ANALYSING THE STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRECAST REINFORCED BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTIONS

Transcription

1 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET) Volume 9, Issue 13, December 2018, pp , Article ID: IJMET_09_13_014 Available online at ISSN Print: and ISSN Online: IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed ANALYSING THE STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRECAST REINFORCED BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTIONS Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R Assitant Professor, Department OF Civil Engineering, Vels Institute of Science, Technology & Advanced Studies, Chennai, India. Ms. Janani R Assitant Professor, Department OF Civil Engineering, Vels Institute of Science, Technology & Advanced Studies, Chennai, India. Dr. Ilango T Associate Professor, Department OF Civil Engineering, Vels University, Vels Institute of Science, Technology & Advanced Studies, Chennai, India. ABSTRACT In this paper the strength aspects of precast reinforced beam-column connection is analysed. A 3D nonlinear finite element model is developed by using the Finite Element Software AnsysCivil to analyse the strength aspects of the precast Connection. The precast connection considered for this study where the beam is connected to the column with corbel. In this study, two types of connections were compared monolithic connection and five types of precast connection includes connection using (i) J-Bolt, (ii) Cleat Angle, (iii) Dowel Bar, (iv) Dowel bar and Cleat angle and (v) Tie Rod. 2 types of elements are used, solid elements and Contact element. For the non-linear finite element analysis One-third models were developed and tested under axial loading. The strength aspects of precast connections in terms of ultimate load carrying capacity, loaddisplacement relation and ductility factor compared with that of monolithic connection. It is concluded the monolithic connection has performed better in terms of ultimate load carrying capacity, energy dissipation, but in terms of ductility factor the precast beamcolumn connection using dowel bar and cleat angle showed better performance than that of monolithic connection. And, it is concluded that if the material properties and failure criterion can selected suitably, it is possible to predict the accurate inelastic performance of precast beam-column connection. Keywords: Precast connection; cleat angle; ductility; beam column joint; Cite this Article: Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T, Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(13), 2018, pp editor@iaeme.com

2 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T 1. INTRODUCTION The concept of precast construction includes those buildings, where the majority of structural components are standardized and produced in plants in a location away from the building and then transported to the site for assembly. In the recent years, the reasonable growth has been experienced by the precast concrete construction industry, because of the precast reinforced construction supplies high quality structural elements, overall reduction in construction time and cost, reduction in quantities of materials and manpower. The precast concrete construction has many advantages still there is an uncertainty in constructing the precast the structures in seismic areas. For the past four decades many researches have been done on studying the precast beam column connection to improve the connection and to understand the complete behavior of the connection under seismic conditions. Because, most of the precast concrete structures have failed during earthquake due to poor connection detailing between precast beam column connections. Though many researches have been done on this concept but still the complete behavior of the precast concrete beam to column connection is not known. In order to form the complete structure, the precast reinforced elements are connected with other elements. When two different types of elements are connected problems such as volumetric changes, differential shrinkage may occur. The volumetric change leads to the displacement between the two elements and this has been rectified by using various methods such as inserting connectors such as dowel bar, cleat angle, tie rod etc., the precast structure is the combination of different precast elements so, the connection between the elements must be able to withstand all loads. So, the design and construction of joints and connections is more important to ensure stability and robustness of the overall structure. Fig 1.1 and 1.2 shows the installation of beams at site and placing of beams on corbel Figure 1.1 Installation of beams Figure 1.2 Beam placing on corbel editor@iaeme.com

3 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections 2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE WORK This paper aims to study the behaviour of precast reinforced beam column connection and to identify the suitable connector used for connecting the precast reinforced beam column connection Scope of this study is, To conduct investigation on precast reinforced beam-column connections with a reference monolithic connection. To compare between the precast beam-column connections to the monolithic connection on the behaviour of strength, energy dissipation, ultimate loading capacity and ductility. To compare two types of connections including precast beam column connection and monolithic connection using ANSYS CIVIL Finite element method. To compare the five types of precast reinforced beam-column connection using different connectors. The connectors are, J-bolt Cleat angle Dowel bar Dowel bar and cleat angle Tie rod. In this study, five types of precast connections are analysed. The precast beam column connection using J-bolt, beam column connection using Cleat angle, beam column connection using dowel bar, beam column connection using dowel bar with cleat angle and beam column connection using tie rod. Monolithic connection is taken as reference connection. Finite element model of all the specimens are analysed by using ANSYS CIVIL finite element method. 3. LITERATURE REVIEW Two types of connections were analysed using ANSYS finite element method. Monolithic connection and 2 types of precast connections were compared in this study. Precast connections were connection using j-bolt and cleat angle. The elements Solid 65, Link 8, CONTA174 and TARGE170 and Solid 45 were used for modelling the concrete, reinforcement, grouting material and loading plates respectively. The analysis results showed that the monolithic connection performed better than the two types of precast connection. Out of the precast connections the specimen with j-bolt showed better performance.[1] This paper aims to improve the understanding of the Finite Element modelling of RC subassemblies in ABAQUS. In this study the comparison of load displacement of RCC beam column joint under monotonic loading between the analysis using ANSYS software and ABAQUS software. The joints are modelled for two boundary conditions i) both ends of the column are hinged and ii) both ends of the column are fixed. Concrete Damaged Plasticity models are used in the analysis of ABAQUS software. C3D8 element is selected for concreting and T3D2 element is selected for reinforcement in the modelling of ABAQUS software. In the numerical analysis, the full scale RC beam-column connection under monotonic loads performed by ABAQUS is compared with the non-linear analysis for validating the accuracy and reliability of the joint s performance. The non-linear analysis of exterior beam-column joint by using ANSYS software has been done by S.S.Patil and S.S.Manakari. The load displacement results for the end conditions by ABAQUS have been compared with ANSYS. The result of ANSYS does not showing the actual behaviour of exterior reinforced beam-column joint. But the ABAQUS results shows the realistic behaviour of the beam-column joint. [2] editor@iaeme.com

4 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T In this study the author is aiming to introduce new concept in connecting the beam and column. In this study a pair of full scale precast columns were casted with holes for inserting the top bars of the beam and a steel connector is used for connecting the beam and column and the gap filled with grouting material. For the first specimen 2 bolts are used for connection and for the 2nd one only one nut is used for connection. These two specimens were tested under cyclic inelastic loading. Finite element models were done by using ABAQUS software and compared with the test results of the 2 specimens. The test results and analysis results showed the weakness of the steel connectors at the stage of plastic hinging.[3] In this study the results of experimental tests related to the cyclic behaviour of beam column dry connection. In this study the beam column joint is connected by using high strength steel bars and a fibre reinforced concrete and the gap will be fill with Z-shaped interface. A full scale specimen is casted by using above connection method and tested by imposing the horizontal drift at the top of the column. The results showsthus the dissipating capacity is limited because of the brittle failure at column side. Damages occurred to the column with the increase of loading cycle amplitude.[4] In this study the load deflection of the beam was studied under cyclic loading. In this study two types specimens of 1/5th scale were created and tested. Connections include control specimen which is the conventional and a prefabricated cage steel connection. The results showed that the conventional connection was not performed well compared to the PCS connection. Because the PCS connection is a full steel structure and it showed better confinement [5]. In this study finite element model of the precast hybrid beam column connection has been developed by ANSYS and tested under cyclic loading. The results of finite element model were validated with experimental results that were conducted by NIST. The mathematical model of the structure to be analysed is divided into mesh of finite elements. The elements used for modelling the concrete, reinforcement and grouting material were Solid 65, Link8 and CONTA 174 & TARGE 170 respectively. For obtaining accurate prediction of the response of this structure, accurate material properties and relevant coefficients were given to the finite element model. The model has been tested under cyclic lateral loading condition. The author concluded that the results of ANSYS model is fairly similar to the experimental results.[6] In this study Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer composite is used for flexural strengthening and Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer composite is used for shear strengthening and steel plates are used for connection. Four full scale specimens were modelled using ANSYS software. The specimens are without FRP laminates, with Carbon FRP laminates, with Glass FRP laminates and with both Carbon and Glass FRP laminates. Solid 65, Link 8, Solid 46 and Solid 45 were used for modelling the concrete, steel reinforcement, FRP laminates and steel plates. SAP 2000 finite element software also used for validating the results of ANSYS. The results obtained from ANSYS finite element model showed fairly good agreement with experimental results.[8] In this study four types of specimens were modelled using LUSAS finite element software. The models included corbel only, corbel + plate and bolt on beam top model, corbel + plate and bolt on beam top + stiffener and a connection with plate and bolt. The finite element model results showed that the connection with plate and bolt performed better than the other connections.[9] In this study two full scale specimens were casted and tested under unidirectional and bidirectional cyclic loading at EW direction. The specimens are J1 and J2. J1 is the specimen consisted of two beams framing into to the joints on opposite sides and J2 is the specimen consisted of beams framing into the column in orthogonal direction. The connections were attached to the reaction floor through steel struts at hinges at the ends. 4 cross ties were placed editor@iaeme.com

5 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections around the joint through holes left over the beam width during precast. The behaviour of J1 is inferior to that of J2. They concluded the specimen J2 performed better than the specimen J1.[10] In this study two types of monolithic connections (M1 &M2) and two types of precast connections (P1 & P2) were constructed and tested under cyclic displacement-controlled lateral loading. The specimens M1 and P1 is constructed using U-bars at top and bottom reinforcement and the specimens M2 and P2 are constructed for ductile detailing. The results showed that the specimen with anchored beam bars performed better than the specimen with U-bars. The precast specimen with beam bars anchored into the column is performed better than that of monolithic specimen. The precast specimen with U-bars performed worse than that of monolithic specimen. [11] 4. METHODOLOGY Figure 1 Methodology The monolithic connection and precast beam-column connection is designed based on the IS 456 and IS Based on the design, the connections will be modelled using ANSYS CIVIL Finite Element Modelling. The five types of connectors will be modelledand will be merged to the precast beam and column connection to create five precast specimens with different connectors. The connectors includes cleat angle, j-bolt, dowel bar, dowel bar with cleat angle and tie rod. The considered loads will be applied to the six specimens by writing and reading the loads on the specimens. After applying the loads the specimens will be analysed Comparison will be done for the precast specimens with the monolithic connection. The comparison is for the parameters such as strength, ultimate load carrying capacity and ductility factor editor@iaeme.com

6 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T 4.1. Design and detailing of specimens According to IS 456 and IS the exterior joints of precast beam column connection and monolithic connection were designed for this study. The cross sectional dimensions are 100 x 150 mm for both beam and column of monolithic connection and for the precast connection 100 x 100 mm for beam and 150x 100 mm for column. The clear span of beam is 720 mm and height of the column is 970 mm for both the specimens. The cover thickness for the beam and column of the monolithic and precast connections are 20mm, 15mm, 24mm and 14mm respectively Monolithic Connection The monolithic connection is designed and detailed according to IS: 456 and IS: respectively. The fig.2 shows the reinforcement detailing of the monolithic precast reinforced beam-column connection. The beam has reinforced with 2 number of 8mm diameter bars at top longitudinal reinforcement and 2 number of 8mm diameter bars at bottom longitudinal reinforcement. 6mm diameter bars are provided as lateral ties at 50mm centre to centre spacing and for a distance of 350mm from column face the spacing is reduced to 25mm. The column has reinforced with 6 number of 8mm diameter bars and along the column height excluding the joint region the lateral ties are provided at 50mm spacing with 6mm diameter bars and at the column region the spacing has been reduced to 25mm. Schematic representation of isometric view of monolithic connection is shown in Figure 2 Figure 2. Schematic representation of isometric view of monolithic connection 4.3. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection The precast reinforced beam is reinforced with 2 number of 8mm diameter bars in top longitudinal reinforcement and 2 number of 8mm diameter bars at bottom longitudinal reinforcement. The beam has lateral ties of 6mm dia at 50mm spacing excluding the joint region and at the joint region the spacing has reduced to 25mm. The column is reinforced with 6 number of 8mm diameter bars for longitudinal reinforcement and lateral ties are provided at a spacing of 50mm centre to centre excluding joint region. The spacing has decreased to 25mm at the joint region Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using J- Bolt In this connection, the main connecting element was the J-bolt. J-bolt of 16 mm diameter was cast inside the corbel and projected out from the corbel in the precast column. The precast beam with a 21mm diameter sleeve hole which was cast inside the beam was inserted on to the projecting J-bolt and the nut tightened. Iso-resin grouts were filled into the bolt hole to complete the connection. This connection transmits vertical shear forces. The schematic representation of isometric view of precast reinforced beam-column connection using J-Bolt is shown in figure editor@iaeme.com

7 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections Figure 3 Schemeatic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using J-Bolt 4.5. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Cleat angle In this connection two 16mm diameter bolts were used, in which one bolt connects the cleat angle with the column and the other connects the cleat angle with both the beam and the corbel. In the precast elements, sleeve holes of 21 mm diameter were cast inside the column, beam and corbel. The cleat angle used for the connection is ISA 100x100x10. The bolts used were of grade 4.6. The gap between the bolts and the bolt hole was filled using iso-resin grouts. The schematic representation of isometric view of precast reinforced beam-column connection using Cleat angle is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 Schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column using cleat angle 4.7. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Dowel bar In this connection the beam was supported on concrete corbel using dowel bar. The dowel bar was embedded in the column to a length equal to the development length and cast with the bar projecting from the corbel. The precast beam with 21 mm diameter sleeve hole which was cast inside the beam was inserted into the projecting dowel bar. The gap between the dowel bar and the hole was filled iso-resin grouts. The schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column using dowel bar is shown in figure editor@iaeme.com

8 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T Figure 5 Schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using Dowel bar 4.8. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Dowel bar and cleat angle In this connection the beam was supported on concrete corbel using dowel bar and cleat angle. The dowel bar was embedded in the column to a length equal to the development length. The cleat angle used for the connection was ISA 100x100x10. A sleeve of 21 mm diameter was cast inside the column and beam to facilitate the connectivity between precast elements. A part of the dowel was projecting outside the corbel for connection with the beam using cleat angle and nuts. A bolt of 16 mm diameter of grade 4.6 was used to connect the cleat angle and the column. The gap between the dowel bar and the groove was filled isoresin grouts. The schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using dowel bar and cleat angle is shown in Figure-6 Figure 6 -Schematic representation of isometric view of precast beam-column connection using dowel bar &cleat angle 4.9. Precast Reinforced Beam Column Connection using Tie Rod In this connection, the main connecting element was the J-bolt. J-bolt of 16 mm diameter was cast inside the corbel and projected out from the corbel in the precast column. The precast beam with a 21mm diameter sleeve hole which was cast inside the beam was inserted on to the projecting J-bolt and the nut tightened. Iso-resin grouts were filled into the bolt hole to complete the connection. This connection transmits vertical shear forces. The schematic representation of precast beam-column connection using tie rod is shown in Figure editor@iaeme.com

9 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections Figure 7 Schematic representation of isometric view of precast reinforced beam-column connection using tie-rod Finite element modelling It is possible to evaluate the strength aspects of structure using Finite Element Model. To obtain accurate results of the structure accurate material properties and coefficients should be given to the Finite Element Model. In this study the monolithic connection and precast connection with five types of connectors are analysed by using ANSYS CIVIL FEM software Elements of modeling The elements used for modelling the specimens are selected based on the literature review. The elements are as follows: SOLID 65 element: This element is having 8nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node. This type of elements are used for 3-D modelling solids with and without rebar. It is used to model concrete. LINK 8 element: This is a 3-D spar elements with three degrees of freedom at each nodes. This type of elements are used to model rebars. CONTA 174 and TARGE 170 element: This type of elements are used for the modelling of contact and target surfaces since the contact is between two different surfaces. The surface with finer meshing is considered as contact surface and surface with coarser meshing is considered as target surface. This types of elements are used to model the grouting material. SOLID 45 element: This is a 3-D element having 8 nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node. This type of element are used for modelling the angle plates Material properties To obtain accurate behaviour of the specimens, accurate material properties and accurate coefficient should be given to the model. Grade of concrete M35 Grade of Bolt Grade of Steel -Fe 500 Poisson s ratio for concrete and steel bar -0.2& 0.3 Density of concrete and steel-24 kg/m³ and 7950 kg/m³. Material Properties of the Link8 element and Solid65 elements were given in Table editor@iaeme.com

10 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T Table1. Material Properties MATERIAL MODEL NO ELEMENT TYPE 1 Solid65 2 Link8 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Linear isotropic EX (MODULUS OF ELASTICITY) N/ mm² PRXY (POISON S RATIO) 0.2 CONCRETE SHEAR TRANSFER COEFFICIENT FOR AN OPEN 0.5 CRACK SHEAR TRANSFER COEFFICIENT FOR AN 0.9 CLOSED CRACK STIFFNESS MULTIPLIER FOR CRACKED TENSILE 0.6 CONDITION LINEAR ISOTROPIC EX (MODULUS OF ELASTICITY) 2e5 N/mm² PRXY (POISON S RATIO) Sectional properties Discrete modelling is adopted for this study. Real constants considered for Solid 65 element was volume ratio and orientation angle. Real constants considered for 3D Spar Link8 elements were given in the table2. Table2. Real Constants for Steel reinforcement REAL CONSTA NT SET 1 2 ELEMEN T TYPE Link8 (main bars) Link8 (lateral ties) PARTICULARS OF THE MODEL Cross sectional area (mm²) Initial Strain 0 Cross sectional area (mm²) Initial Strain Modelling of beam column joints In this present study modelling of the beam-column joints were done by discrete modelling method. In discrete modelling both the concrete and steel models share the same nodes. For applying the displacement and force steel plates are used at the top and bottom of the column and at the free end of the beam. Because if the steel plates are not provided the loads given to the connection will make the connection to misbehave. In monolithic connection Solid65, Solid45 & Link8 elements were used to generate the models. But for the precast reinforced beam-column connections contact elements were used for grout materials. Contact elements are CONTA174 & TARGE170. In beam column interface and in beam corbel interface surface to surface contact elements were used. The finer surface should be the target surface and coarser surface should be editor@iaeme.com

11 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections the contact surface.the Fig 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 shows the reinforcement modelling of the precast and the monolithic connections using 5 different connectors Boundary condition Both the ends of the column were fixed, the bottom and top of the column is restrained in six degrees of freedom at the Ux,Uy and Uzdirections and rotations Rx, Ry and Rz directions. Boundary condition is shown as in figures FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS Loads applied to the monolithic connection and the precast beam column connections were considered and the loading was applied to the top of the beam surface with fixed column ends. Axial load equal to 1000N, 2000N, 3000N...up to its ultimate load was applied to the beam. Axial loading was applied to the beam as shown in the Figure editor@iaeme.com

12 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T Figure 14- Boundary condition Figure 15- Axial load and Acceleration due to gravity load 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The ultimate load carrying capacity of the Monolithic specimen is 12.6kN and 13.2kN in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast specimen using j-bolt is 5.6kN and 4.9kN in positive and negative directions respectively. The load carrying capacity of the precast specimen with j-bolt is lesser than the monolithic specimen. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast connection using cleat angle is 4.2kN and 3.8kN in positive and negative directions respectively. The load carrying capacity of the precast specimen using cleat angle is lesser than the precast specimen using j-bolt and monolithic specimen. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast connection using dowel bar is 7.3kN and 6.8kN in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the Precast specimen using dowel bar and cleat angle is 9.3kN and 10.2kN in positive and negative directions. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the precast specimen using tie rod is 3.8kN and 2.2kN in positive and negative directions respectively. Out of the precast specimens precast specimen using dowel bar and cleat angle has better load carrying capacity. When comparing to the monolithic connection the precast connections has poor load carrying capacity Load displacement relationship Load-displacement behavior of beam-column connection structures includes three stages. Stage I manifests the linear behavior of uncracked elastic section. Stage II implies initiation of concrete cracking and Stage III relies relatively on the yielding of steel reinforcements and the crushing of concrete. Load-displacement relationship curve of specimen ML, PC-JB, PC-CL, PC-DW, PC-DWCL & PC-TR is shown in figure 14. There is no damage developed in column for all the editor@iaeme.com

13 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections precast connections. But there are some predefined damages occur which indicates gap opening at the joint region. For the monolithic connection, damages occur to the column. LOAD-DISPLACEM ENT CURVE Displacement in mm LOAD in (KN ML PC-JB PC-CL ML PC-JB PC-CL PC-DW PC- DWCL PC-TR PC- DW Figure 17- Load-Displacement envelopes of specimen ML, PC-JB, PC-CL, PC-DW, PC-DWCL & PC- TR 5.2. Ductility The displacement ductility is the ratio of the maximum displacement that a structure or element can undergo without significant loss of initial loading to the initial yielding deformation. The displacement ductility factor was calculated for monolithic and the two precast beam-column connections is shown in Table 3. The average displacement ductility factor of precast reinforced beam-column connection using dowel bar and cleat angle is greater than that of all the specimens. The average displacement ductility factor of the specimens indicated that all the connections behaved in a ductile manner. Specimen Yield displacement y (mm) Table3. Ductility factor of the specimen Ultimate displacement u (mm) Displacement ductility factor (µ) Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Averag e displace ment ductilit y factor (µ) editor@iaeme.com

14 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T 6. CONCLUSION 6.1. Strength The ultimate load carrying capacity of monolithic beam-column connection greater than that of the precast reinforced beam-column connection. The ultimate load carrying capacity of monolithic connection is 12.6kN and 13.2kN in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of precast reinforced beam-column connection using J-Bolt is 56% and 63% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions respectively. The PC-CL connection is 66.7% and 62.8% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of PC-DW is 42% and 48.5% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of PC-DWCL is 26% and 22.7% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of PC-TR is 70% and 81.08% lesser than the monolithic connection in positive and negative directions respectively. Out of the precast connections, the precast beam-column connection with Dowel bar and cleat angle has performed better than the other precast connections. While comparing to the precast connections, the monolithic connection performed better in resisting the loads Load Displacement relationship When the load increases the displacement increases. The displacement is directly proportional to the load applied. All the connections loaded upto 30mm displacement. There is no damages occur in the column for all the precast specimens. But there are some damages occur to the corbel portion. The monolithic connection showed better bonding than that of precast connections. Because in precast connection there is a predefined damages which indicates gap opening at connections, which indicates minimal energy dissipation. In precast connection, the column is free from damages when compared to the monolithic connection. This behaviour satisfies Strong Column-Weak Beam Theory Ductility All the specimens has performed in ductile manner. Out of precast connection the PC-DWCL has greater ductility factor. While comparing to the monolithic connection, the connection using dowel bar and cleat angle has greater ductility factor. While comparing to the monolithic connection, the ductility factor of PC-DWCL is 51.62% greater than monolithic connection. The ductility factor of PC-JB is 8.84% lesser than that of ML. The ductility factor of PC-CL is 40.36% lesser than that of monolithic connection. The ductility factor of PC-DW is 20.45% lesser than that of monolithic connection. The ductility factor of PC-TR is 33.12% lesser than the monolithic connection. Out of precast connections, the precast beam-column connection using dowel bar and cleat angle has performed better than other precast connections. Also, it is observed that the precast beam column connection using dowel bar and cleat angle has performed satisfactorily in comparison with the monolithic connection editor@iaeme.com

