Seismic Performance of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Structures

  • Jianzhuang XiaoEmail author
Part of the Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering book series (SPRTRCIENG)


In this chapter, the seismic performance of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) frame joints, plane frame, cast-in-situ space frame, and precast space frame was discussed. The detailed conclusion can be found in the following sections. Generally speaking, the failure modes of RAC structures are similar to those of natural aggregate concrete (NAC) structures, but the seismic performance is slightly lower.


  1. 1.
    Xiao JZ, Li WG, Fan YH, et al. An overview of study on recycled aggregate concrete in China (1996–2011). Constr Build Mater. 2012;31(6):364–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Han BC, Yun HD, Chung SY. Shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams made with recycled aggregate. In: CANMET/ACI international conference on recent advances in concrete technology. 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrzej A. Long-term behaviour of reinforced-concrete beams and columns made of recycled aggregate concrete. In: Symposium PRAGUE. Czech; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou JH, Wang XB, Yu TH. Mechanic behavior test on recycled concrete simply-supported rectangular slabs. J Shenyang Jianzhu Univ (Nat Sci Ed). 2008;4(3):411–5 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI J. 1982;79(1):13–27.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Filippou FC, Ambrisi AD, Issa A. Effects of reinforcement slip on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete frame members. ACI Struct J. 1999;96(3):327–35.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park R. Seismic design considerations for precast concrete construction in seismic zones, vol. 1. Seminar on precast concrete construction in seismic zones, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science—United States National Science Foundation, Tokyo; 1986. pp 1–38.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ericson AC, Warnes CE. Seismic technology for precast concrete systems. Concrete Industry Bulletin, Concrete Industry Board, Inc.; 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mujumdar V et al. Emulating cast-in-place detailing in precast concrete structures (ACI 550.1R-01). American Concrete Institute; 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buckingham E. On physically similar system. Phys Rev. 1914;4(4):345–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andreas S, Benson S, Joel C. Design, scaling, similitude, and modeling of shake-table test structures. Shake Table Training Workshop 2010—San Diego, CA; 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alcocer SM, Carranza R, Navarrete DP, Martinez R. Seismic tests of beam-to-column connections in a precast concrete frame. PCI J. 2002;47(3):70–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xue WC, Yang XL. Seismic tests of precast concrete, moment-resisting frames and connections. PCI J. 2010;55(3):102–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div. 1971;97(7):1969–90.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yassin MHM. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cyclic loads. California: University of California. Berkeley; 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mander B, Priestley MJN, Park R. Observed stress-strain behavior of confined concrete. J Struct Eng. 1998;114(8):1827–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montya E. Modeling of confined concrete, in department of civil engineering. National Library of Canada: University of Toronto; 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mazzoni S, Mckenna F, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user command language manual, Version 2.3.2. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonary buildings. USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Filippou F.C., D’Ambrisi A., and Issa A. Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete subassemblages. Report No. UCB/EERC–92/08. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rinawi AM, Clough RW. Shaking table-structure interaction. Report to the national Science Foundation 1991. Report No.UCB/EERC-91/13; 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations