Received: 23 November 2015 Revised: 6 July 2016 Accepted: 6 September 2016

DOI 10.1002/tal.1337

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Experimental investigation of precast concrete based dry

mechanical column–column joints for precast concrete frames
Ju‐Yun Hu | Won‐Kee Hong | Seon‐Chee Park

Department of Architectural Engineering,

Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Korea
Correspondence
Won‐Kee Hong, Department of Architectural
Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin
446‐701, Korea.
Email: hongwk@khu.ac.kr
Summary
This paper proposed a precast concrete‐based dry mechanical joint for fully‐restrained moment
connections which can be used to connect reinforced concrete precast columns. In the proposed
connections, a pair of steel plates is provided and connected by high‐strength bolts to transfer
axial loads and moments. One plate is installed at the bottom of upper columns, and another
one is placed on the top of lower columns. The stiffness of the column plates is determined to
enable axial loads and the moment to be transferred at joints, providing a fully‐restrained
moment connection between columns. The structural behavior of the moment connections
was evaluated through experimental and analytical investigations. Through extensive experimen-
tal investigations, columns jointed with plates capable of sufficient stiffness and strength demon-
strated structural behavior similar to those of conventional columns. The plate deformations
which fail to transfer the moment were not prevented with columns jointed by plates incapable
of providing sufficient stiffness and strength. A good match in terms of the load–displacement
relationship and plate deformation was also demonstrated between the finite element analysis
based prediction and the test data for all specimens. The introduced connections will contribute
to modular offsite construction for buildings and heavy industrial plants.

K E Y W O RD S

AISC 358, column–column connection, concrete components, extended end plate, inelastic
analysis, modular offsite construction, moment connection

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N of end‐plates to enable axial loads and moment to be fully transferred

Conventional bolted column–column connections are commonly used
in steelwork to transfer both moments and axial loads by either direct
bearing through the end plates or by tension and compression in the
cover plates. These connections consist of two parts of steel column
that are connected by either end‐plates or cover plates and are
designed to act as either rigid or pinned connections. Rigid connec-
tions, in which rotations are not allowed between the connected mem-
bers, transfer both moments and axial forces. On the other hand, the
bending moment is not transmitted through pinned connections
because of the free rotational movement between the connected ele-
ments.[1] Despite these facts, some of these connections actually
behave semirigidly, and it is recommended that their designs should
be carefully investigated to understand their structural performance.
Although many investigations have been undertaken in previous
studies regarding the behavior of bolted column–column connections,
there is a clear absence in the literature of studies related to the ability
to reinforced concrete precast frames and steel concrete composite
precast frames.
Baniotopoulos et al.[2] ducted a sensitivity analysis of bolted steel
column–column connections, considering the development of separa-
tion phenomena on the joint end plates. This study introduced a new
method applicable for obtaining sensitivity analysis results with
respect to splice plate thickness for the design problem of two steel
bolted column–column joint connections. Similarly, extensive studies
have been performed to investigate the behavior of a steel column
splice.[3–6] Some studies claimed that splices could be required in struc-
tural frames for various reasons including insufficient lengths of stan-
dard sections, transportation conditions, and necessary changes to
the cross section of the member.
Several proposals have promoted the approach to rigid and semi-
rigid structures.[7–12] Some results clearly demonstrated that dynamical
response of some significant discrepancies in the frame dynamical
behavior can arise when semirigid joints' geometrical nonlinearity

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 2017;26:e1337. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 15
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1337
2 of 15 HU ET AL.

effects are considered in steel frame structures. Boroujeni and

Hashemi[13] contributed to steel pipe rack and pipe bridge design by
introducing a scaling method that satisfies piping system performance
for supporting structures. In their study, both linear and nonlinear
simultaneous models of pipes and structures were used to assess the
vulnerability of steel pipe racks. Additionally, Drake and Walter[14]
suggested various design considerations including design loads, build-
ing codes, and industry practice design criteria for extended end‐
plates.
Similar investigations were carried out to verify the behavior of
column base plates. Thambiratnam and Paramasivam[15] conducted
experiments with the aim of studying the base plate's performance
under the action of axial loads and moments by eccentric loading
on the column; they investigated parameters including the thickness
of the plate and the eccentricity of the load and found that yielding
of the base plate was the primary mode of failure. Later, Ermopoulos
and Stamatopoulos[16] presented a closed‐form analytic model for
investigating the response of a base plate subjected to cyclic loading.
De Lima et al.[17] conducted another study including an experimental
FIGURE 1 (a) Proposed dry mechanical column joints for steel‐con-
investigation on steel beam column joint connections subjected to
crete composite precast frames. (b) Proposed dry mechanical column
both bending moment and axial force; they demonstrated that the joints for reinforced concrete precast frames
joint connection response was significantly modified by the addition
of an axial force acting on the beam. Further studies[18–20] were also
carried out to investigate the behavior of beam‐to‐column end‐plate
moment connections subjected to cyclic loadings. From experimental
investigations, it was reported that these type of joints demon-
strated adequate strength, ductility, and high energy dissipation for
use in seismic regions. Additionally, a recent study[21] was performed
to assess the seismic performance of precast recycled concrete
frame. In their work, the entire precast structure, which was
constructed with precast beams and columns, was investigated
based on seismic damage assessment. Their findings indicate that
the frame demonstrates a high energy dissipation during the earth-
quake attacks.
Parametric analysis of the behavior of bolted extended end plates
has also been conducted using finite element modeling tools.[22,23] The
analytical models used consider material nonlinearities, geometrical
configurations, and large displacements. Mohamadi‐shooreh and
Mofid[5] presented the results of several parametric analyses regarding FIGURE 2 (a) Column connections for steel‐concrete composite pre-
the initial rotational stiffness of bolted flush end‐plate beam splice cast frames. (b) Column connections for reinforced concrete precast
frames
connections, conducted using finite element modeling.
Figure 1a,b demonstrates dry precast concrete‐based mechanical
joints with bolts for precast concrete frames, which can be used for 2 | P R O P O S E D D R Y M E C H A N I C A L J O I NT
reinforced concrete precast frames and steel‐concrete composite pre-
cast frames. Figure 2a,b presents details of mechanical moment con- Column plates are connected by high‐strength bolts to provide fully
nections in steel‐concrete and reinforced concrete precast frames for restrained moment connections for column–column joint assembly.
pipe rack applications. Figure 2 illustrates the connection of concrete columns. The new
With the aim of contributing to modular offsite construction for joint system consists of steel column plates to transfer axial loads
buildings and heavy industrial plants such as pipe racks, this paper and the moment between joints. High‐strength bolts can be designed
introduces a novel dry mechanical column–column joint connection based on either the bearing type or slip‐critical type. Figure 2a,b
for reinforced concrete precast frames as well as steel concrete com- depicts the mechanical joint details providing the moment connec-
posite precast frames. The proposed dry mechanical connection is tions of typical column sections for steel‐concrete composite precast
designed with high‐strength bolts connecting two extended end frames and reinforced concrete precast frames, respectively. Steel
plates, in order to provide fully restrained moment connection for col- sections of composite beams are welded to end plates. The important
umn–column assemblies. design parameters include the stiffness of column plates, sizes, and
HU ET AL.
locations of bolts to transfer loads between columns, resisting the
moment at joints. The prying action of plates with sufficient stiffness
and strength will be precluded, contributing to moment transfer
through joints. The sizes and locations of high‐strength bolts should
also be determined to minimize the prying actions of column plates
in order to provide joints with fully restrained moment connections.
3 | EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 | Design of stiffness of column plates
The shear force between the beam and column plates is resisted by
friction generated by the pretension introduced in the high‐strength
bolt shaft, preventing slippage within contact elements. A pneumatic
torque wrench shown in Figure 3a that could generate around
900 nm was used for the application of pretension in the high‐strength
bolt 22 mm in diameter. As shown in the load–displacement curves in
Figure 8, no slip behaviors were exhibited for any of the specimens
shown in Figure during loading application, which was validated via
finite element analysis using ABAQUS (version 6:14), where couplers
and bolts were modeled to share the same nodes, indicating that slips
between the contacts do not take place in finite element analysis. It
was clear that the pretension force introduced in the bolts created a
fully restrained moment connection between column–beam joint.
FIGURE 3 (a) Impact wrench for high‐strength bolts. (b) Joint details after bolt installation. (c) The pneumatic torque wrench used to introduce
pretension and assembled column joint
3 of 15
Figure 3c shows the torque gauge reading of 600 nm for one of the
bolts used to connect the column plates. The average torque coeffi-
cient of 22 mm‐diameter bolts in all specimens was found to be 0.14.
Column plates were determined to have proper stiffness for enabling
transfer of axial forces and moments between columns. The specimens
in this paper were also intentionally designed with insufficient plate
stiffness in order to exhibit large deformations unable to transfer
moment at joints.
The nonlinear inelastic finite element analysis with the FEM
meshes for Abaqus shown in Figure 4b was used to calculate the stiff-
ness of column plates and the flexural resisting capacity of column
specimens (C5). The analytical deformation shown in Figure 4b appears
similar to the experimental deformation in Figure 4c. Specimen C5 was
intentionally designed with insufficient plate stiffness and 20 mm
thickness, yielding 2–3 mm and 15–20 mm deformation of the upper
and lower plates, as shown in Figure 4b. The predicted plate deforma-
tion at the stroke of 100 mm using finite element analysis (Abaqus) was
compared with test data as shown in Figure 4 and Table 2. The stress
and strain of the bolts connecting the column plates were predicted
based on finite element analysis
3.2 | The design of bolts
In most of the situations, bolts are subjected to both shear and
tension. The end plate connection is a popular beam‐to‐column and
4 of 15 HU ET AL.

FIGURE 4 The non‐linear inelastic finite element analysis with the Abaqus FEM meshes and test data; Specimen C5

beam‐to‐beam connection that has been in use since the mid‐1950s
for steel structures. This study extends the use of beam‐to‐column
steel connections to the precast concrete column connections. The
design of moment‐resisting end‐plate connections requires determina-
tion of the bolt size, the plate thickness, and the weld details. The
design of the bolts and the welds is a fairly straightforward application
of traditional analysis procedures. But the determination of plate thick-
ness is quite complicated for the steel–concrete composite connec-
tions because the predicting of concrete characteristics in both
nonlinear and plastic region is very complicated. The nonlinear inelastic
finite element analysis was used to design the bolt size with location
and the plate thickness of test specimens. The number and location
of bearing‐type connection bolts in the test specimens was determined
based on as follows: (a) Shear and bearing checked against the usual
strengths and (b) Tension checked against the tensile strength from
required moment strength. However, the pretension was introduced
in the bolt shaft to prevent slippage within contact elements as con-
firmed by torque gauge. In the specimens, 20 mm‐diameter bolts with
1000 MPa high‐yield strength were used.The compression side bolts
must be capable of resisting the entire vertical shear. Thus, the total
beam–shear reaction must be resisted by the bolts on the compression
side as indicated in

V u ≤ϕV n;bolt (1)

where Vn, bolt is the design shear strength of the bolts provided on the
compression side of the steel plate. The neutral axis of one of the test
FIGURE 5 The nominal bearing strength at the bolt holes specimens in this study is shown in Figure 5.

TABLE 1 Strain levels and neutral axis calculation sheet for the specimens
HU ET AL. 5 of 15

The edge distance from the center of the standard hole to the
edge of the connected part (Le) and the edge distance of the specimens
were the same as 50 mm, which was greater than the 34 mm specified
in previous study,[24] table J3.4. The distance between the standard,
oversized, and slotted hole centers of the specimens was 120 mm,

which was not less than 22 3 times the nominal diameter of the fas-
tener (53.3 mm) (AISC J3 section, 3, minimum spacing). The available
bearing strength (kN) at the bolt holes was calculated using

FIGURE 6 (a) Fabrication of column‐column joint for tests. (b) Test setup for column‐column joints
6 of 15 HU ET AL.

φRn = φ(1.2LctFu) ≤ φ(2.4dtFu), where Lc is clear distance in the direc-
tion of force between the edge of the hole and the edge of the adja-
cent hole or the edge of the material (mm). The thickness of the two
connected plates (mm), t, of the specimens was 32 mm. Specimen C4
was fabricated with the thinnest thickness (32 mm), while the thick-
ness of the others was 40–90 mm.The number and location of bear-
ing‐type connection bolts required for tension against the required
moment strength in the test specimens was determined based on
Mt þ Mflange þ Mweb ≤φMn;bolt (2)
where the first term Mt + Mflange + Mweb indicates the required moment
demand calculated based on the strain with respect to the neutral axis
of the column section connected to the column plates. Mt is the
moment acting on tension rebars, Mflange is the moment acting on the
tension steel flange, and Mweb is the moment acting on the tension
steel web. The strain levels and neutral axis were calculated in
Table 1, demonstrating that most of the structural elements of col-
umns subjected to tension yielded. Mn , bolt is the design flexural
moment of the bolts provided on the tension side of the plate, as
shown in the box surrounded by solid rectangular in Table 1 and calcu-
lated using
ϕMn;bolt ¼ ∑ϕ×F nt ×Abolt ×d; (3)
where d is the distance between the centroid of the tensile bolt group
and the neutral axis. The left side of the neutral axis is subjected to
tension as demonstrated in Figure 5, and the design of the test speci-
mens is summarized as follows:
∴Mt þ Mflange þ Mweb ≤ϕMn;bolt ; (4)
3.3 | Fabrication of test specimens and test setup
Column–column joints for tests were fabricated as demonstrated in
Figure 6a. The photo exhibits how the threaded end of vertical rebars
is connected to the rear side of the column plates. Figure 6b presents
the test setup for loading application with the cyclic load protocol to
study the hysteretic behavior of specimens. The six test specimens
instrumented with extensive gauges are presented in Figure 7. In this
photo, C2 column plates have a thickness of 44 mm, and C1, C3, and
C5 are 20 mm thick. The plate thickness of C4 is 16 mm, and C6 is
the control specimen without plates that was fabricated like conven-
tional columns. The column plates with 16 and 20 mm thicknesses
were deformed and prised regardless of the filler type, as shown in
Table 2 and Figure 8.
4 | EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Specimen C6 fabricated with rebars of 25 mm diameter is the con-
ventional control specimen without column plates. Specimen C6 dem-
onstrated a maximum load capacity of 394 kN at a stroke of 68 mm
(390 kN, 51 mm), as depicted in Figures 8f1 and f2. For Specimen
C1, damage with strength loss was initiated at a stroke of 51 mm
and a maximum load of 208 kN (215 kN, 68 mm) by welding fractures
of rebars that were fillet‐welded to the end plate rather than by the
threaded rebar end, as depicted in Figure 8a1. A rapid load reduction

FIGURE 7 Instrumented specimens with column plates

HU ET AL. 7 of 15

TABLE 2 Specimens with deformation at maximum load limit state

Specimen (Plate thickness) Deformation Prying action

C1 (two 20 mm plates) Welded re‐bar 2 mm (Top plate), 12 mm (Bottom plate) (premature failure at re‐bar welding) Yes (Inadequate design)
C2 (two 45 mm plates) Embedded nut No deformation No (Adequate design)
C3 (two 20 mm plates) Concrete filler plate 12~17 mm (Top plate), 15~22 mm (Bottom plate) Yes (Inadequate design)
C4 (two 16 mm plates) Concrete filler plate 15~20 mm (Top plate), 17~22 mm (Bottom plate) Yes (Inadequate design)
C5 (two 20 mm plates) Metal filler plate 2‐3 mm (Top plate), 15‐20 mm (Bottom plate) Yes (Inadequate design)
C6 Control specimen ‐ ‐

FIGURE 8 (a)‐1. Load–displacement relation-

ships for Specimen C1. (a)‐2. Failure modes for
Specimen C1. (b)‐1. Load–displacement rela-
tionships for Specimen C2. (b)‐2. Failure modes
for Specimen C2. (c)‐1. Load–displacement rela-
tionships for Specimen C3. (c)‐2. Failure modes
for Specimen C3. (d)‐1. Load–displacement rela-
tionships for Specimen C4. (d)‐2. Failure modes
for Specimen C4. (e)‐1. Load–displacement
relationships for Specimen C5 compared with
Abaqus prediction. (e)‐2. Failure modes for
Specimen C5. (f)‐1. Load–displacement rela-
tionships for Specimen C6. (f)‐2. Failure modes
for Specimen C6
8 of 15
FIGURE 8 (Continued)
was observed after welding fracture, as depicted in Figure 8a1 and
a2; therefore, welded rebars are not recommended. Deformation of
the upper and lower plates was observed as 2 and 12 mm, respec-
tively at a stroke of 120 mm. Relatively, little deformation was
observed compared with Specimens C3 and C5, which have the same
plate thickness, because the rebar welding was fractured, preventing
deformation greater than 12 mm in Specimen C1. Specimen C2 with
HU ET AL.
column plates with a 45 mm thickness exhibited a maximum load of
382 kN at a 102 mm stroke (392 kN, 102 mm), as shown in
Figure 8b1, followed by the necked rebars and crushing failure of
concrete due to compression. No noticeable plate deformation was
found due to sufficient plate stiffness, as shown in Figure 8b2. Spec-
imen C3, fabricated with 20 mm‐thick column plates with a concrete
filler plate between them, demonstrated a maximum load capacity of
HU ET AL.
FIGURE 8 (Continued)
200 kN at a stroke of 102 mm (208 kN, 136 mm), as shown in
Figure 8c1. A rapid load reduction was observed after reaching the
maximum load due to the necking and fracture of the rebars shortly
after a 150–170 mm stroke. The deformation of the column plates
was about 8 mm at a stroke of 136 mm, as shown in Figure 8c2. A
corner fracture was observed in the filler plate after the test was ter-
minated. Specimen C4, fabricated with 16 mm‐thick column plates
and a 45 mm‐thick concrete filler plate between them, exhibited a
maximum load capacity of 148 kN at a stroke of 187 mm (164 kN,
202 mm), as depicted in Figure 8d1. Plate deformations were initiated
9 of 15
by rebars in the beginning of the test and by steel sections welded to
plates at the maximum load‐limit state.
A constant load‐bearing capacity within the stroke range of 110–
180 mm was observed because the structural degradation with energy
dissipation was concentrated on the column plates, which were gradu-
ally lifted to 9 and 14 mm at a 187 mm stroke from the upper‐ and
lower‐column plate, respectively. The deformation of the column
plates increased to around 14 and 19 mm, respectively, at the end of
the test. The concrete specimen did not show any noticeable deterio-
ration, as depicted in Figure 8d2. Specimen C5, fabricated with column
10 of 15
FIGURE 8 (Continued)
plates with a thickness of 20 mm and a 45 mm‐thick steel filler plate
between them, exhibited a maximum load capacity of 188 kN at a
stroke of 68 mm (206 kN, 102 mm), as depicted in Figure 8e1. The
structural degradation was initiated by the necking of rebars being
pulled from nuts in the stroke range of 80–120 mm. The column plates
were gradually lifted to 1–2 mm and 15 mm from the upper‐ and
lower‐column plate at a maximum load‐limit state, respectively. The
deformation of the column plates increased to around 2 to 3 mm and
20 mm, respectively, at a 102 mm stroke, as depicted in Figure 8e2. In
Figure 8e1, the two analytical predictions, the load–displacement rela-
tionships with and without penetration of the nuts into the filler plate,
were compared with test data based on the smeared concrete crack
HU ET AL.
mode using Abaqus; the test data with the displaced nut showed good
correlation with the analytical prediction with the penetration. The test
of Specimen C2 was terminated with compressive failure modes
observed as loading increased to the maximum load‐limit state, as
depicted in Figure 8b1 and b2. The difference in structural perfor-
mance between Specimens C2 and C6 observed from the test data
indicated by Arrow #2 in Figure 9 was due to the size differences of
the reinforcing steels used in Specimens C6 and C2. Specimen C2,
prefabricated with dry mechanical joint, used rebars of 25 mm diame-
ter with threaded end being 20 mm diameter. A similar strength to
control specimen was measured, as analytically validated, which dem-
onstrates that adequately designed column plates with sufficient
HU ET AL.
FIGURE 8 (Continued)
stiffness and strength contribute to transfer of axial loads and
moments through a plate joint and to provide structural performance
similar to that of conventional columns. Figure 9 compares the load–
deflection relation of the control column to the columns with connec-
tion plates of sufficient stiffness and insufficient stiffness. A decrease
in strength indicated by Arrow #1 was observed in the specimens with
thin plates inadequately designed with insufficient stiffness. Arrow #1
of Specimen C4, which was assembled with a connecting plate of
16 mm and filler concrete, as shown in Figure 9, indicates the
11 of 15
substantial strength reduction of the moment‐resisting capacity. Spec-
imens C3 (20 mm, filler concrete) and C5 (20 mm, filler plate) with
insufficient stiffness of the end plates showed similar strength lost
with noticeable plate deformation. These plates were unable to trans-
fer axial forces between columns as a fully restrained moment connec-
tion. However, the column plates with a 45 mm thickness transferred
loads between the two columns, creating a rigid joint for moment con-
nection, as shown in Specimen C2. Figure 8 demonstrates hysteretic
load–displacement relationships for all column specimens. The
12 of 15 HU ET AL.

FIGURE 8 (Continued)

FIGURE 9 Control beam (C6) vs. beam (C2) with column plate

strength lost can be also explained by distinct differences in strains accompanied by the rebars that have yielded, while the remaining
measured at rebars as summarized in Table 3. It was only specimens specimens were not able to reach the nominal moment (Mn) of column
C2 and C6 that reached the nominal moment capacity (Mn) of column because the strains of the rest specimens did not yield. This is because
HU ET AL. 13 of 15

TABLE 3 Strains of selected rebars; Tensile strength = 500 MPa, Yield strain = 0.0025
Max. rebar strains measured during experiment Rebar Load level compared with nominal moment capacity
Specimen (yield strain of rebar) status (Mn) of column

C1 (plate t = 20 mm ) 0.0015 (0.0025) Not yielded Less than Mn

C2 (plate t = 45 mm ) 0.0037 (0.0025) Yielded Reached Mn
C3 (plate t = 20 mm ) 0.0010 (0.0025) Not yielded Less than Mn
C4 (plate t = 16 mm ) 0.0011 (0.0025) Not yielded Less than Mn
C5 (plate t = 20 mm) 0.0018 (0.0025) Not yielded Less than Mn
C6 (control: without plate) 0.0036 (0.0025) Yielded Reached Mn

Note: The bold emphases was to highlight the strains of rebars that yielded. The yielding of these rebars contributed to the specimen to reach the nominal
moment capacity of column, (Specimen C2 and C6).

FIGURE 10 Displaced nut in the test and the model (Specimen C5)

FIGURE 11 Design of column plates (C5)

that the deformation was concentrated on the thin plates with dissi-
pated energy rather than on the rebars.
5 | FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
The plate deformation of Specimen C5 at the maximum load‐limit
state was predicted by finite element analysis using Abaqus, as shown
in the deformed mesh in Figure 4. The inelastic load–displacement
relationship represented by the green line in Figure 8e1 that was
used to design Specimen C5 was calculated based on smeared con-
crete crack model and was compared with the experimental curves
of the specimen represented by blue colors. Figure 10 shows a nut
of Specimen C5 that was displaced from the rebar thread end due
to deformation of the column plates, diminishing the overall flexural
moment capacity of the specimen. The prediction of load–displacement
14 of 15
relationship of Specimen C5 with this displaced nut was made by
releasing the contact conditions, allowing bolts to penetrate into adja-
cent filler plates located between the two column plates, as depicted in
Figure 10. Nuts can be displaced freely, preventing collision into the
filler plate if the nut holes of 5 mm as large as the penetration of nuts
estimated in Figure 10 are provided. The column plates demonstrated
a strain level of 0.0289 at the stroke of 100 mm from the lateral
load–plate strain relationship obtained via finite element analysis, as
shown in Figure 11.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S
The precast concrete‐based dry mechanical column–column joint
was introduced for fully restrained moment connections. Two steel
plates connected by high‐strength bolts were utilized to transfer
axial forces and moments between upper‐ and lower‐precast col-
umns. Plates with sufficient stiffness to resist moments during
bending, as in Specimen C2, demonstrated a similar structural
behavior to columns without plate joints. The stiffness of joint
plates, the sizes, and locations of high‐strength bolts must be
determined for the moment transfer between columns in order
to prevent plates from being deformed. Experimental investigations
showed that columns connected with plates of sufficient stiffness
and strength perform similar structural behavior to those of con-
ventional columns, creating rigid joint while the column plates with
insufficient stiffness were not able to prevent the plate from being
deformed, failing to transfer the moment. A few nuts were
displaced from the rebar thread due to deformation of the column
plates, diminishing the overall flexural moment capacity of the
Specimen C5. The nut holes must be provided large enough to
allow free movement of the nuts, preventing collision into the filler
plate. The diameter of nut holes can be estimated from the pene-
tration of nuts into filler plates, which can be calculated by the
finite element analysis using Abaqus. Another merit of this study
includes application of the moment‐resisting joint to a precast con-
crete frame, allowing assembly as quickly as for a steel frame,
enhancing the design for assembly and disassembly. These simpli-
fied connections can be implemented for faster and facile modular
offsite construction of buildings and heavy industrial plants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Technology Transfer Center through a
National R&D Program (TTC) grant funded by the Korean government
(MSIP; No. 2014K000239).
This research was supported by the Ministry of Land, Infrastruc-
ture and Transport (MOLIT) of the Korean government and by the
Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA;
No. 14AUDP‐B068892‐02).
RE FE R ENC E S
[1] T. W. Segui, Steel Design fourth edition, 2007.
[2] C. C. Baniotopoulos, K. M. Abdalla, Int. J. Solids Struct. 1995, 32, 251,
DOI: 10.1016/0020-7683(94)00136-K.
HU ET AL.
[3] A. M. G. Coelho, P. D. Simão, F. S. Bijlaard, J. Constr. Steel. Res. 2010,
66, 1261, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.05.002.
[4] J. Lindner, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64, 833, DOI: 10.1016/j.
jcsr.2008.01.026.
[5] M. R. Mohamadi‐Shooreh, M. Mofid, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64,
1129, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.09.010.
[6] H. H. Snijder, J. C. D. Hoenderkamp, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64, 845,
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.01.020.
[7] J. M. Cabrero, E. Bayo, Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 1125, DOI: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2005.02.017.
[8] J. G. S. Da Silva, L. R. O. De Lima, P. D. S. Vellasco, S. De Andrade, R. A.
De Castro, Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 2566, DOI: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2008.02.011.
[9] A. Daniūnas, K. Urbonas, Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 3114.
[10] M. Fathi, F. Daneshjoo, R. E. Melchers, Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 514, DOI:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.09.006.
[11] M. A. Hadianfard, R. Razani, Struct. Saf. 2003, 25, 123, DOI: 10.1016/
S0167-4730(02)00046-2.
[12] K. Urbonas, A. Daniūnas, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2006, 62, 1244, DOI:
10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.04.024.
[13] A. R. K. Boroujeni, M. Hashemi, J. Civ. Eng. Const.r Technol. 2013, 4,
149, DOI: 10.5897/JCECT12.090.
[14] R. M. Drake, R. J. Walter, AISC Eng. J. 2010, 47, 241.
[15] D. P. Thambiratnam, P. Paramasivam, J. Struct. Eng. 1986, 112, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:5(1166).
[16] J. C. Ermopoulos, G. N. Stamatopoulos, J. Constr. Steel Res. 1996, 40,
225, DOI: 10.1016/S0143-974X(96)00043-0.
[17] L. R. O. De Lima, L. S. da Silva, P. D. S. Vellasco, S. A. L. de Andrade,
Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 1333, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.04.003.
[18] C. Fang, M. C. H. Yam, A. C. C. Lamc, L. Xie, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014,
94, 122.
[19] G. Shi, Y. Shi, Y. Wang, Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 703.
[20] J. Wang, L. Chen, J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 79, 56.
[21] J. Xiao, T. Ding, T. L. Pham, ACI Structural JournalACI Struct. J. 2015,
112, 515.
[22] Y. I. Maggi, R. M. Gonçalves, R. T. Leon, L. F. L. Ribeiro, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 2005, 61, 689, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.12.001.
[23] G. Shi, Y. Shi, Y. Wang, M. A. Bradford, Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 2677,
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.013.
[24] AISC. AISC 358‐05, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermedi-
ate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL 2005.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Ju‐Yun Hu is currently enrolled as a master's candidate in the Depart-
ment of Architectural Engineering at Kyung Hee University, Korea. Her
research interest includes precast composites structures.
Dr. Won‐Kee Hong is a professor of Architectural Engineering at
Kyung Hee University. Dr. Hong received his master's and Ph.D.
degrees from UCLA, and he worked for Englelkirk and Hart, Inc.
(USA), Nihhon Sekkei (Japan) and Samsung Engineering and Construc-
tion Company (Korea) before joining Kyung Hee University (Korea).
He also has a professional engineering license from both Korea and
the USA. Dr. Hong has more than 30 years of professional experience
in structural engineering. His research interests include a new
approach to construction technologies based on value engineering
with hybrid composite structures. He provided many useful solutions
to issues in current structural design and construction technologies
HU ET AL. 15 of 15

as a result of his research that combines structural engineering with areas include an analysis of structural behavior and new approach to
construction technologies. He is the author of numerous papers and construction technologies based on composite structures.
patents both in Korea and the USA. Currently, Dr. Hong is developing
new connections that can be used with various types of frames
including hybrid steel–concrete precast composite frames (SMART
How to cite this article: Hu J‐Y, Hong W‐K, Park S‐C. Exper-
frames), precast frames and steel frames. These connections would
imental investigation of precast concrete based dry mechanical
contribute to the modular construction of heavy plant structures and
column–column joints for precast concrete frames. Struct.
buildings as well.
Design Tall Spec. Build. 2017;26:e1337. https://doi.org/
Dr. Seon‐Chee Park received his masters and PhD degrees from 10.1002/tal.1337
Kyung Hee University in Structural Engineering. His main research