15 Analysing the Strength Aspects of Precast Reinforced Beam-Column Connections REFERENCES [1] S.V.Chaudhari, K.A.Mukane and M.A.Chakrabarti (2014), Comparative Study On Exterior RCC Beam Column Joint Subjected To Monotonic Loading, International Journal Of Computer Applications, Volume 102 No.3, Pp [2] Amin Ghafooripour, Francesco Presta, Seyed Mohammad Shahidi (2013), Numerical and Experimental Seismic Performance Evaluation of the New Concept of Precast Concrete Connections, 22nd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. [3] G. Metelli and P. Riva (2008), Behaviour of a Beam to Column Dry Joint for Precast Concrete Elements, the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. [4] P.Selva Raj And N. Arunprakash (2015), Study On Behaviour Of Prefabricatedcage Steel Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joint, The International Journal Of Science &Technoledge, Vol 3 Issue 5, Pp [5] R.A. Hawileh, A. Rahman, H. Tabatabai (2010), Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis And Modelling Of A Precast Hybridbeam Column Connection Subjected To Cyclic Loads, Applied Mathematical Modelling 34, Pp [6] Nonlinear Seismic Behavior Evaluation of Ductile Beamcolumn Connections In Precast Concrete, International Journal Of Civil And Structural Engineering Volume 2, No 2, 2011, Pp [7] Damian Kachlakev And Thomas Miller (2001), Finite Element Modelling Of Reinforced Concrete Structure Strengthened With FRP Laminates, Oregon Department Of Transportation Research Group. [8] Ehsannoroozinejadfarsangi (2010), Connections Behaviour In Precast Concrete Structures Due To Seismic Loading, Gazi University Journal Of Science, 23 (3), Pp [9] Sergio M Alcocer, Rene Carranza and David Perez-Navarrete (2000), Behaviour of a Precast Concrete Beam-Column Connection, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1543, Pp 1-8. [10] Manoj K. Joshi, C.V.R. Murty and M. P. Jaisingh (2005), Cyclic Behaviour Of Precast RC Connections, The Indian Concrete Journal, Pp [11] Ahmad Baharuddinabd. Rahman, Mohdhafizimohdakhir And Zuhairiabdhamid, Behaviour Of Precast Concrete Beam-To-Column Connections Using Steel Plate, Recent Advances In Applied And Theoretical Mechanics, ISBN , Pp [12] Rohit B. Nimse, Digesh D. Joshi, Paresh V. Patel (2014), Behaviour Of Wet Precast Beam Column Connections Under Progressive Collapse Scenario: An Experimental Study, International Journal Advanced Structural Engineering 6: [13] Gajendra, D K Kulkarni (2015) Seismic Evaluation Of Beam-Column Joints Using GFRP Bars In Multi-Storey Building Using ETABS, International Research Journal Of Engineering And Technology, Vol-2, Issue 5, Pp [14] Fasil V P and Dr. P R. Sreemahadevanpillai (2015), Study of Hybrid Precast Beam Column Connection, International Journal of Research in Advent Technology (E-ISSN: ) Special Issue International Conference on Technological Advancements in Structures and Construction TASC- 15, Pp editor@iaeme.com

16 Mr. Kalyana Chakravarthy P R, Ms. Janani R and Dr. Ilango T [15] A.K.Kaliluthin, Dr.S.Kothandaraman, T.S.Suhailahamed (2014), A Review On Behaviour Of Reinforced Concretebeam-Column Joint, International Journal Of Innovative Research In Science,Engineering And Technology Vol.3, Issue 4, Pp [16] Hosseinparastesh, Imanhajirasouliha, Reza Ramezani (2014), a New Ductile Moment- Resisting Connection for Precast Concreteframes in Seismic Regions: An Experimental Investigation, Engineering Structures, , ISSN [17] R. Vidjeapriya,V.Vasanthalakshmi, K.P.Jaya, (2013), Performance Of Exterior Precast Concrete Beam-Column Dowelconnections Under Cyclic Loading, International Journal Of Civil Engineering, Pp [18] Nor Hayati Abdul Hamid (2010), Seismic Performance Of Beam-Column Joints In Reinforced Concrete Buildings Subjected To Reversible Vertical Cyclic Loading,Malaysian Journal Of Civil Engineering 22(2) : [19] R Janani, PRK Chakravarthy, S Yazhini, (2016), Investigation and Control of major risks on construction sites, International journal of chemical sciences 14(4) editor@iaeme.com