Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The potential benefits of precast concrete in terms of
high quality control, construction efficiency, and time and
cost savings are well recognized, and precast concrete
frame structures are widely used in the United States, New
Zealand, and Japan.1 As one of the most appropriate structures for residential buildings, particularly low-cost housing,
precast concrete frame structures have been booming in
China since 2009.
Although precast concrete construction provides highquality structural members, the performance of precast
concrete frame structures is mostly governed by seismic
behavior of the beam-column connections. Beam-column
connection design is one of the most important considerations for successful construction of precast concrete frame
structures. The detailing and structural behavior of the
beam-column connections affects the strength, deformation,
ductility, and constructability. It was therefore necessary to
evaluate seismic behavior of precast concrete beam-column
connections used in seismic zones. Up until now, many
experimental and analytical studies have been conducted
on seismic performance of reinforced monolithic concrete
beam-column connections subjected to reversed cyclic
loading. There have been only a limited number of studies,
however, on seismic performance of precast concrete beamcolumn connections.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2014
617
618
Specimen details
Of the four specimens, two were hybrid concrete beamcolumn connections made with composite concrete beams
and CIP concrete columns, and the others were the CIP
control specimens. Specimens HIC and HEC represented a
hybrid concrete interior connection and a hybrid concrete
exterior connection, while Specimens MIC and MEC were
the CIP control specimens of HIC and HEC, respectively.
The dimensions and reinforcement details of test specimen
are given in Fig. 1. The specimens were designed assuming
that the slab within an effective width equal to one-third
of the span length would be participating in the moment
strength. This effective width was defined in the Chinese
Code10 as the calculated width of the slab for T-beam
flange, which was 33.3% larger than the effective slab width
suggested by ACI 318.7
Specimens HIC and HEC
Specimens HIC and HEC consisted of composite concrete
beams and CIP columns, and the composite beams were
composed of precast U-shaped beams, precast slabs, and
CIP slabs. For the interior connection Specimen HIC, buttwelding was used to connect the longitudinal reinforcements
of the beams in the connection region, while for the exterior
connection Specimen HEC, anchoring bolts were used in
the end of the longitudinal reinforcements in the joint region
instead of the conventional 90-degree hooked anchorage.
To improve the integrity of hybrid beam-column concrete
connections, the following measures were taken: a) a new
type of hybrid beam, as shown in Fig. 1(e), was adopted,
which was made up of a precast concrete U-shaped beam,
precast concrete slabs, and CIP concrete; b) the precast slab
was directly supported on the precast concrete U-shaped
beam; c) the average roughness amplitude of the precast
components was 0.20 in. (5 mm); d) the truss steel reinforcements, as shown in Fig. 1(e), were placed between the
precast concrete slab and CIP concrete; e) the reinforcing
bars were used between the precast slab and CIP concrete
in beam; and f) for Specimen HIC, the tie bars were placed
along the beam above the joint of the precast concrete slabs,
as shown in Fig. 2.
Specimens MIC and MEC
Specimens MIC and MEC had the same dimensions as
Specimens HIC and HEC and were cast monolithically.
Construction process
The construction sequence of the new type of hybrid
connections was as follows. The precast slabs and U-shaped
beams first were prefabricated in the factory. The longitudinal bars and transverse hoops of column were tied in the
construction site. The precast components prefabricated in
the factory were then transported to the construction site,
and the precast U-shaped beams were set in position with a
temporary brace. The precast slabs were placed on the either
side of the beams. After this, the longitudinal reinforcing
bars in the CIP topping and stirrups in the joint region were
placed on the top of the beam and slab and in the joint core
area, respectively. In the end, the concrete was placed in
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2014
Fig. 1Specimen geometry and steel details. (Note: Dimensions in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
the column and on the top of the precast slabs. It should be
noted that, compared with the hybrid beam-column connections11,12 investigated previously, less shoring and formwork
were needed in the construction process of this new type of
hybrid connections.
Materials
Samples representing all sizes of reinforcing bars were
tested in tension to failure. Table 1 summarizes the properties
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2014
619
Yield
strength fy,
ksi (MPa)
Ultimate
strength fu,
ksi (MPa)
Youngs modulus,
Es, ksi ( 105 MPa)
Elongation at
fracture, %
10
52.3 (361)
72.8 (502)
26,100 (1.80)
27.1
12
48.4 (334)
76.3 (526)
25,665 (1.77)
28.3
14
55.5 (383)
80.9 (558)
27,695 (1.91)
28.6
18
54.4 (375)
82.7 (570)
28,855 (1.99)
28.9
25
64.4 (444)
92.7 (639)
29,290 (2.02)
24.8
32
61.5 (424)
85.7 (591)
29,000 (2.00)
27.5
Notes: Nominal diameter of bars: 10 = 0.39 in. (10 mm); 12 = 0.47 in. (12 mm);
14 = 0.55 in. (14 mm); 18 = 0.71 in. (18 mm); 25 = 0.98 in. (25 mm); 32 =
1.26in. (32 mm).
MEC
HIC
HEC
Specimens
CIP
CIP
CIP
Pre
CIP
Pre
Cube
strength fcu,
ksi (MPa)
9.0
(62.1)
8.7
(60.1)
9.2
(63.6)
8.6
(59.6)
8.8
(60.7)
8.5
(58.3)
Split
strength ft,
ksi (MPa)
0.64
(4.4)
0.52
(3.6)
0.67
(4.6)
0.55
(3.8)
0.54
(3.7)
0.58
(4.0)
Elastic
modulus Ec,
ksi ( 104
MPa)
5220
(3.6)
5365
(3.7)
4930
(3.4)
4495
(3.1)
5655
(3.9)
4930
(3.4)
Fig. 5Crack patterns and failure modes: (a) Specimen MIC; (b) Specimen HIC; (c) Specimen MEC; and (d) Specimen HEC.
at a drift of 1.13%. The Specimens HEC and MEC failed at
a story drift of 2.04and 2.21%, respectively, as the lateral
load of both specimens reached the 85% of their lateral peak
load. At the yield phase, the average strain of the steel bars
in the bottom of the beam was 2058 for Specimen HEC,
while it was 2380 for Specimen MEC. It was indicated
that the deformation of Specimen HEC was close to that
of the control specimen. In the whole loading process, the
steel bars in the columns and the stirrups in the core regions
remained elastic.
Failure pattern
The failure pattern of the four specimens, as expected,
involved the formation of a plastic hinge in the beam at the
column face. The formation of plastic hinges caused severe
cracking of the concrete near the beam end of each specimen. No cracks, however, were observed on the column and
the joint region. In other words, the precast beam-column
connections exhibited a strong column-weak beam failure
mechanism. There were also some prominent shear cracks
in the hinge region, mainly due to the large depth of the
beam. At the end of the test, concrete damage was visible in
the beam near the face of column, particularly in the beam
plastic hinge zone, and the reinforcements fractured at the
bottom of the beam end near the column face. This could be
due to the fact that the neutral axis of beams moved upward
owing to the presence of the concrete slab, which caused the
large strain demand for bottom longitudinal bars.
It should be noted that there were no horizontal cracks
observed between CIP concrete and precast concrete in the
failure cross section in hybrid concrete connections until
the lateral load reached the peak load, and in the later stage
of the test, the horizontal cracks occurred in the interface
622
HIC
MEC
HEC
cr, in.
(mm)
y, in.
(mm)
max, in.
(mm)
u, in.
(mm)
u/y
POS 0.13 (3.37) 1.51 (38.74) 2.35 (60.32) 3.65 (93.53) 2.41
NEG
POS 0.07 (1.85) 1.25 (32.04) 1.76 (45.16) 3.09 (79.16) 2.47
NEG
POS
NEG 0.03 (0.65) 1.22 (31.41) 2.40 (61.61) 2.65 (67.98) 2.16
POS 0.37 (9.46) 1.11 (28.40) 1.83 (46.82) 2.39 (61.23) 2.16
NEG 0.02 (0.63) 0.82 (21.00) 2.38 (60.99) 2.73 (70.01) 3.33
MEC
HIC
HEC
Specimen
POS
NEG
POS
NEG
POS
NEG
POS
NEG
Pmax
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Py
0.92
0.83
0.85
0.86
0.78
0.71
0.87
0.83
Pcr
0.13
0.18
0.12
0.45
Pu
0.91
0.72
0.85
0.85
0.82
0.79
0.85
0.85
max
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.64
0.61
0.75
0.51
0.71
0.69
0.61
0.34
cr
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.20
1.55
1.55
1.47
1.10
1.75
1.76
1.31
1.15
0.58
0.22
0.05
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.07
1.19
0.25
0.23
0.11
0.14
0.31
0.34
0.62
1.14
0.53
0.44
0.20
0.24
0.45
0.48
0.63
1.12
0.61
0.53
0.22
0.25
0.51
0.53
0.43
0.98
0.63
0.55
0.53
0.55
Slip
The slip between precast beam and precast slab and the
slip between precast slab and CIP slab were measured
during the test of both the hybrid concrete connections.
The slip at a particular drift level is presented in Table 5.
It was shown that both the slip between precast beam and
precast slab and the slip between precast slab and CIP slab
had an increasing trend with drift level increasing. At yield
state, the slip between precast slab and CIP slab in positive and negative directions was 0.00254 and 0.00924 in.
(0.065 and 0.237mm), respectively, in Specimen HIC; and
was 0.0094and 0.00956 in. (0.241 and 0.245 mm), respectively, in Specimen HEC. This showed that the slip between
precast slab and CIP slab was small, and those in the exterior
connection were larger than those in the interior connection.
The slip between precast beam and precast slab in positive and negative directions was 0.00511 and 0.01026in.
(0.131 and 0.263mm), respectively, in Specimen HIC;
and was 0.00971 and 0.00402 in. (0.249 and 0.103 mm),
respectively, in Specimen HEC, when the yield state was
reached. These slips, in general, are small, indicating that
the measures to improve the integrity of cross section and
prevent the shear failure between precast slab and CIP slab
were very effective.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the cyclic loading tests of hybrid concrete beamcolumn connections and their CIP control specimens, the
following conclusions can be drawn from the study.
1. Each specimen, as expected, developed plastic hinge in
the vicinity of the beam-column interface without damage
in the column and joint region, and exhibited a strong
625
Slip 2
103
in.
(mm)
0.5
HIC
HEC
HIC
HEC
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Yielding
POS
0.16 (0.004)
1.99 (0.051)
3.00 (0.077)
5.27 (0.135)
4.21 (0.108)
2.85 (0.073)
14.86 (0.381)
2.54 (0.065)
NEG
2.30 (0.059)
6.40 (0.164)
9.83 (0.252)
19.89 (0.510)
20.94 (0.537)
34.20 (0.877)
56.43 (1.447)
9.24 (0.237)
POS
2.46 (0.063)
11.39 (0.292)
29.60 (0.759)
29.41 (0.754)
41.93 (1.075)
9.40 (0.241)
NEG
2.61 (0.067)
7.88 (0.202)
19.58 (0.502)
37.32 (0.957)
26.83 (0.688)
9.56 (0.245)
POS
1.37 (0.035)
4.45 (0.114)
5.89 (0.151)
8.15 (0.209)
45.44 (1.165)
33.38 (0.856)
30.19 (0.774)
5.11 (0.131)
NEG
1.21 (0.031)
8.54 (0.219)
27.11 (0.695)
90.95 (2.332)
157.56 (4.040)
208.73 (5.352)
92.04 (2.360)
10.26 (0.263)
POS
0.16 (0.004)
10.80 (0.277)
20.36 (0.522)
23.13 (0.593)
41.34 (1.060)
9.71 (0.249)
NEG
4.49 (0.115)
4.95 (0.127)
10.96 (0.281)
18.68 (0.479)
34.24 (0.878)
4.02 (0.103)
Notes: Slip 1 is slip between precast slab and CIP slab; Slip 2 is slip between precast slab and precast beam; yielding is test specimen has reached its yield state; POS is positive
direction; NEG is negative direction.
AUTHOR BIOS
Weichen Xue is a Professor of structural engineering at Tongji University, Shanghai, China. His research interests include precast, prestressed
concrete structures; composite structures; and fiber-reinforced polymer
used in concrete structures.
Bin Zhang is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Building Engineering at Tongji University. His research interests include precast
concretestructures.
NOTATION
max =
u =
REFERENCES
627
NOTES:
628