Seismic performance of precast concrete frames with debonded reinforcement

  • Huang Yuan
  • Yi Weijian
  • Clay J. Naito
  • Zhang Rui
Original Article


This paper utilizes experimental and numerical studies to investigate the seismic behavior of precast concrete frames. The system is composed of monolithic columns and composite precast concrete beams with debonded reinforcement at the beam end, with the purpose of distributing plasticity over a larger rebar length to improve the seismic performance of traditional precast concrete frames. Two half scale precast concrete frames, with and without debonded rebar, were tested under quasi-static cyclic lateral load. The observations during the test, load–displacement curves, stiffness, energy dissipating capacity and rebar strain are discussed. The experimental findings demonstrate that rebar debonding lead to reduced strain in tensile reinforcement. The decrease in strain due to the debonded rebar was 40.2% at a drift ratio of 1%. The performance of the specimens was evaluated according to ACI 374, which demonstrates that this precast system is applicable to seismic regions. In the numerical simulation study, a macro-based finite element (FE) model was developed using fiber-section beam-column element with a modified rebar constitutive model to take into account the effect of rebar buckling. The feasibility of the FE model was verified by comparing with the experimental data.


Seismic performance Precast concrete Frame Debond Finite element analysis 



This study was funded by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51478174), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0701400).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Committee PCI (2010) PCI design handbook, 7th edn. American Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, ChichagoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elsayed M, Nehdi ML (2017) Experimental and analytical study on grouted duct connections in precast concrete construction. Mater Struct 50(4):198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunesi E, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R (2015) Evaluation of the shear capacity of precast-prestressed hollow core slabs: numerical and experimental comparisons. Mater Struct 48(5):1503–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laskar A, Mo YL, Hsu TTC (2016) Simulation of post-tensioned bridge columns under reversed-cyclic loads. Mater Struct 49(6):2237–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weichen Xue, Bin Zhang (2014) Seismic behavior of hybrid concrete beam-column connections with composite beams and cast-in-place columns. Aci Struct J 111(3):617–627Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parastesh H, Hajirasouliha I, Ramezani R (2014) A new ductile moment-resisting connection for precast concrete frames in seismic regions: an experimental investigation. Eng Struct 70:144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geraldine Cheok and, Lew HS (1991) Performance of precast concrete beam-to-column connections subject to cyclic loading. PCI J 36(3):56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Bolognini D, Bellotti D (2015) Experimental investigation of the cyclic response of reinforced precast concrete framed structures. PCI J 60(2):57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yuan Huang, Zhenggeng Zhu (2017) Clay J Naito, and Yi Weijian, Tensile behavior of half grouted sleeve connections: Experimental study and analytical modeling. Constr Build Mater 152(1):96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tullini N, Minghini F (2016) Grouted sleeve connections used in precast reinforced concrete construction—experimental investigation of a column-to-column joint. Eng Struct 127(1):784–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peng Y-Y, Qian J-R, Wang Y-H (2016) Cyclic performance of precast concrete shear walls with a mortar-sleeve connection for longitudinal steel bars. Mater Struct 49(6):2455–2469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takiguchi K, Okada K, and Sakai M (1976) Ductility capacity of bonded and unbonded reinforced concrete members. In: Proceedings of Architectural Institute of Japan. 249: 1–11Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang SM, Kim OJ, Park HG (2013) Cyclic loading test for emulative precast concrete walls with partially reduced rebar section. Eng Struct 56:1645–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu J, Tan KH (2014) Special detailing techniques to improve structural resistance against progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 140(3):04013077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Choi J-W, Ali M, Alexander SD (2009) Behavior of slabcolumn connections with partially debonded reinforcement under lateral loading. Can J Civ Eng 36(3):463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang R, Shi Z (2008) Numerical simulation of rebar/concrete interface debonding of FRP strengthened RC beams under fatigue load. Mater Struct 41(10):1613–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Biscaia HC, Silva MAG, Chastre C (2015) Factors influencing the performance of externally bonded reinforcement systems of GFRP-to-concrete interfaces. Mater Struct 48(9):2961–2981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robert E (2003) Englekirk, Seismic design of reinforced and precast concrete buildings. Wiley, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawashima K, Hosoiri K, Shoji G, Sakai J (2001) Effects of unbonding of main reinforcements at plastic hinge region for enhanced ductility of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Proc JSCE 689:45–64Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoshikuma J, Unjoh S, Nagaya K (2000) Experimental study for the enhancement of seismic performance of reinforced concrete columns. In: 1st Symposium for Enhancement of Seismic Disaster Prevention, JSCE. p. 135–140Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stehle SJ, Goldsworthy H, Mendis P (2001) Reinforced concrete interior wide-band beam-column connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Aci Struct J 98(3):270–279Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brunesi E, Nascimbene R (2017) Experimental and numerical investigation of the seismic response of precast wall connections. Bull Earthq Eng 15(12):5511–5550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nikoukalam MT, Sideris P (2017) Experimental performance assessment of nearly full-scale reinforced concrete columns with partially debonded longitudinal reinforcement. J Struct Eng 143(4):04016218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perez FJ, Sause R, Pessiki S (2007) Analytical and experimental lateral load Behavior of unbonded posttensioned precast concrete walls. J Struct Eng-Asce 133(11):1531–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gavridou S, Wallace JW, Nagae T, Matsumori T et al (2017) Shake-table test of a full-scale 4-story precast concrete building. ii: analytical studies. J Struct Eng 143(6):13Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ou YC, Chiewanichakorn M, Aref AJ, Lee GC (2007) Seismic performance of segmental precast unbonded posttensioned concrete bridge columns. J Struct Eng-Asce 133(11):1636–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henry RS, Sritharan S, Ingham JM (2016) Finite element analysis of the PreWEC self-centering concrete wall system. Eng Struct 115:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    GB50011 (2010) Code for design of concrete structures. China Architecture Building Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    GB50010-2010 (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings. China Architecture Building Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    318-14, A. (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institution, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    ASCE/SEI 7–10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and others structures. Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    JGJ1-2014 (2014) Technical specification for precast cocnrete structures. Ministry of housing and urban rural development of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    JGJ101, Sp, 1996Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jiuru T (1989) Seismic resistance of joints in reinforced concrete frames. Southeast University Press, NanjingGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chopra Anik K (2011) Dyanmics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, PearsonGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    ACI Committee 374 (2005) Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary (ACI 374.1-05). American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    SAP2000 (2016) CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and Structures, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kurama YC, Pessiki S, Sause R, Lu L-W (1999) Seismic behavior and design of unbonded posttensioned precast concrete walls. PCI J 44(3):72–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yuan Huang, Weijian Yi, Jianguo Nie (2012) Seismic analysis of CFST frames considering the effect of the floor slab. Steel Compos Struct 13(4):397–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yuan Huang, Weijian Yi, Rui Zhang (2014) Behavior and design modification of RBS moment connections with composite beams. Eng Struct 59(1):39–48Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yuan H, Yang Y, Deng H, Weijian Y (2016) Element-based stiffness reduction coefficient of steel–concrete composite beams with interface slip. Mater Struct 49(12):5021–5029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hognestad E, A study on combined bending and axial load in reinforced concrete members. 1951, University of Illinois at Urbana ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Computers & Structures Inc., CSI Analysis Reference Manual. 2016, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rajesh Prasad Dhakal and Koichi Maekawa (2002) Modeling for postyield buckling of reinforcement. J Struct Eng 128(9):1139–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Paulay T, Priestley MJ (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hunan Provincial Key Lab on Damage Diagnosis for Engineering StructuresCollege of Civil Engineering, Hunan UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Lehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations