Behavior of Welded Plate
Connections in Precast Concrete
Panels Under Simulated
Seismic Loads
Christian 1. Hofheins, P.E.
Engineer
JM Williams and Associates
Salt Lake City, Utah
Lawrence D. Reaveley,
Ph.D., RE.
Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Chris P. Pantelides,
Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
122
Tests were performed on precast wall panels with
typical loose-plate connectors located in the
vertical joint between panels. The tests were
performed to investigate the performance of the
connectors under simulated seismic loads. In-
plane lateral cyclic loads were applied to the wall
panels, which applied tension-shear and
compression-shear forces to the loose-plate
connectors. The paper describes the experimental
program and results for the welded plate
connections in ten precast concrete wall panel
assemblies. Design assumptions and simplified
design models are also examined. The research
shows that the connection possesses little ductile
capacity and, therefore, is not suitable for use in
high seismic regions (Zones 3 and 4). However,
based on the observed failure modes, minor
modifications to the connection are suggested that
will increase the ductility of the connection.
his paper addresses the behavior of a specific loose-
T plate welded connector under applied cyclic loading.
This type of connection is widely used in the United
States. Due to the limited number of tests performed, no
specific design parameters were considered in this study.
The objectives of this investigation were to:
(a) Quantify the performance of the connection in terms
of force-deflection and ductility.
(b) Check the validity of design values that are currently
used for loose-plate welded connections in hollow-core
precast concrete wall panel construction.
PCI JOURNAL

1, -5”
1 1
(10)
(c) Model the connection and pro
vide preliminary recommendations
based on observed failure modes.
Precast concrete has largely been
used in parts of the world where seis
mic issues play a small role in design.
As a result, many common precast
concrete connections are generally not
designed to provide the desired ductil
ity in seismic resistant structures.
Presently, there is not an adequate
set of seismic code requirements for
the design of loose-plate connections
in precast wall panels. Most loose-
plate connections currently specified
by engineers are designed with static
models that are not supported by test
data.
The design of precast connections
for high seismic areas must address
the need for design strength, displace
ment ductility, or both. One strategy is
to design a ductile connection that is
weaker than the precast concrete wall
panels. This enables the connection to
be at a location of ductile inelastic de
formation and the precast wall panels
to remain elastic under seismic re
sponse.
As a result, overall costs decrease
because the precast concrete wall pan
els do not need to be designed for duc
tility. Ductile connections allow lateral
forces to be redistributed to all con
nectors. Another attractive feature of
this system is that some ductile con
nections can be replaced after a seis
mic event, resulting in considerable
savings in repair costs.
A loose-plate connection typically
comprises a steel plate welded to steel
embeds cast into the concrete. The
majority of loose-plate connections
used in current practice have not been
subjected to thorough testing. Conse
quently, there is little experimental
July-August 2002
8-0” NOMINAL
1- 3.5
TYPICAL
1/2” DIA 270 K STRAND
validation upon which design proce
dures can be based.
Most precast connectors were devel
oped through field experience by indi
vidual precast manufacturers. These
connectors are not supported by suffi
cient test data to determine their
strength and deformation capacity.
Standard test methods may be re
quired in the future, because design
codes will likely define design criteria
in terms of performance objectives. A
performance objective is the combina
tion of a specific seismic hazard and a
desired performance level. In this sce
nario, all components of a structure
will be required to undergo rigorous
testing to determine its performance
level.
LITERATURE REVIEW
During the last 40 years, several
studies have been carried out on a va
riety of wet and dry precast wall panel
connections. A wet connection is
made by cast-in-place concrete be
tween the precast concrete panels; a
dry connection consists of steel em
bedded plates, angles, or other steel el
ements that are welded together by a
steel plate.
The continuity of precast, pre
stressed double tee floors was investi
gated in a series of tests.
1 Intermediate
grade deformed bars were placed
across the supports, and concrete was
placed in the space between adjacent
ends of the double tees to form trans
verse diaphragms. The primary objec
tive was to investigate the structural
soundness of the continuity connec
tion, which was found to be adequate.
Additional testing was performed to
determine the flexural resistance of
cast-in-place insulated walls. Three
.. 1’ -5”
Fig. 1. Details of
hollow-core
wall panel.
Note: 1 ft = 0.3408 m.
types of metal shear connectors be
tween the concrete shells were in
cluded: a truss, a ladder, and an ex
panded metal shear connector. The
truss and ladder shear connectors were
found to be satisfactory.
2
A variety of wet joints were studied
to determine their ultimate shear
3 The research proved that
strength.
wet joints used for vertical joints in
panel structures effectively resist high
shear forces. Although the joint instal
lation is labor intensive, the joint can
be very ductile if properly designed.
Originally, dry joints were mostly
composed of headed studs welded to
the back of a steel plate. In one such
headed stud connection,
4 it was found
that shear loads are transmitted
through the embedded plate to the sur
rounding concrete by three distinct
mechanisms:
(a) Friction between the embedded
plate and concrete.
(b) Bearing of the end of the embed
ded plate on concrete.
(c) Interaction between studs and
concrete.
These headed stud connections pro
vide good shear resistance, but have a
low ductile capacity.
The PCI-sponsored Precast Seismic
Structural Systems (PRESSS) research
program has taken the lead on re
search and design recommendations
for precast concrete structures in areas
of high seismicity. Among other top
ics, the PRESSS program has per
formed research on a variety of
welded connections for precast wall
systems. The initial goal of the re
search was to develop ways of classi
fying and evaluating connection de
5
tails.
The National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST) investigated
123

I connectors tested did not show suffi
-
Fig. 2. Embedded angle assembly for welded connection tested.
the seismic performance of horizontal
and vertical joint connections in pre
cast walls.
6 The connections were de
signed to be ductile, and to be the
major location of inelastic response of
the structure. Vertical joint connec
tions included different designs of
welded loose-plate and bolted ductile
connections. The connections took ad
vantage of the interaction between the
embed and concrete by incorporating
flexural yield, tension/compression
yield, shear yield and friction sliding
concepts.
The behavior of a six-story precast
concrete office building under moder
ate seismicity was investigated.
7 It
was concluded that uneven shear dis
tribution in a precast system causes a
high ductility demand in the panel-to-
panel joint connections. The uneven
distribution drives the connection ele
ments into the inelastic range. There
fore, connection details that can be
easily replaced should be used in pre
cast concrete structures.
As part of the PRESSS five-story
precast concrete building test, a struc
tural wall system consisting of precast
concrete panels was tested under sim
ulated seismic loading.
8 The precast
concrete panels were connected to
each other and the foundation by un
bonded vertical post-tensioning, using
threaded bars. A horizontal connection
across the vertical joint was provided
by stainless-steel energy-dissipating
U-shaped flexure plates, welded to
124
• w.’j ;
/ tilt-up concrete wall panel connections
:.
embed plates in both adjacent wall
panels. In addition to providing en
ergy dissipation, these plates provided
additional resistance by shear coupling
between the structural walls. The
structural response of the building
under simulated seismic loads was ex
tremely satisfactory.
The ability of precast double tee
floor diaphragm and wall systems to
perform adequately under in-plane
seismic forces has been studied in
terms of:
(a) The behavior of connections be
tween double tees.
(b) The analytical modeling of con
nectors, diaphragm, and wall systems.
(c) The development of design
guidelines for double tee diaphragms
and wall systems.
9 the length of the weld, the vertical un
It was found that the interaction be
tween shear and tension forces in a
flange connection between double tees
could be significant. The connector’s
ductility should allow the diaphragm
to redistribute the force among indi
vidual connectors; this ensures that all
connectors reach their full strength.
9 connection.
In an experimental study of 3/ in.
(9.52 mm) stud-welded deformed bar
anchors subject to tensile loads, it was
found that a number of specimens
fractured at the weld. Based on the test
results, quality control procedures and
revised settings were recommended
for stud welding of deformed bar an
chors.’°
The strength and ductility of several
were investigated in a series of mono-
tonic and cyclic tests.’’ Most of the
cient ductility to be used in areas of
high seismicity. Even when a connec
tion possessed some ductility, exten
sive damage to the surrounding con
crete was observed.
Presently, there is no adequate set of
seismic code requirements for the de
sign of loose-plate connections in hol
low-core precast wall panels. Many of
the loose-plate connections currently
used in construction are proportioned
using design models that are seldom
backed up with test data.
The truss analogy, currently being
used to describe the performance of
the connection under consideration,
leads to a conservative design.
This paper addresses the behavior of
a specific loose-plate welded connec
tor for hollow-core precast wall panels
under cyclic loading; this type of con
nection is widely used in high seismic
regions of the United States.
The primary objective of this re
search was to quantify the perfor
mance of the connections between
precast concrete panels using loose-
plate connectors and to assess the fea
sibility for their use in regions of high
seismicity.
Due to the limited number of tests
performed, no specific design parame
ters have been considered in the study.
The assemblies had variations which
commonly occur in practice. These in
cluded the width of the welded plate,
evenness of the embedded angles be
tween adjacent panels, and the mis
alignment of the three wall panels in
the out-of-plane direction. This paper
presents the experimental results, ana
lytical models of the connections, and
the details of a proposed new welded
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Tests were performed by applying a
quasi-static cyclic load to three precast
hollow-core wall panels connected to
gether with two loose-plate connectors
at each vertical joint. Ten wall panel
assemblies were tested, all using the
same loose-plate welded connection.
PCI JOURNAL
Description of Precast
Wall Panel Assemblies
Typically, hollow-core precast pan
els are 8 ft wide, 12 to 24 ft high (2.44
x 3.66 to 7.32 m) and have six hollow
cores as shown in Fig. 1. The overall
thickness of the panels is 8 in. (203
mm). Panels 12 ft (3.66 m) high and 4
ft (1.22 m) wide were used for testing
due to space constraints in the load
frame. Panels 4 ft (1.22 m) wide were
fabricated by cutting an 8 ft (2.44 m)
panel in half.
The two center hollow cores of the 8
ft (2.44 m) panels were filled with
concrete. These solid cores were re
quired to form a pin connection at the
two outside panels at the supports of
the wall assembly. The average 28-
day compressive strength of the con
crete wall panels was found to be 7150
psi (49 MPa) with a standard deviation
of 190 psi (1.3 MPa).
Description of
Welded Connections
Two welded connections were lo
cated between panel pairs in vertical
joints. Each welded connection com
prises two embedded angle assemblies
and a loose plate. Each embedded
angle assembly consists of a 11/2 x 2 x
/4 in. (38 x 50.8 x 6.4 mm) x 6 in.
(152 mm) long angle, with three /8 in.
(9.5 mm) diameter weldable steel de
formed anchor bars. The bars are 12
in. (305 mm) long, and are stud
welded to the back of the angle as
shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the de
tails of the embedded angle assem
blies.
Each wall panel assembly consists
of three hollow-core wall panels
joined together with four welded con
nections. Two welded connections are
placed 3 ft (914 mm) from the top and
bottom of the wall panels in each ver
tical joint found in between the wall
panels, as shown in Fig. 4.
The width of the loose plate varied
in some wall panel assemblies. Eight
assemblies used 3 in. (76 mm) wide
plates, and two assemblies used 2 in.
(51 mm) wide plates. Test results
showed that the plate width had no ef
fect on the maximum force or dis
placement sustained by the wall as
semblies.
July-August 2002
1 I!2”x I/4”x2’6’
Note: 1 in.
1’
1 1/2’
Fig. 3. Details of embedded angle assembly.
The loose plate was 1/4 to /8 in. (6.4
to 9.5 mm) thick A36 steel, and it was
welded to the embedded angle assem
bly with two /16 in. (4.8 mm) fillet
welds that ran along the 5 in. (127
mm) vertical edge of the plate as
shown in Fig. 5. All welds were per
formed by certified welders with an
E70 electrode and a 7018 rod.
Test Setup
A total of ten wall panel assemblies
were tested in a load frame at the
Structures Laboratory at the Univer
sity of Utah. A steel belt enclosed the
wall panel assembly and was con
nected to a hydraulic actuator with a
force link. The panels were welded to
gether in the vertical position after
being placed in the load frame. The
entire wall assembly was pushed or
pulled by a 150 kip (667 kN) hy
draulic actuator through the force link
and the steel belt. The steel belt trans
ferred the force from the hydraulic ac
tuator to the wall panel assembly with
out restraining the panels.
The panels were supported by two
pin connections placed at the two bot
tom corners of the wall panel assem
I
3/8’ DIA. x 12’ D.B.A.
= 25.4 mm.
3/8’ DIA. x 12” D.B.A.
1 3”
F
‘
1 1/2’
bly as shown in Fig. 4. The pin used in
this connection was a 2 in. (51 mm)
diameter steel rod. The pin supports
supported the wall assembly 1.5 in.
(38 mm) above the bottom of the test
frame, making the pins the only sup
port for the wall assembly. This al
lowed the walls to rotate at the pins
and transfer the applied cyclical force
between the panels in a symmetrical
manner.
A 1.5 in. (38 mm) thick steel plate
was placed under each corner of the
center panel as shown in Fig. 4, These
plates raised the center panel up to the
same height as the outside panels. This
aligned the embedded angles to facili
tate the placement of the welded plate.
A more detailed description of the
loading system and the wall assembly
supports can be found in other publi
cations from the University of
13
’
2
Utah.’
Test Procedure and
Instrumentation
A force was applied to the top left
corner of the wall assembly with a hy
draulic actuator in a quasi-static man
ner. The test was carried out in a force-
125
 DISPLACEMENT TRANSDUCER (DTI)

CYCLIC
LOAD
ACTUATOR FORCE LINK

PLATh

12-0

W10X88

1+ STEEL PLATE

Fig. 4. Setup and instrumentation of typical wall assembly. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

controlled mode at a rate of approxi
mately 1 kip (4.5 kN) per second.
Loading steps began at 10 kips (44.5
kN) and increased by 5 kips (22.2 kN)
until the welded connections failed.
Each loading step consisted of
three cyclic load increments to simu
late the effects of an earthquake.
Strain gauges were placed on welded
plates to form a three-element rect
angular rosette. Displacement trans
ducers were used in all of the tests to
measure the displacements at various
locations of the wall panel assembly
(see Fig. 4).

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The tests revealed the following
characteristics for the connection stud
ied in this research:
(a) The connection can resist rela
tively high shear loads.
(b) The connection possesses little
ductile capacity.
(c) The connection should be de
signed as elastic due to insufficient
ductility.

Failure Mechanism
Fig. 5. Details Cracking around the connections
of welded began near the 20 kip (89 kN) load
loose-plate cycle. Cracking was initiated by the
connection. embedded angle pushing into the sur
Note: 1 in. = face of the concrete. As soon as the
25.4 mm. concrete crumbled away from around

126 PCI JOURNAL

 c

L-(ç: !$.:: :

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Welded connections for Assembly 4 at failure: (a) top right connection, and (b) bottom right connection.

the connection (see Fig. 6), the de
formed anchor bars on the back of the
embedded angle assemblies quickly
tore away from their welds. Figs. 6(a)
and 6(b) illustrate the typical failed
connections.
The following is a description of the
typical mode of failure for this con
nection:
(a) The concrete around the embed
ded connections begins to crack.
(b) The bearing capacity of the de
formed anchor bars and embedded
angle is severely decreased.
(c) The deformed anchor bars
quickly tear free from the embedded
angles as soon as the concrete crum
bles around the embedded angle as
semblies.
(d) The load carrying capacity of the
connection is lost.
The welds connecting the loose-
plate to the embedded angle assem
blies for nine of the ten wall assem
blies were not damaged. A weld in
one wall panel assembly failed due to
Force-Displacement Relationship of
Wall Panel Assemblies
The hysteretic behavior of Assem
bly 8 is typical of all wall assemblies
and is shown in Fig. 7. The shape of
the hysteresis loops demonstrates that
they were stable and did not degrade
until sudden failure. The assembly al
lowed a displacement drift of only 0.5
percent, and did not demonstrate any
appreciable ductile behavior.
The hysteresis envelope for every
wall assembly was approximated by a
general component behavior curve as
40
30
20
— 10
0.
described in FEMA 273.14 The general
component behavior curve for the ten
assemblies tested is shown in Fig. 8.
The general component behavior
curve is able to define the hysteresis
curves into important design criteria.
As defined by FEMA 273, QCE is
the expected strength of the welded
connection of the wall section, and
QCL is the lower-bound estimate of the
strength. Table 1 contains a summary
of the test data that was used to create
the general component behavior curve
of every wall assembly.
BRITTLE
FAILURE

poor penetration of the weld onto the w

C)
0

connecting plate. In general, the weld 0

did not contribute to the failure of the
connection. -20
Vertical displacement transducers
DT2 and DT3 (see Fig. 4) recorded -30

very small relative movement between

-40
panels, until the connections failed. -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Therefore, the wall assembly moved DISPLACEMENT (in.)
as a relatively rigid body until the first
connection failed. Fig. 7. Hysteresis curve for Assembly 8. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

July-August 2002 127

 Table 1. Summary of test results for wall assemblies. The mean elastic force, QCL, equals
Wall Elastic force, QCL Elastic displacement Ultimate force, QCE Ultimate displacement
.
28.4 kips (126.3 kN), and the mean ul
assembly• (kips) (kN) (in.) (mm) (kips) (kN) (in.) (mm) timate force, QCE (mean value of peak
1 26.3 117.0 0.44 r—i 1.2 I 28.1 125.0 0.53 13.5 on all hysteresis), equals 31.7 kips
2 24.8 110.3 0.52 I 13.2 28.8 128.1 0.71 18.0
- —

(141.0 kN). The mean elastic displace

3 27.1 120.5 0.51 12.9 30.2 134.3 0.62 15.7
ment is 0.54 in. (13.7 mm) and the
-

4 31.0 1137.9 0.63 16.0 35.0 155.7 0.74 j 18.8

5 32.3 143.7 0.57 14.51 35.0 155.7 0.79 20.1 mean ultimate displacement is 0.68 in.
r
6 30.2 134.3 0.54 13.7 33.1 147.2 0.71 18.0 (17.3 mm). Thus, the range for the in
- 7 30.5 135.7 0.55 14.0J 34.5 153.5 0.62 15.7-
elastic displacement was only 0.14 in.
8 23.2 103.2 0.57 14.8 28.2 125.4 0.70 17.8 (3.6 mm). According to FEMA 273,
9 29.9 133.0 0.69 17.5 33.2 14.7 0.80 20.3
10 28.3 125.9 0.40 10.2 30.7 136.6 0.56 14.2
the wall panel assembly would be de
fined as a force-controlled action due
-

to the small plastic range.

Strain gauges oriented in a three-el
40 ement rosette pattern were applied to
several welded plates on the wall
35
panel assemblies as shown in Fig. 9.
30 This rosette pattern was chosen so that
the principal stresses and their direc
25
0. tions could be determined. There was
W 20 insufficient instrumentation to deter
u mine the force in each plate directly
0
U- 5 from the strain gauges.
Fig. 10 shows the principal strains
10
recorded by the three-element rosette
5 on the plate of the bottom right con
nection of Assembly 2. Although the
0
0
plate yielded in the last loading cycle,
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
DISPLACEMFNT (in.)
the connection failed immediately
thereafter. As a result, the ductility of
Fig. 8. General component behavior of ten wall assemblies. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; the connection was not significantly
1 in. = 25.4 mm. increased by the yielded plate.

C
tht
/KA

Fig. 9. Three-
element strain gauge
rosette applied on
loose-plate
connector.

128 PCI JOURNAL

 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
2000
A structural analysis of the wall as
sembly was performed using the struc to

1500
tural analysis program SAP 2000.15
The purpose of the analysis was to
1000
find the forces across each welded
to
connection of the wall panel assembly, 0
. 500
and compare them to the commonly E
2
used design methodologies. The pre
cast concrete wall panels were mod I-.
a,
eled as rigid frame elements with a di 500
aphragm constraint on each wail panel
(as shown in Fig. 11). The wall panel -1000
connections were modeled as rigid cy

pins, which is a reasonable assumption -1500

given their brittle mode of failure.
The nodes located at the supports of •2000
the wall panel assembly were assigned 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

pin restraints. The shim supports SCAN ID

under the center panel (see Fig. 4)

were not considered in the model.
Vertical displacement transducers re
vealed that the center panel rose verti
cally, whether the wall assembly was
being pushed or pulled. These dis
placements were a result of vertical
movement occurring at the pin sup
ports, and the rigid body motion of the
wall panel assembly.
Fig. 10. Principal strains at bottom right plate connection of Assembly 2.
The holes in the panels for the pin middle panel never touched the shims
supports were oversized for ease of during loading cycles. Consequently,
erection in the load frame. The over the shim supports did not restrain the
sized holes allowed the entire assem panel assembly, and were not included
bly to rise and move as a rigid body. in the model.
As a result, the bottom corners of the The weight of each wall panel was

31.7kips 8 11 12 c) 19 20 9
U) 0 U) Co
U) a
0
l. 2 2
‘Lf)
-

IL) 110 If) 23

+0 0 0
13 14 22 23 4

2D 25

cI) U) U) U) U)
a a .2-
.2- 2
IL)
I.
iaz
V0
0
I a
2 16 24 25 3

C 29

7 10
Fig. 11. Structural
Il//Iff/Il
(ii) 17 16 26 27 analysis model of
wall panel
Note: Loads shown represent self weight of panels. assembly. Note:
1 kip=4.448kN.

July-August 2002 129

 31.7 kips

Fig. 12. Results

of structural
analysis for
maximum lateral 16.1 kps
load applied to
the wall
assembly.
Note: 1 kip = Note: A negative sign represents compression.
4.448 kN.

applied as a point load at four differ
ent nodes on each wall panel (see Fig.
11). The average maximum force at
failure, 31.7 kips (141.0 kN), was ap
plied as the lateral load at the top left
corner of the wall panel assembly to
find the capacity of each welded con
nection. The structural analysis results
are shown in Fig. 12.
For the above conditions, the shear
U,
w the ratio of the average maximum
0
0
U-
0 0.01 0.02
RELATWE VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT OF CONNECTED EMBEDDED ANGLE (in.)
Fig. 13. General component behavior of the welded connectors of eight wall
assemblies. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
force at failure of the welded connec-
tions was 15.0 kips (66.7 kN) on the
two left connectors, and 16.6 kips
(73.8 kN) on the two right connectors.
This is significant because the capacity
of this connection typically used in de
sign is equal to 8 kips (35.6 kN).
Structures built with these welded con
nections were safely designed with an
approximate factor of safety of 1.9.
0.03
0.04 0.05 0.06
Using this design value, the connection
will safely stay in the elastic range.
Force-Displacement Relationship
of Welded Connection
The force-displacement relationship
of each welded connection was found
by plotting the relative vertical dis
placement of two adjoining wall pan
els versus the shear force across the
welded connection. The relative dis
placement of two adjoining wall pan
els in the vertical direction was found
by subtracting data retrieved from dis
placement transducers DT2 and DT3
(see Fig. 4).
The shear force across each connec
tion was found as follows: the force
applied by the hydraulic actuator on
the wall assembly was multiplied by
force at failure of the welded connec
tion, or 16.6 kips (73.8 kN), to the av
erage maximum force at failure of the
wall panel assembly, or 31.7 kips
(141.0 kN). This assumption is reason
able because the connections behave
in a linear elastic manner.
The hysteresis curve for the con
nectors of eight wall panel assem
blies, was approximated by a general
component behavior curve as de
scribed in the “Guidelines for the

130 PCI JOURNAL

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,”
FEMA 273.14 Fig. 13 shows the gen T
eral component behavior curve for the
connectors of eight wall assemblies.
The average elastic force on the con
nectors was 14.7 kips (65.4 kN), and Anchor bar
the average ultimate force was 17.1
kips (76.1 kN). V
The force-displacement relationship
This bar is ignored
is linear until the connection fails in a intheTruss Analogy
brittle manner. This connection should
be designed to remain elastic due to its
brittle mode of failure and limited
ductility.
Angle section
Analytical Model of
Welded Connection CL

The probable resisting mechanisms = 0° for the connector tested

9
of the connector under consideration
are bearing and tension actions in the Fig. 14. Truss analogy model for welded connection.
deformed anchor bars, as well as bear
ing of the angle section. Many design
ers currently model this welded con A area of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) di ogy and the connection under consid
nection with the truss analogy as ameter deformed anchor bar eration:
described in the PCI Design Hand = 0.13 sq in. (71 mm
)
2 a. The angle 0 for this connection
16
book. f = yield strength of mild steel equals zero, not 45 degrees (see Fig.
Fig. 14 is an illustration of the truss reinforcement [= 60 ksi (420 2).
analogy. The following equations are MPa)j b. The deformed anchor bars are
used to describe this model: VRU = vertical shear force resisted bent 90 degrees into the back of the
by connection angle (see Figs. 2 and 3). The bars will
Cu Tu 1lAfy (1) The equations from the truss anal not be able to develop the full tensile
ogy yield a vertical shear resistance of capacity as described in the truss anal
VRU = (Cu + Tu )cos0 (2) 8.4 kips (37.4 kN) for each connec ogy. The deformed anchor bars act
tion. The analysis indicates that the more as /8 in. (9.5 mm) studs with in
where average capacity of this connection is effective tails rather than bars in ten
CU = compression force between 15.0 and 16.6 kips (66.7 to sion.
Tu = tensile force 73.8 kN). The truss analogy is a con c. The truss analogy does not ac
= capacity reduction factor = servative design methodology when count for the bearing of the angle as
0.9 applied to this connection. sembly into the concrete. Angle bear
0 = angle of deformed anchor The following is a list of some of ing is one of the main force resisting
bar 45 degrees the differences between the truss anal- mechanisms of the connection.

3/8’ dia. x 12”

deformed anchor bar
1 112’x114”x2”x6” Angie

F= 8.3kips
(ultimate force at failure)
Fig. 15. Statics of
F = 0 kips compression deformed anchor
M= 10.4k-in. (bearing is lost against bar at failure for
concrete at failure) current connection.
I F=16.6kips Note: 1 kip = 4.448
(applied force at failure) kN, 1 in. 25.4
11/2” mm;1 k-in.= 133
N-rn.

July-August 2002 131

 Fig. 15 illustrates that the deformed
anchor bar cannot fully develop in ten
sion due to the eccentric load from the
bend in the bar. Assuming the force
taken by each vertical deformed anchor
bar is 8.3 kips (36.9 kN) (half of the
total vertical shear force taken by the
connection), the maximum shear and
moment taken by each vertical de
formed anchor bar is 8.3 kips and 10.4
kip-in. (36.9 kN and 1.17 kN-m), re
spectively. The eccentric load causes
the deformed anchor bars to quickly
tear free from their welds as soon as the
concrete crushes around the connection.
PROPOSED NEW WELDED
CONNECTION
The most effective way to improve
this connection is to provide a larger
surface area for concrete bearing and
to minimize eccentric loads from the
deformed anchor bars. Fig. 16 is a
drawing of a proposed new embedded
angle assembly. The angle is replaced
by a 6 in. (152 mm) long ST2x3.85 to
create a greater bearing area in the
concrete.
One continuous deformed anchor
bar replaces the two vertical deformed
anchor bars of the previous connec
tion. The vertical deformed anchor bar
is attached to the back of the embed
ded angle assembly with a 4 in. (102
mm) long, in. (4.8 mm) fillet weld.
The vertical deformed anchor bar is
bent at 5 degrees to minimize eccen
tric loads and to ensure adequate con
crete cover.
The strength of this fillet weld can
be described by Eq. (3), and the
strength of the base metal can be de
scribed by Eq. (4), as:’
7 DISCUSSION OF
bR = 0.75te(0.6F) (3)
0.75t(0.6F) (4)
= connectors to reach their full strength,
where
bR = strength of fillet weld or base
material
F = strength of electrode = 70 ksi
(483 MPa)
F = tensile strength of base mate
rial =60 ksi (420 MPa)
te = 0.707a
a = weld size = /16 in. (4.8 mm)
t = thickness of base material =
/16 in. (7.9 mm)
132
Fig. 16. Details of proposed new embedded angle assembly. Note: 1 in.
Eq. (3) yields the strength of the fil
let weld as 4.2 kips per in. (0.74
kN/mm), and Eq. (4) yields the
strength of the base material as 8.4
kips per in. (1.47 kN/mm). A 4 in.
(102 mm) long weld gives a strength
of 16.8 kips (74.7 kN), which is signif
icantly higher than the allowable shear
resistance of the welds in the tested
connection. In addition, the concrete
will not easily break away from the
connection due to the increased bear
ing area with the web of the structural
tee embedded into the wall.
TEST RESULTS
Engineers prefer the panel connec
tions, not the panels themselves, to be
the weak link in the system. This in
vestigation has shown that the connec
tions are in fact the weakest link. Al
though the loose-plate connection
used in this research effectively trans
ferred the applied shear forces, the
connection failed in a brittle manner.
The small displacement ductility ex
hibited by the welded connections is
lost as soon as the deformed anchor
bars on the back of the embedded
angle fracture from their welds. Fail-
ST2x3.85
= 25.4 mm.
ure occurs before shear yielding can
take place in the welded plate.
These tests reveal that hollow-core
precast concrete panels can be used in
seismic regions provided that the con
nections can be improved. To this end, a
new welded connection is proposed;
ductility may be restored to the system
by increasing the surface area for con
crete bearing and by reducing the eccen
ti-ic load in the deformed anchor bars.
If the connection is a location of
ductile inelastic deformation, the pre
cast concrete panels will remain elastic
under seismic response. Damage to the
overall structure will be reduced and
repair of the structure will be less
costly. Ductility in shear wifi allow the
force to redistribute among individual
connectors. Ductility will enable all
thereby increasing the overall force re
sisting capability of the structure.
For existing connections of the type
tested in this investigation, a seismic
retrofit option has been studied using a
carbon fiber composite connection,
which will be published shortly.
CONCLUSIONS
Simulated seismic load tests of
loose-plate vertical connections be-
PCI JOURNAL
tween precast concrete wall panels
were performed. Based on the results
of this investigation, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. The loose-plate connection com
monly used in precast construction can
resist relatively high shear forces.
2. The connection fails in a brittle
manner when the deformed anchor
bars tear free from the embedded an
gles, which occurs as soon as the con
crete crumbles around the embedded
angle assemblies; as a consequence,
the connection possesses little ductile
capacity.
3. The connection should be de
signed to remain elastic; in its current
form, the connection is not suitable for
use in areas of high seismic regions
(Zones 3 and 4).
4. The design methodologies com
monly used for this connection are
conservative.
5. The connection can be modified
to increase its ductile behavior by pro
viding more surface area for concrete
bearing, and by minimizing eccentric
loads in the deformed anchor bars.
ACKNOWIEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowl
edge the funding provided by XXsys
Technologies, Inc., and the Center for
Composites in Construction at the
University of Utah.
The authors wish to express their
gratitude to Eagle Precast Company
(Monroc, Inc.), for providing the pre
cast wall specimens.
The authors would like to thank
Vladimir Volnyy and Professor Janos
Gergely for their assistance with the
tests. In addition, the authors are
grateful to Philip Richardson and Carl
Wright of Eagle Precast Company for
their suggestions.
Lastly, the authors want to express
their appreciation to the PCI JOUR
NAL reviewers for their thoughtful
and constructive comments.

REFERENCES
1. Rostasy, F. S., “Connections in Precast Concrete Structures — Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1998.
Continuity in Double-T Floor Construction,” PCI JOURNAL,
V. 7, No. 4, 1962, pp. 18-48.
2. Scoggin, H. L., and Pfeiffer, D. W., “Cast-in-Place Concrete
Residences with Insulated Walls-Influence of Shear Connec
tors on Flexural Resistance,” Journal of the PCA Research and
Development Laboratories, V. 9, No. 2, 1967, pp. 2-7.
3. Abdul-Wahab, H. M. S., “Ultimate Shear Strength of Vertical
Joints in Panel Structures,” AC! Structural Journal, V. 88, No.
2, March-April 1991, pp. 204-213.
4. Spencer, R. A., and Neille, D. S., “Cyclic Tests of Welded
Headed Stud Connections,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 21, No. 3,
May-June 1976, pp. 70-81.
5. Stanton, J. F., Hawkins, N. M., and Hicks, T. R., “PRESSS
Project 1.3: Connection Classification and Evaluation,” PCI
JOURNAL, V. 36, No. 5, September-October 1991, pp. 62-71.
6. Schultz, A., Tadros, M. K., Juo, X. M., and Magana, R. A.,
“Seismic Resistance of Vertical Joints in Precast Shear Walls,”
Proceedings, XII FIP Congress, Washington, DC., May 29 - 14. Building Seismic Safety Council, “NEHRP Guidelines for the
June 2, 1994.
7. Low, S.-G., “Behavior of a Six-Story Office Building Under
Moderate Seismicity,” University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE,
May 1995.
8. Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin,
S., “Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS
Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building,” PCI JOURNAL,
V. 44, No. 6, November-December 1999, pp. 42-67.
9. Pincheira, J. A., Oliva, M. G., and Kusumo-Rahardjo, F. I.,
“Tests on Double-Tee Flange Connectors Subjected to Mono-
tonic and Cyclic Loading,” Research Report, University of
10. Strigel, R. M., Pincheira, J. A., and Oliva, M. G., “Reliability
of 3/8 in. Stud-Welded Deformed Bar Anchors Subject to Ten
sile Loads,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 45, No. 6, November-Decem
ber 2000, pp. 72-82.
11. Lemieux, K., Sexsmith, R., and Weiler, G., “Behavior of Em
bedded Steel Connectors in Concrete Tilt-Up Panels,” AC!
Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 4, July-August 1998, pp. 400-
413.
12. Pantelides, C. P., Reaveley, L. D., Gergely, I., Hofheins, C.,
and Volnyy, V., “Testing of Precast Wall Connections,” Uni
versity of Utah, Department of Civil and Environmental Engi
neering, Report UUCVEEN 97-02, 97-03, 98-01, Salt Lake
City, UT, 1997-98.
13. Hofheins, C., “Welded Loose-Plate Connections for Hollow-
Core Precast Wall Panels,” M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil
& Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, UT, May 1999.
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” FEMA Publication 273,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC,
October 1997.
15. SAP2000 Analysis Reference, Computers and Structures, Inc.,
V. I, Berkeley, CA, 1997.
16. PCI Committee on Industry Handbook, PCI Design Hand
book: Precast and Prestressed Concrete, Fifth Edition, Pre
cast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 1999.
17. Salmon, C. G., and Johnson, J. E., Steel Structures Design and
Behavior, Fourth Edition, Harper Collins College Publishers
Inc., New York, NY, 1996.

APPENDIX A — NOTATION
Ab =area of reinforcing bar QCL = lower-bound strength
A =area of deformed anchor bar R = strength of fillet weld or base material
C = compression force t = thickness of base material
Fey = strength of electrode = effective area of weld
f = steel stress T = tensile force
1 = tensile strength of base material
F VRU = vertical shear force resisted by connection
f = yield stress of reinforcement 5
V = shear strength of connection
n = number of reinforcing bars 0 = angle of deformed anchor bar
QcE = expected strength = capacity reduction factor

July-August 2002 133