Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Non-linear 3D finite element analysis of precast reinforced concrete

Beam-Column joint under monotonic static load
Maged Qasem a,⇑, Mousa Hasan a, Rahimah Muhamad a, Ayad Mutafi b
a
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kuala Lumpur 54100, Malaysia
b
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Jalan Universiti 1 Serdang, Selangor 43400, Malaysia

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

Article history: This paper presents a three-dimensional (3D) non-linear finite element (FE) analysis for a precast rein-
Available online xxxx forced concrete (RC) beam-column joint under monotonic static load using ABAQUS software. The con-
stitutive material laws for concrete and steel, the concrete-concrete interaction, the concrete-steel
Keywords: bond-slip at beam component, and the modelling of the linking parts of discontinuous main bars were
Precast concrete considered in this study. The FE model was validated with experimental results from another published
Beam-column joint research. The validated FE model was then utilized to parametrically investigate the effect of the connec-
Finite element analysis
tion location and bar linking parts within the connection zone on the load capacity and failure patterns of
Concrete damage plasticity model
Bond-slip
the beam-column joint. Results demonstrated that the FE model is able of reproducing an identical beha-
Concrete-concrete interface viour to the experimental test. Further, locating the precast connection away from the column face can
result in increased load capacity and minor damage at the connection region. Additionally, the bar link
parts had a minor effect on load capacity but a significant impact on stress and crack distribution.
Overall, the developed FE model can replicate the structural behaviour of the precast beam-column joint
connections under the static load, and therefore, it can be used as an effective tool for examining the con-
nection design parameters.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advances in Construction Materials and Structures.

1. Introduction
The precast concrete method has recently shifted the construc-
tion in many countries worldwide from an industry engaging a
conventional, labour demanding, time-consuming, and environ-
ment polluting method into a more systematic, mechanized, tech-
nology embracing, timesaving, less contaminating, and better-
quality method. Currently, among the various types of precast con-
crete systems, a precast RC frame system has garnered the most
attention from engineers and researchers, particularly its connec-
tion parts. Beam-column joints are the integral parts of the RC
frame buildings. Hence, having a precast connection at this joint
should withstand the complex stresses generated from the vertical
and horizontal forces-induced interactions between the structural
components. This would necessitate time-consuming and costly
complex connection details. Thus, to avoid issues such as complex
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mm.almaged@gmail.com (M. Qasem).
connection details and associated costs, disrupting the main bars
continuity and monolithically cast joint, or reinforcement conges-
tion at the joint, several studies [1–4] suggested that the location of
the precast connection should be moved some adequate distance
from the column face on the beam end span (Fig. 1(a)).
The 3D FE modelling enables a more detailed and explicit depic-
tion of the structural geometry and reinforcements arrangement
and their interaction with concrete [5]. Therefore, it is currently
regarded as the most appropriate FE computational strategy for
simulating the precast beam-column connection due to its ability
to represent the connection’s complex behaviour more realistically
[6]. The success of FE implementation in the precast connection is
associated with the proper definition of several fundamentals, such
as materials, interface behaviour between the precast and post-
cast concretes, bond interaction between steel and concrete, and
bar continuity methods (i.e., welding, couplers, and grouted
sleeves) at the connection zone [6–8]. Some FE studies have been
carried out to investigate the structural behaviour of the precast
beam-column joint under static or cyclic load. For example, Feng
et al. [2] carried out a 3D non-linear FE analysis for an internal pre-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.284
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advances in Construction Materials and Structures.

Please cite this article as: M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al., Non-linear 3D finite element analysis of precast reinforced concrete Beam-Column joint
under monotonic static load, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.284
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Specimens detail [9]; (b) Double-grouted sleeves details.
cast beam-column joint using ABAQUS to examine the impact of
the connection location on the cyclic behaviour of the joint. The
surface-surface contact was considered with frictional behaviour
in the horizontal direction and hard contract in the normal direc-
tion to simulate the concrete-concrete interface. The pipe sleeves
at the connection region were modelled as 2D 4-node shell ele-
ments. The model did not account for bond-slip behaviour between
reinforcing bars and concrete; instead, a perfect bond was
assumed. Feng et al. [6] evaluated the cyclic behaviour of precast
beam-column joint through a 3D non-linear FE analysis using ABA-
QUS. The post-cast concrete interface was modelled as a 3D solid
element with reduced concrete properties. The bond-slip beha-
viour was only considered for bars within the joint core, while
the remaining reinforcements were assumed under a perfect bond
condition. Ding et al. [1] investigated the cyclic behaviour of the
internal precast beam-column joint with a design for deconstruc-
tion (DfD) connection by developing a 2D FE model using ABAQUS.
The cohesive element method, incorporating the traction-
separation law, was used to define the interaction behaviour
between the precast and post-cast concretes. The bond-slip beha-
viour of the concrete-steel interface was considered. The linking
part of discontinuous bars was ignored during the modelling;
instead, the discontinuous bars and their linking means were mod-
elled as a single continuous bar.
Considering the background mentioned above, the interaction
behaviour between precast and post-cast concrete is critical in pre-
cast connections due to the unassured quality ofconcrte cast at
diffrent times. Furthermore, ignoring the bond-slip of the bars in
the high strain regions would result in a stiffer initial response,
an overestimation of the joint’s post-yielding behaviour and a sig-
nificant impact on the crack distribution. Likewise, modelling the
discontinuous longitudinal bars and their linking means at the con-
nection’s region as a single continuous bar may misestimate the
stress distribution in the rebar within the connection region.
Therefore, this paper presents a 3D FE modelling strategy for sim-
ulating the behaviour of a precast RC beam-column joint using
ABAQUS (version 6.14.2) under a monotonic static load. The pre-
cise definition of material behaviours (i.e., concrete, high strength
filler material, embedded steel bars in concrete), concrete-steel
bond-slip at high strain level regions of the joint, and concrete-
filler interaction were emphasized in this study. The FE model is
verified using experimental data from Lu et al.[9] study. Moreover,
the parametric analysis is performed to examine the impact of the
connection location and beam longitudinal bar continuity on joint
performance.
2
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
2. Previous experimental work
Lu et al.[9] carried out an experimental study on the precast
beam-column joint subjected to static and cyclic load. Fig. 1(a)
and (b) show the specimen’s geometry and reinforcing details. In
both specimens, the column had a cross-section of 350 mm

350 mm with a total height of 2000 mm, while the beam cross-
section is 200 mm
350 mm with a length of 1500 mm.
The column was reinforced longitudinally with 8D16 bars and
transversely with 8/ stirrups and hooks spaced 100 mm apart.
The protruding and precast beams were longitudinally reinforced
with 2D16 in the top and bottom parts and transversely reinforced
with 8/ stirrups at 100-mm spacing. The discontinuous longitudi-
nal bars within the connection region were linked using double
grouted sleeves (Fig. 1(b)). The experiment considered two loca-
tions for the precast connection: (a) away from the column face
(labelled as BCJ-S); and (b) at the column face (labelled as BCJ-1).
However, the BCJ-S specimen was the only one among six speci-
mens tested under static load. Thus, it is employed in this present
study for FE validation, whereas BCJ-1 is considered in the para-
metric study under monotonic static load. Table 1 shows the
mechanical properties of the materials used in this study.
The experimental setup for the specimen is shown in Fig. 2. The
top of the column was loaded axially using a jack (load cell B) with
a load capacity of 3000 kN. Throughout the test, the axial load was
kept constant at 700 kN. A vertical monotonic static load was
applied at the beam free end by an actuator (Load cell B) with ± 600
kN load capacity and ± 250 mm displacement range. Linear vari-
able differential transformers (LVDTs) and strain gauges were
attached to certain locations in the specimen and reinforcement
to obtain the displacement and strain response.
Table 1
Mechanical properties of materials.
Concrete, grout, and filler properties
Material type Concrete Grout Filler
Compressive strength (MPa) 39.8 86.2 82.1
Reinforcement properties
Reinforcement type Longitudinal bar Transmission bar Stirrup
Bar diameter 16 16 8
yield strength f y (MPa) 422 418 431
Young’s Modulus E (GPa) 198 198 200
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Experimental setup [9].

3. Beam-column joint failure mechanism On the other hand, when the
value does not satisfy Eq. (2),
this implies that the compression bars have yet to be yielded and
Various failure modes could occur in beam-column joints, such the moment capacity can be calculated by Eq. (4).
as insufficient bond length, joint shear failure, flexural failure of
0
Mpre ¼ f s As d  d ð4Þ
beam or column and shear failure of beam or column [10]. In the
experimental study [9], the beam-column joint was designed where d is the effective depth of the beam cross-section.
based on the strong column-weak beam approach and the findings When the applied load increases, the moment demand
indicated that the failure of the joint was due to the formation of M nj ¼ PLB at the joint increases until it exceeds the ultimate
the plastic hinge at the beam end. This failure mode reveals that moment capacity M pre resulting in excessive cracking and plastic
the load-carrying capacity is governed by the flexural strength of hinge formation.
the beam’s section. As shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b), the continuous
loading at the beam end causes a larger rotation that exceeds the 4. FE modelling
joint’s moment capacity. As a result, the cracks initiate at the beam
critical section and propagate continuously with the increase of the 4.1. Materials
vertical displacement. Moreover, the concrete crushing could occur
at the beam end near the column face on the compression zone The concrete damage plasticity model (CDPM) in commercial
(Fig. 3(b)). Fig. 3(c) shows the stress distribution within the joint software ABAQUS [12] is used to simulate the non-linear behaviour
tension and the compression zones where the cracking and crush- of the concrete/filler under multiaxial state conditions. The plastic-
ing failures may occur. ity parameters required in CDPM are given in Table 2. Fig. 4 shows
The classical flexural theory was employed by [9] following the concrete damage plasticity model.
GB50010-2010 [11] to determine the flexural capacity of the beam The uniaxial compressive behaviour of normal-strength con-
section. Based on the equilibrium condition shown in Fig. 3(d), the crete was based on the constitutive equations proposed by Carreira
balanced compressive height
is given in Eq. (1). and Chu [13], which were later modified by Hsu and Hsu [14] to
account for the behaviour of high-strength cement-based material,
0
f s As  f s A0s as expressed in Eq. (5) and Eq. (6).
x¼ ð1Þ  
0:67f cu b ec
rc nb e0
¼ ð5Þ
0
rcu nb  1 þ ec nb
where f cu is the cubic compressive strength, f s and f s
are tensile and e0
0
compressive strengths of the steel bars , As and As are the cross- (
2
section areas of the bars under the tension and compression load, rcu
þ 2:19; rcu < 62 MPa
and b is the width of the beam cross-section. If the balanced com- b ¼
30:6
 ð6Þ
rcu 3
þ 2:59; 62 MPa 6 rcu < 90 MPa
pressive height
meets the condition stated in Eq. (2), this indi- 68:6

cates that both tension and compression longitudinal bars have where rcu is the ultimate compressive strength; b is stress–strain
reached their yielding strength, and the moment capacity can be shape parameter; n is strength dependent parameter, and it is taken
determined by Eq. (3). as n = 1 for concrete strength of 39.8 MPa or n = 3 for filler strength
0 of 82.1 MPa; e0 is the strain corresponding to rcu . Furthermore, the
x P 2d ð2Þ
initial elastic modulus E0 and e0 are determined based on Eq. (7) and

 x
0
Eq. (8) proposed by [14].
0
M pre ¼ f s A0s d  d þ 0:67f cu bx d  ð3Þ
2 E0 ¼ 124:31rcu þ 22636:32 ðMPaÞ ð7Þ

3
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. (a) Joint moments; (b) Beam failure; (c) Joint stress distribution; (d) Equilibrium stress block.

Table 2
CDPM plasticity parameters.

Parameter Dilatation angle Eccentricity f bo =f co Shape factor, k Viscosity parameter

Value 35 0.1 1.16 2/3 0.001

e0 ¼ ð0:01296 rcu þ 2:114Þ=103 ð8Þ hand, since there was no damage on the grouted sleeves reported
during the test, the grouted sleeves were modelled based on the
The tensile stress–strain curve of the concrete was defined
proposed method by Li et al. [7]. In this method, the composite
according to [15] as given in Eq. (9). The ultimate tensile strength
cross-section of the grouted sleeve, comprising sleeve, grout, and
of the concrete rtu was taken as 10% of the ultimate compressive
bar, is simplified into an equivalent beam section with equivalent
strength.
stiffness and strength, as shown in Fig. 6(b).
 0:85
eto
rt ¼ rtu ð9Þ
et 4.2. Concrete-filler interface

where rt is the tensile stress, et0 is the strain corresponding to rtu
and et is the concrete tensile strain. Fig. 5 (a) and (b) show the uni-
axial compressive and tensile stress–strain relations for concrete
and filler materials.
The behaviour of steel bars embedded in the concrete was
defined based on a smeared bilinear stress–strain relationship pro-
posed by Hsu and Mo [16], as illustrated in Fig. 6(a). The reinforce-
ment Stress–strain properties are given in Table 3. On the other
4
The concrete-to-filler interface behaviour was defined based on
the isotropic Coulomb friction model. The tangential friction plays
a significant role in interface behaviour. The so-called surface-to-
surface interaction was used to model the contact between con-
crete and filler. Hence, a constant coefficient value (0.7) was
applied in the tangential direction for an untreated smooth surface
according to Model Code 2010 [17], while a hard contact with zero
separation was employed in the normal direction. In addition, the
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Concrete damage plasticity model.

Fig. 5. (a) Uniaxial compressive stress–strain curves; (a) Uniaxial tensile stress–strain curves.

Fig. 6. (a) Smeared bilinear stress–strain model; (b) Grouted sleeves modelling strategy.

5
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Stress–strain properties of reinforcements.

Reinforcement Type Young Modulus Passion ratio Yield strength Yield strain Ultimate strength Ultimate strain
Bare bar Embedded bar Bare bar Embedded bar
E (GPa) ʋ f y (MPa)
0
f y (MPa) ey ey
0
f u (MPa) eu

Beam Longitudinal Bar 198 0.3 428 378.8 0.00216 0.00191 569 0.074
Column Longitudinal Bar 428 381.2 0.00216 0.00193
Stirrups 200 431 – 0.00215 – 580 0.077

Fig. 7. FE Model: (a) Concrete parts; (b) Reinforcements.

tensile resistance (cohesion) in this model at the normal direction
was neglected due to its insignificant effect [18]. Fig. 7(a) and (b)
show the precast concrete parts and assembled reinforcements,
respectively.
4.3. Concrete-steel interaction
The full compatibility between the concrete and reinforcing
bars can be employed only in regions with low strain levels accord-
ing to [19]. In this study, the column longitudinal bars and the
transverse reinforcements in both column and beam showed a
low strain behaviour. Thus, they were modelled using ‘‘embedded
constraint” available in ABAQUS to simulate the perfect bond inter-
action. However, the beam member was subjected to a high load
level, resulting in an increased bond-slip action between the con-
crete and reinforcement. Therefore, the bond-slip behaviour was
considered in its longitudinal bars based on Murcia-Delos’s pro-
posed model [8], as shown in Fig. 8(a), where smax ¼ 15:6MPa,
sf ¼ 0:25smax , speak ¼ 1:28mm and sR = 9.6 mm. The frictional bond
behaviour was only considered for the grouted sleeves due to the
absence of the ribs responsible for developing the bearing bond
strength.
Mathern et al.[20] proposed introducing an intermediary bar in
the position of the actual bar assigned with low material properties
6
and embedded in the concrete. Hence, the actual bar is connected
to the intermediary bar rather than the concrete (Fig. 8(b)). A node-
to-node connector technique (translator connector type) was used
to apply the bond-slip behaviour in the FE model by connecting the
nodes on the bar with adjoining nodes on the concrete through
implemented wires using a Python script. These built wires
assigned with translator connector behaviour allow the displace-
ment only in the longitudinal direction of the reinforcing bar. To
determine the slip between the two nodes using the translator,
the bond force Fb should be determined instead of the stress bond
sb as given in Eq. (10).
 
pdl
F b ¼ sb ð10Þ
n
where Fb is bond force; sb is bond stress; d is bar diameter; l is trans-
lator spacing; n is the number of translators in each section (here
n = 1).
4.4. Elements
The precast concrete components and the filler were modelled
using an 8-node 3D solid element with reduced integration
(C3D8R). The concrete elements had a mesh size of 25 mm except
at the connection region, where the mesh was refined to 12.5 mm
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al.
Fig. 8. (a) Monotonic bond-slip relation; (b) Bond-slip Implementation in FE model.
using the mesh transition technique. On the other hand, the col-
umn longitudinal bars and stirrups in beam and column were mod-
elled using a 2-node 3D truss element (T3D2). The longitudinal
bars in the beam were modelled using a 2-node linear beam ele-
ment (B31) as this element type is preferred when bending of
the reinforcement exists [21].The mesh size for the entire rein-
forcement bars was 25 mm. Fig. 9(a) shows the mesh details for
precast concrete components, filler and reinforcing bars.
4.5. Load and boundary conditions
This FE model is developed to replicate the behaviour of the
precast beam-column joint under the same load and boundary
conditions implemented during the actual test. The column bottom
is restricted from translations in all three dimensions, whereas the
column top is restricted in x- and z-direction. The gravity load was
applied to the whole model in the first load step. In the second load
step , a constant axial load of 700 kN was applied on top of the col-
umn. A vertical displacement of 140 mm was applied downward at
the beam end in the third load step . Fig. 9(b) illustrates the FE
model’s load and boundary conditions.
Fig. 9. (a) Mesh elements; (b) Boundary conditions.
7
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
5. FE results verification
The precast beam-column joint with connection located away
from the column face subjected to static load (labelled as BCJ-S)
was selected as a prototype model to carry out the verification
study based on the load–displacement response and failure
patterns.
5.1. Load-displacement response
The load–displacement response curves for the experimental
and FE Model of BCJ-S specimen are shown in Fig. 10(a). Generally,
both curves exhibited an acceptable agreement. The FE curve
agreed well with experimental results on the elastic region; how-
ever, it shows slightly higher behaviour than the experimental
curve in the plastic region. This slight difference could be due to
the impact of the assumed variables and conditions in the material
definition during modelling process. Referring to Fig. 10(a), the
yielding load in the experiment was 37.19 kN with the correspond-
ing displacement of 9.33 mm. However, the predicted FE yield load
was almost 6% (39.2kN) higher than the experimental value.
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al.
Fig. 10. (a) Load-displacement response; (b) Failure patterns.
The ultimate load reached during the experiment was 44.6 kN
at a displacement of 47.89 mm, while the FE ultimate load was
46.29 kN with a corresponding displacement of 82 mm. This indi-
cates that the FE ultimate load is 4 % higher than the ultimate
experimental load. Furthermore, both curves demonstrated a slight
decrease in the load as the displacement increased. In addition,the
precast connection demonstrated a ductile behaviour and high
deformation capability. This behaviour is associated with forming
the plastic hinge at the beam end before joint core failure. This
joint failure mode always shows a higher ductility performance
with lower load capacity, as stated by Lee et al.[22]. Overall, the
FE model can accurately predict the load–displacement response
of the precast connection under static load.
5.2. Failure patterns
As shown in Fig. 10(b), the FE predicted failure patterns are
compared to those observed during the experiment at the failure
stage. The crack distributions in the FE model were identical to
the experimental results. The cracks spread at a 200 mm distance
from the column face during the experiment, while in FE simula-
tion, they extended at only 175 mm. At the same time, no crack
was observed at the core of the beam-column joint during the
experiment or FE simulation. This could be attributed to the strong
column-weak beam design approach followed in the experimental
study. On the other hand, concrete crushing failure was observed
at the beam end near the column face in the compression zone
in both experiment and FE results. Generally, the results indicate
that the FE model can accurately simulate the failure patterns cap-
tured during the experiment.
6. Parametric analysis
6.1. Effect of connection location
This section investigates the impact of two precast connection
locations (away from the column face and at the column face) on
the beam-column joint’s load capacity and failure mechanism.
Fig. 11 depicts the FE load–displacement curves for BCJ-S and
BCJ-1. In the BCJ-S curve, three points were marked: A, B, and C
to represent yielding, peak, and end load, respectively. Similarly,
points A0 , B0 , and C0 were used to denote the critical loading phases
8
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
on the BCJ-1 curve. As shown in Fig. 11, both curves agreed well in
the elastic range up to a load of 21 kN, after which BCJ-1 exhibited
a lower behaviour than BCJ-S continued until the end of the load
regime. The BCJ-1 specimen yielded at 34.1 kN with a correspond-
ing displacement of 10.2 mm, while the BCJ-S specimen yielded at
39.2 kN with a corresponding displacement of 10.1 mm. Moreover,
the ultimate strength of the BCJ-S model was 5.3% higher than the
BCJ-1 ultimate strength. Further, the BCJ-1 reached its ultimate
strength earlier than the BCJ-S model after its applied displace-
ment was only 29 mm. Therefore, locating the precast connection
away from the column face (critical section) results in a better per-
formance of the precast joint.
The BCJ-S experienced tensile damage (cracking) at point A, as
shown in Fig. 12(a) at the beam-column interface. The top rein-
forcements of the beam including the transition bars reached their
yielding limit. The measurable flexural cracks were seen at the
beam-column interface. Furthermore, as the load increased to
reach ultimate strength (point B), as shown in Fig. 12(b), the tensile
damage spread at 175 mm away from the column face and the
compressive damage (crushing) initiated at the beam bottom end
near the column face. The beam top longitudinal bars within the
joint core reached their ultimate strength. Finally, at point C
(Fig. 12(c)), there was no significant growth in the tensile and com-
pressive damages. The beam’s bottom longitudinal bars at the col-
umn face yielded. The failure pattern of the precast beam-column
joint is attributed to flexural cracking and concrete crushing at the
beam critical section.
In the BCJ-1 model at point A, a flexural crack commenced at a
550 mm distance from the column face, as shown in Fig. 13(a). This
is because the grouted sleeves have higher stiffness than the regu-
lar bars that keep the concrete within the beam critical section
uncracked. Furthermore, it could be also due to the cracking energy
being dissipated through the possible opening displacement at the
concrete-filler interface rather than through the formation of the
cracks. The beam top longitudinal bars including the transition
bars reached their yield limit . When the ultimate load reached
(point B) as shown in Fig. 13(b), another flexural–shear crack
occurred at 175 mm away from the first one. The cracks were also
developed at the beam-column interface. The compressive damage
was noticed at the beam bottom end near the column face. The top
longitudinal bars in the precast beam approached their ultimate
strength. At point C (Fig. 13(c)), the two cracks grew diagonally
toward the beam bottom part, and the cracks at the joint interface
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 11. Load-displacement curves for BCJ-S and BCJ-1.

Fig. 12. FE outputs for BCJ-S at key points of joint behaviour: (a) Point A; (b) Point B; (c) Point C.

9
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al.
Fig. 13. FE outputs for BCJ-1 at key points of joint behaviour: (a) Point A0 ; (b) Point B0 ; (c) Point C0 .
also propagated. The compressive damage described in point B
grew slightly. The beam’s bottom transition bars’ yielding occurred
within the joint interface. The failure pattern of the BCJ-1 is attrib-
uted to flexural-shear cracking in all loading phases.
The concrete cracking within the connection region was further
evaluated for BCJ-S and BCJ-1 models. Fig. 14(a-c) shows the crack-
ing damage of BCJ-S at the three key points stated earlier (i.e., point
A, point B, and point C), whereas the BCJ-1 cracking process at
point A0 , B0 and C0 are shown in Fig. 14(e-g). In the BCJ-1, the filler
material and the interface of the precast beam underwent a more
significant cracking damage than the BCJ-S connection. This is
because the precast connection was placed in the beam critical sec-
tion, which is typically subjected to more nonlinearity action than
the rest of the beam.
6.2. Effect of reinforcement continuity at the connection
In this section, the discontinuous top and bottom beam longitu-
dinal bars (connected with the double-grouted sleeves at the con-
nection region) in BCJ-S Model were replaced with continuous bars
and analyzed. For the easy recognition of the model with the con-
tinuous bars in the beam, it was labelled as BCJ-S-1. Hence, the
effect of the steel bar continuity at the connection region on the
load capacity, steel bar stress profile and the crack distribution of
10
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
the precast beam-column joint was assessed. Fig. 15(a-d) shows
the load–displacement curves, beam top longitudinal bars stress
profile and cracking distribution of BCJ-S and BCJ-S-1 models. It
can be seen that the load–displacement for BCJ-S-1 Model with
continuous bars agreed well with the BCJ-S curve with only a slight
variation in the elastic range and the early post-yielding phase
(Fig. 15(a)). However, the BCJ-S-1 model reached its ultimate load
(45.92 kN) before the BCJ-S Model at the displacement of
35.67 mm.
On the other hand, the stress profile of the beam top longitudi-
nal bars shows a drop in magnitude for BCJ-S Model along both
grouted sleeves (Fig. 15(b)). This drop in the stress is due to the
substantial change in bar geometry from a smaller bar size
(16 mm diameter) to a bigger composite cross-section of the
grouted sleeve (42 mm outer diameter). In contrast, the continuous
bar in BCJ-S-1 Model shows a higher stress behaviour than BCJ-S
owing to the bar smaller cross-sectional area. Thus, treating the
discontinuous bar with its linking parts as a single continuous
bar at the connection zone during the FE modelling may mispredict
its stress profile and underestimate the stiffness of the composite
section.
The crack damage intensity in BCJ-S-1 Model (Fig. 15(d)) is
higher than BCJ-S Model (Fig. 15(c)) because of the higher stiffness
in the concrete section induced by the double grouted sleeves at
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 14. Concrete cracking in BCJ-S and BCJ-1connection region.

the top and the bottom bar of the beam, which eventually con- static load. It also can be used to further investigate the precast
tribute to the reduction of crack intensity. Overall, neglecting the beam-column joint under cyclic load.
linking parts of the bar at the connection did not significantly affect
the load capacity response, but it misestimated the steel bar stress
profile and impacted concrete cracking damage intensity.
CrediT authorship contribution statement

7. Conclusion Maged Qasem: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Val-

This paper presents non-linear 3D FE analysis using ABAQUS
software for precast beam-column joint subjected to monotonic
static load. The definition of material, the concrete-to-filler inter-
face, bond-slip behaviour, and the simplified modelling of the dou-
ble grouted sleeves were considered in this paper. The modelling
procedure was validated with experimental results. The FE results
demonstrated an acceptable level of accuracy in predicting the
join’s load capacity and failure mode. Furthermore, the parametric
analysis was performed to assess the impact of the connection
location and reinforcement continuity at the connection zone on
the load capacity, stress distribution and failure pattern. The result
showed that relocating the precast connection away from the col-
umn face can result in better load capacity and minor damage at
the connection region. Further, neglecting the linking parts of the
bar at the connection has less impact on the load capacity of the
precast joint, but it misestimates the bar stress profile and affects
the crack distribution. Overall, this FE model could be used as an
effective tool to predict the structural behaviour under monotonic
11
idation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft.
Mousa Hasan: Software, Writing – review & editing. Rahimah
Muhamad: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Super-
vision. Ayad Mutafi: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
UTMFR for providing a financial support for this research work
[grant no: Q.K130000.2556.21H60].
M. Qasem, M. Hasan, R. Muhamad et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 15. (a) Load displacement curve; (b) beam top longitudinal bar stress profile; (c) Tensile damage in BCJ-S Model; (d) Tensile damage in BCJ-S-1 model.

References [11] GB50010-2010, Code for Design of Concrete Structures Chinese Code, China
Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, 2010.
[12] D. Systèmes, Abaqus 6.11, Analysis User’s Manual, Dassault Systèmes Simulia
[1] T. Ding, J. Xiao, A. ur R. Khan, Behavior of concrete beam-column frame joints
Corporation. (2011).
with DfD connections: A simulation study with interface modelling, Eng.
[13] D.J. Carreira, K.H. Chu, Stress-Strain Relationship for Plain Concrete in
Struct. 189 (2019) 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.082.
Compression, J. Am. Concr. Inst. 82 (1985) 797–804, https://doi.org/
[2] B.o. Feng, F. Xiong, J. Chen, W. Chen, Y. Zhang, Effects of postcast connection
10.14359/10390.
locations on the seismic performance of precast concrete frame joints, Struct.
[14] L.S. Hsu, C.-T.- T. Hsu, Complete stress – strain behaviour of high-strength
Des. Tall Spec Build. 27 (18) (2018) e1544, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1544.
concrete under compression, Mag. Concr. Res. 46 (169) (1994) 301–312,
[3] J.H. Khoo, B. Li, W.K. Yip, Tests on precast concrete frames with connections
https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1994.46.169.301.
constructed away from column faces, ACI Struct. J. 103 (2006) 18–27.
[15] F. Aslani, R. Jowkarmeimandi, Stress-strain model for concrete under cyclic
[4] J. Xiao, T. Ding, Q. Zhang, Structural behavior of a new moment-resisting DfD
loading, Mag. Concr. Res. 64 (8) (2012) 673–685, https://doi.org/
concrete connection, Eng. Struct. 132 (2017) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1680/macr.11.00120.
engstruct.2016.11.019.
[16] T.T.C. Hsu, Y.L. Mo, Unified Theory of Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons,
[5] G. Fawaz, J. Murcia-Delso, Three-dimensional finite element modeling of RC
Singapore (2010), https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470688892.
columns subjected to cyclic lateral loading, Eng. Struct. 239 (2021) 112291,
[17] CEB-FIP, Model Code 2010, FIB, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112291.
10.1002/9783433604090.ch6.
[6] D.C. Feng, G. Wu, Y. Lu, Finite element modelling approach for precast
[18] Q.T. Nguyen, R. Livaoğlu, The effect of the ratio of K-shaped shear connectors
reinforced concrete beam-to-column connections under cyclic loading, Eng.
on the flexural behavior of a reinforced concrete frame, Adv. Struct. Eng. 23
Struct. 174 (2018) 49–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.055.
(12) (2020) 2724–2740, https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433220920442.
[7] H. Li, W. Chen, H. Hao, Dynamic response of precast concrete beam with wet
[19] S. Marfia, Z. Rinaldi, E. Sacco, Softening behavior of reinforced concrete beams
connection subjected to impact loads, Eng. Struct. 191 (2019) 247–263,
under cyclic loading, Int. J. Solids Struct. 41 (11-12) (2004) 3293–3316, https://
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.051.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2003.12.015.
[8] J. Murcia-Delso, P. Benson Shing, Bond-Slip Model for Detailed Finite-Element
[20] A. Mathern, J. Yang, A practical finite element modeling strategy to capture
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (4) (2015)
cracking and crushing behavior of reinforced concrete structures, Materials
04014125.
(Basel). 14 (2021) 1–26, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14030506.
[9] Z. Lu, J. Huang, S. Dai, J. Liu, M. Zhang, Experimental study on a precast beam-
[21] J. Murcia-Delso, Bond-Slip Behavior and Development of Bridge Column
column joint with double grouted splice sleeves, Eng. Struct. 199 (2019) 1–17,
Longitudinal Reinforcing Bars in Enlarged Pile Shafts, University of California,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109589.
San Diego, 2013. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/36m6s240.
[10] S.M. Allam, H.M.F. Elbakry, I.S.E. Arab, Exterior reinforced concrete beam
[22] J.-Y. Lee, J.-Y. Kim, G.-J. Oh, Strength deterioration of reinforced concrete
column joint subjected to monotonic loading, Alexandria Eng. J. 57 (4) (2018)
beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading, Eng. Struct. 31 (9) (2009)
4133–4144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.10.015.
2070–2085, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.009.

12