Precast BeamColumn Connection Subjected to Cyclic

and Dynamic Loadings

Luiz lvaro Oliveira Jnior, Prof., Escola de Engenharia, Pontifcia Universidade Catlica de Gois, Gois, Brazil; Daniel Lima
Arajo, Prof., Escola de Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, Universidade Federal de Gois, Gois, Brazil; Mounir Khalil El Debs,
Prof., Universidade de So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil; Hidelbrando Jos Farkat Digenes, Prof., Centro de Tecnologia,
Universidade Federal da Paraba, Paraba, Brazil. Contact: dlaraujo@ufg.br
DOI: 10.2749/101686617X14676303589075

Abstract developed a collaborative research

project called SAFECAST (Perfor-
This paper addresses the mechanical behaviour of beamcolumn connections mance of Innovative Mechanical Con-
in precast concrete structures designed for use in constructions that demand nections in Precast Building Structures
rigid connections. In the proposed connection, steel-fibre reinforced concrete Under Seismic Conditions) which
(SFRC), splice bars and shear keys were used to develop a connection that is focused in the seismic behaviour of pre-
resistant to positive and negative moments. The mechanical behaviour of the cast buildings (with emphasis on the
proposed connection was evaluated using dynamic and reversal cyclic tests connection behaviour). The experi-
under two models: a monolithic model and a model composed of precast con- mental program of the project con-
crete elements connected using 1% SFRC and splice bars to establish the conti- sisted mainly of pseudodynamic tests
nuity of the reinforcements. The results of cyclic tests showed that this precast performed in a full-scale three storey
beamcolumn connection exhibits semi-rigid behaviour and high strength (88% precast building at the European Labo-
of the strength provided by the monolithic model). The results from dynamic ratory for Structural Assessment built
tests showed that the uncracked connection had an average damping ratio of to study the inuence of several para-
~1.0%, decreasing to ~0.7% after cracking. meters on the behaviour of the precast
Keywords: semi-rigid connection; precast concrete; steel-bre reinforced con- building.20 Many relevant works devel-
crete; cyclic load; damping ratio. oped in the SAFECAST project were
reported by other authors.2124
The beamcolumn connections are
Introduction are found in Ref. [1]. The results and thus of importance in the design of
conclusions obtained from the PRESS precast concrete structures. However,
Precast elements are fabricated in (Precast Concrete Seismic Structural in some infrastructure constructions,
series, thereby limiting onsite work to System), a research project developed such as hydroelectric plants, the pre-
the assembly of elements using lifting by the USA and Japan in order to cast concrete elements are relegated
equipment. This work stage includes study the behaviour of precast struc- to minor structural elements. Precast
the realization of connections between tures on seismic zones, are given in elements have been used in hydroelec-
these elements to guarantee the transfer Refs. [2,3]. An overview of the ve tric plants; however, they have not
of actions between them and to ensure been used in powerhouses because the
storey precast PRESS test building is
the structural integrity of the entire large size of and high loads on such
given in Ref. [4] and some contribu-
structure. The beamcolumn connec- structural elements require a rigid
tions and conclusions from PRESS
tion is one of the most important con- beamcolumn connection. In addition,
nections in multi-storey precast framed and COST-C1 are discussed in
such connections are subjected to
structures because it is responsible for Ref. [5] which was a research project
extreme dynamic loads due to the clos-
the structural stability. Thus, many stud- developed by the USA and European ing of the gates during turbine mainte-
ies have been conducted with the intent Union in order to create research nance. However, the use of precast
to provide designers with the knowl- groups on semi-rigid connections. concrete elements in powerhouse
edge necessary to design safer, cheaper Some researchers have used steel bres structures would be highly cost-effec-
and easy to construct beamcolumn to improve the performance of such tive because the powerhouse is an
connections for precast structures.15 beamcolumn connections,6,7 and essential aspect of the construction.
Results obtained from the project others have studied the seismic beha-
Moment Resistant Connections and viour of beamcolumn connections.816 Research Signicance
Simple Connections, funded by PCI- The stability of precast concrete skele-
This paper proposes a typology of
SFRAD (Specially Funded Research tal structures has been discussed by
emulating a connection system for a
and Development Programs 1 and 4) researchers who have developed a for-
beamcolumn connection based on
mulation that considers the semi-
PRESS project philosophy to be used
Peer-reviewed by international ex- rigidity of connections in the design of
in the prefabrication of powerhouses
perts and accepted for publication precast concrete frames.1719 of hydroelectric plants. The connec-
by SEI Editorial Board
European national association of pre- tion was composed of splice bars to
Paper received: November 4, 2015 cast producers along with university establish the continuity of the beams
Paper accepted: September 8, 2016 and researchers centres recently longitudinal reinforcement and shear

114 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

keys at the joint between the beam
and the column to improve shear
transfer through the interface. Steel-
bre reinforced concrete (SFRC) is
used in the region containing the con-
tinuity reinforcement bars to reduce
the length of the lap splices of the
reinforcement as well as to improve
the connection stiffness because the
structure of the powerhouse is often
subjected to cyclic and dynamic loads.
In structural design of powerhouses,
dynamic loadings can be from water
ow through spiral casing (considering
opening/closing of pressured con-
ducts) and working of machinery. In
its turn, cyclic loading can arise due to
activating/deactivating, programmati-
cally or accidentally, of turbines and
generators.

Description of Proposed
Connection
Figure 1 shows the components of the
proposed connection. The advantages
of this connection are the high stiff-
ness and its resistance to positive and
negative moments due to the continu-
ity of the longitudinal bars of the
beam. This continuity is provided by
the splice bars of the beam and the
column, which are xed to the column
by a threaded sleeve. The shear keys
on the face of the beam and the col-
umn can directly transfer shear forces
to the column.

Experimental Investigation
Materials
Plain concrete was used to produce
the precast elements. Furthermore,
SFRC was used in the connection
region to provide the toughness and
high strength and also to improve the
cracking control of the concrete. The
SFRC consisted of 1% (or 79 kg/m3)
steel bres with hooked ends, each
being 35 mm long and 0.54 mm in
diameter and with an aspect ratio of
65. With plain concrete and SFRC,
cylindrical specimens 150 mm in diam-
eter and 300 mm in height were used
to evaluate various mechanical prop-
erties, the values of which are given in
Table 1. The exural toughness of the
SFRC was evaluated using prismatic
specimens 100 mm wide, 100 mm in
height and 400 mm long according to
JSCE SF-4.26 In Table 1, the numbers
in brackets correspond to the number
of tests performed for each mechani-
cal property. These values are valid
Fi g. 1: An overview of the proposed connection: (a) 3D view and (b) connection
components
Characteristics Plain concrete SFRC
Compressive strength (fc), MPa 40.45 (9) 69.97 (29)
Splitting tensile strength (fct, sp), MPa 3.29* (6) 8.04 (32)
Modulus of rupture of concrete (fr), MPa 2.68 (6) 9.95** (3)
Modulus of elasticity (Ec), GPa 37.66 (3) 30.87*** (3)
Flexural toughness (FT), MPa 8.37**** (3)
*Value obtained from Brazilian test.
**Value obtained from four-point bending test.
***Value obtained from ABNT NBR 8522:2008.25
****
Value obtained according to JSCE SF-4.26
Table 1: Characteristics of plain concrete and SFRC
for shear specimens and precast beam diameters of 8, 10, 16 and 20 mm,
and column test. respectively. These values were
The yield strength of the reinforce- determined from tension tests per-
ments (fy) were 555.08, 617.56, 573.01 formed on bars of the same length
and 564.28 MPa for bars with (500 mm).

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 115

Description of Test Specimens
Push-off Tests
Three push-off tests were performed
on specimens with a shear keyed
interface composed of concrete rein-
forced with 1% steel bres to obtain
the maximum shear strength of each
shear key. The test specimens were
F ig . 2: Dimensions of push-off specimens, in mm. (a) Front; (b) Side; (c) Shear key
detailling; (d) Adherence on interface of push-off specimens
F ig . 3: (a) Dimensions of specimens for tests on beamcolumn connection, in mm; (b,c) detail of the connection for Model 2 with
precast elements; (d) dimensions and position of shear keys, in mm
116 Scientic Paper
formed by two pieces both made of
SFRC cast on consecutive days to cre-
ate a preformed crack plane. The
interface of the pieces had two shear
keys, whose sizes are presented in
Fig. 2. Greasing was used to eliminate
the bonding outside of the region
above and below the shear keys. The
test specimens were reinforced with
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
steel bars 12.5 mm in diameter; how-
ever, there was no reinforcement
crossing the interface.
Tests on BeamColumn Connection
Two cruciform specimens were tested
to evaluate the mechanical behaviour
of the beamcolumn connection.
A single monolithic specimen
(Model 1) and another specimen com-
posed of a precast beam and column
(Model 2) were prepared. Model
1 was composed of two 1500 mm long,
350 mm thick and 500 mm high beams
connected to one 1700 mm long,
350 mm thick and 600 mm wide col-
umn (Fig. 3a). These dimensions rep-
resent a one-third scale model of a
typical monolithically joined beam
column used in an overhead crane of
a powerhouse of a hydroelectric plant.
Model 2 was also composed of two
beams and one column with the same
dimensions as Model 1 and was pro-
duced according to the proposed con-
nection with SFRC. Moreover, six
shear keys with the same sizes (see
Fig. 3d) as that used in shear tests
were used at the interfaces between
the column and the beam to transfer
the shear forces.
(d)
350
46
43
30
43
30
500
43
30
43
30
43
30
43
46
Both cruciform specimens were longi-
tudinally reinforced by ten steel bars
20 mm in diameter, six for negative
moments and four for positive
moments along the beamcolumn
connection. The reinforcement details
of Model 2 are shown in Fig. 4.
Continuity of longitudinal reinforce-
ment was required for Model 2; there-
fore, the model was provided with an
adequate joint width to enable the lap
splice of this reinforcement. The
width of the joints at the bottom and
top were 300 mm and 650 mm; there-
fore, the lap splice length was 15
and 30 for positive and negative
moments, respectively. The continuity
bars in the column, which was spliced
with longitudinal reinforcement on
the beams, were connected after cast-
ing of the column by 50 mm long,
steel threaded sleeves. Various studies
have included pull-out tests on bars
embedded in SFRC and concluded
that the 10 of the development
length in tension was sufcient to
achieve the yield strength of
deformed bars in concrete with 1%
steel bres.27 Traction tests conducted
in prismatic specimens 1000 mm long
with square cross-section of sides
150 mm to evaluate the mechanical
behaviour of this lap splice length
showed that this length is sufcient to
transfer tension forces due to the
Fi g. 4: (a) Reinforcement details of Model 1; (b) reinforcement details of Model 2
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
yield stress of bars through the
connection.
Test Setup
Push-off Tests
Push-off tests were performed by
applying a normal stress at the inter-
face to simulate the connement
effect provided by reinforcements at
the beamcolumn connection. A verti-
cal load was applied by an actuator
with 300 kN of capacity at the top of
the specimens; simultaneously, a
hydraulic jack compressed the inter-
face with a constant stress of approxi-
mately 0.5 MPa. A scheme of the
shear tests is presented in Fig. 5.
Cyclic Tests on BeamColumn
Connection
To perform the cyclic tests on the
beamcolumn connection, specimens
were supported by their beam ends
in a reaction frame, and alternating
downward and upward displace-
ments were applied to the top of
the column. Displacement transdu-
cers, strain gauges and load cells
were installed as shown in Fig. 6; a
data acquisition system continuously
recorded data. Rotations of the
beamcolumn connection were cal-
culated using measurements from
displacement transducers 1 and
5 for the right side of the specimens
and from displacement transducers
2 and 6 for the left side of the
specimens.
Tests were initiated with reversal
cyclic loads and nished by upward
monotonic loads until failure of the
beamcolumn connection resulting
from a negative moment. Five cyclic
loading levels were applied, each one
with ten cycles, to evaluate the stiff-
ness degradation of the beamcolumn
connection. The loading history of the
cycles used for the test is presented in
Fig. 7. For Model 2, the loading his-
tory was slightly different; specically,
the loads were not reversed after the
third loading level, and the connection
was subjected only to a negative
moment. This strategy was necessary
to prevent failure by positive bending
moment because detachment of the
concrete cover of longitudinal rein-
forcement was observed on the right
side at the end of the third loading
level.
Displacement was applied at a rate of
0.05 mm/s during the rst cycle of
each loading level and was increased
to 0.1 mm/s during the nine remaining
cycles. The lower rate during the rst
cycles of each load level was used to
improve the accuracy of the loading
measured during the tests because
cracking at each loading level arises
mainly during the rst cycle.
Scientic Paper 117

F ig . 5: Push-off test setup. (a) Scheme of test device and (b) free-body diagram
F ig . 6: (a) Test setup and (b) instrumentation of beamcolumn connection and
(c) measurement of beamcolumn rotation (Unit: mm)
Dynamic Tests on BeamColumn
Connection
Dynamic tests were performed with
specimens simply supported at sec-
tions 150 mm from the beam ends in
two different situations: (a) before
the cyclic test to obtain the damping
ratio of the model with no cracks
and (b) at the end of all cyclic loads
to assess the changes in damping
ratio resulting from damage caused
by the cracking process. In these
118 Scientic Paper
tests, the models were excited at the
top of the column by a shaker with
a capacity of 3000 Hz coupled to a
piezoelectric load cell with a capacity
of 178 N (Fig. 8). The shaker
applied a pseudo-random signal with
frequencies lower than 250 Hz. The
dynamic response of the model was
measured by a piezoelectric acceler-
ometer with a sensibility of
104 mV/g placed at the beam
column connection region.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
Experimental Results and
Discussion
Strength of Shear Keys
The results from the push-off tests are
presented in Table 2. The average
shear strength of a single shear key
can be obtained as follows:
1 X N
Vmax, i
Vsk = 1
N i = 1 nsk, i
where Vsk is the shear strength of a
single shear key, N is the number of
tests, Vmx,i is the maximum load
measured during the ith test, and nsk,i
is the number of shear keys at the
interface of the specimen used during
the ith test.
Thus, the average shear strength of a
single shear key was found to be
135.39 kN. The design strength can
be obtained by the average strength
reduced from strength reduction coef-
cient (). This coefcient can be cal-
culated according to Ref. [28] which
proposed a simplied method for
determining strength reduction coef-
cients for design equations taking into
account the desired reliability index
(). The strength reduction coefcient
() can be determined using Eq. (2):
= e VR 2
where
q
VR = VM 2 + V2 + V2
F P 3
It was proposed in Ref. [28] that the
parameter be set at 0.55. This study
also proposed a coefcient of varia-
tion of 9% for the material properties
(VM) and 5% for the geometrical
properties (VF) of the structures. VP
is the coefcient of variation of tests
and it is shown in Table 2.
In these equations, with reliability
index () of 3.0, the strength reduc-
tion coefcient () was 0.64 and the
design shear strength of a shear key
was 86.65 kN. This indicates that each
beamcolumn interface of the model,
which was composed of six shear keys,
had design shear strength of 519.90
kN. Then, the total estimated resist-
ance of the model for monotonic ver-
tical load was twice the shear
resistance, i.e., 1309.8 kN. This resist-
ance is greater than the ultimate
load observed at the connection of
Model 2, thus indicating that this
model cannot fail by shear force at
the beamcolumn interface.

