See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272483641

Wet vs. Dry Techniques in Connecting Piecewise Precast Reinforced Concrete

Beam-Column Elements In Moment Resisting Frames

Article · September 2007

CITATION READS

1 2,702

1 author:

Salah El-Din Fahmy Taher

Tanta University
103 PUBLICATIONS   186 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Perforated RC beams View project

Experimental and Numerical Analyses of RC Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salah El-Din Fahmy Taher on 24 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WET VS. DRY TECHNIQUES IN CONNECTING PIECEWISE
PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN
ELEMENTS IN MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES

SALAH EL-DIN TAHER1, AHMED ATTA2 and

ALAA EL-DIN SHARKAWI3

ABSTRACT

The integrity of precast concreter skeletons depends merely on the

moment transfer of the beam-column connection. In many applications,
handling capacity, cost and time along with the availability of
experienced personal may be the decisive factors to use either dry or wet
techniques in erection process. In this study, eleven full-scale specimens
have been considered in a comprehensive experimental program and the
feasibility of applying different proposed connecting schemes is
investigated. Although some dry and wet connected specimens gave
higher capacities and better ductility than the control monolithically
poured specimen, generally in wet technique the continuity between the
precast concrete units and the poured in-situ connection can be easily
granted with the conventional experience. Hence the wet connection
length has no significant effect on the joint behavior. As an experience
dependable technique, the variation in the behavior of the specimens
connected by erection (dry) was wide with more advantages toward
anchoring precast beam with the existence of cantilever. Using bonding
in addition to anchorage system is preferred to assure more compatibility
for the connection’s section with less experience dependence.

KEYWORDS: beam-column connection, moment resisting frames,

precast concrete
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻰ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ھﺬا اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺗﻢ دراﺳﺔ ﺳﻠﻮك أﺣﺪي ﻋﺸﺮ ﻋﯿﻨﺔ ﻟﻮﺻﻼت ﺗﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻧﻘ ﻞ ﻋ ﺰوم اﻧﺤﻨ ﺎء ﺑ ﯿﻦ ﻛﻤ ﺮات‬
‫ ﺣﯿﺚ ﺗﻢ اﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺳﻠﻮك ﻋﯿﻨﺎت ﻟﻮﺻﻼت ﺗﻢ ﺻﺐ ﺧﺮﺳ ﺎﻧﺘﮭﺎ‬٠‫و أﻋﻤﺪة ﺧﺮﺳﺎﻧﯿﺔ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ اﻟﺼﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ )ﻣﺒﻠﻠﺔ( ﺑﺄﺧﺮي ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ و ﯾﺘﻢ ﺗﺮﻛﯿﺒﮭﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ )ﺟﺎﻓﺔ( و ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻛﻞ طﺮﯾﻘﺔ ﺗﻢ دراﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ‬
‫ و ﻗ ﺪ أﻧﺘﮭ ﺖ‬٠ ‫ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ اﻟﺘﺴﻠﯿﺢ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻼت اﻟﻤﺒﻠﻠﺔ و طﺮﯾﻘﺔ اﻟﺘﺮﻛﯿﺐ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻼت اﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ‬، ‫طﻮل اﻟﻮﺻﻠﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ اﻟﻲ أﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ أن ھﻨﺎك اﻟﻌﺪﯾﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﯿﻨﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ زاد ﻓﯿﮭﺎ اﻟﺤﻤﻞ اﻷﻗﺼﻲ و اﻟﻤﻤﻄﻮﻟﯿ ﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻦ اﻟﻌﯿﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﺮﺟﻌﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺒﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ و ﻟﻜﻦ وﺟﺪ أﻧﺔ ﯾﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﯾﻌﺘﻤﺪ‬
1 Director, Higher Education Enhancement Project Fund, HEEPF, Ministry of Higher Education &
Professor of Concrete Structures, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University
2 Assistant professor, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University.
3 Assistant professor, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University
and author to whom correspondence should be addressed at 23 Yhia Ebraheem., Zamalek, Cairo,
Egypt. Email: amsharka@hotmail.com.
‫ اذا ﺗ ﻢ ﺗ ﺪارك ﻣﺸ ﻜﻠﺔ اﻟﻮﻗ ﺖ اﻟﻤﻄﻠ ﻮب ﻓ ﻲ ﺣ ﯿﻦ‬-‫ﻣ ﻊ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺘﮭ ﺎ اﻟﻤﺤ ﺪودة‬- ‫ﻋﻠﯿﮭ ﺎ ﻟﻠﻮﺻ ﻼت اﻟﻤﺒﻠﻠ ﺔ‬
٠ ‫ﺗﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻮﺻﻼت اﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻲ وﻗﺖ أﻗﻞ و ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻊ ﺧﺒﺮة ﺧﺎﺻﺔ و ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ أﻋﻠﻲ‬

INTRODUCTION

Reinforced concrete structures can never develop their intended capacity

if their connections are inadequately designed [12]. Most of the design
codes [7] emphasize the importance of beam-column joints to have
sufficient strength with adequate ductility. In turn, design procedures and
related studies adopt requirements for shear capacity, shear reinforcement
and development length for type-1 joints [5, 6] as well as type-2 joints
[16, 18]. Previous investigations have dealt with other parameters such as
reinforcement detailing [1], restraining effects in the transverse direction
[12], high strength concrete connections [10], wide band joints[9], and
the presence of column axial load [10].

On the other hand, the term a concrete stitching is defined as the practice
of joining separate precast and/or prestressed concrete units together in
order to behave as an integral entity [9,14,21], apart from the various
sorts of connection in precast construction classified as hard and soft
connections [17]. In many cases, builders prefer precast concrete to other
material because it offers opportunity for better quality control and makes
the construction process more efficient. Some typical examples of
stitching beams and slabs using lapping of projected dowels then filling
the stitching zone by grout, using welded anchor plates or using
mechanical connections was presented by the Prestressed Concrete
Institute (PCI) [1]. Other stitching techniques include external filament
for the beam segments and introducing prestressing through aligned
common tendon paths of adjacent segments [21]. This strategy, which is
categorized as a technique of the segmental construction methods, allows
for prefabricating smaller concrete units to reduce the weight and hence
the handling as well as transportation costs [13]. The main design
parameter in this technique is the mean of load transfer through the
stitching zone.

The most efficient in-situ technique for connecting reinforced concrete

precast units is a dilemma. In this study an experimental program was
developed to explore the efficiency of using different schemes for
connecting reinforced concrete precast moment-resisting beam-column at
site. Different techniques of wet (i.e. poured reinforced concrete at site)
and dry (i.e. erected) connections were used. Different proposed schemes
were applied and their performance were compared to a control specimen
of beam-column connection monolithically poured. The considered
comparison parameters are the time and cost required for connection as
well as the connection’s capacity and ductility. Feasibility of applying
different proposed connecting schemes is presented and the practical
applications are discussed.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

One control reinforced concrete beam-column connection monolithically

poured specimen in addition to ten beam-column specimens connected in
laboratory were tested in this experimental program. The performances of
different connection’s schemes are compared to that of the control
specimen. Different techniques of wet (i.e. poured reinforced concrete at
site) and dry (i.e. erected) connections were used in this experimental
program. In addition high strength concrete (i.e. fcu > 60MPa) was used
for the precast units and the connection to simulate the concurrent
manufacturing process around the world. Description of different
specimens is presented in Table (1).

Table (1) Description of different specimens

Wet Connection Dry Connection

Specimen Poured joint Specimen Description of connecting
ID length (x) ID elements
mm **
Four 16mm diameter bars threaded at
their ends, embedded in both beam
Control NA* DI-1 and cantilever and tightened to 3mm
steel plate over the cantilever.
Four 16mm diameter bars threaded at
WI-1 350 DI-2 their ends and tightened externally to
3mm steel plate over the cantilever.
Four reinforcing bars of the precast
beam threaded at their ends and
tightened through the column to 3mm
WI-2 500 DI-3 steel plate over the column and the
beam rested on the cantilever by
bearing.
16mm @ 200mm vertically and
horizontally internal anchorage bars
threaded at their ends and tightened
WII-1 350 DII-1 to two 400x400x3mm steel plates
anchored to both webs of the beam.
(X1= 400mm), see Fig (4)
DII-2 As DII-1 with X1=600mm
WII-2 500
DII-3 As DII-1 with X1=800mm
* Control specimen connection concrete was poured monolithically with the beam and column
** Refer to Figure (2) for more details
 Beam- column details

The first configuration of full scale specimens was precast beam of

dimensions 900 x 400 x 200 mm connected to a column of dimensions
2400 x 200 x 200 mm. Three columns were prepared with cantilever of
dimension 400 x 400 x 200 mm for the sake of connecting the main
precast beam. Concrete dimensions and the reinforcing detailing of the
control beam-column specimen and column provided with cantilever are
shown in Figure (1).

Connection details

In this research work, beam-column connection applications were mainly

classified into wet and dry connections. In wet connections, the two
precast units of the column and the precast beam unit were poured
keeping the connection area empty, while the reinforcing steel bars of the
connection were kept projected. Later after ten days of curing the
connection’s concrete was poured. Two different reinforcing detailing
were applied in the wet technique. The connection reinforcing steel area
were covered from the beam for specimens in group (WI) providing
tensile steel reinforcing ratio = 0.71%, while in group (WII), additional
two 16 mm diameter steel bars were provided from the columns in both
top and bottom sides of the connection which make tensile steel
reinforcing ratio = 1.21%, see Figure (2). The effect of using two
different lengths (x) of the wet connection was investigated in both
groups (WI and WII).
Pc
Pc 2 10 2 12
2 12
400
400

8@150 mm 8@150 mm
400

8@150 mm
3 10 5 12
5 12
200 200
200
1000

Section A-A
1000

Section A-A
Section A-A
B B
B B 900
A
900 400
A
400
400

A
A
Pg
600

4 16
1000
1000

200

8@150 mm
4 16
200
200

8@150 mm
Section B-B
200

200 Section B-B 200

Control specimen Column with cantilever specimen

Figure (1) Details of the beam-column connection control specimen and column provided with
cantilever specimen
 Connection surface Connection surface

X X

(WI) specimens (WII) specimens

Fig (2) Description of the reinforcing detailing of wet connection groups

For the dry connection technique, complete units of the precast column
and beam were poured and different erecting techniques were used for
connecting the precast units. For all specimens of group (DI), reinforced
concrete cantilever, having reinforcing detailing, depth and width similar
to the precast beam, was poured monolithically with the column, see Fig
(1). The precast beams were connected to the cantilever using internal
and external anchorage systems for specimens (DI-1) and (DI-2)
respectively. The beam of specimen (DI-1) was connected to the
cantilever using four 16mm internal anchorage bars threaded at their ends
and tightened to 3mm steel plate using nuts. On the other hand, the same
anchorage materials, with wider steel plate, were used to connect the
beam of specimen (DI-2) to the cantilever externally. While the beam unit
of specimen (DI-3) was connected to the column using similar anchorage
system to specimen (DI-1) but with threading the reinforcing bars of the
beam and the beam was rested on the cantilever by bearing. Figure (3)
shows different connecting techniques for specimens of group (DI).

For specimens of dry connection group (DII), the precast column was
poured as two separate pieces while the precast beam was poured as one
piece. The three precast pieces were connected using 16 mm diameter
internal anchorage bars threaded at their ends and tightened to 3mm
thickness steel plates anchored to both webs of the beam. The effect of
using three different connecting lengths (x) was explored through testing
three specimens (DII-1, DII-2 and DII-3). Figure (4) shows the scheme of
the connecting technique for specimens of group (DII).

(DI-1) specimen (DI-2) specimen (DI -3) specimen

Fig (3) Description of the connecting techniques for specimens of group (DI)
.

X1

Fig (4) Scheme of the connecting technique for specimens of group (DII)

Considering both wet and dry connections, in addition to studying the

behavior of connections having the same internal reinforcing steel (i.e.
group WI) as the control beam-column connection monolithically poured,
the effect of using extra internal reinforcing steel area (i.e. group WII)
was studied to be compared to the dry connections using external steel
plates which provides extra reinforcing area to the reinforced concrete
section (i.e. group DII specimens) and to the case of providing external
bearing area through cantilever (i.e. group DI specimens).
Materials properties and specimen construction

The average compressive strength of the concrete mix used in

manufacturing the precast column and beam was 58 MPa after 28 days
where the average compressive strength of the concrete poured for
connection was 47 MPa after 14 days of curing and reached 61 MPa after
28 days. All specimens were constructed with Grade 40/60 reinforcing
steel with actual average yield strength of 437 MPa.

All the test specimens were cast in horizontal position. For specimens
with wet connection, the precast concrete units (i.e. column and beam)
were cast where the reinforcement of the connection was left projected in
the mould and covered with sand to assure its cleanness during casting,
see Fig (5). After 28 days of casting the precast units, concrete for
connection was poured. Epoxy resin (Sikadur 32) bonding agent, with
bond strength to concrete and tensile strength equal 2.5-3 and 18-20MPa
respectively, was used to connect the old and new concrete batches. The
wet specimens tested after 14 days of pouring the connection. To provide
a hole for the precast anchoring of dry connections, plastic pipes were
adjusted in the anchorage bar’s positions before casting, see Fig (5).

Test setup and instrumentation

The loading setup of the testing is shown in Figure (6-a). An axial load of
(400 kN), was applied to the column incrementally and kept sustained
through the test duration. The magnitude of this force was estimated to
provide flexural strength ratio over 1.2. An increment load (i.e. in steps of
10 kN) was applied upward to the beam through a manual hydraulic up to
failure which was measured by the load cell attached to the jack. One
LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transducers) were placed vertically
at beam’s end to measure the vertical deflection of beam and vertical
displacement of column as shown in Fig. (6-b). Electrical strain gages
were attached to steel bars at different locations of the column-beam
connection such as the main tensile reinforcing steel in the precast beam’s
direction and the cantilever beam for group DI specimens. Demec points
were also used across the connection’s surfaces (see Figure 2) and
compared to the readings at same location of the control specimen to
monitor any significant difference due to separation at connection.
Readings of strain gauges and load cells were monitored by strain-meter
and electrical screen.
 Sand

Sand

Wet Connection

Dry connection

Fig (5) Different preparation steps for specimen’s construction

a- Testing setup. b- Position of LVDT at beam’s end.

Fig (6) Test setup and instrumentation

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From the practical application point of view, less cost and erection
experience are usually required for the wet connections while longer time
is usually required for to the dry connections. Table (2) shows the main
characteristics of the tested specimens including the ultimate load,
maximum deflection, ductility index, the flexural toughness and modes of
failure.

Table (2) The main characteristics of the tested specimens

Specimen Yield Ultimate Max. Deflection Ductility Flexural
ID Load load Deflection at Yield Mode index toughness
Py Pu Dmax Dy of Dmax /
(ton) (ton) failure
(mm) (mm) Dy (ton.mm)
Control 10.8 12.2 29.6 19.5 A 1.52 265
WI-1 9.6 10.8 39.19 15 A 2.6 315
WI-2 11 12.5 42.1 17.6 A 2.39 348
WII-1 NA 15.5 23.1 NA B NA 275
WII-2 NA 16 22.4 NA B NA 297
DI-1 9.0 10.8 19.8 9.5 C 2.1 255
DI-2 10.2 12 31.7 17.2 C 1.84 268
DI-3 NA 17 31.5 NA C NA 375
DII-1 8.6 10 24.7 15.3 D 1.61 160
DII-2 NA 7.3 37.2 NA D NA 229
DII-3 NA 6.0 38.5 NA D NA 201
- Failure Mode (A): Yield of the precast beam’s internal reinforcing steel rebars in tension
- Failure Mode (B): Shear failure of the precast beam
- Failure Mode (C): Yield of the cantilever’s internal reinforcing steel rebars in tension
- Failure Mode (D): Shear cracks on the precast beam followed by premature rupture of concrete around the
anchorage bars
- NA: Value is not applicable due to either strain didn't reach yield or strain gage reading stopped before yield.

Behavior of wet connection groups

Responses of different specimens are shown in Figures (7) through (13).

Load versus precast beam’s deflection and main steel strain curves as
well as modes of failure are presented in these figures. Other connection’s
characteristics are excluded due to space limitation. Generally, behavior
of WI group specimens (i.e. wet connections) shows good correlation
with the control monolithically poured specimen. On the other hand,
Figures (7) and (8) show the obvious difference between both types of
wet connections. More ductile behavior and less capacity were observed
for the connections with lower reinforcement ratios (i.e. WI) while less
significant differences were noticed for longer poured joint (WI-1 vs. WI-
2) and (WII-1 vs. WII-2). Figure (9) shows the main two modes of failure
for specimens of groups WI and WII. Both specimens of group WI failed
by yield of the precast beam’s internal reinforcing steel rebars in tension.
However, over reinforcing of the concrete section of specimens WII-1
and WII-2 leads to typical shear failure. No signs of separation appeared
along the connection surface. On the other hand, using the demec point
readings, the strain distribution along the connection surface of specimen
WII-1 is found to be as shown in Figure (10). The strain distribution for
different loading stages and the crack pattern (see Figure 9) are very close
to linear distribution with no significant change along the connection
surface. This highlights the high connecting efficiency of wet connection
leading to minor differences in behavior with changing the poured
concrete length of the connection.

Behavior of dry connection groups

Figures (11) and (12) show the load versus deflection and the precast
beam main steel tensile strain, respectively, for different specimens of the
dry connection groups (DI and DII) in addition to the control
monolithically poured specimen. Generally, the load-deflection response
of the DI group’s specimens (i.e. using cantilever in connection) is close
to that of the control specimen especially for specimen DI-2. Failure load
of specimen DI-3 was higher than the control specimen due to the better
contact (i.e. compatible section) between the cantilever and the precast
beam. The good contact between the two elements provided bigger
section and higher capacity as well as a significant reduction in the
precast beam’s tensile reinforcement strain. Due to lack of good contact
in specimen DI-1, lower capacity and higher beam’s tensile strain were
measured. The main mode of failure of specimens of group DI was by
yielding of the cantilever’s internal reinforcing steel rebars in tension, see
Figure (13).

On the other hand, all specimens of group DII showed less stiffness and
capacity than that of the control specimen. Reduction in strain monitored
-till failure- in the precast beam’s main tensile steel for specimens of
group DII is expected as a reason of additional web reinforcement (i.e.
steel plates) existence. However, significant reduction in the beam
stiffness and the connection capacity (i.e. specimens DII-2 and DII-3)
indicates improper connection between the precast elements to work as
one unit. Typical crack pattern for specimens DII-2 and DII-3 -after
removing the steel plate- is shown in Figure (13). Wide shear cracks were
monitored crossing the anchorage bars which led to rupture of concrete
around the anchorage bars and accordingly premature failure of the
connection. To enhance the contact between the connecting steel plates
and the beam, bonding agent is suggested – in future work- in addition to
mechanical connection using anchorage steel bars. However, using
bonding material needs special tools and experience as well as longer
connecting time.
 16

14

12

10
Load (Ton)

8
CONTROL
6 `
WI-1
WI-2
4
WII-2
WII WI
WII-1
2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)

Figure (7) Load vs. precast beam’s deflection response of wet specimens

16

14

12 WII WI

10
Load (Ton)

WI-1
6
control
WII-1
4
WII-2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
-6
Strain 
10
Figure (8) Load vs. precast beam’s main steel strain response of wet specimens

Connection
surface
Shear
Yield of failure
beam’s
reinforcing
bars

Specimen WI-1(Mode A) Specimen WII-1 (Mode B)

Figure (9) Modes of failure for specimens in wet connection groups (WI and WII)

Top fiber

x Section depth
1

0.9

0.8

4 ton
0.7
6 ton
10 ton
0.6
12 ton
15ton
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Bottom fiber
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-2
Strain x (10 )

Figure (10) Strain distribution around the connection surface for different loading
levels of specimen WII-1

To study the efficiency of different proposed connections, Figure (14)

presents the specific capacity (i.e. specimen ultimate load/ monolithically
poured control specimen ultimate load), the specific ductility and the
specific toughness for different specimens. Generally, the tested wet
connection specimens gave closer characteristics to the control specimen
specially specimen WI-2. As expected and due to high reinforcement
ratio, WII group specimens provided higher capacity and less ductility
than control specimen. Specimen DI-2 is the closest connection -in the
monitored characteristics - to the monolithically poured control specimen
while specimen DI-3 provided the highest capacity. In spite of the high
cost required for implementing connections according to group DII,
disappointing results were monitored for these specimens from both
capacity and toughness points of view. Hidden cracked concrete surface
under the steel plate is an obvious disadvantage of this technique
especially in case of premature brittle mode of failure (e.g. DII-3
specimen).
 18

16 DII DI

14

12
Load (Ton)

10

8 CONTROL
DI-2
6 DI-1
DII-1
4 DII-3
DII-2
2 D1-3

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Deflection (mm)

Figure (11) Load vs. precast beam’s deflection response of dry specimens

18

16

14 DII DI

12
Load (Ton)

10

8 DII-3
DII-1
6 DII-2
control
4 DI-2
DI-1
2 DI-3

0
0 500 1000 1500 -6
2000 2500 3000
Strain X 10

Figure (12) Load vs. precast beam’s main steel strain response of dry specimens

Yield of
cantilever’s
reinforcing
Crack pattern
under plate

Specimen DII-3 (Mode D) Specimen DI-3 (Mode C)

Figure (13) Modes of failure for dry connection group’s specimens (WI and WII)
 1.8
Spec. Capacity

1.6 Spec. Ductility

Spec. Toughness
1.4

1.2
Specific value

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
WI-1 WI-2 WII-1 WII-2 DI-1 DI-2 DI-3 DII-1 DII-2 DII-3
Specimen ID

Dry groups
Wet groups High cost
Low cost, Short time
Long time Special experience
Conventional experience

Figure (14) Main specific characteristics of different specimens related to control

CONCLUSIONS

From the analysis of observed behavior and recorded experimental data

of the eleven full scale specimens the following conclusions may be
drawn:

1- The suggested techniques- in the present investigation- provided

adequate moment resistance of the beam-column connections which is
essential in seismic regions.
2- Wet technique for connecting precast concrete column-beam showed
closer behavior -from capacity and ductility point of views- to the
monolithically poured column-beam joint. However, time constraint
may limit its practicality in particular projects.
3- No signs of separation appeared –till failure- between the old and new
concert sections during the application of the wet method of
connection with using bonding agent between old and new concrete.
This highlights its connectivity efficiency in addition to its lower cost
which did not significantly affected with changing the poured concrete
length of the connection (i.e. WI vs. WII specimens) or increasing the
 reinforcing steel ratio of the connection section (i.e. WI-1 vs. WII-1
specimens).
4- Dry erecting for connecting column-beam precast elements needed
special experience for execution and higher cost compared to wet
technique. With lack of high experience no reliable behavior was
expected for the connection (i.e. DII-1 vs. DII-2 & 3). In addition,
bonding agent was preferred to be used –in addition to mechanical
anchorage system- to enhance the contact between the connecting
steel plates and the precast units leading to more compatible section
and delaying the premature separation of the connection due rupture of
concrete around the anchorage bars.
5- Hidden cracks in concrete surface under the steel plate represented an
obvious disadvantage of connecting the precast elements with plate
anchorage system especially in case of premature brittle mode of
failure (e.g. DII-3 specimen).

REFERENCES

1- ACI-ASCE committee 352,”Recommendations for Design of Beam-

Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures,” ACI
Structural Journal, Proceedings, pp. 375-393, 1976.
2- Atta, A. E., Taher, S. F., Khalil, A. A., and El-metwally, S. E.,
“Behavior of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beam-Column Joint
(Part II Numerical analysis)”, Journal of Structural Concrete, U.K.,
Vol. 5, No.3, pp.101-112, Dec. 2004.
3- Atta, A. E., Taher, S. F., Khalil, A. A., and El-metwally, S. E.,
“Behavior of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beam-Column Joint,
(Part I Experimental work)”, Journal of Structural Concrete, U.K., Vol.
4, No.4, pp.175-183, Dec. 2003.
4- Atta, A. E., Taher, S. F., Khalil, A. A., and El-metwally, S. E., “Strut
and Tie Model for R.C. Beam-Column Joints by Self-Designing
Structures Concept”, Engineering Research Bulletin. Faculty of
Engineering, Ain-Shams University, Egypt, Vol. 38 No.2, pp.45-61,
June 2003.
5- Baglin, P.S., and Scott, R.H., Nov.,“Finite Element Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Connection” ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 97, 2000.
6- Burnett, E.F.P., and Jajjo, RP.,“Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Connection,” ASCE Journal of Strutural Division, Vol.. 97 ST9.,
pp.2315-2335, Sept. 1971.
7- Commission of the European Communities, “Eurocode No. 8,
Structures in Seismic Regions-Design-Part I,” Luxembourg, 1989.
 8- Egyptian Code Committee, "Egyptian Code for the Design and
Constructions of Concrete Structures", 2001, Second Edition.
9- French, C. W., Hafner, M., and Jayashankar, V., "Connections between
Precast Elements—Failure within Connection Region," Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 12, December 1989, pp.
3171-3192.
10- Hamil S.J., and Scotte R.H., 8-10 Sep.,“Developments In High Strength
Concrete Beam-Column Connection Design,” Proceeding of the
international Conference on Innovation in Concrete Structures, Dundee
University, pp.157-166, 1999.
11- Jirsa, J. O., “Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance”
ACI-SP 123, ACI, pp. 224-239, 1991.
12- Kato, B., and Feb.“Beam-to-Column Connection Research in Japan,”
ASCE, Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 108, No. ST2, pp.343-359,
1982.
13- Kim S. Elliot, “Multi-Story Precast Concrete Framed Structures”,
Publisher Blackwell Science, 1996.
14- Kriz , L. B., and Raths, C. H., "Connections in Precast Concrete
Structures Bearing Strength of Column Head," J. Prestressed Concrete
Institute, Vol. 8, No. 6, 1963, pp. 45-75.
15- Oka, K., and Shiohara, H.,“Tests of High Strength Concrete Beam-
Column Subassemblges” Proc. 10th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Rotterdam, pp. 3211-3216, 1992.
16- Paulay, T., Park, R., and Priestley, M.J.N.,“Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints Under Seismic Actions,” ACI Journal, Vol. 75, No. 11,
pp.585-593, Nov. 1978.
17- Precast Prestressed Concrete Institute, "Precast Prestressed Concrete
DesignHandbook", PCI, 2002.
18- Restrepo, J.I., and Lin, C.M.,“Evaluation of Shear Strength Of Beam-
Column Joints of Reinforced Concrete Frames Subjected to Earthquake
Loading,” Auckland, New Zealand, Paper 522, 2000.
19- Shclaich, J. and Schafer, K. and Jennewein, M., "Towards a Consistent
Design of Structural Concrete", PCI Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, 1987, pp.
74-149.
20- Taher, S. F., and Khalil, A. A., Fawzy, T. M., "Static and Dynamic
Response of Infilled Frames-A Critique", Proc. 3rd Port-Said
International Conference for Engineering Researches, Port-Said, Egypt,
Nov. 1999, pp. 106-119.
21- Taman, M. H., Maaty, A. A., Taher, S. F., and Fawzy, T. M.,
"Stitching Piecewise Precast RC Subassembly in Segmental
Construction", Scientific Bulletin, Ain Shams University, Faculty of
Engineering, Vol. 40, No. 3, 30 September,2005, pp. 53-71.

View publication stats