The investigation of beam to beam connection of precast concrete

element under monotonic and cyclic loading
D R Munaf*, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
D Suraatmadja, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
N Suhana, Consulting Engineer, Indonesia

27th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 29 - 30 August 2002,

Singapore

Article Online Id: 100027048

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cipremier.com/100027048

This article is brought to you with the support of 

Singapore Concrete Institute 

www.scinst.org.sg 

All Rights reserved for CI‐Premier PTE LTD 

You are not Allowed to re‐distribute or re‐sale the article in any format without written approval of 
CI‐Premier PTE LTD 

Visit Our Website for more information 

www.cipremier.com  
 2ytr' Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 29 - 30 August 2002, Singapore

The investigation of beam to beam connection of precast

concrete element under monotonic and cyclic loading

DR Munaf*, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

D Suraatmadja, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

N Suhana, Consulting Engineer, Indonesia

Abstract

The aims of this research is to investigate the properties and behaviours of dry joint
connection between beam elements of precast concrete . Six samples consisted of two
normal beams and four beams of precast concrete two samples each had already been
made. There were two types of precast concrete element, one of types was beam with
rectangular-section (type I) and another type was beam with I-section (type II). They used
four holes in magnification of beam section as resisting of bar connection. The specimen test
as simple beam support was done in two loading cases be monotonic and cyclic, with two
point loads for models of pure bending condition. The test parameters were the behaviour
comparison among of normal beam and two types of precast concrete element as strength,
rigidity, ductility, strength and rigidity degradation, and energy dissipation.
The results of this research indicated the strength of type I and type II compared with
normal beam be 100.25% and 105.51 %, respectively. The maximum ductilities of type I and
type II were 6 and 8 where normal beam achieving ductility 8. The strength of degradation of
type I and type II were 12.02% and 16.42%, whereas normal beam was 9.72%. The rigidity
of degradation of type I and type II were 88.85% and 89.45%, with normal beam was
82.16%. The energy dissipation cumulative of type I and type II whereas normal beam were
85.92% and 83.86%, respectively. The indication of stress and strain phenomenon for
precast concrete connection of type I was dowel mechanism but not in type II. On the two
types of precast concrete element occurred stress concentration caused by differences of
section. Generally, both of connection types of precast concrete element indicated good
result.

Keywords: precast beam, monotonic - cyclic, behaviour of strength, ductility, rigidity

1. Introduction
Based on design concept and col/apse mechanism of structure, moment-resisting frames
incorporating precast concrete member, design to be ductile and provide the primary earthquake
resistance. The rational approach for achieving this aim in earthquake resistant design is to choose
the most suitable mechanism of inelastic defomnation with flexural yeilding at selected plastic hinge
positions with that may cause an increase in the flexural strength of plastic hinge regions, therefore its
occurs plastic hinge on some of portion from structure as column above support, end of beam among
two column, and middle of beam. Then. structural design and design loading requires that column of
multistorey to avoid the fomnation of column sideways mechanism (strong column-weak beam)[4].
Beam modeling on this research used dry joint connection between beam elements of precast
concrete for earthquake resistance is in finding an economical and practical method for connecting the
precast element together. It connection has the advantages of high quality control, a reduction in site
fomnwork and site labour, and increased speed of constructions.

373
 The aims of this research is to investigate the properties and behaviours of dry joint connection
between beam elements of precast concrete. Comparisons between normal beam with precast
concrete beams to obtain analysis of structure as strength, ductility and rigidity. Especially, loads ­
deflections, moment - curvature, observation of crack pattern and collapse mechanism , degradation
of strength and rigidity, and energy dissipations.

