Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Numerical and experimental analysis of an innovative lightweight

precast concrete wall
Bruno Dal Lago a,⇑, Milot Muhaxheri b, Liberato Ferrara a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, p.za Leonardo da Vinci 32, Milan, Italy
b
Faculty of Construction and Architecture, University of Pristina, Bregu i Diellit, Pristina, Kosovo

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A series of non-linear structural analyses is presented in this paper, aimed at investigating the structural
Received 3 August 2016 behaviour of an innovative light-weight precast concrete wall system made with discretely connected
Revised 28 January 2017 moduli. A model with 2D damage-sensitive elements has been used to investigate the axial and flexural
Accepted 30 January 2017
behaviour of a case study wall element. The numerical analyses allow to estimate the crack pattern and to
define monotonic capacity curves. The effect of different reinforcement schemes on the structural beha-
viour of the wall has been also investigated and an innovative solution has been also proposed on the
Keywords:
basis of the results, to increase the ductility of a heavily shear-reinforced wall when subjected to seismic
Precast concrete
Bearing panels
action. The numerical results obtained with the 2D damage model have been compared with those of a
Wall connections simplified non-linear beam model. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the simplified model in catching the
Non-linear modelling dynamic non-linear behaviour of the element has been validated with respect to the results from pseudo-
Seismic performance dynamic tests performed at the ELSA/JRC laboratory of Ispra (Italy) in the framework of the Safecast pro-
Damage-sensitive elements ject on a full scale prototype of a multi-storey precast building braced by the walls under investigation.
Pseudo-dynamic testing Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Full-scale experimentation

1. Introduction Full-scale seismic experimental investigations on precast walls

Medium-rise reinforced concrete (r/c) precast buildings typi-
cally consist of large panel structures having high mass and bur-
densome connections. This paper presents the results of a series
of numerical analyses carried out on an innovative precast con-
crete light-weight made with discretely connected panels featur-
ing vertical hollow cavities. The precast wall has been conceived
to work as a brace in complex structural arrangements, isolated
or combined in cores by joining adjacent walls through mechanical
connections [1]. The structural behaviour of the isolated wall only
is considered in the present study.
Dry-assembled precast concrete structural walls have been and
still are largely used as braces in many countries throughout the
world. However, the typical large panel systems, widely employed
in Asia and Eastern Europe countries [2,3], are based on assem-
blages made with brittle connections, such as welded joints, which
may jeopardise potential ductility and energy dissipation capacity
of the structural elements, which are both fundamental for a good
seismic performance.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: brunoalberto.dallago@polimi.it (B. Dal Lago).
are scarcely reported in the literature, mainly due to the need of
large testing facilities. Full-scale post-tensioned precast walls have
been tested by Schoettler et al. [4] and by Perez et al. [5]. A
reduced-scale similar experimental test is reported in Marriott
et al. [6]. Examples of full-scale testing of ordinary reinforced con-
crete walls are available in [7–12]. Within the PRESSS experimental
program, a scaled 5-storey precast building with structural walls
was tested cyclically [13,14].
A full-scale prototype of a three-storey multi-bay precast struc-
ture with two external bracing walls made with the element under
investigation has been assembled at the European Laboratory of
Structural Assessment of the Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission, located in Ispra, Italy, and subjected to seismic
pseudo-dynamic testing [15,16], in the framework of the Safecast
project (European programme FP7-SME-2007-2, Grant agreement
No. 218417, 2009) [17].
There are several techniques to numerically model the struc-
tural behaviour of reinforced concrete walls, including macro-
element lumped plasticity [18,19] and distributed plasticity [20]
for beam elements, and more sophisticated techniques using shell
elements. In this paper, the ‘‘crush crack” damage model for shell
elements has been used. It considers as a starting point the damage
model developed by Mazars, maintaining the damage as scalar
isotropic [21]. In order to improve the numerical stability of the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.073
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222
algorithm, a modified formulation has been proposed which
‘‘weights” the contribution of tensile and compressive stresses to
the evolution of the scalar damage through the total energies dis-
sipated in uniaxial tension and compression, respectively [22]. Pre-
vious dedicated investigation have shown that this model is able to
well capture the behaviour of concrete under complex loading his-
tories. In later studies it has been demonstrated that this approach
is promising to model also R/C members, even if their failure is
shear-dominated [23]. Since its development, this model has been
mainly used to study the local behaviour of specific components of
structural members [23].
In this paper, a series of numerical analyses has been performed
using damage-sensitive shell elements and referring to one of the
twin walls from the ELSA/JRC test prototype cited above [15–17],
with the aim to understand the behaviour of the bracing wall
under gravity and lateral loading. Further numerical analyses using
non-linear beam elements have been performed with the aim to
match the experimental dynamic non-linear behaviour of the
tested prototype building.
2. Precast wall under investigation
The single-storey modulus of the wall, named MasterÒ, is cast in
vertical position in a special formwork with inner vertical lighten-
ing hollow metallic profiles that are extracted after curing, leaving
several internal voids. The connection between juxtaposed walls or
between the bottom wall and its foundation has to be made
through the solid portions of the wall. To this purpose, two differ-
ent solutions have been developed:
(a) the production of a fully lightened wall followed by in-situ
concrete filling of selected hollow cavities after the insertion
of the reinforcing steel cages that splices the longitudinal
reinforcement at each storey; and
(b) the production of a partially lightened wall where the solid
parts are cast since the production and the connection is
made through pre-inserted mechanical devices, such as
rebar couplers [24]. The latter solution allows for a faster
construction. Fig. 1 shows the structural sections of one wall
modulus from the ELSA/JRC full-scale prototype and Fig. 2
shows details of the (a) wet and (b) dry wall-to-wall and
wall-to-foundation connection options. Table 1 lists the
details of the longitudinal reinforcement symmetrically
placed at each of the wall edges. The solution (a) has been
adopted in the wall under investigation with the in-situ con-
crete filling of the outer hollow cavities only. It can be rea-
sonably assumed that a similar behaviour can be expected
when adopting the solution (b). The external U16 rebars
are anyway connected through couplers to ease the installa-
tion of the wall moduli and to mechanically regulate their
verticality.
The resulting structural element is an optimised bracing wall
that contains much less concrete with respect to fully solid walls
having the same gross dimensions. The wall optimisation, besides
addressing cost, light-weight and process effectiveness issues, is in
fact performed with reference to its combined axial-flexural beha-
viour, emulating that of an equivalent cast-in-situ wall, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3. As a matter of fact, a relatively large compression
area is available on the compression side, while the tension ductile
reinforcement is placed on the tension side, aiming at the maxi-
mum inner lever arm. The axial strength is reduced with respect
to that of an equivalent cast-in-situ due to the smaller cross-
section area of the joint. The shear resistance also decreases due
205
to the fact that the central thickness of the wall, its shear resistance
depends on, is reduced to the sum of the thickness of the two
external concrete layers. In general, the ductile bending behaviour
may develop only if pure shear or sliding shear brittle failures are
avoided in accordance with capacity design criteria. Furthermore,
the 10–20 mm thick slots left at each wall juxtaposition may influ-
ence the axial-bending and shear strength of the wall. The numer-
ical analysis campaign has been carried out to investigate the
influence of these parameters on the structural behaviour of the
wall.
3. Structural behaviour under gravity and lateral load
3.1. Numerical model
The modified ‘‘crush-crack” non-local scalar damage model cou-
ples elastic stiffness degradation with progressive growth of both
tensile and compressive irreversible strains, thus aiming at a
description of the softening behaviour of concrete due to either
cracking or crushing phenomena. The scalar damage evolution is
split into three different contributions associated to the three basic
failure modes observed on concrete, namely uniaxial tension, uni-
axial compression and biaxial compression.
For a detailed analytical formulation of the model the reader is
referred to Ferrara and di Prisco [22]. It is worth remarking that the
softening and localisation problems, that could be regarded as a
material instability which are caused by micro-cracks, affect the
macrostructure behaviour. It is hence important to enforce some
mesh-independence criteria. Thus, in the model an internal charac-
teristic internal length lchar is introduced, which correlates the
descending branch of softening tensile constitutive relationship
with the element mesh size.
The modified ‘‘crush-crack” damage model is implemented in
the CAST3M [25] computer solver and requires as input to assign
the constitutive relationships.
The stress strain relationship for concrete in compression has
been adopted from the prescriptions of the fib Model Code 2010
[26], as shown in Fig. 4(a). As typical of the model, the mean
strength values for concrete class C45/55 have been considered.
The tensile behaviour of concrete (Fig. 5) is modelled through a
stress-strain curve for the plain matrix recommended in fib Model
Code 2010 [26] for plane modelling of concrete. The tensile
strength and fracture energy are evaluated from measured com-
pressive strength experimentally. The constitutive relationship
consist of four branches; firstly it has been specified the linear elas-
tic branch up to 90% of tensile strength. Afterwards, in order to
consider the micro-crack formation, a further ascending branch
up to tensile strength and a strain equal to 0.015% is considered
(Fig. 5a). At this level crack localisation occurs. After crack localisa-
tion there is a linear softening descending until the residual
strength equal to the 20% of the tensile strength. The slope is esti-
mated based on fracture energy release by definition of first crack
opening displacement w1. The softening continues with reduced
slope linearly until there is no residual tensile strength, corre-
sponding to the ultimate crack opening displacement (Fig. 5b).
The non-linear stress–strain diagram for mild steel has been
considered bi-linear elastic-hardening (Fig. 4b) with unlimited
ductility. The characteristic properties of steel class B450C have
been used.
Five types of wall have been considered in the numerical anal-
yses, all laying on discrete perfect edge foundations, namely:
– Wall 1 - Plain wall (cast-in-situ equivalent, Fig. 6a). The 3-storey
plain wall is reinforced only with the longitudinal reinforce-
ment (Table 1 for details).
206 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

Fig. 1. Technical details of the wall item of investigation adapted from the shop drawings: (a) structural sections of one modulus (measures in mm), and (b) reinforcement
detail (courtesy of DLC consulting).
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222 207

Fig. 2. Wall-to-wall and wall-to-foundation connection typologies: (a) wet with cage insertion and concrete pouring of selected hollow cavities and (b) dry with mechanical
connections and (courtesy of DLC consulting).

Table 1
Wall longitudinal reinforcement.

Longitudinal rebars inserted at each edge of the wall

Position [–] 1 2 3 4 5
Diameter [mm] 2 U16 2 U20 2 U20 2 U20 2 U20
Distance from the edge [mm] 125 300 450 600 750

Fig. 3. Combined axial-flexural behaviour of (a) the precast wall and (b) the equivalent cast-in-situ wall.

– Wall 2 - Precast wall without shear reinforcement (Fig. 6b). The
3-storey precast wall is reinforced only with the longitudinal
reinforcement.
– Wall 3 - Precast wall with shear reinforcing meshes (Fig. 6c).
The 3-storey precast wall is reinforced with the longitudinal
reinforcement and with two U8@150 B450A steel welded wire
meshes (one per layer) fully anchored within the whole wall,
including the plain portion of the edge ‘‘columns”.
– Wall 4 - Precast wall with shear reinforcing meshes + bars
(Fig. 6d). In addition to the reinforcement of Wall 3, 4 additional
horizontal U16 rebars are placed at the top (2 rebars at 50 mm
from the top) and at the bottom (2 rebars at 80 mm from the
bottom).
– Wall 5 - Precast wall with shear reinforcement and de-bonding
sleeves (Fig. 6e). In addition to the reinforcement of Wall 4,
debonding sleeves have been inserted at the base of each por-
tion of the wall for each longitudinal rebar with a debonding
length equal to 600 mm only. This option has been investigated
in order to understand whether the localisation of damage in
the longitudinal reinforcement through the debonding
208 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

Fig. 4. Constitutive law for (a) concrete in compression and (b) steel in tension/compression.

Fig. 5. Constitutive law for concrete in tension: (a) up to crack localisation and (b) after crack localisation.

improves the lateral load behaviour of the wall in terms of
ductility.
3.2. Gravity load
The gravity load behaviour has been investigated with reference
to both the precast wall and the equivalent plain wall. The effects
of shear reinforcement in the wall on its gravity load resisting
properties have been also investigated. Since the introduction of
sleeves in the precast wall is not expected to modify its behaviour
under compression axial forces, this configuration (wall 5) has not
been studied.
An increasing axial compressive deformation has been applied
symmetrically at the roof level in correspondence of the wall
edges. This allows to obtain a meaningful comparison with the pre-
cast wall, where, due to the presence of the horizontal construction
slots at each storey, the axial load is transmitted only in correspon-
dence of the edge solid ‘‘column-like” portions, whose width is
equal to 825 mm. Fig. 7 shows the comparison among the curves
for the wall models 1–4, which have been set fully fixed at their
base only in correspondence of the edge portions. It can be
observed that the solid wall (wall 1) exhibits a larger initial stiff-
ness, equal to about 3700 kN/mm, in comparison with the precast
walls (walls 2–4), having an initial stiffness equal to about
2300 kN/mm. The analysis shows that all the walls attained and
overcame the design axial load bearing capacity, which has been
estimated as the sum of the edge concrete and the steel contribu-
tions: Ac fc + As fy  21,200 kN. The higher strength attained may
be due to the confinement in the solid parts of the wall. The curve
of the plain wall (wall 1) shows a discontinuity point at about
4 mm of compression deformation, followed by a further softer
branch. The curve corresponding to the precast unreinforced wall
(wall 2) shows a big discontinuity at about 12 mm, characterised
by a loss of strength, but followed by a load capacity recovery.
The addition of the steel nets to the precast wall (wall 3) helps in
successfully avoiding this discontinuity, resulting in a much
smoother response curve. Finally, the addition of horizontal rebars
running at the top and at the bottom of the wall modulus, acting as
a chain reinforcement by restraining the in-plane wall deformation
(wall 4) results into a reduced softening at high loads.
The damage pattern evolution profiles are reported in Figs. 8–11
for each wall configuration with reference to different levels of
axial compressive deformation D. Fig. 12 reports the deformation
profile evolution of the walls.
For the solid wall (wall 1), a vertical crack appears in the middle
of the wall section between 3.5 and 4 mm, which causes the dis-
continuity highlighted in the structural simulation curve in Fig. 7.
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222 209

(a) - Wall 1 (b) - Wall 2 (c) - Wall 3

(d) - Wall 4 (e) - Wall 5

Fig. 6. Wall configurations.

Due to the absence of layer reinforcement, this crack propagates
and widens after each increment of compressive deformation, as
also indicated by the corresponding deformation profile. The pre-
cast walls (walls 2–4), provided with horizontal slots at each
inter-storey level, feature a better distributed damage along the
height of the wall, with vertical cracks that start from the slots
and then propagate along the layer. The damage and deformation
profile evolution of the precast walls clearly show this
phenomenon.
The curve associated to the precast wall without shear rein-
forcement (wall 2) is characterised by a force-deformation discon-
tinuity after 10 mm of axial deformation. This discontinuity occurs
when the pseudo-vertical cracks originated in correspondence of
different slots join together, forming a single crack along the
inter-storey height.
This is avoided by the presence of layer reinforcement (wall 3),
which controls the crack opening and allows a damage reduction
around the slots. When horizontal bars are placed in addition to
210 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

30000 250–300 kN. The post-cracking branch is quite similar for all wall
wall 1 configurations up to longitudinal rebar yielding, which occurred
25000
wall 2 at about 500 kN. The curve of the precast wall without shear rein-
20000 wall 3 forcement (Wall 2) is softer than the others, due to the additional
Force [kN]

wall 4 deformation provided by the shear crack opening. The post-

15000
10000
5000
0 Tensile failure of the external rebars was attained at 80 mm of dis-
0 5 10
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 7. Axial load vs displacement curves.
the welded wire meshes, the crack growth control capacity is
enhanced (wall 4) and the damage is more spread with less cracks
having smaller width.
Fig. 13 shows the stress distribution in the chain reinforcement
of the base modulus of Wall 4 for increasing levels of the axial load.
It can be observed that the lower chain rebar is only slightly
stressed through the layer length, due to the fact that the wall is
anchored to the foundation and thus its extension is restrained.
The upper rebar is more stressed, with tensile peaks anyway much
lower than the yielding strength in correspondence of the develop-
ment of cracks along the layer length.
3.3. Lateral load
With respect to the lateral load behaviour, the influence of the
slots has been investigated through the comparison of the plain
and precast shear unreinforced walls, together with the influence
of the complete shear reinforcement (welded wire meshes and
tie horizontal bars) with and without debonding sleeves of the bot-
tom portion of the longitudinal rebars. As a matter of fact, the con-
figuration denoted as wall 3 has not been modelled. Fig. 14 shows
the lateral pushover curves of the 4 wall configurations under
investigation. All wall configurations are characterised by a similar
elastic stiffness of about 50 kN/mm, attained before flexural crack-
ing of concrete on the tension side, which occurred at a load of
yielding branch is very similar for the plain wall (Wall 1) and the
shear unreinforced precast wall (Wall 2), which did not attain fail-
ure even up to 280 mm of displacement, corresponding to about 3%
of the drift computed with reference to the total height of the wall.
15 20 placement for the precast wall with shear reinforcement (Wall 4)
and at 235 mm for the precast wall with shear reinforcement
and sleeves (Wall 5). From the comparison of the plain wall and
the precast one without shear reinforcement, it can be concluded
that the presence of the slots within the precast wall only negligi-
bly affects the lateral load behaviour, which substantially relies in
both cases on the lever arm effect between the two ‘‘column-like”
wall edges. However, a relevant reduction in ductility is observed
when the wall is provided with shear reinforcement. This is due
to the fact that the shear reinforcement is installed within the
external layers and is not passing at the wall-to-wall or wall-to-
foundation joints. The splicing with the longitudinal reinforcement
occurs very soon due to the typically small diameter of the net
rebars, increasing the tensile resistance of the wall and concentrat-
ing the ductility demand in a small length of the longitudinal rein-
forcement only, thus reducing the effective length of plastic hinge
and the consequent displacement ductility. A similar phenomenon
was investigated in [24] with reference to precast column-to-
foundation mechanical connections.
The results also show that the use of debonding sleeves in the
longitudinal rebars at the base of the wall can avoid this problem,
allowing a pre-defined length of yielding of the rebars, which is not
influenced by any splicing with the surrounding additional rein-
forcement. The de-bonded length may be designed in order to
get the desired ductility of the wall.
The damage pattern evolution profiles are reported in Figs. 15–
18 for each wall configuration with reference to different levels of
lateral displacement d. Fig. 19 shows the deformation profiles of
the different wall configurations, which are quite similar. For the
plain wall, distributed horizontal cracking at the tension side above
the foundation develops in accordance with the displacement

(a) - = 2 mm (b) - = 4 mm (c) - = 8 mm (d) - = 20 mm

Fig. 8. Damage pattern evolution: plain wall (cast-in-situ equivalent) – Wall 1.
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222 211

(a) - = 2 mm (b) - = 4 mm (c) - = 8 mm (d) - = 20 mm

Fig. 9. Damage pattern evolution: precast wall without shear reinforcement – Wall 2.

(a) - = 2 mm (b) - = 4 mm (c) - = 8 mm (d) - = 20 mm

Fig. 10. Damage pattern evolution: precast wall with shear reinforcing nets – Wall 3.

increase. Shear cracking also develops with inclined cracks starting
from the flexural horizontal cracks and spreading within the layers.
For the precast walls, the damage patterns indicate that concen-
trated damage and premature flexural cracking occurs near the
slots, due to the concentration of stress. The precast wall without
shear reinforcement is also subjected to vertical cracking of the
layer-column interface at the compression side, which causes the
higher deformability commented above. This can be avoided due
to the presence of layer reinforcement, which controls the crack
opening and allows a damage reduction around the slots. However,
for the precast wall with shear reinforcement, the short plasticisa-
tion length of the rebars in correspondence of the slots concen-
trates the damage at the base of the wall, as clearly shown by
the damage pattern. The introduction of the debonding sleeves
allows to distribute the deformation demand along the length of
the sleeves. It is also worth noting that, even if better performances
of the walls when subjected to monotonic action are obtained
without any shear reinforcement, a cyclic action typical of a seis-
mic event could bring those wall to fail in shear.
The stress distribution in one of the two most external longitu-
dinal rebars placed on the tension side of the wall is shown in
Fig. 20 with reference to different levels of wall displacement. A
progressive distribution of plasticity along the height of the rebar
for increasing displacement amplitudes is shown for both the cases
of walls without shear reinforcement (Walls 1, 2). All the diagrams
of precast wall configurations (Walls 2, 4, 5) show stress peaks in
correspondence of the slots, around 0–3.2–6.4 m. Sharp peaks are
observed for the precast wall with shear reinforcement (Wall 4),
with plasticisation that occurs along the height of just about
30 mm, slightly larger than the 10 mm of the slot height. For this
configuration, a maximum stress in the base rebar higher than
the ultimate (540 MPa) is obtained in correspondence of a
120 mm top displacement, and therefore this step is fictitious,
since failure was already attained. The peaks are attenuated with
212 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

(a) - = 2 mm (b) - = 4 mm (c) - = 8 mm (d) - = 20 mm

Fig. 11. Damage pattern evolution: precast wall with shear reinforcing nets + bars – Wall 4.

Fig. 12. Deformation profile evolution of the wall (amplified 40 times): (a) Wall 1, (b) Wall 2, (c) Wall 3, (d) Wall 4.

50 150

0 100
50
Bar stress [MPa]
Bar stress [MPa]

-50
0
-100 -50
-150 d = 2 mm -100 d = 2 mm
d = 8 mm -150 d = 8 mm
-200 d = 12 mm d = 12 mm
d = 16 mm -200 d = 16 mm
-250 d = 20 mm -250 d = 20 mm
-300 -300
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Wall width [m] Wall width [m]
(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Stress distribution evolution of one (a) top and (b) bottom tie rebar of the bottom modulus of Wall 4 for increasing compressive deformation.
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222 213

700 pseudo-dynamic testing at the European Laboratory of Structural

Assessment (ELSA) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Euro-
600
pean Commission in Ispra, Italy. Information about the test method
500 can be found in Molina et al. [27]. The mock-up is shown in Fig. 22,
Force [kN]

400 together with a detail of the loading apparatus. The clear inter-
storey height is equal to 3.10 m for the ground floor and to
300
wall 1 2.80 m for the higher. The structural plan is regular with 2 spans
200 wall 2 and 2 bays with 7 m free span between the columns. So far, it is
100 wall 4 the largest precast structure ever built in the world for scientific
wall 5 purposes. Concrete class C45/55 was used for all precast elements,
0
steel grades B450C and B450A were used for the rebars and the
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Displacement [mm] welded wire meshes, respectively. Three different typologies of
floor/roof slabs were used in the mock-up: the first floor was made
Fig. 14. Base shear vs top displacement pushover curves. with single hollow core members placed close to each other, the
second storey floor was made with TT members placed close to
each other and the roof was made with spaced single hollow core
the use of sleeves (Wall 5), and the plasticisation length is at least
wide members. All floor members were 400 mm deep and about
equal to the length of the base sleeves. Fig. 21 shows the stress dis-
2300 mm wide, and large diameter dowel floor-to-beam connec-
tribution in the chain reinforcement for increasing levels of lateral
tions were employed. At the roof, the diaphragm action was pro-
displacement for the case of the shear reinforced precast wall. Sim-
vided by the distanced dowels only, while at the lower stories
ilar stress distributions have been also found when considering the
floor-to-floor mutual welded connections collaborated in increas-
presence of the debonding sleeves. While in the central portion of
ing the diaphragm stiffness. Single hollow core shallow beams
the wall their stress is negligible, the sharp peaks of the edge por-
2250 mm wide of width and 400 mm deep were employed. They
tion indicate their effectiveness in providing a connection between
were connected with the columns with large diameter dowels.
the layers and the columns. These rebars did not yield at any dis-
The 10.6 tall columns were made with monolithic elements with
placement stage.
a 500  500 mm cross-section reinforced with 8U20 bars
(qs  1.0%) placed at the corners and at mid-side with 30 mm of
4. Structural behaviour under seismic excitation clear cover. The shear reinforcement consisted with two square
U8@75 mm stirrups, one external to all bars and one surrounding
In this part, the curves and crack pattern of the wall under lat- the mid-side bars. Columns provided with 1000  2250 mm cor-
eral loading as previously identified are compared against experi- bels for the connection with the beams. The two bracing walls
mental results from full-scale pseudo-dynamic tests. were made with three moduli of the wall under investigation. Their
Furthermore, a simplified non-linear beam model is validated geometry and longitudinal reinforcement have been already pre-
against the results obtained on the non-linear 2D finite element sented in Fig. 1. The shear reinforcement was made with a single
model (plate elements), and is used in dynamic non-linear analysis U5/150 mm welded wire mesh placed in each of the two layers.
to predict the experimental results. A more detailed description of the mock-up and of the test results
can be found in [15,28,29]. The structure was designed by the pro-
4.1. Mock-up ject partner DLC-Milan in accordance with the rules provided by
EC8 [30] for an ULS PGA equal to 0.30 g and a behaviour factor
In the framework of the Safecast project, a full-scale precast equal to 3.0. The mock-up was produced, assembled and disman-
3-storey building prototype was assembled and subjected to tled by Pizzarotti (Parma, Italy).

(a) -d = 8 mm (b) -d=36 mm (c) -d= 66 mm (d) -d=120 mm

Fig. 15. Damage pattern evolution: plain wall (cast-in-situ equivalent) – Wall 1.
214 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

(a) - d = 8 mm (b) - d = 32 mm (c) - d = 64 mm (d) - d = 120 mm

Fig. 16. Damage pattern evolution: precast wall without shear reinforcement – Wall 2.

(a) - d = 8 mm (b) - d = 32 mm (c) - d = 64 mm

Fig. 17. Damage pattern evolution: precast wall with shear reinforcement – Wall 4.

4.2. Numerical model
Non-linear dynamic analyses simulating the seismic behaviour
of the full-scale prototype structure under artificially modified
recorded accelerogram have been carried out with the aim to com-
pare the numerical and experimental results. A non-linear 3D
numerical finite element model has been developed using
Timoshenko beam elements with distributed plasticity for both
the wall and the columns in STRAUS7 [31] environment. The code
requires as input the non-linear moment vs curvature diagram of
the cross section, and then, when associated to the beam element,
automatically distributes it to several Gauss-Lobatto integration
points along the element length.
Since the beam and floor members may be considered as simply
supported, due to the spaced dowel connections which may be
simulated with hinges, those members do not belong to the main
lateral load resisting system of the structure. Anyway, they have
been modelled with elastic elements edge-fixed in the in-plane
direction in order to simulate the diaphragm effect. A perfectly
fixed edge has been modelled in correspondence of the foundation
of all vertical members.
Non-linear moment vs curvature diagrams of columns and
walls have been evaluated according to different axial loads. Even
if the input masses to solve the hybrid experimental-numerical
procedure consider the dead and live loads of an office building
in seismic combination (Table 2) as per EN 1991-1:2004 (Eurocode
1 [32]), the axial loads effectively acting on the mock-up column
bases during the test are related to the structural weights only
and are about 1.5 times smaller (Table 3). The mass has been dis-
tributed on the roof element by applying a fictitious higher con-
crete density. The wall bases are only compressed by the self-
weight of the wall, equal to 156 kN.
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222 215

(a) - d = 8 mm (b) - d = 32 mm (c) - d = 64 mm (d) - d = 120 mm

Fig. 18. Damage pattern evolution: precast wall with shear reinforcement and debonding sleeves – Wall 5.

Fig. 19. Deformation profile evolution of the wall under an imposed displacement equal to 64 mm (amplified 3 times): (a) Wall 1, (b) Wall 2, (c) Wall 4, (d) Wall 5.

The non-linear material properties have been inserted accord-
ing to what described in Section 3.1, without safety factors.
Concrete has been divided into unconfined for the portions outside
the external stirrup rectangle and confined for the inner. The ten-
sile resistance of concrete has been neglected. The Sargin model
[33] has been used for the unconfined concrete (Fig. 4a). For con-
fined concrete, a modified Sargin model has been adopted taking
into account the increase of strain due to confinement of the sec-
tion and considering a constant post-peak stress up to that value,
shifting the post-peak curve afterwards. The calculation of the ulti-
mate deformation including the confinement effect has been car-
ried out based on the formula proposed by CEB Model Code [34].
A tri-linear elastic-hardening-softening relationship has been
defined for the reinforcing steel, with a linear post-peak softening
after the curve of Fig. 4(b) down to 0.9fu attained at a failure strain
of 12%. The maximum stress corresponds to the traditional ulti-
mate strain considered in the structural calculations, which is
equal to 7.5%.
The non-linear moment vs curvature diagrams have been calcu-
lated based on the rotational and translational equilibria of the
cross section. The base section of the wall has been considered,
where the edge concrete portions only have been considered in
the calculation, neglecting the whole central lightened portion of
the wall. The resulting diagram is reported in Fig. 23(a). A large
curvature ductility of the section can be observed, as expected
because of the low axial load only due to the self-weight of the
wall. The standard ultimate tensile strain of the most external
rebars, equal to 7.5%, is attained at a curvature of 21.5
10 6 mm 1,
after which the rebars enter the necking branch, where the diffu-
sion of plasticisation along the base of the wall cannot further
occur. The ultimate curvature, equal to about 30
10 6 mm 1, cor-
responds to the tensile failure of the reinforcing longitudinal rebars
placed at the tension edge. The diagrams of the column base cross-
sections have been calculated for the different axial loads acting
during the tests and are reported in Fig. 23(b). In all the curves,
the spalling of the concrete cover defines a post-yielding reduction
216 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

d = 8 mm
9 9
d = 8 mm d = 32 mm
d = 37 mm d = 64 mm
8 d = 66 mm 8 d = 120 mm
d = 120 mm d = 200 mm
7 d = 200 mm 7 fy
fy
6 6
Wall height [m]

Wall height [m]

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Bar stress [MPa] Bar stress [MPa]

(a) (b)

9 9
d = 8 mm d = 8 mm
d = 32 mm
8 8 d = 32 mm
d = 64 mm
d = 120 mm d = 64 mm
7 fy 7 d = 120 mm
d = 200 mm
fy
6 6
Wall height [m]
Wall height [m]

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 150 300 450 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Bar stress [MPa] Bar stress [MPa]

(c) (d)
Fig. 20. Stress distribution evolution of one longitudinal rebar (in the most external position) for increasing top displacement: (a) Wall 1, (b) Wall 2, (c) Wall 4, (d) Wall 5.

of strength. All column sections attain a curvature of about attained for all columns, with the exception of the column with
170
10 6 mm 1 before failure. Tensile failure of the rebars is higher axial load, whose failure occurs because of concrete

350 500
300 d = 8 mm d = 8 mm
250 d = 32 mm 400 d = 32 mm
Bar stress [MPa]
Bar stress [MPa]

200 d = 64 mm d = 64 mm
300
150 d = 120 mm d = 120 mm
100 200
50
0 100
-50 0
-100
-150 -100
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Wall width [m] Wall width [m]
(a) (b)

Fig. 21. Stress distribution evolution of one (a) top and (b) bottom rebar of the bottom modulus of Wall 4 for increasing top displacement.
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222
Fig. 22. Full-scale precast prototype building assembled in the ELSA laboratory of the Joint Research Centre (Ispra, Italy): (a) loading apparatus, (b) specimen.
Table 2
Global storey masses.
Floor Floor distributed mass [kg/m2] Total floor mass [tons]
st
1 storey 872.18 212.6
2nd storey 805.09 196.2
Roof 648.03 158.0
crushing, indicated by the sudden loss of strength at the end of the
curve. Such diagrams have been implemented in the FEM code and
provided with a Takeda [35] hysteretic model. A viscous Rayleigh
damping of 2% of the critical value has been applied to the first
two natural vibration periods of the structure.
A non-linear static analysis has been carried out on a single iso-
lated wall so to directly compare the results of the simplified non-
linear beam modelling with those of the shell FEM damage model
previously described. Fig. 24 shows the results. Since the tensile
strength of concrete has been neglected in the simplified model,
cracking occurs earlier. The cracked stiffness is only slightly under-
estimated. Yielding is attained at about 500 kN, in good agreement
with the results of the other analysis presented in the previous sec-
tion. The plastic branch is in good agreement with the results from
the analysis on the plain wall and the precast wall. The presence of
the shear reinforcement is not taken into account in the simplified
model. However, the steel welded wire mesh placed in the mem-
ber contains about 2.5 times less steel if compared with the one
considered in the damage modelling of the precast wall with mesh
and bars and, therefore, the effect of concentration of plasticisation
at the wall base and subsequent reduction of ductility is likely to
be smaller. Nevertheless, for the sake of comparison with the
experimental results from the pseudo-dynamic tests, the displace-
ment range to be considered is limited to less than 60 mm.
4.3. Results
The accelerogram used as seismic input has been registered
during the Tolmezzo earthquake that stroke the Friuli region in
Italy in 1976 and artificially enriched in frequency content in order
Table 3
Axial loads on different columns of the building.
Column P1 corner
Axial load [kN] 312
217
to make it compatible with the seismic spectrum suggested by EN
1998-1:2004 (Eurocode 8) [30] for subsoil class B. Fig. 25 shows
the acceleration history of the modified Tolmezzo accelerogram.
The structure has been designed according to a PGA equal to
0.25 g, which becomes 0.30 g for subsoil class B due to the ampli-
fication factor.
The modified Tolmezzo accelerogram has been applied for the
structure serviceability limit state scaled at a PGA equal to 0.15 g
and for the structure ultimate limit state for a PGA equal to
0.30 g. The numerical displacement histories of all floors are
reported in Fig. 26 for both PGAs and compared with the experi-
mental results. Fig. 27 shows the base shear vs roof displacement
diagrams and Fig. 28 shows the base overturning moment vs roof
displacement diagrams.
Considering the analysis with PGA equal to 0.15 g, the agree-
ment between numerical and experimental curves is remarkable
for the initial part of the earthquake, with a very good matching
of the displacement history up to about 8 s, after which a slight
increase of period and a considerable scatter of the curves occur.
This may be due to a weakening of the frame-to-wall connections
occurred after the most severe peaks of the seismic action. It has to
be pointed out that the frame-to-wall connections were acting in
compression only with direct contact between a recess left in the
beam and the wall, obtained by pouring a few centimetre thickness
of mortar. This simple connection has been adopted due to the
need to test 4 different structural arrangements with the same pro-
totype (in addition to wall braced, hinged frame, clamped at roof
frame and fully clamped frame). An inspection on the prototype
showed that many connections suffered from slight damage,
mainly spalling of the external concrete (Fig. 29a). The hysteresis
of the structure suggests that the structure remained in elastic
regime and that the numerical model satisfactorily predicts the
elastic stiffness of the structure.
The vibratory curves corresponding to the earthquake applica-
tion scaled at a PGA equal to 0.30 g show a larger scatter between
experimental and numerical results. The trend is basically match-
ing, but relevant differences are observable both for entity of max-
imum displacements and displacement history. The loop tendency
P2 central P3 1-beam P4 2-beam
784 460 507
218 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

6000 450
400
5000
Bending moment [kNm]
350

Bending Moment [kN]

4000 300
250
3000
200
N = 312 kN (corner)
2000 150 N = 460 kN (1-beam)
100 N = 507 kN (2-beams)
1000 N = 784 kN (central)
50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Curvature 10-6 [1/mm] Curvature·10-6 [1/mm]
(a) ( b)

Fig. 23. Moment-curvature diagrams for (a) the wall base section and (b) the base sections of the columns.

700 The moment vs curvature diagrams from the analyses with dif-
ferent PGAs are reported in Fig. 30. An elastic behaviour of the wall,
600
almost attaining the yielding, was obtained from the analysis with
500 PGA equal to 0.15 g. The ultimate limit state simulation shows, on
the opposite, that the wall undergoes large deformation in the
Force [kN]

400
plastic field, after a series of elastic oscillations. The large area
300 precast wall - beam modelling included within the cycles suggest that the hysteretic damping of
wall 1 the wall provided the predominant source of seismic attenuation
200 wall 2
wall 4
of the structure through energy dissipation that occurred within
100 the wall longitudinal rebars.
wall 5
0 As also reported in [16,36], the diaphragm behaviour of the dry-
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 assembled floor has been very efficient at all storeys. The experi-
Displacement [mm] mental crack pattern observed on the base modulus of one wall
is shown in Fig. 31(a), properly marked to make it visible. The crack
Fig. 24. Pushover curve of the wall with the simplified beam model – comparison
with the results from the sophisticated model. pattern clearly shows the formation of distributed horizontal flex-
ural cracks in correspondence of the wall ‘‘column-like” edges
along the wall height. Those cracks develop with a strong inclina-
1.0 tion when entering the central portion of the wall, due to the shear
Dimensionless acceleraon ag/PGA [-]

0.8 action, resulting in a classical rhomboidal pattern. The central area

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0 1
Fig. 25. Modified Tolmezzo accelerogram.
of the results for PGA equal to 0.30 g looks similar, with a sort of
shift in both displacements and forces.
This may be explained when considering the severe damage
and failure that occurred within the frame-wall connections
(Fig. 29b), leading to an evolution of a pinching effect that may
be observed in the experimental diagram. This is also reported in
[16,36]. When the gap is formed, around zero displacement the
structure temporarily acts according to the much more flexible
behaviour of the frame with hinged beam-to-column connections
until the gap is closed. The presence of confused peaks in the
diagram portion around zero displacement may provide a further
confirmation of this hypothesis, since it suggests a contribution
of higher vibration modes which are related to the very flexible
frame behaviour. The results of the numerical analysis and
the observation of the experimental hysteresis loops indicate that
the walls entered the plastic field, featuring a stable energy
dissipation.
of the wall is free from cracks, due to the diffusion of the stress in
the layers. Vertical cracks in correspondence of the change of sec-
tion have also been observed. Even if the precise measurement of
the crack width has not been performed, in general all cracks had
small opening. Fig. 31(b) shows a detail of the lightened portions
of the wall.
A confirmation of the presence of the central inclined cracks
comes from the Digital Image Correlation analysis performed on
the bottom modulus of the other wall. This modulus has been
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time [sec]
painted with a random pattern of blots, as shown in Fig. 32(a).
The results from the post-processing performed by the ELSA/JRC
team, shown graphically in Fig. 32(b) referred to the crack pattern
of the central portion of the wall only, reveal the presence of the
inclined cracks.
5. Conclusions
A numerical investigation consisting of non-linear analyses on
an innovative precast wall element has been presented, including
static analyses with reference to the axial and the flexural
behaviour and dynamic analyses with reference to the seismic
behaviour on a case study wall. The FEM analysis with damage-
sensitive 2D elements provided the capacity curves associated to
the different loads and the relative damage evolution pattern. This
study also allowed to investigate the effectiveness of different rein-
forcement arrangements on the global performance of the wall. On
the basis of the results, better ‘‘tailored” reinforcement arrange-
ments have been proposed to improve the ductility under lateral
load when the wall is strongly reinforced in shear. A further FEM
analysis with non-linear beam elements has been carried out with
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222 219

60 60
experimental experimental
40 numerical 40 numerical
Top displacement [mm]

Top displacement [mm]

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [sec] Time [sec]
(a) ( b)

60 60
experimental experimental

2nd floor displacement [mm]

40
2nd floor displacement [mm]

numerical 40 numerical

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [sec] Time [sec]
(c) ( d)

60 60
experimental experimental
1st floor displacement [mm]

40 numerical 40 numerical
1st floor displacement [mm]

20 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time [sec] Time [sec]
(e) (f)
Fig. 26. Floor displacement history obtained from the numerical simulation in comparison with the experimental for (a-c-e) PGA equal to 0.15 g and (b-d-f) PGA equal to
0.30 g: (a-b) Roof, (c-d) 2nd storey, (e-f) 1st storey.

2500 2500
2000 experimental 2000 experimental
numerical numerical
1500 1500
Base shear [kN]

Base shear [kN]

1000 1000
500 500
0 0
-500 -500
-1000 -1000
-1500 -1500
-2000 -2000
-2500 -2500
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Top displacement [mm] Top displacement [mm]

(a ) (b )
Fig. 27. Base shear vs top displacement diagram obtained from the numerical simulation in comparison with the experimental for PGA equal to (a) 0.15 g and (b) 0.30 g.

the aim of investigating the seismic behaviour of the wall when the results of the non-linear dynamic analyses on a 3-storey pre-
subject to seismic motion. The capacity curve has been successfully cast structure subjected to seismic action with increasing levels
compared with the one computed with the damage model. Finally, of PGA have been compared with the experimental results of
220 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222

16000 16000
experimental experimental
Base bending moment [kNm]

12000 12000

Base bending moment [kNm]

numerical
numerical
8000 8000
4000 4000
0 0

-4000 -4000

-8000 -8000

-12000 -12000

-16000 -16000
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Top displacement [mm]
Top displacement [mm]

(a) (b)
Fig. 28. Base overturning moment vs top displacement diagram obtained from the numerical simulation in comparison with the experimental for PGA equal to (a) 0.15 g and
(b) 0.30 g.

Fig. 29. Detail pictures of the frame-to-wall strut connection: (a) slight damage at the end of the test with PGA equal to 0.15 g and (b) at the end of the test with doubled PGA,
where a large inclined crack is clearly visible.

6000 6000
Wall base bending moment [kNm]
Wall base bending moment [kNm]

4000 4000

2000 2000

0 0

-2000 -2000

-4000 -4000

-6000 -6000
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Curvature 10-6 [1/mm]
Curvature 10-6 [1/mm]

(a ) (b )
Fig. 30. Moment vs curvature diagram of a single wall base cross-section obtained from the numerical analyses for PGA equal to (a) 0.15 g and (b) 0.30 g.

Fig. 31. Wall at the end of the tests: (a) crack pattern highlighted with marker and (b) detail of the vertical voids.
 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222
Fig. 32. DIC on the base modulus of the wall in the test with PGA equal to 0.30 g: (a) picture of the wall with spot pattern and (b) central wall portion inclined crack pattern
after processing (courtesy of P. Caperan).
pseudo-dynamic tests carried out at the ELSA/JRC laboratory on the
full-scale prototype of the structure. This comparison allows to
confirm that the wall under investigation is able to effectively
brace the building providing a stable hysteresis associated with
dissipation of energy. Moreover, the influence of bad detailing of
the temporary beam-to-wall connections adopted in the prototype
for test sequence was observed. The described work flow provides
an example on how tailored non-linear analyses, despite the high
computational skill and time required, may complement and
enhance the study of innovative precast concrete solutions through
full-scale experimentation and as a validation tool.
Acknowledgements
DLC Consulting of Milan is gratefully acknowledged for the
main contribution offered in the concept of the work and for the
detailed design of the test prototype, with special mention to
Alberto Dal Lago and Uberto Marchetti. The European Commission
is acknowledged for funding the Safecast project (European pro-
gramme FP7-SME-2007-2, Grant agreement No. 218417, 2009).
The team of the European Laboratory of Structural Assessment
of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission is
also acknowledged for the execution and processing of the
experimental full scale tests, especially dr Paolo Negro, dr Fran-
cisco Javier Molina, Pierre Pegon, Philippe Caperan and Dionysios
Bournas. Politecnico di Milano team is finally acknowledged for
its contribution, especially prof. Giandomenico Toniolo, prof. Fabio
Biondini, MEng Marco Lamperti and dr Andrea Titi.
References
[1] Dal Lago B, Dal Lago A, Franceschelli F. Innovation for smart industrial housing.
Concr Plant Int 2016;2:298–300.
[2] Simeonov S. Building Construction Under Seismic Conditions in The Balkan
Region – Design and Construction of Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete
Building Systems. Technical Report from the UNDP/UNIDO project RER/79/
015; 1985.
[3] Sun J, Qiu H, Xu J. Experimental verification of vertical joints in an innovative
prefabricated structural wall system. Adv Struct Eng 2015;18(7):1071–86.
[4] Schoettler MJ, Belleri A, Zhang D, Restrepo JI, Fleischman RB. Preliminary
results of the shake-table testing for the development of a diaphragm seismic
design methodology. PCI J, Winter 2009, 100–124.
[5] Perez F, Sause R, Pessiki S. Analytical and experimental lateral load behavior of
unbonded posttensioned precast concrete walls. ASCE J Struct Eng, 2007, 1531–
1540.
221
[6] Marriott D, Pampanin S, Bull D, Palermo A. Dynamic testing of precast, post-
tensioned rocking wall systems with alternative dissipating solutions. NZSEE
2008 Conference; Paper No. 39.
[7] Riva P, Meda A, Giuriani E. Cyclic behaviour of a full scale RC structural wall.
Eng Struct 2003;25:835–45.
[8] Fischinger M, Isaković T, Kante P. Shaking table response of a thin H-shaped
coupled wall. Managing risk in earthquake country - 100th anniversary
earthquake conference: Centennial meeting, 2006, San Francisco,
USA. Berkeley (USA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 2006.
[9] Kim Y, Kabeyasawa T, Matsumori T, Kabeyasawa T. Numerical study of a full-
scale six-storey reinforced concrete wall-frame structure tested at E-Defense.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1179.
[10] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Stability of ductile structural walls. ACI Struct J
1993;77(4):385–92.
[11] Pilakoutas K, Elnashai AS. Cyclic behaviour of RC cantilever walls, Part I:
Experimental results. ACI Struct J 1995;92(3):271–81.
[12] Tasnimi AA. Strength and deformation of mid-rise shear walls under load
reversal. Eng Struct 2000;22:311–22.
[13] Nakaki SD, Stanton JF, Sritharan S. An overview of the PRESS five-story precast
test building. PCI J 1999, March-April: 26–39.
[14] Priestley MJN, Sritharan S, Conley JR, Pampanin S. Preliminary results and
conclusions from the PRESS five-story precast concrete test building. PCI J
1999, Nov–Dec: 42–67.
[15] Negro P, Bournas DA, Molina J. Pseudodynamic Tests on a full-scale 3-storey
precast concrete building: global response. Eng Struct 2013;57:594–608.
[16] Bournas DA, Negro P, Molina J. Pseudodynamic Tests on a full-scale 3-storey
precast concrete building: behaviour of the mechanical connections and floor
diaphragms. Eng Struct 2013;57:609–27.
[17] Toniolo, G. SAFECAST project: European research on seismic behaviour of the
connections of precast structures. In: 15th World Conference of
Earthquake Engineering (WCEE) 2012; Lisbon, Portugal, September 24–28,
paper No. 1389.
[18] Fischinger M, Kramar M, Isaković T. Using macro elements to predict near-
collapse performance of two typical RC building structural systems with
lightly reinforced walls and slender precast columns. In: 14th World
conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[19] Fischinger M, Rejec K, Isaković T. Modeling inelastic shear response of RC
walls. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal,
Paper No. 2120; 2012.
[20] Orakcal K, Massone LM, Wallace JW. Analytical modeling of reinforced
concrete walls for predicting flexural and coupled shear - flexural Responses.
PEER Report 2006/07; University of California, Berkeley.
[21] di Prisco M, Mazars J. Crush-crack: a non-local damage model for concrete. J
Mech Cohesive Frict Mater 1996;1:321–47.
[22] Ferrara L, di Prisco M. Mode I Fracture behavior in concrete: nonlocal damage
modelling. ASCE J Eng Mech 2001;127(7):678–92.
[23] Muhaxheri M. Behaviour of coupling beams retrofitted with advanced
cementitious composites: experiments and modelling. PhD thesis,
Politecnico di Milano; 2014.
[24] Dal Lago B, Toniolo G, Lamperti Tornaghi M. Influence of different mechanical
column-foundation connection devices on the seismic behaviour of precast
structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2016;14(12):3485–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-016-0010-9.
[25] CEA. CAST3M computer program. Education & Research version, Saclay,
France; 2000.
222 B. Dal Lago et al. / Engineering Structures 137 (2017) 204–222
[26] CEB-fib. Model code for concrete structures. Lausanne
(Switzerland): Fédération Internationale du Béton/International Federation
for Structural Concrete; 2010.
[27] Molina FJ, Géradin M. Earthquake Engineering experimental research at JRC-
ELSA. In: Ibrahimbegovic, A., Kozar, I. (Eds.), North-Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) workshop on Extreme Man-Made and Natural Hazards
in Dynamics of Structures 2007, NATO Security through Science Series C:
Environmental Security, Springer, p. 311–351.
[28] Dal Lago B, Dal Lago A. Precast structures with adaptable restraints. In: 15th
World Conference of Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal,
September 24–28 2012, Paper No. 2305.
[29] Biondini F, Titi A, Toniolo G. Pseudodynamic tests and numerical simulations
on a full-scale prototype of a multi-storey precast structure. In: 15th World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal, September
24–28 2012, Paper No. 1468.
[30] EN 1998-1:2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance.
Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium; 2004.
[31] G+D Computing. Using Strand7 (Straus7) – Introduction to the Strand7 finite
element analysis system, edition 3, Strand7 Pty Limited; 2010.
[32] EN 1991-1:2004. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1: General actions.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium; 2004.
[33] Sargin M. Stress-strain relationship for concrete and analysis of structural
concrete sections. study n. 4, Solid Mechanics Division 1971, University of
Waterloo, Canada; 1971.
[34] CEB. Design of Concrete Structures. Bulletin d’information CEB n. 165,
1985. Lausanne (Switzerland): Fédération Internationale du Béton/
International Federation for Structural Concrete; 1985.
[35] Takeda T. Sozen MA, Nielsen NN. Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquakes. ASCEJ Struct Divis 96 (12), 1970, 2557–2573.
[36] Dal Lago A, Dal Lago B. Progetto SAFECAST: problematiche riscontrate
confrontando progetto e prove sismiche. In: 19th CTE (Collegio dei Tecnici
della industrializzazione Edilizia) Congress, Bologna, Italy, November 8–10
2012, p. 553–562 (in Italian).