International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

Volume 9, Issue 13, December 2018, pp. 118–133, Article ID: IJMET_09_13_014
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=13
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

ANALYSING THE STRENGTH ASPECTS OF

PRECAST REINFORCED BEAM-COLUMN
CONNECTIONS
Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R
Assitant Professor, Department OF Civil Engineering, Vels Institute of Science, Technology &
Advanced Studies, Chennai, India.

Ms. Janani R
Assitant Professor, Department OF Civil Engineering, Vels Institute of Science, Technology &
Advanced Studies, Chennai, India.

Dr. Ilango T
Associate Professor, Department OF Civil Engineering, Vels University, Vels Institute of
Science, Technology & Advanced Studies, Chennai, India.

ABSTRACT
In this paper the strength aspects of precast reinforced beam-column connection is
analysed. A 3D nonlinear finite element model is developed by using the Finite Element
Software AnsysCivil to analyse the strength aspects of the precast Connection. The
precast connection considered for this study where the beam is connected to the column
with corbel. In this study, two types of connections were compared monolithic connection
and five types of precast connection – includes connection using (i) J-Bolt, (ii) Cleat
Angle, (iii) Dowel Bar, (iv) Dowel bar and Cleat angle and (v) Tie Rod. 2 types of
elements are used, solid elements and Contact element. For the non-linear finite element
analysis One-third models were developed and tested under axial loading. The strength
aspects of precast connections in terms of ultimate load carrying capacity, load-
displacement relation and ductility factor compared with that of monolithic connection.
It is concluded the monolithic connection has performed better in terms of ultimate load
carrying capacity, energy dissipation, but in terms of ductility factor the precast beam-
column connection using dowel bar and cleat angle showed better performance than that
of monolithic connection. And, it is concluded that if the material properties and failure
criterion can selected suitably, it is possible to predict the accurate inelastic performance
of precast beam-column connection.
Keywords: Precast connection; cleat angle; ductility; beam column joint;
Cite this Article: Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T, Analysing
the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections, International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(13), 2018, pp. 118–133
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=13

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 118 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

1. INTRODUCTION
The concept of precast construction includes those buildings, where the majority of structural
components are standardized and produced in plants in a location away from the building and
then transported to the site for assembly. In the recent years, the reasonable growth has been
experienced by the precast concrete construction industry, because of the precast reinforced
construction supplies high quality structural elements, overall reduction in construction time and
cost, reduction in quantities of materials and manpower. The precast concrete construction has
many advantages still there is an uncertainty in constructing the precast the structures in seismic
areas. For the past four decades many researches have been done on studying the precast beam
column connection to improve the connection and to understand the complete behavior of the
connection under seismic conditions. Because, most of the precast concrete structures have failed
during earthquake due to poor connection detailing between precast beam column connections.
Though many researches have been done on this concept but still the complete behavior of the
precast concrete beam to column connection is not known.
In order to form the complete structure, the precast reinforced elements are connected with
other elements. When two different types of elements are connected problems such as volumetric
changes, differential shrinkage may occur. The volumetric change leads to the displacement
between the two elements and this has been rectified by using various methods such as inserting
connectors such as dowel bar, cleat angle, tie rod etc., the precast structure is the combination of
different precast elements so, the connection between the elements must be able to withstand all
loads. So, the design and construction of joints and connections is more important to ensure
stability and robustness of the overall structure. Fig 1.1 and 1.2 shows the installation of beams
at site and placing of beams on corbel

Figure 1.1 Installation of beams

Figure 1.2 Beam placing on corbel

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 119 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections

2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE WORK

This paper aims to study the behaviour of precast reinforced beam column connection and to
identify the suitable connector used for connecting the precast reinforced beam column
connection.

2.1. Scope of this study is,

To conduct investigation on precast reinforced beam-column connections with a reference
monolithic connection.
To compare between the precast beam-column connections to the monolithic connection on
the behaviour of strength, energy dissipation, ultimate loading capacity and ductility.
To compare two types of connections including precast beam column connection and
monolithic connection using ANSYS CIVIL Finite element method.
To compare the five types of precast reinforced beam-column connection using different
connectors. The connectors are,
• J-bolt
• Cleat angle
• Dowel bar
• Dowel bar and cleat angle
• Tie rod.
In this study, five types of precast connections are analysed. The precast beam column
connection using J-bolt, beam column connection using Cleat angle, beam column connection
using dowel bar, beam column connection using dowel bar with cleat angle and beam column
connection using tie rod. Monolithic connection is taken as reference connection. Finite element
model of all the specimens are analysed by using ANSYS CIVIL finite element method.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Two types of connections were analysed using ANSYS finite element method. Monolithic
connection and 2 types of precast connections were compared in this study. Precast connections
were connection using j-bolt and cleat angle. The elements Solid 65, Link 8, CONTA174 and
TARGE170 and Solid 45 were used for modelling the concrete, reinforcement, grouting material
and loading plates respectively. The analysis results showed that the monolithic connection
performed better than the two types of precast connection. Out of the precast connections the
specimen with j-bolt showed better performance.[1]
This paper aims to improve the understanding of the Finite Element modelling of RC
subassemblies in ABAQUS. In this study the comparison of load displacement of RCC beam
column joint under monotonic loading between the analysis using ANSYS software and
ABAQUS software. The joints are modelled for two boundary conditions i) both ends of the
column are hinged and ii) both ends of the column are fixed. Concrete Damaged Plasticity
models are used in the analysis of ABAQUS software. C3D8 element is selected for concreting
and T3D2 element is selected for reinforcement in the modelling of ABAQUS software. In the
numerical analysis, the full scale RC beam-column connection under monotonic loads performed
by ABAQUS is compared with the non-linear analysis for validating the accuracy and reliability
of the joint’s performance. The non-linear analysis of exterior beam-column joint by using
ANSYS software has been done by S.S.Patil and S.S.Manakari. The load displacement results
for the end conditions by ABAQUS have been compared with ANSYS. The result of ANSYS
does not showing the actual behaviour of exterior reinforced beam-column joint. But the
ABAQUS results shows the realistic behaviour of the beam-column joint. [2]

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 120 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

In this study the author is aiming to introduce new concept in connecting the beam and
column. In this study a pair of full scale precast columns were casted with holes for inserting the
top bars of the beam and a steel connector is used for connecting the beam and column and the
gap filled with grouting material. For the first specimen 2 bolts are used for connection and for
the 2nd one only one nut is used for connection. These two specimens were tested under cyclic
inelastic loading. Finite element models were done by using ABAQUS software and compared
with the test results of the 2 specimens. The test results and analysis results showed the weakness
of the steel connectors at the stage of plastic hinging.[3]
In this study the results of experimental tests related to the cyclic behaviour of beam column
“dry” connection. In this study the beam column joint is connected by using high strength steel
bars and a fibre reinforced concrete and the gap will be fill with Z-shaped interface. A full scale
specimen is casted by using above connection method and tested by imposing the horizontal drift
at the top of the column. The results showsthus the dissipating capacity is limited because of the
brittle failure at column side. Damages occurred to the column with the increase of loading cycle
amplitude.[4]
In this study the load deflection of the beam was studied under cyclic loading. In this study
two types specimens of 1/5th scale were created and tested. Connections include control
specimen which is the conventional and a prefabricated cage steel connection. The results
showed that the conventional connection was not performed well compared to the PCS
connection. Because the PCS connection is a full steel structure and it showed better confinement
[5].
In this study finite element model of the precast hybrid beam column connection has been
developed by ANSYS and tested under cyclic loading. The results of finite element model were
validated with experimental results that were conducted by NIST. The mathematical model of
the structure to be analysed is divided into mesh of finite elements. The elements used for
modelling the concrete, reinforcement and grouting material were Solid 65, Link8 and CONTA
174 & TARGE 170 respectively. For obtaining accurate prediction of the response of this
structure, accurate material properties and relevant coefficients were given to the finite element
model. The model has been tested under cyclic lateral loading condition. The author concluded
that the results of ANSYS model is fairly similar to the experimental results.[6]
In this study Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer composite is used for flexural strengthening
and Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer composite is used for shear strengthening and steel plates
are used for connection. Four full scale specimens were modelled using ANSYS software. The
specimens are without FRP laminates, with Carbon FRP laminates, with Glass FRP laminates
and with both Carbon and Glass FRP laminates. Solid 65, Link 8, Solid 46 and Solid 45 were
used for modelling the concrete, steel reinforcement, FRP laminates and steel plates. SAP 2000
finite element software also used for validating the results of ANSYS. The results obtained from
ANSYS finite element model showed fairly good agreement with experimental results.[8]
In this study four types of specimens were modelled using LUSAS finite element software.
The models included corbel only, corbel + plate and bolt on beam top model, corbel + plate and
bolt on beam top + stiffener and a connection with plate and bolt. The finite element model
results showed that the connection with plate and bolt performed better than the other
connections.[9]
In this study two full scale specimens were casted and tested under unidirectional and bi-
directional cyclic loading at EW direction. The specimens are J1 and J2. J1 is the specimen
consisted of two beams framing into to the joints on opposite sides and J2 is the specimen
consisted of beams framing into the column in orthogonal direction. The connections were
attached to the reaction floor through steel struts at hinges at the ends. 4 cross ties were placed

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 121 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections

around the joint through holes left over the beam width during precast. The behaviour of J1 is
inferior to that of J2. They concluded the specimen J2 performed better than the specimen J1.[10]
In this study two types of monolithic connections (M1 &M2) and two types of precast
connections (P1 & P2) were constructed and tested under cyclic displacement-controlled lateral
loading. The specimens M1 and P1 is constructed using U-bars at top and bottom reinforcement
and the specimens M2 and P2 are constructed for ductile detailing. The results showed that the
specimen with anchored beam bars performed better than the specimen with U-bars. The precast
specimen with beam bars anchored into the column is performed better than that of monolithic
specimen. The precast specimen with U-bars performed worse than that of monolithic specimen.
[11]

4. METHODOLOGY

Figure 1 Methodology
The monolithic connection and precast beam-column connection is designed based on the IS
456 and IS 13920. Based on the design, the connections will be modelled using ANSYS CIVIL
Finite Element Modelling. The five types of connectors will be modelledand will be merged to
the precast beam and column connection to create five precast specimens with different
connectors. The connectors includes cleat angle, j-bolt, dowel bar, dowel bar with cleat angle
and tie rod.
The considered loads will be applied to the six specimens by writing and reading the loads on
the specimens. After applying the loads the specimens will be analysed Comparison will be done
for the precast specimens with the monolithic connection. The comparison is for the parameters
such as strength, ultimate load carrying capacity and ductility factor.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 122 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

4.1. Design and detailing of specimens

According to IS 456 and IS 13920 the exterior joints of precast beam column connection and
monolithic connection were designed for this study. The cross sectional dimensions are 100 x
150 mm for both beam and column of monolithic connection and for the precast connection 100
x 100 mm for beam and 150x 100 mm for column. The clear span of beam is 720 mm and height
of the column is 970 mm for both the specimens. The cover thickness for the beam and column
of the monolithic and precast connections are 20mm, 15mm, 24mm and 14mm respectively.

4.2. Monolithic Connection

The monolithic connection is designed and detailed according to IS: 456 and IS: 13920
respectively. The fig.2 shows the reinforcement detailing of the monolithic precast reinforced
beam-column connection. The beam has reinforced with 2 number of 8mm diameter bars at top
longitudinal reinforcement and 2 number of 8mm diameter bars at bottom longitudinal
reinforcement. 6mm diameter bars are provided as lateral ties at 50mm centre to centre spacing
and for a distance of 350mm from column face the spacing is reduced to 25mm. The column has
reinforced with 6 number of 8mm diameter bars and along the column height excluding the joint
region the lateral ties are provided at 50mm spacing with 6mm diameter bars and at the column
region the spacing has been reduced to 25mm. Schematic representation of isometric view of
monolithic connection is shown in Figure 2

Figure 2. Schematic representation of isometric view of monolithic connection

4.3. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection

The precast reinforced beam is reinforced with 2 number of 8mm diameter bars in top
longitudinal reinforcement and 2 number of 8mm diameter bars at bottom longitudinal
reinforcement. The beam has lateral ties of 6mm dia at 50mm spacing excluding the joint region
and at the joint region the spacing has reduced to 25mm. The column is reinforced with 6 number
of 8mm diameter bars for longitudinal reinforcement and lateral ties are provided at a spacing of
50mm centre to centre excluding joint region. The spacing has decreased to 25mm at the joint
region.

4.4. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using J- Bolt

In this connection, the main connecting element was the J-bolt. J-bolt of 16 mm diameter was
cast inside the corbel and projected out from the corbel in the precast column. The precast beam
with a 21mm diameter sleeve hole which was cast inside the beam was inserted on to the
projecting J-bolt and the nut tightened. Iso-resin grouts were filled into the bolt hole to complete
the connection. This connection transmits vertical shear forces. The schematic representation of
isometric view of precast reinforced beam-column connection using J-Bolt is shown in figure 3

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 123 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections

Figure 3 Schemeatic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using J-Bolt

4.5. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Cleat angle

In this connection two 16mm diameter bolts were used, in which one bolt connects the cleat angle
with the column and the other connects the cleat angle with both the beam and the corbel. In the
precast elements, sleeve holes of 21 mm diameter were cast inside the column, beam and corbel.
The cleat angle used for the connection is ISA 100x100x10. The bolts used were of grade 4.6.
The gap between the bolts and the bolt hole was filled using iso-resin grouts. The schematic
representation of isometric view of precast reinforced beam-column connection using Cleat angle
is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column using cleat angle

4.7. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Dowel bar

In this connection the beam was supported on concrete corbel using dowel bar. The dowel bar
was embedded in the column to a length equal to the development length and cast with the bar
projecting from the corbel. The precast beam with 21 mm diameter sleeve hole which was cast
inside the beam was inserted into the projecting dowel bar. The gap between the dowel bar and
the hole was filled iso-resin grouts. The schematic representation of isometric view of precast
beam-column using dowel bar is shown in figure. 5.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 124 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

Figure 5 Schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using Dowel
bar

4.8. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Dowel bar and cleat angle
In this connection the beam was supported on concrete corbel using dowel bar and cleat angle.
The dowel bar was embedded in the column to a length equal to the development length. The
cleat angle used for the connection was ISA 100x100x10. A sleeve of 21 mm diameter was cast
inside the column and beam to facilitate the connectivity between precast elements. A part of the
dowel was projecting outside the corbel for connection with the beam using cleat angle and nuts.
A bolt of 16 mm diameter of grade 4.6 was used to connect the cleat angle and the column. The
gap between the dowel bar and the groove was filled isoresin grouts. The schematic
representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using dowel bar and cleat
angle is shown in Figure-6

Figure 6 -Schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using dowel
bar &cleat angle

4.9. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Tie Rod

In this connection, the main connecting element was the J-bolt. J-bolt of 16 mm diameter was
cast inside the corbel and projected out from the corbel in the precast column. The precast beam
with a 21mm diameter sleeve hole which was cast inside the beam was inserted on to the
projecting J-bolt and the nut tightened. Iso-resin grouts were filled into the bolt hole to complete
the connection. This connection transmits vertical shear forces. The schematic representation of
precast beam-column connection using tie rod is shown in Figure 7.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 125 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections

Figure 7 Schematic representation of isometric view of precast reinforced beam-column connection

using tie-rod

4.10. Finite element modelling

It is possible to evaluate the strength aspects of structure using Finite Element Model. To obtain
accurate results of the structure accurate material properties and coefficients should be given to
the Finite Element Model. In this study the monolithic connection and precast connection with
five types of connectors are analysed by using ANSYS CIVIL FEM software.

4.11. Elements of modeling

The elements used for modelling the specimens are selected based on the literature review. The
elements are as follows:
• SOLID 65 element: This element is having 8nodes with three degrees of freedom at
each node. This type of elements are used for 3-D modelling solids with and without
rebar. It is used to model concrete.
• LINK 8 element: This is a 3-D spar elements with three degrees of freedom at each
nodes. This type of elements are used to model rebars.
• CONTA 174 and TARGE 170 element: This type of elements are used for the
modelling of contact and target surfaces since the contact is between two different
surfaces. The surface with finer meshing is considered as contact surface and surface
with coarser meshing is considered as target surface. This types of elements are used
to model the grouting material.
• SOLID 45 element: This is a 3-D element having 8 nodes with three degrees of
freedom at each node. This type of element are used for modelling the angle plates.

4.12. Material properties

To obtain accurate behaviour of the specimens, accurate material properties and accurate co-
efficient should be given to the model.
Grade of concrete – M35
Grade of Bolt - 4.6
Grade of Steel -Fe 500
Poisson’s ratio for concrete and steel bar -0.2& 0.3
Density of concrete and steel-24 kg/m³ and 7950 kg/m³.
Material Properties of the Link8 element and Solid65 elements were given in Table 1.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 126 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

Table1. Material Properties

MATERIAL ELEMENT
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
MODEL NO TYPE
Linear isotropic
EX (MODULUS OF 175000N/
ELASTICITY) mm²
PRXY (POISON’S RATIO) 0.2
CONCRETE
SHEAR TRANSFER
1 Solid65 COEFFICIENT FOR AN OPEN 0.5
CRACK
SHEAR TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT FOR AN 0.9
CLOSED CRACK
STIFFNESS MULTIPLIER FOR
CRACKED TENSILE 0.6
CONDITION
LINEAR ISOTROPIC
EX (MODULUS OF 2e5
2 Link8
ELASTICITY) N/mm²
PRXY (POISON’S RATIO) 0.3

4.13. Sectional properties

Discrete modelling is adopted for this study. Real constants considered for Solid 65 element was
volume ratio and orientation angle. Real constants considered for 3D Spar Link8 elements were
given in the table2.

Table2. Real Constants for Steel reinforcement

REAL
ELEMEN PARTICULARS OF
CONSTA
T TYPE THE MODEL
NT SET
Link8 Cross sectional 50.25
1 (main area (mm²) 8
bars) Initial Strain 0
Link8 Cross sectional
28.27
2 (lateral area (mm²)
ties) Initial Strain 0

4.14. Modelling of beam column joints

In this present study modelling of the beam-column joints were done by discrete modelling
method. In discrete modelling both the concrete and steel models share the same nodes. For
applying the displacement and force steel plates are used at the top and bottom of the column and
at the free end of the beam. Because if the steel plates are not provided the loads given to the
connection will make the connection to misbehave. In monolithic connection Solid65, Solid45
& Link8 elements were used to generate the models. But for the precast reinforced beam-column
connections contact elements were used for grout materials. Contact elements are CONTA174
& TARGE170. In beam column interface and in beam corbel interface surface to surface contact
elements were used. The finer surface should be the target surface and coarser surface should be

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 127 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections

the contact surface.The Fig 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 shows the reinforcement modelling of the precast
and the monolithic connections using 5 different connectors.

4.15. Boundary condition

Both the ends of the column were fixed, the bottom and top of the column is restrained in six
degrees of freedom at the Ux,Uy and Uzdirections and rotations Rx, Ry and Rz directions.
Boundary condition is shown as in figures

4.16. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Loads applied to the monolithic connection and the precast beam column connections were
considered and the loading was applied to the top of the beam surface with fixed column ends.
Axial load equal to 1000N, 2000N, 3000N...up to its ultimate load was applied to the beam. Axial
loading was applied to the beam as shown in the Figure-15

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 128 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

Figure 14- Boundary condition Figure 15- Axial load and Acceleration due to gravity
load

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The ultimate load carrying capacity of the Monolithic specimen is 12.6kN and 13.2kN in positive
and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast specimen
using j-bolt is 5.6kN and 4.9kN in positive and negative directions respectively. The load
carrying capacity of the precast specimen with j-bolt is lesser than the monolithic specimen. The
ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast connection using cleat angle is 4.2kN and 3.8kN in
positive and negative directions respectively. The load carrying capacity of the precast specimen
using cleat angle is lesser than the precast specimen using j-bolt and monolithic specimen. The
ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast connection using dowel bar is 7.3kN and 6.8kN in
positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the Precast
specimen using dowel bar and cleat angle is 9.3kN and 10.2kN in positive and negative directions.
The ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast specimen using tie rod is 3.8kN and 2.2kN in
positive and negative directions respectively. Out of the precast specimens precast specimen
using dowel bar and cleat angle has better load carrying capacity. When comparing to the
monolithic connection the precast connections has poor load carrying capacity.

5.1. Load displacement relationship

Load-displacement behavior of beam-column connection structures includes three stages. Stage
I manifests the linear behavior of uncracked elastic section. Stage II implies initiation of concrete
cracking and Stage III relies relatively on the yielding of steel reinforcements and the crushing
of concrete. Load-displacement relationship curve of specimen ML, PC-JB, PC-CL, PC-DW,
PC-DWCL & PC-TR is shown in figure 14. There is no damage developed in column for all the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 129 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections

precast connections. But there are some predefined damages occur which indicates gap opening
at the joint region. For the monolithic connection, damages occur to the column.

LOAD-DISPLACEMENT CURVE
14
12
10
8
6
4
LOAD in (KN

2 ML
0
-2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 PC-JB
-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-4
PC-CL
-6
-8 PC-
-10 DW
-12
-14
-16
Displacement in mm

Figure 17- Load-Displacement envelopes of specimen ML, PC-JB, PC-CL, PC-DW, PC-DWCL & PC-
TR

5.2. Ductility
The displacement ductility is the ratio of the maximum displacement that a structure or
element can undergo without significant loss of initial loading to the initial yielding
deformation. The displacement ductility factor was calculated for monolithic and the two
precast beam-column connections is shown in Table 3. The average displacement ductility
factor of precast reinforced beam-column connection using dowel bar and cleat angle is greater
than that of all the specimens. The average displacement ductility factor of the specimens
indicated that all the connections behaved in a ductile manner.

Table3. Ductility factor of the specimen

Ultimate Displacement Averag
Yield displacement ∆y
displacement ∆u ductility factor e
(mm)
(mm) (µ) displace
Specimen ment
ductilit
Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
y factor
(µ)
ML 6.2 6.6 30 30 4.84 4.55 4.695
PC-JB 5.7 9.1 30 30 5.26 3.3 4.28
PC-CL 14.3 8.3 30 30 2.1 3.62 2.86
PC-DW 6.8 9.8 30 30 4.41 3.06 3.735
PC-
4.8 5.2 30 30 13.64 5.77 9.705
DWCL
PC-TR 12.1 7.9 30 30 2.48 3.8 3.14

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 130 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

6. CONCLUSION
6.1. Strength
The ultimate load carrying capacity of monolithic beam-column connection greater than that of
the precast reinforced beam-column connection. The ultimate load carrying capacity of
monolithic connection is 12.6kN and 13.2kN in positive and negative directions respectively.
The ultimate load carrying capacity of precast reinforced beam-column connection using J-Bolt
is 56% and 63% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions
respectively. The PC-CL connection is 66.7% and 62.8% lesser than the monolithic connection
in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of PC-DW
is 42% and 48.5% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions
respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of PC-DWCL is 26% and 22.7% lesser than
the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load
carrying capacity of PC-TR is 70% and 81.08% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive
and negative directions respectively. Out of the precast connections, the precast beam-column
connection with Dowel bar and cleat angle has performed better than the other precast
connections. While comparing to the precast connections, the monolithic connection performed
better in resisting the loads.

6.2. Load Displacement relationship

When the load increases the displacement increases. The displacement is directly proportional
to the load applied. All the connections loaded upto 30mm displacement. There is no damages
occur in the column for all the precast specimens. But there are some damages occur to the corbel
portion. The monolithic connection showed better bonding than that of precast connections.
Because in precast connection there is a predefined damages which indicates gap opening at
connections, which indicates minimal energy dissipation. In precast connection, the column is
free from damages when compared to the monolithic connection. This behaviour satisfies
“Strong Column-Weak Beam Theory”.

6.3. Ductility
All the specimens has performed in ductile manner. Out of precast connection the PC-DWCL
has greater ductility factor. While comparing to the monolithic connection, the connection using
dowel bar and cleat angle has greater ductility factor. While comparing to the monolithic
connection, the ductility factor of PC-DWCL is 51.62% greater than monolithic connection. The
ductility factor of PC-JB is 8.84% lesser than that of ML. The ductility factor of PC-CL is 40.36%
lesser than that of monolithic connection. The ductility factor of PC-DW is 20.45% lesser than
that of monolithic connection. The ductility factor of PC-TR is 33.12% lesser than the monolithic
connection. Out of precast connections, the precast beam-column connection using dowel bar and
cleat angle has performed better than other precast connections. Also, it is observed that the
precast beam column connection using dowel bar and cleat angle has performed satisfactorily in
comparison with the monolithic connection.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 131 editor@iaeme.com

 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections

REFERENCES
[1] S.V.Chaudhari, K.A.Mukane and M.A.Chakrabarti (2014), Comparative Study On Exterior
RCC Beam Column Joint Subjected To Monotonic Loading, International Journal Of
Computer Applications, Volume 102– No.3, Pp 34-39.

[2] Amin Ghafooripour, Francesco Presta, Seyed Mohammad Shahidi (2013), Numerical and
Experimental Seismic Performance Evaluation of the New Concept of Precast Concrete
Connections, 22nd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology.

[3] G. Metelli and P. Riva (2008), Behaviour of a Beam to Column “Dry” Joint for Precast
Concrete Elements, the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

[4] P.Selva Raj And N. Arunprakash (2015), Study On Behaviour Of Prefabricatedcage Steel
Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joint, The International Journal Of Science
&Technoledge, Vol 3 Issue 5, Pp 56-65.

[5] R.A. Hawileh, A. Rahman, H. Tabatabai (2010), Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis And
Modelling Of A Precast Hybridbeam–Column Connection Subjected To Cyclic Loads,
Applied Mathematical Modelling 34, Pp 2562-2583.

[6] Nonlinear Seismic Behavior Evaluation of Ductile Beamcolumn Connections In Precast

Concrete, International Journal Of Civil And Structural Engineering Volume 2, No 2, 2011,
Pp 445-453.

[7] Damian Kachlakev And Thomas Miller (2001), Finite Element Modelling Of Reinforced
Concrete Structure Strengthened With FRP Laminates, Oregon Department Of Transportation
Research Group.

[8] Ehsannoroozinejadfarsangi (2010), Connections Behaviour In Precast Concrete Structures

Due To Seismic Loading, Gazi University Journal Of Science, 23 (3), Pp 315-325.

[9] Sergio M Alcocer, Rene Carranza and David Perez-Navarrete (2000), Behaviour of a Precast
Concrete Beam-Column Connection, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
1543, Pp 1-8.

[10] Manoj K. Joshi, C.V.R. Murty and M. P. Jaisingh (2005), Cyclic Behaviour Of Precast RC
Connections, The Indian Concrete Journal, Pp43-50.

[11] Ahmad Baharuddinabd. Rahman, Mohdhafizimohdakhir And Zuhairiabdhamid, Behaviour

Of Precast Concrete Beam-To-Column Connections Using Steel Plate, Recent Advances In
Applied And Theoretical Mechanics, ISBN 978-1-61804-304-7, Pp 105-113.

[12] Rohit B. Nimse, Digesh D. Joshi, Paresh V. Patel (2014), Behaviour Of Wet Precast Beam
Column Connections Under Progressive Collapse Scenario: An Experimental Study,
International Journal Advanced Structural Engineering 6:149–159.

[13] Gajendra, D K Kulkarni (2015) Seismic Evaluation Of Beam-Column Joints Using GFRP
Bars In Multi-Storey Building Using ETABS, International Research Journal Of Engineering
And Technology, Vol-2, Issue 5, Pp-91-95.

[14] Fasil V P and Dr. P R. Sreemahadevanpillai (2015), Study of Hybrid Precast Beam Column
Connection, International Journal of Research in Advent Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-9637)
Special Issue International Conference on Technological Advancements in Structures and
Construction“TASC- 15”, Pp 1-9.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 132 editor@iaeme.com

 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T

[15] A.K.Kaliluthin, Dr.S.Kothandaraman, T.S.Suhailahamed (2014), A Review On Behaviour Of

Reinforced Concretebeam-Column Joint, International Journal Of Innovative Research In
Science,Engineering And Technology Vol.3, Issue 4, Pp11299-11312.

[16] Hosseinparastesh, Imanhajirasouliha, Reza Ramezani (2014), a New Ductile Moment-

Resisting Connection for Precast Concreteframes in Seismic Regions: An Experimental
Investigation, Engineering Structures, 70.144-157, ISSN 0141-0296.

[17] R. Vidjeapriya,V.Vasanthalakshmi, K.P.Jaya, (2013), Performance Of Exterior Precast

Concrete Beam-Column Dowelconnections Under Cyclic Loading, International Journal Of
Civil Engineering, Pp 82-94.

[18] Nor Hayati Abdul Hamid (2010), Seismic Performance Of Beam-Column Joints In
Reinforced Concrete Buildings Subjected To Reversible Vertical Cyclic Loading,Malaysian
Journal Of Civil Engineering 22(2) : 264-290

[19] R Janani, PRK Chakravarthy, S Yazhini, (2016) , Investigation and Control of major risks on
construction sites, International journal of chemical sciences 14(4).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 133 editor@iaeme.com