Plastic Hinge Relocation Methods for Emulative

PC Beam–Column Connections
Tae-Sung Eom 1; Hong-Gun Park, A.M.ASCE 2; Hyeon-Jong Hwang 3; and Su-Min Kang 4

Abstract: Various plastic hinge relocation methods were studied to improve the earthquake resistance of emulative precast concrete (PC)
beam-column connections using PC U-shell beams. The present study used two strengthening methods (hooked bars and headed bars) and a
weakening method (reduced beam bar section), to relocate the plastic hinge zone of beams away from the weak beam-column joint. Five
full-scale test specimens including a conventional reinforced concrete (RC) specimen were tested to evaluate the earthquake resistance. The
test results showed that the used relocation methods significantly decreased that bond-slip of beam flexural bars and joint shear cracking. As a
result, the energy dissipation capacity significantly increased, compared to those of the conventional RC specimens and PC specimens
without relocation methods. On the basis of the test results, design recommendations are suggested for plastic hinge relocation design
of emulative PC beam-column connections. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001378. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.

Author keywords: Precast concrete; Beam-column connection; Beam-column joint; Seismic test; Earthquake design; Concrete and
masonry structures.

Introduction
Fig. 1(a) shows an emulative precast concrete (PC) beam-column
connection using U-shell beams (Im et al. 2013; Park and Bull
1986; Kim et al. 2004). The emulative PC beam-column connec-
tion enhances the integrity of the beam-column joint, by placing
cast-in-place concrete and beam flexural bars in the joint. However,
as shown in Fig. 1(b), because of the seating length s of the PC
U-shells, the development length of beam bars and the effective
shear area in the cast-in-place concrete joint are decreased [ACI
318 (ACI 2011); ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002); NZS 3101 (Standards
New Zealand 2006)]. Further, the use of large diameter bars is pref-
erable to avoid bar congestion in the reduced area of the cast-in-place
core concrete of the beam. Thus, significant bar bond-slip and
diagonal concrete cracking are unavoidable in the beam-column
joint (Im et al. 2013; Park and Bull 1986; Kim et al. 2004).
To secure the bar bond resistance and shear strength in beam-
column joints, the current design codes [ACI 318 (ACI 2011);
ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002); NZS 3101 (Standards New Zealand
2006)] specify minimum requirements for the column depth-to-
beam bar diameter ratio (hc =db ) and joint shear strength. In the case
of emulative beam-column connections using U-shell beams, the
1 the slab depth from the wall face. Pimanmas and Chaimahawan
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Dankook
Univ., 152 Jukjeon-ro, Gyeonggi-do 448-701, Korea. E-mail: tseom@
dankook.ac.kr
2
Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul
National Univ., 599 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 151-744, Korea. E-mail: parkhg@
snu.ac.kr
3
Assistant Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Yuelu
Mountain, Changsha, Hunan 410082, China. E-mail: hwanggun85@naver
.com
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Chungbuk
National Univ., 52 Naesudong-ro, Chungbuk-do 361-763, Korea (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: ksm0626@paran.com; kangsm@cbnu.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 11, 2014; approved on
June 19, 2015; published online on July 30, 2015. Discussion period open
until December 30, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04015111(13)/$25.00.
hc =db ratio and shear strength decrease because of the reduced
column depth, hc -2s, in the joint. Thus, it is difficult to satisfy
the requirements.
As an alternative method to enhance the seismic performance of
beam-column joints, strengthening methods can be used to relocate
beam plastic hinge zones away from the column face (Joh et al.
1991; Park and Milburn 1983; Galunic et al. 1977; Fenwick and
Irvine 1997; Abdel-Fattah and Wight 1987; Chutarat and Aboutaha
2003; Juette 1996; Yamamoto et al. 2008; Pimanmas and
Chaimahawan 2010; Pampanin et al. 2006; Ghobarah and Said
2002; Pampanin et al. 2007; Niroomandi et al. 2010; Dalalbashi
et al. 2012). Fig. 2 shows details of existing strengthening methods.
Joh et al. (1991) and Park and Milburn (1983) used additional
90°-hooked bars in the joint to relocate the beam plastic hinge zone
to a distance of 0.5–1.0 times the beam depth from the column face.
Galunic et al. (1977) compared the effects of straight bars and 60°
bent bars on joint behavior. Fenwick and Irvine (1997) used bond
plates welded to the beam and column bars to reduce bar bond
deterioration. Abdel-Fattah and Wight (1987), Chutarat and
Aboutaha (2003), and Juette (1996) used additional straight and
headed bars passing through the joint to reduce yield penetration
of the beam flexural bars. Yamamoto et al. (2008) used U-shaped
bars to relocate the slab plastic hinge zone to a distance of 1.8 times
(2010) and Pampanin et al. (2006) used haunch systems, using
planar joint enlargement and threaded steel bars to relocate the
beam plastic hinge zone to the edge of enlargement and to reduce
shear stress in the joint. Ghobarah and Said (2002), Pampanin et al.
(2007), Niroomandi et al. (2010), and Dalalbashi et al. (2012) inves-
tigated the effectiveness of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) laminates
retrofitting the joint. This method of repair relocated the plastic
hinge away from the column face and prevented joint shear failure.
As a result, strength capacity increased and ductility improved.
Existing test results showed that by using strengthening meth-
ods, inclined concrete cracking and bar bond-slip significantly de-
creased. As a result, the earthquake resistance of the beam-column
connections substantially improved. A limitation of existing studies
is that they evaluated the use of strengthening methods only in RC
beam-column joints.

© ASCE 04015111-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 (a)
Fig. 1. Emulative PC beam-column connection using PC U-shell beams
In the case of the emulative PC beam-column connections in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
Fig. 1(a), the use of plastic hinge relocation methods may be indis-
pensable because of the weak connection between the PC beam
shell and the cast-in-place concrete. The present study performed
Fig. 2. Existing strengthening methods
© ASCE 04015111-2
J. Struct. Eng.
(b)
cyclic loading tests for the emulative PC connection specimens to
investigate the effects of plastic hinge relocation methods on seis-
mic performance. Two strengthening methods using 90°-hooked
bars and headed bars, and a weakening method using beam flexural
bars with reduced section area were studied. The strength, defor-
mation capacity, energy dissipation capacity, and failure mode of
the specimens were compared with those of conventional RC
specimens and PC specimens without plastic hinge relocation
methods.
Plastic Hinge Relocation Methods
Fig. 3 shows the three plastic hinge relocation methods considered
in the present study. The weakening method shown in Fig. 3(a)
reduces the section area of the beam bars in the intended plastic
hinge zone. Because of the reduced moment capacity, the beam
critical section is relocated to a distance dj from the column face.
The reduced bar section method was considered to avoid bar con-
gestion and unnecessary over-strength of the beams, which are both
caused by the use of additional strengthening bars. Fig. 3(a) shows
the moment capacity of the beam plastic hinge zone with the re-
duced bar area, which is defined as Mn . This method determines
the reduced bar area such that the beam moment capacity M nj at the
beam end (i.e., at the end of the PC beam shell) is not less than the
demand M uj corresponding to the moment capacity Mn of the re-
located critical section
M nj ≥ M uj 0 ≥ M0
and M nj ð1Þ
uj
To assure the plastic hinge location, regardless of the design mo-
ment distribution calculated from structural analysis, the demand
moment Muj at the joint interface should be calculated from the
actual moment capacity M n at the plastic hinge location, using
capacity design concept. In the case of test specimens subjected
to a concentrated load, M uj can be calculated as Muj ¼
M n ðls þ sÞ=ðls − dj Þ, where ls = shear span from the column face
to the inflection point; s = seating length of the PC U-shell; and dj =
distance between the relocated critical section and the column face.
In Eq. (1), M n0 and M nj
0 are the quantities corresponding to the neg-
ative moment. As illustrated in Fig. 1(a), the PC U-shell and the
cast-in-place core concrete are integrated by stirrups. Thus M n ,
M nj , M n0 , and M nj
0 are calculated from a section analysis for the
entire beam cross section including the PC U-shell and cast-in-
place core concrete. However, this method does not include the
small diameter bars in the PC U-shell, because of their insufficient
J. Struct. Eng.
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.

(b) (c)

Fig. 3. Plastic hinge relocation methods

development length (the bars are cut-off at the end of the PC hj

U-shell). ≥ 20 for ACI 318 and
db
Figs. 3(b and c) show the strengthening methods using 90°-

hj fy
hooked bars and headed bars, respectively. The 90°-hooked bars ≥ 20 for ACI-ASCE 352 ð2Þ
are economical, and headed bars can be conveniently placed with- db 420
out hook anchorages. The use of strengthening bars increases the
where fy = yield strength of the beam flexural bars (MPa); and
beam moment capacity M nj at the end of the PC U-shell. This re-
db = diameter of the beam flexural bars.
locates the beam critical section to a distance dj from the column
In the beam-column connections using plastic hinge reloca-
face. When the hooks or heads of the top and bottom bars are anch-
tion methods, the shear strength of the joint can increase by
ored at different locations, the smaller distance is defined as dj . In
restraining the yield penetration of the beam longitudinal bars
order to ensure plastic hinge relocation, Eq. (1) should be satisfied.
and inclined concrete cracking (Ghobarah and Said 2002;
Thus, Eq. (1) determines the area of the hooked bars and headed
Pampanin et al. 2007; Dalalbashi et al. 2012). The present study
bars. The calculation of Mnj includes the hooked and headed bars.
defines the enhanced shear strength V jn of the emulative PC
When using the plastic hinge relocation methods in Fig. 3,
beam-column joint as follows (Fig. 4), modifying the relevant
yielding of the beam flexural bars occurs in the relocated plastic
provisions of ACI 318 (ACI 2011) and ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI
hinge zone. Thus, the development length of the beam bars in
2002)
the joint increases to the effective embedment length hj that is de-
fined as the distance between the left and right beam critical pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
V jn ¼ βγ fc0 Aj ≤ 1.7 f c0 Aj ð3Þ
sections: hj ¼ hc þ dj þ dj0 , where hc = column depth; and dj and
dj0 = distances between the column face and the relocated beam
critical sections corresponding to positive and negative moments, hj hc þ 2dj
M n and Mn0 , respectively. Thus, when using the current design co- β¼ ¼ ≥ 1.0 ð4Þ
hc − 2s hc − 2s
des to evaluate the bond resistance, the modified bond parameter of
the beam bars, hj =db , can be used, instead of using hc =db for con- where Aj ¼ bj ðhc − 2sÞ = effective joint shear area reduced by the
ventional beam-column joints and ðhc − 2 sÞ=db for emulative PC seating length s of the PC U-shell; bj ¼ minf0.5ðbb þ bc Þ;
beam-column joints without strengthening bars bb þ hc ; bc g [ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002)] or min{bb þ 2x,

© ASCE 04015111-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 (a)
Fig. 4. Shear demand and capacity of beam-column joints with plastic hinge relocation methods
bb þ hc , bc } [ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011)]; x = the smaller
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
perpendicular distance from the longitudinal axis of the beam
to the column side; bb = width of the beam cross section; bc =
width of the column cross-section; and γ = coefficient addressing
the confinement effect by the beams framed into the joint [ACI
318 (ACI 2011); ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002)] where γ ¼ 1.2
is used for the cruciform beam-column connections. In Eqs. (3)
and (4), β (≥1.0) is the newly defined parameter that addresses the
enhancement of joint shear strength. As the beam plastic hinge
zone moves further away from the column face, diagonal cracking
and bar bond-slip are expected to decrease in the joint. This im-
plies that the joint region can be better confined by using plastic
hinge relocation methods. Thus, the effects of plastic hinge relo-
cation methods are equivalent to those of the confinement pro-
vided by transverse beams on the joint faces. In this regard,
the newly-introduced parameter β is very similar to the coefficient
γ currently used in ACI 318-11. As shown in Eq. (4), β was de-
fined as a linear function of the distance hj between the two beam
plastic hinge zones. The validity of the definition of β is discussed
on the basis of the test results, in the subsequent section Shear
Strength of Beam-Column Joints. However, because the test re-
sults are not sufficient to validate the proposed joint shear
strength, further studies are required to accurately define the joint
shear strength. In Eq. (3), the maximum of the product βγ is lim-
ited to 1.7, which is the maximum value for interior beam-column
joints confined by transverse beams on all four faces [ACI 318
(ACI 2011); ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002)].
Flexural yielding of the beams occurs in the relocated critical
sections. Thus, the joint shear demand V ju at the end of the PC
U-shell is calculated using the moment demands, M uj ½¼ Mn ðls þ
sÞ=ðls − dj Þ and M uj0
½¼ M n0 ðls0 þ sÞ=ðls0 − dj0 Þ, which are devel-
oped by the beam moment capacity at the critical sections [refer
to Eq. (1) and Fig. 3]. The joint shear demand V ju is calculated
as [Fig. 4(a); ACI 318 (ACI 2011)]
1 75 mm (2.95 in.) spacing (ρv ¼ 0.42%).
V ju ¼ αðC þ T 0 Þ − V c ≈ αðMuj þ Muj
0 Þ − Vc ð5Þ
hs
where C and T 0 = resultant compression and tension forces of the
beam cross sections, respectively, at the end of the PC U-shell [refer
to Fig. 4(a)]; α = coefficient addressing the effects of material over-
strength and cyclic strain-hardening [= 1.25; ACI 318 (ACI 2011);
ACI-ASCE 352 (ACI 2002)]; V c = shear force of the column; and
hs = distance between the top and bottom flexural bars in the beam
cross-section.
© ASCE 04015111-4
J. Struct. Eng.
(b)
Test Program
Five full scale specimens were prepared and tested under cyclic
loading. Fig. 5 shows the dimensions and reinforcement details
of the cruciform beam-column connections, including four PC
specimens—PC, PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2—using PC
U-shell beams, and a conventional RC specimen. Specimens
PC and RC did not use the plastic hinge relocation methods.
PC
W employed a weakening method using a reduced bar sec-
tion. PC
S1 and PC
S2 employed strengthening methods us-
ing 90°-hooked bars and headed bars, respectively. All specimens
were designed according to the strong column-weak beam design
concept, and provided sufficient shear reinforcement for the beams
and columns to avoid premature shear failure.
In specimen PC [Fig. 5(a)], the net column height between the
top and bottom hinges and the net beam length between the two
vertical roller supports were h ¼ 2,100 mm (82.7 in.) and l ¼
4,760 mm (187 in.), respectively. For the emulative PC beam-
column joint assemblies, the PC U-shell beams were seated on
the cover concrete of the PC column with a seating length s ¼
40 mm (1.57 in.). The dimensions of the column and beam cross
sections were hc × bc ¼ 550 × 500 mm (21.7 × 19.7 in:), and
bb × hb ¼ 350 × 500 mm (13.8 × 19.7 in:), respectively. The
beam cross section consisted of the PC U-shell and cast-in-place
core concrete [Fig. 5(a)]. The thickness of the U-shell was
75 mm (2.95 in.) at the side and 50 mm (1.97 in.) at the bottom.
D10 [db ¼ 9.5 mm (0.37 in.); As ¼ 71.3 mm2 (0.111 in:2 )] bars
were placed at the four corners of the U shell, to control concrete
cracks during shipping and handling. In the cast-in-place core
concrete, two D22 [db ¼ 22.2 mm (0.87 in.); As ¼ 387 mm2
(0.600 in:2 )] and four D19 [db ¼ 19.1 mm (0.75 in.); As ¼
284 mm2 (0.440 in:2 )] bars were used in the top layer. Three
D22 bars were used for the bottom layer. The U-shell and cast-
in-place concrete were integrated by the stirrups and the roughened
surface of the U-shell. For the stirrups, D10 bars were placed at
Fig. 5(b) shows the reinforcement details of specimen PC
W
with a reduced bar section. The properties of specimen PC
W
were the same as those of specimen PC. However, in order to ob-
tain the same load-carrying capacity as that of specimen PC, the
number of beam top and bottom bars was increased to six D22 and
four D22 bars, respectively (Table 1). The beam plastic hinge was
relocated at 250 mm (9.84 in.) from the column face [dj ¼ 250 mm
(9.84 in.)]. In the plastic hinge region, with a length of 200 mm
(7.87 in.), the gross areas of the section areas of the top and bottom
bars were reduced by 25 and 35%, respectively. Thus, the diameters
J. Struct. Eng.
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.

(b) (c)

(d) (e)

Fig. 5. Configurations and reinforcement details of test specimens (mm) (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm and 1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa)

of the top and bottom D22 bars decreased to 19 and 17.7 mm (0.748
and 0.697 in.), respectively [Fig. 5(b)]. The reduction of the bar
section area was greater in the bottom bars, because the D10 bars
in the PC U-shell might contribute to the positive moment capacity
of the beam, although the contribution was not considered in the
calculation of the design moment Mn .
Figs. 5(c and d) show the reinforcement details of specimens
PC
S1 and PC
S2 with 90°-hooked bars and headed bars, re-
spectively. The properties of the specimens were the same as those
of specimen PC. However, to obtain the same load-carrying
capacity as that of PC, the beam top and bottom bars were de-
creased to six D19 bars and one D22 bars + two D19 bars, respec-
tively, to account for the effect of the strengthening bars. For the
strengthening bars, four 90°-hooked D22 bars were used for
PC
S1, and four headed D25 bars were used for PC
S2.
By using the strengthening bars, the beam critical sections of
PC
S1 and PC
S2 were relocated to dj ¼ 235 mm
(9.25 in.) and 250 mm (9.84 in.) from the column faces, respec-
tively [Figs. 5(c and d)]. In order to avoid anchorage failure of
the headed bars, the headed bars of PC
S2 were placed at the
center of the cross-section. Because of the reduced effective beam
depth, greater diameter bars (i.e., D25 bars) were used for the
headed bars so that the moment capacity would be greater than
the moment demand at the column face. The lengths of the top
and bottom headed bars differed to alleviate the anchorage force
concentration. Under cyclic loading, the bottom bars with smaller

© ASCE 04015111-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Properties of Test Specimens (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm and 1 kip-ft ¼ 1.36 kN-m)
Beams Beam-column joint
Specimen Top | bottom bars dP jdN a (mm) M n b (kN-m) M nj b (kN-m) dj (mm) hj c (mm) hj =db d Plastic hinge relocation method
PC 2D22 þ 4D19j3D22 414|430 231|-383 — — 470 21.4 N/A
PC-W 6D22|4D22 402|433 192|-348 290|-457 250 1,050 47.7 Reduced bar section
PC-S1 6D19j1D22 þ 2D19 414|433 193|-349 312|-473 235 1,020 46.4 90°-hooked bars
PC-S2 6D19j1D22 þ 2D19 414|433 193|-349 314|-457 250 1,050 47.7 Headed bars
RC 2D22 þ 4D19j3D22 449|430 258|-391 — — 550 25.0 N/A
a
dP and dN = effective depths of beam cross sections for positive and negative moments [Fig. 2(a)].
b
Positive moment | negative moment.
c
hj ¼ hc − 2s ¼ ð550 − 80Þ mm for PC and hj ¼ hc ¼ 550 mm for RC. For PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2, hj ¼ hc þ 2dj .
d
db ¼ 22 mm was used.

Table 2. Mix Proportion of Concrete (1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa and requirement in Eq. (2). Particularly, in PC
W, PC
S1, and
1 lb=ft3 ¼ 16.02 kg=m3 ) PC
S2, use of the plastic hinge relocation methods significantly
Unit weight, kg=m3 ðlb=ft3 Þ
increased the bond parameter. Table 1 also presents the moment
Concrete W/Ca S/ab capacities at the beam critical section and at the end of the PC
Cementc ADd
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.

(MPa) (%) (%) Water Sand Gravel U-shell, M n and M nj , respectively. For PC
W, PC
S1, and
32 49.9 48.3 185 371 837 895 1.86 PC
S2, Mn and M nj were carefully chosen to satisfy Eq. (1),
41.1 & 43.9 33.3 45.2 161 425 749 956 4.10 so that yielding of the beams first occurred in the relocated plastic
50.3 29.0 40.5 180 620 625 935 8.06 hinge zone, rather than at the end of the PC U-shells (i.e., at the
a
W=C = water/cement (unit weight ratio). column interface).
b
S=a = sand/(sand + gravel) (unit weight ratio). The concrete strengths of the PC columns and U-shells were
c
Type 1, portland cement (Korean industrial standard). fc0 ¼ 50.3 MPa (7.29 ksi) and 41.1 MPa (5.96 ksi), respectively.
d
AD = water reducing agent (unit weight ratio). In PC, PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2, the compressive strength
of the cast-in-place concrete was f c0 ¼ 32.0 MPa (4.64 ksi). The
concrete strength of RC was fc0 ¼ 43.9 MPa (6.36 ksi). Table 2
area are subjected to larger inelastic deformation because of the presents the mix proportions for the concrete with the compressive
force-equilibrium in the cross-section. Thus, the length of the bot- strength of 32 (4.64), 41.1 (5.96), 43.9 (6.36), and 50.3 MPa
tom headed bars was greater than that of the top headed bars. (7.29 ksi). Type I Portland Cement specified in the Korean Indus-
Fig. 5(e) shows reinforcement details of the conventional RC trial Standard was used in all mixtures. The maximum size of the
specimen. The column cross-section of RC was identical to that aggregates was less than 25 mm (1.0 in.). The mixed concrete air
of PC [refer to section C-C of Fig. 5(a)]. The dimensions of the content was 4.5%, and the slump was 150 mm (5.9 in.). The yield
beams and the area of the beam flexural bars were also the same strength f y and tensile strength f u of the reinforcement were 498
as those of PC. However, the effective beam depth dp for the bot- (72.2) and 599 MPa (86.8 ksi) for D10; 484 (70.2) and 591 MPa
tom bars in RC without PC U-shell was greater than that of PC. (85.7 ksi) for D13; 523 (75.8) and 642 MPa (93.0 ksi) for D19; 521
Table 1 shows a comparison of the bar bond parameters of the spec- (75.5) and 647 MPa (93.8 ksi) for D22; and 465 (67.4) and
imens. For the specimen PC, the bond parameter was estimated as 630 MPa (91.3 ksi) for D25, respectively.
ðhc − 2sÞ=db ¼ 21.4, using the greatest bar diameter and the effec- Fig. 6 shows the test set-up. The column was hinge-supported at
tive joint depth (hc − 2s) reduced by the left and right seating the bottom. The beams were roller supported at the right and left
lengths 2s. On the other hand, in the conventional RC specimen, ends, and were laterally supported. Cyclic loading was applied at
the bond parameter was estimated as hc =db ¼ 25.0. For PC
W, the top of the column, and was controlled by the lateral displace-
PC
S1, and PC
S2, in which plastic hinge relocation methods ment of the loading point. Lateral displacement levels increased by
were used, the modified bond parameters were increased to 0.25 and 0.5% drift ratios before and after yielding of the speci-
hj =db ¼ 47.7, 46.4, and 47.7, respectively. In all specimens, the mens, respectively. Cyclic loading was repeated three times at each
bar bond parameters were greater than the ACI 318 (ACI 2011) lateral drift ratio. Axial load was not applied to the columns. As

Fig. 6. Test set-up (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm and 1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN)

© ASCE 04015111-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Fig. 7. Lateral load-drift ratio relationships of test specimens (1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN): (a) RC; (b) PC; (c) PC-W; (d) PC-S1; (e) PC-S2; (f) envelope curves
shown in Fig. 6, linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs)
were used to measure the translations and slips of the beam and
column supports.
Test Results
Lateral Load: Story Drift Ratio Relationships
Figs. 7(a–e) show the lateral load-drift ratio relationships of the test
specimens. The lateral drift ratio was calculated by dividing the net
lateral displacement at the loading point by the net column height
[h ¼ 2,100 mm (82.7 in.)]. Table 3 presents the maximum strength
Pu , yield drift ratios δ y , yield stiffness ky , and maximum drift ratios
δ u . In Fig. 7(f), ky was defined as the pre-peak secant stiffness cor-
responding to 0.75Pu . The yield drift ratio δ y was calculated as
© ASCE 04015111-7
J. Struct. Eng.
ðPu =ky Þ=h. The maximum drift ratio δ u was defined as the post-
peak drift ratio corresponding to 0.75Pu (Park 1988).
In Figs. 7(a and b), the overall cyclic behavior of PC, in which
the plastic hinge relocation method was not used, was similar to
that of the conventional RC specimen. After yielding, the load-
carrying capacities of RC and PC gradually decreased. The
maximum drift ratios of RC and PC were δ u ¼ 5.06% and
4.60%, respectively. The peak load of RC was 8.3% greater than
that of PC. This is because the effective beam depth of RC without
the PC U-shell was greater (see dp in Table 1). Both RC and
PC showed significant pinching in the cyclic responses, which
indicates that significant bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete crack-
ing occurred in the beam-column joints.
Figs. 7(c–e) show the cyclic responses of PC
W, PC
S1,
and PC
S2, which used plastic hinge relocation methods.
Although different methods were used, PC
W, PC
S1, and
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 3. Summary of Test Results and Predictions (1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN and 1 kip=in: ¼ 0.175 kN=mm)
Load-carrying capacity Deformation capacity Stiffness (kN/mm)
Test result Prediction Yield drift Maximum drift
Specimen Pu (kN) Pn (kN) Pu =Pn ratio δ y (%) ratio δ u (%) Ductility μ ky ki ks ks =ki
PC 351 325 1.08 1.16 4.60 3.97 14.6 30.4 0.41 0.01
PC-W 336 330 1.02 1.24 3.76 3.03 13.0 30.8 3.97 0.13
PC-S1 370 331 1.12 1.35 3.88 2.87 13.1 25.0 3.88 0.16
PC-S2 378 335 1.13 1.26 3.80 3.02 14.4 27.4 3.78 0.14
RC 380 349 1.09 1.37 5.06 3.70 13.2 27.4 0.27 0.01

PC
S2 exhibited similar cyclic responses, showing relatively
large energy dissipation per cycle. Yielding of the specimens oc-
curred at δ y ¼ 1.24 ∼ 1.35%. After the yielding, the load-carrying
capacities were maintained. Ultimately, the specimens failed at
δ u ¼ 3.76 ∼ 3.88%, which were less than those of RC and PC.
However, in the case of RC and PC, the displacement increased,
because of the rigid body motion associated with the bar bond-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
column face). More importantly, significant concrete spalling oc-
curred in the joints [Fig. 8(b)]. Such damage in the joint may cause
significant strength degradation if the column is subjected to a large
compressive force. Note that even though the concrete strength of
RC was 37% greater than that of the cast-in-place concrete of PC,
RC also experienced significant bar bond-slip and diagonal con-
crete cracking in the joint.

slip in the joints. Despite the reduced deformation capacity,
pinching significantly reduced in the cyclic responses of PC
W,
PC
S1, and PC
S2. Consequently, the hysteretic energy dis-
sipation per cycle increased.
Crack Patterns and Failure Modes
Fig. 8 shows the concrete cracking and failure modes of the spec-
imens at the end of the test. For specimens RC and PC in which
plastic hinge relocation methods were not used, although the beam-
column joints satisfied the hc =db requirement of ACI 318 (ACI
2011) (Table 1), the joints were severely damaged because of
bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking [Figs. 8(a and b)].
This was particularly the case for specimen PC, in which PC beam
shells separated from the joint because of the excessive bar bond-
slip, and a gap occurred between the U-shell and the column face.
During cyclic loading the gap repetitively opened and closed. As a
result, concrete crushing occurred at the PC beam ends (i.e., at the
Figs. 8(c–e) show the concrete cracking and failure modes of
PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2. Use of the plastic hinge reloca-
tion methods restrained bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete crack-
ing in the joint, and the majority of the inelastic deformation of the
specimens occurred in the relocated plastic hinge zones. As shown
in Figs. 8(c–e), concrete crushing occurred at the beam bottom as a
result of flexural compression; and in the beam web as a result of
the anchorage force of the hooked bars and headed bars. Ultimately,
PC
S1 and PC
S2 failed because of low-cycle fatigue fracture
of the beam flexural bars (Higai et al. 2006).
As shown in Fig. 7, fracture of the rebars occurred after concrete
crushing. This result indicates that after the concrete crushing, bar-
buckling occurred because of the increased force, and under the
subsequent cyclic loading repeated bending and unfolding (attrib-
utable to bar-buckling) occurred in the rebars, which resulted in
fracture of the rebars. Thus, to restrain the fracture of the rebars,
concrete crushing should be restrained by using closely spaced
hoops in the plastic hinge zone.

Vertical Gap at column

face due to bar Severe bar bond-slip and
cracking concrete spalling at joint
bond-slip

Gap at the end of PC

Concrete crushing at
beam ends due to
(a) flexural compression
Web concrete crushing
due to shear
U-shell beams due to
bar bond-slip
(b)
Web concrete crushing due
to anchorage forces of
hooked and headed bars

Concrete crushing at Concrete crushing at

beam ends due to beam ends due to
(c) flexural compression (d) flexural compression (e)

Fig. 8. Cracking and failure modes of test specimens at the end of test: (a) RC; (b) PC; (c) PC-W; (d) PC-S1; (e) PC-S2

© ASCE 04015111-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 9. Strains of beam reinforcements (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm and 1 kips ¼ 4.45 kN): (a) PC; (b) PC-W; (c) PC-S1; (d) PC-S2

Strains of Reinforcements
Fig. 9 compares strains of the beam bars in PC and PC-W; S1; S2,
without and with strengthening bars, respectively. The strains were
measured at the bottom bars. Fig. 9 shows the locations of strain
gauges A and C, which were placed within the joint, and strain
gauges B and D, which were placed outside the joint. In specimen
PC, without strengthening bars [Fig. 9(a)] yielding of the beam
bars began at the column face (gauge B). As the load increased
the bar yielding penetrated into the joint, and thus significant plastic
strains developed within the joint region (gauge A). The maximum
bar strains in the joint and in the beam end were 0.046 (gauge A)
and 0.011 (gauge B), respectively. This result indicates that signifi-
cant bar bond-slip occurred within the joint region. Such yield
penetration also occurred in the conventional RC specimen.
In specimen PC
W with reduced bar section [Fig. 9(b)] large
plastic strains occurred in the relocated beam plastic hinge zone
(gauge D), while the bar strains in the joint remained in the elastic
range (gauge C). This result indicates the prevention of bond-slip of
the beam bars in the joint. The test results of specimens PC
S1
and PC
S2 were similar to those of PC
W [Figs. 9(c and d)].

© ASCE 04015111-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Evaluation of Structural Performance
Load-Carrying Capacity
The theoretical load-carrying capacities of the PC and RC speci-
mens were calculated as follows, assuming flexural yielding in
the beam critical sections (Fig. 6)


l ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005) requires that the maximum drift ratio of
Pn ¼ ðPbp þ Pbn Þ ð6Þ
2h
where Pbp and Pbn = vertical reactions at the beam supports;
h = net column height between the top and bottom hinge supports
[= 2,100 mm (82.7 in.)]; and l = net beam length between the left
and right beam supports [= 4,760 mm (187 in.)]. The vertical re-
actions, Pbp and Pbn were calculated by dividing the nominal
flexural strength M n of the beam critical section by the shear span
length ls (i.e., the distance between the roller support and the criti-
cal section).
Table 3 and Fig. 7 show the theoretical load-carrying capacity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
Pn of the specimens calculated by Eq. (6). The flexural strengths
M n of the beam critical sections were calculated using the actual
material strengths and the rectangular concrete stress block of ACI
318 (ACI 2011). The shear span length of specimen RC was ls ¼
2,105 mm (82.9 in.). In specimen PC, the shear span length in-
creased to ls ¼ ð2,105 þ 40Þmm (84.4 in.), considering the seating
length 40 mm (1.57 in.) of the PC U-shell [Fig. 5(a)]. In the PC
specimens that used plastic hinge relocation methods, the shear
span lengths were calculated as ls ¼ ð2,105 − 250Þmm (73.0 in.)
for PC
W and PC
S2 and (2,105−235) mm (73.6 in.) for
PC
S1, considering the distances dj from the column face to
the relocated plastic hinge (refer to Table 1). As presented in Table 3
and Fig. 7, the theoretical load-carrying capacities Pn were slightly
less than the test results Pu . The Pu =Pn ratios ranged from 1.02 to
1.13. Such underestimation was attributed to the strain-hardening
behavior of reinforcing steel bars and the PC U-shell that was ex-
cluded in the calculation of Pn .
Although the area of the beam bars (10- D22 bars) of specimen
PC
W was greater than that of PC (4-D19 þ 5-D22 bars), the
predicted load-carrying capacities of PC
W and PC were equiv-
alent, because in PC
W, the bar section area was reduced by
25–35% at the critical section [Eq. (1) and Fig. 3]. This result
indicates that the reduced bar section method is economically un-
favorable. On the other hand, in PC
S1 and PC
S2, with
strengthening bars, the area of the beam bars (8-D19 þ 1-D22 bars)
was 31% smaller than that of PC. Despite the reduced bar area,
the load-carrying capacities of PC
S1 and PC
S2 were 5.4
(a)
Fig. 10. Energy dissipation capacity (1 kip-ft ¼ 1.36 kN-m)
© ASCE 04015111-10
J. Struct. Eng.
and 7.7% greater, respectively, than that of PC, because of the
relocation of the plastic hinge zones.
Deformation Capacity
Fig. 7(f) shows the envelope curves of the specimens. Table 3
presents the yield drift ratio δ y , maximum drift ratio δ u , and duc-
tility μ ð¼ δ u =δ y Þ, which were evaluated from the envelope curves.
beam-column connections be greater than 3.5%. In Table 3, PC
specimens PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2 exhibited maximum
drift ratios δ u of 3.76– 3.88%. The displacement ductility ranged
from 2.87 to 3.02. On the other hand, the maximum drift ratios of
PC and RC, in which plastic hinge relocation methods were not
used, were 4.60 and 5.06%, respectively, which were greater than
those of PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2. However, the greater
displacements of PC and RC were attributed to bar bond-slip
and diagonal concrete cracking in the joints [Figs. 8(a and b)].
Since specimens PC and RC have severe concrete cracking and
spalling in the joints and the columns, the deformation capacity
may be significantly degraded if the columns are subjected to high
axial load.
Energy Dissipation Capacity and Secant Stiffness
Fig. 10(a) shows the variation of the hysteretic energy dissipation
per cycle of the specimens, with respect to the lateral drift ratio δ.
The hysteretic energy dissipation ED per cycle was calculated as
the area enclosed by the third load cycle at each drift level. In
Fig. 10(a), ED of PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2, with plastic
hinge relocation methods, were 28–128% greater than those of
PC and RC, particularly at δ ¼ 3.0 − 4.0%. This is because
RC and PC suffered from significant bar bond-slip and inclined
concrete cracking in the joint area at δ ≥ 3.0% [refer to Figs. 8
(a and b)]. On the other hand, RC and PC continued to dissipate
hysteretic energy until δ ¼ 5.0% while PC
W, PC
S1, and
PC
S2 failed at δ ¼ 4.0%.
ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005) recommends that at a drift level of no
less than 3.5%, the energy dissipation ratio κ (¼ ED =Eep ) by the
third load cycle should be no less than 0.125. Eep denotes the en-
ergy dissipation per cycle attributable to the idealized elastic-
perfectly plastic behavior [Fig. 10(b)]. As shown in Fig. 10(b),
all specimens satisfied the ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005) requirement
at the lateral drift ratio of 3.5%. However, in specimens PC and
RC, without the plastic hinge relocation method, the κ values
significantly degraded after δ ¼ 2.5%. In specimens PC
W,
PC
S1, and PC
S2, with the plastic hinge relocation method,
(b)
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 4. Joint Shear Strength of Test Specimens (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm,
1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN, and 1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa)
Specimen f c0 (MPa) Aj (mm2 ) βγ V jn (kN) V ju (kN) V jn =V ju
PC 32.0 199,750 1.2 1,356 1,502 0.90
PC-W 32.0 199,750 1.7 1,921 1,534 1.25
PC-S1 32.0 199,750 1.7 1,921 1,465 1.31
PC-S2 32.0 199,750 1.7 1,921 1,472 1.31
RC 43.9 233,750 1.2 1,859 1,466 1.27

and βð¼ 2.23 for PC
W and PC
S2 and 2.17 for PC
S1)

Fig. 11. Comparison of cyclic behavior of PC and PC-W at third load
cycle (1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN)
the κ values greatly exceeded those of PC and RC after δ ¼ 3.0%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
were greater than 1.7. The value for V ju at the end of the PC
0
U-shell was calculated using the moment demands Muj and M uj
(Table 4), the test of the peak strengths Pu (Table 3), and α ¼ 1.25.
Table 4 compares the joint shear demand V ju and capacity V jn
of the specimens. Fig. 12(a) shows the joint shear capacity-to-
demand ratios, V jn =V ju . In the figure, specimen PC without the
plastic hinge relocation method was evaluated to be unsafe
(i.e., V jn =V ju < 1.0). This result is consistent with the failure mode

Among the PC specimens, PC
W with the reduced bar section

shown in Fig. 8(b). On the other hand, specimens PC
W,
showed the greatest κ values.
PC
S1, and PC
S2 with the plastic hinge relocation method
ACI 374.1-05 (ACI 2005) also requires that, for the third load
cycle at a drift level of no less than 3.5%, the secant stiffness from were evaluated to be safe (i.e., V jn =V ju > 1.0). This result agrees
−0.35% drift ratio to þ0.35% drift ratio ks should not be less than with the test results showing that joint shear failure did not occur.
0.05 times the initial stiffness ki . Table 3 shows a summary of the The conventional RC specimen was evaluated to be safe because of
initial stiffness ki , secant stiffness ks , and the ratio ks =ki . In spec- the high concrete strength f c0 ¼ 43.9 MPa (6.36 ksi).
imens PC and RC, without the plastic hinge relocation method, the To further verify the validity of Eq. (3), the proposed shear
ks =ki ratios were 0.01, which was significantly less than 0.05. On strength definition was applied to existing cast-in-place specimens
the other hand, the ks =ki ratios of PC
W, PC
S1, and with strengthening bars (Joh et al. 1991; Galunic et al. 1977; Park
PC
S2 were 0.13–0.16, which satisfied the requirement. and Milburn 1983; Hwang et al., unpublished data, 2014). Table 5
The effects of the low stiffness and energy dissipation on the summarizes the properties of the existing specimens. The calcula-
overall earthquake resistance capacity of PC and RC can be ex- tions of V jn and V ju using Eqs. (1)–(5) used the seating length
plained as follows: s ¼ 0. Fig. 12(b) shows the joint shear capacity-to-demand ratios
• Because of the low energy dissipation, the earthquake load de-
mand for PC and RC is greater than those of beam-column
joints with plastic hinge relocation methods.
• Because of the low reloading stiffness, under a lateral load, the
inelastic deformation demand of PC and RC is greater than
those of beam-column joints with plastic hinge relocation
methods (Fig. 11)
This result indicates that the low energy dissipation and stiffness
can significantly increase the earthquake load and deformation de-
mands. For this reason, the overall earthquake resistance capacity
of PC and RC may be significantly degraded, despite the greater
deformation capacity.

(a)
Shear Strength of Beam-Column Joints
The joint shear strength and demand, V jn and V ju , of the specimens
were evaluated using Eqs. (3)–(5). The results are presented in
Table 4. The joint shear strength V jn of the conventional RC speci-
men was calculated using γ ¼ 1.2, β ¼ 1.0, and the effective joint
shear area Aj ¼ 0.5ðbb þ bc Þ·hc . The joint shear demand V ju of
RC at the column face was calculated from Eq. (5) using α ¼
1.25; ðC þ T 0 Þ ¼ Ast fy (Ast = total area of beam flexural bars at
the critical section); and V c = the test strength Pu . On the other
hand, in the case of the emulative PC specimen without the plastic
hinge relocation method, V jn was calculated using γ ¼ 1.2; β ¼
1.0; and Aj ¼ 0.5ðbb þ bc Þ · ðhc -2 sÞ, considering the seating
length s ¼ 40 mm (1.57 in.) [refer to Fig. 1(b)]. The value for V ju
(b)
of PC at the end of the PC U-shell was calculated using α ¼ 1.25;
ðC þ T 0 Þ ¼ Ast fy ; and V c ¼ Pu . In PC
W, PC
S1, and
Fig. 12. Joint shear demand versus capacity of test specimens with
PC
S2 with the plastic hinge relocation method, V jn was calcu-
plastic hinge relocation methods
lated using βγ ¼ 1.7 (Table 4) because the products of γð¼ 1.2Þ

© ASCE 04015111-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 5. Joint Shear Strength of Existing Cast-In-Place Connection critical section be not less than the greater of 0.5hb and
Specimens with Strengthening Bars (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm, 1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN, 500 mm (19.7 in.). However, in the test specimens the bar
and 1 ksi ¼ 6.90 MPa) bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking were successfully re-
fc0 V jn V ju strained with dj ¼ 0.47hb − 0.5hb or 235–250 mm, which is
Specimen (MPa) hc =db hj =db βγ (kN) (Kn) V jn =V ju significantly smaller than 500 mm (19.7 in.).
Galunic et al. (1977) • ACI 318 (ACI 2011) requires the developmentplengths for
BC5 27.6 22.5 54.4 1.7 1,265 1,012 1.25 90°-hooked bars and headed bars ldh ¼ 0.24ðfpy = fc0 Þdb ð0.7Þ
Joh et al. (1991) (As required=As provided), and ldt ¼ 0.19ðfy = f c0 Þdb , respec-
B9 25.6 23.6 57.5 1.7 645 417 1.55 tively, but not less than 8db and 150 mm. Here, 0.7 and
B11 24.9 23.6 57.5 1.7 649 417 1.56 (As required=As provided) are the applicable modification fac-
Park and Milburn (1983) tors. However, in the test specimens, the development lengths of
Unit2 46.9 20.3 70.3 1.7 1,262 1,110 1.14 the 90°-hooked bars and headed bars (i.e., see dj or dj0 in Table 1)
Hwang et al., unpublished data, 2014 were only 82 and 64% of the required lengths, respectively.
S1 38.3 18.1 18.1 1.2 1,452 1,419 1.02
Nevertheless, the 90°-hooked bars and headed bars successfully
S2 32.0 18.1 26.1 1.7 1,880 1,807 1.04
S3 35.9 14.2 22.1 1.7 1,943 1,854 1.05
strengthened the beam-column joints.
S4 29.4 18.1 32.0 1.7 1,802 1,639 1.10
S5 37.5 18.1 26.5 1.7 2,035 1,677 1.21
Summary and Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.

of the existing cast-in-place specimens, V jn =V ju . All specimens
were evaluated to be safe (V jn =V ju > 1.0), despite the small col-
umn depth-to-bar diameter ratios, which were less than 20 (see
hc =db in Table 5). This evaluation result agrees with the test
results that showed that joint shear failure did not occur in the
existing test specimens.
However, the purpose of the existing tests, including this test,
was not the investigation of the joint shear strength. None of the
specimens failed by joint shear. Thus, the peak test strengths do not
necessarily indicate the joint shear strengths, and the test results are
not sufficient to validate the proposed joint shear strength. Further
studies are required to accurately define the joint shear strength.
Design Recommendations
As previously noted, the proposed methods successfully enhanced
the earthquake resistance of the emulative PC beam-column con-
nections. On the basis of the test results, design recommendations
for the plastic hinge relocation methods are suggested as follows:
• In order to prevent premature fracture of rebars in the plastic
hinge zone, concrete crushing should be restrained by using
closely spaced hoops.
• The areas of the 90°-hooked bars, headed bars, and the reduced
beam bar section should be determined such that the beam flex-
ural strength at the end of the PC U-shell is not less than the
demand corresponding to the flexural strength of the relocated
critical section.
• When the development length of beam flexural bars is evaluated
using the current design codes, the development length can be
increased to the distance hj between the left and right beam
critical sections: hj =db ≥ 20 for ACI 318 (ACI 2011).
• For the cruciform beam-column connections in which plastic
hinge relocation methods are used, the joint shear demand at
the end of the PC U-shell should be calculated using the beam
moment capacity of the relocated critical sections.
• The joint shear strength can be enhanced by restraining the bar
bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking in the joint region
(Hong et al. 2011). In the present study, the
p enhanced joint shear
strength can be evaluated as V jn ¼ βγ f c0 Aj , where β ¼ hj =
ðhc − 2 sÞ; Aj ¼ bj · ðhc − 2 sÞ; and βγ ≤ 1.7. However, the
existing tests are not sufficient to validate the proposed joint
shear strength equation. Thus, further study is required to accu-
rately evaluate the joint shear strength.
• NZS3101:2006 (Standards New Zealand 2006) requires that the
distance dj between the column face and the relocated beam
In the present study, various plastic hinge relocation methods for
the emulative PC beam-column connections were studied. To study
the effects and details of the methods, cyclic loading tests were per-
formed for four cruciform PC specimens and a conventional RC
specimen. For the plastic hinge relocation methods, a weakening
method using a reduced bar section area and two strengthening
methods using 90°-hooked bars or headed bars were studied.
The results of the present study are summarized as follows:
• In RC and PC without plastic hinge relocation methods, sig-
nificant bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete cracking occurred
in the beam-column joints, even though the bar bond require-
ment (hc =db ≥ 20) of ACI 318 (ACI 2011) was satisfied. How-
ever, in PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2 with the plastic hinge
relocation methods, bar bond-slip and diagonal concrete crack-
ing significantly decreased in the joints; and as a result, the en-
ergy dissipation at the third cycle was 28–128% greater than that
of PC and RC. However, the maximum deformations were less
than those of RC and PC, which showed large bond-slip de-
formations.
• Specimens RC and PC, without plastic hinge relocation meth-
ods, did not satisfy the secant stiffness requirement of ACI 374.1
(ACI 2005), although the bond requirement for beam reinforce-
ment was satisfied. This was because the actual yield strengths
of beam reinforcements (= 521 and 523 MPa) that were 30%
greater than the design yield strength (= 400 MPa) significantly
increased the bond demand in the joint regions. On the other
hand, PC
W, PC
S1, and PC
S2 with the plastic hinge
relocation methods satisfied the secant stiffness requirement.
The low stiffness and energy dissipation of RC and PC can
significantly degrade the overall earthquake resistance by in-
creasing earthquake load demand and deformation demand.
• In the specimens with plastic hinge relocation methods, when
the bar bond requirement is evaluated using the current design
codes, the bar bond resistance can increase by using the in-
creased development length, hj , which is the distance between
the left and right beam critical sections. Further, the joint shear
strength can increase by the ratio of the increased distance to the
original distance [i.e., hj =ðhc − sÞ]. The modified bar bond
parameter and joint shear strength correlated well with the ex-
isting test results, including this test. However, further experi-
mental evidences are required to confirm this result.
• Even with the short development lengths of the 90°-hooked bars
and headed bars, which were less than the minimum require-
ments of ACI 318 (ACI 2011), the structural performance of
the beam-column joints was successfully enhanced.

© ASCE 04015111-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 In this study, a limited number of specimens were tested to in-
vestigate the effect of each plastic hinge relocation method on the
seismic performance of emulative PC beam-column connections.
Thus, further studies are required to get more reliable and consis-
tent test results.
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the Basic Science
Research Program through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and
Technology (2012R1A1A1003282), and the Ministry of Construc-
tion and Transportation of Korea (05 R&D D02-01). The authors
are grateful to these authorities for their support.
References
Abdel-Fattah, B., and Wight, J. K. (1987). “Study of moving beam hinging
zones for earthquake resistant design of R/C buildings.” ACI Struct. J.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 10/03/15. For personal use only.
84(1), 31–39.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2002). “Recommendations for design
of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete struc-
tures.” ACI-ASCE Committee 352R-02, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2005). “Acceptance criteria for
moment frames based on structural testing and commentary.” ACI Com-
mittee 374.1-05, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2011). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI Committee 318,
Farmington Hills, MI.
Chutarat, N., and Aboutaha, R. S. (2003). “Cyclic response of exterior
reinforced concrete beam-column joints reinforced with headed
bars—Experimental investigation.” ACI Struct. J., 100(2), 259–264.
Dalalbashi, A., Eslami, A., and Ronagh, H. R. (2012). “Plastic hinge re-
location in RC joints as an alternative method of retrofitting using FRP.”
Compos. Struct., 94(8), 2433–2439.
Fenwick, R. C., and Irvine, H. M. (1997). “Reinforced concrete beam-
column joints for seismic loading.” Research Rep. 142, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 1–50.
Galunic, B., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1977). “An approach for im-
proving seismic behavior of reinforced concrete interior joints.” Rep.
UCB/EERC-70/30, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley,
CA, 1–94.
Ghobarah, A., and Said, A. (2002). “Shear strengthening of beam-column
joints.” Eng. Struct., 24(7), 881–888.
Higai, T., Nakamumra, H., and Saito, S. (2006). “Fatigue failure criterion
for deformed bars subjected to large deformation reversals.” Special
© ASCE 04015111-13
J. Struct. Eng.
Publication, SP237-4, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 37–54.
Hong, S. G., Lee, S. G., and Kang, T. H. K. (2011). “Deformation-based
strut-and-tie model for interior joints of frames subject to load reversal.”
ACI Struct. J., 108(4), 423–443.
Im, H. J., Park, H. G., and Eom, T. S. (2013). “Cyclic loading test for
reinforced-concrete-emulated beam-column connection of precast
concrete moment frame.” ACI Struct. J., 110(1), 115–126.
Joh, O., Goto, Y., and Shibata, T. (1991). “Influence of transverse joint and
beam reinforcement and relocation of plastic hinge region on beam-
column joint stiffness deterioration.” ACI Special Publication, 123,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 187–224.
Juette, B. K. (1996). “Moving beam plastic hinges in reinforced concrete
frames using headed reinforcement bars.” M.S. thesis, Univ. at
Karlsruhe, Germany.
Kim, S. H., Moon, J. H., and Lee, L. H. (2004). “An experimental study of
the structural behavior on the precast concrete beam-column interior
joint with splice type reinforcing bars.” J. Archit. Inst. Korea,
20(10), 53–61.
Niroomandi, A., Maheri, A., Maheri, M., and Mahini, S. (2010). “Seismic
performance of ordinary RC frame retrofitted at joints by FRP sheets.”
Eng. Struct., 32(8), 2326–2336.
Pampanin, S., Bolognini, D., and Pavese, A. (2007). “Performance-based
seismic retrofit strategy for existing reinforced concrete frame systems
using fiber-reinforced polymer composites.” J. Compos. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(211), 211–226.
Pampanin, S., Christopoulos, C., and Chen, T. (2006). “Development and
validation of a metallic haunch seismic retrofit solution for existing
under-designed RC frame buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
35(14), 1739–1766.
Park, R. (1988). “State of the art report: Ductility evaluation from
laboratory and analytical testing.” Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, Vol. 8, IAEE, Tokyo, 605–616.
Park, R., and Bull, D. K. (1986). “Seismic resistance of frames incor-
porating precast prestressed concrete beam shells.” PCI J., 31(4),
54–93.
Park, R., and Milburn, J. R. (1983). “Comparison of recent New Zealand
and United States seismic design provisions for reinforced concrete
beam-column joints and test results for four units designed according
to the New Zealand code.” Bull. New Zealand Natl. Soc. Earthquake
Eng., 16(1), 21–42.
Pimanmas, A., and Chaimahawan, P. (2010). “Shear strength of
beam-column joint with enlarged joint area.” Eng. Struct., 32(9),
2529–2545.
Standards New Zealand. (2006). “The design of concrete structures.” NZS
3101:2006, New Zealand, 698.
Yamamoto, Y. S., Nagai, O., and Maruta, M. (2008). “Structure perfor-
mance of hinge relocated RC slab-wall frame.” Proc. Jpn. Concr. Inst.,
30(3), 397–402 (in Japanese).
J. Struct. Eng.