Seismic behavior of a type
of welded precast concrete
beam-column connection
Mario E. Rodríguez and Miguel Torres-Matos
■  Cyclic lateral load testing of welded reinforcement beam-col-
umn assemblies common in practice in Mexico were conducted
and analyzed using a nonlinear model.
■  The results indicate that the welded reinforcement connection
detail may result in brittle failure under cyclic loading.
■  The authors recommend that emulative connections be used
instead.
2 S um me r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
P
recast concrete is a growing alternative to conven-
tional cast-in-place concrete, especially for buildings
in urban areas in Mexico. Precast concrete is well
known for increasing construction speed and producing
high-quality products. However, a common concern with
precast concrete buildings in seismic areas is seismic-
resistant connections. This paper discusses testing of a
typical practice in Mexico for connecting precast concrete
members for moment-resisting frames using welded rein-
forcement. Results of cyclic lateral load testing of typical
beam-column assemblies and the analysis of these connec-
tions using a nonlinear analytical model are discussed in
this paper.
Background
Construction practices in Mexico
Precast concrete frame construction in Mexico relies
heavily on two types of beam-column connections. The
first type is the window beam-column connection. In this
case, precast concrete columns several stories high are
constructed leaving windows in the columns at the floor
levels. When erected on-site, precast concrete beams are
threaded through these windows to make a framework. The
typical connection reinforcing details used in Mexico have
been studied by Rodríguez and Blandon,1 who subjected
half-scale framework to cyclic lateral loading. A main
disadvantage of this connection is that the beam bottom
longitudinal bars are poorly anchored into the joint because
they do not have the required development length. Measure-
ments during testing of a two-story precast concrete building
as well as analytical results using a strut-and-tie model of
the beam-column connection indicated crushing of concrete
around the hooked bars and subsequent slip of these bars.1
It was shown that in this type of connection, bars in tension
subjected to a positive moment at the support fail by pullout.
The second type of beam-column connection widely used
in Mexico for precast concrete construction and reported
in this paper is a connection that uses welded reinforcing
bars. Figure 1 shows an example connection detail. The
intent is to get on-site continuity of the bottom and top
reinforcement by welding short lengths of reinforcing bars
to embedded steel plates at the face of the column on both
sides of the connection. There are other cases in which
only the bottom reinforcement is welded on-site and the
top-beam longitudinal reinforcement is continuous through
the connection.
Mexican code provisions
There is no national building code in Mexico; however, there
are some building codes for specific locations, including
the Mexico City Building Code (MCBC).2 Design provi-
sions for earthquake-resistant structures in these codes differ
significantly from the seismic provisions in chapter 21 of
the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI’s) Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-11) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-11).3 According to ACI 318-11, for
structures in a high seismic risk designation, the general pro-
visions of chapters 1 through 19 and 22 are not considered
adequate. For high seismic risk cases, structures must satisfy
the requirements of chapter 21. The reason for these rules is
that the structures are intended to have adequate toughness
for the expected high seismic displacement demands. This is
not the case for building codes in Mexico, where structures
within high seismic risk areas are considered adequate if
they only satisfy provisions similar to those in chapters 1
through 19 and 22 in ACI 318-11; they are not required to
comply with the full ductility requirements of chapter 21 in
ACI 318-11. As a consequence, some basic ACI 318-11 gen-
eral requirements for welded splices in structures subjected
to earthquake effects, such as section 21.1.7, are not applied
for structures in Mexico with a high seismic risk designa-
tion. Welded reinforcement is allowed in critical sections
where yielding of the reinforcement may occur as a result
of earthquake demands. Such is the case for the example in
Fig. 1. The objectives of this paper are to show the sound-
ness of the chapter 21 requirements for welding of reinforce-
ment and to demonstrate that the practice in Mexico for
connecting precast concrete elements for seismic resistance
using welding of reinforcement needs revision.
Connection with top and bottom welded reinforcement
Figure 1. Beam-column connection for precast concrete moment-resisting
frames in Mexico.
Alternative precast concrete
connection in seismic zones
Seismic-resisting frames without welded reinforcement in
critical sections can be constructed using precast concrete
elements that emulate conventional cast-in-place construc-
tion. Several solutions for connecting precast concrete
elements to resist seismic loading using emulation con-
cepts have been proposed.4 Emulation design only requires
designing the connections with the assumptions needed
for resistance and toughness. This type of construction has
been widely used for precast concrete structures in high
seismic risk countries such as New Zealand and Japan
and, in recent years, Chile. Observed behavior of buildings
using connections of precast concrete elements with the
emulative concept during the recent strong earthquakes of
2011 in New Zealand5,6 and 2010 in Chile7 indicates that
buildings with these emulative connections have survived
and avoided collapse in strong earthquakes near the maxi-
mum credible earthquake.
Emulative design concepts have been applied to a one-
fourth scale, three-story precast concrete building that was
subjected to shake-table tests. Test results indicated that
beam-column connections using the emulative concept can
be considered adequate for constructing seismic-resisting
frames.8 However, in spite of this favorable evidence, little
use of the emulative concept has been made in Mexico for
precast concrete construction.
Tests of beam-column
connections with welded
reinforcement
Initial testing in 1992
Tests on beam-column connections with welded reinforce-
ment were conducted in Mexico in research funded by the
Mexican precast concrete industry. A description of the
test program and its results can be found in Zermeño et al.9
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2013 3
 Figure 2. Typical dimensions and reinforcing details of specimen with welded reinforcement. Note: Dimensions are in millimeters. 1 mm = 0.0394 in. Courtesy of
Zermeño et al.
The researchers constructed three specimens and subjected
them to cyclic lateral loading. These specimens were in-
tended to represent a precast concrete corner beam-column
connection. The authors believe that results from these tests
were not carefully evaluated in the original study. Like-
wise, the researchers did not do any analytical modeling to
help interpret the experimental results. At the completion
of the testing, the Mexican precast concrete industry did
not support the results, arguing that proper procedures were
not followed in fabricating the specimens.
Details of the Zermeño et al. tests are summarized as fol-
lows. Figure 2 shows dimensions and some characteristics
of the specimens. The top longitudinal reinforcement was
continuous through the joint, and concrete was cast on-site
to encase this reinforcement. Continuity of the bottom
longitudinal reinforcement was achieved by welding two
25 mm (1 in.) diameter bars to embedded steel plates at
the column corbel and beam end. The embedded steel
plates were 13 mm (½ in.) thick A36 steel. The column and
beam sections were 500 × 500 mm (20 × 20 in.) and 300
× 500 mm (12 × 20 in.), respectively (Fig. 2). The speci-
fied concrete compressive strength for the specimens was
38 MPa (5500 psi), and the longitudinal and transverse
steel reinforcement was Grade 60 (410 MPa) for beams
and columns, conforming to ASTM 615.10
Figure 3 shows details of the test setup for the corner
connection. A hydraulic actuator applied a lateral load-
ing Fa at the beam end of the specimen. The column was
horizontally oriented with respect to the reaction floor and
4 S um me r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
had a constant axial load of 500 kN (110 kip) during the
test. The support at both column ends allowed rotation and
axial displacement.
Figures 4 and 5 show hysteresis loops of the measured
shear force V versus measured lateral displacement ∆ for
test units 1 and 2, respectively. Figure 6 shows that the
typical failure mode of test unit 1 was the fracture of the
two 25 mm (1 in.) welded bars at the beam critical positive
bending moment section at the support. This section was
located at 150 mm (6 in.) from the column face (Fig. 2).
Test unit 2 had a similar failure mode.
The hysteretic performance of test unit 1 (Fig. 4) does not
show much inelastic behavior because the applied lateral
forces, in general, were lower than those corresponding
to the positive and negative flexural yielding at the critical
section. The measured deformations indicate that fracture
of welded reinforcement in the critical section occurred
practically in the elastic range. Test unit 2 had some excur-
sions into the inelastic range for a negative moment at the
support (negative values of shear force V in Fig. 5). How-
ever, this test exhibited limited inelastic behavior for posi-
tive moment. Fracture of the welded reinforcement was
observed at a low value of positive moment after unloading
from a peak of negative moment (Fig. 5). These results are
discussed in the following sections.
Reinforcing bar component testing
Tensile tests of welded reinforcing bars were conducted
Figure 3. Specimen test setup. Note: Dimensions are in millimeters. 1 mm = 0.0394 in. Courtesy of Zermeño et al.

by Rodríguez et al.11 Some results from these compo- ment, as tested by Zermeño et al. The reinforcing bars
nent tests are discussed and used in this paper in the tested by Rodríguez et al. conformed to the ASTM 615
analytical studies evaluating the physical test results of specifications.
the beam-column connections with welded reinforce-

300

200

100
Measured shear force V, kN

-100 Fracture of the reinforcing bar with

positive bending moment at critical section

-200

-300
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Lateral displacement D, mm

Figure 4. Measured lateral load versus displacement of beam end for test unit 1. Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2013 5

 500
Fracture of the reinforcing bar with
positive bending moment at critical section

250
Measured shear force V, kN

-250

-500
-150 -100 -50 0 50

Lateral displacement ∆ , mm

Figure 5. Measured lateral load versus displacement of beam end for test unit 2. Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

Modeling of connections and
comparison with observed behavior
Details in the test units were modeled using computer
software for conducting nonlinear analyses. In this model,
inelastic response was considered only for the beam critical
section. Elastic shell elements were considered for most of
the beams and columns (Fig. 7). Mechanical properties of the
shell elements assumed that the beam had a moment of inertia
equal to 0.5 times the gross moment of inertia, and the column
was assumed to have a full gross moment of inertia.
library were used, one element for each of the top and bot-
tom reinforcement layers and ten elements representing the
concrete. These elements had two nodes and were 150 mm
(6 in.) in length, which corresponds to the distance of the
critical section to the column face (Fig. 7). The hysteresis
model for inelastic behavior of these elements followed
the Takeda rules.12 Because force-displacement relation-
ships were required as input data for the computer analysis
with the nonlinear elements, these hysteretic relationships
were obtained from stress-strain relationships for confined
concrete and reinforcing steel, that is, for reinforcing steel

For modeling the inelastic response of the beam criti-

cal section, nonlinear elements in the computer software

Figure 7. Computer analysis model. Note: Dimensions are in millimeters.

Figure 6. Damage at end of testing for test unit 1. Courtesy of Zermeño et al. V = measured lateral load. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

6 S um me r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
given values of the stress fs and the strain εs, the forces’
values in the nonlinear element F(εs) and the correspond-
ing displacement u(εs) were defined with the following
expressions:
F(εs) = fs Ae
u(εs) = εs Le
where
Ae = cross-sectional area of the element
Le = length of the element
Nonlinear elements for the
top longitudinal reinforcement
For the nonlinear element representing the top reinforcing
bars, Ae was defined as the area of the bars, with typical
values of parameters defining the stress-strain relationships
of reinforcing steel, described later. Element length Le was
considered equal to the plastic hinge length Lp, defined as:13
Lp = 0.08L + 0.022fyedb ≥ 0.044fyedb (1)
where
L = d istance from the critical section of the plastic hinge
to the point of contraflexure
db = diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement
fye = characteristic yield strength
fye = 1.1fy (2)
where
fy = specified yield strength of the reinforcing steel
The input data for the computer analysis assumed: L of
1.5 m (4.9 ft), db of 25 mm (1 in.), and fy of 410 MPa
(60 ksi). Using these values and Eq. (1) and (2) gives Lp of
500 mm (20 in.).
Nonlinear elements
for the welded reinforcing steel
For the 25 mm (1 in.) diameter bars welded to the embed-
ded steel plates (Fig. 2), Le was assumed equal to 130 mm
(5.1 in.). This length represents the 125 mm (5 in) welded
length of the piece of reinforcing steel at each side of the
critical section and the 5 mm gap between plates (Fig. 2).
This value was obtained considering the strain variation in
the welded bar from a maximum value at one end to zero
value at the other end (appendix A).
In the beam shown in Fig. 7, there must be a linear varia-
tion of the flexural moment along the length up to a maxi-
mum at the column face. However, this model assumes a
constant value of the acting flexural moment along Le equal
to the applied moment at the critical section, which due to
the short length can be considered acceptable.
Nonlinear elements for concrete
For the 10 nonlinear concrete elements at the critical beam
section, each element was assumed to have cross-sectional
dimensions of the beam width and one-tenth of the beam
depth. The length Le of these elements was assumed equal
to Lp based on the hypothesis that the plastic hinge lengths
for both positive and negative bending moments at the
critical section were equal.
While reviewing the available information on the beam-
column connection tests, the authors could not find a
complete description of the concrete characteristics for the
test units; for example, the concrete modulus of elasticity
Ec was not reported. Due to this lack of information, two
models were assumed for the analysis. The first model,
named Ec1, assumed a lower-bound value for Ec of
2505 , where is the specified concrete compressive
strength. The second model Ec2 assumed an upper-bound
value of 3445 .
Modeling of reinforcing steel
In the nonlinear analyses, the top reinforcing steel was
modeled assuming monotonic characteristics reported by
Rodríguez and Botero14 for typical Mexican reinforcing
steel. For the welded reinforcing steel described previous-
ly, the authors modified the stress-strain relationships for
the top reinforcement steel considering results of tensile
testing of welded reinforcing steel reported by Rodríguez
et al.11 Figure 8 shows some typical results for the 25 mm
(1 in.) diameter reinforcing bars. These results correspond
to two tests of the same reinforcing bar welded with two
types of groove welds (B1 and B2), preheating the steel, as
recommended by the American Welding Society (AWS),15
and using E90 electrode. The Fig. 8 results, therefore,
give a scenario of possible lower and upper bounds for
the ultimate tensile strain of welded reinforcement under
monotonic loading. Research findings11 indicate that
ultimate tensile strain of welded reinforcement can range
from about 0.01 to 0.06. The former applies to reinforcing
bars welded without preheating the steel as recommended
by the AWS.15 In the computer analyses of the connection
under study, these values were considered when evaluating
the response of the welded reinforcing bars.
Discussion of nonlinear analysis
results
Test unit 2 Figure 9 shows measured hysteresis loops
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2013 7
 800
600
Reinforcing steel stress fs, MPa
400
200
0
0.00 0.01
Figure 8. Stress-strain relations for 25.4 mm welded bars with required preheating, electrode E90, and groove welds B1 and B2. Courtesy of Rodríguez and
Rodríguez-Asabay. Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
for test unit 2 that compare measured and predicted flexural
moments at the beam critical section Mc with the measured
lateral displacement ∆ using the model Ec1. When using
model Ec2, results similar to those shown in Fig. 9 were
obtained. These results therefore predict that the hysteresis
loops were limited by the ductility of the welded reinforcing
bars and should have fractured at the value of the displace-
ment in the test. Figure 9 shows a good correlation of the
measured hysteresis loops for test unit 2. The prediction was
slightly better using model Ec1 than using model Ec2.
Figure 10 plots computed stress-strain relationships for
the bottom welded reinforcement in test unit 2 using both
models, Ec1 and Ec2. The models Ec1 and Ec2 lead to maxi-
mum tensile strains in the welded reinforcement equal to
0.02 and 0.046, respectively. These values fall within the
range of the measured values of tensile strain capacity of
welded reinforcement tested in air. This suggests that the
analytical model input properties lead to results in good
agreement with those observed in test unit 2, regardless of
the model used for the concrete. The maximum strain in
the reinforcement is a function of the cumulative defor-
mation typical of strain reversals during cyclic loading or
seismic actions.
Test unit 1 Figure 11 shows measured hysteresis loops
for test unit 1 that compare measured and predicted flexural
moment at the beam critical section Mc with the measured
8 S um me r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
B1
B2
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Reinforcing steel strain s
lateral top displacement ∆ using the model Ec1. This plot
again shows that the predicted and measured values are in
good agreement. The main difference between test units 1
and 2 was the lateral loading history. Test unit 1 had rela-
tively low incursions into the inelastic range of response
for both positive and negative moments. Test unit 2 had
significant incursions in the inelastic range of response,
though only for the negative moment. Figure 12 plots
computed stress-strain relationships for the bottom welded
reinforcement in test unit 1 using model Ec1. The predicted
ultimate tensile strain in the welded reinforcement in test
unit 1 was equal to 0.022, similar to the value measured for
test unit 2 using model Ec1 (Fig. 10). This value also falls
well within the range of ultimate tensile strain measured in
the experimental program for testing welded reinforcement.
Figures 10 and 12 also suggest that for test units 1 and 2
the cumulative steel strain effect leads to the reinforcement
fracture.
Discussion of results Research on a precast concrete
beam-column connection reported in this paper showed that
welding of longitudinal reinforcement in the plastic hinge
zone adjacent to the connection can lead to brittle failure
in the hinge zone. Analytical and experimental studies
also showed that the deformations that accompany seismic
actions in the beam-column connection area lead to strain
reversals of welded reinforcing bars where the cumulative
effect of imposed deformations causes fracture of the lon-
 400
єs = 0.022

Flexural moment at beam critical section M, kN-m

200

-200

-400

-600
Measured

Predicted model E c1

-800
-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Lateral displacement ∆ , mm

Figure 9. Measured and predicted flexural moment at the beam critical section versus top displacement for test unit 2 using model Ec1. Note: The diamond indicates
the value of displacement ∆ where fracture of the welded reinforcement was observed during tests. The circle indicates the computed flexural resistance at the criti-
cal section corresponding to that displacement. Ec1 = assumed lower-bound value for concrete modulus of elasticity; Ec = 2505 ; εs = strain in reinforcing steel.
1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN-m = 0.738 kip-ft.

800

600

400
Reinforcing steel stress fs, MPa

200

Predicted model E c1
-200
Predicted model E c2

-400
-0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Reinforcing steel strain єs

Figure 10. Predicted stress-strain relationships for bottom reinforcement in test unit 2 using models Ec1 and Ec2. Note: The circles indicate the computed stress and
strain values corresponding to the displacement ∆ reached before the fracture of the welded reinforcement in this test unit. Ec1 = assumed lower-bound value for
concrete modulus of elasticity; Ec = 2505 ; Ec2 = assumed upper-bound value for concrete modulus of elasticity Ec = 3445 . 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2013 9

 500
єs = 0.022
Flexural moment at beam critical section Mc, kN-m

250

-250
Measured

Predicted model E c1

-500
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50

Lateral displacement ∆, mm

Figure 11. Hysteresis loops flexural moment versus top displacement for test unit 1 using model Ec1. Note: The circles indicate the computed flexural resistance at
critical section corresponding to the lateral top displacement before fracture was observed. Ec1 = assumed lower-bound value for concrete modulus of elasticity; Ec =
2505 . 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN-m = 0.738 kip-ft.

gitudinal reinforcement. Cycles of seismic load reversals • The beam-column connections with welded longitudi-
cause local embrittlement of the reinforcement in a critical nal reinforcement showed local embrittlement of the
hinge section, possibly leading to fracture of the reinforce- steel, resulting in brittle failure of the connection.
ment before the section reaches its flexural strength. This
was the case in test unit 2, where the connection failed due • There is an urgent need for revision of precast con-
to fracture of the welded reinforcement during unloading crete construction practice in Mexico.
from negative moment. The cumulative damage effect helps
to explain why in test unit 1 the welded bottom reinforce- • Precast concrete moment-resisting frames constructed
ment fractured at low inelastic incursions of the beam criti- using this type of welded beam-column connection
cal section. This study showed that the maximum computed are likely unsafe for the maximum credible earthquake
tensile strain in the bottom reinforcement when using a low- specified in Mexican building codes. Furthermore,
er-bound model for the concrete was about the same in test failure of this type of frame is expected to be brittle.
units 1 and 2. The tensile fracture strain fell within the range
of strain at fracture of welded reinforcement measured in • There is an urgent need to strengthen existing precast
tests on steel coupons.11 concrete moment-resisting frames in Mexico con-
structed using beam-column connections with welded
Conclusion reinforcement.

This paper presents cyclic lateral load testing and analyti- • An alternative to welding reinforcing bars in beam-
cal modeling results for test units representing precast con- column connections in precast concrete construction
crete beam-column connections with welded reinforcement is the emulative concept, which in recent earthquakes
in the hinging zone of the beam-column connection. The has shown to be adequate for beam-column connec-
use of this type of welded connection represents a typical tions in precast concrete construction.
practice in Mexico for precast concrete construction. As a
result of the research described in this paper, the following • Although this research is based on results of test units
conclusions were made: representing beam-column connections for precast

10 S um me r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
 600
400
Reinforcing steel stress fs, MPa
200
-200
-400
0 0.005
Reinforcing steel strain єs
Figure 12. Predicted stress-strain relationships for bottom reinforcement in test unit 1 using model Ec1. Note: The circle indicates the stress and strain values cor-
responding to the displacement ∆ reached before fracture of the welded reinforcement in test unit 1. Ec1 = assumed lower-bound value for concrete modulus of
elasticity; Ec = 2505 . 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
concrete construction, the results are also applicable to
cast-in-place concrete structures in which reinforcing
steel is welded in critical sections.
• Because most beam-column connections in precast
concrete construction in Mexico are constructed using
welded steel reinforcement, there is an urgent need to
change the current building codes in Mexico to arrive
at rational and safe seismic design procedures for
precast or cast-in-place concrete structures.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to Donald Meinheit from Wiss, Janney, El-
stner Associates Inc. for his useful suggestions that helped
to improve the manuscript. Thanks are also due to José I.
Restrepo, a professor from the University of California at
San Diego, for his thoughtful comments on the draft of this
paper. The authors also acknowledge the partial funding
for this research given by the Instituto de Ingeniería at the
National University of Mexico, Mexico City.
References
1. Rodríguez, M., and J. J. Blandon. 2005. “Tests on a
Half-Scale Two-Story Seismic Resisting Precast Con-
єs = 0.022
0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
crete Building.” PCI Journal 50 (1): 94–114.
2. Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal. 2004. Mexico City
Building Code [In Spanish]. Mexico City, Mexico:
Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal.
3. ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 318.
2011. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-
11). Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
4. Restrepo J., R. Park, and A. Buchanan. 1995. “De-
sign of Connections of Earthquake Resisting Precast
Reinforced Concrete Perimeter Frames.” PCI Journal
40 (5): 68–80.
5. Fleischman, R., J. Restrepo, J. Maffei, and K. Seeber.
2012. “Preview of PCI’s New Zealand Earthquake
Reconnaissance Team Report.” PCI Journal 57 (1):
42–45.
6. Kam, W. Y., and S. Pampanin. 2011. “The Seismic
Performance of RC Buildings in the 22 February 2011
Christchurch Earthquake.” Structural Concrete 12 (4):
223–233.
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2013 11
 7. Ávila, R. J., S. J. Escobar, L. M. J. Mendoza, V. D. Notation
Muria, S. E. Ovando, G. M. Rodríguez, M. E. Rodrí-
guez, and R. A. Sánchez. 2010. El terremoto de Chile A = cross-sectional area of a welded reinforcing bar
del 27 de febrero de 2010. Mw 8.8 [The February 27,
2010 Chile Earthquake. Mw 8.8]. Report SID 673. Ae = cross-sectional area of an element
Mexico City, Mexico: Instituto de Ingeniería. http://
aplicaciones.iingen.unam.mx/ConsultasSPII/Buscar- db = diameter of longitudinal reinforcement
publicacion.aspx.
dT = differential force
8. Rodríguez, M., G. Leon, and H. Cabrera. Forthcom-
ing. “Estudio en Mesa Vibradora del Comportamiento du(x) = element elongation
Sísmico de un Edificio Prefabricado de Concreto de
Tres Niveles” [“Shake Table Tests to Study the Seis- dx = differential length
mic Behavior of a Three-Story Precast Concrete Build-
ing.”] Mexico City, Mexico: Instituto de Ingeniería, Ec = concrete modulus of elasticity
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).
Ec1 = assumed lower-bound value for Ec = 2505
9. Zermeño, M., A. Fuentes, and C. Aire. 1992. “Com-
portamiento de Conexiones Entre Elementos Prefab- Ec2 = assumed upper-bound value for Ec = 3445
ricados de Concreto ante Cargas Alternadas” [“Cyclic
Lateral Load Response of Beam-Column Connections Es = steel modulus of elasticity
for Precast Construction.”] Internal report 1704. Insti-
tuto de Ingeniería, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico. = specified concrete compressive strength

10. ASTM A615/A615M-92b. 2009. “Deformed and Plain fs = stress in reinforcing steel
Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement.” West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. fy = specified yield strength of reinforcing steel

11. Rodríguez, M., and J. Rodríguez-Asabay. 2006. “Se fye = characteristic yield strength of reinforcing steel
Debe Evitar la Soldadura de Barras de Refuerzo en
Estructuras de Concreto Reforzado en Zonas Sísmicas F = force in an element
de México” [“Welding of Reinforcing Bars Should be
Avoided in Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Fa = actuator load
Zones in Mexico.”] Revista de Ingeniería Sísmica 75:
69–95. L = distance from the critical section of the plastic
hinge to the point of contraflexure
12. Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen, and N. N. Nielsen. 1970.
“Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earth- Le = length of element
quakes.” Journal of the Structural Division 96 (12):
2257–2273. Lew = effective weld length

13. Priestley, M. J. N., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Lo = gap length between plates
Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons. Lp = plastic hinge length

14. Rodríguez, M., and J. C. Botero. 1995. “Comporta- L* = weld length between reinforcing bar and plate
miento Sísmico de Estructuras Considerando Propie-
dades Mecánicas de Aceros de Refuerzo Mexicanos” Mc = flexural moment at the beam critical section
[“Seismic Behavior of Structures Considering Me-
chanical Properties of Mexican Reinforcing Steel.”] q = shear force per unit length
Revista Ingeníeria Sísmica 49: 39–50.
T = tensile force
15. AWS (American Welding Society). 1998. Structural
Welding Code—Reinforcing Steel. ANSI/AWS D1.4- u = displacement of an element
98. [city, state]: AWS.
V = measured shear force

12 S um me r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
x = abscissa

∆ = measured lateral displacement

εs = strain in reinforcing steel

ε(x) = deformation in an element of differential length dx

σ = stress in reinforcing steel

Appendix A: Effective length

of welded reinforcement in
the beam-column connection Figure A1. Details of welded bars. Note: Dimensions are in millimeters.
1 mm = 0.0394 in.

This appendix shows the derivation of the effective weld

length Lew of a 25 mm (1 in.) diameter bar welded to steel ε(x) = (A.5)
plates, as used in the beam-column connection studied
in this paper (Fig. 4). The bar is welded at each plate in a
length equal to 125 mm (5 in.). The plates have a 5 mm Combining Eq. (A.3) through (A.5) and considering for the
(0.2 in.) gap (Fig. A1). welded bar a section area equal to A, Eq. (A.6) is obtained:

Figure A2 shows a free body diagram of one bar, which (A.6)

is welded to the plate in a length L*. This bar is subjected
to tensile force T and a shear force per unit length q. From
equilibrium Eq. (A.1) is used: where

T = qL* (A.1) A = cross-sectional area of a welded reinforcing bar

Figure A3 shows free body diagrams of the reinforcing bar Integrating Eq. (A.6) in a length L* Eq. (A.7) is obtained:
with weld length L* and differential length dx. From equi-
librium in the element of differential length dx, Eq. (A.2) u(L) = (A.7)
is used:

(A.2) Equation (A.7) allows evaluating the elongation of a bar

welded in a length L*. Combining Eq. (A.1) and (A.7)
where gives Eq. (A.8):

dT = differential force

x = abscissa u(L) = (A.8)

Integrating Eq. (A.2) obtains Eq. (A.3):

T(x) = qx (A.3)

The deformation ε(x) in an element of differential length

dx is determined by Eq. (A.4):

ε(x) = (A.4)

where

du(x) = element elongation

From the definition of strain we obtain a relationship of

deformation ε(x) with the stress σ(x) and steel modulus of Figure A2. Free body diagram of a welded bar. Note: L* = weld length between
elasticity Es: reinforcing bar and plate; q = shear force per unit length; T = tensile force;
u = displacement of an element.

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2013 13

 Forces in a bar of length L* Forces in a bar of length dx

Figure A3. Free body diagrams in a welded bar of lengths L* and dx. Note: dT = differential force; dx = differential length; L* = weld length between reinforcing bar
and plate; q = shear force per unit length; T = tensile force; x = abscissa.

Equation (A.8) allows using an analytical model in which

a bar welded in a length L* is replaced by an equivalent
bar welded at only one end and subjected only to a tensile
force. In this analogy, the latter bar has a length equal to
L*/2.

From the derivation in Eq. (8) it follows that both the bar

welded in a 125 mm (5 in.) length at each plate with a
5 mm (0.2 in.) and the gap between the plates (Fig. A1)
lead to the effective length Le calculated in Eq  (A.9).

Lew = = 130 mm (5.1 in.) (A.9)

where

Lo = gap length between plates

14 S um me r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
About the authors
Mario E. Rodríguez is a professor
for the Instituto de Ingeniería at
the Universidad Nacional Autóno-
ma de México (UNAM). He
received his bachelor’s degree in
civil engineering from Universi-
dad Nacional de Ingeniería, Perú,
and his PhD from UNAM. His
teaching and research activities
have been directed at seismic
design and evaluation of rein-
forced concrete structures.
Miguel Torres-Matos received his
bachelor’s degree in civil engi-
neering from Universidad
Nacional de Ingeniería, Perú, and
is a structural engineering PhD
student at the Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México.
His areas of interest are seismic
design and evaluation of rein-
forced concrete structures.
Abstract
This paper describes testing of a typical practice in
Mexico for connecting precast concrete members for
moment-resisting frames using welded reinforcement.
Cyclic lateral load testing of typical beam-column
assemblies were conducted. The connections were
also analyzed using a nonlinear analytical model. The
results indicate that the welded reinforcement con-
nection detail may result in brittle failure under cyclic
loading. The authors recommend that emulative con-
nections be used instead.
Keywords
Connection, load, model, moment, reinforcement,
seismic.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address and reader comments to journal@pci
.org or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI
Journal, 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL
60606. J
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2013 15