Fi g. 7: Loading history of cycles in beamcolumn connection tests. (a) Model 1 and
(b) Model 2
MomentRotation Relationship for
BeamColumn Connection under
Cyclic Loading
Figure 9 shows the moment versus
rotation relationship of the beam
column connection for Model 1. This
gure indicates a reduction in stiffness
degradation during the cycle for each
load level. Furthermore, it was
observed that cyclic loads did not
impose signicant permanent rota-
tions in the connection because the
hysteresis presented narrow loops that
always passed through the origin dur-
ing each load reversion. It was
observed that the right side was a lit-
tle stiffer than the left side.
The hysteresis loops also remained
narrow and continued passing through
the origin in Model 2. Signicant per-
manent rotations were not observed
in this model. However, this model
exhibits greater rotation for negative
moments than does Model 1 due to a
discrete crack opening at the beam
column interface (see Fig. 10). After
the loading history of the cycles, the
rotation for Model 2 was 23% to
87% greater than the rotation for
Model 1 (left and right side, respec-
tively). For the positive moment, the
rotation was slightly smaller than that
observed for Model 1 until the third
cyclic load.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
The connection rotations for both
sides of Model 2 were similar until the
third cyclic load. After this load,
detachment of the concrete cover
under the right side of connection
occurred near the positive longitudi-
nal reinforcement, which justies a
more pronounced rotation on this side
of the connection. This premature
detachment was due to the small con-
crete cover of the bars in this region
because of the bar congestion. This
congestion was due to the one-third
scale chosen for the model as tested
in the laboratory.
Table 3 shows the crack opening at
the beamcolumn connection result-
ing from the negative moment at each
nal cyclic load level. A greater crack
opening is observed for Model 2 and
is more pronounced after 43% of the
ultimate strength of the connection.
This is due to the strain concentration
that arises in the threaded sleeve used
Test Area of interface (mm2)
1 33 400
2 33 400
3 33 400
Average
Coefcient of variation (Vp)
Table 2: Results of push-off tests
Fi g. 8: Shaker used in dynamic test
to provide continuity of the longitudi-
nal reinforcements of the beam with
the column.
Stiffness Degradation
Table 4 shows the rotational stiffness
of the connection for the rst, fth
and tenth cycles of each load level
produced only by the negative
moment. This is the secant stiffness;
specically, it was determined from
the momentrotation relationship
given in Fig. 9 based on the maximum
moment at each cycle and its corre-
spondent rotation at the connection
(Fig. 11a). In this table, the dimen-
sionless parameter Ds corresponds to
the degradation ratio that is expressed
in % and obtained by subtracting the
stiffness values of the rst and the i-th
cycles of a given load and by dividing
the result by the stiffness of the rst
cycle of the same load. Negative value
of Ds in Table 4 means that secant
stiffness of given cycle increased rela-
tively to the rst cycle of the same
load level.
The rotational stiffnesses for the ini-
tial load cycles on both sides of Model
1 were quite similar (approximately
2% difference). On the other hand,
Vmax (kN) c (MPa) Vsk (kN)
341.75 10.23 170.87
265.44 7.95 132.72
205.15 6.14 102.58
135.39
0.253
Scientic Paper 119
 connection. Figure 11b, c and d
presents the rotational stiffness degra-
dation for Model 2. For example, the
average stiffness degradation for both
sides of Model 2 for the rst three
cyclic load levels, that is, for the sup-
posed serviceability loading of the
connection, is 11% at the end of the
third cyclic load (Fig. 11d). This is a
small value and allows one to state
that the rotational stiffness of this con-
nection does not change signicantly
after the low cyclic fatigue test.

MomentRotation Relationship for

BeamColumn Connection under
Monotonic Loading
Figure 12 shows the moment versus
rotation curves of the beamcolumn
connection for the monotonic tests of
the models, which were conducted
after the loading history of the cycles.
F ig . 9: Moment versus rotation curves of the beamcolumn interface during cyclic tests. The failure of Model 1, namely, duc-
(a) Model 1 and (b) Model 2 tile failure due to yielding of the con-
tinuity reinforcement on top of the
beam, was produced by the negative
moment. The ductility index of the
connection () is dened by the ratio
of the rotation at the ultimate
strength and the rotation at the yield-
ing strength and varied from 2.2 to
2.9 for this model (left and right side,
respectively). The ultimate strength
and yield strength of the connection
were 507 kNm and 388 kNm,
respectively.
The failure of Model 2, which was a
ductile failure due to the ductility
F ig . 10 : Discrete crack at the interface of the Model 2. (a) During the test and (b) After index of this connection () being 2.4
failure (Units: []) on the left side, was also produced by
the negative moment. The ultimate
strength of the connection was
Load level Model 1 Model 2 447 kNm, and yield strengths were
Level F (kN) F/Fu* (%) Left side Right side Left side Right side 340 and 310 kNm on the left and right
1 86 14 0.10 0.10 0.29 0.29 sides, respectively. These values range
from 88 to 80% of the yield strength
2 172 29 0.38 0.30 0.81 0.76
of Model 1. The strain gage on the
3 258 43 0.57 0.49 1.27 1.13 negative reinforcement in the precast
4 344 58 0.78 0.64 1.61 1.95 beam of Model 2 had not reached the
yield strain of steel until the failure of
5 400 67 0.92 0.74 2.02 2.67
the connection due to the capacity of
*The Fu load corresponds to the failure load of Model 2. the SFRC to reduce strains. In this
Table 3: Crack opening of the beamcolumn connection for different load levels (in mm) model, the strain at the connection
was concentrated at the steel threaded
sleeves. The ultimate strength of
the difference in stiffness between than the rotational stiffness for Model 2
Model 2 was 88% of the strength of
both sides of Model 2 for the initial due to the discrete crack opening at
Model 1.
load cycles was due to slight differ- the beamcolumn interface of the lat-
ence in position of longitudinal rein- ter model. However, the stiffness deg- The rotational stiffness of the left side
forcement on both sides. The major radation for both models during each of Model 2 was similar to the rota-
difference between the two models is cyclic load was similar, which shows tional stiffness of Model 1. However,
the stiffness for the initial load cycles; that the precast model exhibits stiff- the rotational stiffness of the right
specically, the average rotational ness degradation that is similar to side of Model 2 was smaller than that
stiffness of Model 1 is 100% larger that of a monolithic beamcolumn observed for Model 1. This was due

120 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

 Cycle Load Model 1 (Fu = 751 kN) Model 2 (Fu = 594 kN)
FN (kN) Model 1 Model 2 Left side Right side Left side Right side
FN/Fu FN/Fu Ssec Ds Ssec Ds Ssec Ds Ssec Ds
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 86 11 14 231 0 234 0 108 0 124 0
5 86 230 0 228 3 105 3 112 10
10 86 204 11 212 9 113 5 107 14
11 172 23 29 146 0 162 0 101 0 101 0
15 172 145 0 160 1 104 3 97 4
20 172 120 17 161 0 94 6 93 7
21 258 34 43 130 0 147 0 101 0 99 0
25 258 126 3 143 3 97 4 94 5
30 258 120 8 142 4 91 10 87 12
31 344 46 58 122 0 141 0 86 0 60 0
35 344 120 2 138 2 95 10 72 21
40 344 119 3 134 5 95 10 74 23
41 400 53 67 121 0 140 0 92 0 69 0
45 400 117 3 136 3 92 0 72 4
50 400 115 5 134 5% 93 1 72 4
Table 4: Secant stiffness for various cycles and loading levels (MNm/rad).

beamcolumn joint until the fourth

load cycle. Only at the fth load cycle
were some cracks observed at the top
of the beam, whereas theses cracks
were present at the third load cycle
for Model 1.

Analytical Model of Moment

Fi g. 11: (a) Measurement of secant stiffness, (b, c, d) rotational stiffness degradation of
beamcolumn connection for Model 2
to the detachment of the concrete
cover observed on this side of the
connection during the cyclic test. The
secant rotational stiffness resulting
from the monotonic load under nega-
tive moment at the yielding load were
152.15 and 182.60 MNm/rad on the
left and right sides, respectively, of
Model 1. The secant rotational stiff-
ness at the yielding load for Model 2
were 142.82 and 104.24 MNm/rad for
the left and right sides, respectively.
On left side, the secant rotational stiff-
ness for both models differs only
by 6%.
The crack pattern of the two models
(see Fig. 13) subject to the negative
moment presents fewer cracks on
Model 2 with SFRC; however, in this
model, the crack was localized at the
Strength and Rotational Stiffness
The negative moment strength of the
two models can be evaluated from
reinforced concrete theory. Figure 14
shows the equilibrium forces on a
transverse section of the connection,
which were obtained from the nega-
tive moment of the connection, being
the tension forces related to reinfor-
cements placed at their respective
centroids. Negative and lateral rein-
forcements were considered with the
yield stress obtained from the tests.
For Model 1, the evaluated moment
strength was 441 kNm. This value is
13% less than the value observed at
the end of monotonic loading. For
Model 2, the evaluated moment
strengths were 403 kNm and
434 kNm for the left and right sides,
respectively. These values differ by
less than 10% from the moment
strength obtained from the monotonic
test for Model 2.
Few analytical methods concerning
the rotational stiffness of the beam
column connections in precast frames
with a continuity bar crossing the
beamcolumn joints are available in

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 121

 consider the presence of threaded
sleeves in the joint, as shown in
Eq. (8).
s hc
Le = p + 5 and Ld = 0 8
8 fc 2

To consider the length of threaded

F ig . 12 : Moment versus rotation curves of the beamcolumn interface under monotonic
load: (a) left side and (b) right side
the literature. The effective rotational
capacity of this type of connection is
highly dependent on the elongation
mechanism of the continuity bars,
which depends on cracks in the con-
nection zone. According to certain
researchers,29 the connection rotations
are considered to be caused by defor-
mation mechanisms that are present
in both the beamcolumn interface
and within a discrete zone at the end
of the beam.
There are two possible mechanisms
that can be considered at the ends of
precast beams with beamcolumn
connections employing continuity
bars. The rst possible mechanism
consists of the concentration of defor-
mations within the transition zone at
the end of the beam. For this case, the
effective rotation is affected by the
presence of vertical and diagonal
cracks at the beam end. This is a typi-
cal mechanism in monolithic Model
1. In this case, the secant rotational
stiffness of a beamcolumn connection
can be evaluated using Eq. (4).29,30
0:9 Es As d d xcr
Ssec = s y 4 mechanism is typical for monolithic
Le + Ld 
where
s after the appearance of cracking at
Le = p + 2
16 fc
s xcr
and Ld = p + 2 d 5 end zone. Thus, the effective rotation
8 fc 3 =
s !
n As 2bd
xcr = 1+ 1 6
b n As
My = fy As 0:9 d
In these equations, n = Es/Ec, b is the
beam width, d is the distance from the
negative reinforcement to the bottom
of the beam (Fig. 14), As is the total
negative reinforcement crossing the
beamcolumn joint, is the diameter
of the bars, fc is the compressive
strength of the concrete at the connec-
tion, fy is the yield stress of the bars
and My is the yield moment. Moreo-
ver, the embedded length Le is also
limited to half the width of the inter-
nal columns (hc/2).
When the negative reinforcement of
Model 1 reaches the yield stress ( s =
fy), the secant rotational stiffness eval-
uated from Eq. (4) is 134.8 MNm/rad.
This value is 19% smaller than the
average stiffness on both sides of
Model 1. This difference is due to the
lateral reinforcement that was not
considered for the analytical model.
Moreover, the predicted yield
moment from Eq. (7) is 390.4 kNm,
being only 1% greater than the yield
moment obtained from
monotonic test.
The second possible mechanism at the
beamcolumn connections is the for-
mation of a single crack at the beam
column interface, wherein stress
becomes concentrated. Then, the
beam end acts as a rigid body rotating
in relation to the column face. This
models with low-ratio bars crossing
the beamcolumn joint when the post-
yielding mechanism occurs shortly
the beamcolumn interface without
crack propagation within the beam
is a function of the deformation con-
centrated at the gap of the beam
column interface, which is strongly
affected by the bond-slip mechanism
7 in the joint.
This is a typical mechanism in Model 2
with precast elements. In this case,
the secant rotational stiffness of a
beamcolumn connection can also be
evaluated using Eq. (4). However,
the embedded length of the beam
and column has been modied to
sleeves on the effective deformation
length for bar embedded in the col-
umn (Le), the term 2 in Eq. (5)
was replaced by 5 in Eq. (8). The
effective deformation length for the
part of the bar anchored into the
beam-end transition zone (Ld) was
reduced to zero once the strain of
the negative reinforcement of the
beam became negligible near the
beamcolumn joint. This equation
was compared only with the rota-
tional stiffness on the left side of
Model 2 under cyclic loading
because detachment of the concrete
cover was observed on the right side
of this model. Table 5 shows the
predicted rotational stiffness on the
left side of Model 2 for each cyclic
loading. In this case, the negative
reinforcement had not reached the
yield stress; thus, the stress of the
reinforcement was calculated using
Eq. (9).
M
s = 9
Zeq As
the
where
1
Zeq = d xcr 10
3
 
M M
xcr = x1 1 + x2 11
My My
In this equation, x1 is the neutral axis
depth for the uncracked section, x2 is
the neutral axis depth for the fully
cracked section and xcr is the neutral
axis depth for the general cracked sec-
tion. The end rotation of the beam
column joint is given by Eq. (12).
s Le + Ld
d xcr
" #
s s
= p + 5 12
Es dxcr 8 fc
Finally, the rotational stiffness is given
by Eq. (13).
M
Ssec = 13
A good correlation was observed
between the predicted and

122 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017


Fi g. 13: Crack patterns of Models 1 and 2 at the end of tests. (a) Model 1 and (b) Model
2 (Units: [])
experimental values, thereby demon-
strating the accuracy of the proposed
analytical model in predicting the rota-
tional stiffness of this beamcolumn
connection under cyclic loading. Note
that the experimental values used
were the average stiffness observed in
Table 4 for each load level.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017
Dynamical Response of Connection
Vibration Frequency
The frequencies of the rst vibration
mode were obtained from free-
induced vibrations with the shaker,
and the results for Model 1 and
Model 2 are shown in Table 6. Other
vibration modes have not been inves-
tigated. These results are an average
of a minimum of three tests conducted
on each model.
The cruciform models were tested
and simply supported at the ends;
therefore, the models can be treated
as a simply supported beam with a
concentrated mass at the centre of the
span. Thus, the models frequency
(in Hz) can be predicted using
Eq. (14), wherein EI represents the
moment stiffness of the beam, m is
the mass of the model and L is the
length of the beam.
r
1 48Ec I
f= 14
2 m L3
Model 1 exhibited an average vibra-
tion frequency equal to 42.81 Hz
when uncracked, which is 7% higher
than the predicted frequency, that is,
39.90 Hz. After cyclic loading, the fre-
quency of Model 1 was reduced to
34.27 Hz. Model 2 showed an average
vibration frequency of 42.36 Hz when
uncracked, which is 6% higher than
the predicted value. After the cyclic
loading, the frequency of the precast
concrete model was reduced to
29.01 Hz.
Comparing uncracked models, it is
noted that the precast concrete model
exhibited a vibration frequency that
was similar to the monolithic model,
demonstrating that both models have
a similar initial tangent stiffness
before the loading. The difference
between them is accentuated follow-
ing cyclic loading, when the cracked
monolithic model showed a frequency
that was 18% higher than the fre-
quency of the precast concrete model.
This suggested that the precast con-
crete model has a greater exural
stiffness loss than does the monolithic
model after the cyclic loading tests.
Moreover, from Eq. (14), this differ-
ence on frequencies suggests that
the exural stiffness of Model 2 was
28% lower than exural stiffness of
Model 1. This reduction is similar to
that observed in Table 4 following the
cyclic loading tests, according to
which the average secant stiffness of
both sides of Model 2 was 36% lower
than the average secant stiffness of
both sides the monolithic model. It
was thus concluded that the vibration
analysis of the cruciform model
enabled the effective evaluation of the
stiffness loss of the connection follow-
ing cyclic loading.
Scientic Paper 123
F ig . 14 : Equilibrium forces used to evaluate the connection strength subject to negative moment. (a) General mechanical model,
(b) Model 1 and (c) Model 2

Load M Zeq s Ssec, predicted Ssec, test Ssec, predicted/

(kN) (kNm) (mm) (MPa) (rad) (MNm/rad) (MNm/rad) Ssec, test
86 58 289 106.70 5.4 104 108 109 0.99
4
172 116 295 209.00 11.9 10 98 100 0.98
4
258 174 301 307.15 18.9 10 92 96 0.96
4
344 232 307 401.40 26.0 10 89 92 0.97
400 270 311 460.79 30.7 104 88 93 0.95
Average 0.97
Standard deviation 0.02
4
x1 = 250 mm; x2 = 142.9 mm; d = 366 mm; Es = 210 GPa; As = 18.84 10 m ; My = 340 kNm.
2

Table 5: Predicted rotational stiffness on the left side of Model 2

model during the cyclic tests acted

Test Model 1: Monolithic Model 2: Precast
Uncracked Cracked Uncracked
1 42.50 34.38 42.50
2 43.30 34.38 42.50
3 34.06 42.50
4 42.19
5 42.19
6 42.34
7 42.19
8 42.50
Predicted value 39.90 39.90
Average value (Hz) 42.81 34.27 42.36
Bias 1.07 1.06
Standard deviation (Hz) 0.15
Coefcient of variation (%) 0.36
Table 6: Frequencies from tests with shaker
Damping Ratio because damping ratios estimated by
the half power method depend on
Table 7 shows values of the damping
the precision of estimating frequency
ratio for the rst vibrational mode
values from frequency response
obtained from the dynamic tests per-
functions, which for heterogeneous
formed on the monolithic and precast
materials usually present some dis-
models under uncracked and cracked
turbances near the resonance peak.
conditions. The values shown in Table 7
correspond to measurements taken at Analyses of data presented in Table 7
each repetition of the test and were revealed that the damping ratio of
obtained by the half power method. Model 1 increased from 1.256% to
The results listed in Table 7 present 2.851% following cyclic loading
high scattering for both models because the cracks that arose in the
as surfaces through which energy
Cracked generated by vibrations was dissi-
28.44 pated, which helped to damp the
vibration.
30.00
28.59 Model 2 presented a damping ratio
of 0.998% for the uncracked state
(before the cyclic test) and 0.685%
for the cracked state (after cyclic
test). The damping ratios of both
models for the uncracked state
agreed well with those reported in
the literature,31 namely, ranging from
0.7 to 1.0% for uncracked reinforced
concrete structures. From Model 1 in
29.01
the cracked stage, the damping ratio
measured during the test was also in
good agreement; specically, the
ratio was in the interval from 1.0 to
4.0% recommended for fully cracked
concrete (medium stress intensity).
On the other hand, the damping
ratio in the cracked stage of Model
2 decreased. This agrees with the
results from the literature31 for
weakly cracked reinforced concrete
structures, namely, ranging from
0.2% to 0.8%. Model 2 shows a dis-
crete crack opening at the beam
column interface and less cracking
than in Model 1, which reduced its
damping ratio. This ratio can be
increased if the discrete crack open-
ing at the beamcolumn interface
can be reduced.

124 Scientic Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017

 Test Model 1: Monolithic Model 2: Precast It is concluded that the proposed
beamcolumn connection with precast
Uncracked Cracked Uncracked Cracked elements provides good strength and
1 1.425 2.637 1.123 0.332 stiffness behaviours, being very simi-
2 1.087 2.698 1.104 0.487 lar to those of the monolithic connec-
tion. The major issue with this
3 3.217 1.294 1.236 connection is the crack opening in the
4 0.883 beamcolumn joint, which is being
5 0.669 analysed in further research.
6 0.639 Acknowledgements
7 0.858
The authors wish to thank the So Paulo
8 1.416 Research Foundation (FAPESP), the Brazil-
ian National Council of Research and Devel-
Predicted value* (%) 0.71.0 1.04.0 0.71.0 0.20.8
opment (CNPq - Project number 552118/
Average (%) 1.256 2.851 0.998 0.685 2011-7) and the Eletrobrs Furnas Company
for nancing this research. They also wish to
Standard deviation (%) 0.319 0.283 0.483
thank the Brazilian Coordination for the
Coefcient of variation (%) 11.180 28.312 70.574 Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
(CAPES) for granting the scholarship.
*Value according to literature.31

Table 7: Damping ratios for monolithic and precast models Notation

Conclusions three times greater than that As Cross-sectional area of

The proposed beamcolumn connec-
tion with steel bres, splice bars (used
to establish the continuity of longitu-
dinal reinforcements and to ensure
that the connection can resist positive
and negative moments) and shear
keys was developed for use in precast
structures of powerhouses of hydroe-
lectric plants. We draw the following
conclusions based on these results.
The results from the push-off tests
showed that a single shear key can
resist a nominal load of 86.65 kN,
which means that the interface
would fail for vertical loads greater
than 519.9 kN. Thus, the shear keys
were sufcient to resist vertical
loads at the beamcolumn interface
without reaching failure.
The results from the monotonic test
indicated that precast connection
exhibit semi-rigid behaviour with
high strength because it was able to
transfer 88% of the ultimate nega-
tive moment of the monolithic con-
nection. The negative yielding
moment and ductility of both con-
nections were similar.
Stiffness degradation for both mod-
els during each cyclic load was simi-
lar, which shows that the precast
model exhibits stiffness degradation
similar to that of a monolithic
beamcolumn connection. Under
the supposed serviceability load,
the degradation was 11% at the
end of the third cyclic load. How-
ever, the precast model exhibited a
discrete crack at the beamcolumn
joint, with an opening that was
observed for the monolithic con- reinforcement
nection. For that reason, secant Ec Modulus of elasticity of
stiffness of the precast model on concrete
the rst cyclic load was about 50% Es Design value of modulus of
smaller than that observed on the elasticity of reinforcing steel
monolithic connection. F Load
The proposed analytical model pro- Fu Load failure
vides a good correlation with test FT Flexural toughness
results of this specic precast joint I Second moment of area of
which had shear keys, SFRC and concrete section
mechanical splicing devices. Speci- L Length
cally, the model can accurately pre- Le Effective deformation length
dict the rotational stiffness of the for the part of the bar
beamcolumn joint submitted to embedded into the column
cyclic loads. A change in these Ld Effective deformation length
parameters could result in a change for the part of the bar anchored
in response of the precast joint and into the beam-end transi-
need more tests. Moreover, the tion zone
model accurately predicts the rota- M Bending moment
tional stiffness of the monolithic My Yield bending moment
connection under monotonic load- Ssec Secant rotational stiffness
ing and the yield moment of both Vsk Shear strength of a single
connections. shear key
From the dynamic analysis, it was Zeq Lever arm of internal forces
concluded that the forced vibration b Overall width of a cross-section
analysis of the cruciform model d Effective depth of a cross-
could be used to effectively evaluate section
the stiffness loss of the connection f Models frequency
after cyclic loading. In this case, the fc Average compressive strength
stiffness degradation is in good of concrete
agreement with the cyclic load tests. fct,sp Average splitting tensile
The damping ratio was 1% for the strength
uncracked Model 2. This ratio fr Modulus of rupture of concrete
decreased to 0.7% after the load fy Yield stress of reinforcement
cycles. This value was in accord- fu Ultimate stress of
ance with the literature on cracked reinforcement
and uncracked concrete. Most hc Column width
importantly, however, the damping m Mass
of the uncracked precast connec- x1 Neutral axis depth for the
tion was similar to the damping uncracked section
obtained for the uncracked mono- x2 Neutral axis depth for the
lithic connection. fully cracked section

Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017 Scientic Paper 125

xcr Neutral axis depth for general
cracked section.
Strength reduction factor
s Strain of reinforcement
y Yield strain of reinforcement
Rotation
Ductility index
s Stress of reinforcement
Diameter of a reinforcing bar
References
[1] Dolan CW, Stanton JF, Anderson RG.
Moment resistant connections and simple con-
nections. PCI J 1987; 32(2): 6274.
[2] Nigel Priestley MJ. The PRESS Program
current status and proposed plans for phase III.
PCI J. 1996; 41(2): 2240.
[3] Nigel Priestley MJ, Sritharan S, Conley JR,
Pampanin S. Preliminary results and conclusions
from the PRESS ve-story precast concrete test
building. PCI J. 1999; 44(6): 4267.
[4] Nakaki SD, Stanton JF, Sritharan S. An
overview of the PRESSs ve-story precast con-
crete test building. PCI J. 1999; 44(2): 2639.
[5] Elliott KS. Research and development in
precast concrete framed structures. Prog. Struct.
Eng. Mater. 2000; 2(4): 405428.
[6] Soubra KS, Wight JK, Naaman AE. Cyclic
response of brous cast-in- place connections
in precast beam-column subassemblages.
ACI Struct. J. 1993; 90(3): 316323.
[7] Vasconez RM, Naaman AE, Wight JK.
Behavior of HPFRC connections for precast
concrete frames under reversed cyclic loading.
PCI J. 1998; 43(6): 5871.
[8] Ertas O, Ozden S, Ozturan T. Ductile con-
nections in precast concrete moment resisting
frames. PCI J. 2006; 51(3): 6676.
[9] Englekirk RE. An innovative design solu-
tion for precast prestressed concrete buildings
in high seismic zones. PCI J. 1996; 41(4): 4453.
[10] Stanton J, Stone WC, Cheok GS. A hybrid
reinforced precast frame for seismic regions.
PCI J. 1997; 42(2): 2032.
126 Scientic Paper
[11] Khoo J-H, Li B, Yip W-K. Tests on precast [22] Toniolo GM. Safecast Project: European
concrete frames with connections constructed research on seismic behaviour of the connec-
away from column faces. ACI Struct. J. 2006; tions of precast structures. Proceedings of the
103(1): 1827. 4th Thematic Conference on Computational
Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earth-
[12] Stone WC, Cheok GS, Stanton J. Perfor-
quake Engineering. Kos Island, 2013, 1482
mance of hybrid moment-resisting precast
beam-column concrete connections subjected to
1493.
cyclic loading. ACI Struct. J. 1995; 91(2): [23] Joint Research Centre of the European
229249. Commission. Design Guidelines for Precast
[13] Khaloo AR, Parastesh H. Cyclic loading of
Structures under Seismic Actions. Negro P,
Toniolo G (eds). European Union: Brussels,
ductile precast concrete beam-column connec-
2012.
tion. ACI Struct. J. 2003; 100(3): 291296.
[14] Khaloo AR, Parastesh H. Cyclic loading
[24] Bournas D, Negro P, Molina FJ,
Viaccoz B, Magonette G. Pseudodynamic Test-
response of simple moment-resisting precast
ing of the SAFECAST 3-Storey Precast Con-
concrete beam-column connection. ACI Struct.
crete Building. European Union: Brussels, 2012.
J. 2003; 100(4): 440445.
[25] ABNT - Associao Brasileira de Normas
[15] Pampanin S. Emerging solutions for high
Tcnicas - ABNT NBR 8522:2008. Concrete
seismic performance of precast/prestressed con-
determination of the elasticity modulus by com-
crete buildings. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2005;
pression. Associao Brasileira de Normas Tc-
3(2): 207223.
nicas, 2008:116 (In Portuguese).
[16] Siva Chidambaram R, Agarwal P. Seismic
[26] Japan Society of Civil Engineers. SF4 III,
behavior of hybrid ber reinforced cementitious
Part. Method of Tests for Flexural Strength and
composite beamcolumn joints. Mater. Des.
Flexural Toughness of Steel Fiber Reinforced
2015; 86: 771781.
Concrete, Concrete Library of JSCE, The Japan
[17] Elliott KS, Davies G, Gorgun H, Society of Civil Engineers 1984: 58-61.
Adlparvar MR. The stability of precast concrete
[27] Arajo DL, Danin AR, Melo MB,
skeletal structures. PCI J. 1998; 43(2): 4260.
Rodrigues PF. Inuence of steel bers on the
[18] Elliot K, Davies G, Ferreira MA, reinforcement bond of straight steel bars.
Gorgun H, Mahdi AA. Can precast concrete IBRACON Struct. Mater. J. 2013; 6(2): 307338.
structures be designed as semi-rigid frames?
[28] Ravindra MK, Galambos TV. Load and
Part 1 the experimental evidence. Struct. Eng.
resistance factor design for steel. J. Struct. Div.
2003; 19(16): 1427.
1978; 104(9): 13371353.
[19] Elliot K, Davies G, Ferreira MA,
[29] Ferreira MA, Elliott KS, Hasan S. State-
Gorgun H, Mahdi AA. Can precast concrete
of-art research report: precast concrete framed
structures be designed as semi-rigid frames?
structures with semi-rigid connections. School
Part 2 analytical equations and column effec-
of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham,
tive length factors. Struct. Eng. 2003; 81(16):
2010, 47 pp.
2837.
[30] Hasan S, Ferreira MA, Elliott KS. Theo-
[20] Negro P, Bournas DA, Molina FJ. Seismic
retical investigation on the moment continuity
testing of the SAFECAST three-storey precast
of precast concrete beam-column connections
building. Proceedings of the 15th Word Confer-
under gravity loads. Poster session presented at
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 2012.
b symposium - Concrete Engineering for
[21] Bournas DA, Negro P. Seismic perfor- Excellence and Efciency, Prague 2011. Prague:
mance of mechanical connections in the SAFE- FIB Group in Czech Republic, 2011, 987-990.
CAST precast building. Proceedings of the 15th
[31] Bachmann H, Ammann WJ, Deischl F,
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
et al. Vibration Problems in StructuresPractical
Lisbon, 2012.
Guidelines. Birkhuser Verlag: Basel, 1995.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 1/2017