ACI JOURNAL - , - ~ ~ ~ - .

~ , tECt=rNICAL PAPER
Title no. 82-77
Tests on an Improved Beam Column Connection for Precast
Concrete
by Prabhakara Bhatt and D. W. Kirk
Tests on a welded moment-resisting connection to join precast beams
and columns are reported. If precast moment-resisting frames are to
be used in areas susceptible to seismic disturbances, it is necessary
that the joint and members behave in a ductile manner.
The joint detail adopted in these tests incorporates improvements
on a similar, previously tested joint type. Both exterior-joint speci-
mens (a single beam intersecting a column on one side only) and in-
terior-joint specimens (beams intersecting a column on opposite faces)
were tested under reverse loading. Experimental results show that this
joint detail can withstand large ductility demands.
Keywords: beam-column frame; beams (supports); buildings; columns (sup-
ports); connections; ductility; earthquake resistant structures; joints (junc-
tions); loads (forces); moments; precast concrete; reinforced concrete; strength;
structural design; tests.
COLUMN
REINFORCEMENT
WELDS
COLUMN-:
Test sub-assembly
TOP FIBER ANCHORING
FULL BUTT WELD
BEAM
BEAM PLATE 1
LAP WELD
---------- ----
BOTTOM FIBER ANCHORING
(Found to be o weak link 1
U -SHAPED
BAR
Fig. ]-Joint detail used by Pi/lai and Kirk
Beam-column connections for use in moment-resist-
ing frames using precast concrete components should
not only have adequate strength but also, if used in
areas subject to seismic forces, sufficient ductility.
834
Ductility is the ability to undergo large deformations
without any loss of strength. This property is obviously
important because under seismic forces the structure
must resist several load reversals without losing
strength. The inelastic deformation at the plastic hinges
is one of the primary energy-dissipating mechanisms
involved.
Many types of moment-resisting connections are used
for joining precast beams to columns.
1
The possible
variations in detail are infinite but can be all grouped
into three categories:
1. Joints which use an embedded steel section. These
are welded and/or bolted and very little wet concrete is
used except for possible fireproofing.
2. Joints which use wet concrete to make the connec-
tion between precast and cast in situ concrete. This is
the most popular form of connection and generally in-
volves very little welding or bolting. The reinforcement
is usually joined by lapping and/or by loops.
3. Joints where steel plates and/or bars at the top
and bottom of the beam are connected to similar ele-
ments in the column. Generally, welding is used al-
though bolting is also used occasionally.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
One of the prime requirements of structures designed
to resist seismic forces is that the structure behave in a
ductile fashion. The tests on beam-column joint re-
ported in this paper show that it is possible to achieve
highly ductile behavior by using the joint detail
adopted.
JOINT CONNECTION DETAIL
The connection detail examined in this paper belongs
to the third of the aforementioned categories. Pillai and
Kirk
2
have reported results of earlier tests on the type of
connection shown in Fig. 1.
Received July 9, 1984, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright 1985, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the September-October 1986 ACI
JOURNAL if received by June I, 1986.
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
--------------------------------------- -------"
Prabhakara Bhatt is a lecturer in Civil Engineering at Glasgow University,
Scotland. During 1982 to 1984, he was a visiting professor at the Royal Mili-
tary College, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. His research interests are in the anal-
ysis and design of reinforced concrete structures, with a special focus on using
elastic stress fields in ultimate-strength design.
ACI member D. W. Kirk is Dean of the Canadian Forces Military College and
Professor of Civil Engineering at the Royal Military College. A member of AC1
Committee E-702, Designing Concrete Structures, his research interests include
local strength and flexural behavior of reinforced concrete slab-column struc-
tures, precast beam-column connections, and admixtures for concrete.
The beam is precast with a notch at the end. The bars
at the top face are welded to a steel plate embedded in
the notch. At the bottom face of the beam, a steel an-
gle is embedded to which the bottom bars are welded;
the angle and the bedding plate are fastened together by
pairs of tie rods welded to them. Closely spaced links
and a U -shaped horizontal bar at middepth are pro-
vided near the end of the beam to prevent buckling of
the reinforcing bars in compression under cyclic load-
ing and to improve the concrete confinement and shear
strength in this critical zone.
The column is cast with reinforcing bars at the joint
identical to the top- and bottom-beam reinforcements
and appropriately anchored into the column. The top
bars protrude a short length from the face of the col-
umn and align with the beam bars exposed at the notch
in the beam. Continuity of top reinforcement is ob-
tained by aligning the column bars with the corre-
sponding beam bars and butt-welding them. The ends
of the top bars in both the beam and the column are cut
at 30 deg for effective welding. The column bars are
also welded to the steel bedding plate in the notch. The
column anchorage for the bottom reinforcement is
welded to a steel plate flush with the column face. The
beam angle is fillet-welded to this plate along the bot-
tom edge and the two vertical sides to obtain continuity
of the bottom-beam reinforcing bars and to transmit
shear force. The anchorage zone in the column is also
provided with closely spaced ties.
In practice, the notch in the beam will be concreted
after the jointing is completed. It is expected that
members can be built to accuracies for precast concrete
construction. Any slack between the beam angle and
the column plate at the location of fillet welds may be
taken up by packing plates.
The joint detail was loaded as shown in the inset in
Fig. 1. Pillai and Kirk
2
discovered that while the joints
behaved satisfactorily in terms of ductility, most of the
failure took place due to the failure of the weld be-
tween the bars and the plate in the column. Fig. 2
shows a typical failure. Tests were conducted on an im-
proved version of the joint detail tested by Pillai and
Kirk and on an interior beam-column joint detail simi-
lar to the exterior beam-column joint.
IMPROVED JOINT DETAIL- EXTERIOR JOINT
The main weak link in the detail shown in Fig. 1 is
the weld between the bars and the plate in the column.
To improve this portion of the joint, the length over
which the plate and the bar can be welded was in-
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
Fig. 3-/mproved joint detail in the present test series
BEAM ANGLE
COLUMN T
BOT TOM FIBER
ANCHORING
Fig. 2-Weld failure in detail tested by Pillai and Kirk
creased. A T-section was used instead of a plate in the
column and the anchor bars were fillet-welded to the
horizontal leg of the T. A similar detail was adopted to
connect the bottom bars in the beam to the angle, as
shown in Fig. 3.
EXTERIOR JOINTS-DETAILS OF SPECIMENS
The overall dimensions of the column were 12 x 12 x
108 in. (305 x 305 x 2743 mm). The reinforcement was
weldable steel with a guaranteed yield stress of 60,000
psi (414 MPa). Two kinds of reinforcement were used,
as shown in Fig. 4:
Longitudinal steel- Six No. 6 (19 mm) bars of size
and links of size No. 3 (9.5 mm) at a spacing of 12 in.
(305 mm) were used.
Steel in the joint area - In the joint area, two addi-
tional No. 6 (19 mm) short longitudinal bars were used.
Links were spaced at 3 in. (75 mm). These additional
bars were provided to improve the resistance of the
joint area to diagonal tension which develops,
3
as
shown in Fig. 5.
Due to an error, an angle instead of a T -section was
based in the column. This was not ideal, because it
made the fillet welding at the bottom between the beam
and column angle a bit difficult. However, care was
taken to insure that the welding was done properly.
Beam
The overall dimensions of the beam were 12 x 8 x (L
+ 9.5) in. [305 x 203 x (L + 243) mm]. The distance L
between the edge of the beam at the joint and the load
point varied. Two sizes of beam were tested, L = 49 in.
(1250 mm) and L = 98.5 in. (2500 mm). Fig. 6 shows
835
\
I
I
I
I
I
A I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;--I
I
I
I
E
E
E
"'
...
E
@J
"'


I
'8"-,
I I
E
E

@,
"'
:--:
.,
300mm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I

I
I
I
I
I B
I j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
I
ra ,_ .. ,.,:

SECTION A-A
(285mm
2
)
1325mm long
SECTION B-B
205 x 205 x 12 mm angle
3 mm thick plate
Fig. 4(a)-Reinforcement detail in column (1 mm
0.04 in.)
Fig. 4(b)-Detail of reinforcement in joint region of
column
836
t I
I
t
)l
1
Fig. 5-State of stress in joint region of column
205 x 205 x 12 mm angle 4 -6 (285 mm
2
)
U-Bars- .#6{285mm
2
)
4- 4t:6
U-8ors - # 6
SECTION A-A SECTION 8-8
Fig. 6(a)-Reinforcement detail in beam (1 mm 0.04
in.)
Fig. 6(b)-Detail of reinforcement in beam
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
Fig. 7-Experimental setup
the reinforcement details for the short beam. The long
beam had identical details at the joint as did the short
beam.
Longitudinal steel- Both top and bottom faces were
reinforced with four No.6 (19.5 mm) bars. Bertero and
Popov
5
recommend equal amounts of steel top and
bottom in the joint region to improve energy dissipa-
tion. The steel was of the weldable quality used in the
column. The stirrups were of size No. 3 (9.5 mm) at a
spacing of 4 in. (100 mm).
Steel near the joint - In the joint area, in addition
to the longitudinal bars two U-shaped bars, as shown in
Fig. 6, were provided to improve the shearing resis-
tance of the joint zone even when the flexural cracks
penetrate right through the depth of the beam due to
the up-down loading applied to the beam. If the cracks
are almost vertical, the vertical legs of the stirrups will
be almost ineffective in resisting shear and the U-bars
will help to mobilize aggregate interlock. The U-bars
also help to shift the plastic hinge away from the joint
area as has been recommendedY The stirrup spacing in
this area was 3 in. (75 mm).
TEST SETUP AND INSTRUMENTATION -
EXTERIOR JOINTS
The loading rig consisted of three adjustable steel tu-
bular portal frames anchored to the laboratory floor at
variable spacings (Fig. 7). The column was erected un-
der the middle portal, restrained laterally at both ends,
and axially loaded by a jack attached to the frame. The
beam was then supported with temporary props,
aligned properly, and connected to the column. The
free end of the beam was attached to a vertical double-
acting jack (mounted on the right side portal) through
a saddle and load cell. A steel pin passing through a
pipe embedded in the beam fastened the saddle to the
beam.
A load cell at the jack measured the load applied at
the beam end. The rotation of the beam relative to the
column was measured at two points, approximately 8
and 16 in. (200 and 400 mm) from the column face, by
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
Fig. 8-Dia/ gages to measure relative rotation between
beam and column
two pairs of dial gages mounted on two horizontal steel
rods attached to the column (one above and one below
the beam connection). The spindles of the gages were
actuated by two pairs of vertical steel bars anchored to
the beam. A third pair of similarly mounted dial gages
measured any opening of the joint at the top beam re-
inforcement level (see Fig. 8). The deflection of the
beam at the load point was transmitted to a dial gage
by a simple lever with a reduction ratio of 1:10.
TEST PROCEDURE
A constant axial load of 75.3 kips (335 kN) was ap-
plied to the column. A downward load was applied in
increments to the cantilever and dial gages measured
the relative rotation between the column and the canti-
lever. From a plot of the load versus the rotation, the
yield rotation ()Y was calculated, assuming the load-ro-
tation relationship to be bilinear. After this initial
loading, the cycle of loading shown in Fig. 9 was main-
tained until the beam failed. Because the reinforcement
detailing at the top and bottom of the beam was not
identical, the values of ()Y for downward and upward
loading will not be the same. Thus, in the test, the value
of ()Y for downward loading was used as the reference
()yo
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS- EXTERIOR
JOINTS
Long beam
The long beam had shear span/effective depth ratio
of 9.6. Fig. 10 gives the deformation of the beam un-
837
8
a,
B ----------------------------
6---------------------
4 ------------
-6 --------------------
-8 -----------------------------
Fig. 9-Loading cycle used in tests
NO. OF CYCLES
der load and shows that the plastic hinge has formed
away from the joint zone at the termination of the U-
bars. It is often recommended
3
that design should be
such that the deformations are not concentrated at the
highly stressed joint zone. Fig. ll(a) and (b) show the
load versus the relative rotation between the beam and
the column at a distance of 8 in. (400 mm) from the
face of the column. For clarity, data for cycles 0. 75
()Y are not shown in Fig. 11. The ductility indicated by
Fig. ll(b) is probably underestimated because the in-
elastic deformation was concentrated at the plastic
hinge that formed at a distance of approximately 26 in.
(660 mm) from the face of the column. The load-tip
deflection curves (not shown) had no pronounced
pinching, indicating that shear effects were not domi-
nant in the energy dissipation. At large displacements,
the longitudinal bars at the top buckled under upward
loading and the displacements were so large that it was
almost impossible to apply loads normal to the beam
13.00
9.00
5.00
VJ
1.00
a.
;;;:
~
0
-3.00
..
0
_J
-7.00
-11.00
Fig. 10-Large displacements experienced by long beam
with the experimental setup. The test was therefore dis-
continued before the beam had failed in the conven-
tional sense.
Short beam
The short beam had a shear span/effective depth ra-
tio of approximately 4.8. The detail was slightly
changed; because the top longitudinal bars buckled in
the previous test, they were welded to the plate at more
than one section. The specimen behaved satisfactorily
until reaching a relative rotation of approximately 10 ()Y,
when the weld between the top plate and the vertical
bars connecting the angle in the beam failed. This un-
fortunately resulted in large flexing of the longitudinal
bars at the top under upward loading leading to the
fracture of the bars, as shown in Fig. 12. Fig. 13(a) and
(b) show load versus relative rotation between the beam
and the column at 8 in. (400 mm) from the face of the
-10.00 ~ - : : - ' - _ _ , . _ _.___._ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ , ~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ __,___._ _ _.____.__...__.___,. _ _.____,
-1oo.oo -8o.oo -6o.oo -40 oo -2o.oo o.oo 2o.oo 40.oo &o.oo 80.oo 100.00
838
Dl SPLACEMENT IN MM
Fig. Jl(a)-Relative rotation between column and beam, long beam at initial stages
of loading cycle ( 1 kip = 4. 45 kN)
ACI JOURNAL I NovemberDecember 1985
'
I
37.00
VJ 7 00
a.
;<
~
Cl
-3.00
<r
0
_J
13.00
ROTATION RATIO , Bt.B,
Fig. 11 (b)-Relative rotation between column and beam, long beam at final stages
of loading cycle (1 kip = 4.45 kN)
Fig. 12-Fracture of bars, exterior joint test of short beam
column. Again, data for cycles 0. 7 5 ()Y are not shown
in Fig. 13.
INTERIOR JOINTS- DETAILS OF SPECIMENS
Fig. 14 and 15 show the details of the beam and col-
umn of the interior joint specimens, respectively.
Column
The overall column dimensions were 6 x 8 x 48 in.
(150 x 200 x 1220 mm). The main steel consisted of four
approximately No. 6 (20 mm) bars of weldable-quality
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
steel with a guaranteed yield stress of 58,000 psi (400
MPa). Near the joint two extra 31.5 in. (800 mm) long,
approximately No. 3 (10 mm diameter) bars were pro-
vided to resist the diagonal tension. The links in the
joint area were approximately No. 2 (6 mm) diameter
bars spaced at 1 in. (25 mm). Away from the joint,
spacing was 2.8 in. (70 mm).
Beam
The beams measured 6 x 6 x 32.5 in. (150 x 150 x 825
mm). The shear span was 24.6 in. (625 mm) and the
839
37.00
27.00
17.00
<f)
a... 7.00
:;::
0 -3.00
<r
0
_J
-13.00
-23.00
-3300 ' - - ~ - L - - ~ - L - - ~ - L - - - ' - - - L - - - - ' - - L - - - - ' - - - . L - - - - ' - - - . L - - - - ' - - - " - - - - ' - - - . L - - - - ' - - - - - '
-30.00 -22.00 -14.00 -6.00 2 00 10.00 18.00 26 00 34.00 42.00 50.00
DISPLACEMENT IN MM
Fig. 13(a)-Relative rotation between column and beam, short beam at initial stages
of loading cycle ( 1 kip = 4. 45 kN)
13.00
9.00
5 00
<f) 1.00
a_
"'
~
Cl
-300
<r
0
_J
-7 .DO
-11.00
-1500
-250.00 -200.00 250.00
DISPLACEMENT IN MM
Fig. 13(b)-Re/ative rotation between column and beam, short beam at final stages
of loading cycle (1 kip = 4.45 kN)
shear span/effective depth ratio equaled 5. The rein-
forcement was four No. 3 (10 mm) bars top and bot-
tom, with a 12 in. (300 mm) long U-bar of size No. 3
(10 mm) at the mid-depth of the beam. The stirrups in
the beam were No. 2 (6 mm) spaced at 2 inch (50 mm).
The spacing near the joint for a distance of 12 in. (300
mm) was 1.4 in. (35 mm).
840
DETAILS OF THE JOINT
The connection between the beam and the column
was welded as for the exterior joints, except that in-
stead of a T-section, an !-section was used in the col-
umn. The tension steel at top in the beam was con-
nected to the L-bars anchored in the column. The con-
tinuity of the compression steel at the bottom face of
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
.L_
100 x 100 x 6 n'lm ongll
tSOmm
I I
{D
SECTION A-A
Fig. 14-Reinforcement detail in beam for interior joint
test (1 mm = 0.04 in.)
I
I
152 mm
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
E
I 0
I 2
:---i I
I
i
I A
I I
IOmm
I
: SECTION A-A
I
I
4-10 mm
u I
-...
I u
E
I
E
"'
"'
@,
- ~ ~
-
W 150 x 2 2 Section
E
E
0
0
I
"'
I
I
~
I
I
'-.._
I
I
~
I
I
'----1
4-IQmm (welded to I section)
2- 10 mm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2- 20 mm
2mm plate
Fig. 15-Reinforcement detail in column for interior
joint test (1 mm = 0.04 in.)
the beam was established by welding the beam angle to
which the compression bars had been welded, to the !-
section in the column. The L-bars in the column were
welded to the !-section and fully anchored in the col-
umn.
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
-----------------------------
Fig. 16- Test setup for interior joint test
Fig. 17-Spalling in joint region, interior joint test
TEST SETUP AND TESTING PROCEDURE
Fig. 16 shows the test setup. The loading frame was
bolted to the floor and the specimen was tested in the
horizontal plane. The two double-acting jacks were in-
dependently controlled and their loads were always
equal and opposite. Rotations and displacements were
measured using dial gages as described previously.
841
7.00

3.00
rf)
1.00
a.
"'
""
0
-1.00
<r
0
-'
-3.00
-5.00

'-:o:---'--_-3 . ...,20_ __.__, __ ---'-o-.'-oo_.___o.-'-eo _ __,__'_.. 6-o 4._0_..___3.-'-20---'-----'4.00

ROTATION IN 0.01 RADIANS
Fig. 18(a)-Relative rotation between column and right beam, interior joint test at
initial stages of loading cycle (1 kip = 4.45 kN)
0 -1.00
<!
0
-'
-7.00 _ __.__,__._ _
-4.00 -2.80 -1.60 -0.40 0.80 2.00 3.20 4 40 5.60 6 80 8.00
ROTATION IN 0.01 RADIANS
Fig. 18(b)-Relative rotation between the column and right beam, interior joint test
at final stages of loading cycle (1 kip = 4.45 kN)
The testing procedure was similar to that for the ex-
terior joint, but the loads on the two beams were equal
and opposite. The load on the column was maintained
at a constant value of 24.7 kips ( 110 kN) to make the
average stress in the column the same as for the exte-
rior joint tests.
842 ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Two identical specimens were tested. Fig. 17 shows a
closeup view of the joint area towards the end of the
test on the second specimen. Fig. 18 shows the load
versus rotation for the right beam of the second speci-
men. Again, as in the exterior joint test, the joint be-
haved in a ductile manner. Though the beams did not
fail the test was stopped when the ductile behavior of
the joint was demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS
Experimental results show that the detail adopted
produces a highly ductile joint and that premature weld
failure Pillai and Kirk
2
experienced can be eliminated.
ACI JOURNAL I November-December 1985
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to the summer students who
carried out the laboratory work necessary to manufacture and test the
specimens: Mr. Thompson, Mr. Garland, Mr. McDermid, Mr.
Kazda, and Mr. Stone.
REFERENCES
1. Connections for Precast Prestressed Concrete Buildings-In-
cluding Earthquake Resistance, TR-2-82, Prestressed Concrete Insti-
tute, Chicago, 1982, 297 pp.
2. Pillai, S. U., and Kirk, D. W., "Ductile Beam-Column Connec-
tions in Precast Concrete," AC1 JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No.6,
Nov.-Dec. 1981, pp. 480-487.
3. Park, Robert, and Paulay, Thomas, Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 727.
4. Paulay, Thomas, "Developments in Seismic Design of Rein-
forced Concrete Frames in New Zealand,'' Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering (Ottawa), V. 8, No. 2, June 1981, pp. 91-113.
843