For Review Only

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration
Fo
Seismic performance of interior precast concrete beam-column

connections with T-section steel inserts under cyclic loading
r Re
Journal: Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Manuscript ID Draft
vi
Manuscript Type: Original Article

Keywords: Precast concrete, beam-column connection, Cyclic loading
ew
Specialty Area: Reinforced concrete structures < Structural engineering

On
ly
https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/eeev
Page 1 of 17 Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration
1
1
2
3 Seismic performance of interior precast concrete beam-column connections with T-section steel inserts under
4 cyclic loading
5
6
7
8
9
Abstract: An experimental investigation was conducted to study the performance of precast beam-column
10
11
concrete connections using T-section steel inserts into the concrete beam and joint core, under reversed cyclic
12 loading. Six 2/3-scale interior beam-column subassemblies, one monolithic concrete specimen and five precast
13 concrete specimens were tested. One precast specimen was a simple connection for a gravity load resistant
14 design. The four precast ones remaining were developed with different details to improve their seismic
15 performance. The test results showed that the performance of monolithic specimen M1 represented seismic
16 behavior very well. Failure of columns and joints could be prevented and the failure of the frame came from
17 the flexural plastic hinge formation at the beam ends, close to the column faces. For the precast specimens, the
18 splitting crack along the longitudinal lapped spice was a major failure mode. The precast P5 with double steel
Fo
19 T-section inserts showed better seismic performances compared to other precast ones. However, the dowel
20 bars connected to the steel inserts was too short to develop bonding. The design of the precast concrete beams
21 with lap spice is needed for longer lap length and should be done at the beam mid span or the low flexural
22 stress region.
r
23
24 Keyword: Precast concrete, beam-column connection, Cyclic loading
Re
25
26 1. Introduction
27
28 Earthquake events have been recognized as a destructive natural disaster causing huge losses.
vi
29 Preparedness mitigations have been promoted for loss minimization. Making earthquake resistant buildings is
30 the major activity as the building collapse can cause subsequent losses. In Northern, Western and Middle parts
31 of Thailand have presently been considered a seismicity zone equivalent to a moderate seismic zone, seismic
ew
32 zones 2A-2B according to UBC design provision (1997). The seismicity zone has been made based on the
33 geological evidence and past earthquake records. Mid-year 2014, an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.3, the
34 biggest earthquake to have occurred in Thailand, struck the Chiang Rai province located on Northern-
35 Thailand, which caused severe damage to a lot of concrete buildings.
36 Nowadays, most buildings in Thailand have been constructed using an old-fashioned cast-in-place
On
37 system. However, the system is being replaced by one that is prefabricated, because it offers several
38 advantages over the old-fashioned method such as better quality control, lower overall construction costs and
39 construction speeds. Normally, the behavior of precast concrete structures is greatly influenced by the
40 performance of their connections. From previous studies, most damage and abrupt failures of precast concrete
41
ly
structures during earthquakes were mainly due to failure of joint and inadequate ductility. There were several
42 investigative studies showing the importance of ductile connections in precast structures (Arslan et al. (2006),
43 Gülkan (1998) and Park (2002)). To design a precast connection, PCI standards have been widely adopted as a
44 design guideline. However, the most explicit precast connection detailing from the PCI manual (1973) and
45 handbooks (1985) were designed specifically to support the gravity load rather than the lateral load. The
46
current precast connections used in seismic areas have been adopted from in-house research information.
47
Hence, despite the many advantages of precast concrete, it has not been widely adopted worrying about their
48
seismic performance and building stability during strong ground motions.
49
50
The NEHRP Provision (1998) described two alternative precast connection designs for a lateral load
51 resisting system. One is monolithic reinforced concrete emulation representing rigid-elastic behavior and the
52 other is precast concrete connection with unique performance allowing certain deformabilities. Gosh et al.
53 (1997) illustrated precast concrete connection design based on the high seismic regions of 1997 UBC
54 provision. The connections were designed to remain elastic while the connecting elements behaved
55 nonlinearly. To avoid the connection failure, the connection capacity must be higher than the plastic moment
56 capacity of the beams and when the location of the plastic hinge on the beam moved further away from the
57 connection these exhibited better seismic performances.
58
59
60
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration Page 2 of 17
2
1
2
3 There were several researchers who had developed the precast concrete connections in the last decade.
4 Kormaz and Tankut (2005) observed and investigated the seismic behavior of the precast concrete beam-to-
5 beam connections with welded plates, and concluded that the improved connection details could be suitably
6
used for seismic structures. Yang et al. (2010) developed a hybrid precast concrete beams with H-steel beams
7
at both ends to propose a simple ductile connection particularly useful for precast concrete structures. Three
8
precast concrete beams were tested under two-point concentrated loads to explore the effectiveness and
9
10
limitations of the developed hybrid beam system in transferring an applied load to a supporting column. The
11 results showed that the introduction of a prestressing force in longitudinal tension reinforcement significantly
12 improved the flexural capacity and ductility of the hybrid precast concrete beams. Regarding studies of beam-
13 column precast connections in moment-resisting frames, Ertas et al. (2006) studied the performance of four
14 ductile precast concrete connections and a monolithic connection for moment resisting frames under reversed
15 cyclic loading. The test results showed that the strength and energy dissipation could be suitable for high
16 seismic zones. Li et al. (2009) studied the seismic performance of precast hybrid-steel concrete connections
17 under cyclic loading. The experimental observations showed the precast connections, without abrupt damage
18 within the joint core region, exhibiting adequate ductile behavior and were considered acceptable in
Fo
19 comparison to the monolithic one. Embedment of the steel sections in the joint greatly enhanced the strength of
20 the joint core leading to the increase of ductility factor to 3.50. Ketiyot and Hansapinyo (2012) studied a
21 seismic resistance of the exterior precast concrete beam-column frame using combined welded-bolted
22 connection. The seismic performance of the precast specimen was compared to the monolithic one under
r
23 cyclic loading. The precast beam was connected to precast column at the column face. The connection at
24 bottom face of the beam was a welding connection and the top one was the bolted type. The test results
Re
25 indicated that the precast specimen has shown better seismic performances including ultimate capacity,
26 ductility and energy dissipating capacity. Hansapinyo (2012) observed an experimental investigation of
27 exterior cast-in-place and welded precast concrete frames under cyclic loading. The test specimens composed
28 of one precast and two monolithic ones. For the precast specimen, the beam was connected to column face at
vi
29 the beam end by welding both the top and bottom layers of the beam through embedded steel plates. For the
30 two monolithic specimens, the difference was the reinforcement in the beam–column joint region e.g. with and
31 without stirrups. Results of the tests have shown that the precast specimen performed better hysteretic
ew
32 responses and higher stiffness, and lower joint distortion. This is due to the additional embedded steel plates
33 for the connecting purpose increased the resistance of the diagonal crack growth in the joint area. Wongmatar
34 et al. (2015) proposed detailing of reinforcements in the interior beam– column connections aiming to relocate
35 the plastic hinge of the monolithic reinforced concrete and precast concrete frames with T-section steel inserts
36
embedded into the concrete connection. Four specimens including two monolithic specimens and two precast
On
37
ones were tested under cyclic loading. The test results showed that the crack patterns of precast specimens
38
were generated at the end of the steel inserts connection. However, slipping of lap splices at the top of the
39
40
beams section were observed before the yielding of the bars, leading to the brittle failure. Furthermore, the
41 diagonal bars into precast joint improved the seismic performance i.e. initial stiffness and energy dissipation.
ly
42 Xue and Yang (2010) reported the results of their experimental investigations on four full-scale precast
43 concrete beam–column connections and a half-scale moment-resisting frame. The frame was two-bay, two-
44 story high precast concrete which included exterior connections, interior connections, T connections and knee
45 connections. The test results revealed that the precast concrete connections and frames could perform
46 satisfactorily in seismic conditions with respect to strength, ductility, and energy-dissipation capacity. A new
47 ductile moment-resisting beam-column connection was developed by Parastesh et al. (2014) for precast
48 reinforced concrete frames used in high seismic zones. Six full-scale interior and exterior precast connections
49 and two monolithic connections were subjected to a reverse cyclic loading. It was concluded that the proposed
50 precast connections proved to be efficient at improving the seismic performance and provided adequate
51 flexural strength, strength degradation and drift capacity. Moreover, Tsonos et al. (1992), Au et al. (2005),
52 Chalioris et al. (2008) and Lu et al. (2012) conducted experimental investigations of diagonal reinforcement to
53 embed into beam-column concrete joints to reduce the force transferred to the joint core. The test results
54 showed that joints with crossed and inclined reinforcement exhibited improved seismic performance.
55 Furthermore, in terms of overall cracking observations, the specimens with diagonal bars showed fewer cracks
56 in the column when compared with the specimens without them.
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Protruded T-section steel insert
8 seated on the column edge
9
10
11
12
13
Precast column element
14
15 Dropped to install lap-spice bar
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23 Fig. 1 Precast beam element with T-section steel insert

24
Re
25 From the literature review above, as the precast connection details play an important role in
26 withstanding lateral load, there have been many types of precast concrete connections. All of them have been
27 developed with different purposes, for example, to obtain a seismic capacity, buildability, cost optimization or
28
compromising all the desired performances. This study was also aimed at the development of a precast
vi
29
concrete connection for appropriate use in Thailand, with a moderate earthquake capacity. A T-section steel
30
insert in beam embedded in the precast beam ends is the system proposed extension of previous work
31
ew
32
(Wongmatar et al., 2015). It helps the fabrication process ignoring the shoring system as the protruded part of
33 the T-section steel can be seated on the column edge, as shown in Fig. 1. The depth of the top beam was
34 dropped to install lap-splice bars for connecting both beams through the beam-column joint. The study
35 presents test results for six 2/3-scale concrete beam–column interior subassemblages including one monolithic
36 and five precast connections. The monolithic connection was seismically design based on ACI318-15 (2015)
On
37 as the reference specimen. The five precast specimens were design with different connection details.
38
39 2. Experimental Program
40 This study conducted a test on six interior beam-column concrete specimens, which were divided into
41 one monolithic and five precast concrete connections using T-section steel inserts embedded into the core of
ly
42 the beam-column joint. The strong-column/weak-beam principle was applied in the design of all specimens.
43 They were sized about 2/3 of the usual beam-column frame element in 4-6 story buildings. Test specimens
44 were planar beam-column subassemblies representing a portion of the building frame at the interior joint
45 between column and beams, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Fig. 2(b) demonstrates the bending moments diagram of a
46 laterally loaded moment resisting frame. In Fig. 2(c), maximum bending moments occur at the connection
47 where the shear force is also at a maximum. Test specimens were subjected to lateral cyclic loads and
48 concentrated load H at the top of the upper column as shown in Fig. 2 (d) so that the bending moment and
49 shear forces were reversed and cycled. Thus, the distribution of the bending moment in the specimens was the
50 same as for the moment-resisting frame under cyclic loading.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
4
1
2
3 Interior Beam-Column
4 Subassembly
5
6
7
8
H
9
10
11
12 H
13
14
(a) (b) (c) (d)
15
(a) Frame under lateral loads; (b) Bending moment diagram; (c) Shear force diagram;
16
(d) Beam-column subassembly
17
18
Fig. 2 Frame under lateral loads
Fo
19
20
Hydraulics Ram for vertical loading
21
22
r
300 Story Shear, H
23
24 150
Re
25
26
27
980
28
1130
vi
29
30
2700
31
ew
150
32
150
33
34
35 Pin
1130
850
36
On
37
38
39 130
40
41
ly
42
43 unit : mm
1500 1500
44
45 (a) Configuration of test setup
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
5
1
2
3
4.5% 4.00%
4
5 3.5%
6 2.50%
7 2.5%
8 1.40%
1.5%
9 0.75%
10 0.35%
Story Drift
0.5% 0.20%
11 Cycle (N)
12 -0.5% 0.15% 0.25%
0.50%
13 1.00%
-1.5%
14
15 -2.5% 2.00%
16
17 -3.5%
3.50%
18
Fo
-4.5%
19
20
21 (b) Loading history
22 Fig. 3 Experimental setup and Loading history
r
23
24 In this study, both beam ends and the bottom of the lower column were supported by the mechanical
Re
25 hinges shown in Fig. 3 (a). Quasi-static lateral loads (H) were applied at the top of the upper column with the
26 lateral displacement cyclic loading history according to ACI T1.1-01 (2001), as shown in Fig. 3(b). In each
27 story drift, the amplitude of the lateral displacement was applied repeatedly for three cycles. The repeated
28 cyclic loading was done to check the stability of the hysteresis behavior. During the test, a vertically constant
vi
29 axial load of 0.10f'cAg was applied at the top of the column.

30
31 3. Precast concrete connection installing process
ew
32 The precast frame was comprised of precast beams and columns. Beam-to-beam connection used a T-
33
section embedded into each beam and lap-splices through the concrete joint. Steel column socket with bolted
34
connectors was used for column-to-column connection. For the precast beam generally used, the T-section was
35
355 mm long embedded at the middle beam section equal to 220 mm and the other part was embedded into the
36
joint core; also, the 2-DB12 with 500 mm long, at the end of the T section, was embedded into the beam, as
On
37
38 shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 illustrates the interior subassemblage installation process. When connecting on the
39 top beam section, the lap-splices with the same steel amount of the beam were used to connect between beam-
40 beam through the joints. The lap length of the spliced bar was 500 mm. Finally, cast-in-place nonshrink grout
41 concrete was placed into the joint core and upper part of the beams.
ly
42
43
44
Lap splices
45
46 Column socket
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 Steel plates
Bottom column
56
57
58
59
60
6
1
2
3 Fig. 4 Precast assemblage process
4 4. Test Specimens
5 This study was composed of one monolithic specimen and five precast concrete specimens with
6
different connection details. The seismic performances of all precast specimens were compared to the
7
monolithic control specimen. The geometries of structural elements of all specimens were designed according
8
to the strong-column/weak-beam design philosophy. The cross section of the beam was 150 mm × 300 mm.
9
10
The cross section of the column was 200 mm × 300 mm. The reinforcement bars arrangement and concrete
11 cross section were shown in Fig. 5 and 6 for monolithic and precast specimens, respectively. Table 1 describes
12 the joint detailing of all specimens.
13
14 4.1. Monolithic connection (M1)
15 The monolithic concrete specimen was designed according to the ACI 318-15 and ACI 352R-02 (2002)
16 for moderate-seismic regions. The joint detailing was shown in Fig. 7 (a). For the concrete beam, the amount
17 of longitudinal reinforcement ratios was 0.0086 (3-DB12) and 0.0116 (4-DB12) for the bottom and the top of
18 the beam section, respectively and the steel reinforcement ratio of the column was 0.0118(10-DB12). Six RB6-
Fo
19 closed stirrups were contained in the concrete joint. The stirrup spacing of the beams, columns and joint are
20 shown in Fig. 5.
21 4.2. Gravity precast concrete connection (P1)
22 The detailing of the P1 specimen was represented as gravity resistive precast specimen. The T – section
r
23 steels were located at the middle-depth of beam section. For the connecting process, a DB-12 chain-shaped bar
24 was input in the 15 mm diameter-holed on the T-section. About the top detailing, 4-DB12 lap-splices with the
Re
25 same steel ratio as the top reinforcement of the beam were used to connect beam-beam through the joint. There
26 was no transverse steel in the joint as shown in Fig. 7(b).
27 4.3. Precast concrete connection (P2)
28
The T-section steels were shifted down to the bottom-depth of the beam section. Moreover, the 2 steel
vi
29
30 plates were used to connect the T section steel inserts by welding process, as shown in Fig. 7(c). The other
31 connection parts were the same as P1 specimen.
ew
32 4.4. Precast concrete connection specimen (P3)

33 The precast connection detailing within the joint of P3 specimen was very similar to those of specimen
34 P2 excepting the inclusion of 5-RB6 stirrups in the column joint, as shown in Fig. 7(d).
36 The precast connection details within the joint of P4 specimen was developed from those of specimen P3.
On
37 Four DB12 diagonally bars were additionally installed in the joint core, as shown in Fig. 7(e).
39 For the specimen, the lap-splice bars at the top of beam section were replaced by using the 2 reversed T-
40 section steels to connect the beam across concrete joint. Therefore, the beam sections were symmetrical in
41 terms of the steel reinforcement ratio. In the installation process, 4 steel plates were used to connect these T-
ly
42 sections both bottom and top with welding process. The detailing of this specimen is shown in Fig. 7(f). The
43 aim of this detailing is to relocate the splitting crack far away from the beam ends.
44
45 Table 1 Joint detail of the test specimens
46
47 Specimen Designed parameters
48
49 M1 Monolithic
50 P1 T-section steel insert at middle layer + lap-splice bars at top beam
51 P2 T-section steel insert at bottom layer + lap-splice bars at top beam
52 P3 T-section steel insert at bottom layer + lap-splice bars at top beam + Transvers reinforcement
53 bars
54 P4 T-section steel insert at bottom layer + lap-splice bars at top beam + Transvers reinforcement
55 bars + Diagonal bars
56 P5 T-section steel inserts at top and bottom layers + Diagonal bars
57
58
59
60
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
Column
7
8
9
10
11 Stirrup
12 Stirrup
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
Beam
21
22 Stirrup
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27 Unit: m.
28 Fig. 5 Detailing of interior monolithic subassemblage frame
vi
29
30
31
ew
32 Column
33
34
35
36
On
37 Stirrup
38 Stirrup
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
Beam
46 Precast joint
47 Stirrup
48
49
50
51
52
53 Unit: m.
54
55 Fig. 6 Detailing of interior precast subassemblage frame
56
57
58
59
60
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 (a) Joint detailing of specimen M1 (b) Connection detailing of specimen P1
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23 (c) Connection detailing of specimen P2 (d) Connection detailing of specimen P3

24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34 (e) Connection detailing of specimen P4 (f) Connection detailing of specimen P5
35 Fig. 7 Connection detailing
36
On
37
38 5. Material Properties
39 5.1. Concrete
40 Concrete with uniaxial compressive strength of 40-60 MPa was used for the production of the tested
41 specimens. The strengths were 44.03 MPa for the monolithic one and 42.97 and 45.35 MPa for the beam and
ly
42 column precast elements, respectively. The non-shrink grout concrete was used in the precast concrete joint
43 with a strength of 57.30 MPa
44
45 5.2. Reinforcing Steel bars and steel plate
46 The reinforcement of steel rebars and steel plates to form a steel T-section insert were used to produce the
47 test specimens. The uniaxial tension test was performed to conduct their mechanical properties. Table 2 shows
48 a summary of the mechanical properties of the steel used in both the monolithic and precast specimens.
49
50 Table 2 Properties of the steel used in test specimens
51
52 Yield Strength (MPa) Ultimate Strength (MPa)
53
54 RB6 (6 mm.) 372 542
55 DB12 (12 mm.) 426 572
56 DB25 (25 mm.) 443 686
57 Steel Plate 277 348
58
59
60
9
1
2
3
4 6. Test Results
5 6.1. Crack development and failure mode
6
7 Fig. 8 illustrates the crack pattern of all specimens developed from small loading to the final drift level.
8 For all specimens, flexural cracks on the beams were firstly observed at the potential plastic hinge regions
9 located at distances of d/2 - d (effective beam depth) from the column faces. With an increasing of the drift
10 level, those cracks further propagated and a few flexural cracks also developed on the concrete columns above
11 and below the joint region. Then, the first diagonal cracks on beam-column joint core appeared at a 0.50-0.75
12 % drift level. The cracking development from the drift larger than 1% of all the specimens were different due
13 to the different reinforcement details. For the monolithic specimen M1, major cracking was the flexural cracks
14 in the beams near the column faces and there were a few diagonal cracks within the concrete joint. Only a
15 limited number of flexural cracks appeared in the columns immediately above or below joint as shown in Fig.
16
9 (a). When the drift level reached 3.50%, crushing of the concrete cover at the bottom of beams began and the
17
beam bottom longitudinal bars buckled at a 4.00% drift level, as shown in Fig. 8 (a).
18
For the Gravity precast concrete connection specimen (P1), at the 0.75% drift level, laterally splitting
Fo
19
20
cracks running parallel to the T - section steel, installed at the middle beam depth, close to column face started.
21 When the drift level was increased to 1.40%, the first splitting cracks formed at distances of d from the column
22 faces along the lap-splices of the main longitudinal bars at the top section of both beams. By increasing the
r
23 drift level up to 2.00-3.50%, the splitting cracks were gradually propagated and opened wider than 2.0 mm. In
24 addition, the new flexural cracks on both beams were distinctly observed at the potential plastic hinge regions
Re
25 near column face and no cracks appeared in the column. The splitting cracks at the top and middle of the beam
26 cross section near the column face resulted in a dramatic decrease in the shear capacity. Fig. 8 (b) shows the
27 crack patterns of specimen P1 at failure.
28 In specimen P2, at a drift level of 1.00% visible lateral cracks were observed at the bottom of both beams
vi
29 and the joint core at the beam-column interface. A few splitting cracks appeared parallel to lap-splices and
30 main longitudinal bars at the top beam section, which were initiated at distances of 250 mm away from the
31 column faces. When increasing to a drift level of 1.40%, cracks were gradually propagated along the lateral
ew
32 directions, as the drift levels were increased. When the drift level reached to 3.50%, the concrete of the top
33 beam section close to the beam-column joint started to crush and spall along the splitting crack. Similar to
34 specimen P1, no cracks appeared on either the top or bottom columns, as shown in Fig. 8 (c).
35 Specimens P3 and P4 also showed similar crack patterns as P2 as shown in Fig. 8 (d-e). The main failure
36 modes were initiated from the bond splitting cracks occurred along the lap-splices at the top beam section in
On
37 the cast-in-place grout concrete regions.

38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Drift ratio = 1.00% Drift ratio = 2.00% Drift ratio = 2.50%
50
(a) Specimen M1
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13 (b) Specimen P1
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r

