www.ernst-und-sohn.

de Page 1 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article
An innovative joint connecting beam for precast
concrete shear wall structures

Xilin LU
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction for Civil Engineering
Tongji University, No.1239 Siping Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, P. R. China
lxlst@tongji.edu.cn
Telephone 012-65983430
Fax 012-65983430

Lu WANG
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University
1410234@tongji.edu.cn

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting,
pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this
article as doi: 10.1002/suco.201500193.
Submitted: 20-Nov-2015
Revised: 12-May-2016
Accepted: 22-MAy-2016
© 2016 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 2 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article
Dun WANG
Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University
waltdon77@126.com

Huanjun JIANG
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University
jhj73@tongji.edu.cn

Abstract: The precast shear wall structure has outstanding features in green buildings, due to the

construction convenience, safety, high quality and low pollution. In general, precast concrete shear

walls are connected by multiple joints. The joint between precast walls has very strong influence on the

whole structure, which calls for more detailed investigation. A new kind of connection ---- joint

connecting beam was developed to connect the vertical reinforcements in precast concrete shear wall

structures. This innovative connecting method has the advantages of convenient operation and saving

steel. To evaluate the performance and for better application of joint connecting beam, an experiment

on seven full-scale specimens was conducted under cyclic loading, including two cast-in-situ walls and

five precast walls varying in different reinforcement and sectional height of joint connecting beam. The

comparison between cast-in-situ walls versus precast walls with joint connecting beam was performed,
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 3 Structural Concrete

focusing on failure mode, hysteretic curve, skeleton curve, bearing capacity, ductility and energy-
Accepted Article
dissipating capacity. The result shows that the joint connecting beam can effectively transfer the load of

precast walls, especially for squat precast walls. Moreover, the finite element models were built up to

simulate the performance of the specimens. The simulation results agree well with experimental results.

Keywords: joint connecting beam, precast shear wall, full-scale cyclic loading test, seismic

performance, numerical simulation

1 Introduction

[1]
Precast concrete structures, as environment-friendly structural systems , will play a very important

role in the future construction industry. The precast shear wall structure has a wide application prospect

in tall buildings for its advantages, such as large lateral stiffness and strength, which is attractive to

more and more researchers.

The joint between precast concrete walls, as an important part, strongly effects the performance of the

whole structure. In recent decades, many researchers have devoted to study the behavior and influence
[2]
of the joint. Zhu et al. considered the effect of horizontal and vertical connections in precast large

panel structure and performed test and analysis of structural internal force. He found that both the

horizontal and vertical connections have significant influence on the internal force distribution and

stiffness. Horizontal connections even have more significant effect on lateral stiffness and should be
[3]
considered in calculation. Perez et al. investigated the precast wall panels connected with vertical

joints. They derived closed-form expressions to estimate critical values for defining the behavior of

wall. In addition, fiber-based analytical model was established to verify the accuracy of the expressions
[4] [5]
. Sun et al. analyzed the moment-rotation behavior of the coupling beam connection of

subassemblages by experiment and finite element simulation. Some reasonable suggestions to achieve
[6]
high ductility and low damage under lateral loading were proposed. Jiang et al. tested a new
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 4 Structural Concrete

connection technique -- plug-in filling hole for lap-joint steel bar. Taking the reinforced bar diameter,
Accepted Article
anchorage length and concrete strength into consideration, he reported that the plug-in filling hole for

lap-joint steel bar is reliable. Meng and Cheng [7] used sleeves to connect precast shear wall with beam

and tested the connection under pseudo static loading. It can be concluded that seismic performance of

precast wall beam node and cast-in-situ wall beam node are basically the same, and the connection is

reliable. Belleri et al. [8] investigated the ductile connections between precast beams and roof elements,

which can be used in new structures and retrofitting existing buildings. Based on experimental tests, the

connection has a good performance in terms of strength, ductility and dissipating energy. Brunesi et al.
[9]
conducted an experiment of two ¾ scaled two-bay, three-story precast concrete frames under quasi-

static cyclic loading. They compared the behavior of the specimens with and without precast concrete

panels and found that the premature failure of beam-column connections may be caused by the

displacement incompatibility between cladding panels and structural elements.

The joint between precast members is the weakest part in precast structures, especially the joint of

longitudinal reinforcement. To date, connecting methods, for cast-in-situ concrete structures, can be

divided as binding connection and mechanical connection. ACI published an updated Guide to
[10]
Emulating Cast-in-Place Detailing for Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Structures and pointed

out that reinforcement in precast structures can be connected by any method, while the most suitable

method depends on the location and direction of the joint [11].

Binding connection is commonly used in beams or floor slabs to connect horizontal reinforcement,

only to satisfy the requirements of lap length and concrete strength. A new application is to use spiral

reinforcement in the vertical joint connecting wall panels, which is popular in Europe and Japan, and

now shows up in America [11].

Mechanical connection, applying different couplers, is the most popular method in structural measures,
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 5 Structural Concrete

which may be applied individually or in combination. For instance, precast suppliers can use grout
Accepted Article
coupler on one side of the joint and use tapered reinforcement on another side to eliminate the convex

steel bar, which can solve the difficulty in construction and transportation. In recent years, the grout

pipe splice has been developed in China, together with corresponding codes and industrial standards to

provide technical basis [12]. The ideal failure mode of grout pipe splice is the tensile failure of the steel

bar outside the pipe, which implies that the splice works effectively to connect the reinforcement and

transfer the force.

Based on the above connecting methods, a new joint connecting beam was put forward to realize the
[13]
continuous splice of reinforcement by the authors .As shown in Fig.1, the distributing bars and steel

bars in restrained edge members stretch out of the walls, and bend to form close and rectangular steel

rings. When the top and bottom walls overlap, close and rectangular stirrups are inserted into the

spacing of steel rings. The longitudinal bars are put through the steel rings and stirrups, which are

handed and fixed, and finally form the framework of steel bars in the joint connecting beam. After

support templates are set to pour the concrete, the joint connecting beam can connect the top and

bottom walls.

The joint connecting beam can reduce the steel lap length and the amount of cast-in-situ concrete

significantly, and realize the effective anchorage of reinforcement in the concrete without the

possibility of anchorage failure. What is the most important is that the concept is simple and clear,

adopting traditional and convenient construction technique, which can accelerate the construction speed

and reduce the construction cost. Strong connection or weak connection can both be designed,

depending on different purposes.

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 6 Structural Concrete

The effectiveness and rationality of the joint connecting beam, located in the middle of the precast wall,
Accepted Article
were verified by full-scale experiment in this study. Different variables, including height-width ratio,

sectional height and reinforcement, were considered in the experiment.

2 Experimental investigation

2.1 Test specimens

To verify the seismic performance of the joint connecting beam, experiments on seven specimens

subjected to cyclic lateral loading were carried out. The height-width ratio, sectional height and steel

reinforcement of the joint connecting beam were considered as variables. Those specimens consist of

precast concrete wall panels, top beam, joint connecting beam and rigid bottom beam. Precast concrete

wall panels were spliced by the joint connecting beam in the middle. The top beam was

1800mm×400mm×400mm (length × width × height) in size. The joint connecting beam was set in the

middle of the precast wall. Concrete used in the specimens was C40 strength grade and the rebar’s

strength grade was HRB400 (strength grade of stirrups in edge members was HRB300).

2.2 Main variables

Three main variables were described as below.

(1) Height-width ratio

The height of 3 specimens was 1500mm, with numbers ranging from PCW-1 to PCW-3, and the

height-width ratio was 1.7 (the actual height was calculated from the center of the top beam to the

bottom of the wall); the height of PCW-4 and PCW-5 was 2600mm, with the height-width ratio of 2.8.

Two cast-in-situ specimens named SW-1 and SW-2 were made for comparison, whose heights were

1500mm and 2600mm, respectively. Tab.1 lists the specimen characteristics and reinforcement

configuration.
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 7 Structural Concrete

(2) Sectional height of joint connecting beam

Accepted Article
Three sectional heights, 150 mm, 200 mm and 300mm, were set in the experiment, as shown in Tab.1.
[14]
In accordance of the requirements in Code for design of concrete structures GB50010-2010 , the

minimum steel lap length could be figured out roughly as 260mm if the bar diameter was 8 mm and the

basic anchorage length was 235mm. Thus it can be seen that the three sectional size of the specimens

may not all meet the requirement in the code. Nonetheless, the objective was to investigate the

effectiveness and reliability of the joint connecting beam, which can make the most and efficient saving

of steel lap length.

(3) Steel reinforcement

The steel reinforcement refers to the longitudinal reinforcement and stirrup in the joint connecting

beam. The longitudinal reinforcement was used to enhance the connection of rectangular steel bar and

form the reinforcement cage framework, and the stirrup was applied for strengthening the shear

resistant of joint connecting beam. As shown in Tab.1, the main variables are the diameters of the

stirrups and longitudinal bars in the joint connecting beam. The dimensions and steel reinforcement of

some typical specimens are illustrated in Fig.2.

2.3 Material properties

The material tests were performed on concrete and rebars in Tongji Quality Inspection Station,

Shanghai. When manufacturing precast walls, 12 (two batches) 150-mm edged cube samples were

tested for concrete cubic compression strength and 12 (two batches) cylinder samples

(100×100×300mm) were tested for characteristic cylinder strength and modulus of elasticity. When

casting joint connecting beams, 12 (two batches) 150-mm edged cube samples and 12 (two batches)

cylinder samples (100×100×300mm) were also reserved for test. The results of compression tests

obtained on the cube samples and cylinder samples are presented in Tab.2. Three samples of steel
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 8 Structural Concrete

rebars were collected to obtain the yield strength and ultimate strength of reinforcement, as presented in
Accepted Article
Tab.3.

2.4 Manufacturing process

In the experiment, the most critical step is the casting of joint connecting beam, which is in a small

space between two precast walls. After the curing of the precast walls, the upper precast wall was lifted

to the position for casting of joint connecting beam, as shown in Fig.3(a). To strengthen the bond of the

walls, the interfaces of the walls were chiseled. Afterwards, the close and rectangular stirrups were put

into the spacing of steel rings, as well as the longitudinal bars through the steel rings and stirrups. Then

the support templates were set with a slope as shown in Fig.3(b), workers poured concrete into the

space. When the concrete reached the designed strength, the templates were removed and the redundant

concrete was chiseled off as shown in Fig.3(c)(d).

2.5 Loading setup

Fig.4 shows a general view of the loading setup in the experiment. The specimens were single

cantilevers with bottom fixed and top free-ended. The specimens were subjected to horizontal loading

and constant vertical compression with the axial compression ratio of 0.23. The horizontal loading was

applied by displacement control method. Before yielding, the displacement increment was 1mm. Each

amplitude has one cycle. After yielding, the applied displacement was chosen to be multiples of the

displacement at the yield load. Each amplitude has 3 cycles till the bearing capacity descends to 85% of

the maximum capability, or the specimen cannot bear the predetermined axial load. The loading

procedure is shown in Fig.5. The yield state of specimens was judged by the tensile strain of steel bars

in extreme edge.
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 9 Structural Concrete

3 Test results and discussions

Accepted Article
3.1 Failure mode

During the experiment, the damage process and failure mode of specimens were observed and recorded

carefully. In Chinese code, 1/100 is the allowed maximum limit value of displacement drift for RC

shear wall structures in rare earthquakes. The damage states of the specimens are shown in Fig.6 when

the drift was close to 1/100. As seen in Fig.6, those specimens were all in good condition and satisfied

the code requirement. The final damage states of the specimens are shown in Fig.7. It can be found:

(1) For specimen PCW-1, PCW-2 and PCW-3, a significant number of horizontal and diagonal cracks

were shown on the walls, and finally presented shear failure modes, which was similar to the cast-in-

situ one SW-1. The corner of the wall was crushed and the steel bars fractured or yielded. For those

walls with higher aspect ratios, they basically had the same failure mode ---- flexural failure mode.

Horizontal cracks gradually penetrated under the joint connecting beam on the specimen PCW-4 and

PCW-5, with vertical and diagonal cracks developing downward. On the directions of pulling and

pushing, the failure modes of specimens were not completely symmetric. When precast walls failed,

the joint connecting beam was basically intact (except some visible cracks). No severe concrete-flake-

off or crush happened, but the damage in the corner of the wall was relatively severe.

(2) Considering two different height-width ratios, specimens have corresponding deformation. Squat

walls represent shear deformation and specimens with higher height-width ratio represent bending

deformation. With the increase of height of joint connecting beam, its damage degree decreased. The

variation of reinforcement did not have obvious difference on the failure mode. The strain of horizontal

bars was small and the steel was in the linear working state. As far as stirrups concerned, the strain was

also linear, which means elastic working state.

(3) Focusing on joint connecting beams, the damage on the top interface was more serious than that on
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 10 Structural Concrete

the lower interface. The damage degree of joint connecting beam in squat walls, was greater than that
Accepted Article
in specimens with higher height-width ratio. The former presented diagonal cracks due to diagonal

tension [15]
and the latter presented horizontal cracks on the top interface of joint connecting beams.

This phenomenon could be related to the deformation mode of the specimens and the height of joint

connecting beam.

Here taking the specimen PCW-1 as an example, the weak interface caused by construction, led

horizontal cracks appear on the top face of joint connecting beam. With the lateral displacement

increasing, the cracks on the top interface gradually penetrated and concrete slightly spall. Large

amounts of vertical and diagonal cracks appeared on the joint connecting beam, which joined with the

cracks on lower walls and continued to extend and develop. It can be seen that the joint connecting

beam could basically bear and transfer the load from the upper wall to the lower wall and keep in good

condition.

(4) The height of plastic zone in precast walls was obviously smaller than that in cast-in-situ walls. The

former was the height of joint connecting beam or 300mm, while the latter was 400mm. The difference

of the height of plastic zone could be related to the large amount of reinforcement in joint connecting

beam. As a consequence, the existence of joint connecting beam may effectively decrease the height of

plastic zone. In practical applications, the location and the reinforcement of joint connecting beam

could both influence the height of plastic zone. In this paper, all the joint connecting beams were in the

middle of the walls, so the impact of location of joint connecting beam is unclear yet, which calls for

more investigation.

3.2 Load-displacement hysteretic curve

The lateral force-top displacement hysteretic curves of specimens are shown in Fig.8. The hysteretic

loops show the relationship between the displacement and strength of a system or structure [16].
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 11 Structural Concrete

According to Fig.8, the precast and cast-in-situ specimens have basically the similar hysteretic curves.
Accepted Article
Before cracking, the specimens were in elastic stage and the curves showed to be straight lines; the

hysteretic loops had small area and they were in good agreement. After crack, the hysteretic loops

started to incline to the displacement axis. The area of hysteretic loops increased and became plump,

with pinch phenomenon. After unloading, the residual deformation became larger and the hysteretic

curves were no longer overlapped, which means the specimens were into elastic-plastic stage. The

hysteretic curves changed from S shape to reversed S shape without any obvious trend. After the peak

load, the load began to drop because of the incapability for continuous vertical compression.

Inspection of Fig.8 (a-d) indicates that the hysteretic loops of PCW-1, PCW-2 and PCW-3 were

inclined much more to the force axis, which implies that the precast walls entered the phase of

maximum bearing capacity relatively earlier. The graphs of PCW-1, PCW-2 and PCW-3 were very

similar, except the lower peak point ordinate of PCW-2. It can be seen from Fig.8 (e-g) that the

hysteretic curves of PCW-4 and PCW-5 were very similar, but the area of hysteretic loops of PCW-5

was larger than PCW-4. It may be attributed to the increase of height of joint connecting beam.

3.3 Comparison of skeleton curve

The lateral load-top displacement skeleton curves of all the specimens are plotted in Fig.9. The peak

points under each first cyclic load were used to draw the envelope curves. For those squat walls (SW-1,

PCW-1, PCW-2 and PCW-3), the skeleton curves are basically in coincidence with each other,

especially before the peak load. This indicates that the joint connecting beam can bear and transfer the

force from the upper wall. Three precast squat walls have significant descending stage, especially for

PCW-1.For those walls with higher aspect ratios (SW-2, PCW-4 and PCW-5), they were also in good

agreement. However, two precast walls entered the phase of maximum bearing capacity relatively

earlier, as well as entering to declining phase.

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 12 Structural Concrete

The influence of the height of the joint connecting beam on the bearing capacity was not significant,
Accepted Article
which could be related to the construction quality before the experiment.

Tab.4 lists the cracking load, yield load, maximum load and the load at ultimate limit state of all the

specimens. The comparison of bearing capacity of precast and cast-in-situ specimens is illustrated in

Fig.10.

From Fig.10 it can be concluded that the bearing capacity of precast walls was all less than that of cast-

in-situ walls. For example, the bearing capacity of PCW-1, which is the minimum in all squat precast

walls, was 92% of the cast-in-situ one SW-1. It is caused by the minimum diameter of stirrup

(C6@100) and the minimum height (150mm) of joint connecting beam. Only 8% decrease reveals the

joint connecting beam can effectively connect the precast walls. With the increase of height of joint

connecting beam, the bearing capacity also increased. PCW-3 did not show the high bearing capacity

as expected, which may be relevant to the quality of concrete pouring and requires more investigation.

For those walls with higher aspect ratios, joint connecting beam leads precast walls to have weak

interface, and significantly have lower bearing capacity than cast-in-situ one. The bearing capacity of

PCW-5 is higher than PCW-4, and it is likely that greater height and larger diameter of stirrups of joint

connecting beam contribute to higher bearing capacity. The slight difference between the precast walls

implies that the reinforcement and the height of the joint connecting beam do have effect on bearing

capacity.

3.4 Deformation characteristics and ductility evaluation

Tab.5 lists the displacement feature of every specimen at each phase. The displacement of the precast

wall at each phrase is correspondingly smaller than that of the cast-in-situ one, which is caused by the
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 13 Structural Concrete

existence of the joint connecting beam. The deformation capacity of precast walls was inferior to cast-
Accepted Article
in-situ ones, but both ultimate displacement drifts exceeded 1/100.

[16,17]
Ductility evaluation remains conventional because of the difficulty in a well-defined yield point .
[18]
Park , Priestley [19], and Salonikios [20]
et al. have devoted to the research of the yield displacement.

In this paper, u is applied to evaluate the ductility. During the experiment, asymmetric phenomenon

existed in back-and-forth directions of loading. The following equation is used to calculate the ductility

[21]
coefficient u :

  u   u
u  (1)
 y   y

Where   u is the ultimate displacement in forward direction;  u is the ultimate displacement in reverse

direction;   y is the yield displacement in forward direction;   y is the yield displacement in reverse

[22]
direction. As for the definition of ultimate displacement and yield displacement, Park’s suggestion

was adopted to use the displacement at 85% of the maximum bearing capacity as ultimate

displacement. The less value between displacement at longitudinal bars entering the yield stage and

displacement of secant stiffness at 60% of the maximum bearing capacity, was yield displacement.

Higher u would indicate better ductile performance. Considering squat walls, precast walls were a

little more ductile than cast-in-situ one. With the increase of the height of joint connecting beam, the

ductility index u becomes larger, which results from the big difference in denominator  y . Squat

precast walls entered the yield phrase relatively earlier than cast-in-situ one. However, a contrary

tendency is shown for specimens with higher aspect ratios. u of PCW-4 and PCW-5 are slightly

smaller than that of SW-2. The ultimate displacement gradually decreases in Tab.5, but the yield

displacements of these three walls are very close. The results of division lead to the slight decline in u .
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 14 Structural Concrete

It should be noted that the contrary tendency may be caused by errors in definition of  y . Therefore,
Accepted Article
precast and cast-in-situ walls with higher aspect ratios have almost the same ductile performance.

3.5 Stiffness degradation

Under the reversed cyclic loading, cracks were asymmetric in back-and-forth directions. To better

analyse and compare the stiffness degradation, the weighted average of equivalent stiffness in back-

and-forth directions (secant stiffness of the structure) as follows, was used as a reference value [23]:

F i  Fi
Ki  (2)
 i   i

Where F+i represents the peak load at the ith cycle loading in forward direction; F-i is the peak load at

the ith cycle loading in backward direction;  +i is the peak displacement at the ith cycle loading in

forward direction;  -i is the peak displacement at the ith cycle loading in backward direction.

The variation of equivalent stiffness with the displacement of all specimens is shown in Fig.11. As seen

in Fig.11, the stiffness of the specimen decreases with the increase of displacement, and the degree of

decline is almost the same. In Fig.11 (a), the curves of PCW-1 and SW-1 are coincident with each

other, so are PCW-2 and PCW-3, which have smaller descending slope. It can be found that larger

height of joint connecting beam can slow stiffness degradation in squat walls. With respect to walls

with higher aspect ratios, the curve of PCW-4 is almost coincided with that of PCW-5 but SW-2 has

smaller descending slope. The joint connecting beam may not have evident effect on walls with higher

aspect ratios and it could be due to the failure mode. The influence of stirrup and longitudinal bars is

not significant, compared to the variable of the height of joint connecting beam.
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 15 Structural Concrete

4 Numerical simulation
Accepted Article
4.1 Constitution relationship

The finite element models were constructed with the aid of commercial software ABAQUS to simulate

the behaviour of the precast wall. The concrete was modelled by 8-node linear brick, reduced

integration with hourglass control, and the reinforcement was modelled as elasto-plastic 2-node linear

3-D truss. The concrete model considered concrete tension stiffening, concrete tension damage,

concrete damage plasticity, concrete compression hardening and concrete compression damage.

Moreover, the connectivity between concrete and reinforcement nodes was realized by the embedded

method. The basic mesh size of the model was 0.05m. Take specimen SW-1 and SW-2 as an example,

the model of SW-1 has 11,129 elements and 13,653 nodes, and SW-2 has 8,744 elements and 22,404

nodes. The models were subjected to constant vertical compression under load control and horizontal

force under displacement control in ABAQUS/Standard. Nonlinearities, including geometrical and

material, and large strains were taken into consideration. Newton iteration’s algorithm was applied in

numerical simulation.

The upper interface of the joint connecting beam used the contact element to connect with the upper

precast wall, while the lower interface adopted tie constraints. Contact mechanics based on Coulomb

friction calculation model, adopted penalty function in normal direction and linear contact in tangential

direction.

The damaged concrete plasticity model was used to consider the difference in compression and tension,

and degradation of stiffness and strength. The uniaxial compression stress-strain relationship proposed

by Hongnestad [24] as follows was adopted here:

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 16 Structural Concrete

       2 
 2         0
Accepted Article
 0

 

 0

 
  0   0  
   0  
1  0.15 
2

  0    u
(3)


    u   0  

Where  is the stress of concrete;  0 is the peak stress;  is the strain of concrete;  0 is the peak

strain;  u is the ultimate compression strain.

The uniaxial tension stress-strain relationship specified in Code for design of concrete structures

GB50010-2002 [11] as follows was adopted here:

  1  dt  Ec (4)

Where d t is the uniaxial tensile damage parameter; Ec is the elasticity modulus of concrete.

The Mander’s model [25] was used for the confined concrete.

4.2 Finite element models

T3D2 truss element is applied to simulate the steel bars, and C3D8R solid element is used to simulate

concrete walls. The relationship between concrete and steel bars was realized by *EMBEDDED

ELEMENT command [26].

4.3 Skeleton curve

Space constraints permit only skeleton curves to be presented. Fig.12 shows the comparison of

experimental and simulated lateral load -- top displacement skeleton curves.

The simulated skeleton curves were basically consistent with the experimental results, especially in the

state of the initial loading, which means the joint connecting beam can effectively transfer the load. In

the aspect of maximum load (the average of forward and reverse directions), the simulated results are a

little smaller than the experimental values. Nevertheless, in the descent stage after maximum load, the
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 17 Structural Concrete

simulated curves do not show the feature of decline as experiments, which may be due to the concrete
Accepted Article
constitutive relationship and the computational method used in the software. The simulation procedure

can be used for further parameter analysis, which could help reduce the amount of experiments.

5 Conclusions

This paper describes the experimental test results of 2 cast-in-situ walls and 5 precast walls with joint

connecting beam, and presents the behaviour of joint connecting beam. The following conclusions can

be drawn from the results and analysis:

- With respect to squat specimens, who finally presented shear failure modes, a significant number of

horizontal and diagonal cracks were shown on the walls. For those walls with higher aspect ratios, they

basically had the same failure mode ---- flexural failure mode. When precast walls failed, the joint

connecting beam was basically intact. With the increase of height of joint connecting beam, its damage

degree decreased. The damage degree of joint connecting beam in squat walls, was greater than that in

specimens with higher height-width ratio. Moreover, the damage on the top interface was more serious

than that on the lower interface. The height of plastic zone in precast walls was obviously smaller than

that in cast-in-situ walls. As a consequence, the existence of joint connecting beam may effectively

decrease the height of plastic zone.

- All the specimens have basically the similar hysteretic curves, which changed from S shape to

reversed S shape without any obvious trend. However, the precast walls entered the phase of maximum

bearing capacity relatively earlier. The area of hysteretic loops of PCW-5 was larger than PCW-4. It

could be attributed to the increase of height of joint connecting beam.

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 18 Structural Concrete

- The skeleton curves of squat walls are basically in coincidence with each other. This indicates that the
Accepted Article
joint connecting beam can bear and transfer the force from the upper wall. For those walls with higher

aspect ratios, two precast walls (PCW-4 and PCW-5) entered the phase of maximum bearing capacity

relatively earlier, as well as entering to declining phase.

- The bearing capacity of precast walls was a little less than that of cast-in-situ walls. Here taking

specimen PCW-1 as an example, the largest drop was 8%, which is related to the minimum diameter of

stirrup and the minimum height of joint connecting beam. With the increase of height of joint

connecting beam, the bearing capacity also increased. The slight difference between the precast walls

implies that the reinforcement and the height of the joint connecting beam do have effect on bearing

capacity.

- The deformation capacity of precast walls was inferior to cast-in-situ ones, but both ultimate

displacement angles exceeded 1/100. Considering squat walls, precast walls had better ductile

performance than cast-in-situ ones. Squat precast walls entered the yield phrase relatively earlier than

cast-in-situ one. As for walls with higher aspect ratios, although the results of division lead to the slight

decline in u , precast and cast-in-situ walls have almost the same ductile performance.

- There is no much difference between the stiffness degradation of precast walls and cast-in-situ walls.

However, larger height of joint connecting beam can slow stiffness degradation in squat walls.

- The simulation results were basically consistent with experimental results, which means the analysis

model and method were feasible and reasonable. The deficiency is the incapability to simulate the

descent stage after the maximum load.

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 19 Structural Concrete

The studies aim to provide a new reliable solution of connecting the vertical reinforcement. The joint
Accepted Article
connecting beam can effectively transfer the load of precast walls, especially for those squat precast

walls. The effect of location of joint connecting beam in precast walls is unclear yet, which requires

more investigation.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the State Key Laboratory of

Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering (grant no. SLDRCE14-A-07) and the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (grant no.91315301-4). The help of graduate students and laboratory personnel in

Tongji University is sincerely appreciated.

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 20 Structural Concrete

Notation
Accepted Article
The following symbols are used in this paper:

dt Uniaxial tensile damage parameter

Ec Elasticity modulus of concrete
Fcr Cracking load
Fm Maximum load
Fu Load at ultimate limit state
Fy Yield load
F+i Peak load at the ith cycle loading in forward direction
F-i Peak load at the ith cycle loading in backward direction
Ki Weighted average of equivalent stiffness in back-and-forth directions
u Ductility coefficient
 +i Peak displacement at the ith cycle loading in forward direction
 -i Peak displacement at the ith cycle loading in backward direction
 cr Cracking displacement
u Ultimate displacement
y Yield displacement
u Ultimate displacement in forward direction
 u Ultimate displacement in reverse direction
 y Yield displacement in forward direction
 y Yield displacement in reverse direction
 Drift ratio
 Stress of concrete
0 Peak stress
 Strain of concrete
0 Peak strain
u Ultimate compression strain
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 21 Structural Concrete

Reference
Accepted Article
1. Lu, X. L.: Precast Concrete Structures in the Future. Structural Concrete, 2014, 15, No.1, Editorial,

1-2.

2. Zhu, Y. L., et al.: The Model Test of Large Panel Multistory Building under Horizontal Load.

Journal of Building Structures, 1980, vol.2, 31-46. (In Chinese)

3. Perez, F. J., Pessiki, S. and Sause, R.: Seismic Design of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete

Walls with Vertical Joint Connectors. PCI Journal, 2004, 49, No.1, 58-80.

4. Perez, F. J., Pessiki, S. and Sause, R.: Lateral Load-Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast

Concrete Walls with Vertical Joints. PCI Journal, 2004, 49, No.2, 48-65.

5. Sun, W. W. and Meng, S. P.: Lateral Load Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Coupled Concrete

Wall Subassemblages. Journal of Southeast University (Natural Science Edition), 2007, 37, No.2, 190-

194. (In Chinese)

6. Jiang, H. B., et al.: Experimental Study on Plug-In Filling Hole For Steel Bar Lapping of Precast

Concrete Structure. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, 2011, 43, No.10, 18-23. (In Chinese)

7. Meng, X. H. and Cheng, P. Y.: Document Seismic performance research of connections of

prefabricated wall and beam in-plane. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2014, 638-640, 1858-1862.

8. Belleri, A., Torquati, M. and Riva, P.: Seismic performance of ductile connections between precast

beams and roof elements. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2014, 66, No.11, 553-562.

9. Brunesi, E., et al.: Experimental investigation of the cyclic response of reinforced precast concrete

framed structures. PCI Journal, 2015, 60, No.2, 57-79.

10. American Concrete Institute. Guide to Emulating Cast-in-Place Detailing for Seismic Design of

Precast Concrete Structures. ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, 2009, 550.1R-09.

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 22 Structural Concrete

11. Ericson, A. C.: Emulative Detailing in Precast Concrete Systems. Structures Congress 2010, 2010,
Accepted Article
2903-2913.

12. Han, C., Zheng, Y. M. and Zhao, Y.: Research and Application Development of Grout Sleeve

Splicing for Reinforcement. Construction Technology, 2013, 42, No.21, 113-116. (In Chinese)

13. Wang, D., Lu, X. L., and Lu, W. S.: Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Precast

Concrete Shear Walls with Joint Connecting Beam. Journal of Building Structures, 2013, 34, No.10, 1-

11. (In Chinese)

14. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Code for

Design of Concrete Structures. MOHURD, Beijing, GB50010-2002 version, 2010 version.

15. Sanchez-Alejandre, A. and Alcocer, S. M.: Shear Strength of Squat Reinforced Concrete Walls

Subjected to Earthquake Loading Trends and Models. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32, No.8, 2466-

2476.

16. Carrillo, J., Gonzalez, G. and Rubiano, A.: Displacement Ductility for Seismic Design of RC Walls

for Low-Rise Housing. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 2014, 11, No.4, 725-737.

17. Todut, C., Dan, D. and Stoian, V.: Theoretical and Experimental Study on Precast Reinforced

Concrete Wall Panels Subjected to Shear Force. Engineering Structures, 2014, 80, No.1, 323-338.

18. Park, R.: Ductility Evaluation from Laboratory and Analytical Testing. Proceedings of 9th Word

Conference on Earthquake Engineering – 9WCEE, Tokyo, 1988, 8, 605-616.

19. Priestley, M.: Performance Based Seismic Design. Proceedings of 12th Word Conference on

Earthquake Engineering – 12WCEE, Auckland, 2000, p. 2831.

20. Salonikios, T., et al.: Cyclic Load Behavior of Low-Slenderness Reinforcement Concrete Walls:
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 23 Structural Concrete

Failure Modes, Strength and Deformation Analysis, and Design Implications. ACI Structural Journal,
Accepted Article
2000, 97, No.1, 132-142.

21. Tang, X. R., Yang, L. and Liu, L. H.: Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Masonry In-

Filled Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure with Different Constructional Measures. Journal of

Building Structures, 2012, 33, No.10, 75-83. (In Chinese)

22. Park, R., Priestley, M. and Grill, W. B.: Ductility of Square-Confined Concrete Columns. Journal

of the Structural Division, 1982, 108, No.4, 929-950.

23. China Academy of Building Research. Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistant

Building. MOHURD, Beijing, 1996, JGJ101-1996. (In Chinese)

24. Aoyama, H. and Noguchi, H.: Mechanical Properties of Concrete under Load Cycles Idealizing

Seismic Actions. AICAP-CEB Symposium, 1979, Rome, 5.

25. Park, R., Priestley, M. and Mander, J. B.: Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete.

Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114, No.8, 1804-1826.

26. ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual for Version 6.5.1, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., 2004.
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 24 Structural Concrete

Table 1. Characteristics of specimens

Accepted Article
Number
Wall Joint connecting beam Edge element
Distribution
bars
Concrete
Height Longitudinal Longitudinal Horizontal
Height -width Width Height Stirrup Stirrup
bars bars /vertical
ratio
SW-1 - - -

PCW-1 150 6C10 C6@100

1500 1.7 1000
PCW-2 200 4C12 C8@100

PCW-3 300 6C12 C8@100 6C10 A6@75 C8@150 C40

SW-2 - - -

PCW-4 2600 2.8 1000 200 6C10 C8@100

PCW-5 300 6C10 C10@100

Table 2. Properties of the concrete in specimens

Concrete cubic Characteristic cylinder Modulus of

Element
strength (Mpa) strength of concrete (Mpa) elasticity (Mpa)

Precast walls 39.10 31.82 3.33  104

Joint connecting
beam 38.50 30.97 3.05  104
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 25 Structural Concrete

Table 3. Material properties of steel reinforcement

Accepted Article Diameter(mm) Yield strength (Mpa) Ultimate strength (Mpa) Rebar type

A6 467.5 607.5 HRB300

C6 510.0 620.0 HRB400

C8 557.5 630.0 HRB400

C10 552.5 657.5 HRB400

C12 497.5 632.5 HRB400

Table 4. Cracking load, yield load, maximum load and ultimate load of specimens

Cracking load Yield load Maximum load Load at ultimate limit state
Fcr /kN Fy /kN Fm /kN Fu /kN
Number
+ - average + - average + - average + - average

SW-1 231.81 175.66 203.74 477.66 478.00 477.83 655.52 606.32 630.92 557.19 515.37 536.28

PCW-1 98.30 122.70 110.50 407.88 448.59 428.24 542.40 619.90 581.15 461.04 526.92 493.98

PCW-2 131.10 203.90 167.50 473.04 384.53 428.79 660.40 537.00 598.70 573.70 512.00 542.85

PCW-3 105.47 105.22 105.35 418.14 415.38 416.76 574.34 588.99 581.67 551.15 534.18 542.67

SW-2 144.80 135.80 140.30 297.80 283.40 290.60 426.10 394.40 410.25 362.19 335.24 348.72

PCW-4 89.20 84.60 86.90 267.50 232.94 250.22 362.40 319.70 341.05 308.04 271.75 289.90

PCW-5 87.63 96.48 92.06 252.88 241.77 247.33 355.90 333.67 344.79 302.52 283.62 293.07
 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 26 Structural Concrete

Table 5. Feature displacements and ductility of specimens

Accepted Article
Number
Cracking displacement
 cr /mm
Yield displacement
 y /mm
Ultimate displacement
 u /mm Ductility

+ - average + - average + - average u

SW-1 2.04 2.84 2.44 7.58 13.82 10.70 33.85 45.56 39.71 3.71
PCW-1 1.10 1.60 1.35 10.37 8.98 9.68 38.34 34.18 36.26 3.75
PCW-2 1.20 1.70 1.45 7.02 7.74 7.38 25.70 34.70 30.20 4.09
PCW-3 1.81 1.88 1.85 8.47 6.50 7.49 38.78 26.20 32.49 4.34
SW-2 2.80 3.50 3.15 15.21 14.49 14.85 65.53 63.97 64.75 4.36
PCW-4 1.30 3.20 2.25 14.37 14.15 14.26 62.63 58.50 60.57 4.25
PCW-5 2.51 2.19 2.35 16.74 13.07 14.91 65.27 56.94 61.11 4.10

List of captions of figures

Fig.1 Concept sketch of joint connecting beam

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 27 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article

Fig.2 Dimensions and steel reinforcement of some specimens

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 28 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article

Fig.3 Manufacturing process for joint connecting beam

Fig.4 Loading setup

Fig.5 Loading procedure of specimens

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 29 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article

Fig.6 Damage states of specimens with the drift close to 0.01

Fig.7 Final damage sates of specimens

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 30 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article

Fig.8 Load-displacement hysteretic curves of specimens

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 31 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article
Fig.9 Skeleton curves of specimens

Fig.10 Comparison of bearing capacity of precast and cast-in-situ specimens

Fig.11 Stiffness degradation of specimens

 www.ernst-und-sohn.de Page 32 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article

Fig.12 Comparison of experimental and simulated skeleton curves