This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]

On: 27 September 2014, At: 01:07

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Environmental and Civil

Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20

Cyclic behaviour of a column to foundation joint for

concrete precast structures
a a b
Giovanni Metelli , Consuelo Beschi & Paolo Riva
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land and Environment , University of
Brescia , Via Branze 43, I-25123 , Brescia E-mail:
b
Department of Design and Technologies , University of Bergamo , Viale Marconi 43,
Dalmine E-mail:
Published online: 09 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Giovanni Metelli , Consuelo Beschi & Paolo Riva (2011) Cyclic behaviour of a column to foundation
joint for concrete precast structures, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 15:9, 1297-1318

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2011.9714856

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Cyclic behaviour of a column
to foundation joint
for concrete precast structures

Giovanni Metelli* — Consuelo Beschi* — Paolo Riva**

Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

* Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land and Environment

University of Brescia
Via Branze 43, I-25123 Brescia
{Gmetelli; consuelo.beschi}@ing.unibs.it

** Department of Design and Technologies

University of Bergamo
Viale Marconi 43, Dalmine
paolo.riva@unibg.it

ABSTRACT. This paper aims at presenting the results of two experimental tests concerning the
cyclic behaviour of a dissipative column-to-foundation connection for precast concrete
elements. The tested joints are characterized by the use of high strength threaded steel bars
partially un-bonded in grouted sleeves and by steel support elements which allow an easy
assemblage and centering of the column. The two specimens differ in bar number and bar
diameter of the un-bonded high-strength bars adopted to restore the flexural continuity. The
experimental results are compared to the response of a pocket foundation joint and they show
a good performance of the joint in term of resistance, ductility, cycle stability and energy
dissipation. The specimen damage is localized at the column base thus allowing a simple
retrofitting after a seismic event.
KEYWORDS: precast concrete structures, column-foundation joint, seismic behaviour.

DOI:10.3166/EJECE.15.1297-1318 © 2011 Lavoisier, Paris

EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011, pages 1297 to 1318

 1298 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

1. Introduction

Warehouses and commercial malls in Europe are mostly built using precast
reinforced concrete elements. The typical structural layout consists of a moment
resisting frame with plastic hinges at the column base and beams hinged to the
columns. The foundations are usually made of isolated precast cup-footings, in
which the columns are inserted and grouted in-situ, thus ensuring adequate ductility
of the column base section after grouting. Such a structural layout is widely used
because of its cost effectiveness and reduced construction time. However, its
efficiency is seriously hampered when it is intended for construction in seismic
areas, particularly if Capacity Design (CD) based codes are adopted in the design
process (Eurocode 8, 2003; D.M., 2008).
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

The design of the column footing is carried out by assuming that a plastic hinge
might develop at the column base for the design earthquake event and preventing the
formation of any inelastic mechanism in the footing. The latter goal is reached by
designing the foundation to resist to the design axial force and to the maximum
possible resisting bending moment of the column base section, computed by
considering an appropriate overstrength factor. Adopting a CD approach, the
foundation base becomes easily very large, also for medium-sized columns. This
issue might be hardly relevant for cast in-situ structures, but could seriously limit the
cost effectiveness of pre-cast concrete structures such as those previously described.
In fact, due to the dimensions of the foundations, the footings have to be cast-in-situ,
making the use of isolated cup foundations less attractive.
Hence, cast-in-situ mat foundations represent the most cost-effective solution
when the column-to-foundation connection is done by means of (i) steel plates, or
(ii) pockets realized in the foundation to allow the column placement with the in-situ
grouting, or by means of (iii) steel bars in grouted sleeves, placed in the foundations
or in the column in order to guarantee the continuity of the reinforcement between
the two connected elements. Both from the point of view of prefabrication and of
seismic response, steel base plates appear to be the least attractive of the three
connection types, as they require small tolerances for the on-site placing and
adequate ductility might not be easily ensured in the column base section. Pocket
foundations (PF) are the most used, at least in Italy, as they ensure ease of placement
and adequate ductility of the column base section after grouting. As a matter of fact,
the behaviour of the connection is very much similar to that of cast-in-situ
structures. On the other hand, either a thick mat foundation or a collar are required
to accommodate the column, with consequent increase of costs related to the
construction of the pocket. Grouted sleeves appear to be the cheapest, hence most
convenient, type of connection. However, the seismic response of such column-to-
foundation connections is not well documented. In fact, while a large amount of
experimental tests have been carried out on columns subjected to cyclic loading
(CEB, 1996; FIB, 2003; FIB, 2008), few experimental results concerning the cyclic
response of grouted sleeve column-to-foundation connections (GS) are available in
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1299

the literature (Belleri and Riva, 2011; Riva, 2006; Dal Lago et al., 2010; Fagà et al.,
2010; Metelli et al., 2008; Restrepo et al., 2007; Roeder et al., 2005), at least to the
Author’s knowledge. The experimental and numerical study on the seismic
performance of RC column (Pandley et al., 2008) shows the significant role of the
un-bonded length of the bars on the hysteretic behavior of the column in order to
achieve a larger ductility response than that of the ordinary ones. In (Rakesh, 2010)
a simplified closed-form model is presented to evaluate the seismic displacement
capacity of marine pile with partial-moment connection to the deck by means of de-
bonded dowels in grouted sleeves. The non linear moment-rotation relationship of
the connection is estimated taking into account the loss of dowel-to concrete bond
due to the inelastic yield penetration length (Rayonr et al., 2002) making a gap to
form between the top of the pile and the deck on the tension side of the pile. The
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

presented model can be an effective tool for evaluate the response capacity of
precast building by the displacement based design approach. In (Belleri and Riva,
2011; Riva, 2006) an experimental research on grouted sleeves column to
foundation connection is presented. The specimens were characterized by grouted
sleeves embedded in the column without the debonding of the connecting rebars,
which would have avoided their premature low cycle fatigue failure. Furthermore,
all of the tested specimens showed a remarkable crushing of the unconfined grout
layer at the column base, causing a considerable strength degradation during the
cycles. In all the aforementioned paper it is pointed out the effect of the metal sleeves
which heavily confine the grout, thus preventing an early failure of the connections.
This work is part of a wider research program started at University of Brescia
and University of Bergamo (Italy), concerning the seismic behaviour of steel
connections for precast reinforced concrete structures: numerical and experimental
studies concerning both the cyclic behaviour of a beam-column “dry” connection
and the interaction between cladding panels and structure have been carried out
(Metelli and Riva, 2008 and Metelli and Riva, 2007).
This paper aims at presenting the results of an experimental research concerning
the cyclic behaviour of a grouted sleeve column to foundation connections (GS).
The results are compared to the response of a typical cast-in-situ and grouted pocket
column-to-foundation connections (PF).
The column and the foundation are jointed together by the use of debonded high
strength steel bars in grouted sleeves embedded in the foundation. This research is
therefore aimed at developing a ductile foundation-column joint able to absorb the
major part of the deformation required by an earthquake of medium intensity. The
joint damage might be localized at the column to foundation interface due to both
the un-bonded bar elongation and the opening of the pre-existing crack at the
column base. This feature might reduce the inelastic mechanism and damage in the
connected members, when compared to the emulated cast in place connection, and
might allow an easier member repair after a seismic event.
 1300 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

2. The connection system and its assembly

As shown in Figure 1, the studied column-to-foundation joint is composed of the

following main components: high strength threaded bars (1) with bushes
(2) embedded in the column and tied to the column reinforcement; high strength
threaded bars (3) tightened to the column bushes allowing the bending actions to be
transferred from the column to the foundation by the bond shear stress developing in
grouted and corrugated metal sleeves (4); plastic ducts (5) wrapping the longitudinal
high strength steel bars to deactivate the bond for a length of 200 mm in order to
provide adequate ductility and dissipative capacity of the joint in case of cyclic
actions; during the assembling phase, the column is supported by steel S355
levelling plates (6) which are fixed to studs (7) embedded in the foundation; these
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

plates and studs allow an easy assemblage and centering of the column by means of
a system of nuts and washers, meanwhile ensuring its stability before the grout
injection in the sleeves; a steel formwork (8) at the column base provides adequate
confining action to the grout at the pre-existing gap of the column to foundation
interface (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The connection system for column-to-foundation joints

The assembling phase begins tightening the threaded bars to the bushes placed in
the column, and fixing the leveling steel plates to the longitudinal bars (Figure 2).
The bars are then connected to the studs embedded in the foundation by the leveling
plates thus ensuring the column stability during the grout injection and curing. At
the end of this first phase for the “dry assembling” of the joint components, the steel
formwork is placed at the column base and the high strength – shrinkage controlled
grout can be cast thus filling the sleeves and the 50 mm thick gap at the column to
footing interface (Figure 3a). The dowels are embedded in the foundation with an
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1301

anchorage length, designed according to experimental results of pull-out tests, equal

to 15 times the bar diameter. The supporting plates can be removed after 12 hours of
grout curing. Unlike in the first version of the joint (Metelli and Riva, 2008), where
the supporting plates were placed in a pre-formed large footing pocket under the
column base, in the connection system presented in this paper the supporting plates
are linked to the threaded bars into sockets at the column corners, thus allowing a
reduction in the volume of the grout which can be cast in only one phase (Figure 2a)
and Figure 2b). The four sockets at the corner of the column base are filled in a
following phase during the casting of concrete pavement topping (Figure 3b).
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

a) b)

Figure 2. a) the assembled joint before the grout injection; b) the first version of the
joint (Metelli and Riva, 2008)

a) b)

Figure 3. a) grout injection in the sleeves; b) casting of the concrete topping

3. Experimental program and test set up

3.1. Specimen details

The seismic response of two columns (section 450 x 450 mm, height 3 200 mm)
connected to a foundation (section 700 x 800 mm, length 2 000 mm) by using the
described system, was investigated under an imposed cyclic top horizontal
displacement history of increasing amplitude. The 4M27 and 8M18 specimens are
 1302 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

characterized respectively by having four 27 mm diameter or eight 18 mm diameter

threaded bars into grouted sleeves connecting the column to the footing. The main
tensile strength fsu of the bars is equal to 1 040 MPa with an elongation Agt at
maximum tensile stress not lower than 3.0%. It is worth pointing out that the cubic
strength of the grout reaches a strength of 35 MPa after 24 hours curing with a
modulus of elasticity equal to 33 GPa. The columns have been designed such that its
moment capacity is greater than the joint moment resistance thus allowing the damage
to occur in the connection rather than in the precast connected elements. The geometry
of the tested specimens, reinforcement and joint details are shown in Figure 4 while
the mechanical characteristics of materials are shown in Table 1. The results of
the 4M27 and 8M18 specimens have been compared to the response of a typical
pocket foundation joint (PF), assumed as reference specimen (details in Figure 4).
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the materials at the time of the test

Column concrete (C45/55) Concrete topping

Grout 24h 28d
6 month ageing 3 month ageing

fcm [MPa] 51.3 fcm [MPa] 35 80 fcm,cube [MPa] 11.1

fcm,cube [MPa] 61.8 fctm,b [MPa] 4 10

Ecm [GPa] 36.5 Ecm [GPa] 33

Column rebars (B450C) Threaded bars -10.9 Levelling plates

fsy [MPa] 530 fsy [MPa] 900 fsy [MPa] 355

fsu [MPa] 640 fsu [MPa] 1040 fsu [MPa] 510

Αgt [%] >7% Αgt [%] >3%

Em: modulus of elasticity; fcm,cube: mean value of concrete compressive strength; fcm: mean
concrete strength; fctm,b: grout bending strength ; fsy: yield steel strength; fsu: ultimate steel
strength; Agt: elongation at maximum tensile force.

As above mentioned, the main feature of the joint is the un-bonded portion of the
connecting bars inside the sleeves. This solution allows to spread the bar
deformation over the un-bonded length, thus increasing the system curvature
capacity to fulfil the seismic demand but limiting the strain concentration of the high
strength steel bars to prevent an early cyclic failure. The bar un-bonded length can
be designed on the basis of the assumption that most of the specimen plastic
deformation is concentrated in the joint rigid rotation θp (Figure 6), which can be at
least 70% of the column drift (defined as the inter-story displacement divided by the
inter-story height), as shown by the experimental evidence. The un-bonded length lub
of the high strength steel bars has been computed limiting the bar strain at a design
value εs,d of 1.5% for a column drift of 3.5%, commonly accepted for prefabricated
columns under a design seismic event. The total required un-bonded length lub,t is
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1303

calculated taking into account also the socket high ts at the column base, the bush
length tb and the strain penetration length lsp within the members, assumed
conventionally equal to 4 times the bar diameter db (Raynor et al., 2002):

l ub ,tot = l ub + l sp + t s + t b = l ub + 4 d b + 80 mm + 80 mm [1]

ε s ,d ⋅ lub ,tot
θp = ≥ 3.5% [2]
0.7 y

2.45% ⋅ 0.67d
lub ≥ − (4 d b + t s + tb ) [3]
1.5%
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

being y the distance between the neutral axis and the outermost dowel on tension
side. The distance y is assumed equal to 2/3 the effective depth d of the column to
foundation joint. For the 4M27 specimen the minimum un-bonded length lub,min is
equal to 148 mm, assuming an effective depth d of 380 mm. A 200 mm un-bonded
length was adopted for both specimens.

8M18 4M27
C2 C1 4 M27 in acciaio B7
sez.A-A C2 8φ22
C2 C2
C1 8 M18 in acciaio B7 sez.A-A
8

St φ10/10

A A C2 C2
C2 8φ22
St φ10/10

70
50

C1
45

C1

B B
45

C1
69

45

45

sez.B-B sez.C-C
St φ 10/20

C2 C2 C2
sez.B-B C1
140

C1 C1

C2
322
13

15
9.5

45
15
45
19

C1
52
32

15
13

13 19 13 15 15 15
9.5

45 45
52 P2 C1 C2
St φ10/10

P1
C1
100

A A

Steel formwork PF C1 8φ22

P1 8φ22 C1 P1 8φ22
St φ10/10

P1
P2
P2 4φ16 B B P2 4φ16
A A
C C
C1
sez.A-A C1

P1
70

P2
45

St φ10/10
300
45
Unit in centimeters

Figure 4. Details of the test specimens

 1304 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

3.2. Test set-up

Figure 5a shows the experimental set-up. The foundation was anchored to the
laboratory strong floor with four post-tensioned high strength rebars inhibiting rigid
rotational motion of the specimen. The foundation was also linked to the reaction
wall by two horizontal post-tensioned steel bars and by a contrast element to prevent
the specimen sliding. The vertical load was applied by means of two hydraulic jacks
which maintain the load constant during the test. The column axial load N was
increased up to 670 kN corresponding to a normalized axial load ν equal to 6.3%,
defined as:

N
υ= [4]
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

Ac ⋅ f cm

being Ac the column section.

a) b)

Figure 5. Test set up a) and loading history b)

A horizontal cyclic load was applied by means of an electro-mechanical jack

fixed to the reaction wall of the laboratory. The horizontal force was applied at a
height equal to 3.2 m from the column-to-foundation interface. The applied
displacement history is shown in Figure 5b. It is observed that the maximum
imposed displacement is equal to 192 mm, corresponding to a 6.0% drift, defined as
the ratio between the measured displacement δ and the Lv = 3.2 m lever arm of the
horizontal load with respect to the column base. For a drift equal to ± 0.25%,
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1305

± 0.5%, ± 0.75%, ± 1.0% and ± 2.5% three cycles of the same amplitude were
applied to the specimens. The displacement was then applied stepwise in an
increment of 0.5% drift up to the maximum jack stroke. In order to measure the
horizontal displacements δ, a LVDT and a potentiometric transducer were placed at
the column top (POS 1 and POS 2 in Figure 6). The rotations at the column base
were measured by means of a series of potentiometric transducers: the devices in
POS 3-4-5-6 of Figure 6 were placed to measure relative displacements between the
column and the foundation base in the correspondence of the de-bonded bar axis,
whereas the devices in POS 7-8 of Figure 6 were placed to measure also the column
deformation.

N N
FRONT SIDE BACK SIDE
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

F F
2 2
1 δ δ 1

5 6

7 8
θp
3150

3 4 y
d

7 8
3 4

5 6
9 9

Figure 6. Details of the instrumentation for the 4M27 and 8M18 specimens

4. Test results and discussion

The axial load applied to the column and the rotation of its axis during the
loading process were taken into account in the definition of the effective actions
loading the specimen (Verderame et al., 2008). The horizontal component of the
axial load plays a relevant role in the definition of shear and bending moment at the
base of the column. With reference to the notations shown in Figure 7, the effective
moment M acting at the column base can be calculated by the following equations,
depending on the lateral applied load Fapp, the shear length Lv and the axial load N:

M = Fapp ⋅ Lv + N ⋅ e [5]
 1306 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

δ1
e= ⋅ Lbot [6]
Lbot + Lv + Ltop

δ1 ≅
δ
Lv
(
⋅ Ltop + Lv ) [7]

where e is the axial load eccentricity and δ1 is the horizontal displacement at the
column top, being the α and β angles considered equal, due to the assumption of
small displacements (Figure 7).
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

b)

a)

c)

Figure 7. Deformation of the specimen to calculate the effect of axial load a);
potentiometer transducer to measure the joint and the column deformation b);
evaluation of the joint rotation θ c)

To obtain an explicit formulation the effective moment M as a function of the

measured displacement δ, the cosα is taken equal to 1 and sinα is considered equal
to tanα, due to the assumption of small displacements. As a result, the Equation [5]
becomes:
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1307

(
M = Fapp ⋅ Lv + N ⋅ cos α ⋅ δ 1 − N ⋅ sin α ⋅ Ltop + L v ) [8]

δ1
M = Fapp ⋅ Lv + N ⋅ δ 1 − N ⋅
Ltop + Lv + Lbot
(
⋅ Ltop + Lv ) [9]

The real shear V at the column base and the effective horizontal force Feff are
expressed by:

δ1
V = Fapp − N ⋅ sin α = Fapp − N ⋅ [10]
Ltop + Lv + Lbot
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

M
Feff = [11]
Lv

On the basis of simple geometrical relations, both pairs of vertical front

potentiometers allowed to evaluate the joint rotation θ:

w3 + w4 w5 + w6
θ= or θ= [12]
z z

where w3 and w4 are the averages of the relative displacements measured by each
pair of outer potentiometers placed at a distance z equal to 240 mm. The 280 mm
measurement base length b of vertical potentiometers is much larger in comparison
with the specific joint interface dimension (equal to 50 mm); as a result, the
calculated rotation θ includes both the strain developed at the beam-column
interface, due to the elongation of the de-bonded bars, and the local column damage
around the joint.
The results in terms of effective force Feff applied to the column versus the
displacement δ at the load application point level are shown in Figure 8, where the
crack pattern evolution is also presented at a drift of 1% and 2.5%. The tests were
terminated during the first cycle at a drift level equal to 6% (δ = 192 mm) at the
maximum stroke of the electro-mechanical jack. Although a displacement δ greater
than 7 time the yielding displacement δy was applied, the specimens failure did not
occur. It can be observed that the maximum imposed drift is much larger than the
maximum drift commonly accepted for prefabricated columns under a design
seismic event, conventionally assumed equal to 2.5%. The structural yielding,
defined as the displacement when the yielding first occurs in the equivalent elasto-
plastic system with the same energy absorption as the tested specimen (Park, 1988),
occurred at a displacement δy equal to 38.7 mm, 35.8 mm and 41.6 mm, respectively
for 4M27-GS, 8M18-GS and PF specimen, measured at the load application point
level (Table 2). At this level the yielding drift was approximately equal to 1.2%
(Figure 8). As a result, it is possible to define a structural ductility factor µ∆ as the
 1308 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

ratio between the maximum displacement δu applied to the column and the yield
displacement δy:

δu
µ∆ = [13]
δy

The specimen ductility factor µ∆ varies from 4.5 for PF specimen to 5.3 for
8M18 GS specimen.
In Figure 10 the moment M at the column base versus joint rotation θ curves for
each specimen are shown together with the pictures of the column damage in the
critical region at a 6% drift. The behavior of the specimens is stable up to 2.5% drift
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

where the maximum moment resistance of the 4M27 and 8M18 specimens is
reached: it is equal to 322 kNm for positive drift and to 337 kNm for negative drift
in the case of 8M18 specimen, while for 4M27 specimen it is slightly greater, due to
an higher internal lever arm of the connecting bars, and it is equal to 370 kNm
and 375 kNm respectively for a positive or a negative displacement. The PF
specimen shows a bearing capacity equal to 427 kNm or 433 kNm, depending on the
displacement direction, with a limited strength degradation for drift greater
than 3.0%. At a 6.0% drift the bearing capacity is about 90% of the maximum
resistance for the PF specimen, while it ranges from 81% to 90% respectively
in 8M18 and 4M27 specimens with partially un-bonded grouted sleeve connections,
thus confirming the effectiveness of the joint system. The strength degradation can
be justified with a progressive damage of the topping concrete at the critical section,
as highlighted in Figure 9 and in Figure 10. In Table 2 the main results of the three
specimens are summarized and compared to the theoretical previsions in Table 3.
The joint ductility factor µθ, defined as the ratio between the ultimate rotation θu
and the yielding rotation θy of the joint, ranges between 7.8 and 8.2 for GS
connections and it is equal to 9.6 for pocket foundation. This value is double than
the structural ductility factor µ∆ which is expressed in term of lateral displacement of
the specimen (Table 2).
As far as the damage is concerned, it is worth pointing out that in the case of the
PF specimen the crack pattern is typical of the monolithic joints with several large
cracks spreading along a length approximately equal to the columns depth, equal
to 450 mm (Figure 10). For a drift higher than 3.0% drift, the concrete cover failure
of the column can be observed (Figure 9c) and Figure 10). In the GS connections
with partially un-bonded bars, the damage is limited to the column to foundation
interface with a crack width lower than 0.2 mm at a drift of 1% in the connected
member at a distance equal to 35 cm from the column base against a crack width of
about 0.4 mm for the PF specimen (Figure 9a-b), Figure 10, and Table 2). The
difference in terms of damage in the column is more evident at a drift equal to 2.5%,
with a crack width between 0.2 and 0.35 mm for the GS solutions versus a crack
with of 1.4 mm for the PF specimen.
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1309

Table 2. Main test results

Mmax Mu w1% w2.5% δy µ∆ θy θu µθ

-2 -2
specimen [kNm] [kNm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [x10 ] [x10 ]

306
4M27 370 0.83 0.18 0.34 38.4 4.9 0.68 5.59 8.2
Positive displacement +δ

M+max
269
8M18 332 0.81 0.15 0.19 35.5 5.3 0.71 5.51 7.8
M+max
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

397
PF 427 0.93 0.38 1.39 41.7 4.5 0.46 4.40 9.6
M+max
339
4M27 375 0.9 M- 0.16 0.35 -40.9 4.6 0.98 5.76 5.9
Negative displacement -δ

max

295
8M18 337 0.88 0.12 0.15 -35.7 5.3 0.85 5.63 6.7
M-max
394
PF 433 0.91 0.34 1.37 -47.0 4.1 0.64 4.47 7.0
M-max
Mmax: maximum bearing; MRu: maximum theoretical; Mu: experimental bearing moment at 6%;
δy: yielding displacement; µ∆: displacement ductility factor; θy: elastic rotation of the
connection; θu: rotation at 6% drift of the column; µθ: rotation ductility factor; w1% crack width
at 1% drift; w2.5% crack width at 2.5% drift (at a distance equal to 35 cm from the column base).

The crack width is calculated by using the experimental data given by the
potentiometric transducers n°7 and 8 in Figure 6. A slightly more pronounced
pinching is observed in the cycles of the GS specimens. This is due to the
aforementioned progressive damage of the topping concrete filling the sockets at the
column base.
As shown in Figure 9b, the lateral deformation of the steel sheet formwork in GS
specimens confirms its significant confining action in preventing the crushing of the
grout at the column base so that it maintained the stability of the joints cyclic
behavior up to 6% drift. The very little damage in grouted sleeve specimens can be
observed also by the inelastic residual deformation which is equal to 0.2% drift
during the cycle of 2.5% amplitude, whereas it is close to 0.5% drift for the pocket
foundation specimen.
 1310 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

Figure 8. Effective force Feff vs. displacement δ curves and column damage at 1% or
2.5% drift

a) 4M27 b) 8M18 c) PF

Figure 9. Specimen damage at 6% drift

 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1311
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

Figure 10. Moment versus rotation θ curve with column damage at 6% drift

The curves plotted in Figure 11 show the relation between the drift and the
rotation θ at the column-to foundation interface, calculated by means of the
Equation [12]. In this way, it is possible to evaluate the role of the joint rotation on
the overall column response. For a drift equal to 2.5%, the joint rotation of the two
grouted sleeve specimens is close to 0.017 rad., which is equal to 68% of the global
deformation of the column; in the classical solution with pocket foundation, the joint
 1312 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

rotation at the column base is about 0.01 rad., contributing to the total deformation
by 40% only. The base rotation is consistently much higher for the grouted sleeve
specimens than for the cast in-situ and pocket foundation specimens. This effect
once more demonstrates that a much larger strain localization occurs in the former
than in the latter; however, the bar failure is prevented because of the de-bonded
length which reduce the strain rate during the seismic event. The maximum
rotation θu in the GS specimens is only 8% smaller then the value it would exhibit
considering a rigid rotation of the column around its base. This result demonstrates
that the behaviour of the column outside the base section is mostly linear elastic, and
that very little cracking and damage occur outside the base section.
Concerning the comparison between positive and negative values (Table 2) the
three specimens show a symmetric response in terms of peak load, crack width and
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

displacement ductility factor, with differences smaller than 5%. However, due to
cyclic damage of the specimen, the negative rotation ductility factors range
between 72% and 86% of the positive ones.
A simple method is proposed to calculate the theoretical moment resistance MR
of the column to foundation joint on the basis of assumptions reported in
Appendix A. As shown in Table 3, the theoretical moment resistance MR is in good
agreement with the test results which are consistent with the reinforcement ratio ρs
adopted in the specimen. Furthermore, a comparison between the three specimens is
made possible by the dimensionless bearing moment m, defined as the ratio between
the joint resistance and the PF reference one, scaled by the respective reinforcement
ratios. The dimensionless bearing moment m ranges between 1.00 and 1.06, thus
confirming the high strength bar connection with un-bonded length can be
considered a valid alternative to the pocket foundation joint. It is noting that the
effective steel area As,eff of the joint is calculated taking into account only the
connecting bars in tension, scaled up by the k ratio of the B450C and 10.9 steel yield
strengths. For the 8M18 specimen the area of the two inner bars is reduced by 40%
to account for their actual stress at the maximum moment.

Figure 11. Base column rotation θ versus drift

 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1313

Table 3. Comparison between test results and theoretical prediction

M max ρ sPF
Mmax MR error εs As,eff ρs=As,eff/B2 m= PF
⋅
ρs
M max

Speci-
[kNm] [kNm] [%] [%] [mm2] [%0]
men
4M27 370 371 0.0 0.67 [2 As(M27)] k =1560 7.70 1.06
8M18 332 324 +2.0 0.77 [4.33 As(M18)] k =1414 6.98 1.05
PF 427 424 +0.7 1.35 5 As(db22) = 1900 9.38 1.00
Mmax: maximum bearing; MR: theoretical resistance of the joint; εs: tensile strain of the outermost
bars; As,eff: effective steel area;
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

ρs: reinforcement ratio; m: dimensionless experimental moment resistance.; B: column dimension:

K = f ym
10.9 B 450C
f ym = 1.7

Finally, Figure 12 shows the dimensionless dissipated energy for all the cycles
performed, which is calculated as the ratio between the dissipated energy Ei and
elastic energy E0i of the cycle with the same amplitude, as explained by
Equation [15]:

Ei
ei = [14]
E 0i

The elastic energy E0i for each cycle is calculated as follows:

F + ⋅ δ +max + F − ⋅ δ −max
E oi = [15]
2

where δ+max and δ-max are relatively the maximum positive and negative
displacements reached for the i-cycle, and F+ and F- are the forces associated to each
displacement (Figure 13).
The dissipated energy Ei for cycle is the hatched area in Figure 13, which is the
area of the entire i-cycle plot in the horizontal force-displacement diagram.
It is observed that the dissipated energy during the cycle triplets is stable,
proving the validity of the proposed technique for column to foundation joints also
for seismic applications. It is worth pointing out the equivalence between GS
specimens and the typical pocket foundation up to 3.5% drift in term of dissipated
energy, being the difference limited to about 10%. During the cycles with a drift
larger than 4%, the 8M18 joint allows a lower dissipation of energy than the 4M27
connection due to re-centering action of the two internal high-strength bars which
remained elastic during the test.
 1314 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

Figure 12. Dimensionless dissipated energy

F
+
F

-
δmax
+
δmax δ

-
F

Figure 13. Scheme for the calculation of dimensionless dissipated energy

5. Final remarks

The present paper deals with the experimental results of innovative column to
foundation connections for precast concrete elements. The joint is characterized by
the use of high strength steel threaded bars in grouted sleeves to allow the bending
moment to be transferred from the column to the foundation. The connecting bars
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1315

are wrapped with plastic duct to allow the system to develop the lateral displacement
capacity required during the seismic event. Furthermore, the un-bonded length is
able to reduce the strain rate in the bar which can cause the premature fatigue failure
of the steel bars.
The experimental results presented allow to state that grouted sleeve connections
exhibited a good behaviour in terms of strength, ductility, stability of the cycles and
energy dissipation. The failure did not occur up to a 6% drift, value well beyond the
specified code limits generally adopted for the ultimate limit state. The grouted
sleeve specimens ensure a cyclic behaviour similar to the one of cast in situ column-
foundation connections and of pocket foundations with a strength degradation lower
than 20%, although a slightly smaller dissipation capacity is observed for a drift
greater than 2.5%. The pre-existing crack at the column to foundation interface and
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

the plastic deformation of the de-bonded connecting bars allow the damage to be
limited to the base section, without involving the jointed structural elements, which
remain mostly elastic. As a result, an easier column repair has to be expected for the
grouted sleeve column-foundation connections after a seismic event of mean
intensity, with respect to cast-in-situ or pocket foundation solutions.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Edilmatic srl (Pegognaga,

Italy) for financing this research project on the seismic behaviour of joint in precast
concrete structures, Mozzo Prefabbricati (Verona, Italy) for the production of
concrete elements and Technochem Italiana s.p.a for the mortar supply. The
cooperation in carrying out the tests of Mr. Daniele Di Marco, technician of the
Tests and Materials Laboratory of the University of Bergamo, is gratefully
acknowledged.

6. References

Belleri A., Riva P., “Seismic performance and retrofit of precast concrete grouted sleeve
connections”, PCI Journal, 2011.
CEB, “Bullettin No. 23”, RC Frame under Earthquake Loading, London: Thomas Telford
Ltd, 1996.
Dal Lago B., Lamperti M., Toniolo G., “Verifica sperimentale di connessioni prefabbricate
pilastro-fondazione soggette a carichi ciclici:risultati preliminari”, Atti del 18° Congresso
C.T.E., Brescia, 11-13 November 2010, p. 915-922.
D.M. 2008, “Technical code for structures”, January 14, 2008.
EUROCODE 8, “Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings”, PrEn 1998-1, European Committee for
Standardization, December 2003.
 1316 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

Fagà E., Bianco L., Bellotti D., Bolognini D., Nascimbene R., “Risposta a carichi ciclici di un
sistema di collegamento tra pilastri prefabbricati e fondazione mediante piastre metalliche
e tirafondi”, Atti del 18° Congresso C.T.E., Brescia, 11-13 November 2010, p. 21-30.
FIB., “Seismic design of precast concrete building structures”, International Federation for
Structural Concrete, Bulletin No. 27, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2003.
FIB., “Structural connections for precast concrete buildings”, International Federation for
Structural Concrete, Bulletin No. 43, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2008.
Metelli G., Riva P., “Behaviour of a beam to column “dry” joint for precast concrete
elements”, Proceedings of The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China, ID 05-03-0139.
Metelli G., Riva P., “Behaviour of a support system for pre-cast concrete panels”.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete

Structures, Ed. Francis & Taylor, Catania, Italy, 17-22 June 2007, vol. 2, p. 651-660.
Metelli G., Riva P., “Seismic behaviour of precast column to foundation joint”, Proceedings
of International fib Symposium 2008, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 19-22 May 2008.
Pandey G.R., Mutsuyoshi H., Maki T., “Seismic performance of bond controlled RC
columns”, Engineering Structures, vol. 30, n° 9, 2008, p. 2538-2547.
Park R., State-of-the art report: ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing, In
Proceedings 9th WCEE. IAEE, Tokyo–Kyoto, Japan VIII, 1988, p. 605-616.
Rakesh K.G., “Simplified procedure for seismic evaluation of piles with partial-moment
connection to the deck in marine oil terminals”, Journal of Structural Engineering,
vol. 136, n° 5, 2010, p. 521-531.
Raynor D. J., Lehman D. E., Stanton J. F., “Bond-slip response of reinforcing bars grouted in
ducts”, ACI Struct. J., vol. 99, n° 5, 2002, p. 568-576.
Restrepo J. I., Yin P., Jaradat O., Weismair M., “Performance of new pile-deck connections
under earthquakes”, Proc., 2007 Structures Congress, ASCE, Reston, Va., 2007.
Roeder C. W., Graff R., Sonderstrom J., Yoo J. H., “Seismic performance of pile-wharf
connections”, Journal of Structural Engineering , vol. 131, n° 3, 2005, p. 428-437.
Riva P., “Seismic behaviour of precast column-to-foundation grouted sleeve connections”,
Advances in Engineering Structures, Mechanics & Construction Solid Mechanics and Its
Applications, 2006, vol. 140, Part 2, p. 121-128, DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4891-2_10.
Verderame G., Fabbrocino G., Manfredi G., “Seismic response of r.c. columns with smooth
reinforcement. Part I: Monotonic tests”, Engineering Structures, vol. 30, 2008, p. 2277-
2288.

Appendix. Moment resistance of the joint

Figure 14 shows the analytical approach to calculate the theoretical moment

resistance of the connection, which is based on the following assumptions.
 A column-foundation joint for RC structures 1317

fs Steel
fc Concrete
fs,u 10.9 1050 MPa fc column 50 MPa
fs,y 900 MPa
B450C 550 MPa
Es=200 GPa f c' topping 11 MPa
s s
sy =0.45% su =3.0% c0 =0.2 cu cu =3.5 0 0 0
cu fc f c'
Cc
T's
MR s

G di s,2
B

f s,2 Ts,2
NE
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014

s,1 f s,1 Ts,1

b
B

Figure 14. Analytical model for the calculation of the joint moment resistance

1. bilinear stress-strain relationship for the high strength threaded bars

connecting the column to the foundation with a an ultimate steel deformation εsu
equal to 3.0%;
2. stress-strain relationship with a horizontal top branch without strain limit, for
B450C reinforcement;
3. constant stress distribution in the concrete over a section depth equal
to 0.8 times the neutral axis depth;
4. ultimate concrete deformation εcu equal to 3.5‰ for both the column and the
topping.
For a given value of bar yield strength, fsy, bar ultimate strength, fsu, member
concrete strength, fc, concrete topping strength, f’c, the tensile stress area As of the
threaded bars, the moment resistance MR of the joint can be calculates as explained
below:
1. set the ultimate strain εcu at the outermost concrete fiber;
2. calculate the position x of the neutral axis, by an iterative procedure;
a. guess the location x of the neutral axis;
b. calculate the bar strain εs,i and the bar stress fs according to the bilinear
constitutive law;
c. calculate the tensile force Ts,i in the bars, the compressive force in the
concrete Cc and in the upper bars T’s:
d. repeat steps a to d until the summation of forces acting in the joint is equal
to the applied axial load NE ;
 1318 EJECE. Volume 15 – No. 9/2011

Cc + T’s – ∑i Ts,i = NE [16]

3. calculate the moment resistance MR of the joint:

MR =Cc (B/2 – 0.4 x) + T’s (B/2- di) – ∑i Ts,i (di –B/2) [17]

being B the column depth, di the distance to the upper compressed concrete fiber of
bars.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 01:07 27 September 2014