Article

Advances in Structural Engineering

2017, Vol. 20(12) 1793–1806
Seismic performance of emulative Ó The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
precast concrete beam–column sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369433217693633

connections with alternative journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

reinforcing details

Hung-Jen Lee1, Hsi-Ching Chen2 and Jia-Hao Syu3

Abstract
This article presents an experimental investigation on alternative reinforcing details for the bottom bars of precast concrete beams at
cast-in-place beam–column joints to achieve the behaviour as for monolithic reinforced concrete beam–column connections. To
relieve steel congestion and fabrication difficulties, it is proposed to use headed bars for the bottom bars that are protruded from pre-
cast beams and anchored in the middle of the beam–column joint. In total, six interior beam–column connection specimens were
tested under reversed cyclic loading. The primary test variables were the transverse beams and the anchorage of the bottom beam
bars in the joint. Hysteretic behaviour, including strength degradation, stiffness degradation and energy dissipation, was evaluated in
accordance with the acceptance criteria for special moment-resisting frames. Test results demonstrated that emulative precast con-
crete specimens with bottom beam bars anchored in the joint middle can perform as well as monolithic beam–column connections
with continuous beam bars passing through the joint. On the basis of the experimental results, design recommendations are drawn
for these types of emulative precast beam–column connections.

Keywords
anchorage, beam–column joint, headed reinforcement, precast concrete, seismic testing

Introduction reductions in site formwork and labour, increased con-

Because of their advantages in time and cost savings,
precast concrete building structures are becoming more
and more common around the world. For earthquake-
resistant concrete frames, several alternative solutions
have been developed for moment-resisting connections
between precast beam and column components to
achieve the behaviour as for monolithic reinforced
concrete structures (Chen et al., 2012; Choi et al.,
2013; Guan et al., 2016; Ha et al., 2014; Im et al., 2013;
Pampanin, 2005; Park, 2002; Watanabe, 2007; Xue
and Zhang, 2014). Figure 1(a) illustrates one of the tra-
ditional arrangements for emulative precast concrete
moment frames that is used in New Zealand, Japan
and Taiwan. The semi-precast beam elements are
placed on the edges of the column top, followed by
reinforcement fabrication and concrete casting in the
cast-in-place joint, beam tops and slabs. Afterwards,
the upper precast column element is connected by
longitudinal column bars that protrude into mortar-
grouted coupling sleeves within the column to form an
emulating monolithic reinforced concrete frame. This
typical arrangement has many advantages such as
struction speed and high-quality control. The primary
drawback of this arrangement is the steel congestion in
the cast-in-place joint, where the protruded bottom
bars from each precast beam element need to be stag-
gered well in the joint core to prevent them from con-
flicting with each other, as shown in Figure 2.
This article proposes alternative reinforcing details
for the bottom beam bars to relieve the steel congestion
in the cast-in-place connections for special moment
frames. As shown in Figure 1(b), the bottom beam bars
of the precast beam elements are terminated by anchor
plates or heads with anchorage lengths not exceeding
1
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Yunlin
University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan
2
Graduate School of Engineering Science and Technology, National
Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan
3
Lee Ming Construction Co., Ltd, Taichung, Taiwan
Corresponding author:
Hung-Jen Lee, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering,
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu 64002,
Yunlin, Taiwan.
Email: leehj@yuntech.edu.tw
1794
Figure 1. Precast concrete beam–column connections emulating monolithic reinforced concrete frames: (a) conventional hooked
bars and (b) alternative headed bars.
Figure 2. Staggered hooked bars in an interior beam–column
connection.
one-half of the column depth. Heads allow the bars to
be developed in a shorter length than required for stan-
dard hooks (Thompson et al., 2006). Heads also liber-
ate the space occupied by the bent-up hook extensions
in the joint. The use of headed bars that terminate in
the middle of the joint, rather than hooked bars that
extended to the far side of the joint core, can relieve the
steel congestion and construction difficulties in the
cast-in-place connection. However, headed bars with a
shorter anchorage length may also increase the poten-
tial for concrete breakout failure, which should be pre-
