces are then
equally distributed among all columns. This means that the capacity demand on the
ͷͳ

connection is equal to the total storey force divided by the number of columns, and the
number of connections which are attached to a column. Therefore, in the following plots,
the force at the joint was approximately taken equal to the storey force divided by nine (i.e.
the number of columns). In addition, the joint horizontal and vertical slip were calculated
combining the measurements of the LVDTs and inclinometers fixed at selected beam-
column joints of the second and third floor (see Appendix).
In Figure 6.2, the diagrams of the joint shear force versus the joint slip (horizontal
displacement) loops are presented for an external beam-column joint (joint 13-see in the
Appendix) of the third floor, subjected to the 0.30g (prototypes 2, 3 and 4) and 0.45g
seismic excitations (prototype 4), respectively. The horizontal opening of the joint (joint
slip) was as expected higher in the case of prototype 2 (Fig. 6.2a) with pinned connections.
At the 0.30g test, the average joint slip among the beam-column joints of the third floor
that were monitored, was 7.1 mm, 4.7 mm and 1.99 mm, for prototypes 2, 3 and 4,
respectively. Consequently, for the same seismic input motion of 0.30g, the joint slip was
reduced dramatically in prototype 4 with moment resisting joints, that is 3.5 times lower
than its counterpart with hinged beam-to-columns joints. A similar trend was observed
for the joint axial elongation which from 1.91 mm in prototype 2, was reduced to 0.97 mm
in prototype 3 and 0.78 mm, when the mechanical connection system (Fig. 3.11) was
activated in all joints. The joint axial elongation that is (essentially) attributed to the
relative beam-column rotation can be approximately considered equal the elongation of a
dowel well anchored to its ends. Thus, by dividing with its anchorage length (ld =270 mm
-Fig. 3.9), the average dowel axial strains can be estimated. For prototypes 2,3 and 4 the
relative values were equal to 0.71%, 0.36% and 0.28%, respectively.
Figure 6.3 illustrates the joint shear force versus joint slip and axial displacement
recorded at the second floor of an external and a central joint (joint 7 and joint 8 - see
Appendix), during the cyclic test. It should be pointed out that the strength of the
connections was higher than the capacity of the columns even at very large relative beam-
ͷʹ

to-column rotations. Plastic hinging was formed at the base of the columns well before
the maximum capacity of the connections was reached.
120
(a) Prot. 2 - 0.30g (b) Prot. 3 - 0.30g
80
Shear force (kN)
40
-40
-80
-120
120
(c) Prot. 4 - 0.30g (d) Prot. 4 - 0.45g
80
Shear force (kN)
40
-40
-80
-120
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
9-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Shear displacement (mm) Shear displacement (mm)
Figure 6.2 Joint shear force versus the joint slip loops for an external beam-column joint
(J13) of the third floor of: (a) Prototype 2 at PGA 0.30g. (b) Prototype 3 at
PGA 0.30g. (c) Prototype 4 at PGA 0.30g. (d) Prototype 4 at PGA 0.45g.
The cyclic strength of the connection for well detailed joints (large concrete cover and
sufficient confinement), can be estimated according to the following expression proposed
by Vintzeleou and Tassios [28] when the calculation of the dowel’s shear strength is of
concern:
Du ,cyc 0.50 1.30db2 f ck f sy (1)
ͷ͵

where fck and fsy are characteristic strength for concrete and steel (units in MPa), and db is a
diameter of the dowel (units in mm). According to the results of Eq. 1, the cyclic shear
strength of an external beam-column connection (2 dowels) of the first and second floor is
equal to 271 kN. Note that in the third floor larger diameter dowels were used, while in
the central beam-column joints where the connection is realized with 4 dowels. As a
result, the strength of the beam-column connection is in both cases superior. Therefore, it
appears that the response of the beam-column connections in terms of shear capacity
remained in the elastic range in all prototypes, however, significant cracking appeared in
the vicinity of the first floor’s emulative joints as is presented in next sections.
160
120 Joint 7 - Cyclic test

Shear force (kN)
80
40
-40
-80
-120
-160
160
120
Shear force (kN)
80
40
-40
-80
-120 Joint 8 - Cyclic test

-160
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 -9
9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Shear displacement (mm) Axial displacement (mm)
Figure 6.3 Joint shear force versus joint slip and axial displacement recorded at the
second floor of an external and a central joint during the cyclic test.
ͷͶ

6.2.2 Column versus beam rotation
In a perfectly hinged beam-to-column joint there is no moment transfer to the beam and
consequently the last does not rotate. On the contrary, in a monolithic-moment resisting-
connection the beam is fixed to the column and ideally rotates as much as the last does.
The rotations measured experimentally in many joints of the three floors, though, did
neither confirm the first nor the second hypothesis concerning fully hinged or fixed joints.
Table 6.2 lists the maximum values of columns and beams rotation recorded in the vicinity
of six (out of nine) beam-column joints of the first floor during the PsD and cyclic tests.
Table 6.2 gives also the average beam and column rotation, as well as the column to beam
rotation ratio. In prototypes 1 and 2 with hinged joints, the beam rotation is very small
(yet not negligible) and the ratio of the column to beam rotation is about 8.5. Once the
mechanical connection devices were activated in all beam-column joints (prototype 4),
notably higher activation of the first floor beams in the frame behavior was achieved. In
particular, for the same seismic excitation of 0.30g, the beams rotation in the first floor of
prototype 4 was doubled in comparison with those measured in prototype 2; while the
ratio of column to beam rotation was reduced to approximately 5.
Table 6.2. Maximum recorded rotations at joints of the first floor

Joint Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4 Joint 5 Joint 6
Column Average
rotations (rad x 10-3) (rad x 10-3) (radx10-3) (radx10-3) (radx10-3) (radx10-3)
to beam (radx10-3)
at the first rotation
Beam Col. Beam Col. BeamCol.BeamCol.BeamCol.BeamCol. Beam Col.
floor ratio
Prot.
0.5 5.3 0.7 5.1 0.8 5.2 0.5 5.3 0.7 4.8 0.6 5.1 0.63 5.1 8.1
1_0.30g
Prot.
2.1 19.1 2.2 18.3 2.2 18.2 1.7 18.3 2.2 17.2 2.2 18.6 2.1 18.3 8.7
2_0.30g
Prot.
4.9 32.9 5.0 31.5 5.1 31.8 4.2 32.5 2.7 19.4 2.6 21.1 4.1 28.2 6.9
3_0.30g
Prot.
9.0 23.5 2.9 21.4 6.2 22.3 9.0 22.7 9.6 13.8 0.86 17.3 4.1 20.1 4.9
4_0.30g
Prot.
10.0 36.4 3.2 33.4 7.9 33.9 9.7 35.2 2.2 21.3 N/A 25.7 6.7 31.0 4.6
4_0.45g
Prot._Cyclic 19.7 86.0 7.0 83.4 24.7 84.5 15.4 83.4 4.0 53.5 15.3 50.6 14.5 73.5 5.1
ͷͷ

Figure 6.4 presents the evolution of the column and beam rotation in a typical
(external) joint of the first floor, for all structural configurations subjected to the 0.30g
seismic excitation. Once more two main aspects can be observed: 1) higher participation
of the beams in the frame behaviour of prototype 4; and 2) the beam-column joint
response in prototype 4 quite different from an emulative joint. It should be pointed out
that the execution of this mechanical connection has no quality control or certification for
the time being. The state of mortar filling in the gaps between columns and beams was
not identical in all joints and in some cases the penetration of mortar in the gaps was poor.
0.03 (a) Prot. 1 - 0.30g (b) Prot. 2 - 0.30g
0.02
Rotation (rad)
0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02 Column
Beam
-0.03
0.03 (c) Prot. 3 - 0.30g
0.02
Rotation (rad)
0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03 (d) Prot. 4 - 0.30g
0 4 8 12 16 20
20
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Figure 6.4 Evolution of column and beam rotation in first floor’s joint at PGA of 0.30g
for: (a) Prototype 1. (b) Prototype 2. (c) Prototype 3. (d) Prototype 4.
ͷ͸

Figure 6.5 illustrates both cases of a well executed and a non satisfactory-filled joint,
as revealed during the demolition phase of the mock-up. This resulted in a semiǦrigid
beamǦcolumn joint with asymmetric (in the two directions of loading) and unequal
(between beams and columns) rotations, as shown in Fig. 6.4.
Figure 6.5 Well executed and non satisfactory-filled joints as revealed at the demolition of
the mock-up.
The above findings were exploited in calibrating numerical models for both types of
beam-to-columns connections by the University of Ljubljana (UL) research group [29].
For the case of hinged connections, a numerical model was modified accordingly to
consider the increased stiffness of the structure that was caused by the partial fixation of
the beamǦcolumn connections. This was practically realized by adding zeroǦlength
elements (rotational springs) at the locations of the beamǦcolumn hinges, with a linear
elastic relationship for the rotational degree of freedom to model the partial fixation, as
shown in Fig. 6.6a. The elastic stiffness of the spring was calibrated from the UL research
ͷ͹

group with the experimental results of prototype 2 and the proposed elastic stiffness (kM),
for such hinged-beam column joints was equal to 1600 kNm/rad. For the second
connection type which emulates fixed joints, the experimental results of prototypes 3 and
4 demonstrated that there was an initial gap in the momentǦrotation response as well as a
pinching effect. The gap was explained as an initial opening at the location of the
beamǦcolumn joint, resulting in an unrestrained rotation between the beam and the
column, while the pinching effect was attributed to the subsequent damage (falling) of the
mortar filling between the beams and the columns. The gap and the pinching effect were
introduced numerically in [29] by proposing the joint moment-rotation relationship of Fig.
6.6b. The length of the gap and the size of the initial stiffness were calibrated from UL
with the experimental results of prototype 4, and were found for such mechanical semi-
rigid connections, equal to = 0.005 rad and kinitial = 4000 kNm/rad, respectively.
Naturally, more details about both numerical models can be found in [29].

Figure 6.6 Joint moment-rotation relationship for: (a) Pinned beam-column joints. (b)
Semi-rigid beam-column joints.
ͷͺ

6.2.3 Energy dissipation
To further evaluate the effectiveness and the seismic response of both types of beam-
column connections, the cumulative dissipated energies - computed by summing up the
area enclosed within the load versus displacement curve - were recorded for each
prototype subjected to the 0.30g PGA seismic excitation and plotted in Fig. 6.7. Globally,
the PsD tests demonstrated that the energy dissipation of the mock-up with pinned
connections is smaller than the case of “emulative” connections. The energy dissipated by
prototype 4 (Fig. 6.7d) with moment resisting joints during the 0.30g earthquake was
about 50% higher that the corresponding energy dissipated by its counterpart with hinged
beam-to-columns joints (prototype 2-Fig. 6.7b) for the same seismic input motion. The
restraining of the top beam-column joints (only) realized in prototype 3 (Fig. 6.7c) had
practically no improvement in the energy dissipation capacity of the structure with hinged
beam-to column connections. As the intensity of the seismic input motion increased from
0.30g to 0.45g PGA, the energy dissipated by prototype 4 was almost doubled. Finally, the
energy dissipated during the “funeral” cyclic test was nearly five times higher than that
dissipated by prototype 4 in the 0.30g earthquake.
Figure 6.7 decomposes also the total energy to the energy dissipated by the three
individual floors. With the exception of prototype 1, all other layouts displayed
considerably higher energy dissipation in the first floor compared to the second and third
one. This is attributed to the flexural cracking and yielding which was mainly concentrated
at the base of the ground floor columns for the prototypes 2, 3 and 4. The energy
dissipation in the third floor was identical for all specimens. In prototype 4, the energy
dissipated in the second and first floor was respectively 53% and 72% higher than the
energy dissipated by prototype 2 in the corresponding floors. Beyond the flexural
cracking and yielding at the base of the ground floor columns, the enhanced energy
dissipation in the first floor of prototype 4, is also ascribed to the higher activation of the
ͷͻ

beams (Fig. 6.4) and their considerable flexural cracking achieved at the first floor (column
to beam rotation ratio 5).

5
1.8x10
(a) Prot. 1 - 0.30g (b) Prot. 2 - 0.30g
Energy (J)
1.2x10 5 Total
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
6.0x10 4
0.055
1.8x10
1.8x10
(c) Prot. 3 - 0.30g
Energy (J)
5
1.2x10
4
6.0x10
(d) Prot. 4 - 0.30g

0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20
0
20 4 8 12 16 20
Figure 6.7 Total and cumulative energies dissipated in each floor at PGA of 0.30g, for: (a)
Prototype 1. (b) Prototype 2. (c) Prototype 3. (d) Prototype 4.
6.2.4 Damage in the connections
Despite the fact that the strength of the beam-column connection was not approached
during the final “funeral” cyclic test, the emulative joints experienced inelastic behaviour
and cracking. Especially at the first floor level, where higher bending moment were
developed, the cracking in the vicinity of the mechanical devices was excessive. The
flexural cracking at the joints started at the initial stages of loading, with the main flexural
͸Ͳ

crack was always appearing at the column capital-beam interface, where mortar was
poured to fill the gaps. In addition, large inclined cracks, propagating in the concrete
surface as a result of high pullout forces of the longitudinal reinforcement crossing the
joint, were identified at the end of the cyclic tests, as shown in Fig. 6.8a. Figure 6.8b
illustrates some of the broken slabǦtoǦslab welded connections of the first floor, after the
cyclic test in prototype 4. Note that this type of failure that appeared only in the
peripheral (4 out of 12) welded slabǦtoǦslab connections of the first floor, did not finally
affect at all its rigid diaphragm.
(a) (b)
Figure 6.8 Damages detected after the cyclic tests: (a) Cracking in the vicinity of the
mechanical connector. (b) Broken slabǦtoǦslab welded connections at the first
floor.
͸ͳ

Chapter
7
Modal decomposition of prototype’s response
To further evaluate the influence of the hinged and emulative beam-column connections
on the seismic behaviour of the four prototypes, a modal decomposition was executed.
The procedure in [23, 27] was applied to compute how the effective period of the three
modes of the test structures in the direction of testing evolved during the PsD response: a
secant stiffness matrix, K, and a viscous damping matrix, C, based on the same DoFs as
the PsD test is fitted by least squares, to the measured restoring force vector, R, and the
imposed vectors of displacement and velocity, d and v, respectively, as R=Kd + Cv. In this
spatial-model procedure, K and C are taken to be symmetric and C non-proportional.
The identification was done from the data of a moving time-window of the PsD test
results. On the basis of the fitted stiffness matrix, K, and damping matrix, C, and of the
theoretical mass matrix M (companion paper), complex eigenvalues and modes were
obtained for the central instant of this time-window. Figure 7.1 shows the evolution
during the tests of the so-estimated time-varying effective periods of the three modes for
all prototypes subjected to the 0.30g earthquake. It is clear from comparing Fig. 7.1a with
b that the initial stiffness of prototype 1 was reduced considerably when the two shear
walls were disconnected from the mock-up. The initial value of the prototype’s 1st modal
͸ʹ

period (0.46 sec) was increased by a factor of about 3 in its counterpart with hinged beam-
column joints (1.41 sec). When the beam-column joints of the top floor were restrained,
the modal period of prototype 3 was 1.08 sec, namely 23% shorter than prototype 2;
whereas in the case of emulative beam-column-joints (prototype 4), the effective period of
the building was 0.66 sec (Fig. 7.1d), approximately half the period measured in prototype
2.
2.0
(a) Prot. 1 - 0.30g
Modal period (sec)
1.5
1st mode
2nd mode
3rd mode
1.0 (b) Prot. 2 - 0.30g
0.5
0.0
2.0
2.0
(c) Prot. 3 - 0.30g (d) Prot. 4 - 0.30g
Modal period (sec)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
0
20 4 8 12 16 20
Figure 7.1 Evolution of the so-estimated time-varying effective periods of the three
modes at PGA of 0.30g, for: (a) Prototype 1. (b) Prototype 2. (c) Prototype 3.
(d) Prototype 4.
͸͵

60
Top displacement (mm)
40
20
-20
-40 Total
2000
-60 Mode 1
Prot. 1 - 0.30g
Mode 2
Mode 3
Base shear (kN)
1000
-1000
-2000
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (sec)
(a)
210
140
70
-70
-140 Total
900
-210 Mode 1
Prot. 2 - 0.30g
Mode 2
600 Mode 3
Base shear (kN)
300
-300
-600
-900
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (sec)
(b)
͸Ͷ

210
Top displacement (mm) 140
70
-70
-140 Total
900
-210 Mode 1
Prot. 3 - 0.30g
Mode 2
600 Mode 3
Base shear (kN)
300
-300
-600
-900
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (sec)
(c)
150
100
50
-50
-100
Total
1800
1800
-150 Mode 1
Prot. 4 - 0.30g
Mode 2
1200 Mode 3
Base shear (kN)
600
-600
-1200
-1800
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (sec)
(d)
Figure 7.2 Modal contribution response history of the 3-DoF system-in terms of roof
displacement and base shear-to the applied ground motion of 0.30g, for: (a)
Prototype 1. (b) Prototype 2. (c) Prototype 3. (d) Prototype 4.
͸ͷ

Figures 7.2a–d present the response history of the 3-DoF system to the applied
ground motion of 0.30g in each of the four structural layouts, computed by modal
superposition according to [23, 27] from time-varying real modes determined from the
mass matrix and a symmetric version of the identified stiffness matrix. The modal
contributions to the total response for each DoF are plotted in terms of roof displacement
and base shear. Regarding the roof displacement response, the contribution of the first
vibration mode was prevalent. The first mode contribution is practically equal to roof’s
total displacement for all prototypes.
Regarding the total base shear, Fig. 7.2a shows that the response of the dual wall-
frame precast system involves only the first mode, while Fig. 7.2b illustrates that in the
structural configuration with pinned beam-column joints, the response strongly involves
modes 1 and 2. In particular, in prototype 2 the first vibration mode was prevalent for the
base shear during first 3 seconds of the accelerogram; then the second mode started
affecting dominantly the response. It can be observed that up the time step t = 8.3 sec of
the accelerogram, the base shear attributed to the second vibration mode fits very well the
total base shear force. Afterwards, the contribution of mode 2 attenuates and mode 1
gives the predominant contribution again. The realization of emulative joints at the top
floor in prototype 3-although did not change essentially the global response parameters
(maximum base shear; interstorey drifts)- disembarrassed the total base shear response
from the second and third vibration mode (Fig. 7.2c). Finally, the activation of the
mechanical connectors in each beam-column joint (prototype 4) resulted in a PsD
response which was practically attributed exclusively to the first vibration period. As can
be seen in Fig. 7.2d, the component of the 2nd and 3rd mode was practically disappeared
from the total base shear time histories.
͸͸

Chapter
8
Conclusions
A full-scale three-storey precast building was subjected to a series of PsD tests in the
European Laboratory for Structural Assessment. The mock-up was constructed in such a
way that four different structural configurations were investigated experimentally.
Therefore, the behaviour of various parameters like the types of mechanical connections
(traditional as well as innovative) and the presence or absence of shear walls along with the
framed structure were assessed.
The presence of two stiff precast wall units in prototype 1 was quite effective in
limiting the maximum interstorey drift ratios for both the serviceability and ultimate limit
states. In such a dual frame-wall system the first vibration mode dominated the PsD
response for both earthquake intensities. However the proper connection of stiff RC
walls or cladding elements to precast diaphragms still remains a challenging task.
The seismic response of prototype 2 was highly influenced by the effects of higher
modes. There seemed to be no upper limit for the storey forces when the structure
entered into the nonlinear regime. This effect, which is a direct consequence of the large
higher modes contribution, results into large force demands in the connections. The 1%
drift limitation imposed by EC8 for the SLS was exceeded and, at the higher intensity
earthquake, corresponding to ULS, the response of this precast system with hinged beam-
to-column joints was characterized by excessive deformability. However, despite the
͸͹

limited stiffness of this structural configuration and the fact that the maximum interstorey
drifts were above the limits imposed by EC 8, prototype 2 did not suffer significant
damage in its structural members during the 0.30g PsD test. A visual inspection made at
the end of the design level earthquake revealed only some very slight damages.
After the seismic test results of prototype 3, it turned out that the concept of
emulative beam-column joints at the top floor only was not much effective as a means of
reducing interstorey drifts and the overall displacements of the structure, as well as
controlling the effect of higher modes on the structure’s seismic response.
Finally, when activated at all the floors, the proposed connection system is quite
effective as a means of implementing dry precast (quasi) emulative moment-resisting
frames. This was the case in prototype 4, where lower maximum interstorey drifts were
recorded and the first vibration mode dominated the PsD response. In the design level
test (0.30g), prototype 4 underwent little non linear effects and thus it was subjected to a
PGA of 0.45g. In this MCE the structure revealed dense flexural cracking at the base of
the ground floor columns, but again without considerable damage. In the final cyclic test,
prototype 4 underwent extensive damages and approached the non-collapse limit state
with very wide force-drift cycles. The major part of inelasticity and damage was
concentrated at the base of all ground floor columns which attained a drift of about 6 %.
The main conclusions regarding the seismic response of the connections and
diaphragms are summarized as follows:
x It has been shown that in the case of multi-storey buildings with hinged beam-to-
column connections (prototype 2), due to the participation of the higher modes,
there is no clear upper limit for the storey forces when the structure enters into the
nonlinear regime, as one would expect as a consequence of ductility. This results
into large (i.e., much larger than those divided by the q factor) forces in the
connections. If the designer does not include shear walls in these flexible systems,
͸ͺ

the large magnification of storey forces (determining the capacity design of
connections) should be considered.
x The rigidity of the first and second’s floor (continuous) diaphragms without
concrete topping was not impaired by their connection with stiff RC walls. The
openings in the diaphragm of the third floor reduced its in-plane stiffness and led
to approximately 20% stiffer external frames in respect to the central one. Without
shear walls (prototypes 2, 3 and 4), however, the third floor’s diaphragm action was
substantially improved with equal horizontal displacement in the three frames
(Table 3).
x The large inǦplane stiffness of the floor (rigid diaphragm), and the elastic response
of the connections (stronger connections than elements), allowed for equal

distribution of the storey forces among all columns.
x The beam-column joint slip was reduced dramatically in the case of moment a
resisting joint that is 3.5 times lower than its counterpart with hinged beam-to-
columns joint.
x Higher was the participation of the beams in the frame behaviour of prototype 4,
however; the emulative beam-column joint response in prototype 4 was quite
different from a rigid joint. The execution of this mechanical connection has no
quality control or certification for the time being. This resulted into a semiǦrigid
beamǦcolumn joint with asymmetric (in the two directions of loading) and unequal
(between beams and columns) rotations.
x The stiffness of prototype 1 was reduced by a factor of about 3 in comparison with

its counterpart with hinged beam-column joints without shear walls. In the case of
emulative beam-column-joints (prototype 4), the effective period of the building
was half of the period calculated in prototype 2.
x Finally, the contribution of the first vibration mode was prevalent in the roof
displacement response - it was practically equal to roof’s total displacement for all
͸ͻ

prototypes. Regarding the total base shear, the response of the precast system
with shear walls involves only the first mode, while in the structural configuration
with pinned beam-column joints, the response strongly involves modes 1 and 2.
Finally, the activation of the mechanical connectors in each beam-column joint
resulted in a PsD response which was attributed to the first vibration period.
Acknowledgements
The research has been addressed within the SAFECAST project (Grant agreement
no.218417-2), a three-years project (2009-2012) financed by the European Commission
within the Seventh Framework Programme. The authors wish to thank the whole ELSA
technical team for their assistance in the experimental programme.
͹Ͳ

References
[1] Saisi A, Toniolo G. Precast r.c. columns under cyclic loading: an experimental program
oriented to EC8. Studi e Ricerche. School for Concrete Structures ‘‘F.lli Pesenti’’,
Politecnico di Milano. 1998, 19: 373–414.
[2] Ferrara L, Colombo A, Negro P, Toniolo G. (2004). Precast vs. cast-in-situ reinforced
concrete industrial buildings under earthquake loading: an assessment via pseudodynamic
tests. 2004, Proceedings of the 13th WCEE.
[3] Negro P, Mola E, Ferrara L, Zhao B, Magonette G, Molina J. PRECAST
STRUCTURES EC8: Seismic Behaviour of Precast Concrete Structures with respect to
EC8- Contract N. G6RD -CT - 2002 – 00857. Final Report of the experimental activity of
the Italo-Slovenian Group. 2007: 190p.
[4] Moguruma H, Nishiyama M, Watanabe F. Lessons learned from the Kobe earthquake
– A Japanese perspective. PCI Journal. 1995, 40 (4): 28-42.
[5] EERI. Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999 Reconnaissance Report,
Earthquake Spectra. 2000, Supplement to Vol. 16.
[6] Saatcioglu M, Mitchell D, Tinawi R, Gardner NJ, Gillies AG, Ghobarah A, Anderson
DL, Lau D. The August 17, 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake-damage to structures”.
Can. J. Civil Eng. 2001, 28(8): 715-773.
[7] Tzenov LL, Sotirov, Boncheva P. Study of some damaged industrial buildings due to
Vrancea earthquake. Proc. of 6th ECEE. Dubrovnik 1978, 6: 59-65.
[8] Fajfar P, Duhovnik J, Reflak J, Fischinger M, Breška Z. The Behaviour of Buildings
and Other Structures during the Earthquakes of 1979 in Montenegro. University of
Ljubljana, Department of civil engineering: Institute of structural and earthquake
engineering. IKPIR publication, 1981, 19A: 183pp.
[9] EERI. Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994. Preliminary reconnaissance report.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1994: 104p.
[10] EERI. Armenia Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute. 1989: 175p.
͹ͳ

[11] ATC-08. Proceedings of a Workshop on Design Of Prefabricated Concrete Buildings
for Earthquake Loads, ATC, NSF, 1981.
[12] Simeonov S, Park R. Building Construction Under Seismic Conditions in The Balkan
Region: Design and Construction of Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Building Systems.
UNDP/UNIDO project RER/79/015. 1985: 335p.
[13] Priestley MJN. The PRESSS Program: current status and proposed plans for Phase
III. PCI Journal. 1996, 41 (2): 22-40.
[14] Nakaki SD, Stanton J, Shritharan S. An Overview of the PRESS five-storey precast
test building. PCI Journal. 1999, 44 (2): 26-39.
[15] Shiohara H, Watanabe F. The Japan PRESS precast concrete connection design. 12th
WCEE, Aukland 2000.
[16] Federation International du Beton – fib. Seismic Design of Precast Concrete
Buildings Structures, Bulletin 27, Lausanne 2003.
[17] Sheppard DA. Connections for seismic resistant precast concrete construction.
Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of Prefabricated Concrete Buildings for
Earthquake Loads. ATC-08, 1981.
[18] Restrepo J, Park R, Buchanan A. The Seismic Behaviour of Connections between
Precast Concrete Elements. Research Report 93-3. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch 1993.
[19] Olgiati M, Negro P, Colombo A. SAFECAST Project: Definition and Analysis of the
Three-Storey Precast Buildings. Proc. of the 14th ECEE. 2010.
[20] Fischinger M, Kramar M, Isakovi T. The Selection of the Accelerogram to be Used
in the Experimental Program-Selection of the Record for 3-Storey Full-Scale Structure to
be Tested at ELSA, JRC. SAFECAST – UL Report n°4a, 2010: 66p.
[21] Bournas D, Negro P, Molina FJ. Pseudodynamic Tests on a Full-Scale 3-Storey
Precast Concrete Building: Behavior of the Mechanical Connections and Floor
Diaphragms. Elsevier Eng Struct J. 2012, submitted (companion paper).
[22] Toniolo G. Experimental behaviour of new/improved connections. Part 1:
Contribution of Politecnico di Milano (POLIMI). SAFECAST-Deliverable 2.4. Grant
agreement no.218417-2. 2012: 49p.
[23] Pegon P, Molina FJ, Magonette G. Continuous pseudo-dynamic testing at ELSA” in
“Hybrid Simulation; Theory, Implementation and Applications. Eds. Saouma VE,
Sivaselvan MV, Taylor & Francis/Balkema Publishers. 2008, 79-88.
͹ʹ

[24] Molina FJ, Magonette G, Pegon P, Zapico B. Monitoring Damping in Pseudo-
Dynamic Tests. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2011, 15(6): 877-900.
[25] CEN (2005a) European Standard EN 1998-3: Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance - Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
[26] Negro P, Bournas D. Pseudodynamic Tests on a Full-Scale 3-Storey Precast Concrete
Building: Global Response. Elsevier Eng Struct J. 2012, submitted (companion paper).
[27] Molina FJ. Spatial and Filter Models. MATLAB functions freely available at
MATLAB Central File Exchange.
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/32634. 2011.
[28] Vintzeleou EN, Tassios TP. Behaviour of Dowels under Cyclic Deformations. ACI
Structural Journal. 1987, 84(1): 18-30.
[29] Fischinger M, Kramar M, Isakovi T. Generalization of results to different structures.
Contribution of the University of Ljubljana (UL). SAFECAST-Deliverable 5.2. Grant
agreement no.218417-2. 2012: 229p.
͹͵

