Advertisement

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 209–222 | Cite as

Experimental study of precast dry connections constructed away from beam–column junction under progressive collapse scenario

  • Digesh D. JoshiEmail author
  • Paresh V. Patel
Original Paper
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents experimental studies conducted on precast dry connections under progressive collapse scenario. Reduced one-third-scale precast beam–column assemblies are constructed as test specimen by providing connection away from beam–column junction. Dimensions of test specimens are extracted from 6-story symmetrical building having overall plan dimensions of 16 m × 12 m. Each specimen consists of two span beams and three columns with removed middle column, which represents progressive collapse scenario. Dry connection between precast elements were constructed by adopting two different types of detailing such as welding and bolting of steel plates at connection region. Monotonic vertical load was applied at the location of removed middle column with the help of hydraulic jack. Behavior of test specimens was measured in terms of ultimate load carrying capacity, deflection profile along the length, failure pattern and crack propagation. The performance of precast specimens having dry connection was also compared with that of monolithic connection. From the results of experimental studies, it was observed that precast dry connection with welded plates was having maximum ultimate load carrying capacity, while the same for precast dry connection with bolted plates was lesser than that of monolithic connection. However, performance of precast dry connection with bolted plates can be enhanced by ensuring appropriate quality of concreting around connection region. Based on the study, it was concluded that building having precast elements connected away from the beam–column junction with adequate connection detailing behaves similar to that of monolithic construction and can be a sustainable alternative of cast-in-place construction.

Keywords

Progressive collapse Column removal scenario Precast dry connections Connection away from beam–column junction Welding of steel plates Bolting of steel plates 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support through research project number SB/S3/CEE/0028/2013, provided by Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India. Authors would also like to thank Mr. Yash S. Bhatt and Dhaval D. Patel, former post graduate students of Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Technology, Nirma University for their support during experimental program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alrubaidi, M. A., & Elsanadedy, H. M. (2016). Progressive collapse potential of existing precast rc beam-column connections—experimental study. 5th Internatioanl conference on advances in civil and structural engineering (CSE). New York: Institute of Research Engineers and Doctors.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Salloum, Y. A., Alrubaidi, M. A., Elsanadedy, H. M., Almusallam, T. H., & Iqbal, R. A. (2018). Strengthening of precast RC beam-column connections for progressive collapse mitigation using bolted steel plates. Engineering Structures, 161, 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bao, Y., Main, J. A., Lew, H. S., & Sadek, F. (2017). Performance of precast concrete moment frames subjected to column removal: Part 2, computational analysis. PCI Journal, 62(5), 53–74.Google Scholar
  4. Ehab, M., Salem, H., & Abdel-Mooty, M. (2016). Progressive collapse assessment of precast concrete connections using the applied element method (AEM). International Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements, 4(3), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliot, K. S. (2002). Precast concrete structures (1st ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elsanadedy, H. M., Almusallam, T. H., Al-Salloum, Y. A., & Abbas, H. (2017). Investigation of precast RC beam-column assemblies under column-loss scenario. Construction and Building Materials, 142, 552–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GSA. (2003). Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and major modernization projects. Wasington: The U. S General Services Administration.Google Scholar
  8. GSA. (2013). General services administration alternate path analysis & design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. Wasington: The U. S General Services Administration.Google Scholar
  9. Harris, H. G., & Sabnis, G. M. (1999). Structural modeling and experimental techniques. Cambridge: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IS: 10262. (2009). Concrete mix proportioning guidelines. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standard.Google Scholar
  11. IS: 13920. (1993). Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces—code of practice. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standard.Google Scholar
  12. IS: 1893 Part-I. (2002). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1: General provisions and buildings. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  13. IS: 456. (2000). Indian Standard Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  14. Joshi, D. D., & Patel, P. V. (2016). Experimental assessment of dry precast beam column connections under progressive collapse scenario. Journal of Structural Engineering, 43(3), 258–269.Google Scholar
  15. Kang, S.-B., & Tan, K. H. (2015). Behaviour of precast concrete beam–column sub-assemblages subject to column removal. Engineering Structures, 93, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kang, S.-B., & Tan, K. H. (2016). Robustness assessment of exterior precast concrete frames under column removal scenarios. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(12), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kang, S.-B., & Tan, K. H. (2017). Progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete frames with discontinuous reinforcement in the joint. Journal of Structural Engineering, 143(9), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kang, S.-B., Tan, K. H., & Yang, E.-H. (2015). Progressive collapse resistance of precast beam–column sub-assemblages with engineered cementitious composites. Engineering Structures, 98, 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lew, H. S., Main, J. A., Robert, S. D., Sadek, F., & Chiarito, V. P. (2013). Performance of steel moment connections under a column removal scenario. I: Experiments. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(1), 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lew, H. S., Main, J. A., Bao, Y., Sadek, F., Chiarito, V. P., Robert, S. D., et al. (2017). Performance of precast concrete moment frames subjected to column removal: Part 1, experimental study. PCI Journal, 62(5), 35–52.Google Scholar
  21. Main, J. A., Bao, Y., Lew, H. S., & Sadek, F. (2014). Robustness of precast concrete frames: Experimental and computational studies. In Structures congress 2014 (pp. 2210–2220). USA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).Google Scholar
  22. Main, J. A., Bao, Y., Lew, H. S., Sadek, F., Chiarito, V. P., Robert, S. D., et al. (2015). An experimental and computational study of precast concrete moment frames under a column removal scenario. Gaithersburg: Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.  https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nimse, R. B., Joshi, D. D., & Patel, P. V. (2014). Behavior of wet precast connections under progressive collapse scenario: An experimental study. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 6, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nimse, R. B., Joshi, D. D., & Patel, P. V. (2015). Experimental study on precast beam column connections constructed using RC corbel and steel billet under progressive collapse scenario. In Structures congress 2015 (pp. 1101–1117). USA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).Google Scholar
  25. NISTIR 7396. (2007). Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce, United States of America.Google Scholar
  26. Patel, D. D., Joshi, D. D., & Patel, P. V. (2016). Experimental study on dry precast beam column connections under column removal scenario. In P. N. Tekwani, M. Bhavsar, & B. A. Modi (Eds.), Multi-disciplinary sustainable engineering: Current and future trends (pp. 87–92). Cambridge: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. PCI Industry Handbook Committee. (2010). PCI design handbook: precast and prestressed concrete (7th ed.). Chicago: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Qian, K., & Li, B. (2012). Experimental and analytical assessment on rc interior beam-column subassemblages for progressive collapse. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 26(5), 576–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadek, F., Main, J. A., Lew, H. S., & Bao, Y. (2011). Testing and analysis of steel and concrete beam-column assemblies under a column removal scenario. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(9), 881–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 2013). Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Department of Defense, United States of America.Google Scholar
  31. Yu, J., & Tan, K. H. (2013a). Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages. Engineering Structures, 55, 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yu, J., & Tan, K. H. (2013b). Structural behavior of RC beam-column subassemblages under a middle column removal scenario. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(2), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering Department, Institute of TechnologyNirma UniversityAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations