Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

An investigation on the behavior of a new connection for precast structures T

under reverse cyclic loading
⁎
Cong Lua, Bingqing Donga, , Jinlong Pana, Qifeng Shana, Asad Hanifb, Wanyun Yinc
a
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
b
Civil Engineering Department, Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST), Pakistan
c
China MCC17 Group Co., Ltd., Maanshan, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper aims to develop a new precast beam-column connection with U-shaped bars and ECC materials,
Precast connection which eliminates the need for formworks, welding and bolting. In this paper, an experimental study of five
U-shaped bars precast and two monolithic connections, including exterior and interior connections under reverse cyclic
Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC) loading, will be carried out. All specimens were evaluated by their failure mode, hysteresis characteristics,
Cyclic loading
stiffness degradation, ductility and energy dissipation under reverse cyclic loading. The proposed connection
using high strength concrete exhibited more satisfactory seismic behavior than the cast-in-place construction in
terms of hysteretic behavior, stiffness degradation and energy dissipation, while their load-carrying capacity and
ductility were slightly lower. When ECC material is incorporated, these precast connections showed improved
load-carrying capacity and ultimate displacement compared with the precast connections using concrete. Their
seismic performance is comparable to (even better at certain aspects) the conventional cast-in-place connections
and is therefore recommended for the applications in the high seismic region.

1. Introduction during installation limit their application in a broader range. Sleeve

In recent years, precast concrete structures have been extensively
investigated and employed in a wide variety of structural applications.
It can significantly reduce the need for site formwork and hence speed
up the building process with high construction quality. Despite above
advantages, some framed structures incorporating precast concrete
elements have been reported to perform poorly in earthquakes [1–3]. It
is common knowledge that the seismic performance of precast struc-
tures is closely related to the behavior of its connections which are
considered to be the weakest link in the system. It is therefore necessary
to come up with a practical connection design for precast structures
that has desirable seismic performance comparable to cast-in-place
concrete structures.
In prior researches on various types of connections for precast
concrete structures [4–7], it has been shown that ensuring stress
transmission between the top and bottom columns as well as between
the left and right beams is the key to successfully design connections in
precast structures. For the linking of columns, mechanical connection
[8] and sleeve connection [9] two mostly reported common practices.
Adoption of mechanical connection omits the process of casting con-
crete, but the costly mechanical components and demanding precision
connections, conventionally used in precast columns, have exhibited
excellent capacity of transferring stress between the bars in top/bottom
columns [10,11] and are convenient to construct with. As a result, they
are more favored in a variety of precast structures.
For the linking of beams, the reinforcing bars in both beams are
either straight spliced to each other, or anchored in the form of 90-
degree hook or U-shape in the joint region. Parastesh et al. [12] studied
the connection with straight spliced beam bars (as shown in Fig. 1a),
which exhibited higher ductility and energy dissipation than monolithic
specimens. However, adequate space needs to be reserved for the
straight spliced bars in order to prevent bond slip of the bars. Compared
with straight spliced bars, shorter hooked bars or U-shape bars are more
convenient for transportation and require less casting area in the beam
ends. This kind of connection appeals to cases where casting space in
beam end is insufficient. Shariatmadar et al. [13] tested connections
with U-shaped bars reaching out from precast beam (as shown in
Fig. 1b), which significantly reduced the casting area in the beam end.
However, as also reported by [13], when the U-shaped bars in beams
are spliced directly to each other in the joint, the insufficient over-
lapping length inevitably led to insufficient bond stress transmission
and bond slip was resulted.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: conglu@seu.edu.cn (C. Lu), 230169068@seu.edu.cn (B. Dong), cejlpan@seu.edu.cn (J. Pan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.041
Received 30 September 2017; Received in revised form 24 March 2018; Accepted 14 May 2018
Available online 26 May 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140

(a) Connection with beam bars straight spliced

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the precast joint.

[20]. Moreover, experiments on the steel reinforced ECC elements

(b) Connection with beam bars in U-shape form
proved that ECC can deform compatibly with steel reinforcement and
avoid bond splitting cracks [21]. Choi et al. [22] reported precast
connections containing ECC materials, which showed satisfactory
seismic performance, and 15% higher strength than monolithic ones.
Overall, the excellent mechanical properties of ECC provide an alter-
native way to solve the bond deterioration problem and thus improve
the seismic performance of structures [23–26].
Based on above discussions, a new type of precast connection shown
in Fig. 2 is proposed in this study where the columns are connected by
sleeve connections. U-shaped bars in the joint are designed to connect
with the hooked bars in beam ends and super-ductile ECC materials are
introduced in the cast-in-place area. To evaluate the performance of
proposed connection, a comprehensive experimental program will be
carried out in present study, where its strength, stiffness, ductility and
energy dissipation characteristics will be assessed. The influences of
different parameters, including joint types, cast-in-place materials, axial
compression ratio on the column, are to be discussed.

2. Experimental program

2.1. Design and details of specimens

In order to evaluate the seismic behavior of the precast connections

(c) Connection proposed in this study. proposed in this study, two monolithic connections (JMMO and JSMO)
and five precast beam-to-column connections (JMC3, JME3, JSC2, JSC4
Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams for the connecting method of beam bars.
and JSE2) were prepared with different joint types, cast-in-place ma-
terials in the connection zone and varying axial load on the column, as
To avoid the bond slip of beam bars, improvements are made by two listed in Table 1. The exterior and interior joints are scaled down from
ways in current study. In first way, precast beams are designed with 90- the prototype of a 2-story RC building with scale of 2:3, of which the
degree hooked longitudinal reinforcements bare in the vicinity of the seismic precautionary intensity is 7°, and the designed PGA (peak
joint to shorten the straight splicing length. To further reduce casting ground acceleration) is 0.1 g. Fig. 3 shows the plan view of the
area, additional U-shaped bars are used in the joint zone to replace the
additional straight spliced bars (schematic diagram shown in Fig. 1c). Table 1
Meanwhile, the overlap between the hooked beam bars and additional Summary of the specimen information.
U-shaped bars can ensure the stress transfer efficiency in the joint area
Specimen Type Axial compressive Materials in cast-in-
and prevent bond deterioration. The second way is by introducing ratio place region
ductile materials in the joint zone as well as the beam end. Engineered
Cementitious Composite (ECC) is a class of high performance ce- JMMO Interior, 0.3 Concrete
mentitious composites, characterized by super-high tensile ductility up monolithic
JMC3 Interior, precast 0.3 Concrete
to several percent strain capacity [14,15]. ECC exhibits strain-hard- JME3 Interior, precast 0.3 ECC
ening behavior in tension accompanied by the formation of multiple JSMO Exterior, 0.2 Concrete
fine cracks and the maximum crack width can be controlled to below monolithic
80 µm [16,17]. When subjected to compression, the strength of ECC is JSC2 Exterior, precast 0.2 Concrete
JSC4 Exterior, precast 0.4 Concrete
close to normal concrete but the ultimate strain is almost twice [18,19].
JSE2 Exterior, precast 0.2 ECC
The shear characteristics of ECC materials is similar to that in tension

132
C. Lu et al.
Fig. 3. Plan of prototype structure.
prototype structure, where the circled spots denote the exterior and
interior connections to be studied. The section of the prototype column
is 600 mm by 600 mm and the length is 1500 mm. The section for
prototype beam is 350 mm by 650 mm and the length is 2500 mm. The
scaled specimens have the same reinforcement ratio as that in the
prototype structure. For both monolithic and precast specimens, joint
shear failure and flexural failure in the beam/column are most likely to
take place, while debonding of bar/concrete and precast/cast-in-place
concrete can also be encountered for the precast specimens. In views of
above, all specimens were designed following the principle of ‘strong-
joint and weak-member’ and ‘strong column-weak beam’ as suggested
in the Code for Seismic Design (GB50011-2010), meaning that the joint
should have sufficient strength to prevent the joint shear failure before
the beam/column member failure and the column should be strong
enough so plastic hinge are formed in the beam rather than in the
column. To be specific, for both monolithic and precast specimens, the
bending moment ratio of column-to-beam for all specimens was de-
signed to be larger than 1.3 as suggested by the code, so that the plastic
hinges can be restrained in the beam end. For the shear capacity of the
joint, the amount of stirrup in the specimen joint was determined ac-
cording to the code formulations to prevent shear failure in the joint.
The calculated stirrup ratio 0.46% is also higher than the minimum
stirrup ratio suggested by the code. In addition, the beam reinforce-
ments were spliced with the additional U-shaped bars to prevent de-
bonding between U-shaped bars and concrete, and roughing on con-
crete surface was handled to ensure good bonding between concrete
and ECC. By above design manners, the proposed precast specimens are
expected to exhibit similar performance as the monolithic ones. Fig. 4
shows the dimensional details of the subassembly.
2.2. Construction process
The fabrication process of the new connections is as follows: The
precast column is first prefabricated and mounted in position. The
beams with 90-degree hook-ended bars are positioned near the joint
perpendicular to the column, where the U-shaped connecting re-
inforcements are placed in the joint region. Temporary support for the
beams are provided by scaffolds at the bottom of the beam. The long-
itudinal reinforcing bars in the top of the beam and the stirrups in the
joint region are also placed, after which concrete is cast in the joint, the
beam end and the top of the precast beam. For the specimens involving
ECC materials, the cast-in-place concrete in the beam end and joint
region is replaced by ECC while the beam top is still made with normal
concrete to save material cost. In the end, the upper story column is
hoisted with grout sleeve connections. This assembling process can be
easily conducted as it eliminates the need for welding and bolting.
2.3. Materials
The materials used in the joints included normal high-strength
concrete and ECC composite. The ECC composite contained Polyvinyl
133
Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
Alcohol (PVA) fibers, P.O.42.5R Portland cement, fly ash, fine silica
sand, super-plasticizer and water. Table 2 shows the mixture propor-
tions of the ECC materials. Direct tensile tests were conducted for ECC
coupon specimens in dimensions of 350 × 50 × 15 mm. The stress-
strain curves are shown in Fig. 5, where the ultimate tensile strain
exceeds 4% and the tensile strength exceeds 5 MPa after 28-day stan-
dard curing.
The compressive strength for the concrete mixture was designed to
be 30 MPa and 40 MPa for prefabricated units and cast-in-place units
respectively. A number of cubic specimens
(150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm) made with concrete and ECC have
been tested for compression, and the averaged results are shown in
Table 3. It should be noted that the strength of ECC was lower than cast-
in-place concrete due to absence of coarse aggregate in ECC.
Reinforcing bars used in the connections were tested in tension until
rupture. Table 4 summarizes the properties of bars in all sizes.
2.4. Test setup and loading procedure
Fig. 6 shows the schematic diagram for the test setup of interior
connections. The precast concrete column was restricted with rollers at
the base and top of it to simulate the real situation. The beam was
subjected to free end supports and two hydraulic jacks installed on the
beam were used to apply the cyclic load. A hydraulic jack installed at
the column was used to apply the axial load. These applied loads were
measured with load cells between the hydraulic jacks and beams.
LVDTs attached to TDS303 were placed at the loading points to monitor
the displacement of the cantilever beam. Some strain gauges attached
on the longitudinal steel bars and stirrups in the joint region were used
to monitor the strain in the steel reinforcements. The strain gage ar-
rangement is shown in Fig. 7.
To make sure all parts of the tested specimen are in close contact
with the loading facility before formal loading, an axial load equal to
40% of the ultimate axial capacity was applied on the top of the column
before formal loading. A constant axial load was applied on the top of
the column by using hydraulic jack. Then, asymmetric loads (P1 and
P2) were applied on the beam end by displacement control (Fig. 8
shows the loading history). The test was stopped when the when the
applied load reduced to 85% of the peak load due to the limitations of
testing equipment.
3. Experimental results and analysis
3.1. Crack pattern and failure mode
As expected, the main damage was concentrated at the plastic
hinges in the beam end with little diagonal shear cracks at the joint
region. The failure mechanism of ‘strong-joint and weak-member’ and
‘strong column-weak beam’ is thus achieved. Figs. 9 and 10 show the
failure modes for all specimens, and a detailed analysis is as follows:
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140

(a) (c)

(b) (d)

Fig. 4. Configurations and reinforcement details of the tested joints (unit: mm) (a) for Specimen JMMO; (b) for Specimen JMC3 and JME3; (c) for Specimen JSMO;
(d) for Specimen JSC2, JSC4 and JSE2.

Table 2 Table 3
Mixture proportions of ECC. Material properties of concrete and ECC.
PVA fiber (%) Cement Fly ash Sand Super-plasticizer (%) Water Specimen Strength of concrete Strength of ECC
/MPa /MPa
2.0 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.22
Precast beam 39.1 /
Precast column 39.1 /
Cast-in-place zone 44.0 37.2
6

5 Table 4
Tensile Stress (MPa)

Material properties of the steel reinforcement.

4
Diameter (mm) Area (mm2) Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa)

3 8 50.3 501.2 639.4

10 78.5 495.0 643.2
2 16 201.1 462.5 622.9
18 254.3 459.9 612.1
1 25 490.6 431.1 591.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 longitudinal splitting cracks appeared in the bottom of the beam
Strain ε (%) due to bar slipping. In the end, specimens failed in the flexural
Fig. 5. Tensile stress-strain relationship of ECC. mode as a result of the developed cracks as well as the severe
concrete spalling near the plastic hinge of beams (Figs. 9a and 10a).
(2) Specimen JMC3, JSC2 and JSC4: The axial compression ratio for
(1) Specimen JMMO and JSMO: The two monolithic specimens ex-
the two exterior connection specimen JSC2 and specimen JSC4 are
hibited similar crack patterns and failure modes. Firstly, some
0.2 and 0.4 respectively. The flexural cracks of specimen JSC2 first
flexural cracks appeared in the beam end, after which uniformly
appeared in the beam end when the drift ratio reached 0.5%,
distributed cracks along the beam end and diagonal cracks at the
whereas the first cracks on specimen JSC4 was only observed after
joint can be observed. Developing cracks in the top and bottom of
the drift ratio reached 1%. This delay can be explained by the
the beam joined together within the plastic hinge zone, while

134
C. Lu et al.
Fig. 6. Test setup for interior specimens.
Fig. 7. Arrangement of the strain gages on steel reinforcement.
Fig. 8. Cyclic loading history for each specimen.
restraint to crack initiation by the high axial load. As the dis-
placement cycles progressed, specimens JMC3, JSC2 and JSC4
showed very similar cracking behavior as the monolithic ones. No
interfacial cracks can be seen during the test, implying interfacial
failure is avoided so the proposed assembling connection is feasible.
Before the final failure, longitudinal splitting cracks were observed
at the location of U-shaped bars, which indicated the interface be-
tween U-shaped bars and concrete to be the weakest link in the
proposed precast connection. Finally, concrete in the beam end was
crushed, which marks the final failure of the specimens (Figs. 9b,
10b and c).
(3) Specimen JME3 and JSE2: At the drift ratio of 0.5%, several fine
hairline cracks that were almost invisible to human eye occurred in
the beam. A larger crack in the width of 0.3–0.4 mm appeared at
the interface between concrete and ECC at the drift ratio of 1%.
Interestingly, no further propagation of this crack was observed
throughout the test, implying that this kind of crack should be
caused by the elastic modulus difference between concrete and ECC
rather than the failure of their interface. In contrast with the very
few large cracks localized in the concrete specimens, many tiny
135
Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
cracks were formed on the ECC specimens which can be credited to
the strain-hardening feature of ECC materials. The number of cracks
increased gradually as the displacement increased while the crack
width remained relatively small (Figs. 9c and 10d). The controlled
crack width in the specimens was expected to provide excellent
resistance to the penetration of water and chemicals and hence
maintained high durability. Also, owing to the compatible de-
formation between longitudinal bars and ECC, both specimens ex-
hibited good integrity throughout the test with no longitudinal
splitting crack showing up. It should be noted that Fischer et al.
[21] considered a 25–50% strength drop as the failure state for
reinforced ECC components. Due to the limitations of testing
equipment, the test was stopped when the external load reduced to
85% of the ultimate load. Even so, specimen JME3 and JSE2
showed larger ultimate displacement and load capacity compared
with concrete specimens. It is therefore deduced that the proposed
connection with cast-in-place ECC should have better seismic per-
formance in real situation than the results acquired from this test.
3.2. Hysteresis characteristics
The load-versus-drift hysteretic curves and envelop curves for all
specimens are shown in Figs. 11 and12, where the applied load on the
beam was plotted against the displacement measured at 1000 mm away
from the joint region. For the interior joints, the displacement at the
west beam end was used. As a result of the different longitudinal bars
used at the top and bottom of the beams, the experimental loops were
unsymmetrical.
These monolithic connections exhibited fat hysteresis loops with
relatively little pinching. The envelope area of the hysteresis loops in-
creased gradually with increasing displacement and plastic hinge was
formed in the beam end, indicating good energy-dissipating capacity
(Figs. 11a and 12a). As shown in Figs. 11b and 12b, the load-carrying
capacity of specimen JMC3 and JSC2 were lower than the monolithic
specimens in the positive direction, especially for the interior connec-
tions. Slightly pinching could be found at late stage of loading, which is
mostly resulted from the longitudinal cracks that appeared at the in-
terface of U-shaped bars and concrete. However, specimens JMC3 and
JSC2 still exhibited a stable hysteretic behavior, where the hysteresis
loops were relatively full. As can be seen from Fig. 12b and c, specimen
JSC4 showed slightly higher carrying capacity than specimen JSC2 in
the positive direction while both specimens exhibited similar hysteretic
behavior, which implies that the variation in the axial load of the
column has negligible effect on the hysteretic behavior of specimens
when flexural failure takes place in the end of the beam. In the case of
specimen JME3 and specimen JSE2 using ECC in the joint core
(Figs. 11c and 12d), the ultimate strength were 22% and 35% higher
than that of specimen JMC3 and specimen JSC2 despite the fact that the
compressive strength of ECC was lower than the cast-in-place concrete.
This can be explained as follows: ECC with high compressive strain can
help the bar deformation fully develop, making full use of the steel bars
strength in the hardening stage. Meanwhile, the ultra-ductile property
of ECC materials and the compatible deformation between steel bars
and ECC can effectively prevent bond deterioration. Therefore, in-
troducing ECC into the cast-in-place zone can effectively improve the
mechanical properties of the beam plastic hinge, and remarkably en-
hance the load-carrying capacity of the joint. Specimen JME3 and
specimen JSE2 exhibited more stable and fuller hysteresis loops than
specimen JMC3 and specimen JSC2 at the later loading cycle owing to
the superior ductility and damage tolerance of ECC. This also indicates
that the application of ECC in the joint region can significantly enhance
the ability of energy dissipation under cyclic loading.
3.3. Stiffness degradation
The secant stiffness, which is defined as the slope of the straight line
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140

Fig. 9. Crack patterns and failure modes for interior connections (a) Specimen JMMO; (b) Specimen JMC3; (c) Specimen JME3.

connecting the maximum displacement during a cycle, is used for the
comparison of stiffness degradation among tested specimens [27].
Variation of the secant stiffness during the test is plotted in Fig. 13. It
can be seen that the stiffness continuously decreased with increasing
drift due to the cumulative damage in the tested connections. Specimen
JMC3 and specimen JSC2 showed similar stiffness degradation trend as
specimen JMMO and specimen JSMO, which implies that the proposed
connections can achieve similar performance as the monolithic con-
nections in terms of stiffness degradation. The initial stiffness of
specimen JSC4 with higher axial load was greater than that of specimen
JSC2, which can be explained by that the higher axial load on the
column restrains the cracks from propagation in the joint region and
near the beam end. However, due to concrete cracking and reinforce-
ment yielding, the stiffness degradation of specimen JSC4 was more
pronounced as the displacement cycle increased. It was worth noting
that the initial stiffness for specimen JME3 and specimen JSE2 were
slightly smaller than other specimens due to the lower elastic modulus
of ECC. Another possible reason could be the small cracks formed at the

Fig. 10. Crack patterns and failure modes for exterior connections (a) Specimen JSMO; (b) Specimen JSC2; (c) Specimen JSC4; (d) Specimen JSE2.

136
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140

160 Pmax=154.58 160

Pmax=130.9
120 120

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

80 80
40 40
-2.09%
0 -1.57% 0 2.1%
3.16%
-40 -40
-80
-80 Pmax=100.1
Pmax=112.33 -120
-120
-160 JSMO
-160 Envelop Curve JMMO-WEST
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
Drift (%) (a)
(a)
160
160 Pmax=127.9
120
Pmax=137.88

Lateral Load (kN)

120 80
Lateral Load (kN)

80 40
-2.08%
40 0 1.57%
-3% -40
0 2.1%
-40 -80
-120 Pmax=113.9
-80
-120 Pmax=112.18 -160 JSC2
-160 JMC3-WEST -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(b)
Drift (%)
(b) 160
Pmax=133.98
120
Lateral Load (kN)

160 Pmax=150.5 80
120 40
-2.09%
Lateral Load (kN)

80 0 2.08%
40 -40
0 -3.16% -80
2.13% Pmax=111.29
-40 -120
-160 JSC4
-80
-120 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Pmax=126.23
-160 JME3-WEST
Drift (%)
(c)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%) 160 Pmax=158.43

(c) 120
Lateral Load (kN)

80
Fig. 11. Hysteretic and envelop curves for interior connections (a) Specimen
JMMO; (b) Specimen JMC3; (c) Specimen JME3.
40
-1.6%
0 3.16%
ECC/concrete interface. Nevertheless, deterioration in stiffness of the -40
ECC connections were more stable than that of the concrete connections -80
after the drift ratio of 1%. It is due to the superior damage tolerance and -120 Pmax=126.75
strain-hardening of ECC materials in specimen JME3 and specimen JSE2
-160
JSE2. Above results have proven the use of ECC to be very effective in
improving the stiffness of components to prevent structures from col- -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
lapse in earthquake. Drift (%)
(d)
3.4. Displacement ductility Fig. 12. Hysteretic and envelop curves for exterior connections (a) Specimen
JSMO; (b) Specimen JSC2; (c) Specimen JSC4; (d) Specimen JSE2.
Displacement ductility, defined as the ratio of ultimate displacement
to yield displacement, is a crucial index in the seismic performance the criteria of equivalent elasto-plastic energy absorption adopted in
design of structures. The ultimate displacement corresponded to 85% of the literature [28]. As shown in Fig. 14, when the area of S1 is equal to
the peak load, while the yield displacement was determined based on the area of S2, the position of point B is determined. The value of

137
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140

Fig. 13. Stiffness degradation (a) Interior connections; (b) Exterior connections.

contributes to the overall deformation of the specimen.

3.5. Energy dissipation

The energy dissipated is calculated as the area of the hysteretic loop

Fig. 14. Method used to define yield displacement.
horizontal coordinate of point B can be defined as the yield displace-
ment. It should be noted that specimens normally failed by strength
deterioration in the negative position. Displacement ductility factor was
therefore calculated by the envelope curve in negative position. As
summarized in Table 5, all connections underwent flexural failure in a
ductile manner. It can be seen that the displacement ductility factor was
3.55 for specimen JMMO, 3.69 for specimen JSMO, 2.89 for specimen
JMC3 and 2.92 for specimen JSC2. Displacement ductility for the pre-
cast specimens were lower than the monolithic connections due to the
larger yield displacements of precast specimens with high reinforce-
ment ratio in the joint zone. Different axial loads resulted in very little
difference as they fail in a similar mode. As shown in Table 5, two ECC
connections showed larger yield displacements due to smaller elastic
modulus and better damage resistance of the ECC material. It should be
noted that specimen JME3 and specimen JSE2 had not reached final
failure when the test was terminated, so the ductility coefficient of ECC
cannot be defined in this test. Even so, the maximum deformation for
the ECC specimens attained from this test were larger than the concrete
specimens as ECC material can bear higher compressive strain that
for a particular cycle. The cumulative energy dissipated is a widely
adopted parameter to assess the total energy dissipated by summing up
the energy dissipated in consecutive cycles, and the cumulative energy
dissipated for all specimens is shown in Fig. 15. Generally, all speci-
mens exhibited very similar patterns of energy dissipation. Their energy
dissipation capacity was relatively small during the first loading cycle,
but then became steady as they entered the elastoplastic stage. The
comparison of the cumulative energy dissipation between specimen
JSC4 and specimen JSC2 suggests that a higher axial load on the
column can help prevent the propagation of cracks and thus offers
better energy dissipation ability. During the initial loading cycle, the
dissipated energy of both specimens JME3 and JSE2 showed lower
energy dissipation than other concrete specimens as the specimens
using ECC entered the yielding stage later. However, after the drift ratio
of 2%, the difference was small and the energy dissipation of specimens
JME3 and JSE2 increased rapidly, indicating a higher energy dissipa-
tion if the test would continue. This higher slope is probably due to the
ultra-ductile property of ECC and the full inelastic deformation of
longitudinal bars, which led to higher energy dissipation at the material
level as discussed before.
3.6. Stain in steel bars
Some typical strain variation in beam transverse bars and long-
itudinal bars is selected and shown in Fig. 16. As expected, stirrup
strains (Joint 1 and Joint 2) were below the yield strain (2500 uε). The
joint region had sufficient strength to prevent the joint shear failure,
which meets the requirement of “strong-joint and weak-member” in
seismic design. The strains recorded in the transverse reinforcements in
the beams were extremely low and no shear failure occurred due to the

Table 5
Comparison of displacement ductility factor.
Specimen Yielding load Peak load Final load Ductility coefficient Failure mode

Py (kN) Δy (mm) Pmax (kN) Δmax (mm) P0.85 (kN) Δ0.85 (mm)

JMMO (WEST) 105.57 21.47 112.33 29.86 95.48 76.13 3.55 FF

JMC3 (WEST) 97.74 25.19 112.18 57.22 95.35 72.84 2.89 FF
JME3 (WEST) 108.96 28.46 126.23 60.07 107.30 80.81 – No failure
JSMO 90.17 16.31 100.13 39.76 85.11 60.17 3.69 FF
JSC2 105.82 20.6 113.92 39.5 96.83 60.19 2.92 FF
JSC4 103.52 20.77 111.29 39.69 94.56 59.50 2.86 FF
JSE2 110.34 22.2 126.75 30.36 107.74 60.40 – No failure

138
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140

Fig. 15. Cumulative energy dissipation curves (a) Interior connections; (b) Exterior connections.

fully developed plastic hinge in the beam end (Fig. 16c and d). Ad-
ditionally, it can be seen that the stirrup strains for specimen JME3 with
cast-in-place ECC in the joint were lower than specimen JMC3, mostly
in the range of 0 to 900 μm. It can be explained by ECC’s better shear
performance compared to normal concrete [29]. As expected, all
longitudinal reinforcing bars entered the yield stage, and the reinfor-
cing bars at the beam plastic hinge zone generated large plastic strains
(Fig. 16e and f). It is found that the strain variation in the longitudinal
reinforcements distributed uniformly in specimen JME3 and JSE2,
probably owing to the formation of multiple cracks in the beam,

Fig. 16. Strain in transverse and longitudinal bars (unit: uε) (a) Stirrup strain of Specimen JMC3 in the core regions; (b) Stirrup strain of Specimen JSE2 in the core
regions; (c) Stirrup strain of Specimen JMC3 in the beam; (d) Stirrup strain of Specimen JME3 in the beam; (e) Longitudinal strain of Specimen JME3 in the beam; (f)
Longitudinal strain of Specimen JSE2 in the beam.

139
C. Lu et al.
otherwise a large crack such as the one shown in Fig. 9b can cause a
sudden change of the longitudinal reinforcement strain.
3.7. Failure mode analysis and design recommendations
As discussed in prior section, shear failure, flexural failure in the
beam or the column may take place in connections for precast struc-
tures. In addition, debonding and cracking at the interface of precast-
cast-in-place concrete and the interface of steel/concrete is also highly
possible. After testing, it is observed that flexural failure governed all
specimens and shear failure was avoided in precast specimens. It is
therefore deduced that the proposed connection has sufficient strength
to prevent the joint shear failure before the beam and column failure.
Meanwhile, it is also observed that no serious interfacial cracks ap-
peared between the precast and cast-in-place concrete, proving the cast-
in-place concrete of proposed connection bonds well with the precast
concrete. In terms of the U-shaped bar bond slip, although several
longitudinal splitting cracks were observed at the location of U-shaped
bars for specimens with cast-in-place concrete, their further propaga-
tion was well controlled in the entire loading process. In addition, the
test results suggest that U-shape bars bond slip can be avoided by in-
troducing ECC materials.
Although current study is case-dependent, the implications from it
can still be generalized into the design of most precast connections with
similar details and varying sizes. As can be seen from the test result
comparison of precast specimens and monolithic specimens, the failure
mode and seismic performance of the precast specimens are very close
to the monolithic ones. Therefore, the design of proposed precast con-
nection can be referred to the monolithic connection guidelines as
suggested in the Code for Seismic Design (GB50011-2010). It should be
noted that the positive load-carrying capacity and ductility for precast
connections with cast-in-place concrete are found to be slightly lower
than the monolithic connections, so extra caution should be taken on
these aspects when designing the precast connections. Nevertheless,
these minor drawbacks can be easily overcome by introducing the
super-ductile ECC material, which may increase the construction cost
and is recommended to be used in high-seismic areas.
4. Conclusions
This study developed a new precast connection using U-shaped bars
and ECC material. Based on the experimental program of five precast
beam-to-column connections and two monolithic specimens, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn:
(1) With sufficient amount of stirrups placed in the joint according to
the Code for Seismic Design (GB50011-2010), all precast connec-
tions underwent typical flexural failure in the beam end and no
shear failure were observed within the joint. The proposed con-
nections showed similar hysteretic behavior, stiffness degradation
and energy dissipation as the monolithic specimens, proving the
proposed assembling connection to be feasible. However, the po-
sitive load-carrying capacity and ductility were slightly lower for
specimen JMC3 and specimen JSC2.
(2) For the proposed connections in this paper, higher axial compres-
sion ratio of the column leaded to a slight increase in the carrying
capacity, initial stiffness and energy dissipation as the larger axial
load restrained the propagation of cracks in the joint. However, this
effect was insignificant for the hysteretic behavior and ductility.
(3) The seismic performance of connections with cast-in-place ECC in
the joint zone was comparable to (even better at certain aspects,
such as the ability to maintain structural integrity, load carrying
capacity and ultimate displacement) conventional cast-in-place
connections. In addition, the strain in the stirrups for specimens
with cast-in-place ECC was found to be lower, indicating ECC ma-
terial can help sustain certain amount of shear load. Considering the
140
Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
cost of ECC material is higher than normal concrete as manu-
facturing ECC involves the usage of PVA fibers, the proposed con-
nections with ECC is recommended for the applications in high
seismic region.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [grant number 51778131], the Excellent Youth
Foundation of Jiangsu Scientific Committee [grant number
BK20160027], and National Natural Science Foundation of China
[grant number 51708109].
References
[1] Mitchell D, Devall RH, Saatcioglu M, Simpson R, Tinawi R, Tremblay R. Damage to
concrete structures due to the 1994 northridge earthquake. Can J Civ Eng
1995;22(2):361–77.
[2] Park R. Seismic design and construction of precast concrete buildings in New
Zealand. PCI J 2002;47(5):60–75.
[3] Korkmaz HH, Tankut T. Performance of a precast concrete beam-to-beam connec-
tion subject to reversed cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2005;27(9):392–1407.
[4] Cheok GS, Lew HS. Model precast concrete beam-to-column connections subject to
cyclic loading. PCI J 1991;36(3):56–67.
[5] Restrepo JI. Tests on connections of earthquake resisting precast reinforced concrete
perimeter frames of buildings. PCI J 1995;40(4):44–61.
[6] Xue W, Yang X. Seismic tests of precast concrete, moment resisting frames and
connections. PCI J 2010;55(3):102–21.
[7] Vidjeapriya R, Jaya KP. Experimental study on two simple mechanical precast
beam-column connections under reverse cyclic loading. J Perform Constr Facil
2013;27(4):402–14.
[8] Nzabonimpa JD, Hong WK. Structural performance of detachable precast composite
column joints with mechanical metal plates. Eng Struct 2018;160:366–82.
[9] Tullini N, Minghini F. Grouted sleeve connections used in precast reinforced con-
crete construction-experimental investigation of a column-to-column joint. Eng
Struct 2016;127:784–803.
[10] O'leary AJ. Multistory precast concrete framed buildings. Special Publication 1995;
157:211–230.
[11] International Federation for Structural Concrete. Seismic design of precast concrete
building structures; 2003; Bulletin 27, Lausanne: FIB.
[12] Parastesh H, Hajirasouliha I, Ramezani R. A new ductile moment-resisting con-
nection for precast concrete frames in seismic regions: an experimental investiga-
tion. Eng Struct 2014;70(9):144–57.
[13] Shariatmadar H, Beydokhti EZ. An investigation of seismic response of precast
concrete beam to column connections: experimental study. Asian J Civ Eng
2014;15(1):41–60.
[14] Li M, Li VC. High-early-strength ECC for rapid durable repair – material properties;
2011.
[15] Victor C Li. Erratum to: tailoring ECC for special attributes: a review. Int J Concr
Struct Mater 2013;7(3). 251-251.
[16] Li VC, Wu HC. Conditions for pseudo strain-hardening in fiber reinforced brittle
matrix composites. Appl Mech Rev 1992;45(8):390–8.
[17] Zhang J, Leung CKY, Gao Y. Simulation of crack propagation of fiber reinforced
cementitious composite under direct tension. Eng Fract Mech
2011;78(12):2439–54.
[18] Li VC. Engineered cementitious composites – tailored composites through micro-
mechanical modeling. J Adv Concr Technol 1998;1(3).
[19] Zhou J, Pan J, Leung CKY. Mechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced engineered
cementitious composites in uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng
2015;27(1):04014111.
[20] Li VC, Kanda T. Structural applications of engineered cementitious composites. J
Mater Civ Eng 1996;10(2).
[21] Fischer G, Li VC. Influence of matrix ductility on tension-stiffening behavior of steel
reinforced engineered cementitious composites (ECC). ACI Struct J
2002;99(1):104–11.
[22] Choi HK, Choi YC, Choi CS. Development and testing of precast concrete beam-to-
column connections. Eng Struct 2013;56(6):1820–35.
[23] Yuan F, Pan J, Dong L, Leung CKY. Mechanical behaviors of steel reinforced ECC or
ECC/concrete composite beams under reversed cyclic loading. J Mater Civ Eng
2014;26(8):04014047.
[24] Fischer G, Li VC. Effect of matrix ductility on deformation behavior of steel re-
inforced ECC flexural members under reversed cyclic loading conditions. ACI Struct
J 2002;99(6):781–90.
[25] Fischer G. Intrinsic response control of moment-resisting frames utilizing advanced
composite materials and structural elements. ACI Struct J 2003;100(2):166–76.
[26] Yuan F, Pan J, Xu Z, Leung CKY. A comparison of engineered cementitious com-
posites versus normal concrete in beam-column joints under reversed cyclic
loading. Mater Struct 2013;46(1–2):145–59.
[27] Sucuoglu H. Effect of connection rigidity on seismic response of precast concrete
frames. PCI J 1995;40(1):94–103.
[28] Park R. Valuation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from la-
boratory testing. Bull N Z Nat Soc Earthq Eng 1989;22(3):155–66.
[29] Lepech MD, Li VC. Sustainable pavement overlays using engineered cementitious
composites. Int J Pavement Res Technol 2010;3(5):241–50.