2. Research Significance

2.1. Design of Sample Test

Based on confine of capacity on the laboratory equipment which the capacity maximum
therefore design of sample test dimensional is small-scale .
Dimensional and reinforcing of bending and shear shown in figure 1. For normal beam was
rectangular-section beam with dimension was 120 x 180 mm and length of beam was 2400 mm .
Precast beam type-I was rectangular-section beam with dimension was 120 x 180 mm, magnification
of section 210 x 180 mm with four holes. Length of each beam element of type-I was 1200 mm until
total length was 2400 mm. Whereas, precast beam type-II was beam I-section with dimension was
170 x 210 mm, web and flange thickness were 80 mm and 45 mm, respectively. Magnification of
section was 170 x 210 mm with four holes, length of each beam element is 1200 mm until total length
is 2400 mm.
Based on calculation of reinforcing normal beam, type-I, and type-II according due to ACI Code
[2]. Bending reinforcing for normal beam and type-I is 4~8 to tension and compression of bar, whereas
type-II is 3~8 + 1~6 to tension and compression of bar. Shear reinforcement used stirrup ~6 spacing
150 mm with cover concrete is 20 mm . 210 - - - - - j
"1 .S /--- 110- - 1 4S r
L N

Half :o:t3m"" ,
.--"---'-!P'-TI----o..,,6,
. ST~~~ 50 : .
. Sr..... 6....t50: ·

(a) Normal Beam (b) Precast Beam Type-I (c) Precast Beam Type-II

Figure 1. Dimensional and Reinforcing of Beam

2.2. System and Type of Connections

System of connection used this research is dry joint connection with bar connection as
connected beam to beam element [6,11]. Systems and types of precast concrete element type-I and
type-II showed in figure 2. The strength capacity and constructions method between two types of
precast beam was the same. The other different sections between type-I and type-II , connnections
method on type-I bar connections incorporating precast element in side of beams. Whereas type-II,
bar connections incorporating in top and bottom of compression and tension position of main bar.

~~ .

.. ; ...... -~---~
~
~
... .... . -. I'

-. ········-·i·" .

(a) Normal Beam (b) Precast Beam Type-I (c) Precast Beam Type-II

Figure 2. Types of Precast Concrete Connection

3. Instrumentation and Setting Up

The sample test as simple beam support was done in two loading cases be monotonic and
cyclic, with two point loads for models of pure bending condition. Measuring of reinforcing strain and
bar connections used strain gage type FLA-6-11 was to obtain strains on flexural reinforcement as
SG-1, SG-2 and SG-3, SG-4, respectively , Whereas for concrete used strain gage type PL-60-1 on
surface of beam parallels to flexural reinforcement position was to obtain strains on concrete. strain

374
measuring in flexural reinforcement and concrete was aim to curvature calculations. Measuring of
deflection used LVDT (Linear Variable Displacement Transducer) with LVDT position was to obtain
deflections on bottom of two point loads (LVDT-1&3) , middle of beam (LVDT-2), and deflection on
quarter of beam (LVDT-4 & 5) and to measuring of vertical and horizontal rotations used inclinometer
on top of supporting. Placing of strain gauge, LVDT and indinometer shown in figure 3.
Six samples consisted of two normal beams and four beams of precast concrete two samples
each made was done in two loading cases be monotonic and cyclic. Sign of sample test for each
cases with first letter BN, BTl, and BTII indicated normal beam, precast beam type-I, and type-II,
whereas sign of second letter were M and S indicated Monotonic and Cyclic loading, therefore sign of
sample test were BN-M, BTI-M, BTII-M and BN-S, BTI-S, BTII-S .
•___ ~-l

(a) Normal Beam

" ( ~s )
r ""'
/F ~ : r ~s.;.., W

I!1 11I I I [ I [m:o:~;fJ:m n il I I 1I k~

\'-sr,
\.."..

(b) Precast Beam Type-I

, ( "t..an )

UII IIIII tID:~!MITlllllllI

~ L _
- -.....
~
tLL
(c) Precast Beam Type-II

Figure 3. Placing of Strain Gauge, LVDTand Inclinometer on Beam

4. Test Result
The test result of concrete strength all beams was 34 MPa, yield strength of reinforcing and bar
connections are 330 MPa and 490 MPa, respectively. Tightening of bolt used torsimeter to obtain
uniform strength on concrete beam . The result of tightening bolt was 35 kg-meter to reach strain on
bar connections was 300 ~ or concrete stress was 5.56 MPa more less AISC standard [1] is 0.25.fc'
or 8.5 MPa.

4.1. Crack Pattern BN-M, BTI-M, BTII-M, BN-S, BTI-S and BTII-S
The crack pattern of three beams due to monotonic loading was bending crack pattern [5].
Crack on normal beam occurs symmetries 1.40-m length at middle beam. Initial crack occured at
loading 5.6 kN or crack-moment is 5.74 kN-m. Maximum crack load was 20.3 kN or maximum moment
was 20 .81 kN-m. Crack pattern of beam type-I occur damage on connection zones extended up to
bottom of bar connections caused spalling on cover concrete beam. Final crack occurred at loading
20 .53 kN or moment was 16.94 kN-m . Then, crack pattern of precast type-II was damage on
connections zone near left cover concrete, therefore right not occurred damage. Crack in concrete
occurred parallel to bar connection. Final crack occurred at loading 22.13 kN or moment was 18.25
kN-m . Crack pattern of beam on monotonic loading, shown in figure 4.
o
~.
D
~.

-",..,
G> ::af¥U¥£tGIli~JUQ.LI¥l¥! <!>

. . : "

. QJ¥!4lttGI1P]m'·$In!
.
I : J-M3#ffif±l4lA.
.. . . . .

d±hffii$£Ij-fE~_ Wi4£,,~."i!$$¥3
TOP Ill"" .

(a) BN-M (b) BTI-M

375
 ~~j: I i 1·1 i I -$ 1. 1· I i ITII I \444J
I
BOTTOM VII;r

f a :ILi ::i: lUG I' 1,Itt la tl -~

lUCK _ "

(c) BTII-M

Figure 4. Crack Pattern of Beam on Monotonic Loading

Result test of crack pattern caused cyclic loading for BN-S, BTI-S, and BTII-S shown in figure 5.
o []

- - - , = _1 . i· ag;~t=.~
Bf17T()Ji/ -J11EW"

~ 1 ' ­

(a) BN - S (b) BTl - S

t=-r-.

FRONT fIBr

.. ·r....:.·-2H -§c .IIDl IIIO' ::! :! ;··r::Fl

B VIEW .

lOP VIE"

(c) BTII - S

Figure 5. Crack Pattern of Beam on Cyclic Loading

Similar monotonic loading, crack pattern caused cyclic loading was bending crack. Crack occur
on 1/3 length of beam with distances 20 cm each crack. Initial crack occurs loading 6.99 kN on left
side of beam. Beginning on ductility 2 up to ductility4, magnification of crack wide occur on middle
span with loading crack is 22.86 kN . Damage of concrete beam occurs on ductility 6 with diagonal
crack around bottom of bar connection only left side of beam. Loading on ductility 8 cycle 1 at beam
not indicates descending therefore test stopped.
Horizontal crack on beam type-I occur on ductility 4 cycle 1, at loading 11.05 kN up to 20.45 kN
with parallel to bar connection approximately 15 em from 20 cm length. Until ductility 6, beam type-I
shoulder loading but it's not damage on bar connection.
Initial crack beam type-II occur on left side web of I-section with load about 9.30 kN and 11.22
kN on right side of beam on ductility1. Vertical crack around connection increasing on ductility 4.
ClOSing of crack occurs on ductility 6 level. Loading on this ductility at beam didn't indicate ascending
therefore test stopped.

376
 Generally, crack pattern on monotonic and cyclic loading is bending crack. Damage of precast
beams occurs on left side which because point loads and changes of sections form weakest zones
from beam. Horizontal crack occur on magnification section parallel to bar connections caused
compression force of bar at curvature condition.

4.2. Load - Deflection

Comparison of loads - deflections between BN-M, BTI-M and BTII-M showed in figure 9.

25,-----------------------------------------~.

20

Z 1'0
...
~
:a
o 10
-'

20 60 80 lOa 120

Dellectio ns (m m)
--.-8N·M _ _ 8TI·M -.-BTrI· M

Figure 9. Loads - Deflections Curve on Monotonic Loading

Loads and deflections maximum for normal beam, beam type-I and type-II were 20.62 kN,
18.22 kN, 22.62 kN and 23.97 mm, 26.26 mm, 45.28 mm, respectively.
Result of ductility index calculation, show in table 1.

Table 1 Ductility Index according to loads - deflections

fib Twec:i&m Ll~ld LlrTB( Ll !U',(,rTB( flo III
1 ENM 10.02 45.28 111.829 4.52 11.16

2 EmM 9.ffi :E.37 :E.11S 3.00 3.g;

3 8T1I-M g.g; :E26 orm 3.ffi 6.77

Where flo is yield ductility and fl! is maximum ductility. Based on comparison result ductility level
therefore ductility of type-I and type-II to achieve ductility 4 (fl=4) or full ductility of structure [3].
Figure 10. shown comparison loads - deflection between BN-S, BTI-S and BTII-S.
- - -- ·-------4~Q_.g" - - - -- . - -_ _- - - - - - - - - - - - ,

70 M SI C! I 0

Deflections (mOll

Figure 10. Load - Deflection Curve on Cyclic Loading

Normal beam has chubby hysteric curve, therefore beam type-I and type-II hysteretic show
pinching effect, especially beam type-II. Maximum loads capacity of normal beam, beam type-I and
type-II were 22.28 kN, 23.28 kN, and 24.50 kN, respectively, or beam type-I and type-II have loading
capacity more than normal beam up to ductility 4 cycle 1 be 100.25% and 105.51 %, respectively. On

377
more than ductility strength of type-I descending. Normal beam and beam type-II relatively stable, up
to ductility 8 cycle 1. Therefore, two types of precast beam achieved ductility 4.

4.3. Moment - Curvature

Behaviour of moment - curvature relationship for reinforcement concrete sections to show
stiffness of flexural member at the yield moment and nominal moment.
Relationship of moment - curvature on monotonic loading indicated flexural stiffness of 1­
sections or beam type-II more than rectangular-sections (normal beam and beam type-I) although
moment maximum achieved less than. Whereas flexural stiffness of beam type-I indicated more than
that one of normal beam up to moment 4 kN.mm, but furthermore decreased flexural stiffness was
shown on slope of moment - curvature curve.
Capacity of maximum moment precuts beams less than normal beam because after occur crack
on one of side beam, drastically decreased strength of beams.
Comparison of loads - deflection between BN-M, BTI-M and BTII-M showed in figure 11.

~ 7
Z
~
"-
c ~

'"cE •
::E :I

-5 10 15 ?iJ 25 3D

Curvature x 10~ (radlm m)

Figure 11. Moment - Curvature Curve on Monotonic Loading

Comparison of moment - curvature beams on cyclic loading, showed in figure 12.

1-m 1~~~ '~I~I00110'B01~

·25 '

Curvature (rad/mm)

Figure 12. Moment - Curvature Curve on Cyclic Loading

Normal beam has normal moment-curvature curve for each cycle; compression loading caused
negative curvature and the other way. Therefore, strain-compression on concrete and strain-tension
on reinforcement indicated of strain mechanism was balance.
Behaviour of moment-curvature precast type-I is differences which at moment equilibrium zerro,
value of curvature always inconstant. Curvature didn't return in the beginning value. Its caused bar
connection occur tension only, whereas on type II curvature always return to moment equilibrium
zerro. This means was rigidity of beam type-I more less normal beam and type-II.
Generally, according to test result of moment - curvature on monotonic also cyclic loading then
behaviours of precast beam type-I indicated discontinues of strain connecting between main
reinforcement with bar connections. On concrete compression had been already failure then strength
of beam resisted by bar connection only as dowel mechanism [10] but not in type-II.

4.4. Strength and Rigidity Degradation

Comparison of each cycle and cumulative rigidity curve shown in figure 11. The rigidity of
degradation of type I and type II were 88.85% and 89.45%, with normal beam was 82.16%.

378
 Value of rigidity degradation two types of precast concrete compare nonnal beam up to ductility
6 indicated rigidity of beams good at each cycle and cumulative cycle.

I I
_If"" -'-'IT~'
--~-~r-~----~~-
I
11
,---
l
i!
..
.,
(a) Each Cycle Curve (b) Cumulative Curve

Figure 13. Comparison of Rigidity Degradation Curve

Therefore, comparisons of strength degradation on beams in each cycle are:

[
I ..

Figure 14. Comparison of Strength Degradation Curve

Strength degradation up to ductility 4, nonnal beam experience strength degradation more less
for each cycle maximum is 9.72% therefore type-I and type-II maximum degradation were 12.02% and
16.42 %, respectively, more less from New Zealand Standard 3101 was 20%.

4.5. Energy Dissipation

For each cycle or cumulative energy dissipation up to ductility 4, precast beam type-I and type-II
more than nonnal beam. But larger ductility 4, energy dissipations curve of two types of precast beam
dropped.

1Ct00,

I ,aGO'
r __..8" .,
!
~
L

~
!
lQ oa

.
C,~I. ,

(a) Each Cycle Curve (b) Cumulative Curve

Figure 15. Energy Dissipation Curve

Generally, cumulative energy dissipation of type-I and type-II up to ductility 4 more than normal
beam, furthennore they were descending. On more than ductility 4, cumulative energy dissipation
normal beams more than type-I and type-II. The energy dissipation cumulative of type I and type II
compare nonnal beam were 85.92% and 83.86%, respectively.

379

5. CONCLUSION
Conclusion of investigation and analysis on this research were:
1. Properties and behaviour of beam type-I and type-II compare with normal beam, plastic
hinge moving up to change section from designing on middle of beam.
2. Phenomenon occur on beam type-I where stress-strain mechanism obtain up to ductility 4,
more than ductility behaviours of beam was dowel mechanism, but not in type-II. It caused
tension on bar connection be dominant compare compression on concrete beam .
3. When compare between beam type-II and type-I then beam type-II has ductility more than
beam type-I, but two type of precast concrete beam to achieve ductility 4 or full ductility.

6. ACHNOWLEDGEMENT
Thank you for the Laboratory of Structure and Material of ITB which this research program was
done and supported through a funding from Riset Unggulan Kemitraan (RUK) Program, Fiscal
Year 1999 - 2001 on contract number: 03/SPKlPRUKlKMNRTII1I2001 funded by The Ministry
of State Research and Technology, Republic of Indonesia.

7. REFERENCES
[1] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Standard (1995) edition, 1995
[2] ACI 318-95/ACI 318R-95 (1995); Building Code Requirement for Reinforced Concrete
and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan .
[3] Departemen Peke~aan Umum (1991); "Tata Cara perhitungan Struktur Beton untuk
Gedung", SNI T-15-1991-03 .
[4] Elliot, Kim.S. (1996); .. Multi-Storey Precast Concrete Structures", Blackwell Science Ltd .
[5] Mac Gregor, J.(1997); "Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design", Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
[6] NEHRP Recommended Provision for the Development of SeismiC Regulaation for New
Building (1994); 1994 Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC
[7] New Zealand Standard 3101(1992); "Commentary on The Design of Concrete
Structures", Standard Association of New Zealand.
[8] Paulay, T . and Priestly, M.J.N. (1992); "Seismic Design of Reinforce Concrete and
Masonry Building", John Willey & Sons.
[9] Paulay, T . and Park, R,(1984) ; "Joint in Reinforce Concrete Frame Designed for
Earthquake Resistance", Research Report, Departement of Civil Engineering, University
of Canterbury Christchurch New Zealand .
[10] Soroshian, P (1988); " Inelastic Cyclic Behaviour of Dowel Bar", ACI Structural Journal,
January - February 1988.
[11] Uniform Building Code (UBC)(1993), ICBO, Whitier, CA, 1993.

380