applied

sciences
Article
Experimental Study of a New Precast Prestressed
Concrete Joint
Xueyuan Yan , Suguo Wang * , Canling Huang, Ai Qi and Chao Hong
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, Fujian, China; yxy910@163.com (X.Y.);
huangcanling11@163.com (C.H.); qikai@fzu.edu.cn (A.Q.); hongchao94@163.com (C.H.)
* Correspondence: wangsuguo@foxmail.com; Tel.: +86-189-0690-7607




Received: 21 September 2018; Accepted: 3 October 2018; Published: 10 October 2018


Featured Application: Our research results can be applied in concrete structures, especially precast
concrete structures.

Abstract: Precast monolithic structures are increasingly applied in construction. Such a structure
has a performance somewhere between that of a pure precast structure and that of a cast-in-place
structure. A precast concrete frame structure is one of the most common prefabricated structural
systems. The post-pouring joint is important for controlling the seismic performance of the entire
precast monolithic frame structure. This paper investigated the joints of a precast prestressed
concrete frame structure. A reversed cyclic loading test was carried out on two precast prestressed
concrete beam–column joints that were fabricated with two different concrete strengths in the keyway
area. This testing was also performed on a cast-in-place reinforced concrete joint for comparison.
The phenomena such as joint crack development, yielding, and ultimate damage were observed,
and the seismic performance of the proposed precast prestressed concrete joint was determined.
The results showed that the precast prestressed concrete joint and the cast-in-place joint had a similar
failure mode. The stiffness, bearing capacity, ductility, and energy dissipation were comparable.
The hysteresis curves were full and showed that the joints had good energy dissipation. The presence
of prestressing tendons limited the development of cracks in the precast beams. The concrete strength
of the keyway area had little effect on the seismic performance of the precast prestressed concrete
joints. The precast prestressed concrete joints had a seismic performance that was comparable to the
equivalent monolithic system.

Keywords: precast prestressed concrete joint; keyway area; reversed cyclic loading test; seismic
performance; equivalent monolithic

1. Introduction
The precast concrete structure is one of the most important structural forms of modern architecture.
A precast concrete structure has advantages over a cast-in-place concrete structure that include less
wet work on site, better control of component quality, rapid construction, and good economic and
environmental benefits. However, there are challenges posed to the application of precast concrete
structures, such as poor connection reliability and structural integrity, that limit its use in seismic zones.
A precast concrete frame structure is distinguished from a cast-in-place structure by the connection
method of columns, beams, and floors, and especially by the connection method of the beam–column
joints. These joints significantly affect the seismic performance of the whole structure. The design
principle of “strong joint weak component” is realized by ensuring that the assembled part of the
beam–column joint region has sufficient strength, rigidity, and ductility to meet the requirements of
bearing capacity and deformation capacity under the conditions of normal use and during earthquakes.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871; doi:10.3390/app8101871 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 2 of 23

The precast concrete frame joints must effectively transmit the bending moment and shear force
between the precast components, and they also should have good ductility and energy dissipation
capacity. Research on precast concrete structures mainly focused on the connection mode of joints, the
mechanical properties of joints, and the seismic performance of prefabricated structures for different
connection modes [1–17].
Maya et al. [1] studied precast elements that were joined by high-performance fiber reinforced
concrete and short steel bars. The studies by Liu et al. [2] and Lee et al. [3] investigated precast concrete
beam–column joints connected by sleeves and with anchor plates. Choi et al. [4] and Lu et al. [5] both
proposed beam–column joints in which steel plates or U-shaped steel bars were placed in the joint
zone and engineered cementitious composite (ECC) materials were poured. An improved hybrid
H-steel-precast concrete beam system was proposed by Yang et al. [6], and tests of five fixed-end beam
specimens under reversed cyclic one-point concentrated top loads at the mid-span were performed to
determine their bending capacity and ductility. Ersoy et al. [7] studied the seismic behavior of welded
joints in a frame beam. Five specimens with welded joints and two monolithic reference specimens
were tested to study their behavior under seismic action. Aninthaneni et al. [8] and Li et al. [9]
developed joints with steel plates embedded at the precast beam ends and bolted to the precast columns.
The precast joints with T-section steel plates that were pre-buried in the beam ends and connected
by welded steel plates with post-pouring concrete at the joints were studied by Ketiyot et al. [10].
The works by Kim et al. [11] and Wu et al. [12] determined the performance of the joints with
precast columns and steel beams. Yekrangnia et al. [13] evaluated the performance of a proposed
steel connected precast concrete joint by experimental and numerical analysis. A precast concrete
beam–column joint with energy-absorbing ductile connectors was developed by Englekirk et al. [14].
Ozturan et al. [15] performed a comparative test for four ductile, moment-resisting precast concrete
frame connections and one monolithic concrete connection for high seismic zones. The studies of
Vidjeapriya et al. [16] and Naik et al. [17] proposed a precast concrete beam–column joint with corbel
and cleat angle, and a reversed cyclic loading test of the scaled model was performed.
In the above researches, the precast members were connected by steel bars or steel plates through
overlapping, welding, or bolting. The seismic performance of most of these joints is comparable
to the conventional cast-in-place joints. However, the introduction of prestressing on the precast
concrete structure allows for the full use of the tensile and compressive strength of the member,
improves the shear capacity of the structure, reduces the section height of the member, reduces the
deformation, and ensures good crack closure and deformation recovery performance of the structure.
Priestley et al. [18] studied the precast beam–column joints of partially unbonded prestressing
tendons where the prestressing tendons were non-bonded within a certain range of the joint zone
and the beam end. The results showed that the self-recovery ability of the joints was strong and
the shear capacity was improved. The seismic behavior of prestressed prefabricated beam–column
joints with energy-dissipation steel bars was investigated by Cheok et al. [19] and Wang et al. [20].
The self-recovering force was shown to be provided by the prestressing tendons and the energy
consumed by the ordinary steel bars. Morgen et al. [21], Song et al. [22], and Rodgers et al. [23]
proposed an unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete structure using dampers to supplement energy
dissipation. The research of post-tensioned precast beam-to-column connections was conducted by
Kaya et al. [24], and the performance of the joints at different stress levels through experiments were
analyzed. Liu et al. [25] conducted pseudo-dynamic and quasi-static tests on a two-story precast
prestressed concrete frame. The seismic performance of the post-tensioned prestressed joints was
determined by performing reversed cyclic loading tests on two specimens with bonded tendons
and two specimens with unbonded tendons by Xun et al. [26]. The test results showed that the test
piece consumed less energy, but the residual deformation was smaller, and it had better recovery
performance. Ha et al. [27] studied the performance of structures with U-shaped prestressed steel
strands, precast columns, precast slabs, and topping concrete by testing three interior and three exterior
joint specimens. Cai et al. [28,29] conducted reversed cyclic loading tests on precast prestressed concrete
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 3 of 23

frame beam–column joints with different lengths of service hole. A steel-strand-anchored precast frame
joint with embossed anchors was proposed by Guan et al. [30]. Parastesh et al. [31] introduced a ductile
moment-resisting connection intended for high-intensity seismic zones. Im et al. [32] studied the
parameters of a reinforced-concrete-emulated beam–column connection of a precast concrete moment
frame with a U-shaped beam shell at the end of the beam. Eom et al. [33] proposed three plastic hinge
relocation methods to improve the earthquake resistance of emulative precast concrete beam–column
connections using PC (precast concrete) U-shell beams.
These studies show that the prestressing enhances the self-recovery ability of the joints, but some
post-tensioned prestressed joints have poor energy dissipation capacity. Moreover, the connection of
precast prestressed members, the interface treatment of the new–old concrete interfaces, the concrete
strength, and their influences on the seismic performance of joints were not discussed comprehensively.
Therefore, a precast prestressed concrete frame structure was studied in this paper. The reversed
cyclic loading testing of three joints with different parameters was performed to observe the behavior
and to obtain the hysteresis curve and skeleton curve of the joints. The stiffness, bearing capacity,
ductility, and energy dissipation capacity of the joints were analyzed to investigate whether the seismic
performance of the precast prestressed concrete frame joints met the requirements of the equivalent
monolithic system. The influence of concrete strength in the keyway area on the performance of
precast prestressed concrete joints was investigated. The reliability of the interface treatment method
of the new–old concrete interface was studied. The force mechanism of precast prestressed concrete
joints was analyzed. The reliability of transmitting force through the steel bar in the plastic hinge area
was determined.

2. Model Structure

2.1. Test Specimens

The precast components of the precast prestressed concrete frame structure studied in this paper
include the precast prestressed concrete laminated beams, precast concrete laminated slabs, and
precast concrete columns. The precast columns can also be changed to cast-in-place concrete columns.
The specialty of the precast prestressed concrete structure lies in its joint construction. The joints are
composed of keyways, U-shaped steel bars, and cast-in-place concrete. When the beam–column joints
are connected, the U-shaped steel bars passing through the core area overlap with the prestressing
tendons in the keyway area at the end of the beam, and the precast beam and column are connected
by post-pouring concrete. This design is conducive to joint construction, but the bar lap connection
of the beam end is not ideal for the seismic resistance of the joint. Thus, the frame joint is a primary
focus of seismic research on precast prestressed concrete structures. The structural form of the precast
prestressed concrete joint is shown in Figure 1. This post-pouring integrated connection forms a
new–old concrete interface between the precast beam and the post-pouring concrete. The integrity of
the prefabricated structure was ensured by applying “manual chiseling” to the horizontal new–old
concrete interface. The “shearing key” was applied to the vertical new–old concrete interface of the
keyway area to enhance the adhesion of the precast member surface and the post-pouring concrete.
The presence of the keyway wall increases the difficulty of setting the concrete cover. The lap
bars are not sufficiently in contact with the post-pouring concrete which results in a reduced bonding
effect. In this paper, three joints were designed and tested; two were precast prestressed concrete joints,
labeled PPCJ1 and PPCJ2, the third was a cast-in-place joint, labeled CIPJ. The joints PPCJ1 and PPCJ2
were placed in the keyway area with C40 and C50 concrete, respectively.
The precast prestressed concrete joints had the same reinforcement and section dimensions as the
cast-in-place joint. The cross-section dimensions and reinforcement of the cast-in-place joint and precast
prestressed concrete joints are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The thickness of the concrete-laminated
layer for the precast prestressed concrete joints was 100 mm, and this was the same as the thickness
of the floor. The keyway area of the precast prestressed concrete joints was the area from the end of
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 4 of 23

the precast beam to the edge of the column, and it had a length of 450 mm in this design to meet the
requirements of steel anchoring. The keyway area did not reserve the keyway wall, and the U-shaped
grooveAppl.was formed
Sci. 2018,
Appl. Sci. 2018,
8, x FOR
8, x FORbyPEER
theREVIEW
PEER formwork during construction with the beam end reinforcement
REVIEW
4 of 24being
4 of 24
overlapped here. The prestressing tendon of the precast beam extended from the beam body to the
reinforcement being overlapped here. The prestressing tendon ofof the precast beam extended from
edge reinforcement
of the column being
andoverlapped
had a hookhere.
thatThe prestressing
overlapped thetendon
U-shaped thebar
precast beamthe
crossing extended fromof the
core area
the
the beam
beam body
body to
to the
the edge
edge of
of the
the column
column and
and had
had aa hook
hook that
that overlapped
overlapped the
the U-shaped
U-shaped bar
bar crossing
crossing
joint to transfer stress.
the
the core
core area
area of
of the
the joint
joint to
to transfer
transfer stress.
stress.

Figure1.1.Precast
Precast prestressed concrete joint.
Figure 1. Precast prestressed
Figure concrete
prestressed concrete joint.
joint.

Figure 2. Reinforcement diagrams of the cast-in-place joint (unit: mm).

Figure
Figure 2. Reinforcementdiagrams
2. Reinforcement diagrams of
of the
thecast-in-place
cast-in-placejoint (unit:
joint mm).
(unit: mm).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 5 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24

Figure 3. Reinforcement diagrams of precast prestressed concrete

concrete joints
joints (unit:
(unit: mm).
mm).

2.2. Force Transmission

2.2. Force Transmission Mode
Mode
The
The difference
difference between
between aa precast
precast prestressed
prestressed concrete
concrete joint
joint and
and aa cast-in-place
cast-in-place joint joint is
is mainly
mainly
reflected
reflected in the new–old concrete interface and the connection force transmission mode of the
in the new–old concrete interface and the connection force transmission mode of the steel
steel
bar. The precast
bar. The precast prestressed
prestressed concrete
concrete joint
joint had
had aa laminated
laminated beam beam that
that had
had aa horizontally
horizontally joined
joined
surface
surface that
thatengaged
engagedthe cast-in-place
the cast-in-placeconcrete, andand
concrete, a vertical interface
a vertical with the
interface withconcrete of the keyway
the concrete of the
area. The performance of the new–old concrete interface affects the
keyway area. The performance of the new–old concrete interface affects the overall force overall force of the laminated
of the
beam.
laminatedA poor
beam. bonding
A poor capacity of the new–old
bonding capacity concreteconcrete
of the new–old interface and theand
interface lacktheoflack
a reliable force
of a reliable
transmission mechanism result in cracking or damage of the new–old concrete
force transmission mechanism result in cracking or damage of the new–old concrete interface earlier interface earlier than in
the
thancast
in concrete, thereby reducing
the cast concrete, thereby the bearingthe
reducing capacity
bearing of capacity
the laminated
of thebeam. The shear
laminated beam. transmission
The shear
mechanisms for new–old concrete interfaces are the friction force, pinning
transmission mechanisms for new–old concrete interfaces are the friction force, pinning shear, shear, and shear resistance
and
of shear key.
shear resistance of shear key.
The
The friction
friction force
force at
at the
the new–old
new–old concrete
concrete interface
interface waswas generated
generated whenwhen the the concrete
concrete herehere was
was
sheared causing a relative movement at the interface. When the shear force
sheared causing a relative movement at the interface. When the shear force is less than the maximumis less than the maximum
friction
friction of
of the
thenew–old
new–oldconcrete
concreteinterface,
interface,the concrete
the concrete at both
at bothends of the
ends interface
of the interfacewill will
not move, and
not move,
the
andinternal force force
the internal of the of
laminated beam isbeam
the laminated transmitted normally
is transmitted at the section
normally at theincluding the interface.
section including the
In this case, a laminated beam has the same performance as a cast-in-place concrete
interface. In this case, a laminated beam has the same performance as a cast-in-place concrete beam. beam.
Shear resistance of the pinning bar occurs when the orthogonal reinforcements that traverse the
interfaces do not have sufficient cohesive force, and the concrete surfaces at both ends of the interface
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 6 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24

cannotShear resistance
transfer of the
the shear. pinning bar occurs
Consequently, the steel whenbar the orthogonal
which traversesreinforcements
the new–old concrete that traverse the
interface
interfaces do not have sufficient cohesive force, and the concrete surfaces
transmits the shear force by bending due to its dislocation deformation. The steel bar that produces at both ends of the interface
cannot transfer
this effect the the
is called shear. Consequently,
pinning bar. the steel bar which traverses the new–old concrete interface
transmits the shear force by bending
Shear resistance of the shear key develops due to its dislocation
from the deformation.
concave and The steel bar
convex that produces
structure that is
this effect is called the pinning bar.
artificially placed at the boundary of the concrete. The shear is transmitted by the connection of the
Shear
concave andresistance of the shear
convex concrete, and key develops
that limits the from the concave
dislocation and convexofstructure
deformation that is artificially
the boundary. The shear
placed at the boundary of the concrete. The shear is transmitted
strength of the shear key is the smaller value between the shear force that causes the shear by the connection of the concave
destruction
and convex
of the keyway concrete,
and the and thatforce
shear limits thecauses
that dislocation deformationfailure
the compressive of the ofboundary.
the surface Theconcrete
shear strength
for the
of the shear key is the smaller value between the shear force that
shear key. The inclination angle of the boundary surface of the shear key has a large influence oncauses the shear destruction of the
the
keyway
strength of the interface. When the inclination angle of the boundary surface is too large, key.
and the shear force that causes the compressive failure of the surface concrete for the shear the
The inclination
inclination angle
surface of the to
is prone boundary
slip failure,surface
while,of the
if it shear key has
is too small, thea large
convex influence on thetostrength
part is prone punching of
the interface.
failure. When the inclination angle of the boundary surface is too large, the inclination surface is
proneTheto slip failure, while, if it is too small, the convex part is prone to
horizontal new–old concrete interface is subjected to less shearing force and has a larger punching failure.
The horizontal
interface area. Therefore, new–old concrete
“manual interfacewas
chiseling” is subjected
performed to less
on theshearing
top offorcethe and
precasthas beam
a larger
to
interface area. Therefore, “manual chiseling” was performed on the
enhance the friction effect between the precast beam and the post-pouring concrete. The stirrup wastop of the precast beam to enhance
the
usedfriction
as an effect between
orthogonal thebar
steel precast
that beam
can actand as the post-pouring
a pinning bar when concrete. The stirrup
the interface has was
some used as an
slippage
orthogonal
and serves as a second line of defense against shearing. The vertical new–old concrete interface ofas
steel bar that can act as a pinning bar when the interface has some slippage and serves thea
second line of defense against shearing. The vertical new–old
keyway area mainly bears the vertical shearing force and bending moment of the interface. The concrete interface of the keyway area
mainly
bondingbearsbetweenthe vertical
the newshearing
and oldforce and bending
concrete moment
at the interface is of the interface.
weak, which causes The bonding
the weakeningbetween of
the new and old concrete at the interface is weak, which causes the
the tensile bearing capacity and shear bearing capacity of the interface. However, the compressive weakening of the tensile bearing
capacity and shearisbearing
bearing capacity capacity ofaffected.
not significantly the interface.
The shearHowever,
key was the compressive bearingtocapacity
set at the interface bear most is not
of
significantly affected. The shear key was set at the interface to bear most
the shearing force to ensure that shear bearing capacity is maintained. The structure of the keyway of the shearing force to ensure
that
area shear
is shownbearing capacity
in Figure 4. is maintained. The structure of the keyway area is shown in Figure 4.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Construction
Construction of
of the
the keyway
keyway area of precast
area of precast prestressed
prestressed concrete
concrete joints.
joints.

2.3.
2.3. Concrete
Concrete and
and Steel
Steel Properties
Properties
The
The compressive
compressive strength
strength and
and elastic
elastic modulus
modulus of of the
the concrete
concrete were
were measured
measured byby the
the strength
strength
testing of standard prismatic 150 mm × 150 mm ×
testing of standard prismatic 150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm specimens for the same 28-day curing
300 mm specimens for the same 28-day curing
conditions. The results of concrete strength testing are listed in Table 1. The properties of the steel
conditions. The results of concrete strength testing are listed in Table 1. The properties of the steel bars
were tested, and the properties are given in Table 2.
bars were tested, and the properties are given in Table 2.
Table 1. Material properties of concrete. PPCJ—precast prestressed concrete joint.
Table 1. Material properties of concrete. PPCJ—precast prestressed concrete joint.
Component
Component Strength
Strength Grade
Grade Compressive Strengthffc c(MPa)
CompressiveStrength (MPa) Elastic
Elastic Modulus
Modulus Ec (GPa)
Ec (GPa)
Precast beam
Precast beam C40
C40 29.2
29.2 33.0
33.0
Cast-in-place joint
Cast-in-place joint C40
C40 30.5
30.5 32.8
32.8
PPCJ1 keyway
PPCJ1 keyway C40
C40 30.5
30.5 32.8
32.8
PPCJ2 keyway
PPCJ2 keyway C50
C50 36.2
36.2 35.2
35.2
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 7 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24

Table 2. Reinforcement
Table2. materialproperties.
Reinforcement material properties.
Table 2. Reinforcement material properties.
YieldStrength
Yield Strength UltimateStrength
f v ffvv Ultimate Strength Elastic Modulus Elongation
Elongation
Typeof
Type ofReinforcement
Reinforcement Yield Strength Ultimate Strength Elastic
ElasticModulus
Modulus δ
Elongation
Type of Reinforcement (MPa)
(MPa) f ufu(MPa)
(MPa) Es E(GPa)
s (GPa) (%)
δ (%)
(MPa) fu (MPa) Es (GPa) δ (%)
Stirrup(φ10)
Stirrup (ϕ10) 376
376 650
650 221.5
221.5 20.2
20.2
Stirrup (ϕ10) 376 650 221.5 20.2
Beam
Beam auxiliary steelbar
auxiliary steel bar(14)
( 14) 421
421 637
637 211.5
211.5 24.8
24.8
Beam auxiliary steel bar ( 14) 421 637 211.5 24.8
Beam
Beamlongitudinal
longitudinal
Beam longitudinal 462
462 644
644 209.7
209.7 23.7
23.7
reinforcement
reinforcement (18)
( 18) 462 644 209.7 23.7
reinforcement
Column longitudinal ( 18)
Column longitudinal 435 621 206.2 22.6
Column longitudinal
reinforcement (22) 435 621 206.2 22.6
reinforcement ( 22)
s 12.7) 435 621 206.2 22.6
Prestressing tendon (φ
reinforcement ( 22) 1842 1981 195.6 /
Prestressing tendon (ϕss12.7) 1842 1981 195.6 /
Prestressing tendon (ϕ 12.7) 1842 1981 195.6 /
2.4. Test Method
2.4.
2.4. Test
Test Method
Method
TheThetest was performed at the Fujian Institute of Engineeringon on anMTSMTS loading system using
The test
test was
was performed
performed at at the
the Fujian
Fujian Institute
Institute of
of Engineering
Engineering on an an MTS loading
loading system
system using
using
two 500-kN
two electro-hydraulic servo actuators with a stroke of ± 20 mm for the reversed cyclic loading.
two 500-kN
500-kN electro-hydraulic
electro-hydraulic servo servo actuators
actuators with
with aa stroke
stroke of
of ±20
±20 mm
mm for
for the
the reversed
reversed cyclic
cyclic loading.
loading.
TheTheload was applied at the beam ends. A one-way rotating fixed hinge bearing was installed at
The load
load was
was applied
applied atat the
the beam
beam ends.
ends. AA one-way
one-way rotating
rotating fixed
fixed hinge
hinge bearing
bearing was
was installed
installed atat the
the
theupper
upper and lower column endstheof the joint to simulateeffect
the effect of hinge restraints on theThe joint.
upper and
and lower
lower column
column endsends of of the joint
joint to
to simulate
simulate the
the effect of
of hinge
hinge restraints
restraints on
on the
the joint.
joint. The
The actuators
actuators werewere applied
applied to twoto sides
two sides
of the of thethat
beam beam that the
caused caused
joint the
to jointunder
bend to bend under
loading. loading.
The test
actuators were applied to two sides of the beam that caused the joint to bend under loading. The test
The test set-up
set-up
set-up is
is shown
is shown
shown in
in Figure
in Figure
Figure 5.5.
5.

Figure 5. Test set-up of the joints.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Test
Test set-up
set-up of
of the
the joints.
joints.
The
The reversed
reversed cyclic loading
cyclicloading test
loadingtest of
testof the
ofthe plane
plane frame
the plane frame joints
joints also allows for investigation of the beam
The reversed cyclic jointsalso
alsoallows
allowsforforinvestigation
investigation ofof
thethe
beambeam
end
end and
and the
the joint
joint core
core area.
area. The
The difficulty
difficulty in
in calculating
calculating the
the bearing
bearing capacity
capacity of
of the
the precast
precast joints
joints limits
limits
end and the joint core area. The difficulty in calculating the bearing capacity of the precast joints
the
the accuracy
accuracy of
of determining
determining the
the yield
yield point during
point point the
the test.
duringduring test. Thus, aa situation with
with the loading force
limits the accuracy of determining the yield theThus, situation
test. Thus, a situationthewith
loading force
the loading
being
being greater
greater than
than the
the yield
yield force
force may
may occur
occur and
and cause
cause the
the specimen
specimen to
to be
be damaged
damaged earlier
earlier than
than
force being greater
expected. than the
Displacement yieldwas
control forceused
mayforoccur
the and cause
elastic loadingthe phase
specimenand to
the be damaged
plastic loading earlier
phase than
expected.
expected. Displacement
Displacement control
control was
was used
used for
for the
the elastic
elastic loading
loading phase
phase and
and the
the plastic
plastic loading
loading phase
phase in
in
in this
this test,
test, and
and thethe loading
loading schemes
schemes forfor these
these phases
phases are
are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 6.6.
this test, and the loading schemes for these phases are shown in Figure 6.

10 10
10 10
8 8
8 8
6 6
Displacement(mm)(Δy)

6 6
Displacement(mm)(Δy)
Displacement(mm)

4 4
Displacement(mm)

4 4
2 2
2 2
0 0
0 0
-2 -2
-2 -2
-4 -4
-4 -4
-6 -6
-6 -6
-8 -8
-8 -8
-10 -10
-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cycle Cycle
Cycle Cycle
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure6.6.Loading
Loading scheme: (a) before
beforeyielding;
yielding;(b)
(b)after
afteryielding.
Figure 6. Loadingscheme:
Figure scheme: (a)
(a) before yielding; (b) after yielding.
yielding.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 8 of 23

3. Test Results
ForAppl.
convenience, thePEER
Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR beams on either side of the joints are called the “left beam” and 8“right
REVIEW of 24 beam”
with the displacement of the right beam representing the loading of the joint displacement. An upward
3. Test is
displacement Results
considered to be positive. Before the formal loading, an axial pressure of 916 kN was
applied to theForupper column
convenience, theend,
beams and the axial
on either compression
side of ratio was
the joints are called 0.3.beam”
the “left The three joints
and “right were tested
beam”
with
according tothe
thedisplacement
loading schemeof the right beam representing
described in Sectionthe2.3,
loading
and of the joint
crack displacement.was
development An upward
observed.
displacement is considered to be positive. Before the formal loading, an axial pressure of 916 kN was
applied to the
3.1. Cast-In-Place upper column end, and the axial compression ratio was 0.3. The three joints were tested
Joint
according to the loading scheme described in Section 2.3, and crack development was observed.
The force–displacement curve of the cast-in-place joint was linear prior to cracking of the specimen;
3.1. Cast-In-Place
the reciprocating curves Joint
almost coincide with each other, and the elastic behavior is obvious. The first
vertical crack appeared
The at the edge
force–displacement ofofthe
curve the top of the left
cast-in-place jointbeam when
was linear the
prior displacement
to cracking reached 2 mm,
of the specimen;
and the the reciprocating
crack width was curves
0.04almost
mm. coincide
When the withloading
each other,
wasandreversed,
the elastic a
behavior
vertical is obvious.
crack alsoTheappeared
first at
vertical crack appeared at the edge of the top of the left beam when the displacement reached 2 mm,
the edge of the bottom of the right beam, and the crack width was 0.06 mm. At this time, the slope
and the crack width was 0.04 mm. When the loading was reversed, a vertical crack also appeared at the
of the force–displacement
edge of the bottom of the curve
rightbegan decreasing,
beam, and and was
the crack width the 0.06
positive
mm. At and
thisnegative curves
time, the slope no longer
of the
coincided.
force–displacement curve began decreasing, and the positive and negative curves no longer coincided.strength.
These observations indicate that the cracking decreased the concrete’s tensile
Thus, the loadobservations
These was transferred
indicate from the
that the concrete
cracking to thethe
decreased steel bar and
concrete’s increased
tensile strength.the strain
Thus, in the steel
the load
bar. At awas transferred from
displacement of 4 the
mm, concrete to and
the left the steel
rightbar and increased
beams the strain
of the joint in the steel to
were observed bar. At aa second
have
vertical displacement
crack that was of 4 mm, the left and right beams of the joint were observed to have a second vertical
approximately 100 mm long and was about 100 mm from the edge of the
crack that was approximately 100 mm long and was about 100 mm from the edge of the column. The
column.distribution
The distribution of the initial cracks for the cast-in-place beam is shown in Figure 7.
of the initial cracks for the cast-in-place beam is shown in Figure 7.

Figure
Figure 7. The
7. The initialcracking
initial cracking of
ofthe
thecast-in-place beam.
cast-in-place beam.
When the displacement was 6 mm, cracks at the bottom of the beam began developing obliquely.
When the displacement was 6 mm, cracks at the bottom of the beam began developing obliquely.
These cracks were typical bending shear cracks. Increasing the displacement to 8 mm resulted in the
These cracks were typical bending shear cracks. Increasing the displacement to 8 mm resulted in
longitudinal steel bar strain near the edge of the right beam of the joint to be greater than the yield
the longitudinal steel bar
strain of 0.0022. Thus,strain nearyielded
the steel the edgeduring of the
this right beam of
displacement theWhen
cycle. joint the
to be greater
loading wasthan the
yield strain of 0.0022.
reversed, Thus, thereinforcements
the longitudinal steel yielded ofduring
the upper this displacement
portion cycle.
of the left beam When
near the edgetheofloading
the was
reversed,column also began yielding.
the longitudinal Thus, Δ = 8 mm
reinforcements of theis taken
upper as the yield displacement
portion of the left beamΔy. Atnear
this time, the of the
the edge
column number of yielded
also began steel bars
yielding. Thus,was ∆small,
= 8 and
mmthe is plasticity
taken ashad thenot fullydisplacement
yield developed. Therefore,
∆y. Atthe this time,
force–displacement curve of the joint did not yet have a significant inflection point. Further
the number of yielded steel bars was small, and the plasticity had not fully developed. Therefore,
displacement increased the amount of the steel bars entering the plasticity stage at the beam end and
the force–displacement curve ofofthe
the strain. At a displacement joint
10 mm, thedid
steelnot yet have
bar strain at theaendsignificant
of the beaminflection
reached 0.0032,point.and Further
displacement increased the amount of the steel bars entering the plasticity
the longitudinal reinforcement of the beam 100 mm from the edge of the column yielded. The force– stage at the beam end
and the displacement
strain. At curve had a fairly obvious
a displacement of 10 inflection
mm, thepoint steelatbar
this time.
strain The
at“cusp point”
the end ofindicated
the beam that reached
the reinforced
0.0032, and concrete reinforcement
the longitudinal at the beam end of wasthe fully
beamyielded.
100 mm Afterfrom
the joint
the yielded,
edge ofthe thenumber
column of yielded.
bending cracks on the beam no longer increased, and about six bending cracks were seen respectively
The force–displacement curve had a fairly obvious inflection point at this time. The “cusp point”
in the left and right beams. These positive and negative bending cracks mutually interpenetrated one
indicated that the
another, reinforced
and some concrete
were staggered atthe
with the beam
crack endbetween
spacing was fully yielded.
100 and 180 mm.After
The crackthefarthest
joint yielded,
the number of bending cracks on the beam no longer increased, and about
from the edge of the column was 682 mm away and had a crack width of 0.38 mm. The main crack six bending cracks were
seen respectively
was found at inthe
thebeam
left end
andandright
hadbeams. Theseofpositive
a crack width 1.08 mm. and negative bending
The development cracks
of this main crack mutually
interpenetrated one another, and some were staggered with the crack spacing between 100 and 180 mm.
The crack farthest from the edge of the column was 682 mm away and had a crack width of 0.38 mm.
The main crack was found at the beam end and had a crack width of 1.08 mm. The development of
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 9 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

this main crack and the yielding of the steel bar caused the bending cracks away from the edge of the
andtothe
column yieldingslowly.
develop of the This
steel crack
bar caused the bending
development cracks away
indicates from
that the the edge
energy wasofmainly
the column
absorbedto by
Appl. Sci. 2018,
develop 8, x FOR
slowly. PEER
This REVIEW
crack development indicates that the energy was mainly absorbed by9 of 24
the
the reinforced concrete in the main crack zone. Thus, the development of cracking and plasticity of
reinforced concrete in the main crack zone. Thus, the development of cracking and plasticity of
reinforced
and the concrete
yielding inofother
the areas
steel ofcaused
bar the beam
the was delayed.
bending cracks The
awaydistribution of bending
from theofedge of the crackstoin the
column
reinforced concrete in other areas of the beam was delayed. The distribution bending cracks in the
beamdevelop
when the joint was fully yielded is shown in Figure 8.
slowly. This crack development indicates that the energy was mainly absorbed by the
beam when the joint was fully yielded is shown in Figure 8.
reinforced concrete in the main crack zone. Thus, the development of cracking and plasticity of
reinforced concrete in other areas of the beam was delayed. The distribution of bending cracks in the
beam when the joint was fully yielded is shown in Figure 8.

Figure
Figure 8. Distribution
8. Distribution ofofcracks
crackson
onthe
the beam
beam after
afteryielding
yieldingofof
thethe
cast-in-place joint.joint.
cast-in-place

The strengthening
The strengthening phase
phase occurredafter
occurred afterthethe joint
joint was
wasyielded
yieldedand and displacement
displacement continued.
continued. WhenWhen
Figure of
Δ = 2Δy, the width 8. Distribution
the main crack of cracks
on the onbeam
the beam after
at the yielding
edge of theof column
the cast-in-place
reachedjoint.
2.86 mm. At this
∆ = 2∆y, the width of the main crack on the beam at the edge of the column reached 2.86 mm. At this
time, the strain gauge of the beam reached its limit and lost measuring capability. When Δ = 2.5Δy,
time, the The
strain gauge of the
strengthening phasebeam reached
occurred afteritsthelimit
joint and
was lost measuring
yielded and capability.
displacement When ∆ = 2.5∆y,
continued.
small oblique cracks appeared on the periphery of the core area of the joint, and the concrete Whenat the
smallbottom
Δoblique
= 2Δy,and cracks
the width
top appeared
of theof beam
the mainwereoncrack
the on
lifted periphery
thetobeam
due of
at the
the edge
the pressure core
and of area
theof
slightly the joint,
column
enlarged. and2.86
reached
When the
Δ concrete
= mm.
4Δy, thisat the
aAtmain
bottomtime,
andthe
topstrain
of gauge
the beam of the
were beam
lifted reached
due to its
the limit and
pressure lost
and measuring
slightly
cross-diagonal crack appeared in the core area of the joint and had a width of 0.12 mm. The width of capability.
enlarged. When
When ∆Δ == 2.5Δy,
4∆y, a main
small oblique
cross-diagonal crackcracks appeared
appeared in on
the the periphery
core area of of
thethe core
joint area
and
the main crack at the beam end developed further and the bending crack on the beam saw no more of
had the
a joint,
width and
of the
0.12 concrete
mm. The at the
width of
bottom
the main and top
crackgrowth.
significant of the
at the beam beam
Further endwere lifted due
developedcaused
displacement to the pressure
furtherthe and and slightly
the bending
concrete enlarged.
crack on
at the bottom When Δ
the beam
of the = 4Δy,
beamend a main
sawtono bemore
cross-diagonal
repeatedly crack
pressed appeared
and pulled, in the coreinarea
resulting damageof the joint caused
which and had a widthtoofdrop 0.12from
mm.the Thebeam
width of
significant growth. Further displacement caused the concrete concrete
at the bottom of the beam that
end to be
the main
could be crack at the
heard clearly. beam end
Whenresulting developed
Δ = 5Δy, the further
concrete in and the bending
the plastic hinge crack on the
area oftothe beam
beam saw
wastheno more
severely
repeatedly pressed and pulled, in damage which caused concrete drop from beam that
significantandgrowth. Further displacement caused sizethe concrete at the bottom of the beam endcracks
to be
coulddamaged,
be heard pressed
repeatedly
the falling
clearly. When
and
concrete
pulled,
had the
∆ =resulting
5∆y, a particle
inconcrete
damage
of
in up
which thetocaused
6 mm.
plastic The
hinge amount
concrete area
to
of
of small
drop the
from
oblique
beam
the was that
beam severely
in the core area of the joint increased, but development of the oblique crack in the column was not
damaged, and
could be heard the falling
clearly. Whenconcrete had
Δ =as5Δy, a particle size of up to 6 mm. The amount of small oblique
obvious. The instruments, such the the concrete in and
extensometer the plastic hinge area of
the displacement the beam
meter, werewas severely
removed to
cracks in the core
damaged, and area of the joint increased,
the falling butsizedevelopment of The
the amount
obliqueofcrack in the column was
avoid damage due to the concrete had a particle
severe deformation of upThe
of the joint. to 6concrete
mm. on the upper small
and oblique
lower partscracksof
not obvious.
in the The
core instruments,
area of the joint such as
increased, thebutextensometer
development and
of the
the
the beam end was removed by damage; thus, the beam end approached the condition of being a displacement
oblique crack in meter,
the were
column removed
was not to
obvious.
damageThe
avoid“rotating due instruments,
to the severe such as the
deformation extensometer
of the and
joint. the
The displacement
concrete
hinge” as the plastic hinge of the beam end developed. The final joint load dropped to 85% of on meter,
the were
upper removed
and lower toparts
avoid
of thethe
beam damage
peak end
load,wasdue
at to thetime
removed
which severebydeformation
the damage;
joint of thethe
thus,
was considered joint.
beam
to The
be concrete
end
broken, onthe
approached
and theloading
upper
theand lower
condition
was parts
stopped. ofTheof
being a
the
“rotating beam
shapehinge” end was removed
as thehinge
of the beam plastic by
areahinge
when ofdamage;
thethe thus,
beam end
cast-in-place the beam end
developed.
joint was brokenapproached
The the
final joint
is shown condition of being
load9.dropped to
in Figure a 85%
“rotating hinge” as the plastic hinge of the beam end developed. The final joint load dropped to 85% of
of the peak load, at which time the joint was considered to be broken, and the loading was stopped.
the peak load, at which time the joint was considered to be broken, and the loading was stopped. The
The shape of the beam hinge area when the cast-in-place joint was broken is shown in Figure 9.
shape of the beam hinge area when the cast-in-place joint was broken is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Final damage of cast-in-place joint.

Figure9.9.Final
Figure Finaldamage
damage of
of cast-in-place
cast-in-place joint.
joint.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 10 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

3.2. Precast Prestressed Concrete Joints
3.2. Precast Prestressed Concrete Joints
3.2.1. PPCJ1
3.2.1.The
PPCJ1
force–displacement curve of the PPCJ1 joint was linear before cracking of the specimen and
the reciprocating curves in this portion of the test almost coincided with each other, showing that PPCJ1
The force–displacement curve of the PPCJ1 joint was linear before cracking of the specimen and
exhibited elastic behavior. The first cracks appeared on the left and right beams when the loading
the reciprocating curves in this portion of the test almost coincided with each other, showing that PPCJ1
displacement was 1.5 mm with crack widths of 0.06 mm and 0.07 mm, respectively. The vertical
exhibited elastic behavior. The first cracks appeared on the left and right beams when the loading
new–old concrete interfaces in the keyway area of the left and right beams had vertical cracks that
displacement was 1.5 mm with crack widths of 0.06 mm and 0.07 mm, respectively. The vertical new–
almost ran through the interface with crack widths of 0.04 mm and 0.05 mm, respectively. There was
old concrete interfaces in the keyway area of the left and right beams had vertical cracks that almost ran
no cracking at the end of the beam, indicating that the tensile strength of the vertical new–old concrete
through the interface with crack widths of 0.04 mm and 0.05 mm, respectively. There was no cracking
interface was lower than that of the cast concrete. The initial crack on the PPCJ1 beam is shown
at the end of the beam, indicating that the tensile strength of the vertical new–old concrete interface was
in Figure 10. When ∆ = 2 mm, the crack at the vertical new–old concrete interface extended into
lower than that of the cast concrete. The initial crack on the PPCJ1 beam is shown in Figure 10. When Δ
the horizontal laminated layer, and the stiffness of the force–displacement curve decreased during
= 2 mm, the crack at the vertical new–old concrete interface extended into the horizontal laminated
forward loading.
layer, and the stiffness of the force–displacement curve decreased during forward loading.

Figure
Figure 10.
10. The
The initial
initial cracking
cracking of
of the
the first
first precast
precast prestressed concrete joint
prestressed concrete joint (PPCJ1).
(PPCJ1).

The strain of tensile reinforcement at the beam beam endend yielded

yielded when when ∆ Δ == 88 mm.
mm. Thus, the yield
displacement
displacement of of the
the joint
jointwaswasconsidered
consideredtotobebeΔy ∆y= =8 mm.
8 mm. AtAtthis point,
this point,there
therewere wereabout fivefive
about or six
or
bending
six bending cracks in each
cracks in each of ofthethe
upper
upper and
andlowerlowersurfaces
surfacesofofthe theleftleft and
and right
right beams. The The crack
distribution of the PPCJ1 joint at yielding is shown in Figure Figure 11.11. The
The force–displacement
force–displacement curve curve clearly
clearly
shows inflection points indicating that the beam end reinforced reinforced concrete
concrete had had yielded.
yielded. As loading
continued, there was almost no development of the crack at the the vertical
vertical interface
interface in in the
the keyway
keyway area,
area,
and the
the main
maincrack
crackatat thethe
end end of the
of the beam beam
was was widened
widened and extended
and extended through through
the entirethe beam
entiresection.
beam
section. Although
Although the crackthe crack
at the at theinterface
vertical verticalappeared
interface first
appeared
in the first
forwardin the forward
loading, theloading,
main crackthe inmain
the
crack inprestressed
precast the precastconcrete
prestressed jointconcrete
was found jointatwas foundend
the beam at the
nearbeam end near
the edge of the the edge ofThis
column. the column.
location
This where
was location was where
bending shear bending
cracks and shear cracks and
compressive compressive
cracks were developed,cracks were and the developed,
deformation andwasthe
deformation
the most serious. wasThethe crack
most at serious. The crack
the vertical interfaceat the vertical
remained interface
almost remained
unchanged almost
during the unchanged
subsequent
during
loading,theand subsequent loading,
the crack width and at
stayed theabout
crack1.15
widthmm. stayed
Obliqueat about
bending 1.15shear
mm. Oblique bendingon
cracks appeared shear
the
cracks
beam when ∆ = 2∆y
appeared on the
while beam when Δ crack
the bending = 2Δydid while
not the bending crack
significantly develop. didWhen ∆ = 3∆y, pressing
not significantly develop.on
When Δ = 3Δy, pressing on the bottom of the left beam caused damage
the bottom of the left beam caused damage of the concrete, indicating that the concrete reached the of the concrete, indicating that
the concrete
ultimate reached
strength the ultimate The
of compression. strength
next of compression.
reverse The next
loading caused reverse
concrete loading
debris caused
at the bottomconcrete
of the
debris
beam to at begin
the bottom
fallingofas the beam to
loading beginfrom
shifted falling as loading shifted
compression to tension.fromThe compression
core of thetojoint tension.
showedThe
core of the
the first joint showed
diagonal the first
crack with diagonal
a right crack
tilt and with awidth
a crack right of
tilt0.04
and mm. a crack width
When ∆ of 0.04 mm.
= 4∆y, When
a diagonal
Δ = 4Δy,
crack a diagonal
in the crack in appeared
other direction the other in direction
the coreappeared
area of the in the
jointcorewitharea of thewidth
a crack joint with a crack
of 0.09 mm.
The crack width of the main crack on the beam increased with further displacement. At ∆ = 5∆y, the
width of 0.09 mm. The crack width of the main crack on the beam increased with further
displacement.
joint deformation At Δwas= 5Δy, the joint
serious, anddeformation
the concretewas serious,
bulging wasand the concrete
obvious. The rate bulging was obvious.
of concrete falling
The
fromrate
the of concrete
beam fallingand
increased, fromthethe beam increased,
concrete debris sizeand the concrete
reached up to 5.5debris mm. size Furtherreached up to 5.5
displacement
mm. Further displacement caused the concrete on the upper and lower parts of the PPCJ1 beam to
be removed, and the beam end approached a “rotating hinge” condition. This hinge behavior is
similar to that observed in the cast-in-place joint discussed in Section 3.1. When Δ = 8Δy, the joint
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 11 of 23

caused the concrete on the upper and lower parts of the PPCJ1 beam to be removed, and the beam
end approached a “rotating hinge” condition. This hinge behavior is similar to that observed in the
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24
cast-in-place joint discussed in Section 3.1. When ∆ = 8∆y, the joint load had fallen to 85% of the
peak load;fallen
load had the joint wasofconsidered
to 85% to bethe
the peak load; broken, and the
joint was loading to
considered wasbestopped. The the
broken, and finalloading
damage wasof
the joint is shown in Figure 12. The concrete at the junction of the beam and the column
stopped. The final damage of the joint is shown in Figure 12. The concrete at the junction of the beam was almost
hollowed
and the columnout, and wasthealmost
opening extended
hollowed along
out, and the
thecurved
opening end of the prestressing
extended tendonend
along the curved to form
of the a
gap of about 15 mm wide. The failure mode of PPCJ1 shows that plastic failure occurred
prestressing tendon to form a gap of about 15 mm wide. The failure mode of PPCJ1 shows that plastic at the beam
end, resulting
failure occurred in at
a plastic hinge
the beam being
end, formed.
resulting in This failure
a plastic mode
hinge of the
being PPCJ1This
formed. jointfailure
was similar
modeto ofthat
the
of the cast-in-place joint.
PPCJ1 joint was similar to that of the cast-in-place joint.

yielding of
Figure 11. Distribution of cracks on the beam after yielding of the
the PPCJ1
PPCJ1 joint.
joint.

Figure 12.
Figure 12. Final
Final damage
damage of
of the
the PPCJ1
PPCJ1 joint.
joint.

3.2.2. PPCJ2
3.2.2. PPCJ2
The behavior ofofPPCJ2
The behavior PPCJ2joint
joint
waswas similar
similar to the
to the PPCJ1PPCJ1
joint.joint.
At theAt the loading
loading displacement
displacement Δ = 1.5
∆ = 1.5
mm, themm,
first the
set offirst set of
cracks cracks appeared
appeared and are
and are shown in shown
Figure 13.in Figure
When Δ13. = 2When ∆ = 2 mm,
mm, bending bending
cracks were
cracks
seen onwere seen on the concrete-laminated
the concrete-laminated layer on the upper layerside
on of
thethe
upper
beam,side
andofa second
the beam, and
set of a second
bending set
cracks
of bending cracks developed between the vertical new–old concrete interface
developed between the vertical new–old concrete interface and the edge of the column. At Δ = 8 mm, and the edge of the
column. At ∆ =of8tensile
the yield strain mm, the yield strainatofthe
reinforcement tensile
beamreinforcement
end was reached; at the beam
thus, Δy =end wasAt
8 mm. reached; thus,
this yielding
∆y = 8 mm. At
displacement, thethis yielding
number displacement,
of bending cracks on the
thenumber
beam nooflonger
bending cracks The
increased. on the beam
crack no longer
distribution of
increased. The crack distribution of the PPCJ2 joint was relatively orderly when
the PPCJ2 joint was relatively orderly when compared with the bending crack distribution of the PPCJ1 compared with the
bending crack distribution
joint. In PPCJ2, the bendingofcracks
the PPCJ1
at thejoint.
bottomIn PPCJ2, the bending
of the beam cracks distributed
were mainly at the bottom in of
thethe beam
keyway
were mainly
area. The main distributed
crack of the inbeam
the keyway
was the area.
bending Thecrack
mainthatcrack
wasofclose
the tobeam was the
the edge bending
of the column. crack
The
that
crackwas close to of
distribution thethe
edge of the
PPCJ2 jointcolumn.
at yieldingTheis crack
showndistribution
in Figure 14.ofWhen the PPCJ2
Δ = 10joint
mm,at allyielding
the tensileis
shown in Figure
reinforcements at 14.
the When
beam end∆ =yielded,
10 mm, and all the
thetensile reinforcements
force–displacement at the
curve beaman
showed end yielded,
inflection and
point,
indicating that the reinforced concrete at the end of the beam was fully yielded. When Δ = 2Δy, the
width of the main bending crack was 3.28 mm, the crack width of the vertical new–old concrete interface
was 0.95 mm, and microcracks appeared in the concrete in the compression zone. When Δ = 2.5Δy, the
width of the main crack on the beam had grown to 3.36 mm, and the concrete under pressure at the
bottom of the beam reached the ultimate strength of compression and was crushed. At this time, an
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 12 of 23

the force–displacement curve showed an inflection point, indicating that the reinforced concrete at
the end of the beam was fully yielded. When ∆ = 2∆y, the width of the main bending crack was
3.28 mm, the crack width of the vertical new–old concrete interface was 0.95 mm, and microcracks
appeared in the concrete in the compression zone. When ∆ = 2.5∆y, the width of the main crack on the
beam had grown to 3.36 mm, and the concrete under pressure at the bottom of the beam reached the
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 24
ultimate strength of compression and was crushed. At this time, an oblique crack with a rightward
inclination
oblique crack and a crack
with width ofinclination
a rightward 0.06 mm in andtheacore
crackarea of the
width jointmm
of 0.06 wasinobserved. At ∆of
the core area = the
3∆y,joint
the
crushing
was observed.sound AtofΔthe concrete
= 3Δy, under pressure
the crushing sound ofwas heard, and
the concrete underconcrete debris
pressure wasdropped
heard, andduring the
concrete
loading process. An oblique crack in the left direction appeared in the core area
debris dropped during the loading process. An oblique crack in the left direction appeared in the core of the joint with a crack
width
area ofof the0.15
jointmm.withIncreasing the loading
a crack width displacement
of 0.15 mm. Increasingcaused the width
the loading of the main
displacement crack
caused theon the
width
beam
of the to grow.
main Theon
crack concrete debris
the beam continued
to grow. falling, and
The concrete thecontinued
debris debris hadfalling,
a diameter of up
and the to 6.5had
debris mm. a
When ∆ = 5∆y, the joint deformation was severe, the concrete at the upper
diameter of up to 6.5 mm. When Δ = 5Δy, the joint deformation was severe, the concrete at the upperand lower ends of the beam
were removed
and lower endsby of the
the damage
beam were process,
removed andbythethelongitudinal reinforcements
damage process, and stirrupsreinforcements
and the longitudinal at the bottom
of
andthestirrups
beam were at theexposed.
bottom As the beam
of the loading continued,
were exposed.the Asconcrete
the loadingon the upper andthe
continued, lower partson
concrete of the
the
PPCJ2 joint beam was removed, and the beam end approached a “rotating
upper and lower parts of the PPCJ2 joint beam was removed, and the beam end approached a “rotating hinge” behavior. This is
a similar
hinge” behavior
behavior. to what
This was observed
is a similar behavior to in what
the other two joints.
was observed inAtthe∆other
= 8∆y,
twothe jointAt
joints. load
Δ =dropped
8Δy, the
to
joint load dropped to 85% of the peak load; the joint was considered to be broken, and theThe
85% of the peak load; the joint was considered to be broken, and the test was stopped. test final
was
damage
stopped.of thefinal
The jointdamage
is shown in Figure
of the joint is15.
shown in Figure 15.

Figure 13. The

Figure 13. The initial
initial cracking
cracking of
of PPCJ2 joint.
PPCJ2 joint.

Figure
Figure 14.
14. Distribution
Distribution of
of cracks
cracks on
on the
the beam
beam after yielding of
after yielding of the
the PPCJ2
PPCJ2 joint.
joint.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 13 of 23
Figure 14. Distribution of cracks on the beam after yielding of the PPCJ2 joint.

Figure 15.
Figure 15. Final
Final damage of the
damage of the PPCJ2
PPCJ2 joint.
joint.

In summary, cracking occurred slightly earlier in the precast prestressed concrete joints than in
the cast-in-place joints. The bar lap connection in the keyway area did not change the position of the
plastic hinge at the end of the beam. The development of the plastic hinge at the end of the precast
prestressed concrete joint beam was the same as that of the cast-in-place joint. The bending cracks of
the cast-in-place joints were more evenly distributed, while the cracks at the bottom of the precast
prestressed concrete joints were mainly distributed in the keyway area. The cracks at the top of the
beam of precast prestressed concrete joints were widely distributed, similar to the cast-in-place joints.
The prestressing in the precast beam resulted in fewer cracks developing in the precast beam.
The first crack of the precast prestressed concrete joints appeared in the vertical new–old concrete
interface of the keyway area. However, as the loading displacement increased, the vertical crack only
developed several small cracks at its upper and lower ends, and the crack width grew slowly. The main
crack on the beam was the same for the precast prestressed concrete joint and the cast-in-place joint,
and it still appeared at the edge of the beam–column junction. The failure and damage of the concrete
at the bottom of the precast prestressed concrete joint beam exposed the reinforcement at the bottom of
the beam, and the effective area of the bar lap connection was continuously reduced. Thus, the lap
connection effect of the beam hinge area was gradually weakened, and the stress of “double-layer steel
bar” in the precast prestressed concrete joint was continuously transferred to the stress of “single-layer
steel bar” of the cast-in-place joint.
No horizontal cracks were found in the horizontal laminated layer of the precast prestressed
concrete joints during loading; this indicated that the “manual chiseling” method of the horizontal
new–old concrete interface met the horizontal shearing requirements. The first bending crack appeared
at the vertical new–old concrete interface of the keyway area, and this indicated that the cracking
strength of the new–old concrete interface was weaker than that of the cast concrete. Except for the
development of bending cracks along the vertical new–old concrete interface, there was no vertical slip
along the interface of the concrete on both sides, and no oblique cracks appeared on both sides. The lack
of vertical slip and oblique crack development indicated that the interface anti-shear method based on
the “shear key” of the vertical new–old concrete interface achieved the shear resistance requirements
for the test conditions. At the interface, there was no concrete crushing or bulging observed. Thus, the
concrete at the junction of the new and old concrete met the pressure resistance requirements.
The development of several oblique cracks was observed in the core area during the loading, but
no significant shear failure occurred. Therefore, the design of the precast prestressed concrete test joint
met the requirements. The crack width no longer increased after the load exceeded the peak value
due to the full development of the beam hinge that absorbed most of the energy and deformation of
the joint.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 14 of 23

4. Hysteresis Curve and Skeleton Curve

The hysteresis curves of the three joints are shown in Figure 16. The hysteresis curves are
smooth and full for all joints. At the initial stage of loading, the structures were in the elastic
phase, and the forward and reverse loading curves of the hysteresis loops were almost coincident.
The hysteresis curves showed nonlinearity when the joints became cracked, and the concrete was
damaged. This nonlinearity was manifested by the phenomenon of non-coincidence of the loading and
unloading curves and pinching of the hysteresis loops. The hysteresis loops were fusiform as the joints
progressed from yielding until peak load. A “cusp” appeared in the hysteresis curves from the joint
yielding to its complete yielding. These cusps were generally located between 8 and 10 mm. At this
cusp, the steel bars began yielding. However, there was a lack of consistency in this yielding due to
uncertainties such as the construction of the joint, and the load had to be increased before the joint
could be considered fully yielded. After the joints were fully yielded, the pinching phenomenon of the
hysteresis loops was seen. The later hysteresis loops gradually develop toward the “anti-S shape”, but
the hysteresis
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8,loops
x FORremained full.
PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

150 150
CIPJ Left CIPJ Right
100 100

50 50
F(kN)

F(kN)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
d(mm) d(mm)
150 150
PPCJ1 Left PPCJ1 Right
100 100

50 50
F(kN)

F(kN)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

d(mm) d(mm)
150 150
PPCJ2 Left PPCJ2 Right
100 100

50 50
F(kN)

F(kN)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

d(mm) d(mm)

Figure 16.Hysteresis
Figure16. Hysteresiscurves
curvesofofthe
thethree
threejoints.
joints.

The skeleton curves of the three joints are shown in Figure 17. The cracking point is the position
on the skeleton curve where the test specimen begins to crack. The yield point is commonly
determined through the energy equivalence method and geometric mapping method. The skeleton
curve of each joint has a clear inflection point; thus, the inflection point was used to determine the
yield point. The corresponding force and displacement values were used as the component of the
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 15 of 23

The skeleton curves of the three joints are shown in Figure 17. The cracking point is the position on
the skeleton curve
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FORwhere the test specimen begins to crack. The yield point is commonly determined
PEER REVIEW 15 of 24
through the energy equivalence method and geometric mapping method. The skeleton curve of each
concrete
joint has joints
a clear overlap at the
inflection beamthus,
point; end, and the effective
the inflection reinforcement
point was used to ratio of the beam
determine the bottom was
yield point.
improved.
The Asymmetry
corresponding forceofand
the displacement
plastic zone ofvalues
the beam
weresection
used aswas
the formed sinceofthe
component thereinforcement
“limit point”
ratio of
when thethe beam
load on top
the was the same
skeleton curveasdropped
that of the cast-in-place
to 85% joint.
of the peak ThisThe
value. asymmetry causedof
specific values greater
these
resistance during
parameters forward
determined loading
from and lower
the skeleton resistance
curves during
are listed reverse
in Table 3. loading.

150 150
CIPJ CIPJ
100 PPCJ1 100 PPCJ1
PPCJ2 PPCJ2
50 50

Force(kN)
Force(kN)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100

-150 -150
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm)

(a) (b)
Figure 17.
Figure 17. Comparison of joint
Comparison of joint skeleton
skeleton curves:
curves: (a)
(a) left beam; (b)
left beam; (b) right
right beam.
beam.

Table 3. Parameters of joints from skeleton curves. CIPJ—cast-in-place joint.

Cracking Point Yield Point Peak Point Limit Point Ductility Average
Joint Position
F (kN) d (mm) F (kN) d (mm) F (kN) d (mm) F (kN) d (mm) Factor Ductility Factor

left 42.53 2.0 110.00 10.0 113.31 39.9 96.31 57.4 5.66
5.38
beam −41.01 −2.0 −104.14 −10.5 −112.23 −32.1 −95.40 −52.1 5.10
CIPJ
right 30.86 2.0 101.20 10.1 109.93 39.9 93.44 59.6 6.22
6.23
beam −32.64 −2.0 −101.20 −8.1 −111.99 −39.9 −95.19 −56.6 6.24
left 32.12 1.5 120.18 8.9 122.94 32.0 104.50 57.9 6.52
5.81
beam −33.19 −1.5 −95.87 −9.6 −96.33 −32.0 −81.88 −48.9 5.10
PPCJ1
right 31.28 1.5 120.54 9.6 121.03 32.1 102.87 54.3 5.71
6.03
beam −28.58 −1.5 −95.11 −8.6 −95.11 −32.1 −80.84 −54.6 6.34
left 49.75 1.5 117.00 9.1 118.50 32.0 100.73 68.1 7.05
5.99
beam −31.46 −1.5 −100.00 −10.0 −97.00 −32.0 −82.45 −49.3 4.93
PPCJ2
right 41.00 1.5 124.59 9.1 124.08 39.9 105.47 59.2 6.15
5.96
beam −36.08 −1.5 −100.00 −9.2 −94.24 −31.8 −80.10 −50.3 5.76

It can be seen from Figures 16 and 17, and Table 3 that the cracking displacements of the
cast-in-place joint and the precast prestressed concrete joint were different. However, the cracking
loads were typically between 31 kN and 42 kN. Generally, the cracking load during forward loading
was greater than that during reverse loading. The yield displacement of each joint was relatively close
and was about 8–10 mm. The yield point behavior was evident for all joints. The yield, peak, and
limit displacements and loads of the two precast prestressed concrete joints were relatively close in
both directions, though the load during forward loading was greater than that during reverse loading.
The yield, peak, and limit loads of the precast prestressed concrete joint during forward loading were
greater than that of the cast-in-place joint, while the loads during reverse loading were smaller than
that of the cast-in-place joint. This was because reinforcements of the precast prestressed concrete
joints overlap at the beam end, and the effective reinforcement ratio of the beam bottom was improved.
Asymmetry of the plastic zone of the beam section was formed since the reinforcement ratio of the
beam top was the same as that of the cast-in-place joint. This asymmetry caused greater resistance
during forward loading and lower resistance during reverse loading.
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

5. Stiffness
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, and
1871 Bearing Capacity Degradation 16 of 23

The development of concrete cracks and the accumulation of plastic damage during the loading
5.degrade
Stiffnesstheandmechanical properties,
Bearing Capacity such as stiffness and strength, of the joints, thus affecting the
Degradation
ductility and energy dissipation of the joints.
The development of concrete cracks and the accumulation of plastic damage during the loading
degrade the mechanical properties, such as stiffness and strength, of the joints, thus affecting the
5.1. Stiffness Degradation
ductility and energy dissipation of the joints.
Stiffness degradation is the phenomenon where the peak displacement increases with the
5.1.
number of Degradation
Stiffness loading cycles under the same peak load. Here, the loop stiffness is used to describe the
stiffness degradation,
Stiffness degradationand the phenomenon
is the loop stiffness where
is calculated asdisplacement
the peak follows: increases with the number
of loading cycles under the same peak load. Here, then loop stiffness is used to describe the stiffness
degradation, and the loop stiffness is calculated as follows:Pj ,i  (1)
i =1
K j =n
∑ Pj,i
nμ j
,
i =1
Kj = , (1)
where Kj is the average loop stiffness of the joint
nµin
j the jth loading stage; μj is the displacement
amplitude in the jth loading stage; n is the number of loading cycles under the same displacement
where K j is the average loop stiffness of the joint in the jth loading stage; µ j is the displacement
amplitude;
amplitude Pj ,i jthis loading
in the the peakstage;
load in thethe
n is ithnumber
cycle at of jth displacement.
theloading cycles under the same displacement
The relationship
amplitude; Pj,i is the peak between
load inthe
theloop stiffness
ith cycle at theand
jth the loading displacement of the left and right
displacement.
beams
Theof each joint isbetween
relationship shown in Figures
the 18 and 19.
loop stiffness and The
thestiffness
loadingdegradation
displacement of the three
of the leftjoints is seen
and right
to beofsimilar
beams from
each joint these figures.
is shown in FiguresThe18rate
and of19.stiffness degradation
The stiffness degradationwasof faster in the
the three early
joints stagetoof
is seen
beloading, and the
similar from these stiffness
figures.degradation
The rate of mainly
stiffnessoccurred
degradationin the cracking
was and
faster in theyielding stages.
early stage Stiffness
of loading,
wasthe
and reduced
stiffnessas the cracks in the
degradation concrete
mainly expanded,
occurred in theand the yielding
cracking of the steel
and yielding bar occurred.
stages. Stiffness was After
the peak
reduced asload, the pressed
the cracks in the concrete on the beamand
expanded, was crushed,
the yieldingand a “plastic
of the hinge”
steel bar at theAfter
occurred. end of the
the
beam
peak developed,
load, the pressed causing a low
concrete onrate
the of stiffness
beam degradation
was crushed, and awith further
“plastic displacement.
hinge” at the end Theof thevariation
beam
of the loopcausing
developed, stiffness during
a low ratethe forward degradation
of stiffness and reverse loading of thedisplacement.
with further left and rightThebeams of the cast-in-
variation of the
place
loop joint was
stiffness almost
during thesymmetrical.
forward andHowever, the loop
reverse loading of stiffness of precast
the left and prestressed
right beams of the concrete
cast-in-placejoints
PPCJ1
joint wasandalmostPPCJ2 in forward
symmetrical. loading the
However, wasloop
greater thanofthat
stiffness in reverse
precast loading.
prestressed The joints
concrete loop stiffness
PPCJ1
values
and PPCJ2 ininthe forward
forward and reverse
loading loading
was greater thanapproach as theloading.
that in reverse loading The
displacement reached
loop stiffness valuesthe in peak
the
load displacement
forward and reverse loading of 32 mm. approach as the loading displacement reached the peak load displacement
of 32 mm.

16
14 CIPJ
PPCJ1
12
Loop stiffness(kN/mm)

PPCJ2
10
8
6
4
2
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement(mm)

Figure 18.18.Relationship
Figure Relationshipbetween
betweenloop stiffness
loop and
stiffness displacement
and ofof
displacement the joint
the left
joint beam.
left beam.

The
The loop
loopstiffnesses ofof
stiffnesses the
theprecast
precastprestressed
prestressedconcrete
concretejoints PPCJ1
joints PPCJ1 and
andPPCJ2
PPCJ2 were
were greater than
greater than
that
that of the cast-in-place joint during forward loading. The loop stiffness during reverse loadingofof
of the cast-in-place joint during forward loading. The loop stiffness during reverse loading
PPCJ1
PPCJ1andandPPCJ2
PPCJ2waswassmaller than than
smaller the cast-in-place joint. After
the cast-in-place joint.peak
Afterloads,
peakthe loop the
loads, stiffnesses became
loop stiffnesses
similar
became forsimilar
PPCJ and CIPJ.and
for PPCJ These values
CIPJ. Theseapproached because the
values approached reinforcement
because overlapping
the reinforcement at the
overlapping
bottom of the keyway area increased the effective reinforcement ratio of the longitudinal
at the bottom of the keyway area increased the effective reinforcement ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement
atreinforcement
the bottom ofatthe the beam,
bottomwhile
of thethe beam
beam, topthe
while reinforcement was the same
beam top reinforcement wasasthe
the cast-in-place
same as the cast-
joint. Increasing the loading displacement beyond yielding caused further cracking of the beam
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 17 of 23
in-place joint. Increasing the loading displacement beyond yielding caused further cracking of the
beam and concrete damage, and the force transmission of the overlapped reinforcements was
and concreteAt
weakened. damage, andthe
peak load, theconcrete
force transmission ofhinge
in the plastic the overlapped reinforcements
area of the precast wasconcrete
prestressed weakened.joint
Atwas
peakseverely
load, thedamaged,
concrete in the plastic hinge area of the precast prestressed concrete joint
and the U-shaped steel bars and prestressing tendons in the overlap area was severely
damaged, and theThe
were exposed. U-shaped steel reinforcements
overlapped bars and prestressing tendons
could only in the
anchor in overlap area werearea
the undamaged exposed.
of the
The overlapped reinforcements could only anchor in the undamaged area of the
concrete at the end of the beam. Consequently, only the U-shaped steel bars were effectively concrete at the end
oftransmitting
the beam. Consequently, only the U-shaped steel bars were effectively transmitting
force. Thus, the force transmission at the beam ends for PPJC1 and PPJC2 at near peak force. Thus,
the force
load transmission
were consistent at thethe
with beam ends for PPJC1
cast-in-place joint. and PPJC2 at near peak load were consistent with
the cast-in-place joint.

16
14 CIPJ
PPCJ1
12
Loop stiffness(kN/mm)

PPCJ2
10
8
6
4
2
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement(mm)

Figure
Figure 19.19.Relationship
Relationship between
between loop
loop stiffness
stiffness and
and displacement
displacement ofof the
the joint
joint right
right beam.
beam.

TheThejoints
jointsPPCJ1
PPCJ1and andPPCJ2
PPCJ2 had similar loop
had similar loop stiffness
stiffnessduring
duringforward
forwardloading
loading except
except when
when just
just yielding. For reverse loading, the loop stiffness of PPCJ2 was slightly larger
yielding. For reverse loading, the loop stiffness of PPCJ2 was slightly larger than that of PPCJ1. This than that of PPCJ1.
This difference
difference waswas because
because thethe joints
joints onlyonly
hadhad concrete
concrete of of different
different strengths
strengths in in
thethe keyway
keyway area
area of of
the
the beam. The concrete of the beam top was the same for PPCJ1 and PPCJ2.
beam. The concrete of the beam top was the same for PPCJ1 and PPCJ2. During forward loading, theDuring forward loading,
the concreteofofthe
concrete thebeam
beambottom
bottomwas waspulled
pulled inin tension
tension and
and the
the cracks
cracks appeared
appearedearlier.
earlier.InInthis
thiscase,
case,thethe
main
maincontribution
contributiontotothethestiffness
stiffnesswas
wasthethebottom
bottomreinforcement
reinforcementand andtoptopconcrete
concreteofofthe thebeam.
beam.Thus,
Thus,
the
thestiffness
stiffnesswas
wassimilar
similarininforward
forwardloading
loadingfor forPPCJ1
PPCJ1 and
and PPCJ2.
PPCJ2. For reverse
reverse loading,
loading,the thebottom
bottomof
ofthe
thekeyway
keywayarea area was
was pressed
pressed compressively, and the the concrete
concrete at atthe
thebottom
bottomofofthe thebeam
beamplayed
playeda a
significant
significantrole
roleinindetermining
determiningstiffness.
stiffness.Therefore,
Therefore,the theloop
loopstiffness
stiffnesswas
wasgreater
greaterfor forPPCJ2
PPCJ2since
sinceit it
used a higher strength concrete. However, the contribution to loop stiffness of the
used a higher strength concrete. However, the contribution to loop stiffness of the joint was limited. joint was limited.

5.2.
5.2.Bearing
BearingCapacity
CapacityDegradation
Degradation
The
Thebearing
bearingcapacity
capacitydegradation
degradationisisthethephenomenon
phenomenonthatthatthe
thepeak
peakload
loaddecreases
decreaseswith
withthe
the
increase in the number of loading cycles under the same loading displacement amplitude.
increase in the number of loading cycles under the same loading displacement amplitude. The The bearing
capacity
bearingdegradation coefficientcoefficient
capacity degradation is calculated according according
is calculated to to
Pj,nP
α =α = , j ,n , (2)(2)
Pj,1 P
j ,1

where
where α isαtheis bearing capacity
the bearing degradation
capacity coefficient;
degradation Pj,n isPthe peak
coefficient; load in the nth loading cycle
j , n is the peak load in the nth loading
when the displacement amplitude is µ j ; Pj,1 is the peak load in the first loading cycle when the
cycle when the
displacement is µ j . amplitude is μ j ; Pj ,1 is the peak load in the first loading cycle when
displacement
amplitude
theThe relationship
displacement between is
amplitude theμbearing capacity degradation coefficient and the displacement for
j.
each joint is shown in Figures 20 and 21. These figures show that a yielding platform occurred when
The relationship between the bearing capacity degradation coefficient and the displacement for
the joint first started yielding, and the bearing capacity degradation coefficient first dropped, and then
each joint is shown in Figures 20 and 21. These figures show that a yielding platform occurred when
rose. The steel bar in the beam entered the strengthening stage when the joint was fully yielded, and
the joint first started yielding, and the bearing capacity degradation coefficient first dropped, and
the joint plasticity developed normally as the stress increased gradually. In this phase, the bearing
then rose. The steel bar in the beam entered the strengthening stage when the joint was fully yielded,
capacity degradation coefficient decreased. At the later stage of loading, the damaged concrete at
and the joint plasticity developed normally as the stress increased gradually. In this phase, the
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24
bearing
Appl. Sci. 2018,capacity
degradation coefficient decreased. At the later stage of loading, the damaged
8, 1871 18 of 23
concretecapacity
bearing at the enddegradation
of the beam fell off, newdecreased.
coefficient concrete became
At theinlater
contact withofthe
stage column,the
loading, thedamaged
plasticity
began developing
concrete at the end again, and the
of the beam fellbearing
off, newcapacity
concretedegradation coefficient
became in contact withincreased.
the column, the plasticity
thebegan
end ofdeveloping
the beam fell off, new concrete became in contact with the column,
again, and the bearing capacity degradation coefficient increased.the plasticity began
developing again, and the bearing capacity degradation coefficient increased.
1.05

coefficient
CIPJ
1.05

coefficient
PPCJ1
CIPJ
1.00 PPCJ2
PPCJ1
1.00

degradation
PPCJ2
0.95

degradation
0.95
0.90
capacity
0.90
0.85
capacity

0.85
Bearing

0.80
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Bearing

0.80
-80 -60 -40Displacement(mm)
-20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement(mm)
Figure 20. Bearing capacity degradation coefficient for left beam of joint.
Figure
Figure 20. 20. Bearing
Bearing capacity
capacity degradation
degradation coefficient
coefficient for for
leftleft
beambeam of joint.
of joint.

1.05
coefficient

CIPJ
1.05
coefficient

PPCJ1
CIPJ
1.00 PPCJ2
PPCJ1
1.00
degradation

PPCJ2
0.95
degradation

0.95
0.90
capacity

0.90
0.85
capacity

0.85
Bearing

0.80
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Bearing

0.80
-80 -60 -40Displacement(mm)
-20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement(mm)
Figure
Figure 21. 21. Bearing
Bearing capacity
capacity degradation
degradation coefficient
coefficient for for right
right beambeam of joint.
of joint.
Figure 21. Bearing capacity degradation coefficient for right beam of joint.
TheThebearing
bearingcapacity
capacitydegradation
degradation coefficient of the
coefficient of thecast-in-place
cast-in-placejoint waswas
joint slightly
slightly larger than
larger than
thatthat
of The
the precast
of the
bearing prestressed
precast prestressed
capacity concrete
concrete
degradation joints. This
joints. This
coefficient difference
of thedifferencewas because
was because
cast-in-place the
joint wasthe bearing
bearing
slightly capacity
capacity
larger than
degradation
degradation
that of thecoefficient
precast waswas
coefficient related to
related
prestressed the development
to the
concrete joints. Thisofdifference
development plasticity. The
of plasticity.
was plasticity
The of
thethe
plasticity
because cast-in-place
ofbearing
the cast-in-place
capacity
joint developed
joint developed
degradation symmetrically,
symmetrically,
coefficient while
was related the
while plasticity
to the of the
plasticity
development precast
of the prestressed
ofprecast prestressed
plasticity. concrete
concrete
The plasticity joint
of the developed
joint developed
cast-in-place
asymmetrically
asymmetrically
joint developedandsymmetrically,
it entered
and the plastic
it entered while stage
the plastic
the quickly
stage
plasticity ofupon
quickly loading;
upon
the precast thus, the
loading;
prestressedthus,bearing capacity
the bearing
concrete of the of
joint capacity
developed
precast prestressed
the precast
asymmetrically concrete
prestressed
and joint degenerated
concrete
it entered thejoint
plastic slightly
degenerated
stage faster thanfaster
slightly
quickly upon the cast-in-place
loading;thanthus,
the the joint.
cast-in-place
bearing Thecapacity
bearing
joint. The
of
capacity
bearingdegradation
capacity coefficient
degradation of PPCJ2
coefficient was of generally
PPCJ2
the precast prestressed concrete joint degenerated slightly faster slightly
was larger
generally than
slightly that of
larger PPCJ1.
than This
that larger
of
the cast-in-place joint. The PPCJ1.
value indicates
This
bearinglarger that the
value
capacity increase
indicates
degradation of
that concrete
the increase
coefficient strength inwas
the strength
of concrete
of PPCJ2 keyway area
generally theslightly
inslightly
keyway reduced
larger area the bearing
thanslightly
that ofreduced
PPCJ1.
capacity
This degradation
the bearing
larger capacity
value of degradation
the precast
indicates that theprestressed
ofincrease
the precast concrete
of concrete joint.
prestressed concrete
strength in thejoint.
keyway area slightly reduced
the bearing capacity degradation of the precast prestressed concrete joint.
6. Ductility andand
6. Ductility Energy
Energy Dissipation
Dissipation
6. Ductility
Ductility and
refers
Ductility Energy
to the
refers Dissipation
ability
to the of aofstructure
ability a structure to withstand
to withstand inelastic deformation
inelastic deformation without
without significant
significant
reduction in its
reduction in bearing
Ductility its
refers tocapacity
bearing the after
capacity
ability ofthe
after structure
the toenters
structure
a structure plasticity.
enters
withstand Ductility
plasticity.
inelastic is related
Ductility
deformationis relatedto the
without energy
to significant
the energy
dissipation capacity
dissipationincapacity
reduction of the
its bearing structure.
of capacity
the structure. The ductility
Thestructure
after the of a joint
ductilityenters can
of a joint be expressed
can beDuctility
plasticity. expressedby the displacement
by the displacement
is related to the energy
ductility coefficient
ductility
dissipation of the
coefficient
capacity of beam
ofthe
thebeamat the loading
at the
structure. end.end.
loading
The This
ductility coefficient
This
of canisbe
coefficient
a joint calculated
isexpressedas by
calculated follows:
as the
follows:
displacement
ductility coefficient of the beam at the loading end. Δ coefficient is calculated as follows:
∆u This
µ = μ=, u (3) (3)
∆y Δ ,
μ= Δuy , (3)
Δy
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 19 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 24

whereµ μ
where is the
is the ductility
ductility coefficient
coefficient of of
thethe joint;
joint; ∆uΔisu is the ultimate displacement of the joint when it
the ultimate displacement of the joint when it
isisbroken,
broken,generally
generallytakentakenas asthe
thecorresponding
correspondingdisplacement
displacementwhen whenthe thebearing
bearingcapacity
capacityofofthe thejoint
joint
drops to 85% of the peak load; Δ is the yield displacement
drops to 85% of the peak load; ∆y is the yield displacement of the joint.
y of the joint.
Theductility
The ductilitycoefficients
coefficientsof ofthe
thethree
threejoints
jointsare
areshown
shownin inthe
thetwo
tworightmost
rightmost columns
columns of of Table
Table3.3.
Theductility
The ductilitycoefficients
coefficientsofofthe thethree
threejoints
jointswere
weresimilar,
similar,andandititcan
canbebeconsidered
consideredthatthatthe
thethree
threejoints
joints
had considerable ductility. The different strength of concrete in the keyway
had considerable ductility. The different strength of concrete in the keyway area had little influence area had little influence
ononthe
theductility
ductilityas asseen
seenby bycomparing
comparingthe theprecast
precastprestressed
prestressedconcrete
concretejoints.
joints.The
Theductility
ductilitycoefficient
coefficient
for each joint was between 5.3 and 6.3, and these values are greater than
for each joint was between 5.3 and 6.3, and these values are greater than the ductility coefficientthe ductility coefficient ofof
3–
4 as required for seismic structure design. Thus, the joints tested have good
3–4 as required for seismic structure design. Thus, the joints tested have good ductility and meet the ductility and meet the
structuralseismic
structural seismicrequirements.
requirements.
Energy dissipation
Energy dissipation is is an
an important
importantindicator
indicatorofofthethe seismic
seismic performance
performance of aofstructure. The
a structure.
equivalent viscosity damping coefficient is used to describe the energy
The equivalent viscosity damping coefficient is used to describe the energy dissipation capacity dissipation capacity of a test
ofjoint
a testunder different
joint under loading
different displacements.
loading displacements. A larger
A largerequivalent
equivalentviscosity
viscosity damping coefficient
damping coefficient
correlates with greater energy dissipation. The calculated values of the
correlates with greater energy dissipation. The calculated values of the equivalent viscous dampingequivalent viscous damping
coefficientsofofthe
coefficients thethree
threejoints
jointsare
arelisted
listedininTable
Table4 4andandarearecalculated
calculatedaccording
accordingtoto
1 A A1
he h=e =1 ·⋅ 1 , , (4)
(4)
2π 2π A2A+3A3
A2 +
wherehhe eisisthe
where theequivalent
equivalentviscous
viscousdamping
dampingcoefficient;
coefficient;AA11isisthe
thearea
areaofofthe
thehysteresis
hysteresisloop
loopBFDE
BFDEinin
Figure 22; A is the area of the triangle OAB in Figure 22; A is the area of the triangle OCD
Figure 22; A2 is the area of the triangle OAB in Figure 22; A3 is the area of the triangle OCD in Figure
2 3 in Figure
22.
22. There
There average average is taken
is taken whenwhen
therethere are multiple
are multiple cycles
cycles of theofsame
the same
levellevel of loading
of loading displacement.
displacement.

Figure22.
Figure 22.Schematic
Schematicdiagram
diagramof
ofcalculation
calculationfor
forthe
theequivalent
equivalentviscosity
viscositydamping
dampingcoefficient.
coefficient.

Atthe
At thestart
startofofyielding,
yielding,the theequivalent
equivalentviscous
viscousdamping
dampingcoefficient
coefficientofofeach
eachjoint
jointincreased
increasedwithwith
theloading
the loadingdisplacement.
displacement.As Asyielding
yieldingbegan,
began,thetheplasticity
plasticityofofthe
thebeam
beamdeveloped
developedrapidly,
rapidly,and
andthe the
energydissipation
energy dissipationincreased.
increased.The Theequivalent
equivalentviscous
viscousdamping
dampingcoefficient
coefficienthadhadonly
onlyslight
slightfluctuations
fluctuations
ininthe
thedisplacement
displacementfrom from20 20mm
mmtotothe thepeak
peakdisplacement.
displacement.The Thelocal
localdamage
damageof ofconcrete
concretelowered
loweredthe the
energy dissipation beyond 20 mm of displacement. However, the plasticity
energy dissipation beyond 20 mm of displacement. However, the plasticity of the joint had room for of the joint had room for
development.The
development. Theplasticity
plasticitydevelopment
developmentand andconcrete
concretedamage
damagewere wereininaadynamic
dynamicequilibrium
equilibriumthat that
causedthis
caused thisstable
stableportion
portionof ofthe
thecoefficient.
coefficient.TheThecoefficient
coefficienttended
tendedto todecrease
decreaseslowly
slowlyafter
afterthe
thepeak
peak
loadwas
load wasreached.
reached.After
Afterthethepeak
peakload,
load,part
partofofthe
theconcrete
concretewaswasdestroyed,
destroyed,and andthetheenergy
energydissipation
dissipation
ofofthe
thejoint
jointwas
wasreduced.
reduced.
Theaverage
The averagevalue
value of of
thethe equivalent
equivalent viscous
viscous dampingdamping coefficient
coefficient forcast-in-place
for the the cast-in-place
joint atjoint
peakat
peakwas
load load was The
0.2413. 0.2413. The viscous
average average damping
viscous damping
coefficients coefficients
at peak load at of
peak
the load
precast of prestressed
the precast
prestressed
concrete jointsconcrete
PPCJ1 and joints PPCJ1
PPCJ2 were and PPCJ2
0.2340 andwere
0.2470,0.2340 and 0.2470,
respectively. The respectively.
equivalent viscousThe equivalent
damping
viscous damping coefficient was close for all joints. This similarity indicates
coefficient was close for all joints. This similarity indicates that the energy dissipation capacity that the energy
of
dissipation
the capacity ofconcrete
precast prestressed the precast prestressed
joint was similar concrete
to that joint
of thewas similar to joint.
cast-in-place that ofThus,
the cast-in-place
the precast
joint. Thus,concrete
prestressed the precastjointprestressed
had the same concrete
energyjoint had the as
dissipation same
the energy dissipation
equivalent monolithic as the equivalent
system.
monolithic system.
Appl. Sci.Sci.
Appl. 2018, 8, 1871
2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of
2123
of 24
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 24

Table 4. Equivalent viscous damping coefficients of the test joints.

Table 4. Equivalent
Table viscous
4. Equivalent damping
viscous coefficients
damping of the
coefficients testtest
of the joints.
joints.
CIPJ PPCJ1 PPCJ2
Loading Displacement (mm) CIPJ
Loading CIPJ PPCJ1 PPCJ1 PPCJ2
PPCJ2
Loading Displacement (mm) Left Beam Right Beam Left Beam Right Beam Left Beam Right Beam
Displacement (mm) Left Beam
Left Beam 0.0472 Right Beam
Right Beam 0.0480 Left Beam
Left Beam0.0421 Right
Right Beam Beam Left Beam Right Beam
8 0.0441 Left Beam
0.0778 Right 0.0882
Beam
8 0.0472 0.0480 0.0421 0.0441 0.0778 0.0882
8 12 0.0472 0.0928
0.0480 0.10700.0421 0.1092 0.0441 0.1105 0.0778 0.1142 0.1270
0.0882
12 0.0928 0.1070 0.1092 0.1105 0.1142 0.1270
12 16 0.0928 0.1622
0.1070 0.16020.1092 0.1389 0.1105 0.1351 0.1142 0.1697 0.1714
0.1270
16 0.1622 0.1602 0.1389 0.1351 0.1697 0.1714
16 20 0.1622 0.2553
0.1602 0.22270.1389 0.2027 0.1351 0.1697 0.1697 0.1908 0.2009
0.1714
20 20 0.2553 0.2553
0.2227 0.22270.2027 0.2027 0.1697 0.1697 0.1908 0.1908 0.2009
0.2009
24 0.2420 0.1973 0.2144 0.2032 0.2076 0.2220
24 24 0.2420 0.2420
0.1973 0.1973 0.2144 0.2032 0.2076 0.2220
32 0.2264 0.23510.2144 0.2428 0.2032 0.2253 0.2076 0.2419 0.2220
0.2520
32 32 0.2264 0.2264
0.2351 0.23510.2428 0.2428 0.2253 0.2253 0.2419 0.2419 0.2520
0.2520
40 0.2372 0.2454 0.2361 0.2282 0.2418 0.2509
40 40
48 0.2372 0.2372
0.2454
0.2347 0.2454
0.24500.2361 0.2361
0.2205 0.2282 0.2282
0.2120 0.2418 0.2418
0.2330 0.2509
0.2509
0.2410
48 48 0.2347 0.2347
0.2450 0.24500.2205 0.2205 0.2120 0.2120 0.2330 0.2330 0.2410
0.2410
56 0.2315 0.2241 0.2045 0.2234 0.2266 0.2282
56 56 0.2315 0.2241
0.2315 0.22410.2045 0.2045 0.2234 0.2234 0.2266 0.2266 0.2282
0.2282
64 0.2216 0.2171 0.2024 0.2082 0.2280 0.2208
64 64 0.2216 0.2171
0.2216 0.21710.2024 0.2024 0.2082 0.2082 0.2280 0.2280 0.2208
0.2208

The actual energy dissipation capacity of the joints was compared using the cumulative energy
TheThe actual
actual energy
energy dissipation
dissipation capacity
capacity of the
of the joints was
joints compared using the cumulative energy
dissipation index. The actual energy dissipation is thewas compared
accumulated using
value the
of thecumulative energy
envelope area A1 of
dissipation
dissipation index.
index.loop The actual energy
Thecorresponding
actual energy for dissipation
dissipation is the accumulated
is thedisplacement. value
accumulated The
value of the envelope
of the envelope area A11 of
A
the hysteresis each loading accumulated valuearea
Δa of the
the
the hysteresis
hysteresis loop
of corresponding loop corresponding
corresponding for
foreach
eachloading
loading displacement. TheThe accumulated value Δa of the
∆aΔy.
displacement is determined and is displacement.
normalized by theaccumulated value
yield displacement
corresponding
of Relationships
the corresponding displacement
displacement is determined and is normalized by the yield displacement
displacementof∆y. Δy.
between cumulativeisenergy
determined and isand
dissipation normalized by the
cumulative yielddisplacement
relative each
Relationships
Relationships between
between cumulative
cumulative energy
energy dissipation
dissipation and and cumulative
cumulative relative
relative displacement
displacement of each
of each
joint for the left and right beams are shown in Figures 23 and 24.
joint
joint forfor
thethe
leftleft
andand right
right beams
beams areare shown
shown in Figures
in Figures 23 and
23 and 24. 24.

CIPJ
100 CIPJ
dissipation(kN·m)

100 PPCJ1
dissipation(kN·m)

PPCJ1
PPCJ2
80 PPCJ2
80
60
60
40
energy

40
energy

20
20
Cumulative
Cumulative

0
0
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
Cumulative relative displacement(△a/△y)
Cumulative relative displacement(△a/△y)
Figure
Figure 23.23. Relationship
Relationship between
between cumulative
cumulative energy
energy dissipation
dissipation andand cumulative
cumulative relative
relative displacement
displacement
Figure 23. Relationship between cumulative energy dissipation and cumulative relative displacement
of
of the the joint
joint left
leftleft beam.
beam.
of the joint beam.

CIPJ
100 CIPJ
PPCJ1
dissipation(kN·m)

100 PPCJ1
dissipation(kN·m)

PPCJ2
80 PPCJ2
80
60
60
40
energy

40
energy

20
20
Cumulative
Cumulative

0
0
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
Cumulative relative displacement(△a/△y)
Cumulative relative displacement(△a/△y)
Figure Relationship
24.24.
Figure between
Relationship cumulative
between energy
cumulative energydissipation andand
dissipation cumulative relative
cumulative displacement
relative displacement
Figure
of the 24.
joint Relationship
right beam. between cumulative energy dissipation and cumulative relative displacement
of the joint right beam.
of the joint right beam.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 21 of 23

Figures 23 and 24 show that the difference of cumulative energy dissipation between the left
beam of the cast-in-place joint and the precast prestressed concrete joint was small and that the
cumulative energy dissipation of the right beam of the PPCJ1 joint was slightly smaller than the other
two joints. The cumulative energy dissipation of the PPCJ2 joint was slightly larger than that of the
PPCJ1 joint. The energy dissipation of the right beam of the PPCJ2 joint was significantly larger than
that of the PPCJ1 joint and was even larger than the cast-in-place joint. This difference may be due
to the inconsistency in the construction. However, the cumulative energy dissipation of each joint
was approximately linear. Thus, the energy dissipation capacity of each joint was uniform with the
displacement, and the joint energy dissipation was stable.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, reversed cyclic loading tests were carried out on precast prestressed concrete joints
and a cast-in-place joint. The conclusions are as follows:
(1) The failure modes of the three joints were beam end failure, and plastic hinges were observed
at the beam ends. The core area of the joints was never destroyed; this satisfies the joint design principle
of “strong joint weak component”.
(2) The first crack of the precast prestressed concrete joint at the beam bottom occurred at the
vertical new–old concrete interface. The largest bending crack and plastic hinge appeared at the beam
end. Fewer cracks developed in the precast beam due to the prestress. The “manual chiseling” method
for the horizontal new–old concrete interface and the “shear key” method for the vertical new–old
concrete interface in the keyway area satisfied the shear resistance requirements of the member.
(3) The precast prestressed concrete joints were connected by overlapped steel bars in the keyway
area. Thus, the load during the forward loading of the joint was increased, while the load during the
reverse loading was reduced compared to the cast-in-place joint. The overlapped steel bars in the
keyway area were well anchored and could meet the force transmission requirements of the precast
prestressed concrete joints under cyclic loading.
(4) Concrete with different strengths in the keyway area affected the stiffness, load, ductility, and
energy dissipation of the precast prestressed concrete joints. However, the effect was not strong for
these parameters.
(5) The analysis of the hysteresis curves and skeleton curves showed that the precast prestressed
concrete joint had comparable seismic resistance to the cast-in-place joint.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.Y. and S.W. Formal analysis, S.W. Investigation, C.H. (Canling
Huang). Project administration, X.Y. Supervision, A.Q. Visualization, C.H. (Chao Hong). Writing—original draft,
C.H. (Canling Huang). Writing—review and editing, X.Y. and S.W.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51578160,
the Science and Technology Project of Fujian Education Department, grant number JA15050, and the Fujian
Science and Technology Plan Project, grant number 2018Y0057.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Maya, L.F.; Zanuy, C.; Albajar, L.; Lopez, C.; Portabella, J. Experimental assessment of connections for precast
concrete frames using ultra high performance fibre reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 48,
173–186. [CrossRef]
2. Liu, H.; Yan, Q.; Du, X. Seismic performance comparison between precast beam joints and cast-in-place
beam joints. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2017, 20, 1299–1314. [CrossRef]
3. Lee, H.J.; Chen, H.C.; Syu, J.H. Seismic performance of emulative precast concrete beam–column connections
with alternative reinforcing details. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2017, 20, 1793–1806. [CrossRef]
4. Choi, H.K.; Choi, Y.C.; Choi, C.S. Development and testing of precast concrete beam-to-column connections.
Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 1820–1835. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 22 of 23

5. Lu, C.; Dong, B.; Pan, J.; Shan, Q.; Hanif, A.; Yin, W. An investigation on the behavior of a new connection
for precast structures under reverse cyclic loading. Eng. Struct. 2018, 169, 131–140. [CrossRef]
6. Yang, K.H.; Seo, E.A.; Hong, S.H. Cyclic flexural tests of hybrid steel–precast concrete beams with simple
connection elements. Eng. Struct. 2016, 118, 344–356. [CrossRef]
7. Ersoy, U.; Tankut, T. Precast concrete members with welded plate connections under reversed cyclic loading.
PCI J. 1993, 38, 94–100. [CrossRef]
8. Aninthaneni, P.K.; Dhakal, R.P.; Marshall, J.; Bothara, J. Nonlinear cyclic behaviour of precast concrete frame
sub-assemblies with “dry” end plate connection. Structures 2018, 14, 124–136. [CrossRef]
9. Shufeng, L.; Qingning, L.; Hao, Z.; Haotian, J.; Lei, Y.; Weishan, J. Experimental study of a fabricated confined
concrete beam-to-column connection with end-plates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 208–216. [CrossRef]
10. Ketiyot, R.; Hansapinyo, C. Seismic performance of interior precast concrete beam-column connections with
T-section steel inserts under cyclic loading. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2018, 17, 355–369. [CrossRef]
11. Kim, J.H.; Cho, Y.S.; Lee, K.H. Structural performance evaluation of circular steel bands for PC column–beam
connection. Mag. Concr. Res. 2013, 65, 1377–1384. [CrossRef]
12. Wu, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Anderson, J.C. Seismic behavior of PC column and steel beam composite moment frame
with posttensioned connection. J. Struct. Eng. 2009, 135, 1398–1407. [CrossRef]
13. Yekrangnia, M.; Taheri, A.; Zahrai, S.M. Experimental and numerical evaluation of proposed precast concrete
connections. Struct. Concr. 2016, 17, 959–971. [CrossRef]
14. Englekirk, R.E. Development and testing of a ductile connector for assembling precast concrete beams and
columns. PCI J. 1995, 40, 36–51. [CrossRef]
15. Ozturan, T.; Ozden, S.; Ertas, O. Ductile connections in precast concrete moment resisting frames. PCI J.
2006, 51, 66–76. [CrossRef]
16. Vidjeapriya, R.; Jaya, K.P. Experimental study on two simple mechanical precast beam-column connections
under reverse cyclic loading. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012, 27, 402–414. [CrossRef]
17. Naik, C.B.; Joshi, D.D.; Patel, P.V. Experimental evaluation of performance of dry precast beam column
connection. In Advances in Structural Engineering; Matsagar, V., Ed.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015;
pp. 2333–2342.
18. Priestley, M.N.; Tao, J.R. Seismic response of precast prestressed concrete frames with partially debonded
tendons. PCI J. 1993, 38, 58–69. [CrossRef]
19. Cheok, G.S.; Stone, W.C.; Kunnath, S.K. Seismic response of precast concrete frames with hybrid connections.
Struct. J. 1998, 95, 527–539. [CrossRef]
20. Wang, H.; Marino, E.M.; Pan, P.; Liu, H.; Nie, X. Experimental study of a novel precast prestressed reinforced
concrete beam-to-column joint. Eng. Struct. 2018, 156, 68–81. [CrossRef]
21. Morgen, B.G.; Kurama, Y.C. Seismic design of friction-damped precast concrete frame structures. J. Struct.
Eng. 2007, 133, 1501–1511. [CrossRef]
22. Song, L.L.; Guo, T.; Chen, C. Experimental and numerical study of a self-centering prestressed concrete
moment resisting frame connection with bolted web friction devices. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2014, 43,
529–545. [CrossRef]
23. Rodgers, G.W.; Solberg, K.M.; Mander, J.B.; Chase, J.G.; Bradley, B.A.; Dhakal, R.P. High-force-to-volume
seismic dissipators embedded in a jointed precast concrete frame. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 138, 375–386.
[CrossRef]
24. Kaya, M.; Arslan, A.S. Analytical modeling of post-tensioned precast beam-to-column connections. Mater.
Des. 2009, 30, 3802–3811. [CrossRef]
25. Liu, B.; Song, M.; Jiang, Y.; Huang, S.; Zhou, A. Experimental study on seismic performance of post-tensioned
precast prestressed concrete frame. J. Build. Struct. 2011, 32, 24–32. [CrossRef]
26. Zhong, X.; Meng, S.; Pan, Q. Experimental study on seismic performance of post-tensioned prestressed
precast concrete beam-column assemblages. China Civ. Eng. J. 2012, 45, 38–44. [CrossRef]
27. Ha, S.S.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, M.S.; Moon, J.H. Performance evaluation of semi precast concrete beam-column
connections with U-shaped strands. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2014, 17, 1585–1600. [CrossRef]
28. Cai, J.; Zhu, H.; Feng, J.; Liu, Y.F.; Huang, L.F. Experimental study on seismic behavior of middle joints of
SCOPE system. J. Central South Univ. (Sci. Technol.) 2012, 43, 305–312.
29. Liu, Y.; Cai, J.; Deng, X.; Cao, Y.; Feng, J. Experimental study on effect of length of service hole on seismic
behavior of exterior precast beam–column connections. Struct. Concr. 2018, 1–12. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1871 23 of 23

30. Guan, D.; Guo, Z.; Xiao, Q.; Zheng, Y. Experimental study of a new beam-to-column connection for precast
concrete frames under reversal cyclic loading. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2016, 19, 529–545. [CrossRef]
31. Parastesh, H.; Hajirasouliha, I.; Ramezani, R. A new ductile moment-resisting connection for precast concrete
frames in seismic regions: An experimental investigation. Eng. Struct. 2014, 70, 144–157. [CrossRef]
32. Im, H.J.; Park, H.G.; Eom, T.S. Cyclic loading test for reinforced-concrete-emulated beam-column connection
of precast concrete moment frame. ACI Struct. J. 2013, 110, 115–126. [CrossRef]
33. Eom, T.S.; Park, H.G.; Hwang, H.J.; Kang, S.M. Plastic hinge relocation methods for emulative pc
beam-column connections. J. Struct. Eng. 2015, 142, 04015111. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).