Appendix
͹Ͷ

͹ͷ

European Commi ssion
EUR 25496 EN Joint Research Centre --
- Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
Title: Pseudodynamic Testing of the SAFECAST 3-Storey Precast Concrete Building
Authors: Dionysios Bournas, Paolo Negro, Francisco J. Molina, Bernard Viacco z, Georges Magonette
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2012 --- 80 pp . --- 21.0 x 29.7 cm
EUR --- Scientific and Technical Research series --- ISSN 1831- 9424 (online), ISSN 1018-5593 (print)
ISBN 978- 92-79-26274- 6
doi:10.2788/4793
Abstract
In the framework of the SAFECAST Project, a full-scale three-storey precast building was subjected to a series of
pseudodynamic (PsD) tests in the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) at the Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission. The mo ck-up was constructed in such a way that four different structural configurations could be
investigated experimentally. Therefore, the behaviour of various parameters like the types of mechanical connections (traditional
as well a s innovative) and the presence or ab sence of shear walls along with the framed structure were investigated. The first
PsD tests were conducted on a dual fra me-wall precast system, where two precast shear wall units were connected to the mock
up. The first test structure sustained the maximum earthquake for which it had been designed with small horizontal
deformations. In the second layout, the shear walls were disconnected from the structure, to test the building in its most typical
configuration, namely with hinged beam-column conne ctions by means of dowel bars (shear connectors). This configuration was
quite flexible and suffered large deformations under the design level earthquake. An innovative connection system, embedded in
the precast elements, was then activated to create emulative beam-column connections in the last two structural configurations.
In particular, in the third layout the connectors were restrained only at the top floor, whereas in the fourth layout the connection
system was a ctivated in all beam-column joints. The P sD test results showed that, when activated at all the floors, the proposed
connection system i s quite effective as a mean s of implementing dry precast (qua si) e mulative moment-resisting frames.
LB-NA-25496-EN-N
As the Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Re search Centre’s mission is to provide EU
policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support throughout the whole policy
cycle.
Working in close cooperation with policy Directorates-General, the JRC addre sses key societal
challenge s while stimulating innovation through developing new standards, methods and tools, and
sharing and transferring its know-how to the Member States and international community.
Key policy areas include: environment and climate change; energy and transport; agriculture and food
security; health and consumer protection; information society and digital agenda; safety and security
including nuclear; all supported through a cross-cutting and multi-disciplinary approach.

Pseudo Dyn Test

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pseudo Dyn Test

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pseudodynamic Testing of the SAFECAST

3-Storey Precast Concrete Building

Report EUR 25496 EN

ISBN 978- 92-79-26274- 6

ISSN 1831- 9424

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

© European Union, 2012

Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.

A collaborative three-year research project called SAFECAST 1 (Grant agreement

Figure 1.1 Categories of connections between the different structural elements of a

3.1 The Mock-up

142.33 80 153.33 80 142.33

As it can be seen in Fig. 3.1b, two 4.05-m-long x 9.6-m-tall x 0.25-m-thick (4.05 m x

Table 3.1. Dimensions and percentages of steel reinforcement

It is worth mentioning that the mock-up which weighed approximately 450 t,

(a: prototype 1) (b: prototype 2)

(c: prototype 3) (d: prototype 4)

3.3 Description of the floor diaphragms

3.4 Description of the mechanical connections

Hinged (Beam-Column & Slab-Beam) Emulative (Beam-Column)

4.1 Pseudodynamic testing

Figure 4.1 General view of the experimental set-up.

An overview of the instrumentation set up adopted is presented in the Appendix.

4.2 Input motion selection and test sequence

5.1 Global response

Table 5.1. Summary of test results

0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA

0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA

5.2.1 Decomposition of the wall lateral displacement

The overall wall drift is composed by various deformation mechanisms, namely

5.3 Prototype 2- Structure with hinged beam-to-column joints

0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA

To further evaluate the influence of the higher modes a modal decomposition is

0.15g PGA 0.30g PGA

5.4 Prototype 3- Structure with emulative beam-to-column joints at the top

0.30g PGA 0.45g PGA

0.30g PGA 0.45g PGA

5.6 Prototype 4- Final Cyclic Test

6.1 Response of the floor diaphragms

-60 Third floor

Figure 6.1 Frame displacement histories of prototype 1 at PGA 0.30g.

Table 6.1. Frame and absolute displacements in the third floor

6.2 Response of the beam-column connections

6.2.1 Hysteretic behaviour of the joint

Du ,cyc 0.50 1.30db2 f ck f sy (1)

120 Joint 7 - Cyclic test

-120 Joint 8 - Cyclic test

Table 6.2. Maximum recorded rotations at joints of the first floor

0.03 (a) Prot. 1 - 0.30g (b) Prot. 2 - 0.30g

0.03 (c) Prot. 3 - 0.30g

-0.03 (d) Prot. 4 - 0.30g

(between beams and columns) rotations, as shown in Fig. 6.4.

the beamǦcolumn connections. This was practically realized by adding zeroǦlength

(d) Prot. 4 - 0.30g

6.2.4 Damage in the connections

affect at all its rigid diaphragm.

of the connections (stronger connections than elements), allowed for equal

(between beams and columns) rotations.

x The stiffness of prototype 1 was reduced by a factor of about 3 in comparison with

Title: Pseudodynamic Testing of the SAFECAST 3-Storey Precast Concrete Building

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2012 --- 80 pp . --- 21.0 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978- 92-79-26274- 6

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Du ,cyc 0.50 1.30db2 f ck f sy (1)