Behavior of Welded Plate

Connections in Precast Concrete

Panels Under Simulated
Seismic Loads
Christian L. Hofheins, P.E.
Engineer
JM Williams and Associates
Salt Lake City, Utah

Lawrence D. Reaveley,
Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

Chris P. Pantelides,
Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah

122

Tests were performed on precast wall panels

with typical loose-plate connectors located in
the vertical joint between panels. The tests were
performed to investigate the performance of the
connectors under simulated seismic loads. Inplane lateral cyclic loads were applied to the
wall panels, which applied tension-shear and
compression-shear forces to the loose-plate
connectors. The paper describes the experimental
program and results for the welded plate
connections in ten precast concrete wall panel
assemblies. Design assumptions and simplified
design models are also examined. The research
shows that the connection possesses little ductile
capacity and, therefore, is not suitable for use in
high seismic regions (Zones 3 and 4). However,
based on the observed failure modes, minor
modifications to the connection are suggested that
will increase the ductility of the connection.

his paper addresses the behavior of a specific looseplate welded connector under applied cyclic loading.
This type of connection is widely used in the United
States. Due to the limited number of tests performed, no
specific design parameters were considered in this study.
The objectives of this investigation were to:
(a) Quantify the performance of the connection in terms
of force-deflection and ductility.
(b) Check the validity of design values that are currently
used for loose-plate welded connections in hollow-core
precast concrete wall panel construction.
PCI JOURNAL

Fig. 1. Details of
hollow-core
wall panel.
Note: 1 ft = 0.3408 m.

(c) Model the connection and provide preliminary recommendations

based on observed failure modes.
Precast concrete has largely been
used in parts of the world where seismic issues play a small role in design.
As a result, many common precast
concrete connections are generally not
designed to provide the desired ductility in seismic resistant structures.
Presently, there is not an adequate
set of seismic code requirements for
the design of loose-plate connections
in precast wall panels. Most looseplate connections currently specified
by engineers are designed with static
models that are not supported by test
data.
The design of precast connections
for high seismic areas must address
the need for design strength, displacement ductility, or both. One strategy is
to design a ductile connection that is
weaker than the precast concrete wall
panels. This enables the connection
to be at a location of ductile inelastic deformation and the precast wall
panels to remain elastic under seismic
response.
As a result, overall costs decrease
because the precast concrete wall
panels do not need to be designed for
ductility. Ductile connections allow
lateral forces to be redistributed to all
connectors. Another attractive feature
of this system is that some ductile connections can be replaced after a seismic event, resulting in considerable
savings in repair costs.
A loose-plate connection typically
comprises a steel plate welded to steel
embeds cast into the concrete. The
majority of loose-plate connections
used in current practice have not been
subjected to thorough testing. Consequently, there is little experimental

validation upon which design procedures can be based.

Most precast connectors were developed through field experience by
individual precast manufacturers.
These connectors are not supported by
sufficient test data to determine their
strength and deformation capacity.
Standard test methods may be required in the future, because design
codes will likely define design criteria
in terms of performance objectives. A
performance objective is the combination of a specific seismic hazard and
a desired performance level. In this
scenario, all components of a structure
will be required to undergo rigorous
testing to determine its performance
level.

LITERATURE REVIEW
During the last 40 years, several
studies have been carried out on a variety of wet and dry precast wall panel
connections. A wet connection is made
by cast-in-place concrete between the
precast concrete panels; a dry connection consists of steel embedded plates,
angles, or other steel elements that are
welded together by a steel plate.
The continuity of precast, prestressed double tee floors was investigated in a series of tests.1 Intermediate grade deformed bars were placed
across the supports, and concrete was
placed in the space between adjacent
ends of the double tees to form transverse diaphragms. The primary objective was to investigate the structural
soundness of the continuity connection, which was found to be adequate.
Additional testing was performed
to determine the flexural resistance of
cast-in-place insulated walls. Three
types of metal shear connectors be-

tween the concrete shells were included: a truss, a ladder, and an expanded metal shear connector. The
truss and ladder shear connectors were
found to be satisfactory.2
A variety of wet joints were studied to determine their ultimate shear
strength.3 The research proved that wet
joints used for vertical joints in panel
structures effectively resist high shear
forces. Although the joint installation
is labor intensive, the joint can be very
ductile if properly designed.
Originally, dry joints were mostly
composed of headed studs welded
to the back of a steel plate. In one
such headed stud connection,4 it was
found that shear loads are transmitted through the embedded plate to the
surrounding concrete by three distinct
mechanisms:
(a) Friction between the embedded
plate and concrete.
(b) Bearing of the end of the embedded plate on concrete.
(c) Interaction between studs and
concrete.
These headed stud connections provide good shear resistance, but have a
low ductile capacity.
The PCI-sponsored Precast Seismic
Structural Systems (PRESSS) research
program has taken the lead on research
and design recommendations for precast concrete structures in areas of
high seismicity. Among other topics,
the PRESSS program has performed
research on a variety of welded connections for precast wall systems. The
initial goal of the research was to develop ways of classifying and evaluating connection details.5
The National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST) investigated
the seismic performance of horizontal and vertical joint connections in

July-August 2002 123

Fig. 2. Embedded angle assembly for welded connection tested.

precast walls.6 The connections were

designed to be ductile, and to be the
major location of inelastic response
of the structure. Vertical joint connections included different designs of
welded loose-plate and bolted ductile
connections. The connections took advantage of the interaction between the
embed and concrete by incorporating
flexural yield, tension/compression
yield, shear yield and friction sliding
concepts.
The behavior of a six-story precast
concrete office building under moderate seismicity was investigated.7 It
was concluded that uneven shear distribution in a precast system causes
a high ductility demand in the panelto-panel joint connections. The uneven distribution drives the connection elements into the inelastic range.
Therefore, connection details that can
be easily replaced should be used in
precast concrete structures.
As part of the PRESSS five-story
precast concrete building test, a structural wall system consisting of precast concrete panels was tested under
simulated seismic loading.8 The precast concrete panels were connected to
each other and the foundation by unbonded vertical post-tensioning, using
threaded bars. A horizontal connection
across the vertical joint was provided
by stainless-steel energy-dissipating
U-shaped flexure plates, welded to
embed plates in both adjacent wall
panels. In addition to providing energy
124

dissipation, these plates provided additional resistance by shear coupling between the structural walls. The structural response of the building under
simulated seismic loads was extremely
satisfactory.
The ability of precast double tee
floor diaphragm and wall systems to
perform adequately under in-plane
seismic forces has been studied in
terms of:
(a) The behavior of connections between double tees.
(b) The analytical modeling of connectors, diaphragm, and wall systems.
(c) The development of design
guidelines for double tee diaphragms
and wall systems.9
It was found that the interaction between shear and tension forces in a
flange connection between double tees
could be significant. The connectors
ductility should allow the diaphragm
to redistribute the force among individual connectors; this ensures that all
connectors reach their full strength.9
In an experimental study of 3/8 in.
(9.52 mm) stud-welded deformed bar
anchors subject to tensile loads, it was
found that a number of specimens
fractured at the weld. Based on the test
results, quality control procedures and
revised settings were recommended
for stud welding of deformed bar anchors.10
The strength and ductility of several tilt-up concrete wall panel connections were investigated in a se-

ries of monotonic and cyclic tests.11

Most of the connectors tested did not
show sufficient ductility to be used in
areas of high seismicity. Even when a
connection possessed some ductility,
extensive damage to the surrounding
concrete was observed.
Presently, there is no adequate set of
seismic code requirements for the design of loose-plate connections in hollow-core precast wall panels. Many of
the loose-plate connections currently
used in construction are proportioned
using design models that are seldom
backed up with test data.
The truss analogy, currently being
used to describe the performance of
the connection under consideration,
leads to a conservative design.
This paper addresses the behavior of
a specific loose-plate welded connector for hollow-core precast wall panels
under cyclic loading; this type of connection is widely used in high seismic
regions of the United States.
The primary objective of this research was to quantify the performance
of the connections between precast
concrete panels using loose-plate connectors and to assess the feasibility for
their use in regions of high seismicity.
Due to the limited number of tests
performed, no specific design parameters have been considered in the study.
The assemblies had variations which
commonly occur in practice. These
included the width of the welded plate,
the length of the weld, the vertical
unevenness of the embedded angles
between adjacent panels, and the misalignment of the three wall panels in
the out-of-plane direction. This paper
presents the experimental results, analytical models of the connections, and
the details of a proposed new welded
connection.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Tests were performed by applying a
quasi-static cyclic load to three precast
hollow-core wall panels connected together with two loose-plate connectors
at each vertical joint. Ten wall panel
assemblies were tested, all using the
same loose-plate welded connection.
Description of Precast
Wall Panel Assemblies
PCI JOURNAL

Typically, hollow-core precast panels are 8 ft wide, 12 to 24 ft high (2.44

x 3.66 to 7.32 m) and have six hollow
cores as shown in Fig. 1. The overall
thickness of the panels is 8 in. (203
mm). Panels 12 ft (3.66 m) high and 4
ft (1.22 m) wide were used for testing
due to space constraints in the load
frame. Panels 4 ft (1.22 m) wide were
fabricated by cutting an 8 ft (2.44 m)
panel in half.
The two center hollow cores of the
8 ft (2.44 m) panels were filled with
concrete. These solid cores were required to form a pin connection at the
two outside panels at the supports of
the wall assembly. The average 28-day
compressive strength of the concrete
wall panels was found to be 7150 psi
(49 MPa) with a standard deviation of
190 psi (1.3 MPa).

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Description of
Welded Connections
Two welded connections were located between panel pairs in vertical
joints. Each welded connection comprises two embedded angle assemblies and a loose plate. Each embedded angle assembly consists of a 11/2
x 2 x 1/4 in. (38 x 50.8 x 6.4 mm) x 6
in. (152 mm) long angle, with three 3/8
in. (9.5 mm) diameter weldable steel
deformed anchor bars. The bars are 12
in. (305 mm) long, and are stud welded
to the back of the angle as shown in
Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the details of the
embedded angle assemblies.
Each wall panel assembly consists
of three hollow-core wall panels joined
together with four welded connections.
Two welded connections are placed 3
ft (914 mm) from the top and bottom
of the wall panels in each vertical joint
found in between the wall panels, as
shown in Fig. 4.
The width of the loose plate varied in some wall panel assemblies.
Eight assemblies used 3 in. (76 mm)
wide plates, and two assemblies used
2 in. (51 mm) wide plates. Test results showed that the plate width had
no effect on the maximum force or
displacement sustained by the wall assemblies.
The loose plate was 1/ 4 to 3/ 8 in.
(6.4 to 9.5 mm) thick A36 steel, and
it was welded to the embedded angle

Fig. 3. Details of embedded angle assembly.

assembly with two 3/16 in. (4.8 mm)

fillet welds that ran along the 5 in.
(127 mm) vertical edge of the plate
as shown in Fig. 5. All welds were
performed by certified welders with an
E70 electrode and a 7018 rod.
Test Setup
A total of ten wall panel assemblies were tested in a load frame at
the Structures Laboratory at the University of Utah. A steel belt enclosed
the wall panel assembly and was connected to a hydraulic actuator with a
force link. The panels were welded
together in the vertical position after
being placed in the load frame. The
entire wall assembly was pushed or
pulled by a 150 kip (667 kN) hydraulic actuator through the force link and
the steel belt. The steel belt transferred
the force from the hydraulic actuator
to the wall panel assembly without
restraining the panels.
The panels were supported by two
pin connections placed at the two bottom corners of the wall panel assembly as shown in Fig. 4. The pin used
in this connection was a 2 in. (51 mm)
diameter steel rod. The pin supports

supported the wall assembly 1.5 in.

(38 mm) above the bottom of the test
frame, making the pins the only support for the wall assembly. This allowed the walls to rotate at the pins
and transfer the applied cyclical force
between the panels in a symmetrical
manner.
A 1.5 in. (38 mm) thick steel plate
was placed under each corner of the
center panel as shown in Fig. 4. These
plates raised the center panel up to
the same height as the outside panels.
This aligned the embedded angles to
facilitate the placement of the welded
plate. A more detailed description of
the loading system and the wall assembly supports can be found in other
publications from the University of
Utah.12,13
Test Procedure and
Instrumentation
A force was applied to the top left
corner of the wall assembly with a
hydraulic actuator in a quasi-static
manner. The test was carried out in a
force-controlled mode at a rate of approximately 1 kip (4.5 kN) per second.
Loading steps began at 10 kips (44.5

July-August 2002 125

Fig. 4. Setup and instrumentation of typical wall assembly. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

kN) and increased by 5 kips (22.2 kN)

until the welded connections failed.
Each loading step consisted of three
cyclic load increments to simulate the
effects of an earthquake. Strain gauges

were placed on welded plates to form

a three-element rectangular rosette.
Displacement transducers were used
in all of the tests to measure the displacements at various locations of

the wall panel assembly (see Fig. 4).

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The tests revealed the following
characteristics for the connection studied in this research:
(a) The connection can resist relatively high shear loads.
(b) The connection possesses little
ductile capacity.
(c) The connection should be designed as elastic due to insufficient
ductility.
Failure Mechanism

Fig. 5. Details
of welded
loose-plate
connection.
Note: 1 in. =
25.4 mm.
126

Cracking around the connections

began near the 20 kip (89 kN) load
cycle. Cracking was initiated by the
embedded angle pushing into the surface of the concrete. As soon as the
concrete crumbled away from around
the connection (see Fig. 6), the deformed anchor bars on the back of the
embedded angle assemblies quickly
tore away from their welds. Figs. 6(a)
PCI JOURNAL

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. Welded connections for Assembly 4 at failure: (a) top right connection, and (b) bottom right connection.

and 6(b) illustrate the typical failed

connections.
The following is a description of the
typical mode of failure for this connection:
(a) The concrete around the embedded connections begins to crack.
(b) The bearing capacity of the deformed anchor bars and embedded
angle is severely decreased.
(c) The deformed anchor bars
quickly tear free from the embedded
angles as soon as the concrete crumbles around the embedded angle assemblies.
(d) The load carrying capacity of the
connection is lost.
The welds connecting the looseplate to the embedded angle assemblies for nine of the ten wall assemblies were not damaged. A weld in
one wall panel assembly failed due to
poor penetration of the weld onto the
connecting plate. In general, the weld
did not contribute to the failure of the
connection.
Vertical displacement transducers
DT2 and DT3 (see Fig. 4) recorded
very small relative movement between
panels, until the connections failed.
Therefore, the wall assembly moved
as a relatively rigid body until the first
connection failed.
Force-Displacement Relationship of
Wall Panel Assemblies

The hysteretic behavior of Assembly 8 is typical of all wall assemblies

and is shown in Fig. 7. The shape of
the hysteresis loops demonstrates that
they were stable and did not degrade
until sudden failure. The assembly allowed a displacement drift of only 0.5
percent, and did not demonstrate any
appreciable ductile behavior.
The hysteresis envelope for every
wall assembly was approximated by
a general component behavior curve
as described in FEMA 273.14 The general component behavior curve for the

ten assemblies tested is shown in Fig.

8. The general component behavior
curve is able to define the hysteresis
curves into important design criteria.
As defined by FEMA 273, QCE is
the expected strength of the welded
connection of the wall section, and
QCL is the lower-bound estimate of the
strength. Table 1 contains a summary
of the test data that was used to create
the general component behavior curve
of every wall assembly.
The mean elastic force, QCL, equals
28.4 kips (126.3 kN), and the mean

Fig. 7. Hysteresis curve for Assembly 8. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

July-August 2002 127

Table 1. Summary of test results for wall assemblies.

Wall Elastic force, QCL Elastic displacement Ultimate force, QCE Ultimate displacement
assembly (kips)
(kN)
(in.)
(mm)
(kips)
(kN)
(in.)
(mm)
1
26.3
117.0
0.44
11.2
28.1
125.0
0.53
13.5
2
24.8
110.3
0.52
13.2
28.8
128.1
0.71
18.0
3
27.1
120.5
0.51
12.9
30.2
134.3
0.62
15.7
4
31.0
137.9
0.63
16.0
35.0
155.7
0.74
18.8
5
32.3
143.7
0.57
14.5
35.0
155.7
0.79
20.1
6
30.2
134.3
0.54
13.7
33.1
147.2
0.71
18.0
7
30.5
135.7
0.55
14.0
34.5
153.5
0.62
15.7
8
23.2
103.2
0.57
14.8
28.2
125.4
0.70
17.8
9
29.9
133.0
0.69
17.5
33.2
147.7
0.80
20.3
10
28.3
125.9
0.40
10.2
30.7
136.6
0.56
14.2

Fig. 8. General component behavior of ten wall assemblies. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN;
1 in. = 25.4 mm.

ultimate force, Q CE (mean value of

peak on all hysteresis), equals 31.7
kips (141.0 kN). The mean elastic displacement is 0.54 in. (13.7 mm) and
the mean ultimate displacement is 0.68
in. (17.3 mm). Thus, the range for the
inelastic displacement was only 0.14
in. (3.6 mm). According to FEMA
273, the wall panel assembly would
be defined as a force-controlled action
due to the small plastic range.
Strain gauges oriented in a threeelement rosette pattern were applied
to several welded plates on the wall
panel assemblies as shown in Fig. 9.
This rosette pattern was chosen so that
the principal stresses and their directions could be determined. There was
insufficient instrumentation to determine the force in each plate directly
from the strain gauges.
Fig. 10 shows the principal strains
recorded by the three-element rosette
on the plate of the bottom right connection of Assembly 2. Although the
plate yielded in the last loading cycle,
the connection failed immediately
thereafter. As a result, the ductility of
the connection was not significantly
increased by the yielded plate.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Fig. 9. Threeelement strain gauge

rosette applied
on loose-plate
connector.
128

PCI JOURNAL

A structural analysis of the wall assembly was performed using the structural analysis program SAP 2000.15
The purpose of the analysis was to find
the forces across each welded connection of the wall panel assembly, and
compare them to the commonly used
design methodologies. The precast
concrete wall panels were modeled
as rigid frame elements with a diaphragm constraint on each wall panel
(as shown in Fig. 11). The wall panel
connections were modeled as rigid
pins, which is a reasonable assumption
given their brittle mode of failure.
The nodes located at the supports of
the wall panel assembly were assigned
pin restraints. The shim supports under
the center panel (see Fig. 4) were
not considered in the model. Vertical displacement transducers revealed
that the center panel rose vertically,
whether the wall assembly was being
pushed or pulled. These displacements
were a result of vertical movement
occurring at the pin supports, and the
rigid body motion of the wall panel
assembly.
The holes in the panels for the pin

Fig. 10. Principal strains at bottom right plate connection of Assembly 2.

supports were oversized for ease of

erection in the load frame. The oversized holes allowed the entire assembly to rise and move as a rigid body.
As a result, the bottom corners of the
middle panel never touched the shims

during loading cycles. Consequently,

the shim supports did not restrain the
panel assembly, and were not included
in the model.
The weight of each wall panel was
applied as a point load at four differ-

Fig. 11. Structural

analysis model
of wall panel
assembly. Note:
1 kip = 4.448 kN.
July-August 2002 129

Fig. 12. Results

of structural
analysis for
maximum lateral
load applied
to the wall
assembly.
Note: 1 kip =
4.448 kN.

ent nodes on each wall panel (see Fig.

11). The average maximum force at
failure, 31.7 kips (141.0 kN), was applied as the lateral load at the top left
corner of the wall panel assembly to
find the capacity of each welded connection. The structural analysis results
are shown in Fig. 12.
For the above conditions, the shear
force at failure of the welded con-

nections was 15.0 kips (66.7 kN) on

the two left connectors, and 16.6 kips
(73.8 kN) on the two right connectors.
This is significant because the capacity of this connection typically used
in design is equal to 8 kips (35.6 kN).
Structures built with these welded connections were safely designed with an
approximate factor of safety of 1.9.
Using this design value, the connection

Fig. 13. General component behavior of the welded connectors of eight wall
assemblies. Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
130

will safely stay in the elastic range.

Force-Displacement Relationship
of Welded Connection
The force-displacement relationship of each welded connection was
found by plotting the relative vertical
displacement of two adjoining wall
panels versus the shear force across
the welded connection. The relative
displacement of two adjoining wall
panels in the vertical direction was
found by subtracting data retrieved
from displacement transducers DT2
and DT3 (see Fig. 4).
The shear force across each connection was found as follows: the force
applied by the hydraulic actuator on
the wall assembly was multiplied by
the ratio of the average maximum
force at failure of the welded connection, or 16.6 kips (73.8 kN), to the
average maximum force at failure of
the wall panel assembly, or 31.7 kips
(141.0 kN). This assumption is reasonable because the connections behave
in a linear elastic manner.
The hysteresis curve for the connectors of eight wall panel assemblies,
was approximated by a general component behavior curve as described in
the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273.14
PCI JOURNAL

Fig. 13 shows the general component

behavior curve for the connectors of
eight wall assemblies. The average
elastic force on the connectors was
14.7 kips (65.4 kN), and the average
ultimate force was 17.1 kips (76.1
kN).
The force-displacement relationship
is linear until the connection fails in a
brittle manner. This connection should
be designed to remain elastic due to
its brittle mode of failure and limited
ductility.
Analytical Model of
Welded Connection
The probable resisting mechanisms
of the connector under consideration
are bearing and tension actions in the
deformed anchor bars, as well as bearing of the angle section. Many designers currently model this welded
connection with the truss analogy as
described in the PCI Design Handbook.16
Fig. 14 is an illustration of the truss
analogy. The following equations are
used to describe this model:
CU = TU = As fy

(1)

VRU = (CU + TU )cos

(2)

where
CU = compression force
TU = tensile force
= capacity reduction factor =
0.9
= angle of deformed anchor
bar = 45 degrees
As = area of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) di-

Fig. 14. Truss analogy model for welded connection.

ameter deformed anchor bar

= 0.13 sq in. (71 mm2)
fy = yield strength of mild steel
reinforcement [= 60 ksi (420
MPa)]
VRU = vertical shear force resisted
by connection
The equations from the truss analogy yield a vertical shear resistance
of 8.4 kips (37.4 kN) for each connection. The analysis indicates that the
average capacity of this connection is
between 15.0 and 16.6 kips (66.7 to
73.8 kN). The truss analogy is a conservative design methodology when
applied to this connection.
The following is a list of some of
the differences between the truss analogy and the connection under consid-

eration:
a. The angle for this connection
equals zero, not 45 degrees (see Fig.
2).
b. The deformed anchor bars are
bent 90 degrees into the back of the
angle (see Figs. 2 and 3). The bars
will not be able to develop the full
tensile capacity as described in the
truss analogy. The deformed anchor
bars act more as 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) studs
with ineffective tails rather than bars
in tension.
c. The truss analogy does not account for the bearing of the angle assembly into the concrete. Angle bearing is one of the main force resisting
mechanisms of the connection.
Fig. 15 illustrates that the deformed

Fig. 15. Statics of

deformed anchor
bar at failure for
current connection.
Note: 1kip = 4.448
kN, 1 in. = 25.4
mm; 1 k-in. = 133
N-m.
July-August 2002 131

anchor bar cannot fully develop in tension due to the eccentric load from the
bend in the bar. Assuming the force
taken by each vertical deformed anchor bar is 8.3 kips (36.9 kN) (half of
the total vertical shear force taken by
the connection), the maximum shear
and moment taken by each vertical deformed anchor bar is 8.3 kips and 10.4
kip-in. (36.9 kN and 1.17 kN-m), respectively. The eccentric load causes
the deformed anchor bars to quickly
tear free from their welds as soon as
the concrete crushes around the connection.

PROPOSED NEW WELDED

CONNECTION
The most effective way to improve
this connection is to provide a larger
surface area for concrete bearing and
to minimize eccentric loads from the
deformed anchor bars. Fig. 16 is a
drawing of a proposed new embedded
angle assembly. The angle is replaced
by a 6 in. (152 mm) long ST2x3.85
to create a greater bearing area in the
concrete.
One continuous deformed anchor
bar replaces the two vertical deformed
anchor bars of the previous connection. The vertical deformed anchor
bar is attached to the back of the embedded angle assembly with a 4 in.
(102 mm) long, 3/16 in. (4.8 mm) fillet
weld. The vertical deformed anchor
bar is bent at 5 degrees to minimize
eccentric loads and to ensure adequate
concrete cover.
The strength of this fillet weld
can be described by Eq. (3), and the
strength of the base metal can be described by Eq. (4), as:17
Rn = 0.75te(0.6Fexx)

(3)

Rn = 0.75t(0.6Fu)

(4)

where
Rn = strength of fillet weld or base
material
Fexx = strength of electrode = 70 ksi
(483 MPa)
Fu = tensile strength of base material = 60 ksi (420 MPa)
te = 0.707a
a = weld size = 3/16 in. (4.8 mm)
t = thickness of base material =
5
/16 in. (7.9 mm)
132

Fig. 16. Details of proposed new embedded angle assembly. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Eq. (3) yields the strength of the fillet weld as 4.2 kips per in. (0.74 kN/
mm), and Eq. (4) yields the strength
of the base material as 8.4 kips per in.
(1.47 kN/mm). A 4 in. (102 mm) long
weld gives a strength of 16.8 kips (74.7
kN), which is significantly higher than
the allowable shear resistance of the
welds in the tested connection. In addition, the concrete will not easily break
away from the connection due to the
increased bearing area with the web
of the structural tee embedded into the
wall.

DISCUSSION OF
test RESULTS
Engineers prefer the panel connections, not the panels themselves, to
be the weak link in the system. This
investigation has shown that the connections are in fact the weakest link.
Although the loose-plate connection
used in this research effectively transferred the applied shear forces, the
connection failed in a brittle manner.
The small displacement ductility
exhibited by the welded connections
is lost as soon as the deformed anchor bars on the back of the embedded
angle fracture from their welds. Fail-

ure occurs before shear yielding can

take place in the welded plate.
These tests reveal that hollow-core
precast concrete panels can be used in
seismic regions provided that the connections can be improved. To this end,
a new welded connection is proposed;
ductility may be restored to the system by increasing the surface area for
concrete bearing and by reducing the
eccentric load in the deformed anchor
bars.
If the connection is a location of
ductile inelastic deformation, the precast concrete panels will remain elastic
under seismic response. Damage to
the overall structure will be reduced
and repair of the structure will be less
costly. Ductility in shear will allow the
force to redistribute among individual
connectors. Ductility will enable all
connectors to reach their full strength,
thereby increasing the overall force resisting capability of the structure.
For existing connections of the type
tested in this investigation, a seismic
retrofit option has been studied using
a carbon fiber composite connection,
which will be published shortly.

CONCLUSIONS
Simulated seismic load tests of
PCI JOURNAL

loose-plate vertical connections between precast concrete wall panels

were performed. Based on the results
of this investigation, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. The loose-plate connection commonly used in precast construction can
resist relatively high shear forces.
2. The connection fails in a brittle
manner when the deformed anchor
bars tear free from the embedded angles, which occurs as soon as the concrete crumbles around the embedded
angle assemblies; as a consequence,
the connection possesses little ductile
capacity.
3. The connection should be de-

signed to remain elastic; in its current

form, the connection is not suitable for
use in areas of high seismic regions
(Zones 3 and 4).
4. The design methodologies commonly used for this connection are
conservative.
5. The connection can be modified
to increase its ductile behavior by providing more surface area for concrete
bearing, and by minimizing eccentric
loads in the deformed anchor bars.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided by XXsys

Technologies, Inc., and the Center

for Composites in Construction at the
University of Utah.
The authors wish to express their
gratitude to Eagle Precast Company
(Monroc, Inc.), for providing the precast wall specimens.
The authors would like to thank
Vladimir Volnyy and Professor Janos
Gergely for their assistance with the
tests. In addition, the authors are
grateful to Philip Richardson and Carl
Wright of Eagle Precast Company for
their suggestions.
Lastly, the authors want to express
their appreciation to the PCI JOURNAL reviewers for their thoughtful

REFERENCES
and constructive comments.
1. Rostasy, F. S., Connections in Precast Concrete Structures
Continuity in Double-T Floor Construction, PCI JOURNAL,
V. 7, No. 4, 1962, pp. 18-48.
2. Scoggin, H. L., and Pfeiffer, D. W., Cast-in-Place Concrete
Residences with Insulated Walls-Influence of Shear Connectors on Flexural Resistance, Journal of the PCA Research and
Development Laboratories, V. 9, No. 2, 1967, pp. 2-7.
3. Abdul-Wahab, H. M. S., Ultimate Shear Strength of Vertical
Joints in Panel Structures, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No.
2, March-April 1991, pp. 204-213.
4. Spencer, R. A., and Neille, D. S., Cyclic Tests of Welded
Headed Stud Connections, PCI JOURNAL, V. 21, No. 3,
May-June 1976, pp. 70-81.
5. Stanton, J. F., Hawkins, N. M., and Hicks, T. R., PRESSS
Project 1.3: Connection Classification and Evaluation, PCI
JOURNAL, V. 36, No. 5, September-October 1991, pp. 62-71.
6. Schultz, A., Tadros, M. K., Juo, X. M., and Magana, R. A.,
Seismic Resistance of Vertical Joints in Precast Shear Walls,
Proceedings, XII FIP Congress, Washington, DC., May 29 June 2, 1994.
7. Low, S.-G., Behavior of a Six-Story Office Building Under
Moderate Seismicity, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE,
May 1995.
8. Priestley, M. J. N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J. R., and Pampanin,
S., Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS
Five-Story Precast Concrete Test Building, PCI JOURNAL,
V. 44, No. 6, November-December 1999, pp. 42-67.
9. Pincheira, J. A., Oliva, M. G., and Kusumo-Rahardjo, F. I.,
Tests on Double-Tee Flange Connectors Subjected to Mono-

tonic and Cyclic Loading, Research Report, University of

Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1998.
10. Strigel, R. M., Pincheira, J. A., and Oliva, M. G., Reliability
of 3/8 in. Stud-Welded Deformed Bar Anchors Subject to Tensile Loads, PCI JOURNAL, V. 45, No. 6, November-December 2000, pp. 72-82.
11. Lemieux, K., Sexsmith, R., and Weiler, G., Behavior of Embedded Steel Connectors in Concrete Tilt-Up Panels, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 4, July-August 1998, pp. 400413.
12. Pantelides, C. P., Reaveley, L. D., Gergely, I., Hofheins, C.,
and Volnyy, V., Testing of Precast Wall Connections, University of Utah, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Report UUCVEEN 97-02, 97-03, 98-01, Salt Lake
City, UT, 1997-98.
13. Hofheins, C., Welded Loose-Plate Connections for HollowCore Precast Wall Panels, M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil
& Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, UT, May 1999.
14. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA Publication 273,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC,
October 1997.
15. SAP2000 Analysis Reference, Computers and Structures, Inc.,
V. I, Berkeley, CA, 1997.
16. PCI Committee on Industry Handbook, PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete, Fifth Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 1999.
17. Salmon, C. G., and Johnson, J. E., Steel Structures Design and
Behavior, Fourth Edition, Harper Collins College Publishers

APPENDIX A NOTATION
Inc., New York, NY, 1996.

Ab = area of reinforcing bar

As = area of deformed anchor bar
CU = compression force
Fexx = strength of electrode
fs = steel stress
Fu = tensile strength of base material
fy = yield stress of reinforcement
n = number of reinforcing bars

QCE = expected strength

QCL = lower-bound strength
Rn = strength of fillet weld or base material
t = thickness of base material
te = effective area of weld
TU = tensile force
VRU = vertical shear force resisted by connection
Vs = shear strength of connection
= angle of deformed anchor bar

July-August 2002 133

134

= capacity reduction factor

PCI JOURNAL