Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental and numerical investigation of the static performance of T

innovative prefabricated high-strength composite columns
⁎
Yufan Huanga, Enrico Mazzarolob, , Bruno Briseghellaa, Tobia Zordanc, Airong Chend
a
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350116, China
b
Maffeis Engineering, Structural Department, Via Mignano, 26, 36020 Solagna, VI, Italy
c
Bolina Ingegneria Ltd., Via Gazzato 20, Venezia-Mestre 30174, Italy
d
Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: An innovative high-performance precast beam-to-column joint for multi-storey framed structures is introduced.
Prefabricated high-strength composite columns The proposed solution consists of coupling between Composite Steel Truss Concrete (CSTC) beams with a
Experimental investigation concrete base and High-Strength Concrete (HSC) columns. This paper focuses mainly on the static performance
Finite element analysis of prefabricated HSC columns, including experimental and numerical investigations. The finite element model of
Strength domain
the structural system is calibrated on experimental static testing evidence. On the basis of the data collected, the
Analytical approach
finite element model is used to evaluate the strength domain of members and optimize the related coupling
system between columns. Aiming to limit time-consuming analyses and provide practical rules for design, an
analytical simplified procedure is introduced to compute the assembly’s strength domain. An analytical approach
is adopted to estimate the reference design strength for the considered composite columns, accounting for the
partial safety factor imposed by codes and allowing for estimation of the limit on the number of storeys for
frames adopting the proposed precast technology.

1. Introduction
The use of prefabricated concrete components and their related
coupling systems in seismic engineering constitutes a subject of wide
and deep interest among researchers, practitioners and manufacturers
all over the world. As demonstrated by a large number of studies con-
ducted in numerous countries, especially in Japan, New Zealand and
the United States since the early 1980s and, in relatively more recent
times, in Italy.
The reference layout for traditional precast structures is the 1- to 3-
storey gravity-resisting frames assembled by monolithic columns fixed
at the base and free at the top, with pinned beams resting on corbels,
sometimes strengthened with a shear panel.
In the mentioned countries, both academia and research have pro-
vided viable alternatives to this typical precast layout. Proposed solu-
tions range from an emulative approach, namely, moment-resisting
frames assembled with trough monolithic precast elements joined to-
gether with cast-in-place concrete, to a dry-connection approach,
namely, frame connection based on a rocking effect, joined together
through tendons or damping devices [1–7].
Cast-in-place emulative technology is mainly developed in New
Zealand and Japan during the 80s and consists of a capacity-design-
approach applied to precast structures. Connections are designed to
restore the performance of the equivalent monolithic system [8]. De-
tails of different types of connections have been discussed extensively
by Park [9] and FIB Bulletin 43 [10] and more recently by Bhatt and
Kirk [11], Seckin and Fu [12], and French et al. [13,14].
Opposite to emulative is the dry joint precast approach, which
consists of a moving inelastic response from members to connections.
These are detailed to be weaker than the precast elements and are in-
tended for locations of inelastic deformations [15]. As consequence, the
precast members should not be detailed for ductility and should remain
elastic during seismic action. A major advantage of a dry-jointed con-
nection system is the reduction of scheduling conflicts between con-
struction phases related to in-place concrete casting and strengthening.
This is just a finishing phase and is not required to get structural
strength and stability during the assembly process.
Conversely, in Italy and more generally in Europe, the typical pre-
cast skeleton structure has long been adopted, and this same solution is
still widely adopted at present [16]. Considerable research effort in
Europe has been devoted in the last decade to investigation of the
seismic performance of those types of industrial buildings, as tested by

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yufanhuang@fzu.edu.cn (Y. Huang), enrico.mazzarolo@gmail.com (E. Mazzarolo), bruno@fzu.edu.cn (B. Briseghella), zordan@bolinaingegneria.com (T. Zordan),
a.chen@tongji.edu.cn (A. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.01.012
Received 14 February 2017; Received in revised form 8 November 2017; Accepted 5 January 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Huang et al.
the project PRECAST STRUCTURES EC8, which concluded in early
2007 after 4 years of activity. The project SAFECAST, aiming to design
dry connections between members and study their contributions to the
structural global behaviour [17–19].
A key issue of research on precast concrete still remains, that is, the
possibility of applying the typical benefits of the pre-fabrication in areas
characterized by medium to high seismic intensity. Not only to low-rise
industrial or commercial structures but also to multi-storey frames for
public and strategic buildings, such as schools, hospitals and many
others, as well as to high-rise residential premises [20,21].
The research activity presented in this paper aims to provide a po-
sitive contribution to this topic through the proposal of an innovative
hybrid high-performance precast beam-to-column joint for multi-storey
framed structures, characterized by a modular assembly process that is
less dependent on the construction phases.
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed precast technology, the
conducted research activity consists of two complementary approaches.
First is an experimental phase that aims to improve knowledge of the
behaviour and resisting mechanisms of the joint, owing to an in-
novative layout and a lack of analogous reference experiences from the
literature. Afterwards, a numerical and analytical study phase, to
evaluate the components’ strength domains, optimizes structural com-
ponents and defines the design rules.
This paper focuses on the static performance of the system. Both the
experimental and numerical results reported address evaluating the
static axial capability of High Strength Concrete (HSC) columns.
2. Description of the system
The major advantage of dry-jointed connection systems over
monolithic ones is the reduction of scheduling conflicts between con-
struction phases related to in-place concrete casting and strengthening.
This is just a finishing phase and is not required to obtain structural
strength and stability during the assembly process. Hence, the challenge
faced during the design phase of the new precast system consisted of
making the assembly process less dependent on the construction phases
than typical emulative precast technologies, taking inspiration from the
dry-jointed system approach, without surrendering ease of assembly
and structural performance.
Fig. 1 shows the manufacturing process of high strength composite
columns. Concrete columns are made by centrifuged HSC class C75/90,
casted through a process that leads to the typical ovoid section. HSC
allows for high bearing capacity with limited overall section dimensions
(330 by 550 mm) and consequent maximization of the commercial or
saleable space. The precast process of these members is highly stan-
dardized and automated, thus containing manufacturing costs, though
the base materials are of high quality. As a first step, the single-storey
column-skeleton is assembled by welding two end-flanges (steel grade
S355) at both ends on 8 longitudinal rebars (steel grade B450)
(Fig. 1a–d) and coiling up ϕ6 stirrups to complete the reinforcement
cage (Fig. 1e).
Short column elements are easier to transport, handle and raise. The
best compromise is found in the adoption of single- or double-storey
columns (Fig. 2), with voids at the inter-storey level. Such portions of
the column are referred to as Steel Core Joints (SCJs) and allow beams
to rest in the temporary phase. Bolted connections at the two ends of
the column provide structural continuity for the vertical columns and
complete the layout of the presented precast columns. Moreover, all
horizontal flanges present a central hole (120 mm in diameter) designed
for the HSC centrifuged casting process, which is later performed on
formwork specifically designed for this purpose (Fig. 3).
The horizontal structural element of the proposed joint is con-
stituted by a Steel Truss Concrete (CSCT) beam with a concrete base.
Such a precast solution is introduced in Italy in the 1970s, while it is
currently widely adopted and is spreading rapidly even outside Italian
borders. Moreover, the Italian Superior Work Council has recently
228
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244
released specific instructions for the design of these components, which
are fully comparable to steel-concrete composite elements, removing
any limitations for their employment in seismic regions [22]. Among
the benefits provided by CSTC beam technology, some are here re-
called: high bearing capacity, high mounting speed thanks to un-
propped erection, and limited costs owing to a high prefabrication
level. Furthermore, as a concrete base section is adopted for CSTC
beams, good fire strength is also provided.
On-site column assembly of CSCT beams is straightforward: the
asymmetrical layout of vertical steel plates belonging to SCJs enables
convenient beam accommodation (Fig. 4), drastically reducing con-
struction tolerance issues and increasing construction speed. During the
temporary phase, CSCT beams rest in a simple support scheme without
the need for temporary scaffolding (Fig. 5a). To restore beams’ long-
itudinal continuity through the joint, specifically designed lateral Steel
Lattice Girders (SLGs, highlighted in red1 in Fig. 5b) are finally pro-
vided. Finally after placement of the floor slabs (Fig. 5c), the concrete is
casted to make the assembly monolithic (Fig. 5d).
The proposed precast system can be classified as a hybrid solution
since it adopts both wet and dry connection approaches: cast-in-place
concrete to provide structural continuity to the horizontal beams and
dry bolted-joints for the columns. This strategy guarantees the overall
ease of construction with reduced tolerance problems and self-bearing
capacity during construction phases, with a consequent reduction of
scheduling conflicts between construction phases and favourable con-
sequent economic impacts on construction time and costs. Fig. 6 shows
one parking garage where this type of prefabricated high-strength
composite column is used. The authors have also investigated the cyclic
behaviour of CSTC beams connected by HSC columns through experi-
mental and numerical simulation methods [23]. The results showed
that, despite the absence of lateral reinforcement, the beam-to-column
joint specimens showed an acceptable ductility.
The proposed joint layout appears extremely tidy, avoiding re-
inforcement congestion typical of reinforced concrete frames or other
precast solutions; the modularity of the precast components allows a
low-storey frame to be assembled with the same ease as a taller one.
The total self-bearing capacity and mounting ease of the proposed
solution make rapid all-weather erection possible, even by unskilled
labours, contributing to the final cost reductions. The quality of the
adopted materials and smartness of the final joint layout make this
solution suited not only to multi-storey industrial or commercial
structures and multi-storey parking garages but also to multi-storey
frames for municipal facilities and strategic building, such as schools,
hospitals and many others, and even high-rise residential structures in
areas of medium to high seismic intensity. Despite the high quality of
the base materials, the final cost is comparable to that of equivalent RC
structures thanks to the high automation level during the manu-
facturing precast process and the on-site mounting ease.
3. Experimental tests
3.1. Test specimen design
The innovative layout of the presented precast system and the lack
of similar reference experiences in the literature required experimental
tests to appraise the resisting mechanisms of the proposed HSC system.
It is very important to investigate the response of the joint in all the
phases and particularly understand the contribution of each structural
element to the joint response. A detailed finite element model simula-
tion performed at the beginning of the research confirmed that it was
necessary to understand better the flow of vertical forces between the
concrete column and the steel flanges of the joint, and that a great
1
For interpretation of color in Figs. 5 and 21, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Fig. 1. Manufacturing process of high strength composite columns.

uncertainty could be linked to the quality of the concrete casted in the

joint and its confinement. For this reason, it is decide to design and test
SCJ the specimens only considering the joint and not the beam and floor
and considering the concrete in the joint without confinement, to si-
mulate possible problem in casting and the resistance of the column to
column joint.
Static experimental tests address real scale specimens of composite
HSC column columns are carried out to investigate the mechanical behaviour of the
joint considering in the core a concrete with a poor confinement to
simulate the worst possible conditions. The tested specimens consist of
inter-storey column assemblies, namely, two column stubs 780 mm
long, connected together by an SCJ, as shown in Fig. 7. The lower
column is directly connected to the SCJ by welded longitudinal rebars.
The upper column is connected by means of a bolted connection (4 M24
10.9 bolts). The primary scope of the static tests is to evaluate the in-
fluence of the flange thicknesses and column reinforcement on the
stiffness and strength capacity, deformation characteristics and failure
mode, as well as to find the best solution layout from both mechanical
and economical points of view. Each layout is characterized by specific
thicknesses of horizontal flanges and diameters of rebars; see Table 1.
Specimens A and B adopt ϕ30 and ϕ20 longitudinal rebars, respec-
tively. After assemblage of the HSC columns, the SCJ at the inter-storey
is filled with cast-in-place concrete (Concrete grade C30/37).
a) b)
Fig. 2. Double-storey composite column: (a) skeleton column; (b) final layout. 3.2. Static test setup

Fig. 8 shows the test setup, which is located at the State Key La-
boratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering in Tongji

229
Y. Huang et al.
Fig. 3. Column manufacturing process.
University, China. Each specimen is positioned at the centre of a rigid
frame, and axial load on the top column is applied by an electro-hy-
draulic jack with a maximum capacity equal to 20,000 kN.
Several unloadings and reloadings between 3000 and 5000 kN are
used to settle the composite column and reduce any possible gap at the
connection interface. The load is finally increased until failure. The load
speed application is limited to 5 kN/s.
Several sensors are positioned on specimens to capture strains
during testing. Eight and 6 strain gauges are placed on the column
surface 200 mm from the central joint to record concrete strains in the
axial and transversal direction, respectively (Fig. 9a). Twelve strain-
gauges are stuck on the steel-core joint, 8 of them to monitor axial
strains on the vertical steel plate, and the remaining on the lower steel
flange to monitor in-plane strain (Fig. 9b). Finally, to measure the axial
deformation of the steel-core joint, there are two Linear Variable Dif-
ferential Transformers (LVDTs) on both column faces (Fig. 10): the first
between the top horizontal steel flange and top concrete column and
the latter between the two concrete columns including the steel joint.
3.3. Force-displacement curves
Load vs. steel-core-joint deformation relationships are reported in
Fig. 11 The results obtained from different specimens are similar de-
spite the different geometries. In all cases, splitting failure of grouted
concrete at the core-joint level occurs when the active load reaches
5000 kN (Fig. 12). Good deformation capabilities are observed before
failure, with the latter achieved by buckling of vertical steel plates
(Fig. 13).
Because the inter-storey-core concrete is split out, the vertical steel
230
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244
Fig. 4. Plane view of positioning of a CSTC beam over
a steel-core joint (Unit: mm).
plates of the SCJs become the weak component of the assembly. The
structural responses from different specimens are rather similar despite
the different geometries of the steel-core joints and reinforcement.
The yielding force is estimated as the force level corresponding to a
residual stiffness equal to 15% of the initial one. Experimental values
range between 5294 and 5933 kN, while the corresponding yielding
displacements range between 1.28 and 1.77 mm. The average yielding
force equals 5620 kN, which agrees well with the analytical estimation
of the axial strength provided by the vertical plates obtained through
Eq. (1).
Fy = Asteel ·f y = 210 × 40 × 2 × 345 = 5796 kN (1)
3.4. Strain gauges on concrete
The responses retrieved by these sensors are similar among different
samples. For the sake of brevity, only partial results are reported.
Typical records for horizontal strains for specimens A1 and B1 are
reported in Fig. 14. They experience deformations for both the upper
and lower columns, always less than 300 µm, suggesting that the con-
crete response in the transversal column direction is perfectly elastic
during the entire test. This is visually confirmed by the absence of any
vertical cracking in the column.
Typical records for vertical strains for specimens A1 and B1 are
reported in Fig. 15. Due to the asymmetrical layout of the vertical steel
plate in SCJs, a non-uniform axial strain field is present over their
section. In particularly, sensors V10 and V22, placed nearer to the
vertical steel plates, experience the highest compressive deformation,
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

HSC column
CSCT beam

SCJ

a)
b)

c) d)
Fig. 5. Beam-to-column joint assembly operations.

(a) Panorama (b) Detail

Fig. 6. Mounting phases of a parking garage structure in Milan, Italy.

ranging from 1000 to 1650 µm. Concrete strains tend to diminish for
adjoining sensors belonging to the same alignment. Axial strains at the
centre of the column face range between 500 and 750 µm. The re-
maining gauges located in the arch-shaped side of the column record
still lower deformation, never exceeding 500 µm. Global force vs. strain
trends appear to be nearly linearly elastic for all sensors until failure.
The highest recorded strain is equal to 1650 µm, well below the peak-
strength-strain Ɛc0 = 2800 µm.
The absence of cracking also in the horizontal direction confirms
that HSC columns perform elastically during static testing and are thus
far from having their maximum bearing capacity exploited.
3.5. Vertical strain on the vertical steel plate
Considerable plastic deformation should be expected from these
sensors, as the vertical steel plates are the weak component of the
composite column. Considering that the average deformation of a steel-
core joint is nearly 10 mm and that the steel plates are 380 mm long, the

231
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Fig. 7. Geometry of composite column specimens (Unit: mm).

Table 1 justified by two motivations. On the one hand, the deformation results
Geometrical properties of composite-column specimens. in some sensors being severely damaged after concrete splitting failure.
For specimens A3 and B1, only two sensors worked continuously, while
Specimen A [mm] b [mm] c [mm] Rebar [mm]
data provided by the others are clearly corrupted and thus disregarded.
A1 65 30 35 30 On the other hand, the buckling failure achieved by specimens might
A2 45 25 30 30 have favoured a premature separation of several sensors from steel
A3 30 20 25 30
surfaces. Specimen A1, for example, failed after reaching an active force
B1 50 25 30 20
B2 35 20 25 20
level equal to 6950 kN, while the gauges stopped recording at 6000 kN.
B3 25 15 20 20 A similar behaviour is shown even by sensors applied to B1.

3.6. Evidence of the experimental tests

expected average steel plate strain at failure is almost 25‰. The results
are shown in Fig. 16. Some gauges record rather high deformation le-
vels: 10‰ in sensor L4-A3 and 6‰ in sensors L1-A2, L2-A2, and L3-B2.
Some other sensors just enter the yielding plateau. The attained de-
formation level is then well below the expected one. This could be
According to the static experimental tests, it is possible to confirm
the high bearing capacity of the system. The attained axial load, equal
to approximately 5800 kN, is notable. Nonetheless, this value could be
increased if the joint failure is avoid, as confirmed by the strain level

(a) Schematic view (b) In-situ view

Fig. 8. Static test setup.

232
Y. Huang et al.
(a) Applied on the column
Fig. 9. Strain gauges applied on the specimen (Unit: mm).
recorded in the HSC column, well below the peak limit. In the joint
zone, adequate confinements should be provided to obtain the max-
imum structural performance of the structural system. This aspect is
further investigated in the next paragraphs.
4. Numerical investigations
4.1. Finite-Element numerical modelling
The possibility of fitting experimental results via numerical simu-
lation is of great interest since it allows for the obtainment of reference
finite element (FE) models, suitable for a wider study of the proposed
technology, as a substitute for experimental real scale testing. An ex-
perimental survey of the static performance of the composite column
reported is adopted for this purpose, as the column’s geometry is rather
simple and collected data provide a comprehensive picture of specimen
response during testing. Numerical analyses are conducted using
ABAQUS V.6.10 FE software [24], which could be implemented as an
alternative to costly and time consuming experimental tests, and allow
an extensive parametric investigation of composite joints and possible
design optimizations [25]. As expected, during the tests the concrete in
the joint was immediately subject to brittle failure and its contribution
to the resistance was negligible. This aspect confirmed the importance
of confinement in the SCJ. It is very important to investigate the steel
flanges and the distribution of the stresses in the columns, so it was
decided not to consider the concrete in the joint in the numerical
analysis performed.
Six different models are defined, as many as there are tested
233
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244
(b) Applied on the steel-core joint
specimens. Fig. 17 exhibits the numerical model in the ABAQUS soft-
ware. The numerical model consists of a full tri-dimensional re-
presentation of the composite column geometry. There are a total of
27,578 nodes and 20,080 finite elements with 19,456 solid, 192 planar
and 432 linear elements.
The 8-node hexahedral solid element (C3D8R) is adopted for the
entire model, with the exception of the spiral stirrups inside the
column, which are modelled by linear truss elements (B31). A regular
mesh is ensured by the mapped meshing subroutine. The average mesh
size for concrete is 40 mm. The circumference of the longitudinal
column reinforcement is split 8 times to accurately reproduce the cir-
cular section geometry. The steel joint is meshed with a finer mesh with
an average edge size of approximately 20 mm. Vertical steel plates are
split 4 times in the thickness direction to more accurately capture
second-order effects. The concrete cast to fill the core joint is not
modelled owing to the impossibility of simulating sudden concrete
splitting failure via the adopted concrete plasticity model. All transla-
tional degrees of freedom (DOFs) are restrained at the bottom plane
level. The imposed force is applied at a specific reference point located
in the centre of mass of the upper rigid plane. A monotonic increasing
axial load is applied.
4.2. Material mechanical proprieties
For concrete class C25/30, both compressive strength (Rc) and
elastic modulus (Ec) are measured in the laboratory, by testing concrete
cube with edge dimension 150 mm. Elastic modulus is evaluated mea-
suring secant stiffness after 5 time loading and unloading procedure at
Fig. 10. Composite column displacement transducer
(Unit: mm).
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

8 8 8
force (kN) x10 3

force (kN) x10 3

force (kN) x10 3

6 6 6

4 4 4

2 2 2
A1 A2 A3
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
displacement (mm) displacement (mm) displacement (mm)

8 8 8
force (kN) x10 3

force (kN) x10 3

force (kN) x10 3

6 6 6

4 4 4

2 2 2
B1 B2 B3
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
displacement (mm) displacement (mm) displacement (mm)

Fig. 11. Force vs. displacement relationship from static tests.

Fig. 13. Composite-columns after failure.

fctm = 0.3(fcm )2/3 (4)

εc,0 = 2.0 + 0.085(fcm −50)0.53 ⩾ 2‰ (5)

εc,50 = 2.8 + 27[(98−fcm )/100]4 ⩽ 3.5‰ (6)

Fig. 12. Inter-storey cast-in-place concrete failure.
50% of maximum strength. Cylindrical strength (fc) is estimated as
0.83Rc. Totally, three specimens are tested. According to GB/T 50,081-
2002 [26], curing of specimen is made at the controlled temperature of
20 °C ± 3 °C and relative humidity higher than 90% for 28 days.
Loading speed during testing is limited to 0.3 MPa/s. For precast con-
crete classes C30/37 and C75/90, characteristic compressive strength
fck is assumed as a reference value (30 and 75 MPa, respectively).
Missing parameters are estimated adopting EN 1992-1-1 [27] provi-
sions, see Eqs. (2)–(7):
fcm = fck + 8 MPa
f 0.3
Ecm = 22,000 ⎛ cm ⎞ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 10 ⎠
υ = 0.2 (7)
where fcm is average compressive strength, Ecm is average elastic mod-
ulus, fctm is average concrete tensile strength, εc,0 is unconfined concrete
strain at peak stress fcm, εc,50 is unconfined concrete strain at 50% fcm
residual strength, and ν is Poisson’s coefficient for concrete in elastic
phase.
For fracture energy value, reference is made to CEB-FIB Model Code
2010 [28] formulation, see Eq. (8):
Gf = 73(fcm )0.18 (8)
Table 2 summarizes the main mechanical parameters for adopted
concrete classes. Complete stress-strain relationship for concrete is de-
(2) fined adopting the Légeron and Paultre model [29], which defines a
compressive concrete model suitable for both Normal Strength Concrete
(NSC) and HSC.
(3) Different components are adopted in the proposed beam-to-column

234
Y. Huang et al.
joint, each characterized by specific material grades. Components are
listed below, together with their corresponding steel grade and chosen
reference code: (1) lattice girders, steel-core-joint and CSCT beam truss,
steel S355J0, according to EN 10025 [30]; (2) column reinforcements
and stirrups; steel B450C, according to EN 1993-1-1 [31]; (3) bolts;
steel grade 10.9, according to ISO 898-1:1999 [32]. Material properties
of steel are listed in Table 3.
Estimation of yield plateau length in the σ-ε curve and the corre-
sponding strain limit εL is shown in Fig. 18, which estimated through a
formulation reported in SINTAP BS/23 [33], and the Briseghella model
[34] is assumed to define the complete stress-strain relationship:
σ (ε ) = E ·ε ε ⩽ εy
σ (ε ) = f y εy < ε ⩽ εL
P
εu − ε
σ (ε ) = fu −(f y −fu ) εL < ε ⩽ εu
εu − εy (9)
where P is calculated by Eq.10,
εu−εL
P = Epl
σu−σy (10)
4.3. Numerical analysis model calibration
The first aspect to take into consideration when checking the cap-
ability of an FE model to reproduce an experimental response is the
global quantities that summarize the structural behaviour of the tested
specimens. The total applied force vs. axial deformation of the steel-
core joint is particularly suited for this purpose (Fig. 19).
Beyond the excellent correspondence between the experimental and
numerical trends suggested by these values, attention should be paid to
the amplified (by 5 times) deformed shape of the numerical specimen at
failure, as shown in Fig. 20. With only an exception for model A1, all
the remaining models clearly evidence a failure condition associated
with vertical steel plate buckling, analogous to the experimental re-
sponse. This confirms the robustness of the adopted numerical ap-
proach and that it is able to account properly for the second-order ef-
fect. Concrete columns attained limited damage levels, corresponding
to experimental evidence, thus confirming that HSC columns performed
235
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244
Fig. 14. Horizontal strain on the upper concrete
column.
elastically until the end of testing.
5. Strength domain estimation
It is stated as during the static experimental tests, the core-concrete
was subjected to splitting failure, when approaching an axial load level
almost equal to 5000 kN, due to absence of lateral confinement. Such a
failure could be prevented by confining action provided by flooring
system. In addition, specific reinforcement could be adopted, especially
for lateral joints. This aspect confirmed the importance of confinement
in the SCJ. The experiment tests considering only axial load and a poor
confinement of the concrete in the core, showed the basic behaviour of
the joint and its components. In a following step of the research the
contribution of the confinement was numerically investigated, con-
sidering also different load conditions that could introduce bending
moments. In this way it was possible to understand better the response
of the joint and investigate the possible applications to real cases. In
order to investigate the maximum performances available from com-
posite-column system, it is assumed that adequate confinement is pro-
vided to core-joint. The reference resistance domain of HSC column and
composite core-joint taken as separate are defined. The developed
analyses are performed imposing increasing rotation at the top of the FE
model (corresponding to a concentrate bending action) at different
axial load levels, to get the complete M-N strength domain.
5.1. HSC columns
The HSC column FE model is derived from reference models
adopted for static experimental test simulation. The model represents
an HSC column stub with a length of 0.79 m, (Fig. 21). Longitudinal
rebars (in blue) and concrete are explicitly solidly modelled through
hexahedral elements (C3D8R), while confining spiral stirrups (in red)
are modelled with embedded linear truss elements (B31). A perfect
bond between the concrete and reinforcement is supposed. At the top
and bottom of the model, two rigid planes are meshed with quad-
rilateral elements (R3D4). These allow for redistribution of the
boundary conditions over the entire column section, avoiding stress
concentration at the column’s ends. The so-defined model consists of
Fig. 15. Vertical strain on the upper concrete
column.
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Fig. 16. Vertical strain on the vertical steel plate.

10,375 nodes and 7440 solid, 192 planar and 216 linear elements, for a Table 2
total of 7848 finite elements. Material properties of concretes.
The base is assumed as fixed, while two load steps are considered at
Grade fcm (Mpa) fctm (Mpa) Ecm (Mpa) εc,0 (‰) εc,50 (‰) Gf (N/ ν
the top column’s end. During the first step, an axial force is applied. mm)
Several numerical simulations are performed with an axial load level
ranging between 0 and Nmax with a step of 2000 kN. The second step C25/30 28.7 2.8 32,200 2 3.5 133 0.2
consists of an imposed increasing rotation. Because this step is dis- C30/37 38 3.3 32,800 2 3.5 140 0.2
C75/90 83 5.7 41,500 2.8 2.8 161 0.2
placement controlled, the softening branch of the global structural re-
sponse can be monitored. Fig. 22 shows the numerical response in terms
of M-χ (reaction moment vs. curvature) curves at different axial load of axial load level. It should be noted that the estimated maximum axial
levels. Considering that the model section property is constant, the strength capacity for the HSC column is approximately 15,000 kN, more
curvature can be estimated by simply dividing the imposed rotation than double the maximum axial force level attained during experi-
value by the specimen’s height, as in Eq. (11). mental testing.
χ = φ/h (11)
where φ is the top rotation and h is the height of the specimen. 5.2. Core joints
Nmax is evaluated by increasing the axial force level until con-
vergence is no longer attained. This procedure allows an accurate es- The core joint is also modelled separately to obtain its response in
timation of the M-N (bending moment vs. axial force) strength domain terms of strength and stiffness as a function of the acting axial load
for the HSC column to be obtained (Fig. 23). Such domain results are level. The FE model is reported in Fig. 24. It consists of two vertical
fundamental for all subsequent numerical analyses since they represent steel plates made of structural steel S355, with section dimensions of
the reference limit strength domain for the composite-column as- 210 by 40 mm, embedded in normal strength concrete (C25/30).
sembly. In Fig. 23, the section bending stiffness is plotted as a function Concrete and vertical plates are both modelled through hexahedral

Fig. 17. FE model: (a) full model (b) HSC column mesh (c) horizontal steel plate mesh (d) steel-core-joint mesh.

236
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Table 3
Material properties of steels.

Grade tk (Mpa) fy (Mpa) ft (Mpa) εy (%) εL (%) εu (%) E (Mpa) Epl (Mpa) ν

S355 > 16 345 500 0.2 2.4 22 2,000,000 3000 0.3

< 40
S355 > 40 335 490 0.2 2.5 22 2,000,000 3000 0.3
B450C – 450 540 0.2 1.8 7.5 2,000,000 3000 0.3
10.9 – 900 1000 0.2 – 9 2,000,000 3000 0.3

considered a weak component of the precast assembly, at least when

proper confinement is ensured. Core-joint behaviour is also con-
siderably more ductile compared to the HSC column, particularly for
axial load levels higher than 6000 kN, mainly due to the larger amount
of steel (provided by vertical steel plates) and normal strength in place
of high strength concrete.

5.3. Interface investigation

Aiming to identify the optimum layout column-to-column coupling

(a) S355 and B450C (b) 10.9 Grade
Fig. 18. Stress-strain relationship for steel.
elements (C3D8R), with a contact region on the sheared surfaces, to
account for interaction phenomena. A classic Mohr-Coulomb con-
stitutive law is adopted for this purpose, setting a friction coefficient µ
equal to 0.4. Two rigid planes meshed with quadrilateral elements
(R3D4) are introduced to limit the stress concentration at both of the
model’s ends, where boundary conditions similar to those adopted for
the HSC column are applied. The model consists of 10,375 nodes and
4168 solid and 192 planar elements, for a total of 4360 finite elements.
In the following analysis, the core-joint strength domain is computed
with reference to interior joints, where adequate confinement is surely
provided by the flooring system. A conservative estimation for this
contribution is provided by Eq. (12).
σconf = νc εc,0 Ec = 0.2 × 0.002 × 32,200/2 = 6.4 MPa
where σconf is the confining pressure; νc is Poisson’s coefficient eval-
uated in the elastic range; and Ec is the equivalent secant modulus of
elasticity at peak stress (fc/εc), assumed as half of the reference elastic
modulus E0. The estimated value is rounded down to 5 MPa to take into
account the approximation of the proposed formulation. Such a pres-
sure is applied on the outer joint surface, during the first load step,
while applying axial loading. Also in this case, the curvature estimation
is based on the assumption of the constant section property and is thus
taken as the imposed rotation value divided by the height of the spe-
cimen (Eq. (10)).
The strength domain results are wider than the HSC column re-
ference one (Fig. 25), suggesting that the core joint should not be
system, a parametric analysis is conducted, varying the thicknesses of
flanges. Interface investigation is identified as the one able to provide
adequate stiffness and strength to the composite column, with the
minimum amount of required steel, to make the HSC column still more
competitive from the manufacturing cost point of view.
The bolted coupling system is accurately reproduced by solid
modelling of bolts and nuts, as shown in Fig. 26. Between the horizontal
steel flanges and outer bolts’ surface, a contact surface is introduced to
account for sliding, gap openings and over-closures. A Mohr-Coulomb
constitutive model is adopted for this purpose, with the coefficient µ
equal to 0.4 and null cohesion. The entire model is meshed by hex-
ahedral solid elements (C3D8R), with the only exception being the
spiral stirrups in the column, which are truss modelled with R3D4
elements. The boundary conditions correspond to those applied for
previous analyses. The so-defined models consist of 27,791 nodes and
19,414 solid, 192 planar and 216 linear elements, for a total of 19,822
finite elements. Also in this case, the main objectives of the analyses are
to clarify the connection strength mechanisms and mechanics, as well
(12) as to identify the most favourable layout in term of both the perfor-
mance and needed steel metal. Towards this aim, a parametric study is
conducted for varying thicknesses of horizontal flanges. To reduce the
number of possible combinations, 6 have been chosen on the basis of
engineering judgement, namely, 20/20, 20/30, 20/40, 30/30, 30/40,
and 40/40, where the first and second numbers are the thicknesses for
the lower and upper flanges, respectively.
Equivalent plastic strains are plotted in Fig. 27. Several types of
failure are recognizable depending on the flanges’ thicknesses. In model
20/20, the upper flange results are excessively slender to withstand the
bending moment introduced by the column’s rebars in tension. There-
fore, several plastic hinges develop to form a kinematic mechanism. The
trend behaviour in model 30/30 is similar, although stiffer plates limit
the plastic strains from spreading, and the plastic mechanism does not

Fig. 19. Force-displacement relationship

between experimental and numerical results.

237
Y. Huang et al.
Fig. 20. Compression damage map from different FE models at failure.
fully develop. In models 20/30 and 20/40, the weak element becomes
the lower flange. Plastic hinges on this element develop in proximity of
the vertical steel plate as a result of excessive bending provided by bolts
in tension, while the upper flange still performs elastically. For all these
models, the behaviour of connection could be associated with Mode 2
failure, as described in EN 1993-1-8 [35], characterized by both the
flanges and bolts yielding. In the remaining models, the flanges are stiff
and strong enough to provide elastic performance until failure. Such
behaviour recalls the rigid mechanism (Mode 3 failure) reported in EN
1993-1-8 [35], characterized by the bolts yielding.
In Fig. 28, from the strength point of view, increasing the flange
thicknesses leads to a general improvement of composite-column per-
formances. Models 30/30, 30/40 and 40/40 fit the reference domain
reasonably well, with the exception of very low axial load levels
(≈0 kN). This implies that a bolted connection could represent a weak
component of the assembly when limited axial loading is provided.
Additionally, the results of equivalent stiffness of composite column are
sensibly affected by low axial load levels, independently from the
connection layout. According to these observations, it is possible to
identify model 30/30 as the optimum specimen among the considered
ones, as further increasing the flange thickness does not provide any
appreciable performance improvement in terms of strength or in terms
of stiffness.
Fig. 21. Column FE model: (a) full model (b) embedded reinforcement (c) mesh section.
238
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244
6. Analytical approach for design
6.1. Provisions for HSC column bending strength
In addition to numerical modelling, an important aspect is the
identification of simplified analytical approaches to model composite-
column behaviour, particularly for the design phase. A first issue to
consider is the possibility of obtaining the strength domain of the
composite column’s components taken separately. Related to this aspect
is correctly accounting for concrete strength, particularly when dealing
with HSC. A reference formulation to evaluate the expected column
compressive strength under pure axial compression is reported in ACI
318 [36]:
P0 = αfc (Ag −As ) + f y As α = 0.85 (13)
where P0 = the pure axial load capacity of columns; fc = the concrete
compressive strength; fy = the steel yielding stress; Ag = the gross
cross-sectional area; and As = the area of longitudinal steel.
A correction coefficient for concrete strength α = 0.85 should be
adopted to design independently from the concrete grade. It accounts
for the difference between the concrete strength provided by cylindrical
concrete specimens and that provided by real-scale column samples.
The correct design of high strength reinforced concrete sections under
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Fig. 22. Moment vs. curvature: FE solution under different model and axial load conditions.

Fig. 23. M-N strength domain for the HSC column: FE solution. Fig. 25. M-N domain comparison.

combined axial and bending solicitations requires the same additional an analytical approach, a specific computer program is developed in
considerations, particularly to account for the different behaviours of MATLAB [38]. The implemented subroutine uses a layered re-
HSC compared to NSC samples. presentation of the section, each layer being separated into a confined
In ACI 318 [36], the reduction factor α used for compressed core layer and an unconfined cover layer with the corresponding ma-
members is substituted by the equivalent rectangular stress-block cor- terial properties and characterized by specific average dimensions b(y)
rection factor η = 0.85. For the depth of the rectangular compression and distance y from the neutral axis (Fig. 30). The confined concrete
block λ (Fig. 29), the following equation is assumed in Eq. (14). material properties account for the effectiveness of the confinement
reinforcement and the yield strength of the transverse steel reinforce-
λ = 0.85−0.05 × (fc −40)/6.9 ⩽ 0.85 (14)
ment by the Légeron and Paultre model [29]. The longitudinal re-
Li et al. [37] indicated that the ratios of the experimental flexural inforcement is also represented by layers, with the appropriate material
strength to that calculated according to ACI formulations are less than 1 properties. The program calculates the moment-curvature response by
when considering HSC columns subjected to high axial load levels. A an incremental iterative procedure based on the plane section hy-
further coefficient η should be considered for the design of HSC mem- pothesis and fulfilling of axial and bending solicitations equilibrium
bers subjected to axial-bending solicitations in EN 1992-1-1 [27], which conditions.
reports specific formulations for concrete strength lower or higher than N
x
50 MPa (Eq. (15)). N= ∫0 σc (y )·b (y )·dy + ∑ σs,i·As,i
i=1 (16)
η = 1 fck ⩽ 50 MPa
η = 1−(fck −50)/200 fck > 50 MPa N
(15) x
M=− ∫0 σc (y )·b (y )·y·dy− ∑ Zi·yi
To define the strength domain of general layout RC sections through i=1 (17)

Fig. 24. Core-joint FE model: (a) full FE model (b) embedded steel plates (c) section mesh.

239
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Fig. 26. Double flange-composite-column FE model with a 4-bolt layout: (a) full model (b) inside steel plates and rebars (c) top view of bolt modelling (d) upward view of bolt modelling.

First, a certain axial load level N is fixed. Second, the εc value is
assumed at the top edge of the concrete section. As a first tentative
assumption, the neutral axis is located at a middle height. The neutral
axis is then moved iteratively upwards and downwards through a bi-
section method until axial load equilibrium is achieved (Eq. (16)). The
resulting bending moment is then calculated (Eq. (17)). Afterwards, a
new increased value for εc is assumed, and the iterative process starts
again. In this manner, the complete M-χ curve is analytically defined
for a certain axial load level. Failure corresponds to the attainment of
either the ultimate confined concrete strain εccu, ultimate steel strain εsu
or 80% of the residual bending strength [39]. Critical points, such as
yielding of longitudinal reinforcement, onset of cover spalling, and
ultimate curvature, are also stored. Repeating the process for different
axial load levels, the complete M-N strength domain is defined.
The HSC column strength domains, obtained from numerical
(Fig. 23) and analytical approaches, are plotted together and compared
in Fig. 31. The coefficient α is assumed to be unity, as this reduction
factor is disregarded during numerical analyses. To reproduce the

Fig. 27. Plastic strain at the column-to-joint interface: 4-bolt flanged connection; deformation scale factor of 10×.

240
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

(a) Comparison of the strength ratio (b) Comparison of the stiffness ratio
Fig. 28. Global performance comparison of the composite column with a double-flange 4-bolt connection.

Fig. 29. Stress-block approach as reported in ACI 318-08 [36].

Fig. 31. Numerical vs. analytical estimation of the strength domain for the HSC column.

strength domain is characterized by an apparent axial strength increase.

This phenomenon is correctly simulated assuming η = 1.

6.2. Design domain for composite column

Fig. 30. RC section discretization for the MATLAB subroutine.
strength domain when both axial and bending conditions are con-
sidered, two values for η are defined: 0.85 and 0.95. An analytical
formulation with η = 0.95 better agrees with the numerical results for
axial loading lower than 8000 kN. η = 0.85 leads to better fitting of the
resistance domain for higher axial load levels. For axial loading lower
than 4000 kN, the strength domain is well captured by both coeffi-
cients, as the role played by concrete is secondary.
The analytical results confirm the importance of introducing a
strength reduction for HSC. The fact that numerical simulation captures
evidence similar to that of the experimental test reported in the lit-
The same approach is applied to obtain the strength domain for the
design of the composite column, adopting a safety factor of the base
material required by codes. The concrete strength reduction coefficient
α and η are also considered. The first one accounts for differences be-
tween cylindrical concrete strength and real-size specimen strength and
is assumed equal to 0.85. HSC base material properties and corre-
sponding partial safety factors are reported in Table 4, taking as re-
ference provisions reported in Ref. [27] and Italian Code NTC 2008
[40].
The maximum axial bearing capacity of the HSC column is com-
puted from Eq. (18), in which coefficient η is obtained from Eq. (15).
Table 4
Material properties and partial safety factors of the HSC base.

erature concerning the lower performance of HSC columns compared to Concrete Steel rebars
NSC ones is an additional confirmation of the goodness of the adopted
numerical approach. For a safe analytical estimation of the HSC column Grade fck (Mpa) γc Grade Fyk (Mpa) γs
strength domain, η = 0.85 should be assumed, which agrees with Eq.
C75/90 75 1.5 B450C 450 1.15
(15). In proximity of a pure axial loading condition, the numerical

241
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

Table 5 Table 6
Material properties and partial safety factors of the composite-core-joint base. Static load amplification factor.

Concrete Steel rebars Combination. Factor ψ0 Aplification factor γ

Grade fck (MPa) γc Grade Fyk (MPa) γs Structural dead load (G1) – 1.3
Non-structural dead load (G2) – 1.5
C25/30 25 1.5 S355 345 1.05 Live load (crowd) (Q1) – 1.5
Wind load (Q2) 0.6 1.5

f fyk
Pmax = αη γck (Ac −As ) + As
c γs L = γG1 G1 + γG2 G2 + γQ1 Q1 + ∑ ψ0j Qj
(21)
= 0.85 × 0.875 ×
75
1.5 ( 158,000−8 ×
π × 302
4 ) +8×
450
1.15
×
π × 302
4
j> 1

= 7878 kN
In a similar manner, the reference strength domain for the compo-
site core joint is estimated. Material properties and corresponding
safety coefficients are reported in Table 5.
The confining pressure acting on the core joint is assumed equal to
2.5 MPa (half of the value applied for numerical simulations).
According to Ref. [40], the confined concrete strength is equal to:
fcck = fck × (1125 + 2.5 × 2.5/ fck ) = 34 MPa
The maximum axial bearing capacity of the composite core joint is
computed in Eq. (20), which is based on Eq. (15) for the considered
concrete grade (C25/30), and the coefficient η is taken as unity.
fcck fy
Pmax = αη (Ac −As ) + As
γc γs
34
= 0.85 × 1 × 1.5
(158,000−210 × 40 × 2) +
= 8240 kN
The complete strength design domain is plotted in Fig. 32, together
with the reference strength domain provided by the numerical core-
joint solution. The HSC column domain is completely enveloped by the
core-joint domain, confirming the possibility of classifying it as a strong
component of the assembly.
The analytical composite column’s design strength domain is
adopted as a reference point to provide an estimation of the maximum
number of storeys for frames adopting the proposed precast system.
Loads considered for this analysis are reported by Ref. [40]. Wind ef-
fects are also considered to account for additional bending moment
acting on the base column at ground level. A reference wind speed
equal to 27 m/s is assumed (an average value over the Italian territory).
The equivalent wind load is estimated as 0.5 kN/m2, increased by a
specific wind profile factor ce(z) as specified by Ref. [40] prescriptions.
The verification process makes reference to the Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) conditions in Eq. (21). The load’s amplification factors γ sug-
gested by Ref. [40] are reported in Table 6.
(18) Ref. [27] makes provisions (Eq. (22)) to estimate single columns’
eccentricity to account for second-order effects due to possible frame
elevation irregularities:
θi = θ0 αh αm
2
αh = 2/ ℓ ; 3
⩽ αh ⩽ 1
αm = 0.5 × (1−1/ m) (22)
where θ0 = the reference base eccentricity, taken as equal to 1/200;
αh = the reduction factor to account for building height; αm = the re-
(19)
duction factor to account for the number of vertical elements; ℓ = the
total frame’s height; and m = the number of vertical elements con-
sidered.
Considering an inter-storey span equal to 3.2 m, the reference ec-
centricity is estimated as 7.5 mm, rounded up to 10 mm. A regular plain
frame numerical model is built in SAP2000 [41]. Each storey in the
model is horizontally shifted with respect to the lower one to provide
345 elevation irregularities, and a nonlinear geometry analysis is performed
1.05
× 210 × 40 × 2
(20) to account for second-order effects. The maximum allowable number of
storeys is equal to 10 and 8 for frames with bays spanning 6 and 8 m
long, respectively.
The force distributions in terms of axial forces and bending mo-
ments computed for these frames are reported in Figs. 33 and 34, re-
spectively. The worst solicitations’ combinations for the two frame
typologies are plotted together with the reference strength domain in
Fig. 35. It should be noted that the strength domain limit is nearly at-
tained. The identified maximum number of storeys should be con-
sidered as a conservative lower limit, as taller frames are feasible
considering lower live loads of those assumed for the current analyses.
The results illustrate that the proposed analytical approach can be used
in design practice. The analytical approach represents a viable alter-
native to time-consuming numerical analyses and allows for effective
strength domain estimation for design practice.
7. Conclusions
A compressive investigation has been carried out to analyse the
static performance of innovative prefabricated high strength composite
columns by means of experimental and numerical methods. The fol-
lowing conclusions are summarized based on the investigation results
from this paper.

(1). The axial load bearing capacity of the composite column and the
influence of the steel-core-joint geometry on static performances
were investigated through 6 different specimens. For all tests,
failure is achieved as a consequence of core-joint buckling after
concrete splitting, thus providing a reference limit strength to be
used for the design of a temporary phase, equal to almost 6000 kN.
As a consequence, particularly in the design phase, this limit
strength should be taken for exterior joints, where the confinement
action provided by the flooring system is limited.
(2). The structural responses from different samples are rather similar,
despite the different geometries of steel-core joints and the re-
Fig. 32. Design strength domain for the composite column.
inforcement. This implies that a reduced steel flange thickness

242
Y. Huang et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244

(a) Bending moment diagram (b) Axial load diagram

Fig. 33. Lower storey solicitations for the frame with a 6-meter-long bay span.

could be adopted without compromising the mechanical perfor-

mance in the temporary phase.
(3). During static testing, the HSC column performed elastically, with a
maximum recorded compression strain well below the peak limit.
This is a clue suggesting that, as expected, the mechanical perfor-
mances for this component might be sensibly higher.
(4). Numerical analysis models developed using the ABAQUS software
are found to be able to capture the failure modes, deformation and
ultimate capacity of specimens, which agree well with the ex-
perimental results.
(5). The HSC column and composite-core joint are numerically studied
separately, enabling the evaluation of the corresponding strength
domains. This comparison allows for classification of core joints as
a strong component of the assembly, able to withstand higher axial
bending solicitations before failure, as long as adequate confine-
ment in the concrete core joint is provided. Referring to the static
Fig. 35. Worst solicitation combination for base columns and reference strength domain.
performance, the maximum pure axial bearing capacity of the
column reaches almost 15,000 kN, more than double the maximum
force level attained during experimental testing and corresponding alternative to time-consuming numerical analyses and allows for
to the bearing capacity available in the temporary phase. an effective strength domain estimation for design practice.
(6). In the case of a single flange welded connection, the best solution
corresponds to a flange thickness equal to 40 mm. In a bolted
connection with 4 bolts, the best solution is identified in 30-mm- Acknowledgements
thick flanges. Analyses allowed for identification of a possible weak
mechanism, corresponding to this type of connection in conjunc- The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Natural Science
tion with low axial load levels. A bolted connection represents a Foundation of China for financially supporting the research in this
structural discontinuity of the column assembly and confirms the paper through Grant No. 51608125. Acknowledgements also go to the
importance of explicitly considering its deformation contribution, State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering in
especially during the design of frame systems subjected to lateral Tongji University for providing the test condition and Tecnostrutture
or earthquake loading. Srl (Venice, Italy), IUAV University of Venice, and SIBERC (Sustainable
(7). Based on the defined strength domain, an analytical procedure is and Innovative research Center), Fuzhou University.
developed to fit the numerical response. Through a satisfactory
validation process, the analytical approach represents a viable

(a) Bending moment diagram (b) Axial load diagram

Fig. 34. Lower storey solicitations for the frame with an 8-meter-long bay span.

243
Y. Huang et al.
References
[1] Ersoy U, Tankut T. Precast concrete members with welded plate connections under
reversed cyclic loading. PCI J 1993;38(4):94–100.
[2] Englekirk RE. Design-construction of The Paramount: a 39-story precast prestressed
concrete apartment building. PCI J 2002;47(4):56–71.
[3] Morgen BG, Kurama YC. A friction damper for post-tensioned precast concrete
moment frames. PCI J 2004;49(4):112–33.
[4] Pampanin S. Emerging solutions for high seismic performance of precast/pre-
stressed concrete buildings. J Adv Concr Technol 2005;3(2):207–23.
[5] Kaya M, Arslan AS. Analytical modeling of post-tensioned precast beam-to column
connections. Mater Des 2009;30(9):3802–11.
[6] Dundar C, Tokgoz S, Tanrikulu AK, Baran T. Behaviour of reinforced and concrete-
encased composite columns subjected to biaxial bending and axial load. Build
Environ 2008;43(6):1109–20.
[7] Tokgoz S, Dundar C. Experimental tests on biaxially loaded concrete encased
composite columns. Steel Compos Struct 2008;8(8):423–38.
[8] Park R. Seismic design and construction of precast concrete buildings in New
Zealand. PCI J 2002;47(5):60–75.
[9] Park R. A perspective on the seismic design of precast concrete structures I New
Zealand. PCI J 1995;40(3):40–50.
[10] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). Structural connections for
precast concrete buildings. Bulletin 2008;43.
[11] Bhatt P, Kirk DW. Test on an improved beam column connection for precast con-
crete. ACI J 1985;82(6):834–43.
[12] Seckin M, Fu HC. Beam-column connections in precast reinforced concrete con-
structions. ACI Struct J 1990;87(3):252–61.
[13] French CW, Amu O, Tarzikhan C. Connections between precast elements failure
outside connection region. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1989;115(2):316–40.
[14] French CW, Hafner M, Jayashankar V. Connection between precast elements failure
within connection region. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1989;115(12):3171–92.
[15] Stone WC, Cheok GS, Stanton JF. Performance of hybrid moment resisting precast
beam-column concrete connections subjected to cyclic loading. ACI Struct J
1995;92(2):229–49.
[16] Bellotti D, Bolognini D, Nascimbene R. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete
precast traditional Italian frames and subassemblies. In: The 14th world conference
on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[17] Colombo A, Negro P, Zhao B, Lu X. Recent collaborative research activities between
Europe and China on the seismic behaviour of precast structures. In: The 14th world
conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[18] Kramar M, Isakovic T, Fischinger M. Seismic collapse safety of RC columns in
precast industrial buildings. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake en-
gineering, Beijing, China; 2008.
[19] Metelli G, Riva P. Behaviour of a beam to column “dry” joint for precast concrete
elements. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China;
2008.
[20] Zordan T, Briseghella B. Nonlinear experimental response of non-conventional
composite steel and concrete connection. Front Archit Civ Eng China 2009;3:42.
[21] Briseghella B, Zordan T. An innovative steel-concrete joint for integral abutment
244
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 227–244
bridges. J Traffic Transport Eng (English Ed) 2015;2(4):209–22.
[22] Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici, Linee guida per l’utilizzo di travi travi
tralicciate in acciaio conglobate nel getto di calcestruzzo collaborante e procedure
per il rilascio dell’autorizzazione all’impiego; 2009 [in Italian].
[23] Huang Y, Mazzarolo E, Briseghella B, Zordan T, Chen A. Experimental and nu-
merical investigation of the cyclic behavior of an innovative prefabricated beam-to-
column joint. Eng Struct 2017;150:373–89.
[24] Simulia. ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual, Version 6.10.
[25] Amadio C, Bedon C, Fasan M, Pecce MR. Refined numerical modelling for the
structural assessment of steel-concrete composite beam-to-column joints under
seismic loads. Eng Struct 2017;138:394–409.
[26] GB/T 50081-2002. Standard for test method of mechanical properties on ordinary
concrete. Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press; 2002. [in Chinese].
[27] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 2-Design of Concrete
Structures-Part 1–1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, EN 1992-1-1; 2005.
[28] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). CEB-FIP Model Code 2010-
Design of Concrete Structures, Thomas Telford; 2010.
[29] Légeron F, Paultre P. Uniaxial confinement model for normal- and high-strength
concrete columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2003;129(2):241–52.
[30] European Committee for Standardization. Hot rolled products of non-alloys struc-
tural steel. Technical delivery conditions, EN 10025; 1995.
[31] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 3-Design of Steel Structures-
Part 1–1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, EN 1993-1-1; 2005.
[32] International Standard. Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and
alloy steel-Part 1: Bolts, screws and studs, ISO 898-1:1999. Geneve, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization; 1999.
[33] British Steel. Recommendations from Y/T working group for SINTAP procedure,
SINTAP BS/23; 1998.
[34] Briseghella L. Behaviour and analysis of R.C. structures under alternate actions
including inelastic response. In: Proceedings of CEB Group, GTC/22, Roma, Italy;
1988.
[35] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 3-Design of Steel Structures-
Part 1–8: Design of joints, EN 1993-1-8; 2005.
[36] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
08) and Commentary, ACI 318-08, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI; 2008.
[37] Li B, Park R., Tanaka H. Effect of confinement on the behaviour of high strength
concrete columns under seismic loading. In: Pacific conference of earthquake en-
gineering, New Zealand; 1991. p. 67–78.
[38] MathWorks Inc. MATLAB R2011a-Product Documentation, Natick, Massachusetts,
USA; 2011. < http://www.mathworks.com/help/techdoc/ > .
[39] Cusson D, Paultre P. Prediction of effective confinement pressure in high-strength
concrete columns. In: Annual conference of the Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering, Quebec City, Canada; 2008.
[40] NTC (Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni). Costruzioni e Ponti con
Isolamento E/O Dissipazione. Roma: Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana;
2008 [in Italian].
[41] SAP 2000. Structural Analysis Program Ver. 15.2.1. Berkeley (CA): Computers and
Structures Inc; 2012.