cluded by providing adequate reinforcement in the
joint.
To avoid steel congestion of the bottom beam bars,
the termination of the bottom bars of precast beams
with bent-up hooks in the middle of the joint was
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(12)
experimentally studied by Japanese researchers in
1990s (Castro et al., 1991; Matsudo et al., 1992; Satoh
et al., 1996). The experimental results showed that
emulative cast-in-place connection performance could
be achieved for anchoring bottom beam bars in the
joint middle with additional confinement reinforce-
ment in the joint. These reinforcing details can avoid
steel congestion of the bottom beam bars from two
opposite faces of the joint, but it can also result in
another congestion problem related to joint transverse
reinforcement in the joint core. To date, it is well
accepted that the use of headed bars in place of hooked
bars is a viable solution to steel congestion in beam–
column connections and presents no significant design
problems (Kang et al., 2009; Wallace et al., 1998).
Chen et al. (2012) tested four beam–column connec-
tions using lap splices of headed bars protruding from
beam bottom ends that extended to the far side of the
confined core, while the top beam reinforcement was
continuously extended through the joint. The research-
ers observed satisfactory and comparable performance
between the emulative and monolithic concrete speci-
mens subjected to reversed cyclic loading up to an
inter-storey drift ratio of 3% or 5%.
More recently, Chiu et al. (2016) tested seven inte-
rior and five exterior monolithic reinforced concrete
beam–column connections to investigate the seismic
anchorage behaviour of headed bars with varying
anchorage lengths and bar spacing. In the tested inte-
rior beam–column connections, the top beam bars
were continuously extended through the joint, while
the bottom beam bars were lap-splice or non-overlap
anchored by heads in the joint. For a joint with low
Lee et al.
shear demand, the test results showed that the seismic
anchorage performance of the bottom beam bars
(either lap-spliced or non-overlapped in the joint) is as
good as that of the top beam bars passing through the
joint. However,
pffiffiffiffi for a joint with a design shear stress
about 1:25 fc0 MPa, bottom beam bars with non-
overlap anchoring have inferior performance than
those that are lap-splice anchored in the joint.
Therefore, Chiu et al. (2016) preferred to use lap-splice
anchorage for bottom beam bars in joints with high
design shear stresses. Notably, the specimens tested by
Chiu et al. (2016) had an equal area of top and bottom
reinforcements. In common design practice, the bot-
tom reinforcement area As, bot could be less than the
top reinforcement area As, top at the joint face for a spe-
cial moment frame beam. For such case, a less critical
and relatively lower flexural tension from the bottom
beam bars would be anchored in the joint.
This article proposes that the bottom beam bars be
non-overlap anchored by heads in the middle of the
joint, as shown in Figure 1(b). This allows for more
freedom of design, proportion, erection and fabrica-
tion in precast concrete elements. According to ACI
318-14 Section 18.9.2.3, precast concrete frames with
alternative details that do not satisfy the prescriptive
requirements shall be proven by experiments satisfying
the acceptance criteria for moment frames defined by
D13
hoops
@100
8-D25 12-D25
top
4-D25
bottom
8-D25
top
6-D25
bottom
Figure 3. Test matrix and reinforcing details of beam–column joint specimens.
1795
ACI 374.1-05 (ACI Committee 374, 2005). Therefore,
an experimental programme is conducted to verify the
proposed anchorage details for the bottom beam bars
of precast beams. Different from prior research works,
the anchorage performance of headed bottom bars was
evaluated with a varied bottom-to-top reinforcement
area ratio and a high shear stress acting on the joint.
Experimental investigation
Six large-scale reinforced concrete interior beam–
column connection specimens, as shown in Figure 3,
were constructed and tested at YunTech in Taiwan to
investigate the use of alternative reinforcing details for
ductile connections of precast beams and columns.
The experimental programme was designed using a
0
concrete compressive strength fc of 55 MPa and yield
strengths of 420 and 490 MPa, respectively, for longi-
tudinal and transverse reinforcements. The primary
test variables were the ratio of the bottom-to-top beam
reinforcement area (As, bot =As, top ), the anchorage of the
bottom beam bars in the joint and the presence of
transverse beams. The specimens were designed as part
of a special moment frame in high seismic zones and
followed the requirements of ACI 550.1R-09 (ACI
Committee 550, 2009) and ACI 318-14 (ACI
Committee 318, 2014), except for the joint shear stress
D13 D13
hoops hoops
@100 @150
12-D25 12-D25
1796 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(12)

Table 1. Material properties and connection parameters.

Parameter Specimen
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3
0
Concrete fc (MPa) 56.8 61.9 49.2 55.6 51.2 53.2
Longitudinal beam b3h 400 mm 3 500 mm 400 mm 3 500 mm
As, top 8-D25 (SD420a) 6-D25 (SD420a)
As, bot 4-D25 (SD420a) 6-D25 (SD420a)
Mpr + 484 kN m, 2787 kN m + 631 kN m, 2631 kN m
Av 4-D13 at 100 mm (SD490b)
Transverse beam b3h NA NA 400 mm 3 500 mm NA NA 400 mm 3 500 mm
Column b3h 500 mm 3 500 mm
Ast 12-D25 (SD420a)
Ash 4-D13 at 100 mm (SD490b)
Joint s (mm) 100 100 150 100 100 150
Ash =sbc 0.0112 0.0112 0.0075 0.0112 0.0112 0.0075
Ash, ratio c 1.10 1.01 1.69 1.12 1.22 1.56
0
fc : compressive strength of concrete cylinders at testing date; b: section width; h: section overall depth; As, top : area of top beam reinforcement; As, bot :
area of bottom beam reinforcement; Ast : total area of longitudinal reinforcement; Ash : total cross-sectional area of transverse reinforcement; Av : area
of shear reinforcement; s: spacing of transverse reinforcement; bc : column core dimension measured to the outside edges of the transverse
reinforcement composing area Ash ; Mpr : probable flexural strength of the beam calculated using a bar stress of 1:25fy for positive and negative
bending moments; NA: not available.
a
SD420 D25 reinforcement; bar area = 507 mm2; measured yield strength fy = 470 MPa.
b
SD490 D13 reinforcement; bar area = 127 mm2; measured yield strength fy = 498 MPa.
c
The provided amount of transverse reinforcement divided by the amount of transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318-14; the required amount
for specimens A3 and B3 is one-half of that for other specimens because of confinement from transverse beams.

and the anchorage details of the bottom bars that were
investigated in this test programme.
Connection design
Figure 3 and Table 1 show the element dimensions,
reinforcing details, material properties, and test para-
meters for the test specimens. Three specimens, desig-
nated as Group A, used eight and four D25 reinforcing
bars for the longitudinal reinforcement in the beam top
and bottom, respectively, resulting in an unequal rein-
forcement ratio in the beam section. The other three
specimens, designated as Group B, used six D25 rein-
forcing bars symmetrically for the top or bottom beam
reinforcement, resulting in a reinforcement ratio of
As, bot =As, top = 1:0. The total amount of beam longitu-
dinal reinforcement is 12 D25 reinforcing bars, and
thus, the design shear force of the joint (Vu ), which is
estimated by the method recommended by ACI 352R-
02 (ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002), is almost the
same for each test specimen
 
Vu = 1:25fy As, top + As, bot  Vcol
 
+ 
Mpr + Mpr Lb
Vcol =
ðLb  hc Þ Lc
where As, bot is the area of bottom beam bars; As, top is
the area of top beam bars; fy is the specified yield
strength of reinforcement; Vcol is the column shear
force in equilibrium with the probable beam moments
Mpr at the joint faces, which were determined using a
bar stress of 1:25fy , for positive and negative bending
moments, respectively; Lb is the unit beam length
(4.5 m for tested specimens); Lc is the unit column
length (3 m for tested specimens) or the equivalent
storey height; and hc is the column depth of 500 mm.
For the test specimens listed in Table 1, the value of Vu
is computed to be 2720 kN using equation (1).
All test specimens had a square column section of
500 mm 3 500 mm detailed with 12 D25 Grade 420
(specified fy = 420 MPa) longitudinal reinforcing bars
and D13 Grade 490 (specified fy = 490 MPa) trans-
verse hoops and ties at a spacing of 100 mm. The
Grade 490 reinforcement was used to reduce the
amount of transverse reinforcement for confinement
of 55-MPa concrete column. According to the ACI
318 and ACI 352R-02 requirements for joints in spe-
cial moment frames, the primary connection design
parameters are computed as follows.
ð1Þ Column-to-beam flexural strength ratio. To produce yield-
ing in the beams rather than in the columns, the col-
umns shall be stronger than the beams framing into a
ð2Þ joint of a special moment frame and satisfy
P
Mnc
Mr = P ø 1:2 ð3Þ
Mnb
Lee et al.
P P
where Mnb and Mnc are the sum of the nominal
flexural strengths of the beams and columns, respec-
tively, calculated at the joint faces. The nominal flex-
ural strength of the column is 670 kN m under an
0
axial compression of 0:05Ag fc for the test specimens.
According to ACI 374.1-05, it is conservative not to
apply axial load, which will be generally less than the
balanced load and increase the flexural strength in the
columns. However, zero axial load is unrealistic and
may be too conservative for bond performance of
beam bars in the joint. Therefore, a least column axial
0
of 0:05A
P g fc was conservatively used in this programme.
The Mnb are 1047 and 1041 kN m for beams in
Group A and B specimens, respectively. Thus, the
moment strength ratio Mr is 1.28 or 1.29 for the test
connections in Group A or Group B, respectively.
Yielding of the flexural reinforcement should occur in
the beams first.
Joint shear demand-to-capacity ratio. To avoid premature
shear failure of joints, the demand of joint shear force
(Vu , equation (1)) shall not exceed the nominal shear
capacity of the joint (Vn ) times the strength reduction
factor f of 0.85
qffiffiffiffi
Vu ł fVn = fg fc0 Aj ð4Þ
pffiffiffi0ffi
pffiffiffi0ffi g fc ispffiffiffithe
where ffi nominalpffiffiffiffishear stress
pffiffiffiffi of
1:67 fc MPa (20 fc0 psi) or 1:25 fc0 MPa (15 fc0 psi)
for an interior joint with or without transverse beams,
respectively, and Aj is the effective cross-sectional area
of the joint. Definitions of Aj can be found in ACI 318
and ACI 352R-02. This article uses the one adopted in
ACI 318-14, which is equal to the gross area of the col-
umn for the test specimens shown in Figure 3.
The strength reduction factor f is omitted for
experimental studies and then the joint shear demand-
to-capacity ratio is
Vu Vu vu
= pffiffiffi0ffi = pffiffiffi0ffi ð5Þ
Vn g f c Aj g fc
where vu is the design shear stress of the joint and
equal to 10.9 MPa (Aj = 500 3 500 mm2 and
Vu = 2720 kN from equation (1)) for all test
specimens.
Notably, the specified nominal shear strengths of
specimens A1, A2, B1 and
pffiffiffiffiB2 (joint without transverse
beams) is equal to 1:25 fc0 MPa but that of specimens
A3 pandffiffiffiffi B3 (joint with transverse beams) is
1:67 fc0 MPa. Due to set-up limitation, each trans-
verse beam stub only had a length of 150 mm, which is
less than one overall beam depth, and may not be
effective for confinement. Therefore, all the bars in the
1797
transverse beams are anchored by heads to shorten the
development length and promote the confinement
effect.
Using the design concrete strength of 55 MPa, the
joint shear demand-to-capacity ratio is equal to 1.18
for the test joints without transverse beams but equal
to 0.88 for the test joints with transverse beams. In
other words, the design joint shear stress in specimens
A1, A2, B1 and B2 is 18% higher than the permissible
value; thus, these joint specimens are expected to
achieve beam yielding followed by joint shear failure
at a limited inter-storey drift ratio. However, speci-
mens A3 and B3 have a design joint shear stress below
the permissible value and are expected to develop
beam hinging until joint shear failure occurs at a rela-
tively large drift ratio.
Provided-to-required transverse reinforcement ratio in the
joint. To maintain the integrity of the joint concrete
and to reduce the degradation of the joint shear capac-
ity, transverse reinforcement required in the column
ends shall be extended through the joint, unless a joint
is considered to be effectively confined by beams on all
four sides where the required amount of transverse
reinforcement shall be permitted to be reduced by one-
half, as given in Section 18.8.3 of ACI 318-14
  0 0
Ash Ag f f
ø 0:3  1 c and 0:09 c ð6Þ
sbc Ach fyt fyt
where Ash is the total cross-sectional area of the trans-
verse reinforcement, including crossties, within spacing
s and perpendicular to dimension bc , which is the
cross-sectional dimension of the column core without
concrete cover; Ag and Ach are the gross area and the
core area of the column, respectively; and fyt is the
specified yield strength of the transverse reinforcement.
Kim and LaFave (2007) identified that an ‘Ash ratio’
(provided amount of joint transverse reinforcement
divided by the amount required by equation (6)) could
be a key influencing parameter for the shear behaviour
of beam–column joints. All the connections in this test
programme were well confined by transverse reinforce-
ment and had ‘Ash ratio’ exceeding 1.0, as shown in
Table 1.
Anchorage in beam–column joint. For Grade 420 straight
beam bars passing through the joint, ACI 318 and ACI
352R-02 require a minimum column depth of 20 bar
diameters (20db ) for joints of special moment frames.
All test connections shown in Figure 3 used Grade 420
25-mm-diameter longitudinal reinforcing bars and a
column depth of 500 mm, which is approximate to
20db . For headed deformed bars anchored in the joints
1798
of special moment frames, ACI 318 gives a minimum
development length, measured from the beam–column
interface to the bearing face of the head, as follows
0:19fy
‘dt, 318 = the greatest of pffiffiffi0ffi db , 8db , 150 mm
fc
with limitations of (a) specified fy not exceeding
420 MPa, (b) bar size not exceeding 36 mm, (c)
normal-weight concrete, (d) each head has a net bear-
ing area exceeding four times the nominal cross-
sectional area of the bar, (e) minimum clear cover of
2db for each bar and (f) minimum clear spacing of 3db
between parallel bars.
The recommendations of development length for
headed bars given by ACI 352R-02 are somewhat dif-
ferent. For joints of special moment frames, critical
sections for the development of beam bars should be
taken at the outside edge of the confined core, and the
minimum development length for headed bars is
0:15fy
‘dt, 352 = the greatest of pffiffiffi0ffi db , 8db , 150 mm
fc
and bar heads should be located in the confined core
within 50 mm from the back of the confined core
(ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 2002).
Substituting bar fy of 420 MPa and design concrete
0
strength fc of 55 MPa into equations (7) and (8) result-
ing in minimum development lengths of 10.8db and
8.5db, respectively. The latter should add a cover thick-
ness of 25 mm (1db) for comparison with test speci-
mens shown in Figure 3. The provided development
length of the headed bars is only 9db, measured from
the bearing face of the head to the column face.
Furthermore, all test specimens were detailed with
longitudinal beam bars at a clear spacing of 2db
between bars. Obviously, the anchorage conditions of
the bottom beam bars used in this test programme are
Figure 4. Stress–strain curves obtained from bar tensile tests (200-mm gauge length).
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(12)
relatively severe. Kang et al. (2009) extensively
reviewed studies on the use of headed bars and con-
cluded that the minimum clear spacing between headed
bars can be reduced to 2db in beam–column joints con-
fined by transverse reinforcement. Thereafter, Kang
ð7Þ
et al. (2012) tested two exterior beam–column joints
with closely spaced headed bars and concluded that
the clear bar spacing of approximately 2db or the use
of two bar layers may be reasonably permitted for
headed bars anchored in the exterior beam–column
joints subjected to earthquake-type loading. Similar
conclusions are also drawn by Chiu et al. (2016).
Therefore, this experimental programme decided to
use a minimum clear spacing of 2db between beam bars
anchored in the joints.
Figure 4 shows the stress–strain relations obtained
from the tensile tests of Grade 420 D25 bare and
headed bars. The 65-mm-diameter steel head was
attached to a reinforcing bar end by a friction–welding
connection, which obstructed some of the bearing face
of the head; thus, the net bearing area of the head was
only about 4.3 times the nominal cross-sectional area
ð8Þ
of the bar. As shown in Figure 4, the bar-to-head con-
nections are strong enough to break the bar in tensile
tests resulting in stress–strain behaviour identical to
that of bare bars.
Test method and load protocol
Figure 5 shows the test set-up and reinforcing details
in this experimental programme. The bottom column
was hinged to the strong floor with a one-dimensional
rocking steel base. The beams were laterally braced to
restrain out-of-plane deformation and linked to the
strong floor using roller supports at the right and left
ends. At the beginning of each test, a constant axial
0
load of 0:05Ag fc was applied to the column top by a
hydraulic jack and pretension steel rods. The upper
column was horizontally connected to the reaction wall
Lee et al.
Figure 5. Overview of typical test set-up and details of cross section.
by one displacement-controlled actuator to apply cyc-
lic loading in a quasi-static manner. The test set-up
was arranged to eliminate the P-delta effect and simu-
late a 3/4-scale beam–column joint specimen with a
column height (storey height) of 3 m and a beam span
of 4.5 m (the distance between the roller-supported
inflection points).
A typical displacement-controlled loading protocol
consisting of three reversed cycles at gradually
increased drift ratios (0.50%, 0.75%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2%,
3%, 4%, 6% and 8%) was used in this study. The tar-
get displacement at the loading point of the upper col-
umn was computed by multiplying the target drift
ratio to the simulated storey height of 3000 mm. The
axial load and lateral force at the upper column were
monitored by load cells. Several displacement transdu-
cers were attached to the test specimen to measure the
global lateral drifts and local deformations (joint shear
deformation and beam end rotation). Numerous strain
gauges were pre-attached to reinforcements at key
locations to record the strain histories. In general, the
loading protocol and test procedure in this experimen-
tal programme are consistent with respect to ACI
374.1-05 (ACI Committee 374, 2005). The presented
test results herein continued up to 6% or 8% drift
ratio for the observation of failure modes. However,
the performance of test specimens should be evaluated
prior to the limiting drift ratio of 4% because the 6%
or 8% drift may be too large for a well-designed spe-
cial moment frame.
Experimental results and discussion
The experimental results showed that each test connec-
tion was capable of developing yielding in beams
1799
followed by joint shear failure (‘BJ’ failure) at a drift
ratio of 4% or 6%, due to the difference in joint shear
demand-to-capacity ratios. All beam longitudinal rein-
forcements developed the bar yield strength and under-
went inelastic load reversals without bond or
anchorage failure in the joint. The measured and
observed responses are summarized and discussed in
the following subsections.
Global response
Figure 6 shows the cyclic lateral load–displacement
curves for all test specimens, where the drift ratio is
equal to the lateral displacement (d) at the loading
point divided by the simulated storey height of
3000 mm (Figure 5). The lateral load Q is also normal-
ized to the ideal yield load (Qy = 430 kN) in balance
with the sum of the nominal flexural strengths of the
beams calculated at the joint faces using the measured
material properties (Table 1). Figure 6 also illustrates
the displacement ductility ratio m = d=dy in the posi-
tive and negative directions for each test specimen,
where the idealized yield displacement dy was equal to
Qy divided by a secant stiffness obtained at the mea-
sured displacement corresponding to 0.75Qy in the first
cycle of 1.5% drift. The definition of dy value can be
found in ACI 374.2R-13 (ACI Committee 374, 2013).
Typically detailed specimens A1 and B1, with con-
tinuous beam bars passing through the joint, devel-
oped yielding of beam bars in 1.5% drift cycles and
attained maximum lateral resistance (Qm ) at 3% drift
ratio, as shown in Figure 6, followed by strength and
stiffness degradation due to shear cracks and damage
in the joint. The maximum experimental shear stresses
acting on the joint, back calculated using Qm and
1800 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(12)

Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
1.5
600
A1 μ= 1 2 3 4 A2 μ= 1 2 3 4 A3 μ= 1 2 3 4 5
Lateral Load, Q(kN)

400 1.0

200 0.5

Q/Qy
0 0.0

- 200 - 0.5

- 400 - 1.0
- 600 4 3 2 1 =μ 4 3 2 1 =μ 5 4 3 2 1 =μ - 1.5
600
B1 μ= 1 2 3 4 B2 μ= 1 2 3 4 B3 μ= 1 2 3 4 5
1.0
Lateral Load, Q(kN)

400

200 0.5

Q/Qy
0 0.0

- 200 - 0.5

- 400 - 1.0
- 600 4 3 2 1 =μ 4 3 2 1 =μ 5 4 3 2 1 =μ - 1.5
- 240 - 120 0 120 240 - 120 0 120 - 240 - 120 0 120 240
Displacement, δ (mm) Displacement, δ (mm) Displacement, δ (mm)
Figure 6. Lateral load–displacement responses for test specimens.

measured material properties, for specimens A1 and
B1 were 11% and 9%, respectively,
pffiffiffiffi higher than the
nominal strength of 1:25 fc0 MPa specified by ACI
318-14 for interior joint without transverse beams.
Measured shear deformations on the joints of
Specimen A1 and B1 exhibited inelastic hysteresis in
4% drift cycles followed by joint shear failure. Neither
Specimen A1 nor B1 showed any bond failure along
the straight beam bars in the joint during testing, and
thus, the development length of 20db is concluded to
be adequate for the test specimens.
As shown in Figures 6 and 7, the hysteresis and
envelope curves of Specimen A2 with alternative rein-
forcing details for the anchorage of the bottom beam
bars are almost identical to those of Specimen A1;
however, those of Specimen B2 are somewhat inferior
to those of Specimen B1. Although the global
responses of the four cruciform beam–column connec-
tions were very similar during testing, a little more
strength degradation can be observed in Specimen B2.
This can be attributed to the numbers of bottom beam
bars anchored in the middle of the joint. However,
Specimens A3 and B3 with transverse beams obviously
perform better than the other four cruciform speci-
mens (Figure 6). Both specimens developed beam hin-
ging, attained their maximum lateral resistance (Qm ) at
a larger drift ratio of 6%, and then completed the 8%
drift cycles for failure observation. The Qm-back-calcu-
lated experimental shear stresses in the joints of
Specimens A3 and B3 p are
ffiffiffiffi 13% and 16% less than the
nominal value of 1:67 fc0 MPa specified by ACI 318-
14. Due to the presence of the transverse beams, the
joint damage in Specimens A3 and B3 was not as
severe as cruciform Specimens A2 and B2.
Crack observations
Figure 8 compares the crack patterns observed at the
3% drift ratio. In addition to the primary shear cracks
that propagated diagonally in the joints, secondary
cracks also initiated along the bottom beam bars
anchored by heads in the joint, especially in Specimen
B2. Increasing the number of bottom beam bars that
terminate in the middle of the joint by heads seems to
increase the potential for concrete breakout. As
addressed in the commentary of Section 25.4.4.2 in
ACI 318-14, breakout failure can be precluded in
joints by either keeping the anchorage length from
exceeding 0.66d, where d is the effective depth of the
beam section, or by providing adequate transverse
reinforcement to enable a strut-and-tie mechanism.
The provided anchorage length of the headed bars in
Lee et al.
Figure 7. Comparison of envelope curves for test specimens: (a) Group A specimens and (b) Group B specimens.
Figure 8. Crack patterns observed at 3% drift ratio.
the joints of the test specimens is only about 0.5d, and
thus, the role of the transverse reinforcement becomes
crucial. Figure 9 illustrates a strut-and-tie model,
where the flexure tension that developed in the bottom
beam bars was anchored by heads and resisted by fan-
shaped struts and transverse reinforcement. The
anchorage performance of the bottom beam bars and
the force-transferring behaviour of the transverse rein-
forcement can be monitored by strain gauge readings.
Local response
The strains of reinforcing bars were measured using
electrical resistance strain gauges attached to some
reinforcing bars at selected locations. Figure 10 shows
the strain profiles along the bottom beam bars at peak
1801
drift ratios for the four cruciform specimens. All beam
bar strains measured at the beam–column faces (loca-
tion at 6250 mm) went above the ideal yield strain of
2155 me (obtain from Figure 4) at the 2% drift ratio
indicating the development of beam yielding. For spe-
cimens A1 and B1, a clear strain gradient per distance
along the straight beam bar passing through the joint
can be observed in Figure 10. This indicated that the
bond resistance in the joint had not been completely
destroyed till the 3% drift ratio. It is concluded that
the development length of 20db is adequate for the
straight beam bars used in the test specimens. For spe-
cimens A2 and B2 with alternative reinforcing details,
the beam bar strains measured at the beam–column
faces (location at 6250 mm) and in the joint core
(location at 6100 mm) exceeded the bar yield strain at
1802
Figure 9. Strut-and-tie modelling for Specimen A2 with
headed bars anchored in the joint middle.
the 2% drift ratios indicating almost the entire bar ten-
sile force was transferred to the end anchorage. It is
evident that the bottom beam bars in specimens A2
Figure 10. Profiles of strain developed along bottom beam bars for test specimens.
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(12)
and B2 were effectively anchored by heads with a short
anchorage length and a clear spacing of 2db in the
beam–column joints. Notably, the joints were well
detailed with transverse reinforcement.
Figure 11 compares the profiles of tie bar strains
measured at one top column crosstie (Gauge 11) above
the top beam bars, three inner joint crossties (Gauges
12–14) between the top and bottom beam bars and
another bottom column crosstie (Gauge 15) below the
bottom beam bars for the cruciform test specimens.
Each gauge was attached to the centre of the crosstie
parallel to the beam bars. Figure 11 shows that the tie
bar strains measured in the joint (Gauges 12–14)
remained elastic in the 1.5% drift cycles but went
beyond the yield strain of 2500 me at the 2% drift
ratios for all test specimens. Notably, the tie bar strains
measured in the top and bottom column (Gauges 11
and 15) remained elastic over the entire loading history
in Specimens A1 and B1 with continuous bottom beam
bars. In contrast, the tie bar strains measured below
the discontinuous bottom beam bars in Specimens A2
and B2 (Gauge 15) went beyond the yield strain of
2500 me after the 2% drift cycles. Besides, the tie bar
Lee et al. 1803

Figure 11. Profiles of tie bar strain along the column height.

strain of Gauge 14 in Specimen B2 was relatively larger

than that of Gauge 14 in Specimen B1 for each drift
level. These phenomena can be explained using
Figure 9, where the tensile force of the bottom beam
bars was transferred to the transverse reinforcement in
the joint and the bottom column.
For the anchorage of the bottom beam bars by
heads in the middle of the joint, yielding of the column
transverse reinforcement is not preferred because it
may affect the column confinement. Therefore, it is
recommended to provide one more set of joint trans-
verse reinforcements below the bottom beam bars Figure 12. Breakout failure precluded in joint by providing
anchored in the joint, as shown in Figure 12. To pre- adequate transverse reinforcement to tie the potential failure
clude breakout failure, this article recommends that surface.
the total amount of joint and column transverse rein-
forcements covered by the fan-shaped struts should be
capable of resisting the total tensile force to be devel- headed bars in the confined core, which is based on a
oped in the bottom beam bars, as given below breakout prism angle of approximately 35° (ACI 318-
X 14 Chapter 17).
Ash fyt ø As, bot fy ð9Þ For Specimens A2 and B2, the effective embedded
P depth of the headed beam bars in the confined column
where Ash is the amount of effective transverse rein- core was about 8db (200 mm), and thus, all three sets
forcement in the joint and bottom column, parallel to of joint transverse reinforcements and the upper two
the bottom beam bars and within the critical edge dis- sets of transverse reinforcements in the bottom column
tance of 1.5 times the effective embedded depth of the were effective to tie the assumed breakout prism.
1804 Advances in Structural Engineering 20(12)

Table 2. Test results for comparison with acceptance criteria of ACI 374.1-05.

Parameters Specimen
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3

Initial stiffness for first Positive 12.26 11.48 12.14 12.49 12.15 12.90
cycle of 0.5% drift (kN/ Negative 11.83 11.86 11.89 12.64 12.03 12.26
mm)
Percentage degradation in Positive 22.5% 18.8% 10.6% 18.6% 24.9% 10.6%
lateral resistance from Negative 16.2% 10.7% 2.8% 14.7% 20.8% 5.1%
first to third cycle of 4%
drift
Ratio of secant stiffnessa Positive 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.16
around zero drift to initial Negative 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.14
stiffness
Relative energy ED/EPP 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.23
dissipation ratiob
a
The secant stiffness around zero drift ratio was obtained for positive and negative loading directions between drift ratios of 20.4% and + 0.4% in
the third compete cycle of 4% drift ratio.
b
The relative energy dissipation ratio was the energy dissipated in the third complete cycle of 4% drift ratio divided by the idealized elastoplastic
energy of that cycle.

Using equation (9) with a measured yield strength of
fyt = 498 MPa and fy = 470 MPa, the total tie force
provided by five sets of transverse reinforcements is
33% higher than the yield force of the four D25 bars
in the beam bottom of Specimen A2 but 12% less than
that of the six D25 bars in the beam bottom of
Specimen B2. Therefore, with respect to Specimen A2,
Specimen B2 exhibited relatively severe damage
(Figure 8) and strength degradation (Figure 7).
Evaluation of seismic testing performance
Precast frame systems with alternative details that do
not satisfy the prescriptive requirements of chapter 18
in ACI 318-14 may be used for seismic design if satis-
factory performance can be demonstrated by experi-
ments of the as-built design. ACI 374.1-05 defines a
protocol for the design, analysis and laboratory testing
of such frames. The proposed alternative reinforcing
details for the emulative precast beam–column connec-
tions were designed and tested in this study according
to ACI 374.1-05. For acceptance, the test results of the
third complete cycle to a limiting drift ratio not less
than 3.5% should satisfy the following three criteria:
1. Strength degradation shall not exceed 25% of
the maximum peak strength in the same load-
ing direction.
2. Secant stiffness between drift ratios of 21/10
and + 1/10 of the limiting drift ratio shall not
be less than 5% of the initial stiffness obtained
from the first cycle.
3. Energy dissipation in the third cycle of limiting
drift ratio shall not be less than 12.5% of the
idealized elastoplastic energy of that drift ratio.
In this experimental programme, a limiting drift
ratio of 4% is conservatively considered due to the lack
of 3.5% drift cycles. Accordingly, Table 2 compares
the hysteresis performance of the third cycle of the 4%
drift ratio for the test specimens. All test specimens sat-
isfied the acceptance criteria at a 4% drift ratio except
that the strength degradation in the positive loading
direction of Specimen B2 was close to 25% and, there-
fore, not ideal. This is attributed to the numbers of
bottom beam bars in excess of the amount of effective
transverse reinforcement in Specimen B2. On the con-
trary, Specimen A2 with alternate reinforcing details
performed as well as and perhaps even better than the
benchmark Specimen A1 with continuous bottom bars
because of fewer bottom beam bars anchored in the
joint. To conclude, the amount of effective transverse
reinforcement should be proportioned to the pull-out
of the headed bars from the joint. Based on the obser-
vation of the strain profiles of Figure 11, it is recom-
mended to provide more transverse reinforcement
adjacent to the bottom beam bars anchored in the joint
by heads.
Finally, as compared in Table 2, the performance of
Specimens A3 and B3 with transverse beams is better
than that of the other cruciform specimens. Obviously,
the presence of the transverse beams did enhance the
joint integrity even though the joint transverse reinfor-
cement was also reduced. The transverse beams with
discontinuous bottom beam bars framing to the joint
Lee et al.
may not be considered effective for confining the joint.
This experimental programme is limited to emulative
precast beam–column connections under unidirectional
load reversals. It may be more crucial for such connec-
tions under bidirectional load reversals. This should be
verified in future experimental studies.
Design recommendations
To ease the difficulty of the erection and fabrication of
precast beams at cast-in-place beam–column connec-
tions, it is a viable option to terminate the protruded
bottom bars of precast beams in the middle of the joint
with adequate anchorage and confinement. On the
basis of the experimental results and observations, the
confinement and anchorage of the bottom beam bars
in the joint is considered to be adequate if following
conditions are satisfied:
1. Joint and column transverse reinforcements
should conform to Section 18.7.5 of ACI 318-
14.
2. The development length of the headed
deformed bars should be in accordance with
Section 25.4.4 of ACI 318-14, except that a
minimum clear spacing of 2db between bars
could be used in the confined joint.
3. Breakout failure of the headed bars should be
precluded by providing adequate transverse
reinforcement to enable a fan-shaped strut-and-
tie mechanism, where the amount of transverse
reinforcement within the critical edge distance
(1.5 times the effective embedded depth of the
headed bars in the confined core) should be
proportional to the tensile force of the bottom
beam bars.
For the test specimens, the clear spacing between
beam bars was only 2db, and the provided development
length of the headed bars was a little shorter than the
required length given by ACI 318-14 or ACI 352R-02.
Such headed bars did perform well in a well-confined
beam–column joint but may not perform as well under
other conditions. The test results show that the ancho-
rage requirements of ACI 318-14 are conservative for a
well-confined beam–column joint. In addition, it is
unnecessary and not recommended to anchor top beam
bars in the middle of beam–column joints, unless the
top beam bars cannot be extended through the joint.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, straight and continuous
top beam bars are preferred in cast-in-place joints and
beam tops.
1805
Conclusion
The experimental results presented in this work demon-
strated that emulative precast beam–column connec-
tions with bottom beam bars anchored in the joint
middle can perform as well as monolithic beam–
column connections with straight beam bars passing
through the joint. Based on the experimental results, it
is concluded that the bottom beam bars protruding
from precast beam units could be anchored in the joint
middle by heads with limitations of a least net bearing
area of 4Ab for each head, a minimum clear spacing of
2db between bars, a code-conforming anchorage length
and adequate transverse reinforcement.
From the experimental observations, the potential
for concrete breakout failure increased for the closely
spaced headed bars that were used in the test speci-
mens. To preclude breakout failure, adequate trans-
verse reinforcement should be provided and distributed
uniformly within the critical edge distance of 1.5 times
the effective embedded depth of the headed bars in the
confined core. The amount of transverse reinforcement
could be proportioned by establishing load paths in
accordance with strut-and-tie modelling principles.
Finally, with proper design and details, anchorage of
bottom beam bars in the middle of the joint can be a
viable option to relieve the steel congestion in the cast-
in-place connections for special moment-resisting
frames.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article: This study was supported by the National Science
Council (renamed to Ministry of Science and Technology
since 2014) in Taiwan.
References
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002) 352R-02: Recommenda-
tions for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Mono-
lithic Reinforced Concrete Structures. Farmington Hills,
MI: American Concrete Institute, p. 38.
ACI Committee 318 (2014) 318-14: Building Code Require-
ments for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Farming-
ton Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, p. 520.
ACI Committee 374 (2005) 374.1-05: Acceptance Criteria for
Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and
1806
Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute, p. 9.
ACI Committee 374 (2013) 374.2R-13: Guide for Testing
Reinforced Concrete Structural Elements under Slowly
Applied Simulated Seismic Loads. Farmington Hills, MI:
American Concrete Institute, p. 18.
ACI Committee 550 (2009) 550.1R-09: Guide to Emulating
Cast-in-Place Detailing for Seismic Design of Precast Con-
crete Structures. Farmington Hills, MI: American Con-
crete Institute.
Castro JJ, Yamaguchi T and Imai H (1991) Seismic behavior
of half precast beam-column joints. Proceedings of the
Japan Concrete Institute 13(2): 1069–1074.
Chen SC, Yan WM and Gao J (2012) Experimental investi-
gation on the seismic performance of large-scale interior
beam-column joints with composite slab. Advances in
Structural Engineering 15(7): 1227–1237.
Chiu CK, Chi KN and Lin KC (2016) Experimental investi-
gation on the seismic anchorage behavior of headed bars
based on full-size specimens of exterior and interior
beam–column joints. Advances in Structural Engineering
19(5): 777–794.
Choi HK, Choi YC and Choi CS (2013) Development and
testing of precast concrete beam-to-column connections.
Engineering Structures 56: 1820–1835.
Guan DZ, Guo ZX, Xiao QD, et al. (2016) Experimental
study of a new beam-to-column connection for precast
concrete frames under reversal cyclic loading. Advances in
Structural Engineering 19(3): 529–545.
Ha SS, Kim SH, Lee MS, et al. (2014) Performance evalua-
tion of semi precast concrete beam-column connections
with U-shaped strands. Advances in Structural Engineer-
ing 17(11): 1585–1600.
Im HJ, Park HG and Eom TS (2013) Cyclic loading test for
reinforced-concrete-emulated beam-column connection of
precast concrete moment frame. ACI Structural Journal
110(1): 115–125.
Kang THK, Kim W and Shin M (2012) Cyclic testing for
seismic design guide of beam-column joints with closely
spaced headed bars. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
16(2): 211–230.
Advances in Structural Engineering 20(12)
Kang THK, Shin M, Mitra N, et al. (2009) Seismic design of
reinforced concrete beam-column joints with headed bars.
ACI Structural Journal 106(6): 868–877.
Kim J and LaFave JM (2007) Key influence parameters for
the joint shear behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC)
beam–column connections. Engineering Structures 29(10):
2523–2539.
Matsudo M, Mikame A, Sasaki H, et al. (1992) Experimen-
tal study on anchorage system of bottom bars in precast
beams. In: Summaries of technical papers of annual
meeting architectural institute of Japan. Structures II,
pp. 837–838. Hokuriku, 27–29 August, Architectural
Institute of Japan.
Pampanin S (2005) Emerging solutions for high seismic per-
formance of precast/prestressed concrete buildings. Jour-
nal of Advanced Concrete Technology 3(2): 207–223.
Park R (2002) Seismic design and construction of precast con-
crete buildings in New Zealand. PCI Journal 47(5): 60–75.
Satoh Y, Mikame A, Hayashi K, et al. (1996) Experimental
study on bent bar anchorage in precast R/C beam-column
joint: part III outline of experimental tests. In: Summaries
of technical papers of annual meeting architectural institute
of Japan. C-2, structures IV: reinforced concrete structures
prestressed concrete structures masonry wall structures,
pp. 689–690. Kinki, 14–16 September, Architectural Insti-
tute of Japan.
Thompson MK, Jirsa JO and Breen JE (2006) Behavior and
capacity of headed reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal
103(4): 522–530.
Wallace JW, McConnell SW, Gupta P, et al. (1998) Use of
headed reinforcement in beam-column joints subjected to
earthquake loads. ACI Structural Journal 95(5): 590–606.
Watanabe F (2007) Design of precast concrete buildings emu-
lating monolithic construction. In: Proceedings of the ninth
Japan-Korea-Taiwan joint seminar on earthquake engineer-
ing for building structures (SEEBUS 2007), National
Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 26–27 October,
pp. 83–92.
Xue WC and Zhang B (2014) Seismic behavior of hybrid
concrete beam-column connections with composite beams
and cast-in-place columns. ACI Structural Journal 111(3):
617–627.