24 (c) Specimen P2
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34 Drift ratio = 1.00% Drift ratio = 2.00% Drift ratio = 2.50%(Failure)
35
(d) Specimen P3
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45 Drift ratio = 1.00% Drift ratio = 2.00% Drift ratio = 2.50%(Failure)
46
47
(e) Specimen P4
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Drift ratio = 1.00% Drift ratio = 2.00% Drift ratio = 2.50%
57
58
59
60
11
1
2
3 (f) Specimen P5
4
5 Fig. 8 Crack patterns of all specimens
6 For specimen P5, as the drift level increased to 1.40%, the splitting cracks appeared parallel to the steel
7
T-section and the main longitudinal bars were initiated at the bottom beam section, close to the column faces.
8
With the increase in the drift level the splitting cracks further propagated. The concrete below the T - section
9
steel at the bottom beam section close to the beam-column joint were crushed and spalled. At a distance of
10
11
about the beam depth from the column face of both precast beams the flexural cracks were very large. Fig. 8
12 (f) shows the crack distribution of the specimens after testing.
13 For precast specimens P1 to P4, the major failure mode progressed from tensile splitting-cracks, which
14 developed along the splice length at the top of precast beam section in the non-shrink grout concrete region.
15 That led to both slippage and strength degradation of the spliced reinforcement. A number of flexural cracks
16 were distributed over the precast concrete beams that were especially in the potential plastic hinge regions near
17 the column, as shown in Fig. 9 (b-e). The diagonal cracks on beam-column joint were observed .Nevertheless,
18 no crack appeared in the column both top and bottom ones of these precast specimens. Regarding specimen P1
Fo
19 that used a chain-shaped bar to connect both precast beams, sliding of the t-sections was observed during
20 testing.
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32 (a) Specimen M1 at 4.00 percent story drift ratio (b) Specimen P1 at 3.50 percent story drift ratio
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44 (c) Specimen P2 at 3.50 percent story drift ratio (d) Specimen P3 at 2.50 percent story drift ratio
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 (e) Specimen P4 at 2.50 percent story drift ratio (f) Specimen P5 at 3.50 percent story drift ratio
57 Fig. 9 Crack distribution of test specimens at the end of testing
58
59
60
12
1
2
3 Fig. 9 (f) showed the damage at the failure of the precast specimen P5. The specimen failed mainly by the
4 flexural cracking in the precast beam; also, little splitting cracks were observed that both cracks were located at
5 distances of d away from the precast column face. Spalling of concrete covers at the end of the both beams
6
were observed and little splitting cracks appeared at a distance of d from the column face.
7
8
6.2. Hysteresis behavior and strength
9
10 The relationship of lateral load against displacement at the upper column for each specimen was shown in
11 Fig. 10. Fig. 10 (a) illustrates the lateral story shear and displacement hysteresis response of the monolithic
12 specimen. The behavior was good in terms of ductility and energy dissipation. Furthermore, no pinching effect
13 was observed on the reversed response. The shear story showed little strength or stiffness degradation until the
14 story drift level was up to 4.00%. Plastic hinging took place in the beams at a distance of d/2 from the column
15 faces. The ultimate lateral load capacities of the monolithic one for push side and pull side were 44.43 kN and
16
-42.08 kN, respectively.
17
Regarding the P1 to P4 precast specimens, which have longitudinal lap splice bars at the top beam
18
located at the end regions of the beams, a distance of 2d from column face, the hysteretic load-displacement
Fo
19
20
relating to the precast specimens P1-P4 are shown in Fig. 10 (b-e). As can be seen, the hysteresis’s response
21 results in the pinching effect due to splitting crack in the top of the longitudinal lap splice bar and bond
22 deterioration, indicating low energy dissipation. The widening of splitting cracks in this region resulted in the
r
23 degradation of story shear capacity. These specimens showed a limited ductile response as shown in Fig. 10
24 (b) to Fig. 10 (e). The maximum lateral loads of these precast ones were presented in Table 3. The maximum
loads of specimen P1 were lower than all the other precasts because the depth between main longitudinal bars
Re
25
26 and steel T-section were lower compared with the other precast specimens.
27 However, the precast specimen P5, with a double T-section installed into the top and bottom beam
28 section, located within distance d from column faces, behaved satisfactorily. The hysteresis behavior of the
vi
29 specimen showed a little pinching during the reversible load testing and the considerable pinching effect
30 occurred in the precast specimen due to the observed flexural failure in the precast beams. The failure mode
31 represents the successful relocation of the plastic hinge in the beams. Behavior of this specimen was good in
ew
32 terms of ductility and energy dissipation when compared with other precast ones. The peak recorded lateral
33 loads were 40.92 kN and 36.42 kN for the push side and the pull side, respectively. The column story shear
34 versus drift ratio of the specimen P5 is shown in Fig. 10 (f), the envelope curve presented the strength
35 degradation was rapid post peak strength.
36
On
37 50 50
PUSH PUSH
38
39 30 30
Story Shear, H (kN)
Story shear,H (kN)
40
10 10
41
ly
42 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0
-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
43
44 -30
-30
45
46 PULL
-50
PULL
-50
47 Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%)
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
13
1
2
3 (a) Specimen M1 (b) Specimen P1
4 50
50
5 PUSH PUSH
6 30 30
7
Story Shear,H (kN)
Story shear,H (kN)

8 10 10
9
10 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0
-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
11
12 -30 -30
13
PULL PULL
14 -50 -50
Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%)
15
16 (c) Specimen P2 (d) Specimen P3
17 50
PUSH
50 PUSH
18
Fo
19 30 30
Story shear,H (kN)
20
Story shear,H (kN)

21 10 10
22
r
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0
-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0-10 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
23
24
Re
25 -30 -30
26 PULL PULL
-50 -50
27 Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%)
28
(e) Specimen P4 (f) Specimen P5
vi
29
30 Fig. 10 Story shear force vs. story drift ratio of test specimens
31
ew
32 6.3. Ductility
33
34
The backbone curve of all specimens shown in Fig. 11 was performed for conducting the strength and
35 displacement ductility. The definition of equivalent yield (dy) and ultimate displacement (du) as proposed by
36 Park (1989) for the general case of lateral load-displacement responses was adopted in this study of the
ductility factor. The ultimate displacement was taken as the post peak displacement with a 15 percent drop off
On
37
38 in the maximum lateral load capacity, or the strength of the second/third cycle decreased over 15 percent of the
39 first cycle.
40 The results are shown in Table 3 with a yield point of all specimens of around 1.00 percent story drift.
41 Regarding the precast specimens, degradation of story shear was observed to start at a story drift of 1-2%. The
ly
42 strength degradation suddenly decreased due to bond deterioration from the splitting crack of T-section inserts
43 and/or lap-splices in the beam near the precast column face. The precast P5 showed better ductility because the
44 plastic hinge of beams of the P5 was relocated from the beam ends to a distance away from the column faces.
45
46 Table 3 Ductility, strength and story drift level at peak of story shear
47 Average strength
48 Push Side (H+) Pull Side (H-)
ratio*
49 Specimen Ductility Strength Story Drift Strength Story Drift
50 (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
51
52 M1 4+ 44.43 3.50 42.08 3.50 1.00
53 P1 2.47 36.99 2.00 30.09 2.00 0.77
54
55 P2 2.21 40.91 2.00 38.81 2.00 0.92
56 P3 1.84 38.52 2.00 32.63 1.40 0.82
57
58
59
60
14
1
2
3 P4 2.15 34.98 1.00 42.23 2.00 0.90
4
5 P5 2.62 40.92 1.40 36.82 1.40 0.90
6 * Ratio between strength of corresponding specimen to monolithic control specimen (M1).
7
8
50
9
10 40
11 30
12
20
13
Story Shear (kN)
14 10
15 0
16 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
-10
17
18 -20
Fo
M1 P1 P2
19 -30
20
-40 P3 P4 P5
21
22 -50
r
23 Drift Ratio
24 Fig. 11 Backbone curve of all specimens
Re
25
26 6.4. Stiffness degradation
27 In this study, stiffness degradation was discussed based on the secant stiffness. The secant stiffness (Ksec)
28 of any drift ratio, which was calculated from the peak of pulling side to the peak of pushing side of the last
vi
29 loading cycle (third cycle) as shown in Fig. 13, divided by the corresponding lateral displacement (d1+d2). The
30 secant stiffness value for each drift ratio was normalized (Knorm) by the secant stiffness at the 0.15 percent
31 story drift, the first drift level.
ew
32
Load
33 H+
34
35 Ae
36
On
d2 Displacement
37
38 d1
39
40 Ap
41
ly
H-
42
43
44 Fig. 13 Secant stiffness and equivalent damping ratio
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
15
1
2
3
Knorm
4 1.20
5
1.00 M1 P1 P2
6
7 P3 P4 P5
0.80
8
9 0.60
10
11 0.40
12
13 0.20
14
15 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
16
Story Drift (%)
17
18 Fig. 14 Stiffness degradation
Fo
19 At a lower load, as shown in Fig. 14, the specimen M1 shows higher stiffness degradation compared to
20 the precast specimens. However, the degradation rate is decreased for the precast specimens, the steel inserts
21 increase the stiffness and control cracking well at a lower load, especially for the specimen P5. However, when
22 the critical crack was presented, the capacity suddenly decreased along with stiffness degradation.
r
23
24 6.5. Equivalent viscous damping ratio
Re
25
26 In this study, the equivalent viscous damping ratio (ζeq) proposed by Chopra (2011) was used in this
27 study to explain energy dissipation characteristics. The equivalent damping ratio was computed from the
28 enclosed area within the hysteresis loop divided by strain energy, which is calculated from the assumed linear
elastic behavior at corresponding cycles. This definition is formulated in Eq. 1.
vi
29
30 1 Ap
ζ eq = × 100 (1)
31 2π Ae
ew
32
The equivalent viscous damping ratio versus story drift level of all test specimens is shown in Fig. 15.
33
The equivalent damping of the monolithic specimen M1 was higher than all the other precast ones. For the
34
precast specimens, specimen P5 showed the best damping performance comparable with the monolithic M1.
35
36
For precast specimens P1, P2 and P3 were obviously very low when compared with others, especially the P1
specimen which were design mainly for gravity loading.
On
37
38 20.00
39 M1 P1 P2
40
41
ly
15.00 P3 P4 P5
42
43
ζeq(%)
44 10.00
45
46
47 5.00
48
49
50
0.00
51 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
52 Story Drift (%)
53 Fig. 15 Energy Dissipation
54
55
7. Conclusions
56
The paper presents the experimental results of a research study on the seismic behavior of precast
57
concrete connections designed for earthquake resistance. Six beam-to-column subassemblage frames were
58
59
60
16
1
2
3 tested under cyclic loading to observe the hysteresis behavior and seismic performance of these connections,
4 the following conclusions are drawn:
5 - The monolithic specimen represented seismic behavior very well. Failure of columns and joint could
6
be prevented and the failure of the subassemblage frame came from the flexural plastic hinges
7
formation at the beam ends close to the column faces. Shear capacity, ductility, energy dissipation and
8
stiffness degradation were very well obtained seismic parameters.
9
10
- The splitting crack is a major failure mode in the precast specimens. For specimens P1-P4, the top
11 reinforcement composing of a longitudinally lapped spice with non-shrink grout concrete is the weak
12 point. The crack was developed along the splice length at the top of the precast beam section. This led
13 to both slippage and strength degradation of the spliced reinforcement.
14 - The precast P5 showed better seismic performances compared with other precast ones in terms of
15 ductility and energy dissipation, because of that the plastic hinge was relocated into the beams.
16 However, the dowel bars connected to the steel inserts were too short to develop bonding.
17 - The design of the precast concrete beams with lap spice is needed for a longer lap length and should
18 be done at the beam, mid span or in the low flexural stress region.
Fo
19
20
21 Reference
22 American Concrete Institute (2001), ACI T1.1-01. Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on
r
23 Structural Testing, Farmington Hills, MI.

24 American Concrete Institute (2015), ACI 318-15. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete,
Re
25 Farmington Hills, MI.

26 American Concrete Institute (2002), ACI 352R-02. Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connection
27 in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures by ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Farmington Hills, MI.
28 Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH and Gulay FG (2006), “Damage and failure pattern of prefabricated structures after
vi
29 major earthquakes in Turkey and shortfalls of the Turkish Earthquake Code,” Eng Failure Analysis,
30 13(4):537–557.
31 Au FTK., Huang K and Pam HJ (2005), “Diagonally-reinforced beam–column joints reinforced under cyclic
ew
32 loading,” Structures and Buildings, 158(1):21–40.

33 Chalioris CE, Favvata MJ and Karayannis CG (2008), “Reinforced concrete beam–column joints with crossed
34 inclined bars under cyclic deformations,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37(6):881–
35 897.
36
Chopra AK (2011), Dynamic of Structures-Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall,
On
37
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
38
Ertas O, Ozden S and Ozturan T (2006), “Ductile connections in precast concrete moment resisting frames,”
39
40
PCI Journal; 51(2):2–12.
41 Federal Emergency Management Agency (1998), NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
ly
42 for New Buildings and Other Structures. 1997 ed. FEMA 30 and Commentary FEMA 303, Washington,
43 D.C.
44 Ghosh SK, Nakaki SD and Krishan K (1997), “Precast Structure in Region of High Seismicity: 1997 UBC
45 Design Provision,” PCI Journal, 42(6):76-93.
46 Gülkan P (1998), The Ceyhan-Misis Earthquake of 27 June 1998: a preliminary engineering reconnaissance
47 report. Technical Report, Middle East Technical University Disaster Management, Implementation and
48 Research Center, Ankara, Turkey.
49 Hansapinyo C (2012), “Exterior cast-in-place and welded precast concrete frames under cyclic loading,”
50 Proceeding of the 1st Australasia and South-East Asia Structural Engineering and Construction
51 Conference (ASEA-SEC-1), Perth, Australia.
52 International Conference of Building Officials (1997), 1997 Uniform Building Code Volumes. II, Whittier, CA.
53 Ketiyot R and Hansapinyo C (2012), “Cyclic behavior of exterior precast concrete beam column frames using
54 combined welded-bolted connection.” Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Performance-
55 based and Life-cycle Structural Engineering, Hong Kong, China.
56 Korkmaz HH and Tankut T (2005), “Performance of a precast concrete beam-to-beam connection subject to
57 reversed cyclic loading,” Engineering Structures, 27(9):1392–1407.
58
59
60
17
1
2
3 Li B, Kulkarni SA and Leong CL (2006), “Seismic Performance of Precast Hybrid-Steel Concrete
4 Connections,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13(5):667-689.
5 Lu X, Urukap TH, Li S and Lin F (2012), “Seismic behavior of interior RC beam-column joints with
6
additional bars under cyclic loading,” Earthquakes and Structures, 3(1):37-57.
7
Parastesh H, Hajirasouliha I and Ramezani R (2014), “A new ductile moment-resisting connection for precast
8
concrete frames in seismic regions: An experimental investigation,” Engineering Structures, 70(1):144-
9
10
157.
11 Park R (1989), “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural Assemblages from Laboratory Testing,”
12 Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 22(3):155-166.
13 Park R (2002), “Seismic design and construction of precast concrete buildings in New Zealand,” PCI Journal,
14 47(5):60–75.
15 Prestressed Concrete Institute (1973), PCI Manual: Design of Connections for Pre-cast Prestressed Concrete,
16 Chicago, IL.
17 Prestressed Concrete Institute (1985), PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. 3rd ed.,
18 Chicago, IL.
Fo
19 Tsonos AG, Tegos IA and Penelis GG (1992), “Seismic resistance of type-2 exterior beam–column joints
20 reinforced with inclined bars,” ACI Structural Journal, 89(1):3–12.
21 Wongmatar P, Hansapinyo C and Buachart C (2015), “Relocation of plastic hinge of interior beam-column
22 connections with intermediate bars in reinforced concrete and T-section steel inserts in precast concrete
r
23 frames,” Proceeding of the 17th International Conference on Civil, Environmental and Infrastructure
24 Engineering: ICCEIE 2015, Dubai, UAE.
Re
25 Xue W and Yang X (2010), “Seismic tests of precast concrete moment-resisting framers and connections,”
26 PCI Journal, 55(3):102–121.
27 Yang KH, Oh MH, Kim MH and Lee HC (2010), “Flexural behavior of hybrid precast concrete beams with
28 H-steel beams at both ends,” Engineering Structures, 32(9):2940–2949.
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

For Review Only

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

For Review Only

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Seismic performance of interior precast concrete beam-column

Journal: Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Specialty Area: Reinforced concrete structures < Structural engineering

23 Fig. 1 Precast beam element with T-section steel insert

29 axial load of 0.10f'cAg was applied at the top of the column.

32 4.4. Precast concrete connection specimen (P3)

23 (c) Connection detailing of specimen P2 (d) Connection detailing of specimen P3

37 the cast-in-place grout concrete regions.

23 Drift ratio = 1.00% Drift ratio = 2.00% Drift ratio = 2.50%

Story shear,H (kN)

Story shear,H (kN)

23 Structural Testing, Farmington Hills, MI.

25 Farmington Hills, MI.

32 loading,” Structures and Buildings, 158(1):21–40.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen