Advertisement

International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 397–426 | Cite as

Performance of Loop Connection in Precast Concrete Walls Subjected to Lateral Loads

  • Ramin Vaghei
  • Farzad HejaziEmail author
  • Ali Akbar Firoozi
  • Mohd Saleh Jaafar
Research paper
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Industrialized building system (IBS) was presented to complete construction projects at the lowest cost and time. The connection of precast components in IBS structures plays a significant role to provide stability of buildings subjected to various loads. Hence, structural engineers have quite a lack knowledge on the proper connection and detailed joints of IBS structure, especially when subjected to dynamic/static loads such as earthquake, wind, vehicle, machinery and so forth. The loop connection considered as a conventional connection is the most interesting precast wall-to-wall connection in construction. However, this study presents a unique method for connecting two adjacent precast wall panels by using two steel U-shaped channels which are attached in the side of walls and tied together as male and female joints by using bolts and nuts make proper integrity of connection. A U-shaped rubber is implemented between the two channels in order to dissipate vibration effect in structure. The results of this study consist of the loading from the actuator, the displacement at the connection of the different LVDTs at different levels, and the crack pattern at the ultimate failure of the specimen. Upon collecting and analyzing the load test data from the data logger, the load versus displacement curves are plotted to study the actual behavior of the connection under axial, shear and flexural loads. Furthermore, the results of experimental tests showed that precast wall-to-wall equipped with U-shaped steel channel is capable of exceeding the capacity of precast walls subjected to lateral load, thereby improving its flexibility behavior in all directions. The average deformation of the proposed connection in all the LVDs was nearly 3 and 1.5 times greater than the loop connection. Additionally, the maximum average relative rotation deformation of the proposed connection in all LVDs is nearly 36% greater than the loop connection, which means that the U-shaped steel channel connection is more flexible.

Keywords

Capacity Industrial building system (IBS) Lateral load Precast concrete structure Precast wall connection. 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work received financial support from Housing Research Center of UPM and NAEIM Company and the supports are gratefully acknowledged.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Elsayed M, Ghrib F, Nehdi ML (2018) Experimental and analytical study on precast concrete dowel connections under quasi-static loading. Constr Build Mater 168:692–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhai X, Wang Y, Wang X (2018) Thermal performance of precast concrete sandwich walls with a novel hybrid connector. Energy Build 166:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vaghei R, Hejazi F, Taheri H, Jaafar MS, Aziz FNAA (2017) Development of a new connection for precast concrete walls subjected to cyclic loading. Earthq Eng Vib 16(1):97–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-017-0371-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhu Z, Guo Z (2017) Experimental study on emulative hybrid precast concrete shear walls. KSCE J Civil Eng 21(1):329–338.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0620-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhi Q, Guo Z, Xiao Q, Yuan F, Song J (2017) Quasi-static test and strut-and-tie modeling of precast concrete shear walls with grouted lap-spliced connections. Constr Build Mater 150:190–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yee PTL, Adnan AB, Mirasa AK, Rahman ABA (2011) Performance of IBS precast concrete beam-column connections under earthquake effects: a literature review. Am J Eng Appl Sci 4(1):93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamar KAM, Alshawi M, Hamid Z (2009) Barriers to industrialized building system (IBS): the case of Malaysia. In Proceedings of the BuHu 9th international postgraduate research conference (IPGRC), Salford, UK, pp 29–30Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clough DP, Engineers ABAM (1985) Design of connections for precast prestressed concrete buildings for the effects of earthquake. ABAM Engineers, pp 4.1–4.36Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seckin M, Fu HC (1990) Beam-column connections in precast reinforced concrete construction. Struct J 87(3):252–261Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ong HY (2010) Experimental study of grout filled splice sleeve integrated with shear key for precast concrete connection. Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruggeling ASG, Huyghe GF (1991) Prefabrication with concrete. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dragosavič M, van den Beukel A, Gijsbers FBJ (1975) Loop connections between precast concrete components loaded in bending. Stevin-Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology, ReijswikGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joergensen HB, Hoang LC (2013) Tests and limit analysis of loop connections between precast concrete elements loaded in tension. Eng Struct 52:558–569.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ong KCG, Hao JB, Paramasivam P (2006) Flexural behavior of precast joints with horizontal loop connections. ACI Struct J 103(5):664Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ong KCG, Hao JB, Paramasivam P (2006) A strut-and-tie model for ultimate loads of precast concrete joints with loop connections in tension. Constr Build Mater 20(3):169–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryu HK, Kim YJ, Chang SP (2007) Experimental study on static and fatigue strength of loop joints. Eng Struct 29(2):145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freedman S (1999) Loadbearing architectural precast concrete wall panels. PCI J 44(5):92–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gan CH (2008) Behaviour of vertical shear keyed connection in precast concrete wall under shear load. Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baur KC, High Ind Inc (1992) Connection for joining precast concrete panels. US Patent 5,134,828Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Metta S (1964) Thin precast wall panel construction. US Patent 3,131,514Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shultz AE, Magana RA, Trados MK, Huo X (1994) Experimental study of joint connections in precast concrete walls. In: 5th US National conference on earthquake engineering, Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birkeland PW, Birkeland HW (1966) Connections in precast concrete construction. J Proc 63(3):345–368Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chakrabarti SC, Nayak GC, Paul DK (1988) Shear characteristics of cast-in-place vertical joints in story-high precast wall assembly. Struct J 85(1):30–45Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frosch RJ (1999) Panel connections for precast concrete infill walls. Struct J 96(4):467–472Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pantelides CP, Reaveley LD, McMullin PW (2003) Design of CFRP composite connector for precast concrete elements. J Reinforced Plast Compos 22(15):1335–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bora C, Oliva MG, Nakaki SD, Becker R (2007) Development of a precast concrete shear-wall system requiring special code acceptance. PCI J 52(1):122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yek NC (2011) Finite element modeling of precast wall using grout-filled splice sleeve connector. Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hejazi F, Kojouri SJ, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Thanoon WA, Abdullah A (2011) Inelastic seismic response of RC building with control system. In: Key engineering materials, vol 462. Trans Tech Publications, Bern, pp 241–246Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hejazi F, Toloue I, Jaafar MS, Noorzaei J (2013) Optimization of earthquake energy dissipation system by genetic algorithm. Comput Aid Civ Infrastruct Eng 28(10):796–810.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12047 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khaloo AR, Parastesh H (2003) Cyclic loading of ductile precast concrete beam-column connection. Struct J 100(3):291–296Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khaloo AR, Parastesh H (2003) Cyclic loading response of simple moment-resisting precast concrete beam-column connection. Struct J 100(4):440–445Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arulselvan S, Subramanian K (2008) Experimental investigation on three dimensional RC infilled frame–RC plane frame interactions with slab for seismic resistance. Am J Appl Sci 5(4):328–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ebrahimi M, Sharifian H, Ahangar M (2010) Seismic response evaluation of moment resistant frame with built-up column section. Am J Eng Appl Sci 3(1):37–41.  https://doi.org/10.3844/ajeassp.2010.37.41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bournas DA, Negro P, Molina FJ (2013) Pseudodynamic tests on a full-scale 3-storey precast concrete building: behavior of the mechanical connections and floor diaphragms. Eng Struct 57:609–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parastesh H, Hajirasouliha I, Ramezani R (2014) A new ductile moment-resisting connection for precast concrete frames in seismic regions: an experimental investigation. Eng Struct 70:144–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Biondini F, Lago DB, Toniolo G (2012) Seismic behaviour of precast buildings with cladding panels. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toniolo G (2012) September. SAFECAST project: European research on seismic behaviour of the connections of precast structures. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Biondini F, Titi A, Toniolo G (2012) Pseudodynamic tests and numerical simulations on a full-scale prototype of a multi-storey precast structure. In: 15th World conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Biondini F, Lago DB, Toniolo G (2013) Role of wall panel connections on the seismic performance of precast structures. Bull Earthq Eng 11(4):1061–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9418-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vaghei R, Hejazi F, Taheri H, Jaafar MS, Ali AAA (2014) Evaluate performance of precast concrete wall to wall connection. APCBEE Procedia 9:285–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.01.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Waddell JJ (1974) Precast concrete: handling and erection (no. 8). Iowa State University Press, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Al-Aghbari A, Hamid N, Rahman N, Hamzah S (2012) Structural performance of two types of wall slab connection under out-of-plane lateral cyclic loading. J Eng Sci Technol 7(2):177–194Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Solak A, Tama YS, Yılmaz S, Kaplan H (2015) Experimental study on behavior of anchored external shear wall panel connections. Bull Earthq Eng 13(10):3065–3081CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)SerdangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations