Experimental Investigation of the Seismic Behaviour of Precast Structures with Pinned Beam-to-Column Connections

  • Ioannis N. Psycharis
  • Haralambos P. Mouzakis
  • Panayotis G. Carydis
Conference paper
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 22)

Abstract

Experimental results from three series of experiments that have been conducted at the Laboratory for Earthquake Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens, Greece, on assemblies or subassemblies of precast structures with dry, pinned beam-to-column connections are reported: the first series concerned shaking table tests on one-storey, practically full-scale 3D specimens composed of linear precast elements; in the second series, monotonic and cyclic pure shear tests were performed on pinned beam-to-column connections; and in the third series, shaking table tests were conducted on a part of a frame composed of a column and a beam. Various parameters were examined, as the diameter of the dowels, the number of dowels and the distance of the dowels from the beam’s front. The effect of the dynamic loading on the behaviour of the connections was investigated by comparing the results of the dynamic tests with the corresponding results of the cyclic tests.

Keywords

Seismic Response Seismic Condition Cyclic Test Plastic Hinge Seismic Behaviour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research presented herein was conducted in the framework of the FP5 project “Precast EC8: Seismic behaviour of precast concrete structures with respect to Eurocode 8 (Co-Normative Research)”, Grant Agreement number G6RD–CT–2002–00857, Growth program and the FP7 project “SAFECAST: Performance of innovative mechanical connections in precast building structures under seismic conditions”, Grant Agreement number 218417, Research for SME Associations. The financial support provided by the Commission of the European Communities through these projects is greatly appreciated. Special thanks are due to Professor S. Tsoukantas of NTUA for his valuable advice and suggestions. Georgia Kremmyda and Lucia Karapitta, graduate students at NTUA, made a significant contribution to the execution of the experiments and the processing of the data. The help of civil engineer Tryfon Topintzis in designing the specimens was also important. Last but not least, we would like to thank the Greek companies PROET S.A., Interbeton S.A. and Chalyvourgiki S.A. for supplying the specimens or the materials for their construction.

References

  1. COST C1 (1999) Control of the semi–rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections. Final report, European Commission, EUR 19244Google Scholar
  2. De Chefbedien (1998) A Precast beam-to-column head connections. In: Proceedings of the COST C1 international conference on control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, Liege, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  3. El Debs MK, El Debs ALH, Miotto AM (2006) Experimental analysis of beam–to–column connection with semi–rigid behaviour of precast concrete structures. In: Proceedings of the 2nd fib congress, NaplesGoogle Scholar
  4. Elliott KS (1998) Semi-rigid connections in precast concrete structures and bridges. In: Proceedings of the COST C1 international conference on control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, Liege, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  5. Elliott KS (2000) Research and development in precast concrete framed structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2(4):405–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elliott KS, Davies G, Mahdi AA, Gorgun H, Virdi K, Ragupathy P (1998) Precast concrete semi-rigid beam-to-column connections in skeletal frames. In: Proceedings of the COST C1 international conference on control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, Liege, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  7. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2004a) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures – Part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992–1–1, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2004b) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998–1, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Imai H, Castro JJ, Yanez R, Yamaguchi T (1993) A new precast system for frame structures and its structural characteristics. In: Dhir RK, Jones MR (eds) Concrete 2000. E & N Spon, London, pp 655–670Google Scholar
  10. International Federation for Structural Concrete (2008) Structural connections for precast concrete buildings. fib Bulletin 43Google Scholar
  11. Jolly CK, Guo M (1998) Application of numerical analysis to connection in precast concrete frames. In: Proceedings of the COST C1 international conference on control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, Liege, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  12. Leong DCP (2006) Testing of pinned beam–to–column connections of precast concrete frames. Master thesis, University Technology, Kuala LampurGoogle Scholar
  13. Nakaki SW, Standon J, Sritharan S (1999) An overview of the PRESSS five story precast test building. PCI J 44(2):26–39Google Scholar
  14. Priestley MJN (1996) The PRESSS program – current status and proposed plans for phase III. PCI J 41(2):22–40Google Scholar
  15. Psycharis IN, Mouzakis HP, Carydis PG (2006) Experimental investigation of the seismic behaviour of prefabricated RC structures. In: 2nd international fib Congress, NaplesGoogle Scholar
  16. Rahman AB Abd, Ghazali AR, Hamid Z Abd (2008) Comparative study of monolithic and precast concrete beam–to–column connections. MCR J 2(1):42–55Google Scholar
  17. SAFECAST: Performance of innovative mechanical connections in precast building structures under seismic conditions (2011a) Deliverable 2.1: experimental behaviour of existing connections. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. SAFECAST: Performance of innovative mechanical connections in precast building structures under seismic conditions (2011b) Deliverable 2.2: quantification of the effects of dynamic loads. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. Stanton JF (1998) The PRESSS program in the USA and Japan – Seismic testing of precast concrete structures. In: Proceedings of the COST C1 international conference on control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, Liege, pp 13–24Google Scholar
  20. Tsoukantas SG, Tassios TP (1989) Shear resistance of connections between reinforced concrete linear precast elements. ACI 86(3):242–249Google Scholar
  21. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vintzeleou EN, Tassios TP (1987) Behavior of dowels under cyclic deformations. ACI Struct J 84(1):18–30Google Scholar
  23. Virdi K, Ragupathy R (1992a) Tests on precast concrete subframes with semi-rigid joints. In: Proceedings of the 1st COST C1 state of the art workshop on semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, Strasbourg, pp 120–131Google Scholar
  24. Virdi K, Ragupathy R (1992b) Analysis of precast concrete frames with semi-rigid joints. In: Proceedings of the 1st COST C1 state of the art workshop on semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural connections, Strasbourg, pp 296–307Google Scholar
  25. Watanabe F (2000) Seismic design for prefabricated and prestressed concrete moment resisting frames. In: Proceedings of the PCI/FHWA/FIB international symposium on high performance concrete, Orlando, pp 820–829Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioannis N. Psycharis
    • 1
  • Haralambos P. Mouzakis
    • 1
  • Panayotis G. Carydis
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Earthquake Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations