Novel Precast Erection Method of Interlocking

Mechanical Joints Using Couplers

J. D. Nzabonimpa 1 and Won-Kee Hong 2

Abstract: Despite many advantages of precast concrete members, the conventional precast members lack in the treatment of construction
waste, require concrete pour forms at joints, and their structural discontinuity leads to low redundancy in the load paths. This study aims to
provide novel solutions to these problems by developing interlocking mechanical joints with fully restrained moments for the connections of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

both steel-concrete composite precast and reinforced concrete precast columns. In the proposed connections, a pair of steel plates was pro-
vided; each plate was installed at the bottom of the upper columns and on top of the lower columns, which were then connected monolithically
via vertical column rebars passing through the metal plates, providing flexural capacity similar to that of conventional monolithic column
connections. The column rebars were spliced by couplers that were manufactured to be fastened by the weight of the upper column, which
was heavy enough to push the vertical rebars into the couplers in the area prepared at the lower part of the upper column, providing a
monolithic joint for the connected precast columns. Throughout the erection test, it was found that conventional monolithic cast-in-place
joints for assembling precast concrete frames can be replaced by the interlocking mechanical joints, offering rapid erection compared with
traditional practices. The columns with proposed joints were also proved to demonstrate sufficient structural capacity. Stresses and strains
were found within allowable limits on the basis of finite-element analysis considering concrete plasticity during the assembly of heavy precast
frames. The erection test showed sufficient verticality ensuring rebars to be connected via couplers when the upper columns were released
down to the lower columns. This novel frame did not require concrete cast at the joint, eliminating the use of concrete pour forms adopted in
conventional construction methods over the last years. Effortless erection with structural efficiency was demonstrated by using the proposed
assembly method, with a significant reduction in the time required to assemble precast frames, similar to that of steel frames. The novel frames
proposed in this study are expected to replace the conventional concrete frames including cast-in-place frames and precast frames with
traditional joints. These novel frames contribute to the concrete industry by providing rapid and dependable construction of both precast
and cast-in place frames. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001482. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Precast concrete frames; Fully restrained moment; Column-column joint; Couplers; Erection of precast frames; Precast
columns connected with metal plates; Erection method using interlocking mechanical joints.

Introduction
Research Background
In recent years, the construction industry has adopted the use of
precast members over the conventional cast-in-place methods. Pre-
cast concrete members offer many advantages including reduction
of the construction period, cost-efficiency, high-quality control, fast
and accurate erection of members, and environmental protection.
Researchers performed extensive studies to upgrade the application
of precast concrete members. Some of these studies investigated
the erection and installation process of precast frames. A study
conducted by Proverbs et al. (1998) suggested that the lifting
and installation of precast frames have a significant impact on
the construction period. Alternatively, Elliott (2016) detailed a
wide range of connection types, which were proposed to connect
prefabricated concrete components. It was concluded that the joints
1
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee
Univ., Yongin 446-701, Korea.
2
Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee Univ.,
Yongin 446-701, Korea (corresponding author). E-mail: hongwk@
khu.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 28, 2017; approved on
November 15, 2017; published online on March 28, 2018. Discussion
period open until August 28, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
design for precast members should comply with applicable build-
ing codes and that their structural safety should always be ensured.
Among the detailed connections, some were classified as pin, semi-
rigid, and rigid depending on their structural performance under
various types of loadings. However, concrete is cast at joint for
the conventional connection of precast concrete frames, requiring
the joint concrete be cured before further erection of precast
members, which results in erection delays.
Previously Related Studies
Recently, precast concrete frames have been widely used in the
construction industry because of their advantages, including good
quality, convenient installation, shortened construction period, en-
ergy conservation, and environment protection (Guan et al. 2016;
Henin and Morcous 2015). In this regard, researchers performed
extensive investigations to expedite the application of precast
members (Demiralp et al. 2012). Johnson (1969) discussed the
challenges facing the erection of precast concrete members. These
challenges were classified as follows: (1) the weight and size of
precast components; (2) the type of connection, including any tem-
porary bracing that is required; and (3) individual site problems.
The connections have been claimed to be the real key to fast
erection techniques. It was found that the lifting and assembly proc-
esses of precast members have a significant impact on the overall
construction project as well. Elliott (2016) introduced the connec-
tion between precast columns where column bars were welded to

© ASCE 04018036-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Moment connection for precast members (reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 70, H. Parastesha, I. Hajirasoulihab, and R. Ramezanic,
“A new ductile moment-resisting connection for precast concrete frames in seismic regions: An experimental investigation,” pp. 144–157, Copyright
2014, with permission from Elsevier)
small steel angles or plates to transfer the moment throughout the
joint. The size of the weld and adjoining elements were designed
to ensure that the failure occurred in other locations but not in
the weld. The traditional cast-in-place methods shown in Fig. 1
(Parastesh et al. 2014) lengthen the construction period and require
temporary braces that are used to support precast components be-
fore the joint concrete is erected and cured. To date, to ensure the
design and application of precast members, many researchers have
investigated the structural behavior of precast concrete joints
subjected to either monotonic or cyclic loads (Englekirk 1995;
Priestley and MacRae 1996; Shim et al. 2008; Pall et al. 1980;
Pampanin 2005). Englekirk (1995) presented an energy absorption
ductile connector that was capable of constructing a seismic mo-
ment resisting the moment frame of precast concrete components.
The developed system indicated how precast members could per-
form well under seismic forces. In addition, Hu et al. (2016) pro-
posed steel-concrete composite structural columns in their previous
study, in which laminated metal plates and couplers welded on the
plates were developed for a moment connection of the precast con-
crete columns. Experimental investigations were also undertaken to
uncover the failure modes of the proposed joints for precast steel-
concrete columns. It was found that specimens with thick plates
were able to transfer moments, creating a rigid joint, whereas spec-
imens with thin plates experienced severe deformations at metal
plates, failing to provide capacity similar to the monolithic speci-
men. In their work, the structural behavior was investigated based
on the finite-element analysis approach, and it was found that the
proposed joint can provide flexural capacity similar to that of con-
ventional monolithic column connections. A fast erection of precast
columns with metal plates was also proposed (Nzabonimpa et al.
2017a). In addition, Nzabonimpa et al. (2017b, c) introduced
mechanical beam-column joints with metal plates to replace con-
ventional cast-in-place for steel-concrete frames. The structural
behavior and failure modes of the proposed joints were investigated
throughout the experimental and numerical investigations
(Nzabonimpa et al. 2017b, c). Nevertheless, the erection delays
of the conventional connection of precast concrete frames were
inevitable because the joint concrete was required to be cured be-
fore further erection of precast members. The objective of the pro-
posed mechanical joint introduced in the present study was to splice
© ASCE 04018036-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036
column rebars by pressure, resulting in the faster erection of
precast members compared with traditional practices and replacing
conventional practices that require time to cure the concrete at
joints.
Significance of This Study
The efficient and effortless erection of the proposed structure was
demonstrated by the erection test of a full-scale precast frame that
was assembled by couplers. The construction time, compared with
that in conventional monolithic assembly, can be reduced along
with the corresponding cost. The precast column assembly time
decreased, which was a result of eliminating the pour forms and
curing times required for conventional concrete frames as shown
in this erection test. It was shown that conventional monolithic
cast-in-place joints for assembling precast concrete frames can
be replaced by interlocking mechanical joints with couplers.
Installation Process
Contribution of Using Couplers in the Proposed Joint
The coupler is one of the essential parts in the interlocking
mechanical joints. The joint details of the test specimens for col-
umn connections and beam-column connections with dimensions
are shown in Fig. 2. The rebar is locked automatically by the joint
with the groove of the coupler shown in Fig. 3(a) when the rebar is
pushed into the coupler [CK Intersteel, “One touch coupler,”
Korean Patent No. 10-164-3846-0000 (2016)]; the center of the
plastic holder breaks through, and the inner shell strongly grabs
not only the joint but also the body with the rebar rib via sharp
teeth. The weight of the precast columns pushes the rebars into
the couplers, providing fast and effortless splices of the vertical re-
bars for the connection of precast frames compared to threaded and
wedge splicers. The connection details between couplers and plates
for upper columns are described in Fig. 3; concrete is boxed out for
the installation of the couplers, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The vertical
rebars pass through the metal plates attached to the upper and lower
columns. The vertical rebars are spliced via the couplers shown
in Fig. 3(c); the couplers welded to the metal plate are attached
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Column connections and beam-column connection details proposed in this study

Fig. 3. Manufacturing frames: (a) coupler splicing vertical rebars; (b) concrete boxed out for the installation of the couplers; (c) couplers welded to the
metal plate attached at the bottom of the upper column; (d) fabrication of the girder with extended end plates; (e) embedded couplers to install
horizontal girder rebars

at the bottom of the upper column in the exposed recessed area,
which connect the rebars when rebars are pushed into the couplers.
Fabrication of the girder with extended end plates is also shown in
Fig. 3(d). Fig. 3(e) displays the couplers embedded on the column
face to install horizontal girder rebars.
Manufacturing of the Frames with Proposed Joints
The manufacturing of the frames and their assembly process for the
proposed novel joint are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. A pair of steel
plates is proposed in which each plate is installed at the bottom
of upper columns and on top of lower columns, which are then

© ASCE 04018036-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Summarized assembly method, including slab construction: (a) joint details used for the full-scale erection test; (b) upper and lower columns
with couplers and rebars placed for the connection; (c) lower columns with vertical rebars (male) and upper columns with couplers (female)

connected monolithically via vertical column rebars that pass
through the metal plates, offering a flexural capacity similar to that
of conventional monolithic column connections.
The joint details used for the full-scale erection test are pre-
sented in Figs. 4(a and b). Fig. 4(c) shows upper columns with
couplers (female part) and lower columns with vertical rebars
(male part) before they are lifted. The vertical rebars protrude
118 mm from the plate of the lower column because a rebar length
of 115–123 mm has to be inserted into the couplers to fasten them
to 32-mm-diameter rebars. Verticality is carefully ensured so as
to accurately insert rebars into couplers when the upper column
is released down to the lower column to connect rebars via the
couplers.
Assembly Based on Interlocking Mechanical Joints
The assembly of full-scale precast columns by interlocking
mechanical joints with couplers is shown in Fig. 5(a). The
interlocking mechanical joints with fully restrained moment
connections that were developed to provide rapid and facile con-
nections for reinforced concrete precast columns are shown in
Fig. 5(b), in which a pair of steel plates is used, offering monolithic
column joints. Fig. 5(b) highlights the fabricated vertical column
rebars passing through the metal plates that are connected by
couplers, providing a flexural capacity similar to that of conven-
tional monolithic column connections. The column rebars are
spliced by couplers; the weight of the upper column exerts gravity
loads so that the rebars are fixed into couplers [Fig. 5(b)] at the
area prepared at the lower part of the upper column, as shown
in Fig. 4(b). It was demonstrated that the axial loads and the
moment are directly transferred by rebars and couplers across the
joints, not by the stiffness of the metal column plates; this allows
the column plates to be used as only erection elements, not as struc-
tural elements. Extensive full-scale assembly tests of the large
columns designed to support 13,443-kN loads were performed to
investigate how accurately vertical rebars were fastened into the
couplers to form monolithic columns. The time required for this
assembly based on the interlocking mechanical joints was less than
half an hour. The assembly is completed when rebars are locked
automatically by both the groove of the coupler and the weight
of the precast columns as shown in Fig. 5(b), in which the advan-
tages in installation and disassembly to practical applications are
explored. The proposed innovated novel method can be used as
an alternative for modular offsite construction for buildings and
heavy industrial plants constructed with precast concrete frames,
reducing the cost of modular construction required when steel
structures are used for a similar modular construction. Fig. 6
presents a similar assembly of the precast columns without an

© ASCE 04018036-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Assembly of the precast columns via interlocking mechanical
joints: (a) assembly of precast columns by couplers; (b) placing weight
of the upper column to exert the gravity loads for rebars to be inserted
into couplers
Fig. 6. Assembly of the precast columns (without recessed area) via
interlocking mechanical joints
exposed recessed area in the upper column. However, it is not pos-
sible to disassemble this structure to correct column installations
using this method. Fig. 7 exhibits the full-scale mock-up test for
assembly, demonstrating the efficiency of an assemblage of precast
frames compared with conventional precast construction. The
novel connections consist of metal beam end plates at the ends
of the beams and plates embedded in the face of columns, which
© ASCE
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036
were provided to assemble the beam-column frame, as shown
in Fig. 7. The erection of the proposed frame connection is as
follows: (1) lift the beams; (2) place the beams between the column
plates; and (3) connect the beams and column plates by using
bolts, as shown in Figs. 7(a–c). The torque was measured to check
whether the required pre-tension force in the bolt shank was intro-
duced [Fig. 7(d)]. Beam-column joint details that can be used with
the proposed frame are shown in Fig. 7(e). Fig. 7(f) shows a com-
pleted frame assembly without the horizontal girder rebars. The ex-
tended beam end plates and bolts were not designed to transfer
force couples (tension and compression) to create moment connec-
tions, but instead were used as erection plates. The horizontal beam
rebars at the top were directly connected to the columns through
couplers embedded in the column face (Fig. 8), offering moment
connections for the column-beam joint assembly. The threaded
ends of beam rebars were prepared in the plant. For this assembly,
vertical and horizontal couplers with anchor rebars should be
placed accurately during fabrication. Fig. 9(a) shows a completed
precast frame with beam-to-column and column-to-column con-
nection details; the column joints were assembled with and without
recessed areas. Metal deck plates or pour forms for the construction
of slabs can be installed as shown in Fig. 9(b).
Replacing Couplers
The exposed recessed area shown in Fig. 4 was prepared to cast
concrete for slabs that can be used to replace couplers in case a
mismatch between rebars and couplers occurs because of bad rebar
verticality. In most cases, mismatches with minor verticality issues
can be corrected with new couplers. However, more serious prob-
lems arise when considerable rebar dislocations are found, leading
to the exchange of entire columns at the exposed recessed area. The
plate size installed with an upper column was reduced [Fig. 5(a)]
to ensure the easy fit of rebars into the couplers, leading to the
accurate assembly of the two precast concrete components. Fig. 10
summarizes the assembly procedure with the specific time spent for
the assembly of one bay frame when the proposed precast erection
method was implemented in the erection test in this study. The erec-
tion test in this study may differ from a real-world frame construc-
tion because more sophisticated preparations may be required in a
real-world scenario.
Numerical Investigation
Table 1 presents the finite-element analysis (FEA) parameters for
the nonlinear numerical analysis based on the concrete plasticity;
various parameters are used to define the Drucker-Prager hyper-
bolic plastic potential function.
Numerical Investigation for Design Verification
This study introduced easy and effortless installation of heavy
composite precast frames, resulting in the recommended use of
couplers and metal plates. This section outlines the numerical in-
vestigation for design verification. The precast columns with the
proposed connection using laminated metal plates can be used to
assemble the warehouse, supporting heavy gravity loads with a
10.5-m floor height and an 11-m long-span girder. Girders are more
than 200 kN when steel and concrete are composited to efficiently
provide structural resistance to the floor loading up to 20 kN=m2 .
A total axial load of 13,443 kN was applied to the columns under
investigation in this study. Gravity loads were calculated from the
11 × 11-m tributary area with loads of 20 kN=m2 for the seven
floors.
04018036-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Assembly of the column-beam connection via interlocking mechanical joints: (a) assembly of the column-beam connection via extended
beam end plates; (b) girder connected to the column via extended end plates (upper bolts); (c) girder connected to the column via extended end plates
(lower bolts); (d) checking torque; (e) beam-column joint details; (f) assembled frame without girder rebars

which both vertical rebars welded on the metal plates via couplers
contribute to transferring the axial forces and moments. Fourteen
exterior bolts were installed for both column connections.

Description of the Finite-Element Model

Fig. 8. Assembly of the top beam rebars connected to the embedded
couplers prepared in the column face
Joint Detail Used in Analytical Investigation
Table 1 presents the FEA parameters for the nonlinear numerical
analysis based on the concrete plasticity; various parameters
are used to define the Drucker-Prager hyperbolic plastic potential
function. Table 2 summarizes the material properties including the
rebars, metal plates, and concrete. In Fig. 11(a), the metal column
plates represented by Legend 3 [15 mm, Fig. 13(b)] were intercon-
nected by four exterior bolts without interior bolts; in Fig. 11(b), the
column plates represented by Legend 2 [10 mm, Fig. 13(b)] were
spliced by only couplers without exterior/interior bolts to transfer
axial forces and moments. However, the metal column plates
represented by Legends 4 and 5 of Fig. 13(b) were bolted with
4 þ 2 (six interior bolts with 30 mm plates) and 6 þ 2 (eight
interior bolts with 20 mm plates) arrangements, respectively, in
A numerical model of the proposed connection for multifloor
precast frames including vertical rebars, metal plates, stirrups, and
concrete is presented in Fig. 12(a). The finite-element model was
discretized by using the ABAQUS tool. Two elements (C3D8R
and R3D4) were chosen from the ABAQUS library to represent
the mechanical joints proposed in this study. The three-dimensional
elements of type C3D8R, known as reduced integration elements,
are preferred because they are suitable for nonlinear static analysis
and are inexpensive in terms of the running time. In these elements,
eight integration points are reduced to a single integration point,
thus reducing the computation time. Alternatively, elements of type
R3D4 were used in the model to represent a rigid body on which a
lateral force was applied during the analysis. A symmetric model
with respect to the y-axis was modeled with a constrained area as-
signed on the bottom of the column. Fig. 12(a) shows the con-
strained area, restraining any column movement that could occur
when the lateral load is applied. The proposed model was modeled
by defining interactions on the basis of surface-to-surface contact
formulation. In the proposed model, surface-to-surface contact
properties are defined on the basis of the tangential and normal
behaviors. Theses contact behaviors were assigned to prevent
surfaces in contact from penetrating each other. The tangential
behavior was defined to be frictionless in all three interactions,
whereas the normal behavior was assigned by using the penalty
method (standard) and hard contact for pressure overclosure.
To define each contact property, two surfaces must be selected,
namely, the master surface (stiffer surface) and the slave surface
(weaker surface). Fig. 12(b) depicts each pair of surfaces (master

© ASCE 04018036-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

 Table 1. Summary of the FEA Parameters for the Nonlinear Numerical
Analysis
Parameter Concrete Steel
Young’s modulus 30,008 MPa 205,000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.167 0.3
Dilation angle 30° (default value) N/A
Eccentricity 0.1 (default value)
Fbo/fco 1.16 (default value)
K value 0.6667 (default value)
Viscosity parameter 0.001
Note: Fbo/fco = ratio of initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress to initial
compressive stress.

and slave) and the interactions that were assigned to the proposed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mechanical joint.

Verification of the Numerical Analysis

Fig. 9. Precast frame completed with interlocking mechanical joints
assembly: (a) completed precast frame (refer to Fig. 10 for assembly
details); (b) assembly of the precast frame completed with slabs
The axial force-moment interaction diagram of the columns
with monolithic joints at a concrete strain of 0.003 was obtained by
using the strain compatibility of the structural components of the
column section [Fig. 13(a)]. The nominal flexural moment capacity
of 5,600 kN · m corresponded to the axial load of 13,446 kN in the
axial force-moment (P-M) diagram shown in Fig. 13(a). The flexu-
ral capacity of the column 5,465 kN · m was calculated at the con-
crete strain of 0.003 based on the nonlinear finite-element analysis
considering concrete plasticity of monolithic concrete joints, as
indicated by Legend 1 of Fig. 13(b). A good correlation between
the two flexural moment capacities was exhibited, verifying the ac-
curacy of the nonlinear FEA model with parameters. The moment
demand of 2,170 kN · m, obtained from the computer model of a
three-dimensional frame is indicated in the P-M diagram shown
Fig. 13(a). The moment demand divided by a strength reduction
factor of 0.65 is shown in Fig. 13(b). This figure also compares
the nominal moment strength estimated numerically and demon-
strates that the design moment strengths of all of columns with
mechanical joints including column represented by Legend 2 are
greater than the required moment demand.

Fig. 10. Observed time for the frame assembly with interlocking mechanical joints

© ASCE 04018036-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

 Table 2. Material Properties
Category Size Material
Concrete columns 1,000 × 1,000 mm Concrete compressive strength: 40 MPa
Upper plates for Legends 2, 3, 4, 1,000 × 1,000 mm; thickness: 10 mm Steel (SM490); tensile yield stress: Fy ¼ 325 MPa;
and 5, respectively [Fig. 13(b)] 1,000 × 1,000 mm; thickness: 15 mm ultimate strength: Fu ¼ 490 MPa
1,200 × 1,200 mm; thickness: 30 mm
1,200 × 1,200 mm; thickness: 20 mm
Lower plates for Legends 2, 3, 4, 1,000 × 1,000 mm; thickness: 10 mm Steel (SM490); tensile yield stress: Fy ¼ 325 MPa;
and 5, respectively [Fig. 13(b)] 1,000 × 1,000 mm; thickness: 15 mm ultimate strength: Fu ¼ 490 MPa
1,200 × 1,200 mm; thickness: 30 mm
1,200 × 1,200 mm; thickness: 20 mm
Bolts M22 Tensile yield stress: f y ¼ 900 MPa;
ultimate strength: Fu ¼ 1,000 MPa
Rebar HD32 Tensile yield stress: f y ¼ 600 MPa
Hoops HD10 Tensile yield stress: Fy ¼ 400 MPa;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ultimate strength: Fu ¼ 490 MPa

structural behavior of the mechanical joint proposed in this study.

Fig. 11. Connections details performed with numerical analysis
(rebar nodes shared with those of the vertical rebars): (a) vertical rebars
connected directly via couplers; (b) vertical rebars connected directly
via couplers
Influence of the Joint Details on the Flexural Capacity
of the Proposed Connection
Nonlinear numerical investigations of the proposed connection
based on the concrete plasticity were performed to explore the
The influence of the thickness of the metal plates (Fig. 11) on the
flexural capacity of the proposed connections was explored by
using nonlinear plastic FEA. In Legend 2 of Fig. 13(b), the flexural
capacity of the joint is compared with the load demands when no
interior and exterior bolts were used. The 10-mm-thick metal plates
had joints, where the vertical rebars were connected directly by the
couplers without bolt connections. The strains in the plates were
negligible; εt ¼ 0.00012 (0.07εy ) at both the M u (3,338 kN · m)
level and εt ¼ 0.00021 (0.13εy ) at the moment corresponding to
a concrete strain of 0.003 (4,259 kN · m). The concrete strain at
M u (3,338 kN · m) was determined to be 0.00204 (peak of the
concrete constitutive curve). The strains of the vertical rebars were
0.0013 (0.8εy ) and 0.0028 (1.0εy ) at M u and at the moment cor-
responding to a concrete strain of 0.003. Fig. 13(b) also shows
a similar increase in the moment capacity for all joints with varied
plate thickness and bolts installation. However, the column with
monolithic connections demonstrates the largest capacity and
stroke, indicating that the proposed joint can replace the columns
with monolithic joints for the loading combination introduced in
this numerical demonstration. In Fig. 14, strains and stress exerted
on the joints and stress-strain relationships of concrete, rebars, and
column plates at M u and the moment corresponding to a concrete
strain of 0.003 are identified from the moment-displacement
relationship represented by Legends 2 and 3 of Fig. 13(b). The
stresses were less than the yield strength in concrete, rebar, and
column plate at M u , whereas they increased to yield strength at the
moment corresponding to the concrete strain of 0.003.
The stresses and strains recorded in each structural component
were plotted to explore the response of the proposed mechanical
joints connected with metal plates. As shown in Fig. 14(a), at the
M u (3,338 kN · m) level, the compressive stress of the concrete be-
came as high as 27 MPa with a concrete strain of 0.00204, whereas
at the design load limit state (at a concrete strain of 0.003), the con-
crete compressive stress reached 38 MPa, corresponding to a con-
crete strain of 0.003. Alternatively, strains observed in the rebars at
the M u (3,338 kN · m) level were found to be 0.0013, correspond-
ing to a stress of 283 MPa, and the stresses in the rebars were as
high as 582 MPa, corresponding to a strain of 0.00274 at the design
load limit state, as shown in Fig. 14(b). Because there was no
tensile force acting on the metal plates, only a compressive force
coming from the concrete columns was exerted on these elements
(upper and lower plates) when the column was pushed laterally.
Fig. 14(c) shows the compressive stresses and strains acting on
the metal plates. These compressive stresses and strains were
not significant [Fig. 14(c)]. At the M u (3,338 kN · m) level,

© ASCE 04018036-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Finite-element model of the proposed connection [Legend 2, Fig. 13(b)]: (a) mesh model for Legend 2 of Fig. 13; (b) definition of surface-to-
surface contact for Legend 2 of Fig. 13

the compressive stress in the plate was 21 MPa with a strain
of 0.00012, whereas at the design load limit state (at the concrete
strain of 0.003), the compressive stress in the metal plate was
32 MPa with a strain of 0.00021. Fig. 15 describes the deformed
and undeformed meshes of the proposed joints at the M u
(3,338 kN · m) level. It is clear that the joint did not undergo large
deformations.
Conclusions
The drawbacks of the conventional monolithic cast-in-place joints
for assembling precast concrete frames include the use of concrete
pour forms with cast of concrete and structural discontinuity lead-
ing to low redundancy in the load paths. To overcome these prob-
lems, an efficient and effortless assembly method was suggested
via the test erection of full-scale precast columns connected by cou-
plers. Metal plates with a thickness of 5–10 mm served as guide
plates when the columns above were released to splice vertical re-
bars installed on the columns below via couplers. The axial loads
and the moment are transferred at the joints directly via rebars and
couplers, not through the stiffness of the metal column plates. In
fact, the stiffness of the column plates does not influence the struc-
tural behavior of the proposed connections. The construction time
with this method, compared with the conventional monolithic
assembly, can be reduced. The precast column assembly time

© ASCE 04018036-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Calibration of the nonlinear numerical results with the axial force-moment interaction: (a) axial force-moment interaction diagram of the
columns with monolithic joints at a concrete strain of 0.003; (b) moment-displacement relationship

was reduced, with the elimination of pour forms and curing times
required for the conventional concrete frames. Vertical rebars
and couplers penetrating the plates also contributed to cost-saving
alternatives to conventional monolithic cast-in-place joints for con-
necting heavy precast concrete frames. This study also presented a
numerical model of the proposed connection for multifloor precast
frames to explore the strains and stress exerted on the joints for use
in design.
The use of the proposed mechanical joint utilizing laminated
metal plates and couplers on the flexural capacity of the columns
was verified. The proposed assembly method was proved signifi-
cant, and the time for assembling precast frames was similar to
that for steel frames. Safety of the structural behavior of the joint
elements was ensured during the assembly of heavy precast frames
on the basis of the numerical investigation of stresses and strains.
The conventional concrete frames including cast-in-place frames

© ASCE 04018036-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Stress-strain relationships of the (a) concrete; (b) rebars; and (c) column plates

Fig. 15. Deformed and undeformed shape at the M u (3,338 kN · m) level

© ASCE 04018036-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036

 and precast frames with traditional joints are expected to be
replaced by the novel frames proposed in this study.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s
data-sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001263.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Basic Science Research
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Won-Kee Hong on 03/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea
(NRF), which is funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-
2016R1D1A1A02937558).
References
ABAQUS [Computer software]. Dassault Systèmes SIMULIA, Providence,
RI.
Demiralp, G., Guven, G., and Ergen, E. (2012). “Analyzing the benefits of
RFID technology for cost sharing in construction supply chains: A case
study on prefabricated precast components.” Autom. Constr., 24, 120–129.
Elliott, K. S. (2016). Precast concrete structures, CRC Press, Oxford, U.K.
Englekirk, R. (1995). “Development and testing of a ductile connector for
assembling precast concrete beams and columns.” PCI J., 40(2), 36–51.
Guan, D., Guo, Z., Xiao, Q., and Zheng, Y. (2016). “Experimental study of
a new beam-to-column connection for precast concrete frames under
reversal cyclic loading.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 19(3), 529–545.
© ASCE 04018036-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2018, 144(6): 04018036
Henin, E., and Morcous, G. (2015). “Non-proprietary bar splice sleeve for
precast concrete construction.” Eng. Struct., 83, 154–162.
Hu, J.-Y., Hong, W. K., and Park, S. C. (2016). “Experimental investigation
of precast concrete based dry mechanical column–column joints for
precast concrete frames.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 26(5), 1–15.
Johnson, C. D. (1969). “Erection of precast concrete.” PCI J., 14(2),
54–62.
Nzabonimpa, J. D., Hong, W. K., and Kim, J. (2017a). “Mechanical con-
nections of the precast concrete columns with detachable metal plates.”
Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 26(17), 1–14.
Nzabonimpa, J. D., Hong, W. K., and Kim, J. (2017b). “Nonlinear finite
element model for the novel mechanical beam-column joints of precast
concrete-based frames.” Comput. Struct., 189, 31–48.
Nzabonimpa, J. D., Hong, W. K., and Park, S. C. (2017c). “Experimental
investigation of dry mechanical beam-column joints for precast
concrete based frames.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 26(1), 1–19.
Pall, A. S., Marsh, C., and Fazio, P. (1980). “Friction joints for seismic
control of large panel structures.” PCI J., 25(6), 38–61.
Pampanin, S. (2005). “Emerging solutions for high seismic performance of
precast/prestressed concrete buildings.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol., 3(2),
207–223.
Parastesh, H., Hajirasouliha, I., and Ramezani, R. (2014). “A new ductile
moment-resisting connection for precast concrete frames in seismic
regions: An experimental investigation.” Eng. Struct., 70, 144–157.
Priestley, M. N., and MacRae, G. (1996). “Seismic tests of precast beam-to-
column joint subassemblages with unbonded tendons.” PCI J., 41(1),
64–81.
Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D., and Olomolaiye, P. O. (1998). “Factors
impacting construction project duration: A comparison between
France, Germany and the UK.” Build. Environ., 34(2), 197–204.
Shim, C. S., Chung, C. H., and Kim, H. H. (2008). “Experimental evalu-
ation of seismic performance of precast segmental bridge piers with a
circular solid section.” Eng. Struct., 30(12), 3782–3792.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.