Seismic performance comparison between precast beam joints and cast-in-place beam joints

Precast reinforced concrete structures are widely used due to many constructional advantages such as faster construction speed, lower construction cost, being environmentally friendly, higher strength, and so on. To study the seismic performance of precast reinforced concrete structures, tests on beam-to-column joints of precast reinforced concrete structures were conducted under low reversed cyclic loading. In total, four joint specimens were produced in this study, including two precast joints and two cast-in-place joints. In addition to the comparison between different types of joints, the axial compression ratio of column was adopted as the main variable in this study. Analysis was carried out on the basis of the observed joint failure mode and relationships derived from the test data such as hysteresis curves, skeleton curves, stiffness degradation curves, energy dissipation capacities, and sleeve joint strain curves. Despite the closeness of energy dissipation capacity between the precast joints and the cast-in-place joints, they had different failure modes. Precast joints feature a relatively concentrated crack distribution in which the limited number of cracks was distributed throughout the plastic zone of the beam. Cast-in-place joints feature more evenly distributed cracks in the plastic zone, especially at the later stage of the loading. The steel slippage of the precast concrete joints was found influenced by the axial compression ratio. Through this study, it is concluded that seismic resistance capacity of precast concrete joint needs to be considered in design and construction and the grouting sleeve splice could be kept away from the hinge zones when precast concrete structures were used in regions of high seismicity. The results in this study can provide a theoretical basis for seismic design of precast reinforced concrete structures, which in turn can promote the application of precast reinforced concrete structures.

[1]  Chang-Sik Choi,et al.  Development and testing of precast concrete beam-to-column connections , 2013 .

[2]  M. Saiid Saiidi,et al.  BEHAVIOR AND SIMPLIFIED MODELING OF MECHANICAL REINFORCING BAR SPLICES , 2015 .

[3]  Mario E. Rodriguez,et al.  Behavior of Connections and Floor Diaphragms in Seismic-Resisting Precast Concrete Buildings , 2005 .

[4]  W. Yan,et al.  Experimental Investigation on the Seismic Performance of Large-Scale Interior Beam-Column Joints with Composite Slab , 2012 .

[5]  P. Bhatt,et al.  Tests on an Improved Beam ColumnConnection for Precast Concrete , 1985 .

[6]  Dylan Neil Brown.  Postearthquake repair of precast concrete column-to-footing plastic hinges , 2014 .

[7]  J. H. Ling,et al.  Tensile capacity of grouted splice sleeves , 2016 .

[8]  Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman,et al.  Feasibility study of grouted splice connector under tensile load , 2014 .

[9]  Paolo Riva.  Seismic behaviour of precast column-to-foundation grouted sleeve connections , 2006 .

[10]  H. S. Lew,et al.  Model Precast Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections Subject to Cyclic Loading , 1993 .

[11]  M. H. Arslan,et al.  Damage and failure pattern of prefabricated structures after major earthquakes in Turkey and shortfalls of the Turkish Earthquake code , 2006 .

[12]  Robert Tremblay,et al.  Damage to concrete structures due to the 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1995 .

[13]  Tatjana Isaković,et al.  Cyclic failure analysis of the beam-to-column dowel connections in precast industrial buildings , 2013 .

[14]  Andrew H. Buchanan,et al.  Tests on Connections of Earthquake Resisting Precast Reinforced Concrete Perimeter Frames of Buildings , 1995 .

[15]  M. Saiid Saiidi,et al.  Seismic Performance of Precast Columns with Mechanically Spliced Column-Footing Connections , 2014 .

[16]  Dongzhi Guan,et al.  Experimental study of a new beam-to-column connection for precast concrete frames under reversal cyclic loading , 2016 .

[17]  Ahmad Baharuddin Abd. Rahman,et al.  Behaviour of grouted pipe splice under incremental tensile load , 2012 .

[18]  Sergio M. Alcocer,et al.  Seismic tests of beam-to-column connections in a precast concrete frame , 2002 .

[19]  Sevket Ozden,et al.  Behavior of Unbonded, Post-Tensioned, Precast Concrete Connections with Different Percentages of Mild Steel Reinforcement , 2007 .

[20]  M. Seçkin,et al.  BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTIONS IN PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION , 1990 .

[21]  Alper Ilki,et al.  Seismic behavior of two exterior beam–column connections made of normal-strength concrete developed for precast construction , 2015 .

[22]  K Fukayama,et al.  DESIGN-CONSTRUCTION OF CIRCULAR ROOF FOR UNDERGROUND RESERVOIR USING PRECAST CONCRETE BEAMS , 1998 .

[23]  D. W. Kirk,et al.  Ductile Beam-Column Connection in Precast Concrete , 1981 .

[24]  J. Stanton,et al.  Performance of Hybrid Moment-Resisting Precast Beam-Column Concrete Connections Subjected to Cyclic Loading , 1995 .

[25]  Habib Tabatabai,et al.  Nonlinear finite element analysis and modeling of a precast hybrid beam–column connection subjected to cyclic loads , 2010 .

[26]  M. Kaya,et al.  Analytical modeling of post-tensioned precast beam-to-column connections , 2009 .

[27]  M. J. N. Priestley,et al.  Seismic tests of precast beam-to-column joint subassemblages with unbonded tendons , 1996 .

[28]  John F. Stanton,et al.  A HYBRID REINFORCED PRECAST FRAME FOR SEISMIC REGIONS , 1997 .

[29]  James F. Scott,et al.  Curved precast concrete panels carve out underground library at University of Minnesota , 2000 .

[30]  Seong-Woon Kim,et al.  Performance Assessment of Precast Concrete Segmental Bridge Columns with Shear Resistance Connecting Structure , 2010 .

[31]  G. Craig Freas,et al.  Precast Prestressed Underground Fuel Storage Tanks in Adak, Alaska , 1985 .