Received: 5 January 2019 Revised: 6 May 2019 Accepted: 13 May 2019

DOI: 10.1002/tal.1632

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Experimental study on seismic performance of T‐shaped partly

precast reinforced concrete shear wall with grouting sleeves

Jianbao Li1 | Qiaoqiao Fan1 | Zheng Lu1,2 | Yan Wang1

1
Department of Disaster Mitigation for
Structures, Tongji University, Shanghai, China Summary
2
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction Prefabricated structure has prominent advantages such as easy control of construc-
in Civil Engineering, Tongji University,
tion quality, saving fabricating time and natural resources, and reducing environmen-
Shanghai, China
tal pollution and construction noise. The mostly used structural system in high‐rise
Correspondence
buildings is reinforced concrete shear wall structure, which has high load capacity
Zheng Lu, Department of Disaster Mitigation
for Structures, Tongji University, Shanghai and lateral stiffness. Focusing on the connection of reinforcements, three T‐shaped
200092, China.
partly prefabricated reinforced concrete shear walls and one cast‐in situ specimen
Email: luzheng111@tongji.edu.cn
in same dimensions as a control group are tested under low‐frequency cyclic loading
Funding information
to analyze their seismic performances in this paper. During the experiment, the axial
Program of Shanghai Academic Research
Leader, Grant/Award Number: 18XD1403900; compression ratio of specimens is fixed at 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5. Through the observation
National Key Research and Development Pro-
of phenomena and data analysis, hysteretic curve, skeleton curve, stiffness degrada-
gram of China, Grant/Award Number:
2017YFC1500701 tion, ductility, and load bearing capacity are compared and analyzed. The results show
that partly prefabricated reinforced concrete shear wall has similar load bearing
capacity with the cast in situ specimen, and it also has excellent ductility, stiffness,
and energy‐dissipating capacity. The experimental results and analysis indicate that
partly prefabricated reinforced concrete shear wall has outstanding seismic perfor-
mances; under effective and reliable design, it can be used in building structures to
play the same role as cast in situ components.

K E Y W OR D S

building construction, cyclic load, prefabricated structure, seismic performance, shear wall, T‐
shaped shear wall

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N

With the development of population and urbanization, the necessity of low‐cost construction becomes one of the hottest social topic.[1] Mean-
while, because of quality requirements, low cost in construction time, and needs for greenhouse construction,[2] prefabricated structure becomes
the preferential choice in multistory and high‐rise buildings. A newly developing design philosophy, which asks for equivalent property between
prefabricated and cast in situ structure, is well practiced in some countries that always suffer from strong earthquakes. Now, there are some
experiments and numerical analysis proving that prefabricated structures can meet the same requirements of load bearing capacity[3,4] and seismic
performance as cast in situ components.[5–7] Kurama et al.[8] studied the horizontal load bearing capacity and seismic design of postdrawing
unbonded precast concrete walls and found that postdrawing unbonded precast concrete walls have the same capacity in strength and initial stiff-
ness as cast in situ concrete walls. A three‐story superimposed reinforced concrete shear wall structure model was designed to be tested on the
shaking table in order to study its seismic performance with horizontal seams, and the results show that the new type of superimposed reinforced
concrete shear wall structure can effectively transmit the seismic force and maintain the overall performance of the structure under various work-
ing conditions.[9]

Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2019;e1632. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 13
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1632
2 of 13 LI ET AL.

Shear wall structure and frame structure are two kinds of frequently used structures in daily life. There are various studies focusing on different
types of shear wall,[10–12] and some methods and studies are proposed about seismic performance[13–15] by different researchers around the
world. As for prefabricated concrete structures, prefabricated shear wall structure is a newly research hotspot,[16] due to its convenient construc-
tion, low environmental pollution, and high quality in joints. As joints play an important role in the integrality, stability, and ductility of the
prefabricated structures,[17] they have great influence on the reliability and safety of the whole structures.[18] From the point of previous studies
and practical experience, the reliability and mechanical characteristics of joints become critical issues in the design of prefabricated reinforced con-
crete (RC) shear walls.[19]
By testing on 18 full‐scale specimens, recording failure models and stress–strain curves through increasing axial compression ratios, Harris[20]
studied the whole developing progress of platform joints and investigated how reinforcements and the joint length affect the structural load bear-
ing capacity and stiffness. Smith et al.[21] proposed that adding high‐strength unbonded posttensioning reinforcements into concrete can reduce
residual deformations of the structure. Alberto et al.[22] studied performances of prefabricated concrete sandwich plates under seismic load and
drew a conclusion that under their design, the plates can reach the strength regulated by Euro code. Pekau et al.[23] analyzed the energy‐absorbing
ability and seismic performance of a friction‐type mechanical connection arranged through the vertical joint. Considering of reinforcement con-
nections, Khaled et al.[24,25] proposed five different connections and conducted a quasistatic test for experimental study on bending and compres-
sion force, and they found that if putting five key seats in the horizontal joints, the bearing load can be increased.
It is clear that there are great progresses made in the field of prefabricated shear wall. However, the seismic performance is still worth deep
studying. For example, most completed tests mainly focus on the straight‐line‐type shear wall, and they cannot cover all shear wall types in the
practical engineering. Thereby, there are some investigations aiming for shear walls in various shapes. With regard to I‐shaped shear walls, Sun
et al[26] investigated the mechanical behavior and seismic performance of this total‐prefabricated shear wall. As for L‐shaped shear walls, there
are many investigations in different aspects. Song et al.[27] focused on the mechanical behavior, failure feature, and seismic behavior of L‐shaped
precast sandwich insulation shear wall and validated that L‐shaped precast sandwich insulation shear wall has good seismic behavior and it can be a
good substitute for in situ sandwich insulation shear wall used in practical engineering. Our team also conducted series of experiments on L‐shaped
shear walls, and the experimental data showed that prefabricated concrete shear wall have similar mechanical property with cast in situ shear
wall.[28,29] T‐shaped shear wall and L‐shaped shear wall are two walls in different types, and these two different shear walls are both frequently
used in engineering practice and cannot be replaced by each other. It can be found that the study focusing on T‐shaped walls is not as many as
L‐shaped walls. The study on seismic performance of T‐shaped partly precast reinforced concrete shear wall is still necessary and valuable.
Hence, considering the joint safety and the connection of longitudinal and perpendicular walls, a kind of T‐shaped partly precast reinforced
concrete shear wall with grouting sleeves is proposed and tested to study its seismic behavior in this paper. The flange represents longitudinal
wall, and the web represents the perpendicular wall. In this study, three T‐shaped partly prefabricated reinforced concrete shear walls and one
cast in situ specimen in same dimensions as a control group are tested under low‐frequency cyclic loading to analyze and study their seismic per-
formances. Through analyzing the strength, deformation properties, and seismic performance, the aim of this paper is to evaluate whether the pro-
posed prefabricated shear wall, working as a structural element as cast in situ RC shear wall, can be used in the practical engineering.

2 | E X P E R I M E N T A L S P E C I M EN S A N D T ES T S E T U P

2.1 | Test specimens

Three T‐shaped partly prefabricated reinforced concrete shear walls, named as “T‐03,” “T‐04,” “T‐05,” and one cast in situ specimen in same
dimensions, which is named as “T‐05C” as a control group, are tested under low‐frequency cyclic loading. The flange is precast, and the web is
cast in situ. The marks “03,” “04,” and “05” mean that the axial compression ratio is 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5, respectively. The reason of choosing axial
compression ratio “0.5” is for shear walls in the bottom layers in high‐rise buildings, and the results can be used to study the corresponding loads
and deformations of shear walls under such conditions.
The partly precast T‐shaped specimen is illustrated in Figure 1a with detailed cross section, and the yellow part is cast in situ as the rest is
precast. The fully cast in situ specimen is shown in Figure 1b. The main difference between the precast specimens and cast in situ specimen is
that three vertical distributed connecting reinforcements (d = 20 mm) in each side of the flange are spliced by grouting sleeves and uniformly
arranged in two sides of the flange in the precast specimen, whereas the vertical reinforcements in the cast in situ are directly anchored in the
bottom beam to simulate the practical situation. Table 1 illustrates the reinforcement configuration, and concrete grade of all specimens is C30.

2.2 | Material properties

To ensure experimental materials' strength and mechanical characteristics, tests are performed for all materials, including reinforcements, concrete,
and grouting sleeves splice strength. Three 450‐mm reinforcements, six 150 × 150 × 150 mm3 concrete cubes, three 100 × 100 × 300 mm3
LI ET AL. 3 of 13

FIGURE 1 Configurations of T‐shaped reinforced concrete shear wall specimens. (a) Partly precast specimens (specimen T‐03, T‐04, and T‐05)
and (b) cast in situ specimen (T‐05C)

TABLE 1 Reinforcement configuration of all specimens

The flange part The web part

Longitudinal reinforcement Stirrup Longitudinal reinforcement Stirrup

Mark (HRB500) (HRB500) Size (HRB500) (HRB500) Size

T‐03 6 12 + 3 10 8@150 690 * 200 8 14 + 4 12 8@150 400 * 200 * 400

T‐04 6 12 + 3 10 8@150 690 * 200 8 14 + 4 12 8@150 400 * 200 * 400

T‐05 6 12 + 3 10 8@150 690 * 200 8 14 + 4 12 8@150 400 * 200 * 400

T‐05C 6 12 + 3 10 8@150 690 * 200 8 14 + 4 12 8@150 400 * 200 * 400

4 of 13 LI ET AL.

cylinders, and three groups (three in each group) of 40 × 40 × 160 mm3 grouting material blocks are prepared for the test in each batch. The results
are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Besides, the cementitious grout strength is 79.3 MPa under 28‐day compression test.
Symbols in Tables 2 and 3: f cu represents the concrete cube strength, f c represents the concrete cylinder strength, Ec is the concrete modulus
of elasticity, f y is the reinforcement yield strength, f u is the reinforcement ultimate strength, and Es represents the reinforcement modulus of
elasticity.

2.3 | Loading method and instrumentation

The test was carried out in State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

TABLE 2 Properties of concrete in the specimens

Tested material parameters

Concrete part type Design strength grades fcu (MPa) fc (MPa) Ec (N/mm2)

Prefabricated concrete part C30 36.7 24.0 3.61 × 104

Cast in situ concrete part C30 35.5 24.0 3.37 × 104

TABLE 3 Properties of reinforcement

Tested material parameters

Design strength grades Diameter (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) Es (N/mm2)

Steel reinforcement HRB500 14 480 610 2.0 × 105

12 488 612 2.0 × 105
10 445 602 2.0 × 105
8 430 603 2.0 × 105
Grouting‐coupler reinforcement HRB500 20 451.6 631.6 2.0 × 105

FIGURE 2 Test loading. (a) Test facility; (b) sketch map of the test facility; (c) loading process
LI ET AL. 5 of 13

FIGURE 3 Final crack patterns of T‐03. (a) The front view and (b) the back view

FIGURE 4 Failure modes of T‐04. (a) The front view; (b) the back view; and (c) crushed concrete and buckled reinforcements on the boundary
part
6 of 13 LI ET AL.

Figure 2a,b shows the test facility, and Figure 2c shows the whole loading process. The horizontal cycled load is applied by the hydraulic actu-
ator that can push 300t and pull 150t maximally, and the vertical load is applied by the hydraulic jacks that can reach 1000t. During the elastic
period, the incremental quantity of displacement is 2 mm and is set to be recycled once at each grade. As the specimen comes into plastic stage,
the incremental quantity is up to yield displacement △y or 0.5 times yield displacement,[30] and the cycle index is three times at each grade until
the ultimate stage. Normally, the 85% of the peak load is defined as ultimate load. However, sometimes, the specimen is completely destroyed
before the load descends to 85% of the peak load because of certain reasons. Thus, the load and displacement at ultimate limit state are also
applied as ultimate load and ultimate displacement.
In this study, the axial compression ratio of the specimen is kept at a certain value being 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5, whereas the specimen's axial com-
pression ratio in control group is controlled at 0.5.

3 | EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 | Failure modes and observations

The specimens during the experiment reveal a conspicuous number of cracks and concrete crushing. The failure modes of three partly
prefabricated specimens are similar.
For T‐03 whose axial number is 0.3, the test is controlled by horizontal displacement. When the displacement achieves 4 mm, the first hori-
zontal crack appears on the boundary part and gradually develops to the surface of the specimen. When the displacement comes up to
12 mm, X‐shaped crack patterns gradually form. Considering readings of strain gages and slope of the skeleton curve, the specimen is judged
as reaching yielding stage at the displacement of 16 mm. In the process that follows, some vertical cracks appear in the connection of the

FIGURE 5 Failure modes of T‐05. (a) The front view; (b) the back view; and (c) crushed concrete and buckled reinforcements on the boundary
part
LI ET AL. 7 of 13

prefabricated part and cast in situ part, and some long cracks extend through the whole connection, which indicates the good integrity of the
connecting part. When displacement reaches 60 mm, vertical reinforcements on the boundary part buckle and the concrete at the same area
crushes. Meanwhile, the ultimate shearing capacity of the specimen descends to 85% of its maximum capacity; hence, the specimen is regarded
as reaching its ultimate stage. Final crack patterns of T‐03 are shown in Figure 3. Because of the damage of camera, there is no photo of the scene.
Specimens T‐04 and T‐05 have similar phenomena and failure modes to specimen T‐03. The failure modes and crack patterns are displayed on
Figures 4 and 5. When displacement reaches a certain value, vertical reinforcements on the boundary part buckle and the concrete at the same
area crushes (Figures 4c and 5c). At this time, specimens are regarded as damaged and reaching ultimate stage. It can also be concluded that as
axial compression ratio increases, the more rapid horizontal load decreases. However, there are also some reinforcements destroyed out‐of‐plane
when axial compression is 0.3 and 0.4, while the similar phenomena cannot be observed for specimen T‐05.
The failure mode and cracks development progress of T‐05C is a bit different from the prefabricated specimens, and the failure mode is illus-
trated in Figure 6. Until displacement reaches 8 mm, the first crack appears. There still exists X‐shape crack pattern. The diagonal cracks keep
developing and extending to the bottom of the shear wall, and their width is greater than precast specimens. The specimen T‐05C suffers great
influence from shear force, leading to some reinforcements on the boundary part buckling and concrete crushing at the same time (Figure 6d).
As the shearing capacity of the T‐05C descends to 85% of its maximum capacity, the specimen T‐05C is judged as destroyed.

FIGURE 6 Failure modes of T‐05C. (a) The front view; (b) the back view; (c) crushed concrete and buckled reinforcements on the boundary part;
and (d) damage caused by shear force
8 of 13 LI ET AL.

3.2 | Force–displacement hysteretic curve and skeleton curve

The hysteretic curves of four specimens in Figure 7 are all relatively complete, including ascent stage and failure stage. It is obviously shown that
the curve of the specimen T‐05C as the controlling group in Figure 7d shows S shape and the specimen is broken suddenly without the loading
platform, indicating that there are great influences caused by shear force and slipping. The hysteretic curve of the specimen T‐05 is different from
the cast in situ one. T‐05 (Figure 7c) keeps a certain degree of ductility, and the area that curves cover is also larger than that in T‐05C (Figure 7e).
In the literature, similar experimental phenomenon and results can also be found. According to the research,[31] the concrete within boundary ele-
ments was well confined by both local and overall constrain details. Thus, the seismic behaviors of both precast concrete specimens were similar
to or even better than that of cast in situ specimen in terms of energy‐absorbing capacity. This test phenomena also shows that the prefabricated
specimen has better ability of energy absorbing and seismic performance than the cast in situ specimen with same dimensions. If comparing all the
precast specimens (T‐03 in Figure 7a, T‐04 in Figure 7b, and T‐05 in Figure 7c), it can be concluded that as the axial compression ratio decreases,
the area that the hysteretic curve covers increases. In this study, grouting sleeves and connecting reinforcements in prefabricated specimens are
used for ensuring enough integrality. The comparison between T‐05 and T‐05C is well proved that, with these two methods, prefabricated spec-
imen has good seismic performance, indicating that the use of grouting sleeves and connecting reinforcements is effective.
The skeleton curve is shown in Figure 8, which also illustrates that there exists a platform of the load obviously in curves of the precast spec-
imens whereas the cast in situ specimen does not have such a load platform. If comparing T‐05 and T‐05C, which have the same dimensions and
the same loading method, it can clearly be observed in Figure 8e that the prefabricated specimen has similar stiffness with the cast in situ spec-
imen. Considering the construction deviation, the 5% difference of the ultimate load value between T‐05 and T‐05C can be neglected, which

FIGURE 7 Force–displacement hysteretic

curves. (a) T‐03; (b) T‐04; (c) T‐05; (d) T‐05C;
and (e) comparison between T‐05 and T‐05C
LI ET AL. 9 of 13

FIGURE 8 Skeleton curve. (a) T‐03; (b) T‐04;

(c) T‐05; (d) T‐05C; and (e) comparison
between T‐05 and T‐05C

indicates that the prefabricated shear wall has the similar load bearing capacity as the cast in situ shear wall. Besides, the hysteretic curves of all
prefabricated specimens are relatively full and symmetrical (Figure 7), and the positive and negative maximum forces are relatively equal to each
other (Figure 8), which means that, under properly design, the connection in prefabricated specimens are reliable with effective force transferring
mechanism.

3.3 | Ductility evaluation

Table 4 shows the load and displacement at key points (yield point, ultimate limit state, and peak load point) collected from the test. The “+” in the
Table 4 means the force is forward, and ‘−’ means the force is backward. According to previous research and literature review,[32,33] there are
many different methods to definite the yield displacements, such as equivalent elasto‐plastic method AND equivalent elasto‐plastic energy
absorption method. Considering the actual situation of the specimens with reinforcements in quantity and obvious stiffness degradation, general
yield moment method (Figure 9), which takes the stiffness degradation into account according to the initial stiffness and ultimate load with an easy
graphing method, is used in this study. The first step is to draw the horizontal line through the maximum load and the tangent line of initial stiff-
ness. The cross point is named as A. The next step is to draw the vertical line through Point A, and the cross point of this vertical line and the F‐Δ
curve is named as B. The third step is to draw the secant line though Points O and B, and the cross point of this secant line and the horizontal line
drew on the first step is named as C. Point Y is the cross point of the vertical line through Point C and the F‐Δ curve, and Point Y is the yield point
determined in the general yield moment method. According to the definition, the ductility is calculated by the equation μ = Δu/Δy. Δu represents
ultimate displacement when ultimate load takes place. Normally, the 85% of the peak load is defined as ultimate load. However, sometimes, the
10 of 13 LI ET AL.

TABLE 4 Feature loads, feature displacements, and ductility of specimens

Specimen number T‐03 T‐04 T‐05 T‐05C

Axial compression 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5
Yield load ( F y/kN) + 446.01 544.93 556.91 665.24
− 620.45 630.41 672.68 676.67
Maximum load ( F m/kN) + 658.30 700.20 722.20 786.68
− 744.80 783.11 852.90 788.60
Load at ultimate state ( F u/kN) + 559.40 595.17 614.12 662.06
− 633.93 664.02 724.12 670.82
Yield displacement (△y/mm) + 9.96 9.98 10.18 10.24
− 12.24 12.46 13.26 11.89
Ultimate displacement (△u/mm) + 66.56 43.00 39.06 26.83
− 52.87 46.37 38.53 27.07
Ductility + 6.68 4.31 3.84 2.62
− 4.32 3.72 2.90 2.28

FIGURE 9 Yield point in general yield moment method

specimen is completely destroyed before the load descends to 85% of the peak load because of some testing problems. Thus, the load and dis-
placement at ultimate limit state is also applied as ultimate load and displacement.
It can be seen from Table 4 that the load bearing capacity increases with the axial compression ratio. There is no significant disparity of load
bearing capacity between T‐05 and T‐05C, and even in some situations, the load that prefabricated specimen can bear is larger (Figure 10). It
means that the joint design of prefabricated specimens is reliable and efficient in the load transmission and the joint can participate in the action
of the whole structure well. From Table 4, it is known that ductility decreases when the axial compression ratio increases and the ductility value of
T‐05 is similar with that of T‐05C. To sum up, the seismic behavior of partly prefabricated specimen is no worse than the cast in situ one as far as
ductility and load bearing capacity are concerned.

FIGURE 10 Comparison between partly prefabricated specimen T‐05 and cast in situ specimen T‐05C
LI ET AL. 11 of 13

3.4 | Stiffness degradation

According to other works,[28–30] the equivalent stiffness can be calculated, and Figure 11 shows the stiffness degradation of all specimens,
including prefabricated and cast in situ specimens. At the outset, the stiffness degradation is strikingly evident, resulting from concrete cracks.
With the increase of load value and displacement, reinforcements at the edge and in boundary elements start buckling along with the appearance
of plastic hinges, finally bringing about the smooth decline of stiffness. From the point of the whole degradation process, all the specimens,
including cast in situ specimen, have the similar degree of stiffness declination, with the feature of declining rapidly at initial stage and smoothly
at later stage.
For further study, there is a comparison in Figure 11e. Because the horizontal displacement is small in the beginning, the deviation between
prefabricated specimen (red part in Figure 11e) and cast in situ specimen (black part in Figure 11e) is a bit large. But the deviation becomes smaller
as cycle index increases. What can be confirmed is that the stiffness of prefabricated specimen is relatively approximate with stiffness of cast in
situ one in this test. Moreover, the tendency of the stiffness degradation of cast in situ shear wall is even slightly more rapid than that of precast
shear wall.

FIGURE 11 Stiffness degradation. (a) T‐03; (b) T‐04; (c) T‐05; (d) T‐05C; and (e) comparison between T‐05 and T‐05C
12 of 13 LI ET AL.

4 | C O N CL U S I O N S

The purpose of this study is to experimentally investigate the seismic behavior of T‐shaped partly prefabricated reinforced concrete shear walls.
The following conclusions can be obtained:

1. The failure modes of the specimens are relatively similar. Under such shear span ratio, the failure mode is bending shear mode with X‐shaped
cracks, whereas the cast in situ specimen is influenced more by the shear force. Generally, the partly prefabricated reinforced concrete shear
wall has similar cracking pattern to that of the normal cast in situ reinforced concrete wall.
2. The load bearing capacity increases with the axial compression ratio increases. The load bearing capacity between prefabricated specimen and
cast in situ specimen is relatively similar, indicating that the joint design of prefabricated specimens is reliable and efficient in the load trans-
mission so that the joint can participate in the action of the whole structure well.
3. There is no obvious difference in ductility and stiffness degradation between the partly prefabricated specimen and cast in situ specimen.
Meanwhile, the tendency of the stiffness degradation is similar, with the feature of declining rapidly at initial stage and smoothly at later stage.

To sum up, the test in this paper focuses on T‐shaped partly prefabricated RC shear wall, and the results verify that, if joints are designed reli-
ably and effectively, the mechanical characteristic, integrity, and seismic performance of prefabricated shear walls are comparable with the cast in
situ shear walls, which proves that it can be used as the structural element in building structures to play the same role as cast in situ components.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by National Key Research and Development Program of China through Grant
2017YFC1500701 and Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader (18XD1403900).

ORCID

Zheng Lu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2803-1496

RE FE R ENC E S
[1] M. Divan, M. Madhkhan, Proc. Eng. 2011, 14, 3229.
[2] H. Nurjaman, B. Hariandja, G. Suprapto, L. Faizal, H. Sitepu, Research, Development and Application of High Performance Earthquake Resistant Precast
System as Green Construction in Indonesia, 6th international Conference of Euro Asia Civil Engineering Forum (EACEF, Hanyang Univ, Seoul, South
Korea 2017.
[3] M. Savoia, N. Buratti, L. Vincenzi, Eng. Struct. 2017, 137, 162.
[4] M. Fintel, PCI J. 1986, 31(1), 18.
[5] J. K. Iverson, N. M. Hawkins, PCI J. 1994, 39(2), 38.
[6] J. Li, Y. Wang, Z. Lu, J. Li, Appl. Sci. Basel 2017, 7(6), 629.
[7] Z. Lu, X. Chen, X. Li, P. Li, Struct. Eng. Mech. 2017, 62(1), 55.
[8] Y. Kurama, R. Sause, S. Pessiki, L. W. Lu, ACI Struct. J. 1999, 96(4), 622.
[9] J. Li, Y. Wang, Z. Lu, B. Xia, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2018, 27(9), e1412.
[10] Y. Qi, Q. Gu, G. Sun, B. Zhao, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2019.
[11] A. Verma, D. R. Sahoo, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2017.
[12] A. Verma, D. R. Sahoo, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2016.
[13] S. Elias, Shock Vib. 2018.
[14] M. H. Stanikzai, S. Elias, V. A. Matsagar, A. K. Jain, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2019.
[15] A. F. Ghowsi, D. R. Sahoo, Performance of Medium‐rise Buckling‐restrained Braced Frames Under Near‐field Earthquake, Structural Engineering Conven-
tion (SEC) 2014.
[16] X. H. Meng, P. Y. Cheng, Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 638‐640, 1858.
[17] A. Li, W. Wang, H. Jia, Z. Pan, X. Wu, J. Dis. Prev. Mitig. Eng. 2013, 33(6), 736.
[18] X. Lu, L. Wang, D. Wang, H. Jiang, Struct. Concr. 2016, 17(6), 972.
[19] J. Chen, S. U. Youpo, World Earthq. Eng. 2013, 29(1), 38.
[20] H. G. Harris, S. Iyengar, PCI J. 1980, 25, 72.
[21] B. J. Smith, Y. C. Kurama, M. J. McGinnis, J. Struct. Eng. 2013.
[22] A. Pavese, D. A. Bournas, Eng. Struct. 2011, 33(6), 2019. ISSN 0141‐0296
LI ET AL. 13 of 13

[23] O. A. Pekau, D. Hum, PCI J. 1991, 36, 56.

[24] K. A. Soudki, S. H. Rizkalla, PCI J. 1995, 40(4), 78.
[25] K. A. Soudki, S. H. Rizkalla, D. W. Bob, PCI J. 1995, 40(5), 82.
[26] J. Sun, H. Qiu, Z. Tan, H. Jiang, Eng. Mech. 2018.
[27] G. Song, Y. Wang, Build. Struct. 2016.
[28] Z. Lu, Y. Wang, J. Li, L. Wang, Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2018.
[29] J. Li, L. Wang, Z. Lu, Y. Wang, Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2018, 27(6), e1457.
[30] China Academy of Building Research. Specification of testing methods for earthquake resistant building [S]. Ministry of Housing and Urban‐Rural
Development of the People's Republic of China, Beijing, 1996, JGJ101–1996. (In Chinese)
[31] Z. F. Zhu, Z. X. Guo, KSCE J. Civil Eng. 2019, 23(2), 711.
[32] R. Park. Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing [C]//Tokyo, Japan: Proceedings of 9th Word Conference on Earthquake Engineering
‐ 9WCEE, 1988, 8: 605–616.
[33] R. Park, Bullet. New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 1989, 22(3), 155.

AU THOR BIOG RAPH IES

Jianbao Li is an associate professor of College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University. He received his doctoral degree from Tongji University in
2006. His research interests are seismic design of building structures, housing industrialization, and structural optimization.

Qiaoqiao Fan is an undergraduate student of Tongji University in China. Her research focuses on seismic design of building structures.

Zheng Lu is a professor of College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University. He received his doctoral degree from Tongji University in 2011. His
research interests are structural control and earthquake engineering.

Yan Wang is a PhD candidate of Tongji University in China. She received her bachelor's degree from Tongji University in 2017. Her research
interest is seismic design of building structures.

How to cite this article: Li J, Fan Q, Lu Z, Wang Y. Experimental study on seismic performance of T‐shaped partly precast reinforced con-
crete shear wall with grouting sleeves. Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2019;e1632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1632