Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Investigation On The Behavior of A New Connection For Precast Structures Under Reverse Cyclic Loading
An Investigation On The Behavior of A New Connection For Precast Structures Under Reverse Cyclic Loading
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This paper aims to develop a new precast beam-column connection with U-shaped bars and ECC materials,
Precast connection which eliminates the need for formworks, welding and bolting. In this paper, an experimental study of five
U-shaped bars precast and two monolithic connections, including exterior and interior connections under reverse cyclic
Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC) loading, will be carried out. All specimens were evaluated by their failure mode, hysteresis characteristics,
Cyclic loading
stiffness degradation, ductility and energy dissipation under reverse cyclic loading. The proposed connection
using high strength concrete exhibited more satisfactory seismic behavior than the cast-in-place construction in
terms of hysteretic behavior, stiffness degradation and energy dissipation, while their load-carrying capacity and
ductility were slightly lower. When ECC material is incorporated, these precast connections showed improved
load-carrying capacity and ultimate displacement compared with the precast connections using concrete. Their
seismic performance is comparable to (even better at certain aspects) the conventional cast-in-place connections
and is therefore recommended for the applications in the high seismic region.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: conglu@seu.edu.cn (C. Lu), 230169068@seu.edu.cn (B. Dong), cejlpan@seu.edu.cn (J. Pan).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.041
Received 30 September 2017; Received in revised form 24 March 2018; Accepted 14 May 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
2. Experimental program
132
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
prototype structure, where the circled spots denote the exterior and Alcohol (PVA) fibers, P.O.42.5R Portland cement, fly ash, fine silica
interior connections to be studied. The section of the prototype column sand, super-plasticizer and water. Table 2 shows the mixture propor-
is 600 mm by 600 mm and the length is 1500 mm. The section for tions of the ECC materials. Direct tensile tests were conducted for ECC
prototype beam is 350 mm by 650 mm and the length is 2500 mm. The coupon specimens in dimensions of 350 × 50 × 15 mm. The stress-
scaled specimens have the same reinforcement ratio as that in the strain curves are shown in Fig. 5, where the ultimate tensile strain
prototype structure. For both monolithic and precast specimens, joint exceeds 4% and the tensile strength exceeds 5 MPa after 28-day stan-
shear failure and flexural failure in the beam/column are most likely to dard curing.
take place, while debonding of bar/concrete and precast/cast-in-place The compressive strength for the concrete mixture was designed to
concrete can also be encountered for the precast specimens. In views of be 30 MPa and 40 MPa for prefabricated units and cast-in-place units
above, all specimens were designed following the principle of ‘strong- respectively. A number of cubic specimens
joint and weak-member’ and ‘strong column-weak beam’ as suggested (150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm) made with concrete and ECC have
in the Code for Seismic Design (GB50011-2010), meaning that the joint been tested for compression, and the averaged results are shown in
should have sufficient strength to prevent the joint shear failure before Table 3. It should be noted that the strength of ECC was lower than cast-
the beam/column member failure and the column should be strong in-place concrete due to absence of coarse aggregate in ECC.
enough so plastic hinge are formed in the beam rather than in the Reinforcing bars used in the connections were tested in tension until
column. To be specific, for both monolithic and precast specimens, the rupture. Table 4 summarizes the properties of bars in all sizes.
bending moment ratio of column-to-beam for all specimens was de-
signed to be larger than 1.3 as suggested by the code, so that the plastic
2.4. Test setup and loading procedure
hinges can be restrained in the beam end. For the shear capacity of the
joint, the amount of stirrup in the specimen joint was determined ac-
Fig. 6 shows the schematic diagram for the test setup of interior
cording to the code formulations to prevent shear failure in the joint.
connections. The precast concrete column was restricted with rollers at
The calculated stirrup ratio 0.46% is also higher than the minimum
the base and top of it to simulate the real situation. The beam was
stirrup ratio suggested by the code. In addition, the beam reinforce-
subjected to free end supports and two hydraulic jacks installed on the
ments were spliced with the additional U-shaped bars to prevent de-
beam were used to apply the cyclic load. A hydraulic jack installed at
bonding between U-shaped bars and concrete, and roughing on con-
the column was used to apply the axial load. These applied loads were
crete surface was handled to ensure good bonding between concrete
measured with load cells between the hydraulic jacks and beams.
and ECC. By above design manners, the proposed precast specimens are
LVDTs attached to TDS303 were placed at the loading points to monitor
expected to exhibit similar performance as the monolithic ones. Fig. 4
the displacement of the cantilever beam. Some strain gauges attached
shows the dimensional details of the subassembly.
on the longitudinal steel bars and stirrups in the joint region were used
to monitor the strain in the steel reinforcements. The strain gage ar-
2.2. Construction process
rangement is shown in Fig. 7.
To make sure all parts of the tested specimen are in close contact
The fabrication process of the new connections is as follows: The
with the loading facility before formal loading, an axial load equal to
precast column is first prefabricated and mounted in position. The
40% of the ultimate axial capacity was applied on the top of the column
beams with 90-degree hook-ended bars are positioned near the joint
before formal loading. A constant axial load was applied on the top of
perpendicular to the column, where the U-shaped connecting re-
the column by using hydraulic jack. Then, asymmetric loads (P1 and
inforcements are placed in the joint region. Temporary support for the
P2) were applied on the beam end by displacement control (Fig. 8
beams are provided by scaffolds at the bottom of the beam. The long-
shows the loading history). The test was stopped when the when the
itudinal reinforcing bars in the top of the beam and the stirrups in the
applied load reduced to 85% of the peak load due to the limitations of
joint region are also placed, after which concrete is cast in the joint, the
testing equipment.
beam end and the top of the precast beam. For the specimens involving
ECC materials, the cast-in-place concrete in the beam end and joint
region is replaced by ECC while the beam top is still made with normal 3. Experimental results and analysis
concrete to save material cost. In the end, the upper story column is
hoisted with grout sleeve connections. This assembling process can be 3.1. Crack pattern and failure mode
easily conducted as it eliminates the need for welding and bolting.
As expected, the main damage was concentrated at the plastic
2.3. Materials hinges in the beam end with little diagonal shear cracks at the joint
region. The failure mechanism of ‘strong-joint and weak-member’ and
The materials used in the joints included normal high-strength ‘strong column-weak beam’ is thus achieved. Figs. 9 and 10 show the
concrete and ECC composite. The ECC composite contained Polyvinyl failure modes for all specimens, and a detailed analysis is as follows:
133
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
(a) (c)
(b) (d)
Fig. 4. Configurations and reinforcement details of the tested joints (unit: mm) (a) for Specimen JMMO; (b) for Specimen JMC3 and JME3; (c) for Specimen JSMO;
(d) for Specimen JSC2, JSC4 and JSE2.
Table 2 Table 3
Mixture proportions of ECC. Material properties of concrete and ECC.
PVA fiber (%) Cement Fly ash Sand Super-plasticizer (%) Water Specimen Strength of concrete Strength of ECC
/MPa /MPa
2.0 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.22
Precast beam 39.1 /
Precast column 39.1 /
Cast-in-place zone 44.0 37.2
6
5 Table 4
Tensile Stress (MPa)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 longitudinal splitting cracks appeared in the bottom of the beam
Strain ε (%) due to bar slipping. In the end, specimens failed in the flexural
Fig. 5. Tensile stress-strain relationship of ECC. mode as a result of the developed cracks as well as the severe
concrete spalling near the plastic hinge of beams (Figs. 9a and 10a).
(2) Specimen JMC3, JSC2 and JSC4: The axial compression ratio for
(1) Specimen JMMO and JSMO: The two monolithic specimens ex-
the two exterior connection specimen JSC2 and specimen JSC4 are
hibited similar crack patterns and failure modes. Firstly, some
0.2 and 0.4 respectively. The flexural cracks of specimen JSC2 first
flexural cracks appeared in the beam end, after which uniformly
appeared in the beam end when the drift ratio reached 0.5%,
distributed cracks along the beam end and diagonal cracks at the
whereas the first cracks on specimen JSC4 was only observed after
joint can be observed. Developing cracks in the top and bottom of
the drift ratio reached 1%. This delay can be explained by the
the beam joined together within the plastic hinge zone, while
134
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
135
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
Fig. 9. Crack patterns and failure modes for interior connections (a) Specimen JMMO; (b) Specimen JMC3; (c) Specimen JME3.
connecting the maximum displacement during a cycle, is used for the specimen JSC4 with higher axial load was greater than that of specimen
comparison of stiffness degradation among tested specimens [27]. JSC2, which can be explained by that the higher axial load on the
Variation of the secant stiffness during the test is plotted in Fig. 13. It column restrains the cracks from propagation in the joint region and
can be seen that the stiffness continuously decreased with increasing near the beam end. However, due to concrete cracking and reinforce-
drift due to the cumulative damage in the tested connections. Specimen ment yielding, the stiffness degradation of specimen JSC4 was more
JMC3 and specimen JSC2 showed similar stiffness degradation trend as pronounced as the displacement cycle increased. It was worth noting
specimen JMMO and specimen JSMO, which implies that the proposed that the initial stiffness for specimen JME3 and specimen JSE2 were
connections can achieve similar performance as the monolithic con- slightly smaller than other specimens due to the lower elastic modulus
nections in terms of stiffness degradation. The initial stiffness of of ECC. Another possible reason could be the small cracks formed at the
Fig. 10. Crack patterns and failure modes for exterior connections (a) Specimen JSMO; (b) Specimen JSC2; (c) Specimen JSC4; (d) Specimen JSE2.
136
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
80 80
40 40
-2.09%
0 -1.57% 0 2.1%
3.16%
-40 -40
-80
-80 Pmax=100.1
Pmax=112.33 -120
-120
-160 JSMO
-160 Envelop Curve JMMO-WEST
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
Drift (%) (a)
(a)
160
160 Pmax=127.9
120
Pmax=137.88
80 40
-2.08%
40 0 1.57%
-3% -40
0 2.1%
-40 -80
-120 Pmax=113.9
-80
-120 Pmax=112.18 -160 JSC2
-160 JMC3-WEST -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(b)
Drift (%)
(b) 160
Pmax=133.98
120
Lateral Load (kN)
160 Pmax=150.5 80
120 40
-2.09%
Lateral Load (kN)
80 0 2.08%
40 -40
0 -3.16% -80
2.13% Pmax=111.29
-40 -120
-160 JSC4
-80
-120 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Pmax=126.23
-160 JME3-WEST
Drift (%)
(c)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift (%) 160 Pmax=158.43
(c) 120
Lateral Load (kN)
80
Fig. 11. Hysteretic and envelop curves for interior connections (a) Specimen
JMMO; (b) Specimen JMC3; (c) Specimen JME3.
40
-1.6%
0 3.16%
ECC/concrete interface. Nevertheless, deterioration in stiffness of the -40
ECC connections were more stable than that of the concrete connections -80
after the drift ratio of 1%. It is due to the superior damage tolerance and -120 Pmax=126.75
strain-hardening of ECC materials in specimen JME3 and specimen JSE2
-160
JSE2. Above results have proven the use of ECC to be very effective in
improving the stiffness of components to prevent structures from col- -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
lapse in earthquake. Drift (%)
(d)
3.4. Displacement ductility Fig. 12. Hysteretic and envelop curves for exterior connections (a) Specimen
JSMO; (b) Specimen JSC2; (c) Specimen JSC4; (d) Specimen JSE2.
Displacement ductility, defined as the ratio of ultimate displacement
to yield displacement, is a crucial index in the seismic performance the criteria of equivalent elasto-plastic energy absorption adopted in
design of structures. The ultimate displacement corresponded to 85% of the literature [28]. As shown in Fig. 14, when the area of S1 is equal to
the peak load, while the yield displacement was determined based on the area of S2, the position of point B is determined. The value of
137
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
Fig. 13. Stiffness degradation (a) Interior connections; (b) Exterior connections.
Table 5
Comparison of displacement ductility factor.
Specimen Yielding load Peak load Final load Ductility coefficient Failure mode
Py (kN) Δy (mm) Pmax (kN) Δmax (mm) P0.85 (kN) Δ0.85 (mm)
138
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
Fig. 15. Cumulative energy dissipation curves (a) Interior connections; (b) Exterior connections.
fully developed plastic hinge in the beam end (Fig. 16c and d). Ad- longitudinal reinforcing bars entered the yield stage, and the reinfor-
ditionally, it can be seen that the stirrup strains for specimen JME3 with cing bars at the beam plastic hinge zone generated large plastic strains
cast-in-place ECC in the joint were lower than specimen JMC3, mostly (Fig. 16e and f). It is found that the strain variation in the longitudinal
in the range of 0 to 900 μm. It can be explained by ECC’s better shear reinforcements distributed uniformly in specimen JME3 and JSE2,
performance compared to normal concrete [29]. As expected, all probably owing to the formation of multiple cracks in the beam,
Fig. 16. Strain in transverse and longitudinal bars (unit: uε) (a) Stirrup strain of Specimen JMC3 in the core regions; (b) Stirrup strain of Specimen JSE2 in the core
regions; (c) Stirrup strain of Specimen JMC3 in the beam; (d) Stirrup strain of Specimen JME3 in the beam; (e) Longitudinal strain of Specimen JME3 in the beam; (f)
Longitudinal strain of Specimen JSE2 in the beam.
139
C. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 169 (2018) 131–140
otherwise a large crack such as the one shown in Fig. 9b can cause a cost of ECC material is higher than normal concrete as manu-
sudden change of the longitudinal reinforcement strain. facturing ECC involves the usage of PVA fibers, the proposed con-
nections with ECC is recommended for the applications in high
3.7. Failure mode analysis and design recommendations seismic region.
140